PROVINCIAL TITLES ancillaries

[Jurand of Cracow]

The Provincial Titles - a feature of the SSHIP

A guide to the Provincial Titles

What is a PT

A provincial title (PT) reflects the effects of awarding a noble title related to a province by the faction leader to any general. The benefits come from the rights related to the title, from the perception by the people, from having access to groups of people engaged in the management of the province, and from the land holdings and other money-providing entities in this province.

There's always one title per province. It takes the form of an ancillary. It is gained when a general ends his move in the settlement of this province and doesn't have any other PT yet. Of course, it can happen only if there's no other general having that PT. A PT is transferable from one general to another. Due to this fact and due to the M2TW engine features it's technically it is possible that a general has more than one PT. However, the player should follow a house-rule: one FM - one PT. This is actually beneficial for the player: possession of a title impacts often on acquiring good traits by the generals. Many PTs on one general would be a wasted opportunity for the other generals who don't have any.

If a general loses a PT (he starts with a PT, the player transfers it to another general and don't give any other PT in the same turn), then he gets a trait stripped of titles resulting in -2 Loyalty, -2 Authority, -2 Morale of troops, and lasting for 5 years. If later he gets another PT and loses is again, then the penalty is much harsher (Loyalty -4, Authority -4, Popularity -2, Piety -2, Dread +2, TroopMorale -4, Tax -40%) and lasts till the death of the general.

Benefits of the PTs

Each and every PT brings two benefits for a general. Because it shows a honor from the ruler, the general gets +1 Loyalty as a reciprocity. Furthermore, because people around know that this general was chosen by the ruler and has authority on them, it provides +1 Law while the general fulfills the role of a governor of a city/castle, what helps to keep public order higher and corruption lower. However, this comes at a price. First, granting the money-making domains to that general lowers the faction tax income from the province he currently manages by 5%. Second, the public security of the general is also lower -1.

The standard set of benefits of a PT make them beneficial for any general: he’d gain loyalty and be better at keeping public order and lowering corruption. However, the additional benefits enable specialization of the generals. They’re usually lumped together so that a particular PT is valuable either for a governor or for a leader of an army. Since they’re transferable, it is possible for the player to swap them between generals fulfilling particular tasks.

A general governing a province can keep public order thanks to higher popularity provided by many PTs (in addition to the other factors impacting public order: law, chivalry, dread). They usually go with some benefits for income which offset the loss of tax income (due to -5% Tax standard effect attached to each PT). Some PTs give large buffs to trade (10%, 20% and even 30%) and should be given to the governors of the trade-making province. A few PTs give +20% mining (the exceptional ones even +40%) so a governor of a province with mines should have them, otherwise this benefit is entirely lost. The agriculture benefit is useful for any province and +2 farming usually means 100-140 florins more.

The generals leading the armies can also benefit from a PT: some give +3 movement points, some +1 morale for all troops on the battlefield, some additional siege points and some +1 or +2 Dread or +1 or +2 Chivalry – very useful in battles. The fourth “war benefit” concerns Command while defending a settlement is, actually, more useful for the governors of the borderlands – therefore it usually goes with the “governor” type of benefits. One should also not forget that after conquering an enemy settlement it is needed to subdue it's population. To this end Chivalry and Dread (along law and popularity) are very useful.

PTs may beef up the attributes needed by a general needed for other purposes. For instance, religious sites PTs give +1 Piety and those with sacred cities even +2 - so a general short of Piety will benefit greatly. Many provinces (usually those with capital cities) provide Authority useful for the faction leader or the heir. As mentioned, + Chivalry is useful for governors who aim at speeding up growth of the settlements to upgrade them.

For a satisfying and challenging game remember to follow the rule: one general – one PT. It means: do not stack many PTs on one general, even if it seems to be beneficial at a particular moment. To force the player behaving in this way, I'm thinking about transferring the basic benefits (+1 Loyalty, + 1 Law to the trait "titled". It will mean that irrespectively of the number of titles, these benefits will be granted just once.
Additionally, since there's a relationship between features of a province and it's PT, it's often beneficial that a general carrying the title of a province is actually governing that province.



