Western Europe 1337-1469 - The Rose, the Lily, and the Oak

[mjohnson85]

No, that would be way too much work. There will still be multiple provinces per county, just not quite as many. That are certain areas of the map that are/were far too dense as far as provinces go because I was working on the premise that all cities/towns should have their own province. However I have moved on from that stance so now provinces can have more than 1 town. This is important for places like Kent where there are a large number of towns and as such created a abnormally large number of provinces.

 

[DC123456789]

Yeah, places like Lothian would definitely not loose anything from less provinces.

 

[LilyOfEmpathy]

I've just started playing this mod as the ruler of England and I have to say I am a bit disappointed with the inaccuracy of Edward V and Elizabeth Woodwille. Both of them were said to have been very attractive people; Edward was said to be the most handsome and warm King according to some and Elizabeth was said to have been the most beautiful Queen England had ever seen - not to mention that they were madly in love which is why they married in the first place - none of which is seen in this mod.... I don't mean to criticize too much, because I've longed for a mod where I could play this time period, but it'd be nice if the characters, at least the central ones, were more accurately depicted...

 

[Woody Man]

I expect it's random, it's much the same in vanilla CK2, with a blonde long haired William the Conqueror.

 

[mjohnson85]

It is randomly generated. Remember this is still an alpha and much of the mod is not done yet. No historical traits or appearance have been added to any characters. I also won't be doing that until the map itself is finished.

Just to more reasons why I haven't done this yet

-The traits in game are still changing
-The portrait files are being updated

 

[Azarias59]

Hey, when do you expect to have this compatible with the latest patch? I'm looking forward to trying this again after having taken a break from CK2.

 

[Slavicist]

No, that would be way too much work. There will still be multiple provinces per county, just not quite as many. That are certain areas of the map that are/were far too dense as far as provinces go because I was working on the premise that all cities/towns should have their own province. However I have moved on from that stance so now provinces can have more than 1 town. This is important for places like Kent where there are a large number of towns and as such created a abnormally large number of provinces.

Could we get the 1000+ map?
As a historian, I'd really love to inspect it.

 

[mjohnson85]

The pre HL version had over 1350. Or do you mean the upcoming reduction one?

As for progress, I have the England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales restructured for a 26% province count reduction. Currently at work in France, hoping to have the rest of the provinces done this weekend. My goal is to get the overall province count down to at least 1000. I suspect I will be able to trim quite a lot from Italy and Lotharingia (I have a lot of low # holding provinces in Italy and far too many normal manors added as castles in Lotharingia). I've done a lot of work on removing/adding/moving/renaming historical holdings to be a bit better. I have cleaned up and made new events and decisions (adding pictures to the events so they are no longer boring to look at).

Cultures will be broken up in the next version as well. It will be a test and I may end up drastically changing it in the version after if it doesn't work out.

I've got some really nice new coat of arms by Oznerol which will also be in the next version.

I have added historical trade routes across the map but they seem to cause some major performance drop so I am trying to see if anything can be done with that or not.

Hopefully will have a solid version in 1-2 weeks depending on how much free time I end up having.

 

[Dhekelian]

Mod looks really interesting and hope to give it a go. Could I ask why so many counties in England are missing the 'shire' off their name? I think 'Oxfordshire' goes back to the 10th century no? It is also known as Oxon (Anglo-saxon Oxen). It is great to see Wallingford (Berkshire then) in there but was it as large as that? The lands of Crowmarsh were and still are huge and dwarf the size of Wallingford and major Towns/cities but I suppose there is a limit on place names? Also Abingdon was very important and indeed was the capital of Berkshire for a long time.

 

[Thure]

Mod looks really interesting and hope to give it a go. Could I ask why so many counties in England are missing the 'shire' off their name? I think 'Oxfordshire' goes back to the 10th century no? It is also known as Oxon (Anglo-saxon Oxen). It is great to see Wallingford (Berkshire then) in there but was it as large as that? The lands of Crowmarsh were and still are huge and dwarf the size of Wallingford and major Towns/cities but I suppose there is a limit on place names? Also Abingdon was very important and indeed was the capital of Berkshire for a long time.

Easy. Because the ruler of Oxfordshire was the 'Earl of Oxford'. If we use 'Oxfordshire' ingame the count would be 'Earl of Oxfordshire' which is just wrong.

 

[mjohnson85]

Abdingdon has been added in my current province revamp.

As Thure mentioned, it wouldn't work with how CK2 does naming.

 

[Dhekelian]

Easy. Because the ruler of Oxfordshire was the 'Earl of Oxford'. If we use 'Oxfordshire' ingame the count would be 'Earl of Oxfordshire' which is just wrong.

