The CROWNS system

[Jurand of Cracow]

crown_levant

Current situation: doesn’t exist.

Modifications’ ideas
New concept: land that were either conquered (the whole coast of the Holy Land) or attacked (Damascus) during the crusades by the Catholic factions.
Gameplay perspective: available for all Catholic nations, but mainly for the Kingdom of Jerusalem (that currently doesn’t have access to any crown). This crown could also enable to have a country split into several parts (eg. through an additional trigger abolishing the Near/Far Loyalty) - but this is an idea for the future. For now, the Kingdom of Jerusalem does exist.
Name of the crown: Crown of the Holy Land
Title of the ruler: xxx
Effects: Authority 2, Law 1, LocalPopularity 1 and tbd
Provinces: as on the pic.
Number of provinces: 11.
Place of coronation: Jerusalem.
Building required for coronation: Holy Sepulchre.
Factions able to get it: Kingdom of Jerusalem. In the future one may think of further modification to enable access also to (some) Catholic factions.
Pic to be used: to be created, for now it's the French one.
Ideas for distant future: none.
Description: to be developed by the players.
Memo for future: has this crown been analyzed thoroughly?: Partially.



Implemented with 11 provinces. Descriptions should be worked out in the future.

[Jurand of Cracow]

crown_moors

Current situation: doesn’t exist.

Modifications’ ideas
New concept: to make the Moors situation historical: include Al-Andalus, but also Northern Africa up to Tripoli.
Gameplay perspective: easy (no enemies at the back).
Name of the crown: ?
Title of the ruler: ?
Effects: Authority 2, Law 1, LocalPopularity 1 and tbd
Provinces: xxx.
Number of provinces: 15.
Place of coronation: Marrakesh (with jama), Cordoba (with La Mezquita), Zaragoza (with Aljaferia).
Building required for coronation: as above.
Factions able to get it: Moors.
Pic to be used: to be created.
Ideas for distant future: two versions: (1) Al-Andalus: (2) Al-Magrib: with Algiers, Tunis, Al-Mahdia, Tarabulus, perhaps fewer in the Iberian Penninsula.
Description: to be developed by the players.
Memo for future: has this crown been analyzed thoroughly?: No.




Status 0.97: implemented with 15 provinces. Descriptions should be worked out in the future. Perhaps also an alternative version with Tunis and Egypt.

[Jurand of Cracow]

crown_syria

Modifications’ ideas
New concept: tbd
Gameplay perspective:
Name of the crown: ?
Title of the ruler: ?
Effects: Authority 2, Law 1, LocalPopularity 1 and tbd
Provinces: those in Syria.
Number of provinces: 12
Place of coronation: ?
Building required for coronation: Jama
Factions able to get it: Zenghids.
Pic to be used: to be created.
Ideas for distant future: none.
Description: to be developed by the players.
Memo for future: has this crown been analyzed thoroughly?: No.



Status: implemented with 12 provinces. Descriptions should be worked out in the future.

[Roma_Victrix]

This is a great idea, it adds a neat role-play feature to the game, encourages more historically-authentic paths of expansion for certain factions, and thus I support it 95%. However, there's a thing about it that I dislike very much, and that is your idea to have faction leaders with the "usurper" trait ineligible for receiving any of the crowns. I think that's a bad idea, because it is very easy for factions to lose their core dynastic royal line, even with attempts at marrying faction heirs and leaders to princesses, or just family members to princesses, in hopes of perpetuating the original dynastic house and bloodline. AI factions are miserably worthless in that regard. After about a hundred years into the game, from my experience, most other factions have leaders who are "usurpers" and its easy even for a novice player to fall into this trap. That's because, correct me if I'm wrong, M2TW is hardwired to dick you over and supplant your original royal family entirely. From what I've seen it tries to do this at every opportunity.

In a M2TW mod like Europa Barbarorum II, where the princess agent isn't even available and you are at the mercy of the game in offering your family members with royal traits a wife to marry (to produce a future generation of family members with the same trait), original dynastic houses basically disappear after about 100 years. This affects the authority level of your faction leader and barring rare circumstances where you build him up by experience and luck as an Alexander-type demigod, you're most likely going to have crap faction leaders after that point in EBII.

I hope you will reconsider this thing about the "usurper" trait. If you do that, then this whole crowns business will be largely irrelevant and non-operational after about 100 years into the SSHIP campaign. There's no guarantee that the royal blood trait will survive among the family members of your royal house and sometimes the stupid game even makes someone who doesn't have the trait as the faction heir! It also doesn't help that we are unable to select and choose the faction heir on our own volition.

