CK2 Dev Diary #79 - Beautifying the Baltics

[elvain]

I would go south from Ethiopia. I mean, Kilwa + Zanzibar!

That is very narrow strip of the sea coast. Very interesting, but I'm not sure if expanding the whole map southwards (which means recalibration of the whole map!) for the sake of 5 reasonable provinces is too much effort for very little gain.

Actually there is plenty that region is boring beyond sanity at the moment. it needs stuff if it's to be playable. It needs sailing on the rivers, it needs a isolated coastal stretch it needs things that tell you where you are in west Africa. At the moment it is just a blob of provinces.
Also expanding south and west will allow the canary islands to be closer to where they should be.

I'm probably the last one to need explanation what Africa could have

Navigable rivers (with no access to sea though), provinces which would better reflect the situation in the region, more diverse cultures, Trans-Saharan trade route etc. All that would make the region worth playing, since ATM it is not.
OTOH, expanding borders of the map makes very little sense, for the reasons stated above. In East Africa you won't get more than 5-6 reasonable provinces. In the west, the Mali (or rather Takrur) area would deserve to be expanded all the way to the coast, but at the same time it must not be accessible for ships from the north.

While in the savannah of the Sahel there was quite developed civilization of the Soninke (Ghana/Wagadu), Malinke (Mali) people as well as those of Takrur and Songhay, the area farther to the south, the rainforest area had very little of what we call "civilization" - the local tribes were even less organized than tribes of North and East European areas in the 9-11th century and the only tribal states were near the Niger delta in Nigeria. For the rest of the rainforest area we have very little or no information about any civilization all the way until 13th century and even after that there are no "historical" sources which could serve as base for names of rulers and often even tribes.

Because it s a very interesting area, and also will allow abyssinya to feel less like playing against a wall. The indian ocean trade is a very important facet of human civilisation and should be represented in the game.

This sounds reasonable. though, IMHO, it would make much more sense to add areas of Darfur and Kordofan and a corridor to Kanem/Bornu area and further west.
As I said, reshaping the entire map in order to gain 5-6 provinces in East Africa and 2-3 in the Guinea bay Niger delta is way too much work for very little gain. Disagree with me, if you want, but I really prefer a reasonable and decently represented those parts of Africa, which were civilised, not expansion for expansion.

 

[TheDungen]

That is very narrow strip of the sea coast. Very interesting, but I'm not sure if expanding the whole map southwards (which means recalibration of the whole map!) for the sake of 5 reasonable provinces is too much effort for very little gain.


I'm probably the last one to need explanation what Africa could have

Navigable rivers (with no access to sea though), provinces which would better reflect the situation in the region, more diverse cultures, Trans-Saharan trade route etc. All that would make the region worth playing, since ATM it is not.
OTOH, expanding borders of the map makes very little sense, for the reasons stated above. In East Africa you won't get more than 5-6 reasonable provinces. In the west, the Mali (or rather Takrur) area would deserve to be expanded all the way to the coast, but at the same time it must not be accessible for ships from the north.

While in the savannah of the Sahel there was quite developed civilization of the Soninke (Ghana/Wagadu), Malinke (Mali) people as well as those of Takrur and Songhay, the area farther to the south, the rainforest area had very little of what we call "civilization" - the local tribes were even less organized than tribes of North and East European areas in the 9-11th century and the only tribal states were near the Niger delta in Nigeria. For the rest of the rainforest area we have very little or no information about any civilization all the way until 13th century and even after that there are no "historical" sources which could serve as base for names of rulers and often even tribes.


This sounds reasonable. though, IMHO, it would make much more sense to add areas of Darfur and Kordofan and a corridor to Kanem/Bornu area and further west.
As I said, reshaping the entire map in order to gain 5-6 provinces in East Africa and 2-3 in the Guinea bay Niger delta is way too much work for very little gain. Disagree with me, if you want, but I really prefer a reasonable and decently represented those parts of Africa, which were civilised, not expansion for expansion.

