CK2 Dev Diary #79 - Beautifying the Baltics

[Enriador]

What for?

The only explanation I can think of is “because reasons”.

As explained elsewhere, East Africa was a key part of the Medieval world, with one of the highest GDP *and* population in all of Afro-Eurasia.

It has a unique culture, and was the world's heart of slavery - arguably one of the most important currencies/trade goods of the Middle Ages.

And as @TheDungen kindly explained, it's a unique setting not really explored anywhere else in video games, and who is best than Paradox to get that right? Whether it is worth it to alter the map projection to add some two dozen provinces is up to the devs, but at the very least I hope more of East Africa in CK3.

So if the only explanation you can think of is "because reasons", you ought think some more buddy!

 

[TheDungen]

Honestly I’d just make all of modern Latvia and Estonia the kingdom of Livonia. I know it’s a bit early, but I still think it’s a better solution than Lithuania having 2/3 of it.

I have been thinking along those lines too with regards to my personal preference mod. As is I think I ended up making Lithuania just be named after the culture controlling it.

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

As explained by the EU4 team provinces are for tactics while development, or in the case of ck2 holdings, represent population. You also obviously have other things like tech government type, possible holdings, already existing holdings and so on.It's not a bad system but unfortunately one which caps out a bit to quickly. At that point provinces really start representing population and wealth which is unfortunate.

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.

I think that perhaps even more of the northern parts of the Rus should not be Rus majority in the pre mongol start dates but Fenno-Ugric majority. Then there could be some event where if the southern Rus are beaten up badly their people migrate north.

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

It is moddable to have more than 7 holdings but since the interface does not scroll it is simply not practical unless the mod redoes the interface which is pretty major modding.

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

Firt of RIP was one of my favourite DLCs, but I felt it did not quite go far enough. Many of it's province modifiers are far more thematic and interesting than the buildings we can currently build in out holdings. Also depopulation pretty much only happens from the plague and even then it goes away very quickly, while in reality it would take 300 years for the populations of Europe to recover from the plague. Like the mongol invasions the plague had profound effects on the structure of society in Europe. RIP is a awesome first step but please don't rest on you laurels there is so much untapped potential there. And I'm not saying turn the game into Vic or EU I'm saying it would be awesome seeing these things through the unique lense that is crusader kings. A more narrative and a more character driven exploration of them.
One thing I can say I would want more than anything else is trade goods, I recently played a game with sunset invasion on (I'm thinking of making a massive overhaul mod for sunset invasion) and the event where they say potatoes and chocolate made it to europe caught my interest. Do you have any idea what it would have done to Europe to have potatoes in the 13th century?
Also a thing like food in general, in that game I (as rome) control all of the fertile crescent that would mean controlling a significant portion of all the food production in the entire world. In reality it would be a big deal but no paradox game has really delved deep into the importance of food. Not even Vic.

As explained elsewhere, East Africa was a key part of the Medieval world, with one of the highest GDP *and* population in all of Afro-Eurasia.

It has a unique culture, and was the world's heart of slavery - arguably one of the most important currencies/trade goods of the Middle Ages.

And as @TheDungen kindly explained, it's a unique setting not really explored anywhere else in video games, and who is best than Paradox to get that right? Whether it is worth it to alter the map projection to add some two dozen provinces is up to the devs, but at the very least I hope more of East Africa in CK3.

So if the only explanation you can think of is "because reasons", you ought think some more buddy!

Truth be told in ck3 they should just put in the entire old world, they can hide the parts they don't want to deal with yet (and seazones they don't want us traversing) under terra incognita. But having the enitire map there helps us orient ourselves. And it also means that every time they do add something they don't have to redo the map projection.

 

[Kljunas]

Again there is always the create custom kingdom decision.

This decision allows you to become "King" of Austria but not "Archduke" though, so having a specialised decision isn't entirely pointless.

 

[ponasozis]

Feel like Kaunas should county should be renamed into Trakai it was the capital County for much of medieval lithuanian history after all

 

[Galleblære]

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.

Let's look at it, in year 1000
Denmark 500.000 inhabitants
Sweden 400.000 inhabitants
Norway 200.000 inhabitants.
Scandinavia 1.100.000 inhabitants.

