Additional alpha work (Character History Mostly)

[LT-Rascek]

Starting additional error log cleanup work.

Task list

General

• [ ] Encode all files as UTF-8-BOM to avoid silly errors by the CK3 engine/support full encoding; should be done just before merging to avoid needless file reviews.
• [x] Fix Holy Site name localizations:
  • holy_site_mtskheta_name, holy_site_isle_of_man_name, holy_site_durham_name, holy_site_buren_mihr_name, holy_site_farnbag_name, holy_site_pimpleia_name, holy_site_crotona_name; all sites associated with Eiateuta

Character History (easy)

• [x] Sanskrit, maharashtri_prakrit culture mapped to CK3 cultures
• [x] Map generic "buddhist" characters to buddhist sects
• [x] Map generic "hindu" characters to hindu sects
• [x] Map generic "jain" religion to jain sects
• [x] Fix duplicate characters in history
• [x] Map taoist/confucian to either zhengyi or shangqing for 476 BM
• [x] Move war-limited special troops to custom war setups
  • Odacer and Zeno
• [x] Complete character trait mapping (cross-reference #51):
  • Commander Traits: trickster, inspiring_leader, flanker
• [x] Implement missing historical characters:
  • 1104508, 1104514, 1104515, 74420, 74421
• [x] Add traits to saint characters to avoid random sin traits or see if "disallow_random_traits = yes" still works
• [x] Review remaining commented out kinslayer attributes; discuss possible sources with @loup99; some appear in either fictional characters, or I just can't find sources for them. (Unknown kinslayers converted to kinslayer_1 trait instead)

Character history (medium)

• [x] Fix some characters dying before they are born
• [x] Remove all landless hall characters (handles immortal trait)
• [x] Fix certain characters having no faith/culture

Character history (hard)

• [x] Removed unlinked characters that are hold-overs from Vanilla:
  • 7757, 242, 163119, 6878, 163108, 163110, 163111, 40605, 6811, 144000, 168609, 166044
• [x] Reimplement create character/spawn unit effects in 476:
  • skirian.txt
• [x] Fixup BM476 character dna to prevent discontinuity between BM portrait and in game portrait.
• [x] Resolve some unlanded tribals having special troops attached:
  • anglo.txt
• [x] Fixup incorrect character religion/cultures
  • Khitan Tengri/Buddhist Tuoba dynasty => Xianbei Tengri/Dharmaguptaka dynasty (done)
  • Khitan Tengri Tuyuhun holders => Tuyuhun Tengri holders (done)
• [x] Review weak/pressed claims to determine what to keep and remove (all were made pressed claims)

Title history

• [x] Fix null holder errors for counties
• [x] Fix wrong faith holders of Patriarch of the East
• [x] Fix c_tui missing culture/faith
• [x] Fix missing capitals that mess up COA generation
  • Add custom models for the nomads
• [x] Fix unknown liege title errors
• [x] Suppress/Fix "Hole in History" errors
• [x] Fix unlanded employers
• [x] Add title history for all remaining Roman titles that haven't been done:
  • see common/landed_titles/BP_empire_roman.txt (e.g., d_constantinopolitan_prefect, d_gaul_prefect, k_italy_prefect, d_italy_prefect)
• [x] Fix potentially fixable unlanded dukes
  • d_devagiri, d_gardman, d_vengi

Religious Titles

• [x] Implement d_antioch_church and cleanup associated chars in history
• [x] Properly land the Patriarch of the East
• [x] Implement d_aquelian_church title history
• [x] Implement d_patriarch_jerusalem and cleanup associated chars in history
• [x] Implement d_manichean_church and fictional Yamag for bookmarks
• [x] Implement d_mazdaysna fictional high priests for bookmarks
• [x] Implement d_zurvanism fictional high priests for bookmarks
• [x] Add separate "d_alexandria_patriarch" title to handle the split between Orthodox and Miaphysite titles after Chalcedon"
  • Resolves issue of Proterius not being a patriarch ; do at least up to 476 history
• [x] Implement Samaritan high priests
• [x] Complete parsing character history to move Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria from generic history and Alexandria history to 600.

