View Full Version : Two strange things I just saw
Yes, but I think that Kris was referring to something else (that suddently one kingdom breaks up into several kingdoms.
It is not done by rebels who popped up, it is what I call "dynastical crisis"
I would prefer some simple checking, if the name of the country already exists in game. If so, then rename the new/the existing country to something different, wether this could be done. If the new country is braking away from a foreign country, a solution may be simply unite it with the existing country of that name.To be honest this kind of checking would be much more complicated than suggestions I made.
And how should the kingdom be named? When rebels in Bohemia take the city how should they generlay be called? Give me at least the kind of change. Rebel Bohemia? Rebellia? and what if there is 10 of Rebellias?
What shuold be the simple key to name the new kingdom?
and why should the old kingdom get renamed just because it lost it's capital province?
To be honest this kind of checking would be much more complicated than suggestions I made.
I think, your suggestions also need some kind of checking. So I don't se the difference in this point. Or how would your point 2 working without checking if there are two states with same name and without checking which state is twice?
And how should the kingdom be named?
I could imagine different solutions. One of this may be, they use the name of the town instead of the name of the province. Ore they take a name from a list. This list may be available for each kingdom if not for each province.
When rebels in Bohemia take the city how should they generlay be called? Give me at least the kind of change. Rebel Bohemia? Rebellia? and what if there is 10 of Rebellias?
Hussites. :biggrin: :wink:
What shuold be the simple key to name the new kingdom?Look abouve. Take a name from list and it's done. A more developed solution would be better, but I would be glad with this.
and why should the old kingdom get renamed just because it lost it's capital province?
Becouse it is the capital province? You are no loonger Duke, Earl *Whatever* of XYZ if you don't own XYZ. Use your imagination, and you will find a history example or explanation. There may be some further things involved, but this is a different thread.
I think, your suggestions also need some kind of checking. So I don't se the difference in this point. Or how would your point 2 working without checking if there are two states with same name and without checking which state is twice?I don't think so. As I understand your suggestion it is more of checking which would need some special script. My suggestion would need only one very simple script which would disable peace treaties of combinations listed in the script. And there you'd only paste all provincial names into 2 columns (+ in some cases also other names, where the key name is diferent from name displayed in the game)
I could imagine different solutions. One of this may be, they use the name of the town instead of the name of the province. Ore they take a name from a list. This list may be available for each kingdom if not for each province.almost half of provinces use name of the capital as province's name (look in Russia, Africa and Asia)
If you are able to make a list for each province? ok? but with my historical knowledge I don't think I could find any special and correct name for EVERY SINGLE province in the game.
Hussites. :biggrin: :wink:ok, that is for Bohemia in 1350 (I can't imagine hussites in the same era when Khazars and kingdom of Lotharingia exist. I don't know about any name for Bohemia (my homeland) for 2 of 3 periods. And for Moravia (2nd province of my homeland) I don't know any single name. How could we make such list for 168 provinces where hardly 50 have SOME name for some 1, or max 2 periods?
And furthemore, If hussites, so they would need to have special religion. They were neither catholic nor just excomiunicated. They were religious movement, not just local uprising led by some local guy.
I'm not against the idea, I just can't imagine how to make it working :wink:
Look abouve. Take a name from list and it's done. A more developed solution would be better, but I would be glad with this.
you know, it is very easy to say "do this" and "do that", but unless you start to think how would you do it and think about possibilities to find everything to make it, you will never see how hard is it to incorporate the idea in a game.
Becouse it is the capital province? You are no loonger Duke, Earl *Whatever* of XYZ if you don't own XYZ. Use your imagination, and you will find a history example or explanation. There may be some further things involved, but this is a different thread.
I use my imagination and what I see? Roman empire, ok? it lost Rome, and after some time there were 2 and later even 3 Roman empires. (so called Byzantine empire-the oficial title was Roman empire in Greek, Western (Holy) Roman empire founded by Otto the Great, and Seljuk Sultanate of Rum - Rum in Arabic and Turkish means Rome) Thing which is interesting is that neither of them held Rome!
Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary in 15th century was officialy recognized as king of Bohemia while he never ruled any single square meter of Bohemia, Frederick II. being recognized as king of Jerusalem while he just visited the Holy Land once. Do you need more examples of kingdoms WITHOUT the "capital province" still using the name?
In middle ages it was much more common than changing the name (ATM I can't remember of any :bash: could you help me?)
