[WtWSMS] Suggestions/Ideas

[loup99]

If I may step forward: no need to do so. I already provided the pdf. to IlikeTrains

Yes, he told me that.

@loup99
You might want to adjust the MTTH on the new melting pots (unless this is intentional) as I saw Romansh emerge within a decade or so of game start.

Depending on what happened in that game it is not completely unfeasible since the events have no fix dates, but I find it to be too soon for it to be realistic, so that should change. It is supposed to be gradual, looking at the centuries rather than the decades.

Also, the 'religious divergences' event (the one for 'You're a Christian Barbarian ruling a Sub-Roman territory, but the types of Christianity are different') fires constantly, and it's rather annoying. I've had it fire multiple times per month.

That one is only meant to fire once per combination and ruler, although I suppose that either you have a very diverse realm religiously or that it is the province-based logic which is causing issues in a way we had not foreseen. Will look into it.

 

[ASlightlyCrispyPierogi]

Depending on what happened in that game it is not completely unfeasible since the events have no fix dates, but I find it to be too soon for it to be realistic, so that should change. It is supposed to be gradual, looking at the centuries rather than the decades.

Perhaps one way to help with it would be to split the post-'I'm a feudal ruler of Germanic/Slavic/Celtic culture that shares a Christian faith with the locals' event into multiple ones that fire once per ruler? Say, have small flavour events talking about the drift from 'proper' Latin to the soon-to-be new language, adoption of new customs/modes of dress among the Germanics/Celts/Slavs, and so on. Or would that be too fiddly?

To add to that, while the MTTH of 100 years seems passable, the learning modifiers are both a smidgen too strong and too easily fulfilled. For example, the starting king of Burgundy (Gundobad) shaves off 70 years with just 14 Learning. Combined with the Arian Raetian province (Brenodunum) in his starting territory, that seems to explain why Romansh emerged so rapidly.

Edit: I'm going to mess with the numbers a bit (double the MTTH, adjust the learning modifiers), run the campaign again, and see what that gets me.

That one is only meant to fire once per combination and ruler, although I suppose that either you have a very diverse realm religiously or that it is the province-based logic which is causing issues in a way we had not foreseen. Will look into it.

Not very religiously diverse, no. Mostly Nicene (Ruler and several vassals started as Arian, naturally, but I'd gotten most of them to convert by this point) with the pocket of Donatists around Carthage, one Audianistic province, and a handful of pagan provinces.

On the topic of the melting pots (as I managed to get Arreyanu to spawn really early as well, which furthers my suspicions that something's off with the events), is it possible to adjust the 'Your ruler and one province becomes [Melting Pot Culture]' to propagate the culture shift throughout your immediate family (like when you manually change to the culture of your capital)?

 

[loup99]

Perhaps one way to help with it would be to split the post-'I'm a feudal ruler of Germanic/Slavic/Celtic culture that shares a Christian faith with the locals' event into multiple ones that fire once per ruler? Say, have small flavour events talking about the drift from 'proper' Latin to the soon-to-be new language, adoption of new customs/modes of dress among the Germanics/Celts/Slavs, and so on. Or would that be too fiddly?

That would be one solution which I would appreciate, since it would both deepen existing events and be more realistic, but at the moment it is not something I have time working on, so it would be in the far future if it is done by me.

To add to that, while the MTTH of 100 years seems passable, the learning modifiers are both a smidgen too strong and too easily fulfilled. For example, the starting king of Burgundy (Gundobad) shaves off 70 years with just 14 Learning. Combined with the Arian Raetian province (Brenodunum) in his starting territory, that seems to explain why Romansh emerged so rapidly.

The modifiers are copied from vanilla melting-pots, but we can alter them if needed. One possibility could also be to add a certain year threshold based upon realism, meaning that we don't have any fix dates that railroad but from plausibility make the case that it is more reasonable to have the MTTH starting to evaluate after for instance the year 500.

Edit: I'm going to mess with the numbers a bit (double the MTTH, adjust the learning modifiers), run the campaign again, and see what that gets me.

Thank you for the help, keep us updated with what the results are.

Not very religiously diverse, no. Mostly Nicene (Ruler and several vassals started as Arian, naturally, but I'd gotten most of them to convert by this point) with the pocket of Donatists around Carthage, one Audianistic province, and a handful of pagan provinces.

