Landed titles, map and titles history refactor #33
Conversation
Wouldn't it be easier to just rename miaphystism to miaphysite? |
We could, but then it's not conformal with vanilla CK3's naming scheme for religions. Those sorts of changes can be done with a single line in bash, so I have no strong feelings either way. |
Ok, no problems, then we will retain the existing name. |
|
840d343 covers k_annonaria as well as giving a sense of what should be changed with each commit:
@loup99 I'll try and keep each commit packaged as a separate (new) de jure kingdom to allow for easier analysis if you have additional concerns. |
|
With 570ba92, the refactor of e_italy is finished (pending reviews). As I noted previously, I've been recording specific changes I've made to the map and how I came about various pieces of information. Below is the map for e_italy**: Key:
** Hopefully no one working on this mod is colorblind, because I just realized the colorblind might have trouble seeing the distinctions here. If need be, I'll remake with a better color scale. Yellow:
Orange:
No CK3 duchies or kingdoms have been deleted; they've been left as titular titles under their respective lieges for further consideration (whether to keep or remove). |
Good.
I presume you meant duchies as opposed to baronnies? Is it possible otherwise to have titular dukes as vassals that are playable? The thing with the Pope is that since he isn't playable he does not necessarily have to have a barony, couldn't he just have the religious title? In particular for the Vatican, which is a much more modern construct as such. The St. Peter's Basilica existed, but without any palace. The Lateran Palace would be a more accurate name, I think. It might be more interesting for players to land the prefecture? Although on the other hand it is interesting to have the Pope landed in Rome. That being said the prefecture probably had more power. I don't feel strongly one way or the other.
Makes sense.
Do you mean personal control in history? No problems, but the rest confuses me geographically. Because I don't see in de jure how Brixia ends up in Tyrol?
I approve this change.
Ok.
In de jure or history? Or both? For history the personal demesne of Romulus Augustulus can indeed be changed. But in terms of de jure I don't know if that would make sense.
Do you mean CK2? Because I don't see how you have lieges for CK3 duchies or kingdoms in 476? Could you give an example of this? |
loup99
changed the title
Right, I meant duchies. We can't land the Roman Prefecture or the Papacy without carving out new counties from c_roma. I sure we can leave the Pope unlanded as a vassal. I don't have many strong feelings on this, so when you decide how you want to approach landing/unlanding the Pope/Roman prefecture; let me know and I can make the proper changes.
c_brixia was part of Romulus Augustulus' demense in WtWSMS; finer map detail would mean that he gets territory in d_tyrol.
c_karnten (Santicium) was situated west of Aquileia in WtWSMS. The two orange counties north of Groz are constituent parts of c_karnten in CK3 and more accurately map to c_steirmark in the new map, so I move their ownership and de_jure relationship to better match the maps I listed.
Under k_annonaria a set of Titular Duchies exist (line 3090 under most recent commit). These include: d_istria, d_krain, d_friuli, d_verona, d_lombardia, d_piedmonte, and d_emilia. They are from CK3 and have not been deleted but merely left as titular duchies with empty histories until a decision is made about them. In particular, I left them there in case we want to further subdivide some larger duchies (like d_histria) ===== For additional reference, if you want a depiction of the independent realms I've included them below (so you don't have to switch branches and load into CK3 if you need a look at a glance).
|
|
aa4eecf provides initial de jure duchy division in Gaul. Most duchies are the same, except for two differences: Narabonensis was divided into two provinces (in line with traditional Roman divisions) and Maxima Sequanorum was divided into two duchies (Alpes Poeninae and Maxima Sequanorum). Some of the duchies appear overly large (>7 counties) including:
I figure I'd get some feedback before continuing with e_gaul, incase there were subdivisions we wanted to make. I have not modified county layout (i.e., some counties still bridge the Rhine) yet as I wanted to get a good sense of the de jure kingdom/duchy layout before doing more detailed map work. |
I have a hard time determining, but I think the influence of the Pope should be mostly religious while the Roman Prefecture would rather be a landed force, so I would tend towards that solution.
Ok, as long as the county of Brixia remains inside Histria.
Ok, the new level of detail in this region with vanilla map changes doesn't necessarily make sense for the WtWSMS as it is rather peripheral but we will keep it anyway.
