Reworking of Factions Family tree's

[Americanus Supremus]

Here we have to decide what we want: complete historical accuracy, lean torwards better gameplay.

--I know that sicily needs to be toned down.

But do we want there to be named characters (Although not family members) for every starting territory per faction. Also I really dont have a lot of back ground info on this time period, though wiki can be helpful I will need suggestions on all factions and there families. So please chime in with your opinions.

[acegogo]

I believe at this particular point in time is better to improve gameplay than historical accuracy, if it can be achieved lets do it but otherwise don´t worry to much about it at the momment.

My opinion anyway.

[Americanus Supremus]

Alright Ace. But what say some others that are intrested in seeing some changes. So do we want a full family of govenors for all the factions starting cities, or keep most of the factions families the same (except sicily) and just add named characters for each factions city. Let me know what yall think.

[Averroës]

I'm open to anything if it's balanced across factions.

We were initially going for historical accuracy, as I recall. So Lopus worked on all of the family trees to get the family members correct. Unfortunately, it seems to have overbalanced things for some factions, like Sicily, while others have few family members.

[kepper]

For the family tree of the kingdom of Portugal will by better this way

Ruler Alfonso VI borne in 1039 marry it Ximena Nunes de Gusmão
Thery is many children but better to put just one Theresa borne in 1080
If possibel make D Herinque appear in 1086 is was borne in 1057, the name is D. Henrique de Borgonha not D. Herinque Portugal

Another member

Sisnando Davides in as borne forme 1064 to 1068 is made ruler of Coimbra in 1085 but is ok i cant find any woman or son

[Americanus Supremus]

Ok I was thinking about flushing out all the factions in need and then reducing the ones that have to many characters. I will try to keep it as Historic as possible. Can anyone link any good sites for information on this time period? I would appreciate all the help I can get. Thanks

[Averroës]

That I can do! Research is what I do best! Unfortunately, many compromises had to be made to fit family trees to various factions, as you'll see. Some of our factions didn't technically exist in 1080, and others like Milan were "free cities" at the time with the rule being by "captains of the people" or as various Ghibelline or Guelph communes or even under direct Bishopric authority. But I'll give you what I can.

Norman family tree for William the Conqueror

Family tree for Capetian dynasty in France

Salian, Welf and Hohenstaufen family tree for the HRE

Grand Princes of Kiev. Novgorod presents a problem. Nominally, a son or relative of the Grand Prince in Kiev was made the prince of Novgorod. But, in practice the ruler was actually chosen by the local boyars and wealthier burghers and Novgorod was essentially a republic, often ignoring whomever was appointed knyaz from Kiev. I have no idea how Tornnight chose which group of the various princes to represent Kiev and Novgorod separately.
Castille and Leon, Navarre and Aragon

Malcolm III and House Canmore for our era at #19

That's about it for the easy ones. After that, the only good resource is http://www.friesian.com/philhist.htm and it takes some digging to get through all the stuff. Usually there will be a list of dynasty rulers in a column on the side and occasionally a family tree. I'll link to the specific ones.

Abbassid Caliphs, scroll down until it's the rulers in the green column on the left and the family tree on the right. Our era starts with #27 Abdullah al-Muqtadi.

The various Moorish taifas in al-Andalus: Abbadids of Seville, Zirids of Granada, Amirids of Valencia, etc. and the Almoravids/Murabitun from Morocco

Fatimid Caliphs, with 1080 period ruler al-Mustansir at #8.

Sultanate of Rum

The Great Seljuks which is equivalent to our Syrian Sultanate for the beginning year.

The Khwarezm Shahs are a bit of a problem. They weren't actually independent of the Seljuks until 1097, but the governor at the time of our start would probably be Ekinchi ibn Qochqar in Urganj, so...

Khwarezm Shahs

Likewise, the 1080 start date causes a few problems with Byzantium. Technically at that date, the last of the Ducases - Nicephorus III Botaniates ruled. And then the Comneni dynasty of Alexius I began in 1081.