Moding of the Provincial Titles

Principles

• The PTs’ benefits should reflect the “character” of a province, something it was famous for, or something people relate this province or the main city or an important place within. It should concern whole Middle Ages (not only 12^th century).
• At the same time the benefits should be useful for the gameplay: providing choice for the player and making him assigning the title to a particular general for a particular reason (eg. my Gdansk title gives 2Chivalry which is crucial for upgrading some cities – I was very happy to have it; another one for Pskow providing 10% Tax – I assigned it to the governor of a trade-rich province). Therefore many titles should have a “dominating” benefit (like 15% Trade or 2 Chivalry) or a set of benefits useful in similar situations.
• There should be a set of “normal” benefits linked to every title, and some benefits which make a title unique (both for gameplay and role-playing purposes). The normal benefits are the same for each province and they are ambiguous: some positive, some negative. The additional effects will only be positive and they vary a lot between the PTs. In some mods (e.g. Broken Crescent) all the benefits are the same but I find it an inferior choice for two reasons. First: it should be part of the gameplay for the player to decide which PT is given to which general so that the potential is realized in the best way. Second: since the game engine tends to equalize the number of characters with the number of provinces, it means each general has a chance to get one. Why then to bother of having the stuff which doesn't differentiate between generals?
• The titles should not be “overpowered”, i.e. should not give too many benefits. This is to be reconned both individually (very few exceptional provinces, some good ones, most of them "normal"), but also regionally: PTs from a certain part of the world should provide more-or-less the same amount of benefits as the PTs from another part. Of course the SSHIP players come from different parts of the world and think that “our” provinces should have many benefits. This is understandable: we know ins-and-outs of history and each province is unique and great. But we should not “overpower” certain parts of the world. In my case I’ll try not to make Central Europe filled with much more benefits compared to, say, Iran. Of course, we’ve got much sources about England, but we should not assign 7-worth titles to every province there.

Value of a title

• can be summarized with a number. For counting this number, each “normal” benefit gives 1: Law 1, Popularity 1, Trade 10%, Mining 20%, Farming +2, Chivalry 1, Dread 1, Loyalty 1, Authority 1, Piety 1, Command while defending under siege 2, Morale 1, Siege Points (60, but may change in the future if a new Siege system would be developed).
• A title should be worth between 2 and 4, very rarely 5-6, in few exceptional cases 7.
• While moding I keep the regions balanced. The rule of thumb is: an average of worth of provinces in a region should be around 3,3 (This is not an objective criterion, it’s just my personal choice. I came out with this number empirically, after having assigned titles and adjusting them in a painful process).
• The exceptional cases (7) should really be exceptional, so that a player may appreciate a title. These should be holy cities or significant cities famous throughout the Middle Ages. The tentative list of those exceptional titles: Constantinople, Rome, Bagdad, Jerusalem, to a lesser extent: London, Paris, Seville- Isbiliyya or Corduba, Venice, Kiev, Al-Quahira, Damascus, Isfahan). However, this issue will not impact the inter-regional balance: exceptional case will come at a price of having more mediocre PTs in the region.

Standard benefits

• Each title gives 4 effects due to the very essence of any provincial title.
• Gaining a title from a ruler means that this person is interested in the ruler’s reign -> every title gives +1 Loyalty
• Gaining a title is related with the authority to keep order somewhere -> every title gives +1 Law
• Holding a title for a province means money from the public domains goes now to the holder's pocket -> every title means -5% Tax
• Being a politically important person means that this person is likely to be the target of the foreign shady deals -> every title gives -1 Personal Security

Additional benefits related to the character or particular features of provinces:

