You've not actually justified considering it ANY more unplausible or unbalanced than any other pagan religion tho, you've literally just claimed it is with no evidence whatsoever.
[WtWSMS] Suggestions/Ideas
- Thread starter loup99
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I have explained that Hellenic paganism is indeed structured differently and was more centralised than for example Slavic Paganism in 476, justifying a distinct treatment with alternative possibilities of evolution not restricted to the vanilla Pagan reformation mechanic. With regards to balance it is obvious that the Hellenic religion is in a particular position, having few rulers and being within the limits of the Roman Empire. It has to be a challenge to convert to Hellenism, which it is in-game, but it is different from converting to a religion with no presence at all on the map or no such pre-existing structure. If you want specific references or details I can provide that, but then you have to make a point about why a such reformation should be added, since I can not prove a negative.
Suggestion: The mod should allow any Roman or Romano-______ cultured ruler with Sub-Roman government, an Empire-rank, and a realm size of at least 400 to switch the Imperial Administration crown law, and then to the Bureaucratic form of government
Edit:If you guys like this idea, I can probably make a submod for it, but my main computer is dead, so it will require me throwing it together on, horror of horrors, a Mac. Apparently, even attempting to load a submod breaks my Mac, so forget that.
EDITEDIT: It seems like you guys don't completely disagree with me, but I'm pretty sure the "ask for WRE" and "ask for HRE" decisions say "demesne_size = 225" when they mean "realm_size = 225"
I've been thinking about Western Roman revival, and I have a couple ideas/suggestions about improving it. In general, WtWSMS models the possibility of recreating the WRE very well, but I think it suffers slightly from overfitting its model. For example, as I already mentioned in another thread, and as Loup agreed, specifically requiring Rome for the capital for a reformed empire is anachronistic.
I think this partially springs from the influence of vanilla CK2, which definitively pegs "Roman-ness" to the Empire of the 1st and 2nd centuries, mostly ignores the existence of the 3rd and 5th centuries, and acknowledges the 4th century only when it has to. You guys have mostly fixed this, but Vanilla's dead hand still affects the mod, occasionally.
In a lot of places, it doesn't matter. Like, the troop types in the Roman cultural retinue and the Roman legions probably could do a better job of reflecting the denigration of local legions as an elite force, and the increasing presence of Cavalry in the army in the Emperor's presence, but that's more of a flavor question than a balance issue.
However, there's one place where I think it does really affect gameplay, and it brings me back to my first example. AFAIK, the mod only allows reformation of THE Roman Empire, instead of allowing revival of A Roman Empire. We break up the Empire into the WRE and the ERE, but really that's only a convenient framing device. From the dawn of the 3rd century onward, the empire was divided as many as 5 ways at once - and more, by Constantine, before the massacre of the princes. All of these Imperators ruled A Roman Empire, whether it was the Gallic Empire of Posthumous, the Britannic Empire of Carausius, the Middle Empire of Constans, or any of the other multitude of combinations. In the late empire, the imperial title was conferred by the decree of a recognized Roman emperor, or acclamation by the legions. No connection to Italy was necessary; just ask Constantine (Or even Constantine III).
While I do think that an unambiguous revival of the WRE would have required control of Italy, I also think that a theoretical Syragius who reconquered all of Gaul and Hispania would have proclaimed himself Augustus, and deserved that title. He would have ruled A Roman Empire - one which restored recognizably Roman authority to the area, and represented a continuation of the Roman state. Such a polity, I think, would not need to pass through Feudalism to "reinvent" Bureaucratic Government and Imperial Administration, but would be able to reestablish them as soon as it had the tax base to support them.
Ideally, I think a culturally Roman, governmentally sub-Roman ruler with sufficient control over any two formally Roman de jure Empires should be able to take this decision. Controlling Roman Britain and Gaul, or Hispania and Africa, represents enough territory to reestablish A Roman Empire. Moreover, this would prevent a ruler who merely possessed Italy from bringing back the Empire, which would also be an improvement. However, I would not advise adopting this requirement until either Britannia was broken up into 2 de jure empires, or until the de cure creation % was reduced. (At present, creating a sub-Roman Britannia requires more than just the control of Roman Britain, which feels completely wrong to me. I think it would be reasonable to create a decision to get around this, but at present, one Empire-tier title and a realm size requirement feels like a fair substitute.)
