-
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.
This game has promise but it is in dire, dire need of more mechanics and especially more events. Anything to make peacetime more fun. Anything to make characters and the history of it all more engaging.
Love it so far. Keep it up.
Love it so far. Keep it up.
Willing to give an advisory hand to the historical realism of the project in relation to the Hellenistic world and pre-Roman Italy.
Glad to hear that!
We will see what we can do for this.
It is in the planning stage at the moment, didn't get ready for yesterday unfortunately.
Thank you!Great to see you here! The best of luck to you and the team
That would absolutely be a very interesting bookmark, I can note it.
Having a more historically accurate with more countries does make conquest a bit slower in the regions that we have overhauled in the sense that there is more to conquer, but I think it will be the fabricate claim changes that will slow it down the most.
Thanks, happy to hear you think that!This mod looks so interesting! Keep it up the good work dude!
Would be great to have you helping out here too! Don't hesitate to hit me up if you need help for modding in IR.Heck! That was fast ... too fast
Could be an option, yes.
You are both welcome to join of course, we will see how we organise ourselves now that there has been an initial release. We will get back to you.
Thanks for sharing this and suggesting.
We will see, something will be set up at least.
Hope you will like the implementation as well!
I agree that it can feel a bit lacking, so that will be one aspect I will try to address here!
Thanks.
Hopefully you will enjoy playing it as well.Very happy that a historical mod would pop up so fast!
Please get rid of all the unbearably disgusting filth that is the "-id" suffixes in family names from the "Persian" group to
Hellenic (where it should be -ides or -idas).
Hellenic (where it should be -ides or -idas).
That was fast. Good luck on the mod, seems pretty and has the much needed historical authencity.
Why? I need a mini history course on that.
There is a way to have both. 'Seleucid Family' AND 'Antigonos Seleukidas'. I can even make it depending on culture. That will be something I will do in future, yes. Look at the latin name list for exemple:
Code:
Julius.Julia.Julii.JulianNames can have a male form, a female form, a plural and an adjectiv.
It's about the Franks, the Germanic tribe. They only appeared later in history and were a merge of multible other tribes. So now you can do it some years earlier if you unite the required tribes either by war or diplomatically.
But "Francia" seemed a bit Romanized to me.
And do we know which Germanic tribes can form Franks?
I was just going with the base game there and used the same method for the name currently to kept it coherent. So Francii > Francia. If I should Germanize the Germanics I would do all of them in a go and make research. Until then I kept the latinized names from the base game
Edit: And the tribes which can form the Franks are the Sicambri, Bructeri, Chamavi and Chatti at the moment.
Last edited:
This post intends is food for through on tribal warfare and political dynamics
My understanding of the historical trend
When reading historical accounts, it seems that the majority of warfare by tribal entities aimed not at territorial expansion, but as a contrinuum of trade / extortion / war aimed at capturing rare and valuable resources (gold, prestigious manufactured goods, imperial princesses...). The continuum trade - extortion - raid - war can be seen in some cases where the tribal entity declared war after the nearby empire severed more "peaceful" links.
These resources could then be used by the tribal chief waging and winning the war, not so much to "build" stuff as in most computer strategy games, but to acquire intangible prestige by displaying them and distributing spoils to "clients", and therefore consolidate his political power. As his "prestige" (a very CK2 concept...) increased, then other clans or tribes, defeated or not, would rally to the succesful chief offering to share spoils in greater quantity. This remained quite a fragile construct of course, as the whole consolidation could fall apart if the flow of riches got interrupted. And so such empires disintegrated as soon as they emerged, often with the death of the ruler at the centre of the redistribution system, or his defeat.
Sorry I do not give concrete examples but hopefully this summarized analysis is clear enough without changing it into a scholarly essay with footnotes etc. If one example has to be given, I would say the history of Huns vs other steppe entities and finally vs Rome illustrate the full cycle quite well.
In PDS game terms.
