• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

CK2 Dev Diary #67: Revisiting the Middle East

Greetings everyone!

I’m Emil “Servancour” Tisander. Most of you might remember me from the update I did to Hungary and the Danube with the release of 2.7. This time however, I wanted to do something of a larger scope, and with the expansion focusing on the eastern part of the map, what better time to revisit the Middle East and bring it a much needed overhaul?

Those of you who watch the streams might already have seen most of what I’ll show you here but I’ll start by explaining what I’ve done and why.

I had a few goals in mind when I started working on the update. First and foremost I wanted to improve the overall geography and move counties to where they are supposed to be. Some having been placed much too far from their actual location (I’m looking at you Damascus). Secondly, there are plenty of titles in the region that are inappropriately named for the time period, so I wanted to go through what makes sense and what doesn’t to improve the historical accuracy as much as possible. Another thing I wanted to do was to split up the kingdom of Persia somewhat. Persia in CK2 has always been a very large kingdom. Splitting it up into several kingdoms will allow for a more dynamic experience.

Empires remain very much the same, though both the Persian Empire and the Arabian Empire have been increased somewhat in size, due to the addition of new counties. Kingdoms however, have been changed quite significantly. The following kingdoms have been added or renamed accordingly:
Added the kingdoms of Daylam, Khorasan, Iraq and Yemen.
Renamed Mesopotamia to Al-Jazira, Afghanistan to Kabulistan, Baluchistan to Sistan, Khiva to Transoxiana.

01_kingdoms.png


The county layout is also something that you will notice has changed dramatically. Gone are all the weirdly shaped counties, that would either look like a square or be stretched into all manner of shapes. Every single county in the region has been moved and/or reshaped. The single most noticeable addition will be the Syrian desert. Which, in my opinion, is needed to make sure that the surrounding counties can be placed and shaped properly.

02_syrian_desert.png


As much as I would like to, I won’t go into detail for all changes I’ve done to the counties. But I’ll highlight some of the more major ones.

Both Fergana and Khuttal are now full-fledged duchies, with three and four counties, respectively.

03_fergana_khuttal.png


Several new counties have been added to Yemen, which consists of the duchies Sanaa, Taizz and Hadramut.

04_yemen.png


The duchy of Medina is renamed to Hijaz and got three new coastal counties added, making the duchy consist of six counties in total.

05_hijaz.png


We’ve also decided to increase the number of counties in the Tarim Basin, in order to make the area more fun and interesting to play in. It has about twice the number of counties compared to the old setup.

06_tarim_basin.png

07_tarim_basin.png


That’s some of the biggest changes that you’ll see on the map which is, as always for map updates, a part of the free 2.8 patch. Bear in mind that it’s still a bit of a work in progress. Some counties are likely to get another set of name changes and other tweaks.

Finally, I would like to give a shout out to @elvain, who helped me with a lot of research. Making this update possible to do to such an extent.

Don’t forget to tune into the Medieval Monday streams 16:00-18:00 (CEST)! During which you can poke me if you want to see a specific region or have any other questions.
 
Yes, and Australia is 3/4 the size of Europe but has only 3% of its population. Tibet is an archipelago but instead of an ocean dividing the tiny islands of livable land, it is inhospitable, inarable mountains and desert. Even in today's world accounting for the large amounts of Han Chinese migrants their population is only 3 million.

And so, its province density is less than that of Western Europe, India, or other densely populated areas.

What does Australia have to do with this?
 
If France was so centralized then how come the supporters of the rightful king, under the Salian law, lost the war?
To begin with,France won.Another thing is that one of the major reasons why France got pounded earlier in the war was because of an outdated military model and that England was actually more centralized than France.
 
Congrats on your English, what's your first language? And just to be clear I wasn't trying to insult you. My original comment used a few confusing words, funky syntax, and a few implications that a non-native might not pick up on, don't feel bad about not understanding it on your first run through.
No problem, Believe me, I don't feel bad for misunderstanding languages, even if it's English, in which I'm still much better than other 3 languages I can basicaly use to (mis)understand people :)
I'm native Czech btw if you are interested
 
Last edited:
And so, its province density is less than that of Western Europe, India, or other densely populated areas.

What does Australia have to do with this?

The point, which was poorly made I admit, is that the physical size is irrelevant. There were a few hundred thousand people, if that, living in small isolated communities. By your logic they should fill the entirety of the Sahara with provinces because of the Tuareg nomads that inhabited it.
 
The point, which was poorly made I admit, is that the physical size is irrelevant. There were a few hundred thousand people, if that, living in small isolated communities. By your logic they should fill the entirety of the Sahara with provinces because of the Tuareg nomads that inhabited it.

Australia is a bad comparison because most of its population is concentrated in a few areas, so (hypothetically) the provinces could be fairly dense in the populated coast, with the outback being a wasteland. In contrast, Tibet's population and power centres were and are spread out over the entire plateau.

And Tibet is hardly "a few thousand people living in small isolated communities". At the Charlemagne start, this was a unified empire that had just sacked the Chinese capital a few years before, and would assert its control over the Pala kingdom a few decades later - hardly a backwater nothing.
 
Australia is a bad comparison because most of its population is concentrated in a few areas, so (hypothetically) the provinces could be fairly dense in the populated coast, with the outback being a wasteland. In contrast, Tibet's population and power centres were and are spread out over the entire plateau.

And Tibet is hardly "a few thousand people living in small isolated communities". At the Charlemagne start, this was a unified empire that had just sacked the Chinese capital a few years before, and would assert its control over the Pala kingdom a few decades later - hardly a backwater nothing.

I didn't claim them to be a backwater nothing. I said when in relevance to just about any other region of the world they were insignificant. Semantics I know, but I feel like it's an important difference.

I admitted that the Australia example was bad in the post you just replied to. My Sahara example is plenty fine though, do you think the Sahara should completely populated with provinces?
 
I didn't claim them to be a backwater nothing. I said when in relevance to just about any other region of the world they were insignificant. Semantics I know, but I feel like it's an important difference.

So... then why do you have a problem with them having 40-50 provinces? You yourself have said that it's less than what France has; the province density is maybe a third of what there is in Western Europe, probably (much) less. Don't forget that Nepal and Kashmir make up a significant portion of the count.

I admitted that the Australia example was bad in the post you just replied to. My Sahara example is plenty fine though, do you think the Sahara should completely populated with provinces?

Not really comparable either. It was far larger and (probably, I don't know for certain) less densely populated than Tibet; its truly inhospitable areas are larger, and its settlements are more isolated; and being primarily nomadic it cannot be represented in the same way that the clearly "feudal" Tibet is.
Having said that, maybe you should see what HIP has for the Sahara...
 
edit: @MrFauncy Maybe you want to continue discussing about this in the thread "has CK2 abandoned Europe". I see Elvain responded to your posts there. If yes, we can shift there.

To preface this, this isn't a personal attack on you. Genuinely just trying to debate.

What's with this weird anti-Eurocentrism/Sinoworshiping-revisionism that is rampant on the Paradox Forums? World history is European history, because every event in Europe was seminal in the development of the world. It's not discrediting the history of other peoples to acknowledge reality and say that Europe, in the course of history was far more important than areas like India, Tibet, and Central Asia. You can justly argue that Chinese history was just as, if not more important than European history up until the 16th century, but that's it, only until the 16th century. Even then it's extremely hard to quantify how " important " China was because they had relatively little seminal impacts on the world outside of China. China and East Asia might has well have existed on a different planet until the 18th century. Disregarding this point, how is a thinly populated area with only a few hundred thousand inhabitants that has had no effect on the outside world with the exception of being conquered by China comparable to any European state/region?
I dunno, CK2 period is not EU4 period (where Europe is very important). Things happening in Europe stay in Europe. Most of them at least. The most important things Europe brings to World History are anything which implicates the relations of Europe with the other regions, so mostly their relations with the Muslim World, including the fall of Byzantium (and probably Byzantium history). Maybe you can add the rise of merchant republics as seminal capitalist economic systems, and the rise of the Habsburg for how it shaped geopolitics in Europe during EU4 period (but this is late in CK2 timeline, although how the HRE developed has its importance here).

I can't see anything there, more important to world history than how the relationships between the sedentaries and nomads progressively shaped the consciousness of a globalized world (allowing the communication between the Rus', Byzantium and the Muslim world with Est Asia through the Silk Road). The Mongol Empire is the apex of this, for how it completely opened all communications between very distant parts of the world (how it did this in so many ways: cultural, religious, scientific, and of course commercial).

But I'm not arguing what's happening in Europe was not important... Most of it was just important for the regional history of the european continent. You can say the same for most events happening in the Muslim World of in China.
In the end, what's important to world history, is not what happened in some regions of the world we think are important (or relevant), it is how the regions of the world interact with each other. And for this, you need to portray all regions at least decently.

