.png){kind=avatar}
I'm trying to remember, I think we tried putting "reformed = " for the same religion on two different religions before and it caused a CTD.
-
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.
- Status
I'm trying to remember, I think we tried putting "reformed = " for the same religion on two different religions before and it caused a CTD.
Seems like one of the more obvious additions with the newest expansion would be to put Tibet in. They have a tidy little empire going on during the Charlie start that includes a not insignificant part of the currently available map. Adding in the bon pagans seems like it would be fun as well.
As someone whos helping work on the eu4 converter please don't make my job harder adding in more provinces :sad: .
Dont worry, we don't plan on touching the map again unless paradox forces us to. Too much of a pain.
There could be a seperated decision for rulers of the reformed faith mirroring the mending the schism decision (and events) but the reformation process itselfe seems to work differently. (I couldn't find any reformation decisions or events in the files)
About the Germanic Holy Sites, maybe put then in Britain, Germany, Denmark and Poland, as the germanic tribes historicaly inhabited or (in the case of Britain) conquered those areas, as for the name, just "Germanic" sounds better I think.
Here is a suggestion, which will probably be irrelevant to many of us who are unfamiliar with the particular history of bedouin arabs, but here it is anyway:
Less than a 100 years after the arab conquests of the 7th/8th centuries, two very distinct arab identities emerged: settled arabs and nomadic arabs. Nomadic arabs were located mostly in the arabian peninsula, but also established nomadic communities in Iraq, Egypt, and Syria. The distinction is so hugely significant, and it lasted well into the 20th century. Some aspects of it survive very vividly in social identities, accents, and culture today.
Nomad arabs were ferocious raiders, tormenting farmers and - very importantly - pilgrims for centuries. The extent of their raiding was quite influential. A very prestigious post in most middle eastern muslim states was the "Emir of Hajj"; a general charged with accompanying pilgrims on their annual trip with a typically small force in order to protect them from the nomads. These "Emirs of Hajj" very often resorted to paying tribute to nomadic chiefs in return for safe passage.
The nomads also served as the main mercenary pool for centuries, at one point fighting along side the crusader states in the latter's wars with the Zengids. They were instrumental in a large number of battles spanning virtually the entire history of the region.
The migration of the nomads into North Africa and Egypt in the 10th century simply shaped the history of those regions.
Nomadic arabs played such a significant role in middle eastern and northern african histories, that it is a shame that they are not properly represented. I didn't intend this to be such a huge introduction, so sorry for that, and here is my suggestion:
Currently we have two cultures "Bedouin" and "Levant". I suggest this to be changed to "Nomad Arab", and "Arab". Nomad Arabs should be tribal, and allowed to raid other muslims (no idea how feasible this is, but even changing their religion to something like "pagan" is less ahistorical than what we currently have), and should include most regions of the arabian peninsula except maybe the very western and the very southern parts. Deserts in Egypt, Syria and Iraq should definitely be tribal. The attrition penalty and continuous raiding may have the favorable effect of slowing down the Abbasid blob.
Less than a 100 years after the arab conquests of the 7th/8th centuries, two very distinct arab identities emerged: settled arabs and nomadic arabs. Nomadic arabs were located mostly in the arabian peninsula, but also established nomadic communities in Iraq, Egypt, and Syria. The distinction is so hugely significant, and it lasted well into the 20th century. Some aspects of it survive very vividly in social identities, accents, and culture today.
Nomad arabs were ferocious raiders, tormenting farmers and - very importantly - pilgrims for centuries. The extent of their raiding was quite influential. A very prestigious post in most middle eastern muslim states was the "Emir of Hajj"; a general charged with accompanying pilgrims on their annual trip with a typically small force in order to protect them from the nomads. These "Emirs of Hajj" very often resorted to paying tribute to nomadic chiefs in return for safe passage.
The nomads also served as the main mercenary pool for centuries, at one point fighting along side the crusader states in the latter's wars with the Zengids. They were instrumental in a large number of battles spanning virtually the entire history of the region.
The migration of the nomads into North Africa and Egypt in the 10th century simply shaped the history of those regions.