Comneni Dynasty of Byzantium. Scroll down a bit past the ruler list for a family tree.

Scroll down for fun with the family trees of Castille and Leon and Galicia and Aragon and Portugal!. Technically, Portugal wasn't a separate kingdom until Afonso I Henriques declared himself king in 1137, being Count of Portugal prior to that.

family tree of Tancred de Hauteville which leads to the various Norman counts of Apulia, Sicily and Calabria, which became the Kingdom of Sicily and thus Robert the Guiscard and Roger I.

Kings of Hungary and Poland, etc., scroll down for the family trees of the Arpad of Hungary and the Premysl and Piast dynasty of Poland.

Denmark, Norway and Sweden, with rule by Harold V Hen of Denmark changing over to Knut/Canute IV in 1080. (Just as an aside, the family tree right after is an amazing example of intermarriage. Several king of Denmark descended from kings Stengil and Inge of Sweden, King Harald II of England, Grand Prince Vladimir of Kiev and through him from Byzantine emperors Romanus II and Constantine IX and a previous king of Sweden, Olaf III with king Sancho I of Portugal thrown in there as well. All within about 300 years.)

Venice and Milan are a problem. They weren't really royal dynasties at all. The Doges of Venice were chosen from among the leading families. And Milan I discussed above. None of the northern Italian city states had dynasties until later in the 13th and 14th centuries with the rise of the great families like the Sforzas and Medicis and Viscontis and Borgias. Most were communes or free cities in 1080 or ruled by bishops or directly by the Pope or by the HRE. It's a mess. Best I can do is point you to the list of Doges of Venice.

As for Milan, for the 1080 start date, best I can think of is to mix the Margraves of Tuscany and Montferrat, who were the only real dynastic familes in that area at the time, add in the Lombard d'Este family and the bishops and archbishops of Milan. All of which are found in the Francia Media, Italy section,just scroll down for each. Everything else on the lest is 1200 or after.

Good luck! You're a braver man than I am Gunga Americanus.

[Americanus Supremus]

Sorry Im just getting back to this. First off thank you Averoes. Wow thats a lot, but exactly what Im looking for and a great starting point. From my previous studies, a lot of the current characters are correct for the most part. Some names arent totally correct and some ages are fudged a little.

So what I plan to do is try to give each faction enough family members and generals to start off the campaign and go take on rebels. Historical evidence will take presidence over all but I will also keep in mind that having family members and generals at hand when you need them is also important.

Another idea is creating a seperate unit for govenors, sorda like what Roma Surrectum has done. Dont know what yall think about this, but let me know and I will be hopefully up and running my new rig in a week or so.

[Averroës]

Enjoy your holiday and good luck with the new system.

I know that when Lopus was working on the family trees, he was focused mainly on historical accuracy when at all possible. He then had to make some adjustments to fit it within the game structure, and just cobble together a family tree like with Milan (he mixed things from various nearby cities and families, as I suggested above).

The trouble is that historical accuracy ended up with giving us way too many family members in places like Sicily and too few in some other factions. I guess a balance has to be found between historical accuracy and playability.

Would a separate unit for governors be recruitable, like the bodyguards are now? And would they acquire useful traits like family members do?

I use the bodyguard recruits as fallback governors when I run out of family members or the family members are complete losers (I always seem to end up with extravagant, lazy, cowardly, dubious, impious and infertile dolts in my families. ).

[Americanus Supremus]

Yes the govenors would be just like recruitable generals. They would aquire traits, ancillarys, and have men under there command. As far as the traits I completely agree. Most Mods use BBB and it seems that they focused on the negative traits characters can get, instead of balancing it out. Honestly the character traits files and the ancillary files need to be reworked as well. Some things added and somethings toned down.

[acegogo]

great ideas!!!

I don´t always get bad traits, in fact, that only seems to happen while my economy and goverment buildings are not constructed, once that happens they seem to get good traits.

in fact, what I tend to do with a new general is send them to my capital till the age of 21, aquire some traits, and then analysing them, I choose if they are to become a general or a governor.