As stated in the past I approve dividing Histria et Venetia in two, Histria and Venetia. None of the other duchies you list make sense for 476.
Thanks, Odoacer would preferably only have one single province/barony (ideally he is actually landless) if possible and it looks like the Ostrogoths hold a lot of land, but maybe the new province divisions make it seem like that. |
This one should not include Burdigala, the entire Garonne estuary should be in Aquitanica.
Difficult to subdivide, you could add an Aquitanica Inferior around Limonum and a an Aquitanica Superior around Burdigala. That is the only idea I have, if you have another I'm open to it.
Subdivide into Lugdunensis II and III?
Senonia? |
Thinking about this some more, we may want to consider adding some new baronies in Rome and (especially) Constantinople. Perhaps the Praefectus Urbi or Eparchs of Constantinople could be vassal mercenaries like legions were in WtWSMS, but I haven't tested it yet. It might be better to unland both the Pope/Patriarch and the Praefectus Urbi until we can find a better solution; the new DLC data is supposed to drop during PDX-con and that might give us some better options.
Brescia is part of Romulus' demense; it is Brixen that is in Tyrol and that was what was changed.
Jus tot be clear, you mean keep my proposed changes, or revert ownership to Romulus?
I'll put that on the stack of changes to do. The other empires/kingdoms/duchies from Vanilla CK3 that have been render irrelevant/obsolete have been put in BP_titles_unused_vanilla_CK3.txt for now to partition them from the active titles.
It is possible to have them unlanded, but the game will prevent them from being playable unfortunately (I've just tested that hypothesis). =====
So more like this map?
Unless I get a better idea, I'll go with that.
Makes sense as Brittany is separated from Lugdunensis III. OTOH, that'll mean that two of the late Roman Provinces of the Diocese of Galliae that were Titular in WtWSMS are now de jure (not complaining, just pointing out an inconsistency in Northern France). Lugdunensis II, III, and IV were all titular in WTWSMS, as was Belgica Prima, as they were vassals of the Domain of Soissons. Although, d_lugdunum already closely follows Lugunensis I, so precedent exists on that front. I'm fine with doing that so long as you are.
Might be easier to give Cambrai and Hainaut to d_camaracum instead. Based on this conversation here's what I'm envisioning:
Pink - Lugdunensis II =====
Let me know of any concerns. |
As long as all baronies can be clicked by the player I'm fine with that. Although I think Vaticano doesn't necessarily make sense for our period as an important barony, so we should probably pick another sub-holding. We could add a province modifier to represent the Pope being present nonetheless.
Ok, my bad then.
Keep yours, Romulus' personal demesne isn't really historical anyway.
Ok.
Unfortunate, you could I believe mod it in for CK2.
No problems, but then that should probably change in WtWSMS too, doesn't make much sense.
Yes, or like the 395 administrative maps, the border is similar.
I had already suggested this change in the past, others had agreed but we never got around doing it for reasons that escape me. I think none of them would be titular ideally.
Which could be renamed, although that might create confusion.
I will review the capitals to fix it in WtWSMS as well.
Is d_upper_durius a part of Tarraconensis? And just in terms of history, the new duchy should get its own vassal duke. |
I have no issue with that, what replacement do you have in mind?
Alright, I'll refactor accordingly.
Easy fix if you have a name in mind.
It's part of k_tarraconensis because of the underlying geography, yes. And a hypothetical duke in 476, correct? Either that, or we split it between the adjoining rulers otherwise. Some of those counties are baronies in CK2. |
Tibur/Tivoli would be more important, no?
Well, I was thinking of Belgica Secunda.
Well, for much of the period between 476-600 if not all of it. It could be split otherwise, I don't have any preference as long as the overall balance is kept and no historical ruler is removed (as always see comments in files to distinguish fictional and historical). |
Already a county on the map. Maybe Campus Martius?
Done.
Noted. ===== ===== Known issue with 4e8d9d9: d_celtica, d_gallia, and d_lugdunensis_tertia are not properly becoming vassals of k_soissons. Nothing is really jumping out of the error log, so I'll have to revisit it again with a fresh set of eyes tomorrow. ===== Updated status map for 4e8d9d9 (sans localizations). Blue are changes I made that have been accepted; the remainder of the key is as per the previous post. The yellow county had ownership changed so k_burgundians didn't have enclaves surrounded by d_gallia.
|
Ok.