• provinces that were essential for the authority of the ruler (usually one will be assigned to the capital's PT of each factions, and also ocassionally to the other PTs): +1 Authority
• provinces that were famous for religious sites, monastic life, churches: +1 Piety (exceptionally for sacred sites: Rome (thought it shouldn't be useful in the game as the city should stay Papal), Constantinople, Mecca, maybe Santiago de Compostella): +2Piety
• provinces famous to be centers of knowledge or culture: +1 or +2 Chivalry
• provinces with popular lords: +1 Popularity
• provinces that were centers of trade: +10 to 30% Trade income
• provinces that were famous for the mines: +20% Mining income (exceptionally - perhaps up to 4 settlements on the whole map, Transsilvania, a region in Spain, Armenia, a region in Persia: +40%)
• provinces that were famous for agriculture, melioration, fertile soils: +2 Farming income
• provinces on the border of conflicts or famous for warriors: +1 or +2 Dread
• provinces that were famous for commanders: a title gives +1 TroopMorale (exceptionally: +2, eg. Smolensk)
• provinces that were vast and famous of long travels: +3 Movement points (exceptionally: +6, it will appear in the steppe provinces where knowledge of the horses, eg. Aktobe)
• provinces that were famous for castles and siege expertise: a title gives + 30 Siege Points (possibly more if I develop a new siege system but it's the song of the far-away future)
• provinces that were famous for strongholds: +2 Command while defending in siege

Having benefits similar do the character of a province has a side effect: the generals having carrying those titles have incentive to be actually present in their respective provinces. (eg. a province famous for trade – a title give a lot of money from trade – the trade benefit of the title of this province has positive effects when managing that province).

In moding the traits I'll insert possession of a title into the triggers for good traits. Therefore the players should indeed assign just one PT on one general - otherwise it would be a wasted opportunity.

List of the benefits is closed - due to the moding process it had to be decided at some point and then implemented.


How the Provincial Titles impact on the gameplay

• PTs provide additional layer for role-playing / gameplay – until now a player was happy to get a title, kept it on the general who initially received it, perhaps appreciated „chrome”, but didn't pay much attention to its impact on the gameplay. A few players would swap the PTs between generals, but it was rarely worth the time and didn't make much difference for the game. This modification makes PTs important for the gameplay while providing also historical emotions for the gameplay. It makes the player carefully choosing a general for a certain PT since it pays off in the game. Furthermore, it sometimes (softly) prompts the player to keep the general holding the title of a province to also serve as a governor for this province (eg. when there's a +Mining bonus).
• PTs increase specialization between generals: the governor-types can have even more buffs for the income or public order, while the general leading the armies may enjoy much better field capabilities (this is reflected in the descriptions showing in-game: each PT has a suggestion what it should be used to).
• PTs provide some flexibility for the player on the attributes like Piety or Authority: if a general need beefing up one of them, he can do it (admittedly, the change with the previous system is small in this respect). In particular a PT with +1 Authority will be within reach of each faction and it's usually of great use for the faction leader. However, it should be born in mind that Authority is important factor for acquiring some traits (like higher military education) and is deliberately included only in few PTs.
• PTs create additional value for a player derived from taking specific settlement (eg. if he needs a good governor for mining then taking a settlement with a title a buffing up mining income is quite valuable).
• The PTs impact on income is smaller in the first stage of the game since most of the income for a small faction comes from the taxes and every PT gives a malus -5% Tax. For instance, this means 100 fl less for a city providing 2000 fl. taxation income. However, this is balanced by buffs to the trade income (for many PTs it’s 10-30% which means that, eg. a city making 500 fl. trade income adds additional 50-150 fl.) and farming (rarer, but would provide like 100+ fl.). Later in the game the higher-level trade buildings are built which means that the additional income from the trade increases. This effect is even more pronounced for mining since the benefit of is usually +20% (in utterly exceptional cases 40%). Provinces differ on mining income, but if we take a province which give 2000 fl. for the first level, and 3000 fl. for the second, then the additional income is 300 and 600 fl. respectively.
• The overall PTs impact on the amount of money present in the game: roughly neutral, should the player use them rationally. This is because they already exist in the game, they usually give 5-10% tax plus other benefits (like 5-15% trade), what means that the additional money is already in-game.
• Standard benefits of Loyalty and Law are likely to be more important for big empires. Ergo: there’ll be more impact of PTs later in the game. However, at the beginning of the game some PT can be potentially more important of income. All in all, the impact of PTs seems to evenly spread across the time of the game.
• There're (more than before) PTs with + Chivalry benefits. Each faction should have access to one +2 and perhaps one +1. This should make it easier for the players to upgrade their key settlements.
• The impact on attack abilities for generals is perhaps more pronounced than before since there’re not so many war benefits in the current PTs. However, for some key attributes (eg. Command) there're no buffs. If a new siege system would be introduced, then the PTs providing siege points may become very valuable. Movement points benefits are limited in the well developed countries but more numerous in the steppe regions (like Cuman lands) to make the life of the factions there easier.
• Depending on the further moding of the traits, the impact of PTs on acquiring certain traits may be quite big. Already now there're some traits taking them into account (see the GTCS)