I hope I am not being pedantic here but untill the 17th century it was known as the 'Earl of Oxenford' which is far closer to Oxfordshire and the Earls primary seat was actually in Essex.

Abdingdon has been added in my current province revamp.

As Thure mentioned, it wouldn't work with how CK2 does naming.

I think Oxenford would work no? You said 'Abdingdon' has been added, I hope you mean Abingdon? Saying that I was just looking at a 1350 map of Berkshire and it was spelt 'Barkshire' and Abingdon was spelt 'Abbington'.
Don't know how near to history you intend going, I am just interested in the area.
http://www.hungerfordvirtualmuseum.co.uk/Archives/Maps_and_Charts/1610_Berkshire_John_Speede-a-.jpg

 

[mjohnson85]

I have noticed that spelling changes constantly throughout the time period. It is actually kind of funny because I wanted to have the time period specific spelling for everything (people names and location names) but I couldn't actually find a constant source anywhere. I assume it's because all the primary languages were still forming and each little area had its own spin on the written form.

From what I what I have seen Oxenford was what the city was known as, not the earldom.

 

[Thure]

I hope I am not being pedantic here but untill the 17th century it was known as the 'Earl of Oxenford' which is far closer to Oxfordshire and the Earls primary seat was actually in Essex.

You know that 'Oxenford' is just a longer form of 'Oxford'? 'Earl of Oxenford' is closer to 'Earl of Oxford' than to 'Earl of Oxfordshire'. What does 'Oxenford' has to do with 'Oxfordshire'? There is no -shire in Oxenford.

 

[Dhekelian]

You know that 'Oxenford' is just a longer form of 'Oxford'? 'Earl of Oxenford' is closer to 'Earl of Oxford' than to 'Earl of Oxfordshire'. What does 'Oxenford' has to do with 'Oxfordshire'? There is no -shire in Oxenford.

I'm glad you know the difference, do you know Oxfordshire was being used since the tenth/eleventh century so you would know the difference between Oxford and Oxfordshire? I suggested the term Oxenford (ford for Oxen) as it is closer to the term Oxfordshire as Oxfordshire is also known as OXON and so using the term Earl of Oxenford would be a good fit if you say you cannot use the term Oxfordshire.

 

[Woody Man]

I have noticed that spelling changes constantly throughout the time period. It is actually kind of funny because I wanted to have the time period specific spelling for everything (people names and location names) but I couldn't actually find a constant source anywhere. I assume it's because all the primary languages were still forming and each little area had its own spin on the written form.

I'm glad you know the difference, do you know Oxfordshire was being used since the tenth/eleventh century so you would know the difference between Oxford and Oxfordshire? I suggested the term Oxenford (ford for Oxen) as it is closer to the term Oxfordshire as Oxfordshire is also known as OXON and so using the term Earl of Oxenford would be a good fit if you say you cannot use the term Oxfordshire.

I'm afraid mjohnson's right, the English language was not enormously consistent particularly when it came to spelling. The easiest thing to do here is just follow convention: Earl of Oxford.

 

[Dhekelian]

I'm afraid mjohnson's right, the English language was not enormously consistent particularly when it came to spelling. The easiest thing to do here is just follow convention: Earl of Oxford.

I fully acknowledge what has been said but I seem to be misunderstood. The misspelling refers to Abingdon, Abbington and yes there has been many spellings. My concern was with Oxford where I asked about Oxfordshire and it was said the Earl of Oxford could not be changed to the Earl of Oxfordshire which I fully accept. I then made a suggestion that maybe Oxenford could be used instead but was shot down in flames Thure who didn't seem to understand what I was saying. It is true that Oxenford is the longer name for Oxford and is Anglo-Saxon in original.
My point that seems to have been missed is that Oxfordshire today is also known as Oxon and while the Earl of Oxford cannot have his name changed to Oxfordshire I was merely suggesting that maybe it could be changed to Earl of Oxenford. I tried to explain to Thure that I know what Oxenford is (Oxford) but tried to explain that Oxenford would be a closer name to Oxfordshire than Oxford. My reasoning which I thought was obvious is that Oxenford and Oxon sound similar no? And probably is more accurate if not using the term 'Oxfordshire'.

That's all I meant nothing more.

 

[Woody Man]

I fully acknowledge what has been said but I seem to be misunderstood. The misspelling refers to Abingdon, Abbington and yes there has been many spellings. My concern was with Oxford where I asked about Oxfordshire and it was said the Earl of Oxford could not be changed to the Earl of Oxfordshire which I fully accept. I then made a suggestion that maybe Oxenford could be used instead but was shot down in flames Thure who didn't seem to understand what I was saying. It is true that Oxenford is the longer name for Oxford and is Anglo-Saxon in original.
My point that seems to have been missed is that Oxfordshire today is also known as Oxon and while the Earl of Oxford cannot have his name changed to Oxfordshire I was merely suggesting that maybe it could be changed to Earl of Oxenford. I tried to explain to Thure that I know what Oxenford is (Oxford) but tried to explain that Oxenford would be a closer name to Oxfordshire than Oxford. My reasoning which I thought was obvious is that Oxenford and Oxon sound similar no? And probably is more accurate if not using the term 'Oxfordshire'.