I think it might be because they were settled as a foederati and already installed by 476, but it doesn't necessarily make much sense, although their territory does correspond rather well with Maxima Sequanorum. They could hold both, but then upon succession the kingdom would split, so should probably be a titular one
Ok, is it b_rais which is controversial? The Loire should be the border, so your change makes sense. |
Okay, then I've given them a titular title k_burgundians now and made the necessary changes in the history (for 476). ===== Independent Realms:
For recording purposes, I've listed all the counties I've mapped localizations from on this map. I stopped at d_novempopulana as you can see.
And some processing notes here.
|
That doesn't make sense, Luxembourg is a much later name and organisation. Add rather Belgica Prima. |
| skirian = cn_arretium | ||
| thuringian = cn_arretium | ||
| ostrogothic = cn_arretium | ||
| } | ||
| color = { 230 155 15 } | ||
| color2 = { 255 255 255 } | ||
| } | ||
| b_vallombrosa = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This one is anachronistic, we have to find an alternative settlement since it is on the map.
Added Belgica Prima. It's historic location had its capital at Trier, so I replaced the d_belgica_prima in the current title history with d_verodunum (as it is closer to the actual location of Agricus Aemilus' court). ==== |
|
With 5b4b689, e_britannia is remapped. There exist four new problems in the history:
These issue are highlighted with hot pink squares in the independent realms map. I'm wondering if there's some history collison problem with vanilla that's not resolving correctly; the mod replacement path info should be overwriting that data without concern. Independent Realms: Processing Info: |
Might be related to the names issue? We will see when @AvalonXD will have finished his work in the other pull request if that addresses it or not. |
There is an user who offered to help out for the remaining localisation, so that should hopefully speed things up overall. 🙂 |
It might be; I've purposefully not dove too deep into fixing it (beyond double/triple checking the history files for errors associated with them) to keep up forward momentum of the other aspects of the title work. When Avalon's work is merged in, I'll rebase and see if it fixes it.
That'd be terrific; localization (while it's important) is by far the slowest part of the whole process (by far, I spent most of my time doing localization work than all other aspects of the combined) and my goal is to get the title set up done so other people would be able to start testing on mechanics they want to work on (e.g., migration wars, Henotikon, Religious Councils, Rise of Islam, &c.). I figure that getting the titles in a more complete state will open up far more areas of the mod for testing/implementation. ===== With 62f93a0, e_north_africa is done; I've focused on porting WtWSMS history over the (eventual) refactor of Roman-Berber title locations (the map here means there's some significant moving around to be done). I'll look into fixing the Romano-Berber locations when I get to e_sahara, which I've slated to be done after e_byzantium, e_persia, and e_germania_magna. Or I might do e_sahara after e_byzantium, depending on which I feel more driven to do. Either way, it'll wait until after I finish e_byzantium. So, view North Africa as an interim state right now and I'll get back to it in a bit. Independent Realms: WtWSMS Mapping Information: ==== Since I'm starting on e_byzantium now, I figure I'll raise some concerns I had with e_armenia. From maps like this one, Roman control was historically tentative and limited in Colchis and Caucasia, while control of Anatolia was far more established. So I think those Armenian provinces of Anatolia should be part of e_byzantium instead, while Colchis should be part of e_armenia. Likewise, I'm not certain making Crimea and the Bosporous de jure part of e_byzantium is quite the right design move, as the Bosporan Kingdom was only ever a Roman client. So @loup99, I propose the following redistribution of territory between e_armenia and e_byzantium (left is roughly a straight porting of WtWSMS to CK3, right is my proposal):
Pink is Armenia, Violet is Byzantium. If need be, we might give Byzantium a special casus belli like "Laudably Conquer County" in vanilla CK3 to establish control in Crimea instead of leaving it awkwardly de jure part of byzantium. I'll be working on other parts of byzantium and save that portion for last so we can hash out how to divide territory accordingly. |
I agree with you, just porting more basic events and decisions requires the titles to be in.
Ok, I approve this redistribution.