Another reason to dislike this feature of your proposal is the idea that usurpers or even illegitimate bastard children are unworthy or even unable to obtain the crown. Given historical examples to the contrary, this idea rests on flimsy foundations to say the least. William I 'the Conqueror', Duke of Normandy, was a bastard and yet he conquered Anglo-Saxon England and became its first Norman king. Henry of Bolingbroke basically usurped the English crown by deposing Richard II of England in 1399 and became Henry IV of England. I could give many more examples, but I think you get the point. This shouldn't disbar a family member from obtaining a crown in SSHIP.

[Jurand of Cracow]

... I dislike very much, and that is your idea to have faction leaders with the "usurper" trait ineligible for receiving any of the crowns. I think that's a bad idea, because it is very easy for factions to lose their core dynastic royal line, even with attempts at marrying faction heirs and leaders to princesses, or just family members to princesses, in hopes of perpetuating the original dynastic house and bloodline. AI factions are miserably worthless in that regard. After about a hundred years into the game, from my experience, most other factions have leaders who are "usurpers" and its easy even for a novice player to fall into this trap. That's because, correct me if I'm wrong, M2TW is hardwired to dick you over and supplant your original royal family entirely. From what I've seen it tries to do this at every opportunity.

Hi Roma!
thanks a lot for this opinion that shows how experienced you're in the M2TW engine. This is very true: such things are bound to happen unless the modding team takes it seriously and prepares measures to mitigate this effect.

It's what we'got up in our sleeves:
- the usurper system is undergoing scrutiny and will be tweaked in such a way that the AI will be challenged not so often and perhaps with fewer consequences (it's already been tweaked, our work is in this thread);
- each AI faction will be given (by script) a princess with the relevant Bloodline every (perhaps) 20 turns. The AI is likely to marry off these princesses to his generals what will make the bloodline lingering in this world. Every now and again the player will probably see these princesses and will be able to marry blooded women;
- a player will be given occasionally an Interactive event that would give a princess for (a lot of) money. Perhaps she'd come with the relevant blood (if it's possible to mod it, I don't know). We probably don't have resources to implement the Royal Ladies of the Court submod, but if somebody would volunteer then it would create another option.
- there'll be an information window popping out to the players with a few simple advice on how to manage their family trees, including Bloodlines, in the best way;
- we'll implement (actually, it's done) the NextHeir option for the players. This gives +8Authority what renders the Usurper system irrelevant. (as usurpation occur due to the low authority of the FL). Therefore some players preferring easier gameplay will be able to play the mod according to their style.

Besides, the SSHIP usurper system is not related to the Bloodlines. It is possible that a change on the throne in favor of the guy without the relevant blood progresses without any usurpation. Bloodline is not the sole means of legitimization of the rule. I'll post more on this one we get more into the usurper system modification.
I'm also not sure the M2TW engine is hardwired to get rid of the bloodlines, I guess it's just another trait for it.

.Another reason to dislike this feature of your proposal is the idea that usurpers or even illegitimate bastard children are unworthy or even unable to obtain the crown. Given historical examples to the contrary, this idea rests on flimsy foundations to say the least. William I 'the Conqueror', Duke of Normandy, was a bastard and yet he conquered Anglo-Saxon England and became its first Norman king. Henry of Bolingbroke basically usurped the English crown by deposing Richard II of England in 1399 and became Henry IV of England. I could give many more examples, but I think you get the point. This shouldn't disbar a family member from obtaining a crown in SSHIP.

A skilled player will be able to get rid of the "usurper" trait of his Faction Leader. There're cleaning-up triggers in the code. So if the guy proves to be great, he will be able to get the crown.

On the other side, for the moment I'm still inclined to add this condition for gaining the crown. But we'll think on this issue and this opinion may change.

RV, given your knowledge of history - can you have a look at the crowns? Maybe some proposals for names etc.?
cheers
JoC

PS. Furthermore, in the SSHIP there's a nice way of re-emergent Bloodlines ;-)

;------------------------------------------
Trigger Royal_Blood_Portuguese_FactionHeir
 WhenToTest CharacterTurnStart


 Condition FatherTrait Royal_Founder > 0
and FactionType portugal
and Trait Royal_Blood_Portuguese = 0
and OriginalFactionType portugal
and Trait BiologicalSon > 0
 
 Affects Royal_Blood_Portuguese 1 Chance 100 


;------------------------------------------
Trigger Princess_Royal_Blood_Portuguese_FactionHeir
 WhenToTest CharacterTurnStart


 Condition FatherTrait Royal_Founder > 0
and AgentType = princess
and FactionType portugal
and Trait Princess_Royal_Blood_Portuguese = 0
 
 Affects Princess_Royal_Blood_Portuguese 1 Chance 100

[MightyPotato]

I like the idea of crowns, but what I would suggest would be to have one crown per kingdom, and upon collecting a certain number of them you get an imperial crown (i.e you could have the crown of France, the crown of Germany and getting both gives you the crown of the Franks). What could be nice there is that the crowns would be transferable and you might be able to get a kingdom crown from an enemy in battle, thus allowing you to claim a title. If the faction which had the crown is dead, everything is fine, but if it isn't you get the usurper trait. (That's the way I was going to make my crown submod for overall SS6.4 but I have not yet gotten to it. One day maybe...)

[Jurand of Cracow]

I like the idea of crowns, but what I would suggest would be to have one crown per kingdom.

This could be done, actually. The problem I see - and it's also present in the current scheme - the factions with the more complex political systems (mainly the Italian ones).

upon collecting a certain number of them you get an imperial crown (i.e you could have the crown of France, the crown of Germany and getting both gives you the crown of the Franks).

I'm not sure how historical it would have been.

What could be nice there is that the crowns would be transferable and you might be able to get a kingdom crown from an enemy in battle, thus allowing you to claim a title. If the faction which had the crown is dead, everything is fine, but if it isn't you get the usurper trait. (That's the way I was going to make my crown submod for overall SS6.4 but I have not yet gotten to it. One day maybe...)

This requires much more work. I'm not sure if it's historical though. Gaining a crown was not achieved in the battles. The whole system would have been much more complicated.

[Eldgrimr]

I'll help out with as many of the names and titles that I can. I'm just wondering, what names/titles do you need? Just the names of the crowns, or something else?

[Jurand of Cracow]

I'll help out with as many of the names and titles that I can. I'm just wondering, what names/titles do you need? Just the names of the realms, or something else?

Thanks, Eldgrimr!
Exactly this:
Name of the crown: in the relevant language (sometimes it’ll be Latin or Arabic)
Title of the ruler: as above.
Place of coronation: Al Quahira (is it right, or I miss something)
Building required for coronation: Jama. (as above)
Pic to be used: yeah, I’m not sure if those in-game are the right ones… So tga pics 33x41 points are welcome.
Description: I doubt the descriptions in-game are right, so use your imagination :-)

If you find it handy, you may also provide info on the other crowns, as MightyPotato mentioned. And comment on this. Eg. do you think the separate crowns for Denmark and Norway make sense? Or multiple in Spain?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

¬---------------
{crown_russia} Tsar of Russia
{crown_russia_desc} Entitled as Tsar of all Russia.
{crown_russia_effects_desc} +3 Authority, +1 Command, +1 to law (improves public order), +1 to popularity (improves public order)
¬---------------
{crown_scandinavia} King of Scandinavia
{crown_scandinavia_desc} Entitled as King of all Scandinavia.
{crown_scandinavia_effects_desc} +3 Authority, +1 Command, +1 to law (improves public order), +1 to popularity (improves public order)
¬---------------
{crown_byzantium} Exarch of Byzantium
{crown_byzantium_desc} Has recaptured the empire and become glorious Exarch of the Byzantium Empire.
{crown_byzantium_effects_desc} +3 Authority, +1 Command, +1 to law (improves public order), +1 to popularity (improves public order)
¬---------------
{crown_france} King of France
{crown_france_desc} Entitled as King of all France.
{crown_france_effects_desc} +3 Authority, +1 Command, +1 to law (improves public order), +1 to popularity (improves public order)
¬---------------
{crown_hungary} King of Hungary
{crown_hungary_desc} Entitled as King of all Hungary.
{crown_hungary_effects_desc} +3 Authority, +1 Command, +1 to law (improves public order), +1 to popularity (improves public order)
¬---------------
{crown_italy} King of Italy
{crown_italy_desc} Entitled as King of all Italy.
{crown_italy_effects_desc} +3 Authority, +1 Command, +1 to law (improves public order), +1 to popularity (improves public order)
¬---------------
{crown_england} King of Britain
{crown_england_desc} Entitled as King of all Britain.
{crown_england_effects_desc} +3 Authority, +1 Command, +1 to law (improves public order), +1 to popularity (improves public order)
¬---------------
{crown_spain} King of Spain
{crown_spain_desc} Entitled as King of all Spain.
{crown_spain_effects_desc} +3 Authority, +1 Command, +1 to law (improves public order), +1 to popularity (improves public order)
¬---------------
{crown_lithuania} King of Balts
{crown_lithuania_desc} Entitled as King of all Balts.
{crown_lithuania_effects_desc} +3 Authority, +1 Command, +1 to law (improves public order), +1 to popularity (improves public order)
¬---------------
{crown_turks} Sultan of Turks
{crown_turks_desc} Entitled as Sultan of all Turks.
{crown_turks_effects_desc} +3 Authority, +1 Command, +1 to law (improves public order), +1 to popularity (improves public order)
¬---------------
{crown_egypt} Sultan of Egypt
{crown_egypt_desc} Entitled as Sultan of all Egypt.
{crown_egypt_effects_desc} +3 Authority, +1 Command, +1 to law (improves public order), +1 to popularity (improves public order)
¬---------------
{crown_poland} King of Slavs
{crown_poland_desc} Entitled as King of all Slavs.
{crown_poland_effects_desc} +3 Authority, +1 Command, +1 to law (improves public order), +1 to popularity (improves public order)