Then it must be the consequences of not having reflected sufficiently on the implications of using province events, I think I know how to resolve it with a different approach to the triggers.

On the topic of the melting pots (as I managed to get Arreyanu to spawn really early as well, which furthers my suspicions that something's off with the events), is it possible to adjust the 'Your ruler and one province becomes [Melting Pot Culture]' to propagate the culture shift throughout your immediate family (like when you manually change to the culture of your capital)?

We will have to investigate.

 

[WilyWillis]

A suggestion to flesh out the history files: why not include some of the more recent, major-league Roman usurpers as holders of the various empire-tier titles? Ex. Marcus & Gratian as holders of e_britannia, Constantine III & Jovinus as holders of e_gaul, Maximus Tyrannus as holder of e_hispania and Bonifacius as holder of e_africa. You could even give some of these usurpers descendants in certain counties or duchies as well, providing players with more 'dark horse' candidates for restoring Rome.

If you want to go even further back in history you could also assign empires to the Tetrachs, ex. making Diocletian holder of e_oriens and Constantinus Chlorus & Constantine the Great holders of e_britannia until their respective takeovers of the united Roman Empire.

 

[loup99]

A suggestion to flesh out the history files: why not include some of the more recent, major-league Roman usurpers as holders of the various empire-tier titles? Ex. Marcus & Gratian as holders of e_britannia, Constantine III & Jovinus as holders of e_gaul, Maximus Tyrannus as holder of e_hispania and Bonifacius as holder of e_africa. You could even give some of these usurpers descendants in certain counties or duchies as well, providing players with more 'dark horse' candidates for restoring Rome.

If you want to go even further back in history you could also assign empires to the Tetrachs, ex. making Diocletian holder of e_oriens and Constantinus Chlorus & Constantine the Great holders of e_britannia until their respective takeovers of the united Roman Empire.

That could be done, yes, but adding descendants would be problematic in cases where we have evidence of them dying without any heirs, and we have more "legitimate" pretenders the player can use at start already. Note that some older usurpers from the Crisis of the Third Century itself are planned for in the files, but the corresponding characters have not been sent in by @Enlil.

 

[WilyWillis]

That could be done, yes, but adding descendants would be problematic in cases where we have evidence of them dying without any heirs, and we have more "legitimate" pretenders the player can use at start already. Note that some older usurpers from the Crisis of the Third Century itself are planned for in the files, but the corresponding characters have not been sent in by @Enlil.

Oh of course, I agree that a usurper who's known to have died without progeny shouldn't be assigned fictional ones. I was more talking about the usurpers who plausibly could've had descendants by 476: for example, Constantine III of Britain/Gaul, whose eldest son Constans was known to both have a wife and to have been made co-emperor by his father (making him a candidate for being Ambrosius Aurelianus' father or grandfather).

 

[ASlightlyCrispyPierogi]

Alright, update.
Galleis spawned within 30 years (In Burgundy). However, it spawned during the reign of a King with 3 learning, which should have increased the MTTH significantly (200 years to 300). No other melting pots (such as Romansh, which has the MTTH calculating from game start) have popped.

Next plan: add that 'Do not calculate before 500 A.D.' cut-off, and slap together those step-by-step events myself. Won't test until after my current campaign is done, however (I'm enjoying it too much). But, I will upload the files for others to use when I get them assembled.

 

[loup99]

Galleis spawned within 30 years (In Burgundy). However, it spawned during the reign of a King with 3 learning, which should have increased the MTTH significantly (200 years to 300). No other melting pots (such as Romansh, which has the MTTH calculating from game start) have popped.

If the MTTH started calculating during a previous ruler with higher learning I don't know how the two add up. Note that this is also a random number generator, so some randomness within the framework is to be expected.

 

[Petros Kouropalates]

Have you considered making Hellenic part of a new religion group so that the interface defaults to the christian one and not to the wooden pagan one?

 

[IlikeTrains]

Have you considered making Hellenic part of a new religion group so that the interface defaults to the christian one and not to the wooden pagan one?

Interface will be less hardcoded in the next major game version IIRC.

 

[loup99]

Have you considered making Hellenic part of a new religion group so that the interface defaults to the christian one and not to the wooden pagan one?

No, that is not something which is being done due to the many aspects hardcoded to the Pagan group. However, for the interface, if that was the sole concern, you can refer to the answer of IlikeTrains.