Well I can't disagree with you, no agrees or disagrees while on probation.
As for you not needing telling I am well aware I think most of my suggestions came from our previous discussions on the subjects.

As for the work of fixing the projection, I see that as a goal in of itself.

 

[klopkr]

In the west, the Mali (or rather Takrur) area would deserve to be expanded all the way to the coast, but at the same time it must not be accessible for ships from the north.

At least that's not a very big deal since RoI since they can just make it a new 'sea' and not connect through the sahara to europe.

Personally I always thought slightly south of Bioko island would have been a more sensible southern point for the map since it would include more or less all of western africa and somalia and there's a decent amount of provinces that could be added, enough to make it a bit of a sub region like india or tibet is now.

You're right though that changing the map now is kind of pointless. I just hope ck3 gives us more of africa and asia from the get go.

 

[TheDungen]

At least that's not a very big deal since RoI since they can just make it a new 'sea' and not connect through the sahara to europe.

Personally I always thought slightly south of Bioko island would have been a more sensible southern point for the map since it would include more or less all of western africa and somalia and there's a decent amount of provinces that could be added, enough to make it a bit of a sub region like india or tibet is now.

You're right though that changing the map now is kind of pointless. I just hope ck3 gives us more of africa and asia from the get go.

Well there's no point in provinces south of that in the west. In the east there's essentially no limit how far south you could go along the coast, bit as Elvain pointed out it would be a rather thin line along the coast.

 

[Telenil]

Seriously because the holdings per population of scandinavia is like ten times higher than anywhere else in the game. Also because values for holdings in the game only goes from 1-7.

I don't think holding numbers are supposed to be directly proportionnal to population. If a small kingdom with a small population had a lot of impact on the surrounding territories, then that kingdom will be given a lot of holdings to make it more powerful. I'm not particularly surprised to see the vikings lands more developped than their population would suggest.

 

[Thure]

Yes.

Oh no... that makes absolutelly no sense during this era... :/ The Archduchy of Austria wasn't a thing of the middle ages. They only officially accepted it in 1453 (the end date!). Austria was allway part of the Duchy of Bavaria during this era until the end. To split it from Bavaria in 1066 makes absolutelly no sense.

 

[Oliver*]

Holding numbers are not proportionnal to population sizes, or at least not directly. If a small kingdom with a small population had a lot of impact on the surrounding territories, then that kingdom will be given a lot of holdings to make it more powerful. I'm not particularly surprised to see the vikings lands more developped than their population would suggest.

Yes but where do you draw the line, it’s true Scandinavia was in constant emigration so their population may have been larger overseas, but maybe that is represent by adventurers. IMO high ruler skills, good advisors and centralisation better represent a powerful small kingdom in game. Also the Nordic countries start with high military tech and strong bonuses, maybe they could have more of that If there is a lack of balance.

 

[Ruwaard]

Oh no... that makes absolutelly no sense during this era... :/ The Archduchy of Austria wasn't a thing of the middle ages. They only officially accepted it in 1453 (the end date!). Austria was allway part of the Duchy of Bavaria during this era until the end. To split it from Bavaria in 1066 makes absolutelly no sense.

Austria became a separate duchy in 1156 (with the Privilegium Minus), later in 1180 Styria was also detached from Bavaria and it too became a separate duchy.
Carinthia and its’ marches is the exception here, that was detached from Bavaria and raised to a duchy in 976.
That does not mean it justifies a new de jure kingdom level entity on the vanilla map though.

 

[Snow Crystal]

Austria became a separate duchy in 1156 (with the Privilegium Minus), later in 1180 Styria was also detached from Bavaria and it too became a separate duchy.
Carinthia and its’ marches is the exception here, that was detached from Bavaria and raised to a duchy in 976.
That does not mean it justifies a new de jure kingdom level entity on the vanilla map though.

It won't be a DeJure kingdom, and most players won't see it ever happening, so it should be fine.

 

[Thure]

It won't be a DeJure kingdom, and most players won't see it ever happening, so it should be fine.