So, sorry for my anti-Eurocentrism (I really like that you do not use anti-European, which I'm definitly not), I just think that for portraying correctly any region in the world, you need to portray its neighbours correctly... If you are interested in World History that is.

You can't argue with logic here on Paradox. Fanboys will just shout you down.
Not like you even tried to defend your point with real arguments anywhere here.
If you take contradiction for "anti-european people trying to shut you down", then well... nothing more to say.
 
Last edited:
To begin with,France won.Another thing is that one of the major reasons why France got pounded earlier in the war was because of an outdated military model and that England was actually more centralized than France.
Ah thank you ! I still don't understand the link he makes between the Salic law and the level of centralization in France at that time . Something that would be nice, would be that those who disapprove a comment respond to that comment. For posts that express an idea, I understand that one can disagree and have nothing more to say. On the other hand, for posts which are just trying to explain the historical course of events as I tried to do in my last comment, I would like those who disapprove to explain what is wrong.
 
Ah thank you ! I still don't understand the link he makes between the Salic law and the level of centralization in France at that time . Something that would be nice, would be that those who disapprove a comment respond to that comment. For posts that express an idea, I understand that one can disagree and have nothing more to say. On the other hand, for posts which are just trying to explain the historical course of events as I tried to do in my last comment, I would like those who disapprove to explain what is wrong.
Or they simply disagree with both sides of the discussion because it is of topic.
 
Hi,
There are a lot of misspellings in Hungarian names. You might change them if you want.

00_dynasties.txt

180 Somogy > Somogyi
708 Árpád > Árpádházi
12004 Csak > Csák but there is another Csák family, I use the name Györi
12006 Pallfy > Pálfy
19019 Drágfi >Drágffy
100452 Bethlen von Iktár > Bethlen
100453 of Szekezfehervar > Fehérvári
100517 de Kincstartó this is not a name but a title. I changed it to Türje
100520 de Cseszneky > Cseszneky
100521 de Milvány > Milvány
100533 de Ruszka > Ruszka
100540 Duružmic > Dorozsma
100543 Kolbasz > Kolbaz
101563 Örösur > Örsúr
200032 Csesznegi > Cseszneki
200037 Jesenský > Jeszenszki

10-15 families has wrong culture tags anyway.

characters/frankish.txt
The Italian and Hungarian branch of the Anjou family is signed as French but they weren't. So the proper names would be:

461700 italian, name: Roberto
461701 italian, name: Carlo
461703 italian
461704 italian, name: Maria
461705 italian
469500 italian or hungarian Caroberto or Károly name can be changed in 1300.8.2 when he arrived to Hungary
469510 hungarian, name: Lajos
469511 hungarian, name: László
469512 hungarian, name: Károly
469513 hungarian, name: András
469514 hungarian, name: István
469515 hungarian, name: Katalin
469520 italian, name: Carlo
7494 italian, name: Beatrice
183500 italian

characters/hungarian.txt

219001 Álmos
219504 Erzsébet
219505 Erzsébet
219512 Erzsébet
219531 Álmos
4412 Bátor Opos
470093 Tamás
98019 Hedvig
98020 Mária
98026 Mária
98045 Ágnes
93685 Lőrinc
93686 Lőrinc
159135 Zolta
163168 Liüntika > Levente blatantly a Greek transliteration
163169 Tarkatzus > Tarkacsu
146214 Jenő
146215 Dezső > Kerecsen this and the followings are very wrong Christian era names
146217 Elek > Bökény
146219 Dömötör > Kósa
146221 Gergely > Ketel
146223 Attila > Szalárd
146225 Tivadar > Botond
146229 Tibor > Bulcsu

localization/text1.csv

d_pecs;Pécs;Pécs;Pécs;;Pécs ;;;;;;;;;x
d_pecs_adj;Pécsian;Pécsienne;Pécser;;Pecsina;;;;;;;;;x
b_pecs;Pécs;Pécs;Pécs;;Pécs;;;;;;;;;x

b_gyorszentmarton;Györszentmárton;Györszentmárton;Györszentmárton;;Györszentmárton;;;;;;;;;x

c_gemer_adj;Gömörian;Gömörienne;Gömörer;;Gömörés;;;;;;;;;x

c_szekelyfold_adj;Székelyföldian;Sicule;Székelyföldischer;;Székelyföldianés;;;;;;;;;x
b_csik;Csík;Csík;Csík;;Csík;;;;;;;;;x