 

[Petros Kouropalates]

No, that is not something which is being done due to the many aspects hardcoded to the Pagan group. However, for the interface, if that was the sole concern, you can refer to the answer of IlikeTrains.

Thanks for the answer,
Do you know what I should do to try to change the interface myself?

 

[loup99]

Do you know what I should do to try to change the interface myself?

In the current version or in the future one with said changes? Because if you mean the current one, you would have to change the religious group.

 

[nath208]

There is one thing that bothering me and it is something no one seems to have done right yet (not the base game, not CK2+, not HIP), it is the iranian riding grounds. Like seriously, the Sassanids were known for their cataphracts, in fact the persians are probably the ones that invented heavy cavalry. It is not only the Sassanids that were known for it, the Arsacid too. So the riding grounds beeing mostly about horse archer is very very weird. At no point until the 11th century were the persians known for their horses archers and I only say until the 11th century because I never did reseach on post 10th century persia. In fact the iranian heavy cavalry was a bit like an early version of the knights, they were noble professional warrior and that is exactly what the knights were at first, noble (lower nobility) professional heavy cavalry.

I would really like to see those iranian riding ground as they do not really make sense, especially for the era in wich your mod take place, litteraly at the height of the iranians cataphracts.

I really like this mod btw, more than both HIP and CK2+.

 

[Hydra57]

Aside from my suggestion at Emperor focused buildings (think of these like a triumphal arch; many emperors had their own forums, bathes, and theaters within Rome), I have an issue that could likely be resolved here involving the Praetorian Guard/Scholae Palatinae and their legion/fleet counterparts. Since they are mercenary companies, they are locked to being only nicene after they are formed, which is a serious problem if either empire switches religions.
Someone could add a mod which allows mercenary company leaders to switch to their top lieges' religion, and this would all be resolved.

 

[mattrhearn]

There is one thing that bothering me and it is something no one seems to have done right yet (not the base game, not CK2+, not HIP), it is the iranian riding grounds. Like seriously, the Sassanids were known for their cataphracts, in fact the persians are probably the ones that invented heavy cavalry. It is not only the Sassanids that were known for it, the Arsacid too. So the riding grounds beeing mostly about horse archer is very very weird. At no point until the 11th century were the persians known for their horses archers and I only say until the 11th century because I never did reseach on post 10th century persia. In fact the iranian heavy cavalry was a bit like an early version of the knights, they were noble professional warrior and that is exactly what the knights were at first, noble (lower nobility) professional heavy cavalry.

I would really like to see those iranian riding ground as they do not really make sense, especially for the era in wich your mod take place, litteraly at the height of the iranians cataphracts.

I really like this mod btw, more than both HIP and CK2+.

The Persians were absolutely known for their horse archers before then 11th century. In fact the English phrase "parting shot" was originally "Parthian Shot," a reference to the battlefield tactic of turning around in their saddles and firing at your pursuers while in retreat (or feigned retreat).

In the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC, the Persian side consisted of 1,000 Cataphracts, and 9,000 horse archers. Of those, 38 of the cataphracts were killed, and none of the archers, against seven Roman legions of which 30,000 were killed or captured.

 

[loup99]

There is one thing that bothering me and it is something no one seems to have done right yet (not the base game, not CK2+, not HIP), it is the iranian riding grounds. Like seriously, the Sassanids were known for their cataphracts, in fact the persians are probably the ones that invented heavy cavalry. It is not only the Sassanids that were known for it, the Arsacid too. So the riding grounds beeing mostly about horse archer is very very weird. At no point until the 11th century were the persians known for their horses archers and I only say until the 11th century because I never did reseach on post 10th century persia. In fact the iranian heavy cavalry was a bit like an early version of the knights, they were noble professional warrior and that is exactly what the knights were at first, noble (lower nobility) professional heavy cavalry.

I would really like to see those iranian riding ground as they do not really make sense, especially for the era in wich your mod take place, litteraly at the height of the iranians cataphracts.

The Persians were absolutely known for their horse archers before then 11th century. In fact the English phrase "parting shot" was originally "Parthian Shot," a reference to the battlefield tactic of turning around in their saddles and firing at your pursuers while in retreat (or feigned retreat).

In the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC, the Persian side consisted of 1,000 Cataphracts, and 9,000 horse archers. Of those, 38 of the cataphracts were killed, and none of the archers, against seven Roman legions of which 30,000 were killed or captured.