Dynasties

• [x] Fix dynasties not having valid source cultures
• [x] Add custom dynasties COAs for the bookmark dynasties.
• [x] Review/remove duplicate dynasty names

Missing Features

• [x] De jure spanning across the map
• [x] Entirely ported cultures
• [x] Implement BM476 wars (history)
• [x] Completed Odoacer CB
• [x] Roman Reconquest CB (excludes successor CB)
• [x] Minor Migration CBs
• [x] Major Migration Decision and CB
• [x] Implement custom localizations for new CBs
• [x] Ported governments
  • Sassanid, Gubernatorial, and Bureaucratic contracts require review
  • Also should ensure handing out titles yields correct sub-realm government types

[loup99]

I disagree with the idea that non-existing de jure empires could be disabled by option, because that means you impose certain empires upon the player and means we restrict the tools available to us. If people want to remove those they can do that in their own game or sub-mod, the main mod can not provide support for every single configuration people might wish for.

If the character spawn unit effect doesn't work in character history, it can be done through event.

[LT-Rascek]

I disagree with the idea that non-existing de jure empires could be disabled by option, because that means you impose certain empires upon the player and means we restrict the tools available to us.

I don't quite follow this, but that might just be I failed to notice before that custom kingdoms/empires aren't necessarily enabled by default (I always have them on so I never really noticed that's not necessarily a vanilla setting). So that's something I overlooked just from my own play style.

Just covering my thoughts: I would think removing most de jure empires should set custom kingdoms/empires in the game rules and would lead to much more dynamism, as many of the de jure empires on the map don't really have too much historical basis for the time period; a few like Mali, Guinea, Kanem-Bornu, Sctyhia, Siberia are particularly noticeable and were never close to unified in any way even well into the Middle Ages.

Others, if not extant, should probably be available de jure still (e_armenia, e_gaul [Gallic Empire]), or should have its own special creation conditions (e_britannia,e_hispania,e_arabia,e_tibet) instead of just using the default custom creation tool.

If the character spawn unit effect doesn't work in character history, it can be done through event.

It's doable in character history (see William the Conqueror in Vanilla character history); the syntax is completely different in CK3 however, and it led to all sorts of errors, including (possibly) some of those several hundred line "COA" bugs with the spawned chars in them. I suppressed the character armies initially to focus on some simpler, quicker bugs, but I fully intend to reimplement them on this branch. Just haven't gotten around to it yet.

[loup99]

I don't quite follow this, but that might just be I failed to notice before that custom kingdoms/empires aren't necessarily enabled by default (I always have them on so I never really noticed that's not necessarily a vanilla setting). So that's something I overlooked just from my own play style.

Just covering my thoughts: I would think removing most de jure empires should set custom kingdoms/empires in the game rules and would lead to much more dynamism, as many of the de jure empires on the map don't really have too much historical basis for the time period; a few like Mali, Guinea, Kanem-Bornu, Sctyhia, Siberia are particularly noticeable and were never close to unified in any way even well into the Middle Ages.

Others, if not extant, should probably be available de jure still (e_armenia, e_gaul [Gallic Empire]), or should have its own special creation conditions (e_britannia,e_hispania,e_arabia,e_tibet) instead of just using the default custom creation tool.

It is true that several de jure empires are just fillers and never existed throughout the Middle Ages, and if customisation is available that is fine. Yet I don't think new rules or options to disable should be a priority at this point in development.

It's doable in character history (see William the Conqueror in Vanilla character history); the syntax is completely different in CK3 however, and it led to all sorts of errors, including (possibly) some of those several hundred line "COA" bugs with the spawned chars in them. I suppressed the character armies initially to focus on some simpler, quicker bugs, but I fully intend to reimplement them on this branch. Just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Ok, fair enough.

