Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

[Submod] Gaea 1.4.5d (Updated Map) - 04/08/2019

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69941 Bug Reports 19717 User Modifications 10604 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6373 After Action Reports
Hey Guys,

I have let this sit in beta for plenty of time and made a ton of provincial corrections thanks to all the feedback I received (Thanks Everyone!). In addition to that, I finally got around to creating an all new trees file to go alongside the new topography (see below for examples of the updates).

Now that all the files have been adjusted for my updated topography, I figured now was as good a time as ever to just release the update as the 1.0.

Hope everyone likes the updates!

ck2_3.png
ck2_9.png
ck2_10.png
ck2_4.png
ck2_11.png
ck2_12.png
ck2_7.png
 

Attachments

  • ck2_7.png
    ck2_7.png
    4,3 MB · Views: 6
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Thank you for the release mate.
Cheers
 
So, I was bored tonight and decided to revamp the kingdom setup of Anatolia, Western Armenia and Western Assyria. I wanted to move it away from the 4th crusade setup it currently has (being that the game starts in 867 AD...) and moved them to, in my opinion, a more accurate portrayal of the geopolitical realities of the region at the time (Under the hypothetical situation of Anatolia being carved into independent kingdoms).

Let me know what you think. This is nothing official, just the product of boredom...

ck2_1.png
ck2_2.png
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
nsinger998 said:
I like what I'm seeing but perhaps it would make more sense to use the actual roman provinces/dioceses instead of hypotheticals?
Click to expand...
Well, those are basically that circa the late 8th century, at least in Anatolia specifically.

The whole Antioch versus Damascus think annoys me, it should really be Antioch is the Christian capital of Syria, Damascus is the Islamic capital of Syria. But they shouldnt be two seperate kingdoms. I don't know how to deal with that in the code yet.
 
Marinakis said:
Well, those are basically that circa the late 8th century, at least in Anatolia specifically.

The whole Antioch versus Damascus think annoys me, it should really be Antioch is the Christian capital of Syria, Damascus is the Islamic capital of Syria. But they shouldnt be two seperate kingdoms. I don't know how to deal with that in the code yet.
Click to expand...

I'm no code expert, but I'd tie the two different kingdoms to their respective religions - Christian/Greek Orthodox and Islamic respectively. One of them could be titular - depending on which was the less longer lived. That might allow you to have Antioch as the capital of one kingdom and Damascus the capital of the other kingdom.
 
Could you do something about Greece too? I mean if the Levant emulating Crusade era dejure in the 860's is bad, then Greece emulating post 4th crusade dejure four centuries before it happens is worse. I mostly just hate Thessalonika and it's weird set up, since its namesake city isn't even its capital.
 
Urzhail64 said:
I'm no code expert, but I'd tie the two different kingdoms to their respective religions - Christian/Greek Orthodox and Islamic respectively. One of them could be titular - depending on which was the less longer lived. That might allow you to have Antioch as the capital of one kingdom and Damascus the capital of the other kingdom.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I will play around with that and see how effective that is.

EmperorG said:
Could you do something about Greece too? I mean if the Levant emulating Crusade era dejure in the 860's is bad, then Greece emulating post 4th crusade dejure four centuries before it happens is worse. I mostly just hate Thessalonika and it's weird set up, since its namesake city isn't even its capital.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was planning on it.

Parasite03 said:
Using names of Byznatine themes for the kingdoms seems awkward. Also not a fan of the one-duchy Ar-Ruha.
Click to expand...

I could rename them to the geographic regions: Thrakesion - Lydia, Osikion - Bithynia, Armeniakon - Pontos, Anatolikon - Anatolia or Kappadocia. Also, the Ar-Ruha is actually 3 duchies, and its only called Ar-Ruha because its currently under Arabic control. The area actually represents western Assyria.

k_osroene = { # Osroene
color = { 128 0 0 }
color2 = { 255 255 255 }
greek = "Osrhoení"
roman = "Osroene"
assyrian = "Bet Suryaye"
armenian = "Yedesia"
persian = "Chosroes"
oghuz = "Urfa"
turkmen = "Urfa"
turkish = "Urfa"
maghreb_arabic = "Ar-Ruha"
levantine_arabic = "Ar-Ruha"
egyptian_arabic = "Ar-Ruha"
andalusian_arabic = "Ar-Ruha"
sicilian_arabic = "Ar-Ruha"
bedouin_arabic = "Ar-Ruha"
kurdish = "Rohais"
capital = 699 # Edessa
culture = assyrian
orthodox = 300 # Crusade target weight
muslim = 200 # Crusade target weight
allow = {
title_king_basic_allow = yes
}