Palermo 350.000 inhabitants
Constantinople 300.000 inhabitants
Cordoba 200.000 inhabitants
Cairo 135.000 Inhabitants
Baghdad 125.000 inhabitants
top 5 provinces in the game 1.110.000 inhabitants
Using low estimates for these cities they add up to more than all of the Scandinavian countries combined.

Or let me put it this way Norway have more holdings than scotland despite scotland having 50% higher population. The only place that may qualify as being as over represented with holdings and provinces as Scandinavia is England.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_urban_community_sizes#Middle_Ages

I will repeat myself. What I stated was:

Same number of holdings, just allocate them around.

No need to come up with questionable numbers (at least for Scandinavia and Scotland) to prove some sort of case here. Holdings don't only represent population but a number of other factors as well. If Scandinavia are to do what they historically did in this timeperiod, you can't leave most of their provinces with single holdings. You also have the game factor. I don't see you arguing that the industrial capacity of the US should reflect historical numbers in the Hearts of Iron games?

Oh, and De Jure continental Norway has 52 holdings at its greatest extent. Faroe, Shetland, Orkney and Iceland are 11. De Jure Scotland has 62.

 

[Orphalesion]

I would find it really good if an alternate name for Marienburg could be found.

Holding a province named after a German city in a game where the Teutonic Order never reached the Baltic, where no Germans are anywhere close to the Baltic, is kind of weird. Even more so if Christianity as a whole hasn't reached the Baltic, why would Pagans name a place named after the Virgin Mary?
Like Galindia it could be named after a tribe that originally lived there and then gain the name Marienburg whenever it's held by a German culture.

Looking up some maps it seems like "Warmia" could work well?

 

[Silversweeeper]

I would find it really good if an alternate name for Marienburg could be found.

Agreed. CK2 has fewer problems of this kind than EU4 (where you can end up with e.g. Ming Louisiana having a New Orleans in a world where there has been no French colonization in the area), but it is still something of an eyesore to have holdings named for things they really shouldn't be named for.

 

[VoodooEconomist]

Agreed. CK2 has fewer problems of this kind than EU4 (where you can end up with e.g. Ming Louisiana having a New Orleans in a world where there has been no French colonization in the area), but it is still something of an eyesore to have holdings named for things they really shouldn't be named for.

Well, maybe the explorer who conquered it was named Lou? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_(surname_楼)

 

[Silversweeeper]

Well, maybe the explorer who conquered it was named Lou? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_(surname_楼)

Okay, some of them can work for some unexpected cultures (or religions, or whatever), but I'm pretty sure you can find examples that make basically no sense when history goes off the rails unless you think up very convoluted explanations.

 

[olvirki]

https://www.euratlas.net/history/hisatlas/europe/1262Islandiacln.jpghttps://www.euratlas.net/history/hisatlas/europe/1262Islandiacln.jpg

Pretty, please . This would reflect the historical division of the island at the time. As for, population, the orange had ca 15% of the population, the green and yellow around 25% each and the red around 35%, out of a total ca 50 000 people.

Otherwise, happy to see map updates in eastern Europe .

 

[Slime99]

https://www.euratlas.net/history/hisatlas/europe/1262Islandiacln.jpghttps://www.euratlas.net/history/hisatlas/europe/1262Islandiacln.jpg

Pretty, please . This would reflect the historical division of the island at the time. As for, population, the orange had ca 15% of the population, the green and yellow around 25% each and the red around 35%, out of a total ca 50 000 people.

Otherwise, happy to see map updates in eastern Europe .

Ditto.
It would be nice to have more flavour to Iceland. Prehaps new provinces would allow Icelandic culture to be added, maybe even the Papars.
Edit: well maybe not the Papars, because there was not that much solid settlement there.

 

[Orphalesion]

Okay, some of them can work for some unexpected cultures (or religions, or whatever), but I'm pretty sure you can find examples that make basically no sense when history goes off the rails unless you think up very convoluted explanations.

Yeah the problem with Marienburg is really that the area starts off as Pagan and Baltic with no guaranty that Christianity or German culture will ever spread there in any given playthrough, in fact what I have seen it Marienburg more often ends up as part of Poland.

 

[klopkr]

@elvain i totally agree, I mostly think the map should include the atlantic south of west africa for asthetic reasons. Provinces ending touching the map borders should be minimized imo but i understand why it's not worth any changes or why nobody else would care.

