CK2 Dev Diary #40: Visiting the Cartographer

[ulix]

I'll add my voice to those that want the Rhine fixed. Köln and Mainz are (or were) both on the left side of the Rhine.

 

[SaphireSeas]

For those of you who enjoy Taurica. It will still be there as a titular kingdom.

What was the reason for the Removal of Taurica? The Khazarian borders look Ugly without it.

Not happy about anatolia, but that may pass. The greek world was always both sides of the Agean. My personal suggestion if you thought greece was too big would have been to add a new kingdom. I would be a lot happier if Rhodes and Lesbos were still part of Greece.

Trebizond? Finally we can use it!

While I have bitter feelings about some of the de-jure changes(Except Venice), your map work itself is excellent, and much appreciated.

I am reluctant to break down de-Jure states on size alone, as when left alone, dejure areas tend to ignore each other, only interacting slowly. If places like Persia were split, arbitrary borders may arise inside it, when really it should be a blood-fest.

 

[Axe99]

Cheers for the DD Servancour, and for the map changes and other bits of attention to detail, much appreciated .

 

[ruzen]

If It was up to me I would fully embrace the HIP map changes to the vanilla map. I don't remember the last time I played with vanilla starts or map, where tons of imbalances occur and bizarre de Jure.

 

[Matthias_Wlkp]

Fantastic changes related to the Danube which I've been hoping since I originally bought a game 2 years ago.
Just please rename "Székesfehérvár" to "Somogy".

Related link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somogy_County

No.... On one of my playthroughs AI somehow created the Empire of Székesfehérvár! (using custom kingdoms or nomad mechanics), but that was quite a while ago..

By the way, excellend DD!

 

[TheDungen]

Since Khazaria is getting dejure, any chance they may become tribal again? They were only semi nomadic from what I understand.

 

[aimlessnerd]

wait wait wait, we arent going to have lakes be gigantic pits in the ground?

yaaaaaay

 

[Damarrocarion]

Since Khazaria is getting dejure, any chance they may become tribal again? They were only semi nomadic from what I understand.

I would assume Khazaria would not survive very well as tribal when compared to nomads. However, what they could do would have some cities, etc. in their provinces to show some of their permanent settlements but I am not entirely sure how well these operate under nomad mechanics.

 

[pengoyo]

I love the fixes to the map especially to the Danube.

Two things I would like to see related to the map.
First is mountains and uninhabitable areas being coloured in and names stretching across them if they are completely surrounded by your empire, especially when you zoom out. It'd makes mountain ranges with in your empire not stick out like sore thumbs.
Second is to make there be a dejure drift option that limit it to neighbouring titles or titles within one sea zone. I love the limited dejure drift, but hate that it doesn't allow me to dejure drift in the islands off the coast of Italy (among other examples).

Either way, I look forward to the improvements you've made.

 

[crusader8]

For those of you who enjoy Taurica. It will still be there as a titular kingdom.


I'm glad you like it.


I'd never say never. Who knows what I'll pick for my next pet project.


I'll look into it. No promises that it will be added for 2.7 though.


As you should. Maybe I'll get around to do some fixing for them as well.

Great! Thank you!

 

[es333]

Since Finland, Sapmi and Perm are similar to each other in both culture(Finno-Ugric culture group) and religion(Suomenusko), why would they belong to different de jure empires?

I have ever added a new empire in my mod. The name was inpired by "Uralic languages".

Just because of ~98% of all Finno-Ugric people/tribes/nations have ceased to exist/have been assimilated, doesn't make the surviving ones more similar. Finno-Ugric is a big group like Indo-European. The Saami to the Balto-Finnics are like Balts to Slavs and Permic people to the Balto-Finnics (Estonians, Finns etc.) are like Romance people to the Northern-Germanics. Very different.

Estonia and most of Finland being in the Scandinavian empire makes sense. As in the CK 2 timeframe, the majority of all Estonians (and Finns in the SW-corner of Finland) had way more similarities, cultural, archaeological and historical to the people just over the sea than to people 100km east. Travelling by rivers and especially the sea was the fastest and easiest way to travel back then. Even when it comes to religion, my points apply.

 

[JonStryker]

Regardless of Danube redrawings Znojmo is still (and since the Norse patch) the stupidest county in my area (Austria). I want to quit playing CK2 whenever I see that one. Or maybe I did.

 

[Basileus Basil]

- Moved k_venice to de jure e_italy

Deo gratias!