I think this partially springs from the influence of vanilla CK2, which definitively pegs "Roman-ness" to the Empire of the 1st and 2nd centuries, mostly ignores the existence of the 3rd and 5th centuries, and acknowledges the 4th century only when it has to. You guys have mostly fixed this, but Vanilla's dead hand still affects the mod, occasionally.
In a lot of places, it doesn't matter. Like, the troop types in the Roman cultural retinue and the Roman legions probably could do a better job of reflecting the denigration of local legions as an elite force, and the increasing presence of Cavalry in the army in the Emperor's presence, but that's more of a flavor question than a balance issue.
However, there's one place where I think it does really affect gameplay, and it brings me back to my first example. AFAIK, the mod only allows reformation of THE Roman Empire, instead of allowing revival of A Roman Empire. We break up the Empire into the WRE and the ERE, but really that's only a convenient framing device. From the dawn of the 3rd century onward, the empire was divided as many as 5 ways at once - and more, by Constantine, before the massacre of the princes. All of these Imperators ruled A Roman Empire, whether it was the Gallic Empire of Posthumous, the Britannic Empire of Carausius, the Middle Empire of Constans, or any of the other multitude of combinations. In the late empire, the imperial title was conferred by the decree of a recognized Roman emperor, or acclamation by the legions. No connection to Italy was necessary; just ask Constantine (Or even Constantine III).
While I do think that an unambiguous revival of the WRE would have required control of Italy, I also think that a theoretical Syragius who reconquered all of Gaul and Hispania would have proclaimed himself Augustus, and deserved that title. He would have ruled A Roman Empire - one which restored recognizably Roman authority to the area, and represented a continuation of the Roman state. Such a polity, I think, would not need to pass through Feudalism to "reinvent" Bureaucratic Government and Imperial Administration, but would be able to reestablish them as soon as it had the tax base to support them.
Ideally, I think a culturally Roman, governmentally sub-Roman ruler with sufficient control over any two formally Roman de jure Empires should be able to take this decision. Controlling Roman Britain and Gaul, or Hispania and Africa, represents enough territory to reestablish A Roman Empire. Moreover, this would prevent a ruler who merely possessed Italy from bringing back the Empire, which would also be an improvement. However, I would not advise adopting this requirement until either Britannia was broken up into 2 de jure empires, or until the de cure creation % was reduced. (At present, creating a sub-Roman Britannia requires more than just the control of Roman Britain, which feels completely wrong to me. I think it would be reasonable to create a decision to get around this, but at present, one Empire-tier title and a realm size requirement feels like a fair substitute.)
Edit:
EDITEDIT: It seems like you guys don't completely disagree with me, but I'm pretty sure the "ask for WRE" and "ask for HRE" decisions say "demesne_size = 225" when they mean "realm_size = 225"
Last edited:
There is a bug which currently prevents Sub-Roman rulers from adopting the Bureaucratic government, but yes, it is meant to be possible.
The Danube border looks really weird. This isn't because of the map, which was updated since long ago, but province history files and de jure setups were not rearranged accordingly. Transferring a few counties (namely Pecs-Sopianae and Fejer-Annamatia) to the de jure Pannonia, along with some adjustments in province history to match that of Pannonian provinces, should fix the issue.
Arianism goes much too quickly because of the "steps toward conversion" event. It's really frustrating to play as an Arian anywhere when Euric and Odoacer convert, totally ahistorically, because some guy in their realm said it would be nice if they did.
Also, Odoacer's early years are probably too unstable. It's not a fun experience to have your event troops disband and then immediately be blackmailed out of the kingdom by an unstoppable Roman faction. Could the event troops be despawned slightly later, or factions disabled for the first few years of his reign somehow?
Also, Odoacer's early years are probably too unstable. It's not a fun experience to have your event troops disband and then immediately be blackmailed out of the kingdom by an unstoppable Roman faction. Could the event troops be despawned slightly later, or factions disabled for the first few years of his reign somehow?
- 1
If you want more correct localized temple names for the Finnics, Hiisi would be a better candidate than Temppeli or the Baltic Sventykla that Estonians use.
en.wikipedia.org
Hiisi - Wikipedia
Quick idea here: could you make migrations a reformable doctrine? It might be somewhat OP, but would be cool.