@[Arthur-PDX] @Snow Crystal you guys just reminded me that I'd actually like to see a couple more provinces surrounding lake Baikal. Just one or two to represent the mongol forebearers that lived around the area. As with most stuff in the steppe I can't relaly give you a map or provinces with borders but I will point out that the Tinaxia Silk Road mod added them and they likely have some info since it's a pretty well researched mod with a very conservative take for on map regions. It could also keep the mongols on map and those provinces are controlled by the buryat in eu4 so it could be converted over too.

I'm gonna @Silversweeeper and @LumberKing since they might have a more useful opinion on the tiny region.

Oh and while we're at it there should probably be an event for non muslim wives of muslim rulers to convert to Islam either truthfully or secretly. Especially now that there's a lot more cross faith marriages going on.

EDIT: Arthur how do i even @ you? The system doesn't seem to recognize the [ ]. Might be worth bringing it up to the forum guys.

 

[Snow Crystal]

EDIT: Arthur how do i even @ you? The system doesn't seem to recognize the [ ]. Might be worth bringing it up to the forum guys.

It's not a bug if you don't want people to tag you, then it's a feature

 

[klopkr]

.

Don't make me start using empty quotes at you!

 

[Deutsches_Rex]

Interesting indeed

 

[Vokasak]

but obviously not everyone is going to get the revamped of their favourite region.

I'd like to take this opportunity to make a case for revamping my favorite region:

k_bulgaria is on the map in a fair number of the start dates, making picking a specifc de jure setup difficult, but there are a few low-hanging fruit that would be easy and sensible improvements. For example (In order of importance):

- There are parts of d_dyrrachion which belong in k_bulgaria rather than being part of k_greece, specifically c_ochrid and c_strymon, as they were a part of both the first and second bulgarian empires. I've searched high and low but can't find any justifcation for having the byzantine theme of dyrrachion extend as far inland as it currently does. Instead, I suggest c_dyrrachion be split into 2 or 3 provinces (possibly borrowing some map real-estate from the bottom of k_serbia?) which can be made into their own duchy. This would better reflect a possible (titular?) k_albania during the later starts, and also underline the importance of the region in the late 11th century as a key center of trade and bulwark against Norman invasion from Italy. This would leave Ochrid and Styrmon to be included in k_bulgaria, possibly as part of a new duchy of Ochrid or something.

This would be a vast improvement over the current setup, as currently Bulgaria needs to de jure drift the entire d_dyrachion and extend all the way to the Adriatic or go without a fair chunk of its historically core lands in de jure.

- Even without the above change extending Bulgaria westward, the current de jure setup simply looks wrong relative to any map from any era. The kingdom looks too elongated west-east while looking quite squat from north-south. The culprit is the greek duchy d_adrianopolis to the south, whose two provinces are quite large, justifiably in holding slots but less so in height (Currently, the two counties are over 50% as tall as the entire current k_bulgaria at that longitude!). Another problem with d_adrianopolis is that c_philippopolis represents the Bulgarian city of Plovdiv, taken from the Byzantines in 812 and was held nearly uninteruptedly into the second half of the tenth century, and the site also played an important role in the formation of bogomilism, a herasy with strong Bulgarian roots. In the 12th through 14th century the city was traded between the Byznatine, Bulgarian, and Latin empires, ending up in Bulgarian hands before the Ottomans take over in the 14th century. Clearly, c_philippopolis should be in k_bulgaria, but again I don't think Bulgaria should extend all the way to the sea.

My proposed solution is to split both of the counties in d_adrianopolis in half horizontally, and give the northern halves (One of which should be the new c_plovdiv) to k_bulgaria in a new duchy. To keep the borders looking nice, perhaps c_thrake could get the same treatment and split off a piece of inland area for this new duchy although this is less important. The effects of this fix are many; It would fix the visual discrepencies in k_bulgaria's height, it would encourage the Bulgarian and Byzantine empires to fight de jure claim wars over Philippopolis / Plovdiv, and a southern-central Bulgarian duchy would help represent an important administrative split in Bulgaria caused by the balkan mountain range, seperating the Danubian and Thracian plains, as currently one duchy controls the entirety of central Bulgaria from north to south in spite of several mountains making such administration unfeasible.

