Where are HTTT Dynasty Names Defined?

[Darkrenown]

Wasn't it reasonably common to get a member of a foreign royal/noble family to take the throne if the native line died out? Or even just a female monarch taking the name of her foreign husband. The Uk royal family is part of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha line, for example, they just renamed themselves Winsor when the UK and Germany weren't getting along.

 

[Trin Tragula]

This is COMPLETELY unrealistic!!! This is even worse for my asia overhall mod and for India in general becuase there are Muslim states with Aryan primary culture. It could be very odd if Delhi was sundenly ruled by the Ganges dynasty with Muhammed IV as the leader >.>.

Exactly this happened to muslim controlled Bengal though (literally). But I agree with your point. You could argue that most muslim countries in india ought to have foreign primary cultures (after all they where mostly persians, afghans or in one case even abysinians) but that'd be a bit harsh in some cases with the wrong religion situation already (in my mod I do use foreign culture for some indian states, as some of them did have a real problem with their imported aristocracy vs their native populations. This wouldn't really be the case for nations like Bengal, Nagaur or Gujarat though).

Do note that it seems that only the last name is chosen by culture group, while the first name is from the country files. Which makes sense really as most monarchs would change their first name to fit with the country they were taking over.

 

[Darkrenown]

BTW how is the house of Windsor handled ATM, didnt Phillips line basically take ove when he married Elizabeth?

Since they'd just recently changed to Windsor to avoid sounding German they didn't want to take his (greek? or did he have a german name too?) name and sound all foreign again.

 

[Darkrenown]

I stand corrected. o

Have we mentioned he wasn't short either?

 

[Trin Tragula]

I know thats what i plan to do. Im going to put the Bahaminis in a Persian primary culture and give them modiferes to cancel out the wrong culture and what not. But the problem is the Sultanate of Gujarat should actually have the Gujarati prim culture. The mughals have Uzbecki, Delhians have perisan, the Bengali should have some kind of Afghan, Janpur (bihar in vanilla) was actually a muslim state not a hindu state theres not much on them but im assuming they should have Bihari or Hindustani Primary culture.

Seriously the India is EUIII is so badly done. I mean Kanauj (the culture in most of North India) is barley even spoken in India, it should be Hindustani or something. Seriously, one trip on wikipedia can improve it compelty. I mean they even put the Himalayas in India! It goes through Delhi >.>. I mean I dont want paradox to did what i did with my AO, but just a little bit of realism would do

As I've mentioned elsewhere I'm releasing a primarily indian oriented mod some time in december or january and I agree completely. "Kaunauji" culture I think is passable however as culture isn't necessarily about language and the hindi language isn't formed yet at the start of the game (the culture group is indeed called hindusthani and I made a region for northern india called Hindusthan). Kaunaj is in fact a region as well as a (much older) language and so I've considered the culture to refer to that rather than the language (but a better name would indeed be nice, though I think Hindusthani would need to swallow up atleast awadhi as well to be logical).
Perhaps the culture could be named "Upper Doabi" or somesuch? Though that doesn't sound very nice...

I've taken a somewhat similar approach on the often foreign reigning aristocracies in the muslim countries to you but would like to make a point about Gujarat and Bengal:
I think both could have indian dynasties rising to power. Gujarat _was_ ruled by converted rajputs after all, and as I mentioned a hindu vizier did take power over Bengal and then converted and named his son Mohammad and made him sultan (That's the ganesha dynasty in vanilla HTTT's files).

I would also like to make the point that by the game's start india has had a muslim aristocracy for so long that inserting some of those "foreign" families into the indian culture groups wouldn't be amiss at all. There are also several examples of hindu nobility converting and ruling muslim states, I'm not sure if the opposite happened however (the one I can think of is Mysore but that state rather became muslim when a muslim dynasty took it over in the 1700s).

Most of the hindu nations in this game did have a large element of persian/afghan/arabs in their militaries and nobility so having those elements take over wouldn't be unthinkable (according to some sources the founders of the Vijayanagar empire themselves where at one point Muslims, whether this is true or not I cannot tell but even according to themselves they did serve as officers in the muslim armies before founding their nation).

One last point :
The mughals should not be uzbecks, there were no uzbeks in Samarkand when they left it. The uzbeks where the one's who chased Timur away from there and then settled and that's the reason the area is predominantly Uzbek today.

 

[Trin Tragula]

Japan ought to be in it's own culture group anyway

 

[Doomdark]

Here's how the system works, in case it is unclear:

Dynasties can be defined in the history files, for each monarch and heir. If these are not defined in the culture group, they will be automatically added to it.