[Eldgrimr]

Alright, I'll get on it!
Also, sorry for this silly question, but I just wanna make sure. Is the "crown" supposed to be the literal crown that the faction leader bears, is it meant to represent the government, or is it meant to be the territorial possessions that are ruled by a country but not part of the country proper (crownlands)? I'm guessing the third one, but I just want to be sure.

[Lifthrasir]

About Russia, I don't think that "Tsar" is the right title. From my opinion it should be Velikyi Knyaz, meaning Grand Pince.
So, I guess that Grand Prince of Russia is the correct title in this case and can be translated by something like Velikyi Knyaz' Rus'skyi (but it needs to be confirmed for the "Rus'skyi" part ).

[Jurand of Cracow]

Alright, I'll get on it!
Also, sorry for this silly question, but I just wanna make sure. Is the "crown" supposed to be the literal crown that the faction leader bears, is it meant to represent the government, or is it meant to be the territorial possessions that are ruled by a country but not part of the country proper (crownlands)? I'm guessing the third one, but I just want to be sure.

The name of the crown - the first case. Like Monomakh Cape for Russia. Or Szent Korona for Hungary.
However, the whole concept is about the third one, but given the diversity of systems, religions, cultures in the SSHIP you need to take it easy - anything immersive will do. It's better to be roughly right than precisely wrong.

About Russia, I don't think that "Tsar" is the right title. From my opinion it should be Velikyi Knyaz, meaning Grand Pince.
So, I guess that Grand Prince of Russia is the correct title in this case and can be translated by something like Velikyi Knyaz' Rus'skyi (but it needs to be confirmed for the "Rus'skyi" part ).

In the Middle Ages for the Russians "the Tzar" was the emperor in Constantinople, and then the Khagan of the Tatars (Mongols). Grand Prince was correct for Kiev, then for Volodymyr and the for Moscow. So for smaller entities of a few provinces. Iirc Ivan III in the late 15c already called himself the Tzar, and definitely Ivan IV in 1547. It signified something bigger: All-Russias.
Given that the title of the leader of Kiev faction is already the Grand Prince, it feels better to me to use the word Tzar. If there'd be two-tire system, then Tzar would be for the bigger one. But for now with these 14 provinces I think Tzar is better.
Similar situation is for Poland - the current title is Grand Duke, but the crown is for King. One step up.

[Lifthrasir]

I'm still not convinced by the Tsar title. According to your input, it means it wasn't used before the 15th-16th centuries, perhaps 14th earliest. Is it not a bit late considerinc that SSHIP starts in 1132 AD? I need to search for more info.

Regarding the Moors, Mediterranean title is too generalist. It doesn't make sens. It had to be related to Maghreb and/or to Iberia.

I still have to go through the others. In general, I'd preferably go for several titles instead of a fancy general one, something more common actually for that period.

[Jurand of Cracow]

I'm still not convinced by the Tsar title. According to your input, it means it wasn't used before the 15th-16th centuries, perhaps 14th earliest. Is it not a bit late considerinc that SSHIP starts in 1132 AD? I need to search for more info.

I've got no problem with the Grand Prince.

moors and mediterranean are two different crowns. I simply didn't have an entry to make them separate.