If there is a consensus on a better option than the one we have currently for the Persians I'm not hostile to modifying it.

I really like this mod btw, more than both HIP and CK2+.

Thank you for the kind words.

Aside from my suggestion at Emperor focused buildings (think of these like a triumphal arch; many emperors had their own forums, bathes, and theaters within Rome), I have an issue that could likely be resolved here involving the Praetorian Guard/Scholae Palatinae and their legion/fleet counterparts. Since they are mercenary companies, they are locked to being only nicene after they are formed, which is a serious problem if either empire switches religions.
Someone could add a mod which allows mercenary company leaders to switch to their top lieges' religion, and this would all be resolved.

What has been done is that the respective companies become of the religion of the character that forms them. So far we have not added events/decisions for them to switch religion, since an automatic switch could also pose problems in terms of realism. However, what could be done is that when you switch the religion of the commander the title also switches.

 

[nath208]

The Persians were absolutely known for their horse archers before then 11th century. In fact the English phrase "parting shot" was originally "Parthian Shot," a reference to the battlefield tactic of turning around in their saddles and firing at your pursuers while in retreat (or feigned retreat).

In the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC, the Persian side consisted of 1,000 Cataphracts, and 9,000 horse archers. Of those, 38 of the cataphracts were killed, and none of the archers, against seven Roman legions of which 30,000 were killed or captured.

The Persians were absolutely known for their horse archers before then 11th century. In fact the English phrase "parting shot" was originally "Parthian Shot," a reference to the battlefield tactic of turning around in their saddles and firing at your pursuers while in retreat (or feigned retreat).

In the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC, the Persian side consisted of 1,000 Cataphracts, and 9,000 horse archers. Of those, 38 of the cataphracts were killed, and none of the archers, against seven Roman legions of which 30,000 were killed or captured.

Since I'm asperger and not able to cut information to the strictly necessary here is a long reply.

Yeah, I red more about the parthians since then. I had only briefly red about that era and remembered that they invented cataphracts. It seems like,the earlier you go under parthian regime, the more important they were, slowly beeing replaced in importance by other types of troops. The roman army was also particularly vunerable to very mobile archers and with the combination of cataphracts to break the ranks horse archer could really do some dammage. During the Sassanid rule, horse archer were still common, but to my knowledge (I may be wrong), they were mainly recruited from non-persians, like other iranian groups, allied nations and the outer territories of the empire and seems to have been intended as support for the cataphracts or to face other asian horse archers.

In fact, the transition toward more heavy cavalry compared to horse archers is seems to be due to the incorporation and growth of the use of cataphracts by the eastern part of the Roman Empire, as like Austria later showed us against the mongols, horse archer are helpless against a good heavy cavalry. The mongols finaly got whooped, once the austrians reorganized and then the Khan died, se we will never know if mongols could have adapted to central and western european cavalry (Especially France as they had by far the best HC, when the nobles didn't go Yolo like in the 100 years war).

My personal area of expertise is mainly 12th to 16th century Rus and France and the later 1900-1924 Russia. I just started reasearching ancient Persia as well as Dacia and mycenean era Greece, but eventually, those may very well become part of my expertise.

Little explaination on why no european nations gave trouble to the mongols before Austria, since I mentioned it. No one had good heavy cavalry before that. I need to specify good heavy cavalry here, because the poles, rus and hungarian all had some form of heavy cavalry to varrying degree, but none of them had a good one. polish HC was decent, but not well organized and lacked a bit in number, the Rus HC was a joke especially in the North and hungarians had tons of cavalry but verry few were HC. The Rus are the only one I know very well, the other I only looked at briefly, so there may be more to it and the Rus cavalry evolved ridiculously fast right after the submission of Novgorod to the mongols, in fact by the time of the teutonic invasion (Battle on lake Peipous) its number had alredy been raised a lot.

 

[nath208]

I red more, a lot more and as it is often with history, the more you know the more confused you are. Even period sources (translated obviously) contradict each others, then modern historians also do. There was a shift towards cataphracts over horse archers, but it wasn't always constant it seems and the reputed branches of the army always seemed to change, this is almost like people adapted (who would believe that). This is super complicated. But it gave me an idea.

This make me think that a decision that would allow a ruler at the start of his rule to chose an national focus would be super cool. Like some of those choices could be military, improving certain types of troops, tactics, etc. depending on the choice but other could be economical, diplomatic, phylosophic, etc.. It could also slowly improve overtime as the ruler stay in power for a longer time.