[Jurand of Cracow]

Current situation (SSHIP 0.98, May 2023 issue)

The current situation of this feature of the mod is as follows:
1.) All PTs are in the game.
2.) About 1/3 of the PTs have been overhauled within the system that is foreseen in the end-state of the mod (see map below)
3.) The not-yet-overhauled provinces provide more benefits than the will in the future (because they get it from a trait and from the ancillary)
4.) There are exhaustive descriptions of this element of the gameplay in the game (both as trait descriptions and also as a pop-out window).

Which provinces have been overhauled:



If you're interested in the considerations of the names of the provinces or the settlements, benefits of the PTs, resources etc. of each of the province - go to the factions' information threads.

The benefits from the provinces are planned according to this table

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Jurand of Cracow]

Frequently asked questions:

How do you choose the effects for each PT?
Criteria for the effects of each settlement are well described in the second entry to the PTF thread. Character of the province is a starting point, then the effects are chosen from the list of the potential benefits, then gameplay is taken into consideration (eg. stacking effects good for a governor on one PT, and stacking effects for a good general on another PT - with majority (60-70%) being "good governor" sets), and lastly the regions are balanced so that one is not overpowered to another. The idea is to have an average value of 3.3 for each region (with some exceptions, like the steppe factions having more due to more movement benefits). Of course, I don't deny some level of subjectivity on my part, but hard choices must be made and if a player is not happy for a particular PT, then it's easy to change it by himself (I hope everything is well-described).

City ABC was famous of xyx - you should add more effects!
Yes, but at the price of lowering benefits of another region in the area. Which region do you propose to downgrade? Furthermore, I will not overpowered PTs, so the value of 7 is the highest possible.

The coat of arms / pic for a PT is clearly wrong!
Many times there's a problem of the historical period. Some CoAs were crafted in the modern times, while in the past they're quite different (an example is that of Smolensk: a bear in the middle ages, while a big gun in the modern times). I'm trying to find those historical for 12-15 centuries. Somtimes I cannot find a proper depiction which would be visualy pleasant in the game (33x41 pixels).
In any case, if you've got some knowlege, please share and advise on the other solutions.

This region X has been created only in SSHIP - in history it was actually a number of smaller regions A,B,C. The title didn't exist in history - so you're ahistorical here?
Yes, but for the gameplay a title is needed and the title name was created in such a way to give a historical feel for the player.

There was no such "X" title in history.
Yes, but see above. It's to give some immersion for a player. It's better to be roughly right than perfectly wrong.

Other considerations:
I'm reconsidering the issue of possibility for the generals to have more than one PT. Actually, why to advise players not to stack PTs? They may weigh pros and cons. If there'll be significant advantages of having at least one, then - given that the number of PTs is limited - they will spread them, not stack. However, there might be situations when a player really want to give two or more to one general... why not?

Some discussion on the names etc. happened here:
- Byzantine Balkans
- names of the Byzantine cities.

[Jurand of Cracow]

reserved

[vazda]

Does the list of all provincial titles and its' benefits exist somewhere?

[Jurand of Cracow]

Does the list of all provincial titles and its' benefits exist somewhere?

No, only of those I've modded, as seen in entry #2.

[Jurand of Cracow]

How come the Scottish provincial titles are not available for the faction leader to obtain (without transferring from another general)? Currently the first obtainable (without transfers) PT for David of Scotland is through conquest (York/Caernarvon), which seems a bit odd.