Nomadic arabs played such a significant role in middle eastern and northern african histories, that it is a shame that they are not properly represented. I didn't intend this to be such a huge introduction, so sorry for that, and here is my suggestion:
Currently we have two cultures "Bedouin" and "Levant". I suggest this to be changed to "Nomad Arab", and "Arab". Nomad Arabs should be tribal, and allowed to raid other muslims (no idea how feasible this is, but even changing their religion to something like "pagan" is less ahistorical than what we currently have), and should include most regions of the arabian peninsula except maybe the very western and the very southern parts. Deserts in Egypt, Syria and Iraq should definitely be tribal. The attrition penalty and continuous raiding may have the favorable effect of slowing down the Abbasid blob.
Last edited:
AI emperors in general should not create kingdoms.
The AI Holy Roman Emperor always create kingdom of Italy and distribute it to vassal or fail to hold it through succession. This destroys the internal balance of power in HRE.
The AI Holy Roman Emperor always create kingdom of Italy and distribute it to vassal or fail to hold it through succession. This destroys the internal balance of power in HRE.
no. I may look at locking the HRE out of making k_italy (in fact I THOUGHT I already had) but I'm not locking AI emperors out of creating kingdoms.
From landed_titles file I could see that you prevented AI Byzantine emperor or his vassals from forming a kingdom.
Forming k_germany and k_lotharingia are also disallowed for AI HRE and vassals.
From my personal perspective, I believe that vassals of HRE should be allowed to form italy, frisia, burgundy, lotharingia or bohemia if they could accumulate enough land and satisfy other conditions (calling oneself king of germany, on the contrary, is equivalent to open rebellion). However, if these kingdoms are already de jure HRE territory, the Emperor has few incentives to create these titles, since it could add a desire kingdom modifier for duke vassals.
The benefits of a new kingdom title include vassal management(CM), de jure claims if medium or higher crown authority, and de jure liege modifier for offering vassalization. However, if the kingdom to be created is already a de jure vassal of the empire, the latter two benefits do not exist any more. I don't know if it is possible from a coding perspective, but I personally hope that AI emperors do not create kingdoms on their de jure territories.
Forming k_germany and k_lotharingia are also disallowed for AI HRE and vassals.
From my personal perspective, I believe that vassals of HRE should be allowed to form italy, frisia, burgundy, lotharingia or bohemia if they could accumulate enough land and satisfy other conditions (calling oneself king of germany, on the contrary, is equivalent to open rebellion). However, if these kingdoms are already de jure HRE territory, the Emperor has few incentives to create these titles, since it could add a desire kingdom modifier for duke vassals.
The benefits of a new kingdom title include vassal management(CM), de jure claims if medium or higher crown authority, and de jure liege modifier for offering vassalization. However, if the kingdom to be created is already a de jure vassal of the empire, the latter two benefits do not exist any more. I don't know if it is possible from a coding perspective, but I personally hope that AI emperors do not create kingdoms on their de jure territories.
Last edited:
However there is the historical precedent of the HRE not having vassal kings. The King of Prussia, for example, was styled "King in Prussia" instead of King OF Prussia because he was still a vassal of the HRE. Under the laws of the HRE only Bohemia was allowed to be a Kingdom out-right. They only got away with it because the empire was waning at the time and they were able to use the excuse that Prussia had never been part of the Empire and the Hohenzollerns were fully sovereign over it. It's....REALLY complicated.
Two suggestions from me.
1.Can we use the vanilla colour for the holy roman empire- yes seems a bit subjective
2.Can we change norse to germanic? It makes easier distinguish between the religion and culture
Of course this one too is subjective.
1.Can we use the vanilla colour for the holy roman empire- yes seems a bit subjective
2.Can we change norse to germanic? It makes easier distinguish between the religion and culture
Of course this one too is subjective.
1. I'm fairly certain we already do. The Carolingian Empire is NOT the HRE.
2. No. I may change it to Nordic but I introduced the Saxon religion for the exact reason of not wanting to call the Norse Germanic.
So I don't think the Saxon religion should be called Saxon. It should be called "German". Since it's the faith of all the German people before Catholic invaders came, not the Saxons alone. Also, the reformed version should be called Urglaube, not Urglaawe, since the latter is Pennsylvania Dutch.