 

[Karlingid]

Well well, there is certainly a lot to unpack here. Some may agree, some may disagree. I don't mind most of the changes, although seeing Khazaria turn into a de jure, non-titular kingdom is a very interesting development. If I may suggest for the steppes, the Alans still need some love. Perhaps Khazaria could be given the dynamic name of "Sarmatia" under them? "Tartaria" could be "Scythia", too!

Of course, that's not really too important. Here's what I'm here to say:

- The county of Constantinople is now only located on the western side of the Bosphorus, merging the eastern side into the county of Nikaea, connected with a strait

Of all things, this is what irks me. I'm fine with most of the changes listed, but I simply cannot approve of this. I know I am but one voice in many, but I feel I need to say this. I do not enjoy how Europa handles the situation of Constantinople, and do not think that it should be imported to Crusader Kings 2. The special thing about Constantinople, of all cities, was her unique position: it was a city on two continents and bridged Europe and Asia through a breath of urban civilization and prosperity. The keywords? A city. Not Two cities.

Mind, the Asian side of Constantinople is basically an absorbed ancient fishing village. It's hardly up to scale with the rest of the city, but it is part of the city nonetheless. In the Middle Ages as well as today, it is recognized in its unity. I understand the logic behind making a strait between the two pieces, for an invader on one side would indeed need to cross, but to me it just feels wrong.

I would assume Khazaria would not survive very well as tribal when compared to nomads. However, what they could do would have some cities, etc. in their provinces to show some of their permanent settlements but I am not entirely sure how well these operate under nomad mechanics.

I'd whole-heartedly agree. The Khazars were seminomadic as some have said, but the context seems to be missing. The Khazars were similar to modern Mongolia, with a very substantial purely nomadic populace living and ruling alongside cities full of various groups, such as Jews, Arabs, and settled Khazars. A nomadic aristocracy was a reality, as far as I am aware, and so it only makes sense really.

Just because of ~98% of all Finno-Ugric people/tribes/nations have ceased to exist/have been assimilated, doesn't make the surviving ones more similar. Finno-Ugric is a big group like Indo-European. The Saami to the Balto-Finnics are like Balts to Slavs and Permic people to the Balto-Finnics (Estonians, Finns etc.) are like Romance people to the Northern-Germanics. Very different.

Estonia and most of Finland being in the Scandinavian empire makes sense. As in the CK 2 timeframe, the majority of all Estonians (and Finns in the SW-corner of Finland) had way more similarities, cultural, archaeological and historical to the people just over the sea than to people 100km east. Travelling by rivers and especially the sea was the fastest and easiest way to travel back then. Even when it comes to religion, my points apply.

The vast majority of Uralic peoples are still alive and well to this day. It is hardly the supposed 98% extinct.

The extinct groups: Akkala Saami and Kemi Saami, Kamassians, Mator, Yurats, Southern and Western Mansi. 4/7 of these groups are subdivisions of already existing groups, as the Saami and Mansi are not extinct. The last 3 would be grouped as "Samoyed", which has been displaced in the game by the Nenets who are more distantly related to them.

For the record as well, Slavs and Balts also are objectively very similar. They were considered a continuum of each other up until the rise of the Avars in the 7th century. This is notable for being an extremely recent ethnogenesis relative to other Indo-European groups. This may be your point. Moving on:

I can certainly appreciate your comparing the difference as equivalent for Romance vs. Germanic, as it's a very apt comparison. The distance isn't like English to Sanskrit, after all (though, Finnish to Nenets would be such a situation). I have to agree that the Finns and Saami should not be necessarily grouped with the Ugrians, although I don't see too much harm in a custom empire doing so. It's like the empire of India, or the Arabian Empire (which connects similarly disparate Semitic and Berber cultures), or even Tartaria (which connects Mongols and Turks, generally agreed to be just as distinct if not more so.)

It's using modern knowledge to have fun in a medieval setting. I would simply, then, like to point out that the empire of Russia, if held by a Finno-Ugric ruler, will be given the dynastic name "Suomi". Whilst this doesn't really fit seeing as it doesn't contain the Finns at all, it demonstrates that this concept was already kinda in the game. I'd recommend anyone wanting a Finno-Ugric empire to simply stick with that.

You've no idea how oft I've come across issues like petty nationalism getting in the way of these sorts of things. I agree that the Finns and Ugrians are quite different peoples, but a sense of scale is required to appreciate them, and you seem to possess that sense of scale.

 

[Caracterisation]

Thank you for these changes, Lake Baikal and Ganges always seemed out of place to me. Glad to know this was a design flaw rather than a graphical glitch on my end.

Thank you for these corrections, it is the little things that count and I'm glad you still treat this wonderful game as your baby.