My suggestion would need only one very simple script which would disable peace treaties of combinations listed in the script. And there you'd only paste all provincial names into 2 columns (+ in some cases also other names, where the key name is diferent from name displayed in the game)
I'm afraid, you will need more. Please look below.
If you are able to make a list for each province? ok? but with my historical knowledge I don't think I could find any special and correct name for EVERY SINGLE province in the game.
Would you call the actual used names correct? I don't. There is no need for special and 100% correct names. They only need to SOUND correct in some ways. Since the KoH provinces are drawn not very accurate one could use nearly any name of that area, as far it sounds medieval enough.
I'm from Germany so I take an example from Germany. Lets start in the north, there we find Saxony and Mecklenburg. An rebelling province of Saxony could be named Bremen, Braunschweig, Oldenburg and so on, provinces from Mecklenburg may become Holstein, Ratzeburg, Werle, Stargard, Rostock, Schwerin ... Most of this names where for cities and regions too.
Yes, it needs hard work, to do such lists with more then one name for all provinces, but if YOU aren't able to do, this don't mean it's not possible.
ok, that is for Bohemia in 1350
(I can't imagine hussites in the same era when Khazars and kingdom of Lotharingia exist. I don't know about any name for Bohemia (my homeland) for 2 of 3 periods. And for Moravia (2nd province of my homeland) I don't know any single name. How could we make such list for 168 provinces where hardly 50 have SOME name for some 1, or max 2 periods?
And furthemore, If hussites, so they would need to have special religion. They were neither catholic nor just excomiunicated. They were religious movement, not just local uprising led by some local guy.
No offense, but this seems not a fair line of argument to me. You asked and I named your "rebelling Bohemians" "Hussites" (knowing this probably wouldn't working in KoH that way, so I put two smilies in). I remember you asking for historical and correct names - there you have one. I personally couldn't imagine a better name for a rebelling Bohemian (esp. in late middle ages). But now you argue they would need a new religion!?! No, they surley don't. The Rome-Avignon schism is not represented in KoH as well. If every religious or political characteristics should be represented in the game, we would discuss forever. ;)
As for Hussites different eras. Well, it dosn't hurt me, but if you argue, you couldn't imagine Hussites (or whatever) in early or high middle ages, then I could answer: Fine, but you could imgaine a Moravia under bohemian rule in 1000 AD? You can imagine independent Essex, East Anglia, Wessex, York, ... in 1000 AD? You can imagine Burgundy being a vasall of FRANCE in 1000 AD (or was it 900 AD? Didn't remember and can't view into the game now)? If so, I don't see, why Hussites should not arise during the game that only started around 1000/900 AD.
you know, it is very easy to say "do this" and "do that", but unless you start to think how would you do it and think about possibilities to find everything to make it, you will never see how hard is it to incorporate the idea in a game.
You are right, I only had a rough suggestion, but IMHO this suggestion is based on things that are not that complicated. I didn't say it HAS to be done this way. But in some aspects "my" solution seems to beat yours. Example:
What happens to your solution, if your original kingdom has "moved" far, far away from it's former cores? What, if Bohemia is situated (only) in the Balkans or even in Greece or Asia when the rebells splits away from foreign rule and declare war on this far away "mother" Bohemia? --> Both countries may get weaker and weaker for no reason.
What happens, if one or both Bohemias start to conquer half Europe instaed of fighting eachother to death? How would you make sure they are really fighting eachoter? What, if the war last forever? You only could prevented both Behemias from making peace with eachother, but you could not prevented them from occuring rebells or from war-weariness and you could not make sure, one Bohemia is really beaten the otherone within a reasonable time span.
You see, I allready tought about possibilities. I think, provinces splitting away from foreign rule will happen more often in KoH then splitting away from "mother country". This is becouse of nostalgia and different religion and so on. So the solution with uniting the rebells with the (former) mother seems much more seasonable to me then force them to make a (contingently neverending) war.
On the other hand, you are right, making and include a long list for all that provinces is hard. But to be honest... I'm afraid this will be working better then your solution. Don't get me wrong, I would like such a feature. But I'm afraid it would not work in KoH. This "not working" is meant from a gameplay point of fiew, not from pure technical view.
I use my imagination and what I see? Roman empire, ok? it lost Rome, and after some time there were 2 and later even 3 Roman empires. (so called Byzantine empire-the oficial title was Roman empire in Greek, Western (Holy) Roman empire founded by Otto the Great, and Seljuk Sultanate of Rum - Rum in Arabic and Turkish means Rome) Thing which is interesting is that neither of them held Rome!
Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary in 15th century was officialy recognized as king of Bohemia while he never ruled any single square meter of Bohemia, Frederick II. being recognized as king of Jerusalem while he just visited the Holy Land once. Do you need more examples of kingdoms WITHOUT the "capital province" still using the name?
In middle ages it was much more common than changing the name (ATM I can't remember of any :bash: could you help me?)Your imagination seems pretty weak. :biggrin: I'm sorry, but I really hope, your examples are not meant to be serious. :scratch: AFAIK claiming such a title was motivated more religios or for claiming to be some kind of "king of the kings" or "ruler of the world", then with real ruling Rome or Jerusalem. I wold make a difference betwen a claimed title and being ruler of that land.
Yes, claiming titles or foreign crowns was very common as was rule simply by name. The norman kings of England claimed to be king of France as well. In the end, they lost their former "core provinces" in France exept Calais. So the Angevin Empire no longer exist - now it was only the Kingdom of England. Sure, this is not really "split away" with rebellion, but the old core province Normandy got lost and the "New" Kingdom is not called "Angevin Empire" or "Normandy Kingdom" or such, even if the rulers of England now were normans form Normandy.
Next example is the danish England. Knut the Great was ruler of England, Denmark and Norway. He saw himself as King of England, then he inherited Denmark from his Brother and conquered Norway as well. His inheritors splitted the kingdom, and then England got lost to Godwin of Essex. In this case, we could state by using our imagination, the "province England" got lost for the "Kingdom of England", the newly formed Kingdom is called "England", the existing former "Kindom of England" now is "Kingdom of Denmark/Norway".
Another example may be the splitings of the Carlemangne Empire. The contract of Mersen split the former Kingdom of Lothar (Lotharingen ---> Lothringen) between Ludwig the German (---> Germany), Ludwig II and Karl II. Parts of the Kingdom of Lothar II. still exist for a few years in northern Italy, but this parts become Burgundy (Lower B. and High B.) and Italy. Using our Imagination: The Kingdom of Loth(a)ringen don't longer exist under it's old name (well, a smaller province with this name exist, but under "foreign" rule), and the left former parts of this Kingdom now become "Burgundy" and "Italy".
Sure, all this didn't happen exactly the way like it do in KoH, but thats why I said "use your imagination". Beside that, KoH is not claimning to be a history game. I know, IF we use our imagination, it is not hard to find an example for nearly every possible situation in games like KoH. This is, why I often don't count such "historical" arguments very much - it is always easy to find a coutner example.
Would you call the actual used names correct? I don't. There is no need for special and 100% correct names. They only need to SOUND correct in some ways. Since the KoH provinces are drawn not very accurate one could use nearly any name of that area, as far it sounds medieval enough.
I'm from Germany so I take an example from Germany. Lets start in the north, there we find Saxony and Mecklenburg. An rebelling province of Saxony could be named Bremen, Braunschweig, Oldenburg and so on, provinces from Mecklenburg may become Holstein, Ratzeburg, Werle, Stargard, Rostock, Schwerin ... Most of this names where for cities and regions too.
this suggestion isn't bad, but again. It can work in Germany where you have dozens of small regions in one KoH province. I don't discuss this in order to improve actual KoH with it's terrible provinces. I already made suggestion of map for KoH2 (if possible I'll make this map for my mod) where the provinces are far more accurate.
Still I can't imagine this in Africa and Russia.
On the other hand this idea sounds good to me and generaly could work :go:
But now you argue they would need a new religion!?! No, they surley don't. The Rome-Avignon schism is not represented in KoH as well. 1) I think that the schism should be represented somehow in the game
2) hussite uprising was something diferent. It succeeded as creation of new religious fraction that lasts untill now. The Schism was only temporary and didn't led to any new religion, so it is irrelevant to campare these 2.
As for Hussites different eras. Well, it dosn't hurt me, but if you argue, you couldn't imagine Hussites (or whatever) in early or high middle ages, then I could answer: Fine, but you could imgaine a Moravia under bohemian rule in 1000 AD? You can imagine independent Essex, East Anglia, Wessex, York, ... in 1000 AD? You can imagine Burgundy being a vasall of FRANCE in 1000 AD (or was it 900 AD? Didn't remember and can't view into the game now)? If so, I don't see, why Hussites should not arise during the game that only started around 1000/900 AD. I really can't. I don't make suggestions which I know that are incorrect. Some compromise may lead to little inaccurancy, but not the idea from it's roots.
