There is no sense to theoretize since feature doesn't work at all. I have no idea how to fix it actually so it will stay as potential issue if ever works as soon as i find a solution.

I would absolutely agree with you if it was discrete +5 for Christian denominations, Antiochene, Alexandrine, Nicene , Arian, Manichean, but having ~5-10% slavic pagan, 5-10% Jewish, 5-10% semetic Pagan - Need I Go On? in EVERY PROVINCE, whether its Egypt or Hispania, is silly and un-immersive. Show me the religious building that gives you +15 influence to allow the player to even compete with the combined 90 odd influence of every other faith put together. Its your mod and I love it to bits but this is a poor change.

That's what ERE exactly faced for the whole late antiquity and dark ages. Not gamebreaking but challenging and realistic.
Essentially one of the mod's goal is to keep religion unstable for ERE. Yet, nevertheless their campaign is easiest possible so one annoying obstacle sems pretty just.

ERE +5 Non Nicene Christian influence is resulting in per province influence so +15 for most provinces for every single religion - somewhat gamebreaking making getting stable religion near impossible - might be better +1 or maybe moved to some other way to apply (influence from citiy buildings perhaps?)

Anyway please, read description.
" Main campaign is meant to be played at least on VH (recommended), no recommendation for battle difficulty, however FotE opts for normal while hard seems playable as well ."

Always Very Hard. There is no fun playing that other mode. And loosing campaign is not a shame it is a way to learn.

Aurelinus, beautiful mod, my campaign has lasted a year now. Come back to it every Christmas. I've pulled back from Britain and Spain and Dacia, consolidating just Gaul, Italy and Sicily. I've had to claw my way up from Milites Pedites armies to now Comitatenses, next step is Auxilia Palatinae armies. What was the recommended difficulty for campaign?

Intended. There are few threads in discussion panels regarding units, requirements etc. After 10 years of development nothing is "missed".
https://psteamcommunity.yuanyoumao.com/workshop/filedetails/discussion/429279205/3819658451366722281/

Yeah. Unlimited agents armies was very annoying at Vanilla. Thank you. And one more question. There are some units, for example, Lombards shock cavalry and Burgundian Elite 2H Axemen and some cavalry too, that is available Only for Horde buildings and not available at normal cities. Is it implemented too, or i just missed something?

Yeah, i rised cost of agents, they are hardly used by AI. It doesn't mean "never" just not with every possible occassion.
Anyway if you checked AI more deeper you could find that they hire agents in critical situations sending them one by one instead of recruit army, that is what i wanted to stop.

Hello. Is it intentional that AI factions do not hire agents? My friend and I have been playing for about 50+ turns in the co-op campaign, and the AI does not have a single agent.

Fixed, update automatic.

Hello. There's missing industry, roman administration, roman sanitation and roman main settlement building names for Burgundian faction.

If so that would be vanilla bug rather.
Not really sure how to check it if fixed.

I believe the +5 religious influence for non-Nicene religions for the ERE may not be working

Essentially some celts (or they themselves, unlikely) called their collegues "scotti" for a reason and romano-britons started to use that to separate one celts from other. "Outcasts" or "coming not from here" more precisely is probable conotation.

"either celtic or even older, but likely used by celts to describe kinda neighbours (?) of specific ethnic."

This is actually my line of reasoning for believing Scotti could have derived from a western Brythonic tribe that was under Roman rule, possibly the early Welsh tribes, as the etymologies of the native languages of the Isles were very similar up until Viking and German invasions. It's not too far fetched that the early Welsh tribes had a word similar to "scuit" that also meant "outcast" and could therefore apply to pirates and other raiders. The Romans loved their loanwords and Latinizing them.

Anyway as general naming convention some affiliations are pretty surely excluded so no ethnic or tribe got ever name by their members' characteristics like "scouts", "bearded" or "tattoed", that has no ground in any adult discussion, populations get names by geography, really specific use of something (like frogs or maccaroni ), or their names are preserved from original source like "slav" which is deformed original slavic word meaning strictly "human". 99% of people called themselves "human", "man" or "locals" and nieghbours were called "not locals", "not our language", "strangers". Yet 99% of names are originating from what their neibours called the specific group. So we learn most german tribes as romans called them and we have no idea how they called themselves.

To my historical nose "scott" and "va-scone" are suspiciously near as galates, gaels, celts and gauls essentially are the same name. No idea what is scote-scone derivation from, but seems like either "pirate" or "highlander" maybe, "stranger", whatever. Word is definitely not roman - either celtic or even older, but likely used by celts to describe kinda neighbours (?) of specific ethnic.
For the shield records i didn't really went deep around keeping +-100 years of possible existence for the gear (excluding Romans, who are pretty close to the sources) as we have no f. bloody idea how other peoples looked like those days excluding romans, persians and some steppe people.
So yeah, i can remember i have looked for pictish sources incl. those stones but cannot really recall now which specifically i studied, yet i made - at my level of possibilities and accesibility - verification of sources provided earlier by FotE team and removed most unidentifiable or questionable gear.