I do not know how doable it would be but since history is so complicated and every nations that existed switched their focus very often, it seems likeit would be both really cool and immersive.

 

[Drachenfire]

Hello!

I am so glad to have discovered this project! I am a recent returner to Crusader Kings after many many years sabbatical and I am absolutely amazed by the changes and progress! I am very impressed by this project as well. The Early Middle Ages / Age of Migrations are a very intriguing time for me. My favorite period, however, is High Middle Ages and Carolingian Chivalry. But that has its origins in the fall of The Empire and the birth of the successors.

The Romance melting pots absolutely grabs my attention. @Fabuloscriptor 's contribution are spectacular for the Romance cultures. In particular, I am interested in how the Britons and Romano Britons might evolve into the 'Bridaney' culture. Only earlier this summer did I discover Andrew Smith's amazing constructed language of Brithenig, and the 'what-if' the Romano Briton's culture and language survived and thrived as did Romano Gallic into, of-course, French. If a similar scenario happened in Britain as in Gaul, the English we might be speaking might actually have been 'Bridaney' and/or Brithenig in substance! That is, if the invading Anglo-Saxons adopted the vulgar Latin of the Romano-Britons, but gave their name to the country as the Franks gave to France. Bryan Ward-Perkins has an excellent perspective on why this did not happen. And the Romance languages of this mod are beautiful, and I would want to learn each one! And now I will try and play each one.

So, after a wall of text, I would like to thank the dev team headed by @Enlil and @loup99 and other contributors here in every capacity for this project. I spent about $80 this morning purchasing CK2 additional content from Steam, something I hadn't planned to do before discovering this project.

- Drachenfire


But this leads me to some questions and / or observations with the mod. I certainly do not mean to speak out-of-turn on any of it, so if any or all of these have been addressed and I over looked them, apologies.

1. Is 'Bridaney' both the name of the culture and a demonym for the people? As British is the demonym of Great Britain, and Breton the demonym of Brittany. What would a hypothetical Bridaney person call themselves? How would you imagine the country 'Britannia' might evolve into with Bridaney?


2. Personally, I would like to play in a High Middle Ages scenario where each of these Romance languages and cultures are simultaneously active. Is that within the scope of the project?


3. Speaking of demonyms, in the Britain set up I have these observations and comments.

As the project is using nativized names for cultures, would it not be more correct to use the native name used for the Britons... Brythons? This is a term historians and antiquarians use (conversely, many historians do use 'Briton').

Additionally, the demonyms historians and antiquarians use for a person from Gwynedd is Venedotian, rather then 'Gwyneddian'. For Dyfed and (later) Deheubarth the demonym is Dimetian. This is especially true when speaking in terms of the differing law codes evolving in North and South Wales. The Welsh would use 'Gwyneddwyr' , or (usually in an older context) 'Gwyneddion' both meaning 'Men of Gwynedd' . Conversly, 'Dyfedwyr'. For Gwent, it is 'Gwentian'. I have no personal opinion on the matter as to whether this is adopted in the project, however.

4. Briton / Brython titles might be nativized:

• King / Queen = Brenin / Brenhines, domain Deyrnas
• Prince / Princess = Tywysog / Tywysoges, domain = Tywysogaeth
• Duke / Duchess = Duc (or Dug) / Duces (or Duges) [Both are attested to], domain Dugaeth
• Earl / Countess = Iarll / Iarlles [also Ceorl / Ceorles ], domain Iarllaeth
• Baron / Baroness = Baran / Baranes (or modern Welsh Barwn /Barwnes), domain Barwniaeth

I am really undecided as to whether a petty Briton king should be called Brenin or Tywysog? And whether a vassalized petty king should be called Tywysog or Duc.

@Fabuloscriptor , how might a 'Bridaney' Prince and Princess title be rendered?

5. In the scenarios, the various baronies in the Romano British lands are rather English. Is this by intent, or lack of resource / research in what Brythonic or plausible Bridaney variations might be. I might be able to help with research in this.


6. I am uncertain that Rheged should be suzerain of Powys. I am of the initial opinion (and I can be wrong) that would be better represented by a titular "Dios" of Powys based in Pengwern in Shropshire, (rather then at Mathrafal in Powys proper).


7. Where is Ambrosius Aurelianus?