[LT-Rascek]

It is true that several de jure empires are just fillers and never existed throughout the Middle Ages, and if customisation is available that is fine. Yet I don't think new rules or options to disable should be a priority at this point in development.

Fair enough it's not really a priority; disabling de jure empires was a feature in CK2+/HIP that I always like and thought it fit pretty well into this period, given the socio-political changes underway. Plus, there's already a template in the "More Game Rules" mod on Steam. But I'll move it to beta for now.

Ok, fair enough.

Partially done now actually; there's some unlanded anglo characters that have special troops attached, for which I have no real clue what to do with right now. But the remainder of 476.2.2 and earlier special troops are done.

[loup99]

Partially done now actually; there's some unlanded anglo characters that have special troops attached, for which I have no real clue what to do with right now. But the remainder of 476.2.2 and earlier special troops are done.

What character employs those characters? That would be the character having the troops.

[LT-Rascek]

What character employs those characters? That would be the character having the troops.

The two characters are Ealdgyth Jorin (id:13), age 13 in the court of Hrodberht of Herefinna and Cretta Geotas (id:206805), age 26 in the court of Cenraed of Norgyrwa. Hrodberht does not have special troops in WtWSMS, while Cenraed does have his own troops (separate from whatever Cretta might have).

---

sucessor_imperial_reconquest cb is currently excluded (listed under #59 instead) because it will require additional vanilla cleanup and importing of WtWMS, instead of the absolutely minimal feature set for which this branch aims.

---

Some other things you might be able to answer for me:

I need to known who the following characters killed to wrap up the missing kinslayers: greek: 215000 (Evangelos), 70498 (Eirene Sarantapechaina) old_saxon: 45 (Hadugato) romano_british: 6910 (Constanine the Cornish) romano_gallic: 302 (Marius, Vassal of Syagrius)

The following characters aren't in WtWSMS history: 1104508 - Sextus Pompeius [Roman] (c_roma, b_ostia, d_senate) 1104514 - Marcus Licinius Crassus Frugi [Roman] (c_roma, b_ostia, d_senate) 1104515 - Lucius Scribonius Libo Rupilius Frugi Bonus [Roman] (c_roma, b_ostia, d_senate) 74420 - Aþanareiks [visigothic] 74421 - Alvivus [visigothic]

Do you have the WtWSMS data for them somewhere?

I don't have good mappings for the remaining commander traits (trickster, inspiring_leader, flanker). Just comment them out for now?

[loup99]

The two characters are Ealdgyth Jorin (id:13), age 13 in the court of Hrodberht of Herefinna and Cretta Geotas (id:206805), age 26 in the court of Cenraed of Norgyrwa. Hrodberht does not have special troops in WtWSMS, while Cenraed does have his own troops (separate from whatever Cretta might have).

Given that Hrodberht seems to be alone in not having troops amongst Anglo-Saxon rulers at start I think that is an oversight.

I need to known who the following characters killed to wrap up the missing kinslayers: greek: 215000 (Evangelos), 70498 (Eirene Sarantapechaina) old_saxon: 45 (Hadugato) romano_british: 6910 (Constanine the Cornish) romano_gallic: 302 (Marius, Vassal of Syagrius)

No idea who Evangelos is, but Eirene is the Byzantine Empress, it is her son Constantine the trait must be referring to. Hadugato I don't know, Marius the vassal is a fictional character to my knowledge, I will ask Abian for Constantine.

The following characters aren't in WtWSMS history: 1104508 - Sextus Pompeius [Roman] (c_roma, b_ostia, d_senate) 1104514 - Marcus Licinius Crassus Frugi [Roman] (c_roma, b_ostia, d_senate) 1104515 - Lucius Scribonius Libo Rupilius Frugi Bonus [Roman] (c_roma, b_ostia, d_senate) 74420 - Aþanareiks [visigothic] 74421 - Alvivus [visigothic]

Do you have the WtWSMS data for them somewhere?