Dynasties defined in the culture group are used when the outcome of succession is that "a local noble ascends to the throne".

Lastly, pretenders can rise to the throne after a successful rebellion. Their surname (leader names in the country definition files) will become the new dynasty (and will also be added to names in the culture group.)

As for defining dynasty names per culture... Tell you what, I'll include that functionality in the first patch, for modders to play with.

 

[Trin Tragula]

That's very nice to hear I must say (the news of culture specific dynasties)

This is why i love paradox (they actually listen to their players). Thanks . Why not take it one step further and allow modders to put in dynasty_name = XXX in the countries /common/countries file.

I'm a bit hesitant about this however. While it might be fun to play around with for modders I'm not sure it's good design. The whole point of the new engine is that the nations name and crest themselves shouldn't be as important as what "they are made up of" so to speak.
I'd find it much more usefull to be able to barr certain countries from using certain dynasties as a matter of fact

Then again, more functionality can't hurt anyway I might just not end up using it myself beyond the culture specific part if I don't see the need for it.

 

[Trin Tragula]

I mean the current system works great for the Iberian cultures, English, French, Italian etc. But its horrors for Middle Eastern, Persian, Indian, SE Asian and "east asian" I mean come on!!!!

I still think it's not that bad, the marathas where part of both Bijapuri and mughal aristocracy before they started doing their own thing, the same holds true for many other factions.
The safawids were actually a turkmen dynasty, etc.
And as I stated before hindu dynasties did take controll of muslim countries, the chinese certainly were taken over by a foreign dynasty (I do still think that the japanese belong in a different group however, they shouldn't get rebelling chinese provinces either as they do now).

Also about the Jaunpur discussion above: Jaunpur actually has a better claim to independence at the start of the game than Gujarat and Malwa. Both Gujarat and Malwa formally broke their ties with Delhi after the game's start (but in reality they had stopped listening to Delhi before the game start so having them as independent is probably a good idea). Jaunpur (independent in 1398) was Delhis number one adversary after the governors Timur left in controll of the punjab usurped the Delhian throne (in vanilla all three of these areas are ruled by the Delhi sultans without as much as RR in the provinces however).
In 1399 the Delhi sultanate had controll of a few kilometers around their capital city and nothing more. Timur was that thorough...

 

[Trin Tragula]

Yes, but none of that has anything to do with my argument . The way the current dynasty thing is set up, a Bundela or Holkar could take control of Delhi. And in my mods to WWM, there are actually hindu nations in that culture group: meaning that a "Qadirid" or a "Shaja'atid" could take control of Nepal, the Sikh Confederacy, or the Chand Kingdom.

AND with this system a "Qutb Shahi" or a "Asaf Jahi" could take control of Vijayanagara. Pardon me for citing wikipedia, but "The kings used titles such as Gobrahamana Pratipalanacharya ("protector of cows") and Hindurayasuratrana ("upholder of Hindu faith") that testified to their intention of protecting Hinduism." Do you honestly think it would make sence for a muslim dynasty to take the throne of Vijayanagara? Or the Nizam Dynasty to take control of Mewar and Johdpur? Or a Hussein Shahi to take control of Ceylon >.>

I wasn't defending the current system of dynasties tied to culture groups but rather I was saying that tying dynasties to a singular culture like we've already been promised is better than tying them to a certain tag.

Hindu dynasties did take over muslim kingdoms several times during this timeframe and then switched to muslim first names. They also converted. The Ahmad Shahis/Muzzafarids started out as hindus.
The role of Vijayanagar as a hindu super power has been disproven several times by now, they where indeed a hindu nation, with hindu rulers but they employed lots of muslims in their military forces and had muslim quarters in their gigantic capital. The founders also started their career in the Delhian army themselves! A foreigner taking that throne wouldn't be entirely unthinkable as long as their family had been living there for a while, all depending on the circumstances.
While the rulers of Vijayanagar obviously had as their goal to be seen as the epitome of hindu kingliness they did not discriminate against muslims or foreigners in general, in fact their power relied heavily on foreign trade and that's why among their titles you'll also find references to them as protectors of the seas and so on. They got all of their cavalry horses from arab merchants through their free trade satellite states on the western coast and where also very much making sure to import arab and persian millitary instructors and officers (the reverse is also true, most muslim indian states had a very high level of cooperation with the local hindu populations, by necessity, there where about 95% more of the hindus after all, you can't discriminate against that large a portion of your population, Aurangzeb tried and that didn't go well).
A muslim family seizing control of a powerfull Hindu kingdom like Vijayanagar might not be likely, but it's certainly not impossible (it happened in Mysore just next door in the 1700s!).