- More ambitiously, currently 867 Bulgaria begins at war with the Magyars, when historically the magyars did not invade the first bulgarian empire or settle in the Carpathian basin until 894, nearly 30 years (!!) after that start, and only at the behest of the byzantine emperor Leo VI (A war which Bulgaria won, by the way). Historically in 867 the Magyars were content to raid Great Moravia and East Frankia, while Bulgaria was beginning a golden age under the rule of Boris I and Simeon I. In game, instead we have Bulgaria immediately pitted into an ahistorically early and unwinnable war right from the start, leaving it without manpower and ripe for pile-ons by Byzantines, weakening it further when it should be entering an apex.

My proposed solution is to change the Magyar invasion to a MTTH event similar to the Rise of the Shia, scheduled to fire (once) around 890-900, with several possible options for both sides including Bulgaria just letting the magyars move in and settle in Carpathia. This will increase the chances for Bulgaria to have its historical period of prosperity and be a better medium/long-term rival to Byzantium as it was historically.

- Lastly, as a bit of a longshot, perhaps add a decision to form e_bulgaria and move k_bulgaria into it? Bulgaria has been declared an empire twice over the CK2 time period. I understand that k_bulgaria should probably remain a part of e_byzantium at least from the start, if only to give a Byzantine AI reason to declare the many wars that did happen historically, but currently the only way to form a bulgarian empire requires a player to conquer and create the Serbian and Wallachian kingdom titles (Which were never held or claimed by any Bulgarian monarch) and use the custom empire decision, and even then only Wallachia is de jure part of the new empire, which is a little silly.


There are many more possible improvements, especially given how wacky the Charlemagne start date often turns out for Bulgaria (Some random serb taking over, or the title and dynasty migrating north to Crimea) but those are harder to address and the above changes would be a satisfactory starting point.

tldr; Historically, Bulgaria gives the byzantine empire quite a headache, especially in the hundred or so years following the 867 start date As it stands though, the first Bulgarian empire is almost always doomed to die an ahistorically early death. Hopefully some subset of the above changes will help simulate history, both in de jure setup and historical antagonism.

 

[fredrikslicer]

Crusades DLC confirmed.

Lets hope so its long overdue

 

[Byzantium2000]

I'd like to take this opportunity to make a case for revamping my favorite region:

k_bulgaria is on the map in a fair number of the start dates, making picking a specifc de jure setup difficult, but there are a few low-hanging fruit that would be easy and sensible improvements. For example:

- There are parts of d_dyrrachion which belong in k_bulgaria rather than being part of k_greece, specifically c_ochrid and c_strymon, as they were a part of both the first and second bulgarian empires. I've searched high and low but can't find any justifcation for extending the byzantine theme that far inland. Instead, I suggest c_dyrrachion be split into 2 or 3 provinces (possibly borrowing some map real-estate from the bottom of k_serbia?) which can be made into their own duchy. This would better reflect a possible Albania during the later starts, and also underline the importance of the region in the late 11th century as a key center of trade and bulwark against Norman invasion from Italy. This would leave Ochrid and Styrmon to be included in k_bulgaria, possibly as part of a new duchy of Ochrid or something.

This would be a vast improvement over the current setup, as currently Bulgaria needs to de jure drift the entire d_dyrachion and extend all the way to the Adriatic or go without a fair chunk of its historically core lands in de jure.

- Even without the above change extending Bulgaria westward, the current de jure setup simply looks wrong relative to any map from any era. The kingdom looks too elongated west-east while looking quite squat from north-south. The culprit is the greek duchy d_adrianopolis to the south, whose two provinces are quite large, justifiably in holding slots but less so in height (Currently, the two counties are over 50% as tall as the entire current k_bulgaria at that longitude!). Another problem with d_adrianopolis is that c_philippopolis represents the Bulgarian city of Plovdiv, taken from the Byzantines in 812 and was held nearly uninteruptedly into the second half of the tenth century and played a part in the formation of bogomilism. In the 12th through 14th century the city was traded between the Byznatine, Bulgarian, and Latin empires, ending up in Bulgarian hands before the Ottomans take over in the 14th century. Clearly, c_philippopolis should be in k_bulgaria, but again I don't think Bulgaria should extend all the way to the sea.