No, I don't.

I don't have good mappings for the remaining commander traits (trickster, inspiring_leader, flanker). Just comment them out for now?

Those are all from vanilla CK2, you can comment them out.

[LT-Rascek]

I've started review duplicate dynasty names and writing notes about it in common/dynasties/_dynasty_notes.info. While some characters seem to be unattached (i.e., no mention in history/titles/, nothing in history but birth/death (so no landed employers)) there's some odd cases of shared dynasties with no clear relation/historical reference. I've only gotten through the A & B duplicates so far, but found that:

For the Agricolus Dynasty (10424448):

• Archelaus, Exarch of Africa <462172> [481-534] (greek.txt)
• Caecilius, Dux of Montes Aregenses <462166> [450-530] (romano_hispanic.txt)

are of the same dynasty but no relation. I'll keep making notes, but I assume some cases like that are unintentional.

For cases where there are duplicates but some sort of relation (Agilolfings and Gotfrid Agilolfing) I'm going to instead make a House of the main dynasty.

Just some FYIs.

[loup99]

I've started review duplicate dynasty names and writing notes about it in common/dynasties/_dynasty_notes.info. While some characters seem to be unattached (i.e., no mention in history/titles/, nothing in history but birth/death (so no landed employers)) there's some odd cases of shared dynasties with no clear relation/historical reference. I've only gotten through the A & B duplicates so far, but found that:

For the Agricolus Dynasty (10424448):

• Archelaus, Exarch of Africa <462172> [481-534] (greek.txt)
• Caecilius, Dux of Montes Aregenses <462166> [450-530] (romano_hispanic.txt)

are of the same dynasty but no relation. I'll keep making notes, but I assume some cases like that are unintentional.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to the best of my knowledge 462166 is fictional while 462172 is historical. They clearly should be in two separate dynasties.

[LT-Rascek]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to the best of my knowledge 462166 is fictional while 462172 is historical. They clearly should be in two separate dynasties.

I figured as much and can make the appropriate changes.

[LT-Rascek]

Thanks to @kai229's work, I can mark this as done.

[loup99]

The modifications to BP/common/dynasties/00_dynasties.txt and BP/common/dynasties/BP_dynasties.txt are too extensive to be reviewed. You have removed duplicate dynasty names, but many of those names in CK2 were intentionally the same since each culture had to have a set of dynasty names assigned to it to not appear as "Smith". There was a difference between a dynasty name given to the range of a culture for generated character and a historical character using that name.

[LT-Rascek]

You have removed duplicate dynasty names, but many of those names in CK2 were intentionally the same since each culture had to have a set of dynasty names assigned to it to not appear as "Smith".

Most of those dynasties that were in BP_dynasties.txt were empty and had no chars referencing the listed dynasty in the history, so their removal is safe.

There was a difference between a dynasty name given to the range of a culture for generated character and a historical character using that name.

Right, but none of the removed dynasties have chars referencing them. If you want, I can write a bash or m-code script to prove it.

[loup99]

You have removed duplicate dynasty names, but many of those names in CK2 were intentionally the same since each culture had to have a set of dynasty names assigned to it to not appear as "Smith".

Most of those dynasties that were in BP_dynasties.txt were empty and had no chars referencing the listed dynasty in the history, so their removal is safe.

There was a difference between a dynasty name given to the range of a culture for generated character and a historical character using that name.

Right, but none of the removed dynasties have chars referencing them. If you want, I can write a bash or m-code script to prove it.

No, that is absolutely not necessary, I trust you entirely. 😉

[LT-Rascek]

Let me review some of these:

Thanks for the notes; I'll get to revisiting these later this week.

[LT-Rascek]

@Symmachus: I'm focusing more on code-centeric/error.log issues for this branch, so if you have additional changes, I'd very much welcome them, but I don't see them as merge-blockers right now.