What we discussed in the past was to have on the one hand the Reconquest CB and then another CB that goes further than that to cover areas like Crimea. Or you could envision refactoring the Reconquest CB to have it being gradual. Although the priority should be the map for now. |
In line with WtWSMS, e_scandinavia includes k_norway and k_sweden; it didn't precisely line up with the Sami areas. The current map e_scandinavia includes k_norway and k_sweden while e_finland includes k_sapmi (most, but not all of the Sami region). So I can make k_sapmi bigger/add another Sami kingdom south & west of Sapmi, but I don't think it's strictly required as that wasn't the requirement in WtWSMS.
That jutting portion is the remainder of k_poland after portioning off e_germania_magna. Essentially it is d_thorunium from WtWSMS, ending in c_sacz in both cases. I wasn't sure if it was to be kept or adjoin the southern portion (rump d_lesser_poland) to k_galicia-volhynia and the upper portion (d_mazovia) to k_lithuania. Thinking about it now, splitting it thusly would probably look nicer.
I kept the CK3 de jure kingdoms and selected the ones that were entirely balto-finnic or volga-finnic and weren't in e_volga-ural to become part of e_finland: k_bjarmaland, k_novgorod, k_estonia, and k_vladimir all fit. This brings it surprisingly close to WtWSMS e_finland in Europe (e_finland includes k_novgorod in WtWSMS and k_perm [which approximately includes vladimir and bjarmaland]). There should probably be some minor border adjustments here and there, but that's probably less than 5 counties; the overall dimensions look pretty good to me.
That'll work then; it will contain 5 vanilla CK3 kingdoms (k_kipchak, k_zhetysu, k_dzungaria, k_kotan, and k_transoxiana). ===== Applying everything above, that should be pretty balanced. The only one-kingdom empire would be e_wendish_empire, containing k_lithuania, which was the case in WtWSMS. All other empires contain at least two kingdoms, may have more. ===== e_tartaria partially done; I didn't fill in all the xiongnu provinces, instead only doing the ones I could map from WtWSMS. Likewise I mapped the d_tiele province as well. I figure most of those are either xiongnu or kipchak based on this map so I didn't make any strong decisions there for the time being, preferring to leave them for when we have a better picture of Mongolia and the surrounding environs. Found some information on the Licchavi Kingdom in Nepal and added those few provinces. Additional bugfixes as well. Independent Realms: Processing Map: |
Also comments out vanilla saka from cultures to avoid mislabeling issues with sakan.
Convert chuyue to xiongnu in line with SirDiesAlot suggestions
Missed Nuristani loclaizations
Fix government error
k_norway and k_sweden should be reduced in the North in favour of k_sapmi, in WtWSMS there was a limit between Sami and Norse, but k_sapmi didn't exist originally, before we added it. k_sapmi should cover the approximate cultural/religious border, so I would extend it southwards.
Not only does it look nicer, but I think those areas have more in common than with this.
Ok, the border of k_estonia is the one which has changed that I see, so I think that one might need another look at the level of counties. |
Moved fully Sami duchies into k_sapmi.
Done.
Moved d_latigalians into k_esthonia. Updated empires map based on the above:
Note I've still kept those 3 Indian kingdoms (k_kashmir, k_himalaya, and k_burma) out of the indian empires because of their lack of history. I should move them back today. |
|
65418b0 implements k_germania_magna, including a number of minor adjustments to the boundaries between tribes and ethnic groups. f6f61dc implements k_lithuantia
Managed a fix for some of the British islands history. Galloway and Strathclyde still have government/religion bug. Independent Realms: Processing Map: |
|
Closing as #38 will overtake this development. |
I notice Abian36's British history was merged, so I'm pulling the combined landed_titles and history/titles data back in. Design on this front should be cleaner and easier to follow than the previous local branch and #29 (which can be safely deleted now).
65b66e3 combines the work on #2 into a single commit; it is not strictly required for this effort, but it makes it far easier for me to keep track of my work and align things better with WtWSMS.
@AvalonXD: I'll keep additions to the character file limited to a single file and localize my changes to the character files to insular commits, so you don't have to worry about collision with your work on the character files; any changes I make to the existing character history are mostly to resolve annoyances on my end while I am working on this (e.g., changing miaphysite to miaphystism to avoid having akkom faith Byzantine emperors).
With @loup99's input on #30, #26, and #2, I think I can do a better, cleaner job on this branch, especially in light of how I have a better grasp on how WtWSMS organized its barony/county/duchy/kingdom/empire history.
====
TODOs:
Implement loup's changes to roman barony localizations.