[Lifthrasir]

No you got me wrong. My point is no crown called mediterranean or in a similar way. That's what I call "fancy"
Instead, Moors can get a crown for Iberia if they conquer the whole peninsula and/or a crown for the Maghreb if they conquer the area between Morocco and Tunisia. To summarize, I'd prefer 2 "realistic" crowns with lesser importance rather than a "fancy" one more important. After all, rulers from that period liked to have many titles

[Eldgrimr]

The name of the crown - the first case. Like Monomakh Cape for Russia. Or Szent Korona for Hungary.
However, the whole concept is about the third one, but given the diversity of systems, religions, cultures in the SSHIP you need to take it easy - anything immersive will do. It's better to be roughly right than precisely wrong.

So, if I've understood it correctly, it should be something like this? For example, the name of the Polish crown should be this (literal physical crown), and not this (territorial possessions)?

[Jurand of Cracow]

No you got me wrong. My point is no crown called mediterranean or in a similar way. That's what I call "fancy"
Instead, Moors can get a crown for Iberia if they conquer the whole peninsula and/or a crown for the Maghreb if they conquer the area between Morocco and Tunisia. To summarize, I'd prefer 2 "realistic" crowns with lesser importance rather than a "fancy" one more important. After all, rulers from that period liked to have many titles

I do agree. As it was the case with King of Balts and perhaps with some others. I just tried to invent what MightyPotato suggested, and a potential idea for two-tier crown.
I also agree that kings liked more titles. And they're already in-game as the names of some provincial titles - like King of Bohemia.
The crowns discussed in this thread are about something different: having conquered large areas that made big kingdoms consisting of many provinces. For the sake of mechanics there should be balance between the factions: 12-18 provinces (more in the more packed areas).

So, if I've understood it correctly, it should be something like this? For example, the name of the Polish crown should be this (literal physical crown), and not this (territorial possessions)?

Yes, you're perfectly right.

[Lord Komnenos]

Some suggestions concerning the byzantine empire:


Name of the crown: Basileus(or "Basilissa" for female) of the Greeks
Title of the ruler: Basileus and Autokrator of the Romans


For the sake of historical presentation of the 12th century, it's better not to use the term "byzantine" or anything like that.
Instead, the contemporaries called themselves "the Greeks" or "the Romans". Moreover, when it comes to the status of the sovereign, "Emperor(in Greek, "Basileus") of the Greeks" is a common use by the westerners.
And the "Basileus and Autokrator of the Romans" is the formal name(but in a simple way) for the emperor himself.


The meaning of the "exarch" is complicated. It depends on the context you would want to discuss. Generally speaking, it means a officer of a particular territory. So I don't think it's appropriate to use the term in describing the sovereign.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Some suggestions concerning the byzantine empire:


Name of the crown: Basileus(or "Basilissa" for female) of the Greeks
Title of the ruler: Basileus and Autokrator of the Romans


For the sake of historical presentation of the 12th century, it's better not to use the term "byzantine" or anything like that.
Instead, the contemporaries called themselves "the Greeks" or "the Romans". Moreover, when it comes to the status of the sovereign, "Emperor(in Greek, "Basileus") of the Greeks" is a common use by the westerners.
And the "Basileus and Autokrator of the Romans" is the formal name(but in a simple way) for the emperor himself.


The meaning of the "exarch" is complicated. It depends on the context you would want to discuss. Generally speaking, it means a officer of a particular territory. So I don't think it's appropriate to use the term in describing the sovereign.

Thanks for the input, LK!
Can you write full names it in Greek in both cases - with transcription? (Basileus ton Rhomaion?)
I fully agree that it'd be better not to use that 16c term "Byzantium", and in the SSHIP we aim at avoiding it completely. However, many people visiting this webpage don't know it therefore here and there it may happen.
Exarch - absolutely you're right. This is exactly why I want to fix the crowns in the SSHIP.

If you're here, maybe you can just have a look at the Greek names in the education? (again, I'm fully aware there're no universities in ERE, but we need to keep the logic of the SS...).

[Lord Komnenos]

Thanks for the input, LK!
Can you write full names it in Greek in both cases - with transcription? (Basileus ton Rhomaion?)

Strictly speaking, the name "Emperor of the Greeks" is for the westerners and us.
For the subject of the empire, it's always "basileus Rhomaíōn"--- Emperor of the Romans.


The formal name of the emperor(in a simple way):
Basileus and Autokrator of the Romans---basileus kai autokratōr Rhōmaíōn


In a completed way(for example, an emperor whose name is Manuel):
Manuel, in Christ the God faithful Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans---Manouēl, en Christō tō Theō pistós basileus kai autokratōr Rhōmaíōn

I will check the names about education~