That's all I meant nothing more.

I think you're kind of connecting all sorts of things and not really coming out with an enormously coherent point of view. Oxon is obviously an abbreviation for Oxonia, the Latin form of Oxfordshire, so that's one strand, Oxenford is an older English spelling of the city rather than the county. Given that all other titles in the mod use a cleansed modernised language, it would look bizarre to everyone to see the de Vere's as Earls of Oxenford when we're looking for Earls of Oxford.

Lastly, and this is key, the Earls of Oxford do not necessarily own land in Oxfordshire (historically their primary seat was in Essex) and so don't actually exercise direct rule over the area and therefore titling them Earl of Oxfordshire/Oxon would be largely incorrect.

 

[Dhekelian]

I think you're kind of connecting all sorts of things and not really coming out with an enormously coherent point of view. Oxon is obviously an abbreviation for Oxonia, the Latin form of Oxfordshire, so that's one strand, Oxenford is an older English spelling of the city rather than the county. Given that all other titles in the mod use a cleansed modernised language, it would look bizarre to everyone to see the de Vere's as Earls of Oxenford when we're looking for Earls of Oxford.

Lastly, and this is key, the Earls of Oxford do not necessarily own land in Oxfordshire (historically their primary seat was in Essex) and so don't actually exercise direct rule over the area and therefore titling them Earl of Oxfordshire/Oxon would be largely incorrect.

Sorry to contradict you but Oxon is short for Oxfordshire. It is widespread in the county itself and official bodies as well, btw I live in the county. I'm glad you have put about wear the Earls Primary seat was, if you have read my post a few messages up you will see it was me that stated this fact. Also the 'Earle of Oxenford' was a title used in Elizabethean times.

I think you are confusing what I was suggesting, The title 'Earl of Oxford' didn't concern me (it ceased to be a title I think in the 20th century) My concern was for the map. To anyone looking at the map who lives in a 'shire' county would think the map looks well odd. You have Wiltshire on the map and next to it you have Oxford. My original suggestion was for the county to get renamed and not the Earl but when it was stated above the Earl would have to be renamed but would not look right I suggested the 'Earl of Oxenford' and from a brief search this was an actual title in Elizabethean times so it would be safe to assume it would tie with your mod no?

Then I was going to ask where is Devon and Essex. I would of thought that if your mod is going to start in the 1400's you would take the counties that were in existence at that time no? the names I mean.

But I don't mean to step on anyone's toes I know how tough it is sometimes making a mod. I was involved in modding many years ago with Total War mods, mainly research and beta testing. My suggestions were meant to be helpful and historical no offence was intended.

 

[Woody Man]

Sorry to contradict you but Oxon is short for Oxfordshire. It is widespread in the county itself and official bodies as well, btw I live in the county. I'm glad you have put about wear the Earls Primary seat was, if you have read my post a few messages up you will see it was me that stated this fact. Also the 'Earle of Oxenford' was a title used in Elizabethean times.

I think you are confusing what I was suggesting, The title 'Earl of Oxford' didn't concern me (it ceased to be a title I think in the 20th century) My concern was for the map. To anyone looking at the map who lives in a 'shire' county would think the map looks well odd. You have Wiltshire on the map and next to it you have Oxford. My original suggestion was for the county to get renamed and not the Earl but when it was stated above the Earl would have to be renamed but would not look right I suggested the 'Earl of Oxenford' and from a brief search this was an actual title in Elizabethean times so it would be safe to assume it would tie with your mod no?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxon

I may be confused, but I'm not sure what the aim is in changing the name of one of the counties. It's just a problem with Crusader Kings 2, it is not good at simulating the English peerage, the concept of de jure dukedoms did not exist as it did in places like the Holy Roman Empire. If you changed the name of the de jure County of Oxfordshire, it would in effect change the title Earl of Oxford. If we changed to Oxenford then we'd have a county named Oxenford and the title so named, but it would just be such a pointless change.

Wiltshire is on the map as there was title for the Earl of Wiltshire, other than Oxford there are many other shire counties, in fact most, where they are not called so on the de jure titles map. I'm afraid it's a CK2 limitation.

As for Elizabethan naming principles, it would make no sense to change one title and not all the others. At least in this manner the naming system is consistent with titling, otherwise we're just picking and choosing names from all sorts of periods and places.