I can imagine Moravia under Bohemian rule in era slightly around 1000 because it was only temporarily lost just around 1000 and then came back under Bohemian rule.
In 1000's England I can agree eith it as compromise which should representthe situation before norman conquest of England.
I can't tolerate Burgundy being vasal of France in 1000. Except for the England I tried to remove the most incorrect map situations and use only my mapchanges.
I could imagine hussites to emerge only if Lotharingia, Cordoba, Khazars, Pechenegs etc. are eliminated.
To be honest hussites are for me one of the last acceptable name for bohemian rebel kingdom name
What happens to your solution, if your original kingdom has "moved" far, far away from it's former cores? What, if Bohemia is situated (only) in the Balkans or even in Greece or Asia when the rebells splits away from foreign rule and declare war on this far away "mother" Bohemia? --> Both countries may get weaker and weaker for no reason.1) the kingdoms would get weaker and weaker not for no reason. As they get weaker and weaker the chance of one of them being eliminated rises.
Also this my suggestion goes hand in hand with much deeper concept where kingdoms should have somewhere scripted prefered directions of expansions and also the AI should be ordered to reconquer it's original lands, if lost. Coz I don't think the AI should act just instinctively, it should have some goals.
There is one more problem that when rebel kingdom appears, the old nostalgia is removed.
Another thing is that the old AI kingdoms should all become hostile against a rebel kingdom, because it may endanger their own stability. What will help the original Austrias and Bohemias to eliminate their "enemies to death"
On the other hand, you are right, making and include a long list for all that provinces is hard. But to be honest... I'm afraid this will be working better then your solution. Don't get me wrong, I would like such a feature. But I'm afraid it would not work in KoH. This "not working" is meant from a gameplay point of fiew, not from pure technical view.to be honest, if the list would follow the logic of lower territorial names in provinces which represent more smaller parts, I don't see any problem in it for large part of the map. On the other hand I see it as almost impossible in Sahara and Russia where it is hard to find at least ONE correct name for the province.
My suggestions mostly don't stand alone, they are parts of wider and deeper system, in most cases.
The examples of changed names are nice, but they are of diferent sort.
Normandy to England and most of other examples you gave are changes that were not done by loss of some territory, but conquest of some more important territory. When duke of Normandy gained king title of England, he preferably used king title.
When count of Luxemburg gained kingdom of Bohemia, he preferably used Bohemia.
Cnut used titles of all his kingdoms. He was king of England, Norway and Denmark. If England was superior to Norway and Denmark, they would use that title eventhough it was lost, just like the Romans did etc.
Lotharingia is also little diferent. Original Lotharingia was latter splitted into 3 parts again: kingdoms of Lotharingia, Burgundy and Italy. When Lotharingia was eliminated, Burgundy and Italy survived for some time and were also splitted later. So using our imagination: kingdom of Lotharingina was splitted into Lotharingia, Burgundy and Italy. Lotharingia was eliminated, Burgundy and Italy survived. Nothing else Not that Lotharingia lost it's original core and then was renamed.
So generaly: Unless they take some other title which they started to use instead of the original, medieval kingdoms never ceded to use their original titles, no matter if the original core was lost or not.
Still I can't imagine this in Africa and Russia.
I don't think, this would be to hard. If there really is a list for every province, one could use more "general" but fitting province names. For Africa there should be asked some arabian speaking people for names. I really don't know, if Al-Djabal, Al-Hamra, Al-Gharbi and so on would make good alternate province names for Tripolitainia region.
1) I think that the schism should be represented somehow in the game
2) hussite uprising was something diferent. It succeeded as creation of new religious fraction that lasts untill now. The Schism was only temporary and didn't led to any new religion, so it is irrelevant to campare these 2. ... [other quotes] ...
Looks like you are thinking about some KoH2. I never tought about a KoH2 here, I always had some kind of KoH Addon in mind. Do you know Civilization4? They changed the gameplay with every patch a little and with the first addon they added new things and the gamplay is really different from vanilla. Not on first view, but it really is. I was thinking along that line here as well.
The examples of changed names are nice, but they are of diferent sort.
[..] most [..] examples you gave are changes that were not done by loss of some territory, but conquest of some more important territory. [...]
