...Yes? Why should Wessex have a coat of arms? Heraldry is a 12th century invention at the earliest. When Wessex existed, there were no coats of arms. The first half of the game shouldn't have anything at all, but it's included for consistency.
ZOMG Dynastic Coat of Arms are still hideous :(
- Thread starter WankoStankins
- 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.
...Yes? Why should Wessex have a coat of arms? Heraldry is a 12th century invention at the earliest. When Wessex existed, there were no coats of arms. The first half of the game shouldn't have anything at all, but it's included for consistency.
And yet, I don't expect you'd have been utterly horrified by the idea had the house of Wessex had a unique coat of arms from the start. They gave the Godwins one, and numerous other dynasties who I suspect have anachronistic arms. I know that I'm biased as I am a fan of their history and tend to play as the Saxons quite often, but does it honestly not strike you as odd that such a legendary dynasty have never had a unique coat of arms in CK II?
Still, I won't mention it again.
.png){kind=avatar}
they are pretty all the same and so un-distinctive. did you play as a muslim once ? you lose a lot of time to search you vassals because it is hard to recognise their CoA.
Actually, it was a Roman symbol before the Turks took Constantinople and decided they liked it. The (originally) 7 pointed star in the crescent moon is the symbol of the Holy Virgin Mary. The crescent moon itself a much older Roman symbol adopted after they won a battle somewhere in the Balkans under a crescent moon.
Last edited:
The new vanilla ones are better than the old vanilla ones.
You can mod it so that certain colours can't be togheter, why don't you try screwing around with this stuff yourself? Paradox tends to not care about country colours too much (take eu rome, the country colours were a fugly mess) so why not do it yourself?
You can mod it so that certain colours can't be togheter, why don't you try screwing around with this stuff yourself? Paradox tends to not care about country colours too much (take eu rome, the country colours were a fugly mess) so why not do it yourself?
I agree, some of the randomly generated Coats of Arms are horrendously bad.
I had one game where a dynasty from the Shetland isles rose to the throne of Norway, but their CoA was basically just a purple background with a pink snail on it....
...it kind of makes it hard to take things seriously when you have to look at that.
I had one game where a dynasty from the Shetland isles rose to the throne of Norway, but their CoA was basically just a purple background with a pink snail on it....
...it kind of makes it hard to take things seriously when you have to look at that.
Worst part is when Dynasties you enjoy playing and that previously had decent looking CoA get´s fugly CoA after a patch. This happened to me when the af Sverker Dynasty that starts in control of my 'home county' Östergötland went from a nice looking CoA to one that is truly an eyesore. I´m a bit pussled that this Dynasty who was one of the more important ones is Sweden during this era doesn´t seem to have a historical CoA like their main rivals the af Bjälbo Dynasty.
In the Shield Pack DLC the Af Sverker dynasty uses the CoA of Princess Helena af Sverker (a most respectful woman) in game. There is no better representation unfortunately, but it doesn't look that bad though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Helena_Sverkersdotter_of_Sweden
It does, in the new pack, not that I'd recommend buying that when my mod is done better in everyway.
It's weird how people can moan about this, Patrum Scuta is so simple to install and works without any troubles and takes away almost all the eyesores instantly.
The Turks were using the crescent moon as a symbol long before they took Constantinople. Both the Mongols and Turks used it to represent Tengri. Nowadays it's as synonymous with Islam as a Cross is with Christianity, of course this isnt "official" how could it be made official unless Mohammad rose from the grave to make it so.
Guess I will have to stick with it then since it is afterall 'historical'
Might add that it´s not the symbol which disturbs me but the red/blue colour combination.
Guess I will have to stick with it then since it is afterall 'historical'
Might add that it´s not the symbol which disturbs me but the red/blue colour combination.
Yes the colors is a bit to much in contrast. Could be friendlier to the eye.
xD You're still upset because of that? I would have included it, but it's Solo's choice, and he's doing a very consistent job. Coherent and beautiful.
Concerning coats of arms, I even changed the Muslim ones into a set of stars, hands, kuffic texts, geometric patterns, checkers and bars. It looks much more recognisable, much more interesting and much more Medieval.
Those five-pointed stars and those scimitars made me think of XXth Century Arab Republics under General Nasser.
And yes, no crescents in Muslim iconography until the XVIth Century. You'd be surprised, however, to see a lot of what we call today "Jewish Star" or "David's Star"
Why do people say things like this when a quick Google search could easily correct them.
I recommend reading O.M. Rapov, a Soviet and a Russian historian.
Here's a page that cites his work on symbols of Rurikovich's:
http://www.perunica.ru/istoria/1690-omrapov-znaki-ryurikovichej-i-simvol-sokola.html
Unfortunately, I've only found it in Russian (apologies if you cannot read it). But I heard Google translate improved somewhat over the years.