c_fejer_adj;Fejérian;Fejérienne;Fejér-;;Fejériano;;;;;;;;;x

c_bacs_adj;Bácsian;Bácsienne;Bács-;;Bácsiano;;;;;;;;;x

b_nagyatad;Nagyatád;Nagyatád;Nagyatád;;Nagyatád;;;;;;;;;x

c_pressburg_adj;Pozsonyian;Pozsonyoise;Pozsonyischer;;Bratislavo;;;;;;;;;x
b_pressburg;Pozsony;Pozsony;Pozsony;;Bratislava;;;;;;;;;x
b_nagyszombat;Nagyszombat;Nagyszombat;Nagyszombat;;Nagyszombat;;;;;;;;;x

d_pressburg;Pozsony;Pozsony;Pozsony;;Bratislava;;;;;;;;;x
d_pressburg_adj;Pozsonyer;Pozsonyoise;Pozsonyer;;Bratislavo;;;;;;;;;x

b_mor;Mór;Mór;Mór;;Mór;;;;;;;;;x

c_trencin_adj;Trencsénian;Trencsénienne;Trencséner;;Trencséniano;;;;;;;;;x

d_ungvar;Ungvár;Ungvár;Ungvár;;Ungvár;;;;;;;;;x
d_ungvar_adj;Ungváran;Ungvárane;Ungvárer;;Ungvára;;;;;;;;;x

c_marmaros_adj;Máramarosian;Máramarosienne;Máramaroser;;Máramarí;;;;;;;;;x

b_tecso;Técsö;Técsö;Técsö;;Técsö;;;;;;;;;x

c_csanad_adj;Csanádian;csanádienne;Csanáder;;Cesanadianés;;;;;;;;;x

b_zolonta;Szolonta;Szolonta;Szolonta;;Szolonta;;;;;;;;;x

c_abauj_adj;Abaújian;abaújienne;Abaúj-;;Abaújano;;;;;;;;;x
b_abauj;Abaúj;Abaúj;Abaúj;;Abaúj;;;;;;;;;x

This province is found entirely on the area of Valkó county.
c_krizevci_adj;Valkóian;Valkóienne;Valkóer;;Valkóianés;;;;;;;;;x
b_krizevci;Valkó;Valkó;Valkó;;Valkó;;;;;;;;;x

b_nagyvarad;Várad;Várad;Várad;;Várad;;;;;;;;;x

PROV442;Trencsén;Trencsén;Trencsén;;Trencsén;;;;;;;;;x
PROV443;Nyitra;Nyitra;Nyitra;;Nyitra;;;;;;;;;x

PROV445;Pozsony;Pozsony;Pozsony;;Bratislava;;;;;;;;;x

PROV451;Fejér;Fejér;Fejér;;Fejér;;;;;;;;;x

PROV462;Valkó;Valkó;Valkó;;Valkó;;;;;;;;;x

PROV518;Bács;Bács;Bács;;Bács;;;;;;;;;x
PROV519;Fehér;Fehér;Fehér;;Fehér;;;;;;;;;x

PROV521;Csanád;Csanád;Csanád;;Csanád;;;;;;;;;x

PROV524;Gömör;Gömör;Gömör;;Gömör;;;;;;;;;x
PROV525;Szepes;Szepes;Szepes;;Szepes;;;;;;;;;x

PROV538;Abaúj;Abaúj;Abaúj;;Abaúj;;;;;;;;;x
PROV539;Máramaros;Máramaros;Máramaros;;Máramaros;;;;;;;;;x
PROV540;Székelyföld;Székelyföld;Székelyföld;;Székelyföld;;;;;;;;;x

I hope it helps.
 
Was he really an Hungarian cultured noble? Or just an Italian/French who ruled over Hungary?
He was raised in Italy so should start as Italian. But arrived to Hungary as a 12 years old boy so he had time to learn the customs. Turning Hungarian provinces to Italian would be nonsense, not to mention French. A king, a single person from abroad never changed the local culture of the local country.
There is a possibility to change culture during the game but I don't know if it is possible with coding.
 
There's a suggestion thread prefect for... making suggestions. Somehow I think that's a better place to post an exhaustive list of misspelled Hungarian names than a dev diary about the map of the Middle East.
 
Good modification, the original middle was certainly non geographic. but on the other hand, it just makes larger gap of Byzantine-Middle east power balance. I suggest that pdx should add more counties on anatolia