;------------------------------------------
 Trigger dearmad_edinburgh 
 WhenToTest CharacterTurnEndInSettlement
 Condition SettlementName Edinburgh
 and IsGeneral
 and not IsFactionLeader
 and not CharacterReligion islam
 and not CultureType greek
 and not HasAncType dearmad_her
 and not FactionwideAncillaryExists dearmad_edinburgh
 and Trait FitForOffice > 1
 
 AcquireAncillary dearmad_edinburgh chance 100

I like to always have the capital PT for the FL for roleplay reasons, but if there's a reasoning why this isn't intended for Scotland, I can live with it

---

Another thing I noticed from the current royal family setup is that it really encourages the player to expand early on, as M2TW children limitations prevent the birth of a new child before either a) the death of David or his nephew which can take dozens of turns judging by their starting ages or b) taking York or Caernarvon. On the other hand, this sounds like a fun challenge if playing without financial aid - you need to either provoke England to attack you and then retaliate, or pass through their lands to try and submit the Welsh to see it's better to be a part of Scotland than to be on the yoke of England

I haven't noticed it but it's actually how it should look like. The very concept of a PT that I had in mind and described in the relevant thread would tell that it is not for a FL. Actually, I have it in my plans to disable it entirely for each province - coded perhaps a bit differently so that a FL can never have a PT.
------------
That's right. It's one of the facets of Scotland which makes it not-so-interesting: the only way to play it is to laboriously push through England, perhaps through provoking it to attack.

[vovery]

Actually, I have it in my plans to disable it entirely for each province - coded perhaps a bit differently so that a FL can never have a PT.

Gotcha. Makes sense in a way that the king should be busy enough ruling the whole kingdom, thus delegating the governance of the capital itself or any other fiefdom to nobles. From playing other factions I thought the FL would always be able to have a capital PT, and in CK3 they hold the capital duchy too.

One thing that came to mind though is that if FLs are prevented from having PTs, it could create weird situations whenever the FL is attending court. A highly pious FL would still be the actual governor of the capital instead of a more administratively capable PT holder, if the latter has lower piety (I've read it from various threads here). But you can't have it all with the engine limitations.

[j.a.luna]

Gotcha. Makes sense in a way that the king should be busy enough ruling the whole kingdom, thus delegating the governance of the capital itself or any other fiefdom to nobles. From playing other factions I thought the FL would always be able to have a capital PT, and in CK3 they hold the capital duchy too.

One thing that came to mind though is that if FLs are prevented from having PTs, it could create weird situations whenever the FL is attending court. A highly pious FL would still be the actual governor of the capital instead of a more administratively capable PT holder, if the latter has lower piety (I've read it from various threads here). But you can't have it all with the engine limitations.

Yes, i also agree about FL dont have PT, cause one more free slot for another ancillarry for FL, and i agree that governance of regions are for the rest of nobles, but for example when the heir or another family member becomes FL, he should transfer his PT to another noble, otherwise he could incur negative traits for the FL (for example, he doesn't pay enough attention to his kingdom to rule, or greedy...)

[Jurand of Cracow]

Yes, i also agree about FL dont have PT, cause one more free slot for another ancillarry for FL, and i agree that governance of regions are for the rest of nobles, but for example when the heir or another family member becomes FL, he should transfer his PT to another noble, otherwise he could incur negative traits for the FL (for example, he doesn't pay enough attention to his kingdom to rule, or greedy...)

it's up to the player to do it, no need to code it. Penalty is already done by the fact the the FL doesn't get the benefits from the PT.

[eyelurker]

Some of the Province seems to be missing? For example as Abbasid missing Wasit while England missing Norwich.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Some of the Province seems to be missing? For example as Abbasid missing Wasit while England missing Norwich.