Such a system was somewhat implemented in CK2 vanilla ("raid" function), but developed both in AGOT and LI mods. I can develop the later as I developed it (inspired by the AGOT system): tribals have a special casus belli against other tribals not aiming at territorial gain but at gaining prestige (at the expense of the looser's own prestige). Now contrarily to more settled empires, prestige is not a currency to be used; but also a currency to be capitalized. At 0 prestige, tribal entities are very weak. As prestige increases without being spent, the personal client networks get stronger and the tribal ruler gets a series of increasing bonii. Note that prestige can also be gained by other ways than war, although war and raiding remain the premium vector.
In Imperator: Rome,
Such a system can be simulated much better since the lower tribes are present in game with their own armies. Oratory power could be understood as the functional equivalent of "prestige". So a system can be imagined whereby tribal realms fight with each other to consolidate "tribal prestige" (in fact, oratory power). As tribal prestige would be gained, loyalty of internal tribes would increase; maybe some special kind of unstable vassal link ("tribal confederation", although the term is already used...) could be reached with neighboring tribe, at the cost of a flow of "tribal prestige" (therefore forcing the successful tribal ruler in a upwards to maintain the system). The tribal prestige accumulated would be largely lost if a war would be lost and at the ruler's death. Loss of tribal prestige would have immediate conséquences on internal tribes' loyalty and on the "confederated tribes". So maintaining such power would be difficult over time, and would require constant "proof" of superiority.
I hope this is interesting / helpful...
My understanding of the historical trend
When reading historical accounts, it seems that the majority of warfare by tribal entities aimed not at territorial expansion, but as a contrinuum of trade / extortion / war aimed at capturing rare and valuable resources (gold, prestigious manufactured goods, imperial princesses...). The continuum trade - extortion - raid - war can be seen in some cases where the tribal entity declared war after the nearby empire severed more "peaceful" links.
These resources could then be used by the tribal chief waging and winning the war, not so much to "build" stuff as in most computer strategy games, but to acquire intangible prestige by displaying them and distributing spoils to "clients", and therefore consolidate his political power. As his "prestige" (a very CK2 concept...) increased, then other clans or tribes, defeated or not, would rally to the succesful chief offering to share spoils in greater quantity. This remained quite a fragile construct of course, as the whole consolidation could fall apart if the flow of riches got interrupted. And so such empires disintegrated as soon as they emerged, often with the death of the ruler at the centre of the redistribution system, or his defeat.
Sorry I do not give concrete examples but hopefully this summarized analysis is clear enough without changing it into a scholarly essay with footnotes etc. If one example has to be given, I would say the history of Huns vs other steppe entities and finally vs Rome illustrate the full cycle quite well.
In PDS game terms.
Such a system was somewhat implemented in CK2 vanilla ("raid" function), but developed both in AGOT and LI mods. I can develop the later as I developed it (inspired by the AGOT system): tribals have a special casus belli against other tribals not aiming at territorial gain but at gaining prestige (at the expense of the looser's own prestige). Now contrarily to more settled empires, prestige is not a currency to be used; but also a currency to be capitalized. At 0 prestige, tribal entities are very weak. As prestige increases without being spent, the personal client networks get stronger and the tribal ruler gets a series of increasing bonii. Note that prestige can also be gained by other ways than war, although war and raiding remain the premium vector.
In Imperator: Rome,
Such a system can be simulated much better since the lower tribes are present in game with their own armies. Oratory power could be understood as the functional equivalent of "prestige". So a system can be imagined whereby tribal realms fight with each other to consolidate "tribal prestige" (in fact, oratory power). As tribal prestige would be gained, loyalty of internal tribes would increase; maybe some special kind of unstable vassal link ("tribal confederation", although the term is already used...) could be reached with neighboring tribe, at the cost of a flow of "tribal prestige" (therefore forcing the successful tribal ruler in a upwards to maintain the system). The tribal prestige accumulated would be largely lost if a war would be lost and at the ruler's death. Loss of tribal prestige would have immediate conséquences on internal tribes' loyalty and on the "confederated tribes". So maintaining such power would be difficult over time, and would require constant "proof" of superiority.
I hope this is interesting / helpful...
I get at CTD when trying this mod. I used the PARADOX MODS download link.
The craches error log states;
[12:58:10][pdx_packedheightmap.cpp:777]: Failed loading indirection map 'map_data/indirection_heightmap.bmp'
Trying to load the indirection_heightmap.bmp file in paint.net it seems corrupt.