 

[Lysistrata]

Of all things, this is what irks me. I'm fine with most of the changes listed, but I simply cannot approve of this. I know I am but one voice in many, but I feel I need to say this. I do not enjoy how Europa handles the situation of Constantinople, and do not think that it should be imported to Crusader Kings 2. The special thing about Constantinople, of all cities, was her unique position: it was a city on two continents and bridged Europe and Asia through a breath of urban civilization and prosperity. The keywords? A city. Not Two cities.

Mind, the Asian side of Constantinople is basically an absorbed ancient fishing village. It's hardly up to scale with the rest of the city, but it is part of the city nonetheless. In the Middle Ages as well as today, it is recognized in its unity. I understand the logic behind making a strait between the two pieces, for an invader on one side would indeed need to cross, but to me it just feels wrong.

It's more to do with the fact that the cities on the other side of the Bosphorus were already in Nikomedeia so it didn't make sense in the same way that the County of Veglia not physically including the island it's named after (also fixed in this patch it seems) didn't make sense. I don't see what's wrong with having Constantinople only occupying the western side of the strait. Especially since when the Byzantines were reduced to Constantinople, they didn't control both sides of the strait. The east side was part of the Thema Optimaton even when they did, so that's another reason it doesn't make sense to have Constantinople on both sides of the strait.

 

[Snorlaxatives_]

Yeah, I always disliked the fact that the ERE would go and conquer Venice so soon whenever you start a game. This should keep them protected from that at least.


It wasn't something I prioritized this time around. But I might look at the Dniester the next time I decide to do some adjustments. It's on my wishlist.


I did consider moving it as well. But chose to not do so for now, mostly for historical reasons, though.

One of the weirdest things that ever happened to me in CKII was a game where Byzantium conquered Venice and proceeded to give it to a Greek Orthodox mayor who later obtained the duchy title somehow...Leading to a new, Greek Orthodox Republic of Venice that later became independent again when Byzantium was severely weakened by the Jihads. Shame I don't still have the file for the game, would've made for an interesting converter game.

 

[Serenity84]

It's weird that Byzantium ever had a de jure claim on Venice. They traded a lot, but Byzantium never conquered them. In fact - especially later on - they were very much dependent on the Italian republics for ships because their own navy was usually in a bad state. Some emperors made an effort to rebuild it but it never lasted beyond several successions. So they just resorted to hiring ships abroad.

 

[killerbee256]

It's weird that Byzantium ever had a de jure claim on Venice. They traded a lot, but Byzantium never conquered them. In fact - especially later on - they were very much dependent on the Italian republics for ships because their own navy was usually in a bad state. Some emperors made an effort to rebuild it but it never lasted beyond several successions. So they just resorted to hiring ships abroad.

In the earliest start dates it's far more complex then that. In those time Venice was technically part of the byzantine empire but after the Lombards and franks they like Sardinia were mostly cut of from Constantinople. There were factions in the Venice government that were pro Frankish and others pro byzantine. No one really knows when became truly independent, but it was a slow gradual process.

In 751 the Lombard King Aistulf conquered most of the Exarchate of Ravenna, leaving Venice a lonely and increasingly autonomous Byzantine outpost. During this period, the seat of the local Byzantine governor (the "duke/dux", later "doge"), was situated in Malamocco. Settlement on the islands in the lagoon probably increased with the Lombard conquest of other Byzantine territories, as refugees sought asylum there. In 775/6 the episcopal seat of Olivolo (San Pietro di Castello; Helipolis[citation needed]) was created. During the reign of duke Agnello Particiaco (811–827) the ducal seat moved from Malamocco to the highly protected Rialto, the current location of Venice. The monastery of St Zachary and the first ducal palace and basilica of St. Mark, as well as a walled defense (civitatis murus) between Olivolo and Rialto, were subsequently built here.

Charlemagne sought to subdue the city to his own rule. He ordered the Pope to expel the Venetians from the Pentapolis along the Adriatic coast,[16] and Charlemagne's own son Pepin of Italy, king of the Lombards under the authority of his father, embarked on a siege of Venice itself. This, however, proved a costly failure. The siege lasted six months, with Pepin's army ravaged by the diseases of the local swamps and eventually forced to withdraw (810). A few months later, Pepin himself died, apparently as a result of a disease contracted there. In the aftermath, an agreement between Charlemagne and the Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus in 814 recognized Venice as Byzantine territory and granted the city trading rights along the Adriatic coast.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Considering that one of the first things I learned in Russian History was that the Ural Mountains were a completely ineffetive barrier, I don't see why they're "impassible" now.