?
all PT are in. Norwich:

;------------------------------------------
Ancillary dearmad_caen
Type dearmad_her
Transferable 1
Image tokus_caen.tga
Description dearmad_caen_desc
EffectsDescription dearmad_caen_effects_desc
Effect Command 1
Effect Loyalty 1

;------------------------------------------
Trigger dearmad_caen
WhenToTest CharacterTurnEndInSettlement
Condition SettlementName Norwich
and IsGeneral
and not CharacterReligion islam
and not CultureType greek
and not HasAncType dearmad_her
and not FactionwideAncillaryExists dearmad_caen
and Trait FitForOffice > 1

AcquireAncillary dearmad_caen chance 100

[eyelurker]

?
all PT are in. Norwich:

That's strange... oh wait you guys have fit for office thing. The guy in Norwich is a very old heir of 80 years old, that maybe why.

Al-wasit governor still empty though despite having elligable general at least when i play as Abbasid

[Jurand of Cracow]

That's strange... oh wait you guys have fit for office thing. The guy in Norwich is a very old heir of 80 years old, that maybe why.
Al-wasit governor still empty though despite having elligable general at least when i play as Abbasid

yep, thanks, error in coding - Wasit when it should be: Al_Wasit. will be corrected.

[eyelurker]

Title have a weird balance.

Title of backwater region have a very good traits such as Moldovia that make you a very good farmer governor or Roman Crimea that make you a very good trader governor.

But title of Baghdad only give 10% tax and a bit of trade or Esfahan which just give 5% tax and a bit of trade or Smyrna which despite being a stone wall city the trait give benefit to a military education which require castle.

Now the benefit of making your general Provincial title is a benefical in itself but i would expect capital title especially of huge/large city to hold more benefit than some rural region in the north.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Title have a weird balance.
Title of backwater region have a very good traits such as Moldovia that make you a very good farmer governor or Roman Crimea that make you a very good trader governor.
But title of Baghdad only give 10% tax and a bit of trade or Esfahan which just give 5% tax and a bit of trade or Smyrna which despite being a stone wall city the trait give benefit to a military education which require castle.
Now the benefit of making your general Provincial title is a benefical in itself but i would expect capital title especially of huge/large city to hold more benefit than some rural region in the north.

this is because only 1/3 of the titles were modded. the rest was not, even if I've made some balancing work some years ago

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[naq]

Right now they seem to only give bonus to governors. But sometime after a siege if there is no free general to govern the province, the army leader must act as the governor for a while, then get the title instead. It won't give any benefit to the army leader but if transferring to another general the army leader will get "stripped of title" penalty to loyalty. So I think the titles should give some bonus to army commanders too, to make them worthwhile.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Right now they seem to only give bonus to governors. But sometime after a siege if there is no free general to govern the province, the army leader must act as the governor for a while, then get the title instead. It won't give any benefit to the army leader but if transferring to another general the army leader will get "stripped of title" penalty to loyalty. So I think the titles should give some bonus to army commanders too, to make them worthwhile.

Some of them provide bonuses for the military leaders as well. But they are designed for allowing specialization. It absolutely may happen that you have a one that provides not needed benefits - well, it's by desing, another parameter of the game. Each provides Loyalty, and this might be important.
But: only 1/3 of the PTs are already adjusted to the new system (see below), so the possible work should go in that direction.

[naq]

Some of them provide bonuses for the military leaders as well. But they are designed for allowing specialization. It absolutely may happen that you have a one that provides not needed benefits - well, it's by desing, another parameter of the game. Each provides Loyalty, and this might be important.
But: only 1/3 of the PTs are already adjusted to the new system (see below), so the possible work should go in that direction.

I haven't seen any giving bonuses to military leaders yet, while all of them seem to give some bonuses to governors. I would prefer them giving bonuses to both governors and military leaders so they can be useful for both purposes.
Anyway I can only see the effects after the general already got it so I can't specialize them. I guess I have to live with that. It makes sense to give a title to the general who conquered it though.

[jessercringer]

I modified the rest of the PTs that weren't changed from the spreadsheet for my own playthroughs. I only changed it for the catholic factions and I followed the same style as had been done for the previously overhauled PTs. Anyway here's the link to the two files I changed, export_descr_ancillaries.txt and export_ancillaries.txt: https://mega.nz/file/yiwnXSDa#kpiLPn...W2Xp7CEa2Y7wOo

I'm happy to do the rest of them if all the effects and etc are decided and if it's desired. Either way love the mod, great work everyone involved!