The craches error log states;
[12:58:10][pdx_packedheightmap.cpp:777]: Failed loading indirection map 'map_data/indirection_heightmap.bmp'
Trying to load the indirection_heightmap.bmp file in paint.net it seems corrupt.
Do you have steam to check if you have the same issue there? Will look into this later if I have time
Great post, thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts! If you want to develop things further, don’t hesitate.This post intends is food for through on tribal warfare and political dynamics
My understanding of the historical trend
When reading historical accounts, it seems that the majority of warfare by tribal entities aimed not at territorial expansion, but as a contrinuum of trade / extortion / war aimed at capturing rare and valuable resources (gold, prestigious manufactured goods, imperial princesses...). The continuum trade - extortion - raid - war can be seen in some cases where the tribal entity declared war after the nearby empire severed more "peaceful" links.
These resources could then be used by the tribal chief waging and winning the war, not so much to "build" stuff as in most computer strategy games, but to acquire intangible prestige by displaying them and distributing spoils to "clients", and therefore consolidate his political power. As his "prestige" (a very CK2 concept...) increased, then other clans or tribes, defeated or not, would rally to the succesful chief offering to share spoils in greater quantity. This remained quite a fragile construct of course, as the whole consolidation could fall apart if the flow of riches got interrupted. And so such empires disintegrated as soon as they emerged, often with the death of the ruler at the centre of the redistribution system, or his defeat.
Sorry I do not give concrete examples but hopefully this summarized analysis is clear enough without changing it into a scholarly essay with footnotes etc. If one example has to be given, I would say the history of Huns vs other steppe entities and finally vs Rome illustrate the full cycle quite well.
In PDS game terms.
Such a system was somewhat implemented in CK2 vanilla ("raid" function), but developed both in AGOT and LI mods. I can develop the later as I developed it (inspired by the AGOT system): tribals have a special casus belli against other tribals not aiming at territorial gain but at gaining prestige (at the expense of the looser's own prestige). Now contrarily to more settled empires, prestige is not a currency to be used; but also a currency to be capitalized. At 0 prestige, tribal entities are very weak. As prestige increases without being spent, the personal client networks get stronger and the tribal ruler gets a series of increasing bonii. Note that prestige can also be gained by other ways than war, although war and raiding remain the premium vector.
In Imperator: Rome,
Such a system can be simulated much better since the lower tribes are present in game with their own armies. Oratory power could be understood as the functional equivalent of "prestige". So a system can be imagined whereby tribal realms fight with each other to consolidate "tribal prestige" (in fact, oratory power). As tribal prestige would be gained, loyalty of internal tribes would increase; maybe some special kind of unstable vassal link ("tribal confederation", although the term is already used...) could be reached with neighboring tribe, at the cost of a flow of "tribal prestige" (therefore forcing the successful tribal ruler in a upwards to maintain the system). The tribal prestige accumulated would be largely lost if a war would be lost and at the ruler's death. Loss of tribal prestige would have immediate conséquences on internal tribes' loyalty and on the "confederated tribes". So maintaining such power would be difficult over time, and would require constant "proof" of superiority.
I hope this is interesting / helpful...
Could you perhaps try the direct download here on the forums instead?
Are there going to be any province border tweaks? For some reason the provinces around Picensia don't follow the Danube.
Hey, I have an idea for the Senate and Council mechanics, a completely overhaul of the factions system, I mean, I find the "civic, mercantile, military, religious and populist" system no-sense and a bit outdated, for Rome, fror example can be (historically):
-Optimati (patricians, land-owners, officers...) in a modern word we can define them as "right-wing"
-Populares (Plebeians) in a modern word we can define them as "left-wing"
-Proletari, which has nothing to do with socialism, comes from the italian word "prole" which means "children" identified the people who have nothing except his own family (foreigners, slaves...) they can be identified as "populist"
-Optimati (patricians, land-owners, officers...) in a modern word we can define them as "right-wing"
-Populares (Plebeians) in a modern word we can define them as "left-wing"
-Proletari, which has nothing to do with socialism, comes from the italian word "prole" which means "children" identified the people who have nothing except his own family (foreigners, slaves...) they can be identified as "populist"