Cnut used titles of all his kingdoms. He was king of England, Norway and Denmark. If England was superior to Norway and Denmark, they would use that title eventhough it was lost, just like the Romans did etc.Sorry, but KoH is not about claiming titles its about ruling ONE kingdom and owning provinces. In KoH a king never can claim beeing King of England and Norway and Denmark. Like I said, one HAVE to use imagination, if one is looking for an example here.
In my example Cnut starts with ruling over England only and became king of Norway and Denmark later. In KoH this would mean, Denmark and Norway disapear and now are called England as well. If the original England got lost in KoH now, Denmark and Norway will stay to be called England. How often in history did a medieval kingdom lost its "original" (capital) cores and was still alife? Normaly, if the capital falls to a foreign country forever (like it do in KoH), the whole country falls. Or, if the capital falls, in most cases they had to pay for peace. But this also never will happen in KoH. If a province is lost, it is lost "forever". No chance getting it back simply for making peace. So hopefully now it is more clear why one have to use imagination, instaed of being nitpicking about little examples.
Lotharingia is also little diferent. Original Lotharingia was latter splitted into 3 parts again: kingdoms of Lotharingia, Burgundy and Italy. Well, there is a saying, the "new" Lotharinga was named after Lothar II, not after Lothar I...
So generaly: Unless they take some other title which they started to use instead of the original, medieval kingdoms never ceded to use their original titles, no matter if the original core was lost or not.Sorry, I hardly don't agree, I can't even see your point. In KoH you couln't claim titles, you even not could claim provinces. You rule over them or someone other does. This is, why I think it makes sense renaming AI kingdoms that lost their cores - at least in some special cases.
The KoHs "AI-kingdoms-moving-across-over-europe" has no examples in history, but it happens in KoH in nearly every single game. How many medieval kingdoms you could name, that lost its "core" provinces and still are named after that provinces? Again here is the similar thing like abouve with England.
Would the Kingdom of Germany still be called Germany if all german provinces got lost to Poland and the (former) king of Germany now only rules over ... lets say over France? In this case he would become King of France and France would NOT be called Germany. But the polish King now would become king of Germany. The key of the titles and the name of the kingdom was owning the provinces. The title may be claimed from different kings, but there always was one ruler holding the provinces and that way claiming them and the title for himself. If you lost you cores, you may claim to be still king of that cores, but as long you couldn't press it in some way, now the actual ruler is the real king of you ex-cores.
However, making such things working more in historical direction, would need a different concept. I didn't mind if KoH2 would have some kind of fixed borders/provinces wich are combined with "fixed" titles that could be claimed, but in KoH this is not the case. So I think arguing about history without having the actual gameplay in mind is pointless.
I don't think, this would be to hard. If there really is a list for every province, one could use more "general" but fitting province names. For Africa there should be asked some arabian speaking people for names. I really don't know, if Al-Djabal, Al-Hamra, Al-Gharbi and so on would make good alternate province names for Tripolitainia region. I don't claim to have ultimate knowledge of medieval geography, nor arabic expert.
But if you look in my signature, you'd see my project where I am collecting information for historical regions of Europe and surrounding regions.
I research every accessable map and text that helps me to create map. I think that regions of Africa Arabia and Armenia are the best parts of it.
according to my knowledge of Arabic Djabal means stone or mountain, Gharb means west or western, Hamr red. Tarabulus al-gharb was used in order to tell Libyan Tripolis from the Lebanese.
Sorry, but KoH is not about claiming titles its about ruling ONE kingdom and owning provinces. I don't think that KoH should be abouot renaming it's kingdoms once Germany loses it's territory and connquers French it shuoldn't be renamed to France.
As I said the AI needs to have scripted some strategy so it wouldn't be so often that a kingdom moves from Britain to the Balkans and loses it's original lands. And if it happens it shuod try to reconquer it.
All christian roman empires tried to reconquer Rome and both were exhausted by that fight so they finaly collapsed, spanish christian kingdoms expanded to south in order to reconquer Spain, such revivals could be seen in Hungary, England, France and Poland aswell and I think that KoH should mirror this historical situation rather than support map-moving kingdoms.
If a KoH kingdom conquers some land that are required to unite some state, it claims new title, that reflects medieval situation, when it loses it's territory it also reflects historical situation that it keeps its name. I agree with it and unless one ruler can accumulate titles I think it shouldn't be changed,. You seem to prefere the other point, which is - no offense - ridiculous and absolutely out of historical reality.
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.