In this case it's fine I think

 

[[Arthur-PDX]]

Is population a factor when making new provinces, or is it based on historical division

There are several factors, and the main one is pretty much how much sources we can get from the different timeframes that are covered in CK2 (thinking of the steppes...)

Population, settlements, regional development, state divisions/tribe spread are all factors that we try to take into account when we draw the provinces, give them base holding slots and then assign them to DeJure territories. This is how we do it "in general" by the way, not just for this specific instance I mean (although every one of us works a bit differently).

Another thing is to make these choices based on several centuries of development, which is always tricky. For example, the Royal Domain of France changed a few times between the beginning and end of the CK2 timeline, so you have to think about it, do I put province X there like it was in the IXth century or over there like it was in the XIIth century ? It's not an exact science.

Last thing to keep in mind is obviously the gameplay aspect, which will create some non-historical situations. A "soft rule" we have (among others) for example is to not give a duchy more than 6 provinces, because otherwise it can get too OP. In this thread, a pretty neat map of ancient Estonian counties has been linked for example : I used this map a bit but obviously didn't divide the whole place with that many provinces, because granularity, balancing and other things...

TL;DR : lots of factors we take into account and it's not exact science


Arthur

 

[Woifee]

ctually it was treated as a joke by most of the rest of the empire and the emperor refused to ratify it, oh and the priviligium majus was a forgery. Only almost a century after the game ends did a Hapsburg Emperor ratify it. It's totally anachronistic.

We had this discussion already. It was a good one and I enjoined it if I remember correctly

 

[Woifee]

It won't be a DeJure kingdom, and most players won't see it ever happening, so it should be fine.

One more thing. If you start early and you land lowborns they often start historical Dynasties. The Wittelsbacher, the Bourbons etc. But for some reason the Habsburgs are locked. Can you unlock them please so I can form a germanic HRE in the 769 start get the Habsburgs in Austria.

 

[Oliver*]

There are several factors, and the main one is pretty much how much sources we can get from the different timeframes that are covered in CK2 (thinking of the steppes...)

Population, settlements, regional development, state divisions/tribe spread are all factors that we try to take into account when we draw the provinces, give them base holding slots and then assign them to DeJure territories. This is how we do it "in general" by the way, not just for this specific instance I mean (although every one of us works a bit differently).

Another thing is to make these choices based on several centuries of development, which is always tricky. For example, the Royal Domain of France changed a few times between the beginning and end of the CK2 timeline, so you have to think about it, do I put province X there like it was in the IXth century or over there like it was in the XIIth century ? It's not an exact science.

Last thing to keep in mind is obviously the gameplay aspect, which will create some non-historical situations. A "soft rule" we have (among others) for example is to not give a duchy more than 6 provinces, because otherwise it can get too OP. In this thread, a pretty neat map of ancient Estonian counties has been linked for example : I used this map a bit but obviously didn't divide the whole place with that many provinces, because granularity, balancing and other things...

TL;DR : lots of factors we take into account and it's not exact science


Arthur

Thank you for replying, I could give you some legitimate sources for France and England, and a few for HRE, Iberia and Italy. My opinions about France are fairly unpopular, so I can’t blame you if it’s never going to happen. It just feels ck2 could have focused more on the rise and apex of France rather than the domination of HRE, when the domination was fairly short lived, and even at their height they didn’t take French territory at will, like what happens in game. France did experience long periods of peace to help them reach their huge population but they also had some of the most fertile regions in Europe. England and HRE also experienced a similar boom, but they had lower populations to start with. Even though the economy was mostly agrarian, France had some fairly good trading prospects like the champagne fairs in the early era and Bruges in the late era. They focused more on mounted Knights than their neighbors so it could be argued they had some of the most expensive armies in Europe, but also large in size, the first crusade and 100 years war are my main sources for this. Normandy is probably the main region I think needs a look at, it was probably one of the most dense concentrations of power in Europe. Even after the Norman invasion it was still very important, it’s speculated in some areas the 1300 population is higher than todays. The 6 province rule could make it hard If you decided to add to France, but separating langedouc from Toulouse or Alençon from Normandy might be possibilities.

