I've been quite upset with how the great ToG features are hardwired to religions and religions only, making them very cumbersome to manage. Naturally, as a modder, I'd like to have as much control as possible over, say, who can raid who and under what circumstances. But alright, performance reasons probably being the main obstacle, CB-like conditions are never happening. However, given the matter some thought, I see little downside to making all the features exposed via culture as opposed to religion. It makes managing things much more flexible and elegant without putting too much extra burden on the game, doesn't it?
(I'm talking about allow_looting, allow_rivermovement, allow_viking_invasion, defensive_attrition, peace_prestige_loss, raised_vassal_opinion_loss, independence_war_score_bonus, unit modifiers and whatever else has little reason to be governed by religion.)
How to reconcile it with religion declaring features?
The easy bruteforce solution is "override_religion = yes/no". If both culture and religion define behavior, the command defines which set of behaviors is applied. If culture is on top, its description lists bonuses and behaviors while religious description is only that - narrative description.
Possible targets
And having considered the matter, I imagine there's no need to have overly complicated target conditions. However I could come with at least 3 easy ones:
- Any different religion is game for plundering (e.g. current pagans and militant heretic groups like the Paulicians or Qaramita);
- Only different religion_group is game (frontier cultures like Sicilians, Cretans, Muslims on the Byzantine frontier, Spaniards);
- Any different culture is subject to pillaging (nomadic cultures doing their nomadic things regardless of religions) depending on relations (fend off, pay tribute - relations boost, accept suzerainty or suffer the consequences). Just to keep players bordering nomads on their toes.
On top of that, maybe something like demesne_size restriction. I feel kinglish and emporerish raiding expeditions could be better represented with pillaging casus belli that involve a lot of sacking (maybe depending on demesne size instead - some smaller kings could as well do pillaging for plunder sake and not merely as a prestige gesture, which is normally the case with more eminent lords). In other words, your frontier duke vassals keep doing their thing whereas you can launch a prestige boosting token sacking expedition. But I haven't really given this particular option much consideration - just thoughts aloud.
Why even need something like this?
Well, some features just scream "introduce us into the Near East and the Med!" But I believe the religion restriction makes them too cumbersome and unwieldy to move around. The benefit is the same to Paradox as it is to modders - their systems become much more flexible. :happy:
So. What am I missing? Any obvious downsides? Would anyone else even vouch for something like this? :unsure:
(I'm talking about allow_looting, allow_rivermovement, allow_viking_invasion, defensive_attrition, peace_prestige_loss, raised_vassal_opinion_loss, independence_war_score_bonus, unit modifiers and whatever else has little reason to be governed by religion.)
How to reconcile it with religion declaring features?
The easy bruteforce solution is "override_religion = yes/no". If both culture and religion define behavior, the command defines which set of behaviors is applied. If culture is on top, its description lists bonuses and behaviors while religious description is only that - narrative description.
Possible targets
And having considered the matter, I imagine there's no need to have overly complicated target conditions. However I could come with at least 3 easy ones:
- Any different religion is game for plundering (e.g. current pagans and militant heretic groups like the Paulicians or Qaramita);
- Only different religion_group is game (frontier cultures like Sicilians, Cretans, Muslims on the Byzantine frontier, Spaniards);
- Any different culture is subject to pillaging (nomadic cultures doing their nomadic things regardless of religions) depending on relations (fend off, pay tribute - relations boost, accept suzerainty or suffer the consequences). Just to keep players bordering nomads on their toes.
On top of that, maybe something like demesne_size restriction. I feel kinglish and emporerish raiding expeditions could be better represented with pillaging casus belli that involve a lot of sacking (maybe depending on demesne size instead - some smaller kings could as well do pillaging for plunder sake and not merely as a prestige gesture, which is normally the case with more eminent lords). In other words, your frontier duke vassals keep doing their thing whereas you can launch a prestige boosting token sacking expedition. But I haven't really given this particular option much consideration - just thoughts aloud.
Why even need something like this?
Well, some features just scream "introduce us into the Near East and the Med!" But I believe the religion restriction makes them too cumbersome and unwieldy to move around. The benefit is the same to Paradox as it is to modders - their systems become much more flexible. :happy:
So. What am I missing? Any obvious downsides? Would anyone else even vouch for something like this? :unsure:
