Thanks to you both.

The -65,000 thing was funny! But it makes sense for a 16-bit integer going past the wrap-around point (-65536 +/- 40 yrs)


Another curiosity:- playing as the English, there comes a point where a particular succession event turns the dead king's younger brothers (no longer in line of succession) into Royal-blood generals... and it gives them the surname "Plantagenet", which is historically correct.

I lack the knowledge of other nation's histories to realise whether this is paralleled with all the other factions too but I'm willing to guess that it is and await confirmation from those who might know.

Extract from NAMES.txt
Code:
// english surnames// english surnames


	["Cromwell"]	{"Cromwell"}
	["Pole"]		{"Pole"}
	["Talbot"]		{"Talbot"}
	["Stanley"]		{"Stanley"}
	["Roos"]		{"Roos"}
	["Mobray"]		{"Mobray"}
	["Grey"]		{"Grey"}
	["Plantagenet"]	{"Plantagenet"}
Co-incidence or not, Plantagenet is the 8th name on the list (or 7th if you count from 0 upwards). However, there is no visible sign of a numerical 'pointer' to this position, so I'm left thinking that it might be hard-coded into the game.

Not having properly played any modded campaigns, to date, I can't vouch for this myself. I'd be interested to hear from, for example, a Middle-Earth TW player where, I presume, all the names have been comprehensively re-worked and one of the substitute names consistently appears on the equivalent heirs, when a similar event occurs. Or does "Plantagenet" (etc.) pop up out of nowhere, in spite of the edits?


It's interesting because the "King Michael Roman numeral @...." error gives us clues as to how the ruler names are constructed from the labels - @[Title] @[forename] @[Roman numeral] with no "embedded but hidden" surname (it seems). Which makes you wonder how/where the (e.g.) Plantagenet thing arises from.