 

[Lithu]

Seriously because the holdings per population of scandinavia is like ten times higher than anywhere else in the game. Also because values for holdings in the game only goes from 1-7. And if 7 is cities like constantinople then yes everything except a handful of provinces in scandinavia should have only one holding.

...

Comparing the holdings of denmark to the holdings of Greece and anatolia denmark has roughly 25% of the holdings of the two main kingdoms of the byzantine empire. While if we compare their populations they have 4% of their population.

Yes, the disbalance (is that a word ?) is huge.

I don't think holding numbers are supposed to be directly proportionnal to population. If a small kingdom with a small population had a lot of impact on the surrounding territories, then that kingdom will be given a lot of holdings to make it more powerful. I'm not particularly surprised to see the vikings lands more developped than their population would suggest.

Not having direct proportionality is fine.

For one, because the "power per population" of various regions varied.

Also because the proportions varies significantly between different dates. Add that we have estimates and not exact values ; and having even 3:1 differences of population/holding ratio is probably ok. But 6:1 or 10:1 becomes excessive IMHO.

TTL;DR : lots of factors we take into account and it's not exact science

I perfectly understand that you have to strike a balance between a lot of different things when shaping provinces, and it's 100% OK that it's not perfectly accurate.

My question is : could it possibly happen before CK2 EOL that the maximum number of holdings per province would increase, or even be moddable ? This could help greatly to better represent differences in population/power without having to do it all with more provinces, but this is obviously such a wide-ranging change that I would understand if you won't.

 

[TheDungen]

I don't think holding numbers are supposed to be directly proportionnal to population. If a small kingdom with a small population had a lot of impact on the surrounding territories, then that kingdom will be given a lot of holdings to make it more powerful. I'm not particularly surprised to see the vikings lands more developped than their population would suggest.

Not directly proportional but it should be one of the factors factored in and 4% to 25% is a huge difference.

It won't be a DeJure kingdom, and most players won't see it ever happening, so it should be fine.

Again there is always the create custom kingdom decision.

 

[Mortheim]

Population, settlements, regional development, state divisions/tribe spread are all factors that we try to take into account when we draw the provinces, give them base holding slots and then assign them to DeJure territories. This is how we do it "in general" by the way, not just for this specific instance I mean (although every one of us works a bit differently).

This is why i have so much problems with map of Rus for CK2. If we compare most settled territories before and after Mongol Invasion, we will notice that southern part was, somewhat, more populated than North-East. While after we see migration from regions near steppe to woodlands of North-East. Again, difference in growth between Opolie (which has fertile soil) and nearby woodlands is immense.

 

[elvain]

At least that's not a very big deal since RoI since they can just make it a new 'sea' and not connect through the sahara to europe.

That's partialy right, though it would be very hard to understand for many. I remember that every time anyone suggests expansion of West Africa, people start calling for naval connection with Europe which makes absolutely no sense from historical perspective.

Personally I always thought slightly south of Bioko island would have been a more sensible southern point for the map since it would include more or less all of western africa and somalia and there's a decent amount of provinces that could be added, enough to make it a bit of a sub region like india or tibet is now.

From strictly geographical perspective I see and understand the point. But let's go little beyond this and ask: What would fill this territory? Believe me or not, pretty much the entire West African territory worth being represented on the map is already in. It just does not have provinces or the provinces don't represent the region propperly enough. Beyond the current southern border of the map there perhaps could be some 3-4 near the Niger delta, but not much west of it...

 

[[Arthur-PDX]]

My question is : could it possibly happen before CK2 EOL that the maximum number of holdings per province would increase, or even be moddable ? This could help greatly to better represent differences in population/power without having to do it all with more provinces, but this is obviously such a wide-ranging change that I would understand if you won't.

I can answer with almost 100% certainty that it will not be done by us, for a bunch of reasons. I think it's already moddable tho ? Not sure

Thank you for replying, I could give you some legitimate sources for France and England, and a few for HRE, Iberia and Italy. My opinions about France are fairly unpopular, so I can’t blame you if it’s never going to happen. It just feels ck2 could have focused more on the rise and apex of France rather than the domination of HRE, when the domination was fairly short lived and even at their height, they didn’t take French territory at will, like what happens in game. France did experience long periods of peace to help them reach their huge population but they also had some of the highest fertility in Europe. England and HRE also experienced a similar boom, but they had lower populations to start with. Even though the economy was mostly agrarian, France had some fairly good trading prospects like the champagne fairs in the early era and Bruges in the late era. They focused more on Knights than their neighbors so it could be argued they had some of the most expensive armies in Europe, but still being large in size, the first crusade and 100 years war are my main sources for this. Normandy is probably the main region I think needs a look at, it was probably one of the most dense concentrations of power in Europe. Even after the Norman invasion it was still very important, it’s speculated in some areas the 1300 population is higher than todays. The 6 province rule could make it hard If you decided to add to France, but separating langedouc from Toulouse or Alençon from Normandy might be possibilities.

To be fair many of the points you bring are simply not reflected, or only partially, through our ingame mechanics, even if they are good points. There aren't for example Land Fertility or Dynamic Trade mechanics that would translate some of them. Population & "ease of life" (whatever that means) is *somewhat* translated through the Prosperity feature from RiP, but again, it works a bit differently. I personally wouldn't mind seeing some additions like that in the game (I'm more of a Sim City + RPG kind of CK player ), but let's be honest, it would be more of a CK3 basis (or even something completely different) rather than a CK2 expansion at this point. Plus, France is already stupidly OP in EU4, so I guess it makes up for it, ha ha

As for the maps you suggested, thanks for the offer but we actually already have quite a few pretty dope ones for these regions (especially considered what you can find about the Steppes or Tarim Basin, ha ha), and the issue is less "can we find good stuff ?" rather than "do we have time to work on it ?". We still have a few tricks up our sleeves (no spoiler), but obviously not everyone is going to get the revamped of their favourite region.


Arthur

 

[Oliver*]

I can answer with almost 100% certainty that it will not be done by us, for a bunch of reasons. I think it's already moddable tho ? Not sure



To be fair many of the points you bring are simply not reflected, or only partially, through our ingame mechanics, even if they are good points. There aren't for example Land Fertility or Dynamic Trade mechanics that would translate some of them. Population & "ease of life" (whatever that means) is *somewhat* translated through the Prosperity feature from RiP, but again, it works a bit differently. I personally wouldn't mind seeing some additions like that in the game (I'm more of a Sim City + RPG kind of CK player ), but let's be honest, it would be more of a CK3 basis (or even something completely different) rather than a CK2 expansion at this point. Plus, France is already stupidly OP in EU4, so I guess it makes up for it, ha ha

As for the maps you suggested, thanks for the offer but we actually already have quits e a few pretty dope ones for these regions (especially considered what you can find about the Steppes or Tarim Basin, ha ha), and the issue is less "can we find good stuff ?" rather than "do we have time to work on it ?". We still have a few tricks up our sleeves (no spoiler), but obviously not everyone is going to get the revamped of their favourite region.


Arthur

I don’t have maps, I thought you might want population sources for specific regions. I hoped my summary would be broad and cover ‘power’, like trade, economy, population, army expense army composition. It’s true though their expensive military in the late era was abysmal. France is op in EU4 mainly because they are largest blob in the region. They were still powerful during that time but in slow decline, I would guess that’s why France has few high developed provinces rather than lots of small low development like HRE, since German population was on the ascent. And VIC2 accurately depicts France as a shell of its former self in full decline. It should be noted French population did not reach the same 14th century ‘apex’ until the 17th century, but by then their relative population to Europe had dropped considerably. I guess it is one of my favourite regions in history, but I don’t play it much in game. Do you have statistics on the most played regions.