Also a short description you can use as a placeholder for German: "German paganism refers to the diverse pre-Christian beliefs of the continental Germanic peoples. Similar to Scandinavian paganism, with parallel gods and practices, it nonetheless had its own unique practices and beliefs. The chief god of the pantheon is Wodan, also known as Wuotan, Woden, or Wotan, parallel to the Norse Odin. Other important deities include Frijjo, goddess of love, related to the Norse deity Freya, and Donar, god of thunder, related to the Norse Thor."
Also a short description you can use as a placeholder for German: "German paganism refers to the diverse pre-Christian beliefs of the continental Germanic peoples. Similar to Scandinavian paganism, with parallel gods and practices, it nonetheless had its own unique practices and beliefs. The chief god of the pantheon is Wodan, also known as Wuotan, Woden, or Wotan, parallel to the Norse Odin. Other important deities include Frijjo, goddess of love, related to the Norse deity Freya, and Donar, god of thunder, related to the Norse Thor."
Last edited:
How did Urglaawe even make it into this mod? Don't get me wrong, love y'all to death but holy smokes... it would be like calling Celtic pagans followers of Druidry, which is an entirely modern invention.
I may end up using that description but I'll have to find a better name than Saxon or German. I used Saxon because I was in a hurry, people were complaining about "Germanic", and I had used the Saxon deity names (Uuoden instead of Woden for example) since in the only bookmark they appear in, their only followers are the Saxons. I'm wanting to avoid using actual culture names for religion names going forward (and will be shifting "Norse" to "Nordic" to reflect this). Thank you for the correction to the reformed version, by the way.
Because I needed a name for a reformed Saxon pagan faith and Urglaawe fits the bill. Many of the other pagan faith's reformed versions are named after modern revival movements similarly. (In fact, until I checked just now, I thought we DID call reformed celts Druidry) What precisely is the problem with Urglaawe? It's name translation is equivalent to our use of Forn Sidr for the reformed Norse (Forn Sidr translating to "The old custom" Urglaawe translating to "The original faith" granted in Dietsch but that's not the point). If you have an idea for a better name I'd be glad to hear it.
Last edited:
No, no, no. That is not what you should be doing. If the point is to represent the beliefs of indigenous cultures with belief systems that were either transplated or replaced over time, you shoud strive to call the followers of the religion as accurately as possible what they would call themselves, as the depth of roleplay is widely expanded by the effort.
That is exactly my point. You are calling a first millenium religion by the tounge of a people that did not exist until the 18-19th century.
OLD FRISIAN:
thâw 1 und häufiger, thâu, thâ-w, thâ-u, afries., st. M. (wa?): nhd. Gewohnheit, Sitte; ne. habit, custom; Vw.: s. -lik; Hw.: vgl. ae. þéaw, as. thau, ahd. dou*; E.: germ. *þawwa-, *þawwaz, st. M. (a), Brauch, Sitte, Gewohnheit; vielleicht von einer s-losen Form von idg. *stāu-, *stū̆-, V., stehen, stellen Pokorny 1004; L.: Hh 110a, Hh 176
OLD LOW FRANCONIAN:
gi-louba, galaupa, calaupa, kalauba, sf. faith, belief.
gi-louben, wv. I, believe, c. dat.
gi-laubo, wm. faith.
[sorry for the lack of formal sources for this, but here is where I pulled it from: http://books.google.com/books?id=FJ...#v=onepage&q=galaupa faith old german&f=false]
edit: also, http://books.google.com/books?id=FJ...CQ&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=custom&f=false
Just an idea. Also Wotanism seems appropriate for reforming it, as there was a clear trend toward monoth(de?)eism. [eg Hermeticism]
Last edited:
OH! I just had the best idea ever concerning Celtic pagans. Since we get the uncrowned trait for feudal monarchs, could Celts have a marriage to the land event instead of needing to be both feudal and reformed? It could give a positive demense modifier and a negative vassal modifier, for balance. 
Worth a read: http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/rac/index.htm
Worth a read: http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/rac/index.htm
Last edited:
1) I'm NOT using Wotanism. If you knew anything about germanic paganism you would know why.
2) This is for the REFORMED faith, not the default unreformed. I will probably correct it to German instead of Deitsch as Pwnzerfaust provided. There is no reason to get upset about our portrayal of a religion that, might I remind you, NEVER EXISTED because the Saxons did not, in fact, reform.
- Status