Seems two of the stones, Aberlemno and Rhynie, were actually incorrect. The Pictish stones I found that were labeled as Aberlemno and Rhynie were mislabeled.

However, the Collessie stone, believed to date to around the 5th or 6th century, definitely depicts a naked warrior carrying a rectangular shield and a spear.

But, back on the topic of shields, I did find the Pictish stones circa 5th–7th century (CE).

Multiple stones, Aberlemno, Rhynie and Collessie, show warriors with large oval shields and sometimes rectangular shields. Since the Picts were Insular Celts with continuity from earlier Brittonic culture, this strongly implies 3rd–5th century Britons used similar shields.

As far as I'm aware, the earliest attested use of the name Scoti, or Scotti, is a Roman source dating to 312 CE. A quick google search shows the source name as Nomina Provinciarum Omnium.

The origin and etymology of the term Scoti is widely debated with theories ranging from "skotos", Greek meaning "darkness", to the Old Irish word "scuit", meaning "outcast", to an origin myth dating from Medieval Ireland and Scotland about an Egyptian princess names Scota.

Scoti, to my knowledge, referred specifically to the Goidel raiders from Ireland, so I personally lean more towards the etymology deriving from "scuit" or perhaps a similar word from one of the south western Brythonic tribes that were accustom to Irish raids and likely had a word for referring to them specifically.

Romans (or Romano-brits) started to call irish raiders "Scotti" far earlier than IV century. It had the same meaning as "Saxones" - literally raiders with specific tactics or weapon. The name itself has proto affiliation to Vascones to describe locals. Romans used such an affiliations to many people there.
Scotti or Gealic foederati were settled in western Britain from about Great Conspiracy period so refering to migration you have to start much earlier than Dal Riata. The Picts in that context are one more issue that is not taken under consideration here. It seems actually that "Picts" were just one of regional people there not the whole "nation", not even tribe but local ethnics. And surely they were not Picts due to paintings.

You're referring to the Dal Riata migrations in which the Pictish peoples started to adopt Goidelic cultural norms as intermittent hostilities with the Romans faded on the eve of Rome's collapse in Britain.

I have read a few historical accounts by contemporary authors, particularly Romano-British authors, attesting that Goidelic raiding "armies", especially those from Ireland, still used a front line of spearmen that favored "Large, oblong shields that covered the whole of their torso and down to their knees.", or a description similar to that, and swordsmen and skirmishers that used smaller, lighter round shields.

I can find the historical accounts again. I'm sure it was some Romano-British administrator-type from an area near modern Cornwall, so it could have been specific to southern Irish tribes.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be pushy or anything. I appreciate you responding.

Ignaeon ---> essentially there is no evidence they were or they were not used. If i can remember some excavations rectangular consular shields (with rounded edges) were still produced in VI century in Egipt for unknown purpose.
The other problem with Irish and Scotti people those times were huge migration from Ireland to Scotland so about IV-V century it is hard to say who was who. I guess Celts have the same problem since most locals start to use the same word "gael/guotodin/wotodin/goidel" for different affiliations.

NO, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED. Ditto.

Hello, May I use the emblems for my mod please? I'll credit.

It may be worth noting that the Insular Celts, particularly the Goidelic Celts, were still using primarily La Tene style large, oblong shields, not round shields.

Aside from that, it looks pretty great.

i just want to say thank you keeping this updated and still answering question from the comment. great mod

Thank you for this! Appreciate it!

Look at the first screenshot, the order is presented there.

Most probably you just didn't run game after fresh instalation (without any mods) - instal game, start game & get to menu (optionally you may tune graphics or audio at that point), just quit, add mods, run again, play.
You don't have to reinstal game, just disable mods for first launch then quit and enable them back.

Hi there! I must be doing something wrong as the game is crashing on launch (while it's loading up with the TW Attila logo screen). This is on a fresh install with only the compatible mods installed.

Is it something to do with my load order? Do I need to have the EP and FotE mods also installed alongside this one (EP + FotE)? This is a great mod but I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. Thank you!

1. FAQ, pt. 2 - check other mods you are using. I can't see your mods' list so it is probable you are using something that is incompatible. That means i can't even think of what the problem is as i know only that compatibility list is safe and such things don't happen.
2. But that thing also happens when your faction is not allowed to use that branch of buildings (like unromanized Germans). Nonetheless ERE/WRE can use them.

I understand, anyway, i've seemed to have found a bug, when using one of the mod's industry buildings (for example the cattle market) if i place a second industry building it can only be upgraded to a quarry

Hey, that is just a game, there is no point to create separate factions just to satisfy one customer. Close your eyes and use your imagination .

It was the event Vandal invasion of africa, with the Wendiloz Hastingar, the same ones i previously destroyed in the campaign

Essentially it seems that western migration period that happened between 406-411 was inflicted with Bagaudae uprasing and mutiny in Britain rather than any "climate change" or whatever pseudo-historical/social theories say.
In that period Romans lost control of most gallic and spanish territory and that was brought into play for those germanic people who used occasion to move far from Huns.
Remember that hunnic chieftains considered germanic peoples who moved to roman territories as their subjects and constantly demanded them to come back under their rule so it is most probable they just wanted to be as far as possible from hunnic vincinity and possibility Romans decide to give them back to Huns.

There is even no single evidence the Vandals mentioned in sources to cross Rhein were the same who later settled in Spain. Vandalic people served in roman ranks as foederati at Danube border (some dacian/noricum locations) and most probably they are the people who moved to Spain (or joined those who theoretically crossed Rhein).
Sources mention that those Vandals who crossed Rhein had mortal battle vs. Franks which was eventually won with help of some unidentified alanic support (how did they even happened there?).
It should be considered rather that vandalic remnants of that battle(s) were split to join those Alans and vandalic groups moving through southern roman borders via Raetia and Noricum.

The same issue should be considered when thinking of "destroying" Goths, Burgundians, Alamanns or whatever migrating people (yes, we should not say Vandals, Goths or Burgundians but gothic/vandalic/burgundian/saxonic etc. people as none of those "tribes" were homogenous nations but bands of joined raiders who apparently recognized dominacy of one "tribe" like that.
Sources say that actually Suebi who emerged in Spain were consisting of alamanic, burgundian, alan and longobardian and some unidentified "Buri" bands/contingents. Later, when they settled in Spain they were joined even by significant force of Celts (or romano-celtic groups) leaving former british provinces of Rome.

Which Vandals have you destroyed actually? The ones that harrass alemannian domain? Those are not the group that spawns in Spain.
Historically that group formed from gallic roman locals (incl. settled saxonic people there), lugdunian Alans (separate ones from Alans who joined spanish Vandals) and Vandals who served in roman ranks as foederati at Danube border. They essentially were mix of those (with probable contingent of burgundian people) and Hasdingi/Silingi Vandals who decided to cross roman borders in 407 AD.
Yet significant part of Vandals stayed in germanic territory (they are called in game "Lugians" which is partially truth because they were later joined by Vandals who didn't go to Spain). That is confirmed in sources that their envoys were send to Vandal king to Africa to arrange agreement over lands left in Vistula area.

I'm really enjoying the mod so far but i have one complaint, I'm fine with the usurpations and local coups, but i destroyed the vandals, annihilated them, killed every single tribesman, just to find them spawning in mauretania, i understand it is something that happened historically, but couldn't it be modified so that if the Vandals are destroyed the event does not happen?

Alexander - i'm sorry you don't enjoy the mod for whatever reason, but that is only your private, very subjective pov that simply can be posted somewhere on Discord, dicussion tab or else, not here.
Mod is hard for a reason (at first historical), but generally only for unexperienced players. If you know what tables to look after and how economy works in game that won't be problem any more.

There is no such a list and no plans to reveal that.

Where can I find a list of the custom events for ERE/WRE. My game is currently glitched and I have am experiencing the civil war debuffs but there are no separatists or rebels, so I want to know when the evnts happen so I can allow the rebels to take a settlement and then siege it back so that I can lose the debuff.

@Aurelinus Thanks!

Blank descriptions of roman barracks issue is answered in FAQ, pt. 4

I have an issue with missing building descriptions for WRE, in I and II tier of stables, III is working fine. My load order is as suggested by author an I have only FOTE + EP with all necesarry mods. Tried disabling combo and this issue is linked with EP, FOTE works fine.

Funny fact is selected saxonic bands were settled in northern Gallia and british isles long before Honorius. Part of Litus Saxonicum was in fact defended by them against other saxonic bands.

Saxones are not part of any "viking" culture, they were not in roman times and they were not in real viking times. They were rather typical west german non-ethnic group of unidentyfied bands coming from Angles (also german, not northmen), Frisians, Franks, Chatti, even Longobards.

i want to report bug but i dont know the right place so i post here instead. Apparently the saxons still has sea sikness debuff wehen land unit fight at sea. The saxons is part of the viking raider culture and it said has seasickness immunity