Edessa would be the capital of Western Assyria and Mosul the capital of Eastern Assyria (Al-Jazira currently)

I also want to break Armenia into 3 kingdoms - Taron in the west (A Byzantine friendly kingdom), Vaspurakan in the southeast and "Armenia" in the northeast. I then want to figure out a way that if an Armenian king gets all 3 kingdom titles, he can form "Greater Armenia," which is really whats on the map currently and hasn't been seen in the world since classical times.

I need to confirm that I can even release this as a sub-mod before going too far. This is getting pretty far astray from my original mod intent.
 
Last edited:
Marinakis said:
Better?
Click to expand...

Much better! Finally a sensible way to partition Anatolia and Greece to my vassals in a way that doesn't feel absurd. :D
 
Marinakis said:
Keep in mind these are Greek mainland and Greek-Anatolian Kingdoms, as such, they cannot be formed while Byzantium exists
Click to expand...

Doesn't stop me from using console commands to get the titles. ;)
 
nsinger998 said:
They can be created as Byzantium by changing the kingdom creation laws.

I like what I'm seeing, but what are you basing Anatolia on?
Click to expand...

I would rathere leave the restrictions.

Anatolia is based on the administrative divisons of the first themes in Anatolia before they were deemed too big/powerful in the 8th century.

So the logic is that a rebellious kingdom would likely follow the administrative and cultural boundries of the late 8th centuries rather than those of the 13th century.

There is no right ot wrong answer because a declaration of independence of a major kingdom in Greece or Anatolia didn't happen until the 4th crusade... so it's all guesswork
 
Marinakis said:
There is no right ot wrong answer because a declaration of independence of a major kingdom in Greece or Anatolia didn't happen until the 4th crusade... so it's all guesswork
Click to expand...

It didn't happen because if you were powerful enough to declare independence, you were strong enough to try to claim the throne, it only happened in the post 4th crusade period because the Empire was shattered by an invasion force. But I like the idea of things going off script in game, so I don't mind the idea of creating such powerful viceroys that might break free.
 
I'd just like to chime in that, unfortunately, I won't be trying this mod and potentially using it for a playthrough if the de jure setup of SWMH (and EMF+SWMH by extension) will be altered. It'll no longer work with MiniSWMH (before de jure changes, it did perfectly), and it'll potentially not even work correctly with EMF depending upon what gets altered and what EMF ever further alters [on campaign startup or during the course of various events and consequence of various mechanics in-game] on top of what it assumes to be SWMH or MiniSWMH.

So, yeah, talking about de jure changes is cool and all, but you might want to separate those ambitions from the beautiful [though I can't speak to its accuracy or aesthetics/utility in game, because I hadn't yet gotten around to trying it] map mod you've got in development here.
 
Ι also wouldn't like the setup to be changed, as Ziji already said.
Cause it will greatly break compatibility with HIP's basic mods.
 
zijistark said:
I'd just like to chime in that, unfortunately, I won't be trying this mod and potentially using it for a playthrough if the de jure setup of SWMH (and EMF+SWMH by extension) will be altered. It'll no longer work with MiniSWMH (before de jure changes, it did perfectly), and it'll potentially not even work correctly with EMF depending upon what gets altered and what EMF ever further alters [on campaign startup or during the course of various events and consequence of various mechanics in-game] on top of what it assumes to be SWMH or MiniSWMH.

So, yeah, talking about de jure changes is cool and all, but you might want to separate those ambitions from the beautiful [though I can't speak to its accuracy or aesthetics/utility in game, because I hadn't yet gotten around to trying it] map mod you've got in development here.
Click to expand...

I was actually going to release it (if approved) as a sub mod of my sub mod. I was never going to alter province setups for my Gaea mod. With that being said, you make an excelent point I haven't put that much thought into. I'm just going to hold off on doing anything with the provinces setup atm, it could create a much bigger headache for myself than its worth.

Thanks for the heads up zijistark, much appreciated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back