In regards to the Hellenism being pre-reformed talk from earlier in the week, part of me kinda does think that should be changed. The 476 start is a full century plus change after Julian and there's been pretty much non-stop repression and active destruction of the religion at the hands of Christian authorities in that time period, including destruction of temples, killing of priests and even banning private devotions and rituals to the gods. If the mod started in the 300's I'd say it would make sense to be able to restore the priesthood, but by the late 400's it would need rebuilding to be a full state cultus again, and reformation kinda works to represent that.
Also in regards to Hellenism, I think it would be nice if the Hellenic heresies were removed and instead a CK2+ style system implemented for them, where Hellenic characters can join different individual cults and get traits representing it.
Also in regards to Hellenism, I think it would be nice if the Hellenic heresies were removed and instead a CK2+ style system implemented for them, where Hellenic characters can join different individual cults and get traits representing it.
- 2
We will continue to work upon the map and de jure as we update it and overhaul regions.
That would happen rarely given how the MTTH is set and the fact that power is used in the calculations when the AI accepts to convert or not. It is not ahistorical for conversions to sometimes happen.
No, you can't do either of those without very artificial mechanics, and Odoacer who survives will get invaded by Theodoric leading the Ostrogoths.
We will see if this should be changed or not.If you want more correct localized temple names for the Finnics, Hiisi would be a better candidate than Temppeli or the Baltic Sventykla that Estonians use.
Hiisi - Wikipedia
No, not going to happen for balance and out of realism.
Reformation does not represent that, what represents that is to progressively increase moral authority. The vanilla Pagan reformation is to reshape the religion completely from scratch, which is unfitting for a religion organised and structured like Hellenism. Hellenism was hardly the only faith to have been repressed, it happened with Christian heresies too, and no one has suggested reformation for those, to my knowledge.
We already have plans for that.
- 3
We will see when/if this event can be added, since it was written by @Enlil who is the one that has the event in question.Great update, but Synod of Whitby event please
- 1
Should the Hunas be Hepthalite in religion, rather then Tengri? It would make some more sense, I believe.
Could you include the Hepthalite-persian war of 484-88 in the Frankish Steel start?
Okay, well, every single game I've played so far, I've had a Chalcedonian vassal ask me to convert to Chalcedonianism within 3 years of game start / my accession. The AI definitely goes along with this, too; I haven't seen Odoacer die Arian in a single game yet. I really feel this event should be reconsidered.
- 1
- 1
Given the lack of records on their origings and their exact beliefs it is difficult to tell what composed them and what religion they believed in. I believe that is why they are Tengri.
Yes.
We will look into the event and the balance around this to see if anything needs to be modified, but removing it completely would advantage Arian rulers too much.
How would it give any advantage to Arian rulers at all? It would just prevent them from becoming Chalcedonian a century before they did historically. The event should fire by 550 at the very latest, and never if Arianism is strong enough (by some reasonable metric).
Right now, you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to remain Arian - you actually gain piety, and a hell of a lot of realm stability, from converting to Chalcedonianism just because a random vassal asked you nicely. That has no precedent whatsoever in history. In fact, what happens to the Visigoths by 490 ingame is exactly the opposite of what happened to Reccared in 587.
EDIT: This event. Its requisite event's MTTH is 1, meaning that it will come almost as soon as it possibly can, and the AI has a 50% chance of accepting - meaning that in the average game, there's a 75% chance either the Scirii or the Visigoths will convert very early. Then it seems to reiterate for every single new ruler, so the chance that the Goths will convert earlier than they're historically supposed to approaches 1 pretty fast. Clearly this needs rebalancing, because it says "#testing placeholder" in the files.
Attachments
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
- 1
I've created a Gloriotros dynastic CoA for my Trier game, figured they could use one since they're the only uniquely Romano-Frankish dynasty on the map at game start (and without player intervention, likely to be the only one to ever appear, period). If you devs haven't already got plans to create a Gloriotros CoA for the next release, maybe you could make use of it.
Attachments
- 1
Could the Sassanids be given a "Reconquest"/ "invasion" casus belli on the Orient? The persians repeatedly invaded the Roman empire, and yet that can never really happen in-game. Can that be implemented?
- 1