As for the Sikhs, during this era they where basicly a mix of islam and hinduism, many, many of the sikh converts where muslims originally. Why couldn't the ruling dynasty come from a formerly muslim house?
Muslims taking the throne of nepal shouldn't be any more unlikely than a muslim family taking controll of Kashmir (which did happen, the Shah Mirs took controll of a country that before their arrival was largely hindu not long before the game starts), the woodeyars taking controll of Mysore or the Ganeshas taking controll of Bengal (which also did happen). Most dynasties from the area Vijayanagar is located in would probably not be muslim anyway as there where few telugu muslim dynasties (I can't think of any at all actually).

I'll grant you that the Delhi sultanate seems more of a special case with it's firmly entrenched afghan/persian aristocracy at the start of the game but that shouldn't be a problem with the culture specific dynasty naming that it seems we've allready been promised (most if not all aristocracy in the area that is currently designated as "kaunaji" was muslim during the period of the game).
Imho as long as the new dynasty is indeed from the primary culture of the nation then there wouldn't be much of a problem. I just think it would be bad to remove too much of the dynamic nature of the game (indeed if only certain dynasties are allowed for certain countries why the need for dynasties separated from tags at all?).

Also the example with the Nizams taking controll of Mewar doesn't even make sense with the vanilla setup of cultures as Hyderabad and the rajputs are not in the same culture group
On the whole I think the many rajput cultures deserve their own culture group and have it set up as such in my mod, there are certainly enough states to warrant it

As I said in my original post though, I would be fine with the ability to tie dynasties to tags (country names like "the ottomans" might seem silly sometimes with the current system) but I'm not sure I would consider it a good design (or even more historical) to do so. But obviously more choice for modders is better

 

[Doomdark]

I am still not happy even if dynasty names can be assigned by culture...perhaps it helps in Asia but surely not in Europe. I mean AFAIK the only case when those names are used are the "A local noble..."-event, because rebellions use the advisor names to create a dynasty.
But if dynasty names are culture definded, depending on the map used, there could even be Habsburg rising to power in Bavaria as local noble. Or Wittelsbach in Würrtemberg. I guess this isnt very good, i can hardly imagine this happening IRL. (Again dont tell me Habsburg- Wittelsbach inheritance, we are talking local noble here...)
So by having a local noble list and use them both for rebellions and the local noble event we would have the best system possible, because advisor names dont always make good dynasties too, and you would have to restrict yourself to adding only noble names to the advisor name list, because do you really thing rebel Müller would have been accepted right away from all European dynasties after throwing over a established dynasty. Having a noble family here would make more sense , too.
So please Paradox, give us contry specific noble files, and also chosse rebellion names from it, it cant be much harder than making it culture specific and add so much flair.

To be honest, I don't see the point. Surnames are rather generic within the same culture and language sphere. It is true that many noble families were associated with specific principalities, at least in origin, but I can think of no culture (in EU3 terms) where nobles did not frequently hold land, or even offices, in other states within the same culture. Not to mention the sprawling family trees that branched out everywhere. The game does not model these family trees, or the myriad cadet branches that might or might not exist.

 

[Trin Tragula]

I got a polish dynasty that was already in existence in my game when a local noble was supposed to be chosen after my personal union with portugal broke (I was playing Sweden). Now I don't know why, but in the game my old king from before the personal union with portugal used to have royal marriages with several countries with kings from this polish dynasty so it did make sense. It would seem to indicate however that the local noble isn't allways a local noble even going by what's in the files themselves

 

[Trin Tragula]

Sorry if I was unclear I'll try again:
Sweden and poland are not in the same culture group (Sweden is in the scandinavian culture group). When my personal union ended I got a polish allready existing dynasty (it existed in Poland and Pommerania). My personal union however was with an entirely unrelated portuguese dynasty.
I had no current royal marriage ties with any nations as I was in a personal union and acording to the tooltip I was supposed to get a local noble. It did seem fitting as my nation under it's former dynasty, before the personal union with portugal, did have royal marriages with the polish countries, but I doubt the game kept track of that.

 

[Trin Tragula]

As far as I understand no difference. If the dynasty in question has a blank in it I'd guess the quotationmarks are needed to keep the name together (without it'd be interpreted as two different dynasty names).