My proposed solution is to split both of the counties in d_adrianopolis in half horizontally, and give the northern halves (One of which should be the new c_plovdiv) to k_bulgaria in a new duchy. To keep the borders looking nice, perhaps c_thrake could get the same treatment and split off a piece of inland area for this new duchy although this is less important. The effects of this fix are many; It would fix the visual discrepencies in k_bulgaria's height, it would encourage the Bulgarian and Byzantine empires to fight de jure claim wars over Philippopolis / Plovdiv, and a southern-central Bulgarian duchy would help represent an important administrative split in Bulgaria caused by the balkan mountain range, seperating the Danubian and Thracian plains, as currently one duchy controls the entirety of central Bulgaria from north to south in spite of several mountains making such administration unfeasible.

- More ambitiously, currently 867 Bulgaria begins at war with the Magyars, when historically the magyars did not invade the first bulgarian empire or settle in the Carpathian basin until 894, nearly 30 years (!!) after that start, and only at the behest of the byzantine emperor Leo VI (A war which Bulgaria won, by the way). Historically in 867 the Magyars were content to raid Great Moravia and East Frankia, while Bulgaria was beginning a golden age under the rule of Boris I and Simeon I. In game, instead we have Bulgaria immediately pitted into an ahistorically early and unwinnable war early, leaving it without manpower and ripe for pile-ons by Byzantines, weakening it further when it should be entering an apex.

My proposed solution is to change the Magyar invasion to a MTTH event similar to the Rise of the Shia, scheduled to fire (once) around 890-900, with several possible options for both sides including Bulgaria just letting the magyars move in and settle in Carpathia. This will increase the chances for Bulgaria to have its historical period of prosperity and be a better medium/long-term rival to Byzantium as it was historically.

- Lastly, as a bit of a longshot, perhaps a decision to form e_bulgaria and move k_bulgaria into it? Bulgaria has been declared an empire twice over the CK2 time period. I understand that k_bulgaria should probably remain a part of e_byzantium, if only to give a Byzantine AI reason to declare the many wars that did happen historically, but currently the only way to form a bulgarian empire requires a player to conquer and form the Serbian and Wallachian kingdoms and use the custom empire decision, and even then only Wallachia is de jure part of the new empire, which is a little silly.


There are many more possible improvements, especially given how wacky the Charlemagne start date often turns out for Bulgaria (Some random serb taking over, or the title and dynasty migrating north to Crimea) but those are harder to address and the above changes would be a satisfactory starting point.

tldr; Historically, Bulgaria gives the byzantine empire quite a headache, especially in the hundred or so years following the 867 start date As it stands though, the first Bulgarian empire is almost always doomed to die an ahistorically early death. Hopefully some subset of the above changes will help simulate history, both in de jure setup and historical antagonism.

, definitely a long shot but I agree Bulgaria could use a good overhaul I especially agree about a new Ochrid duchy and needs a buff but I STRONGLY disagree about an empire of Bulgaria and splitting Thrace and adrianoplis, the official empire of Bulgaria didn't exist in any of the start dates and the Bulgarian kingdom was not a recognized empire nor did it have the power or prestige of one Byzantium should always be the empire Serbs and Bulgarians should strive for in ck2, the Byzantines would also never war against Christian Bulgaria in 867 due to lack of dejure claims and Bulgaria will just east up the Serbs and Croats, same for 1187 and beyond with Byzantium, plus Byzantium did own all of Bulgaria for over 150 years in ck2 time quite long enough to be dejure, and for Thrace and adrianoplolis 867 is really the only start date where Bulgaria steadily controlled those regions, the games current Greece quite accurately represent the Greece Bulgarian divide post 1187, which is most of the game.

 

[Vokasak]

I STRONGLY disagree about an empire of Bulgaria and splitting Thrace and adrianoplis the official empire of Bulgaria didn't exist in any of the start dates and the Bulgarian kingdom was not a recognized empire nor did it have the power or prestige of one Byzantium should always be the empire Serbs and Bulgarians should strive for in ck2

Sort of true. In terms of power it's certainly not an empire on the caliber of The HRE, Byzantium, or Persia. The prestige question is less sure, and Simeon I was indeed recognized as Emperor of the Bulgarians in 913, in Blachernae palace by Ecumenical Patriarch Nikolas Mystikos no less. Furthermore, I disagree with the idea that Bulgaria should have to conquer 80% of de jure e_byzantium to gain this imperial title, and even if it were to happen it would be a mistake to call this new empire a continuation of the byzantine title, just like it would be a mistake to consider later Russian or Ottoman successors simply the same Byzantine empire under new leadership.

For splitting d_adrianopolis, not only is it necessary for creating nice realistic-looking de jure borders (An existing problem which will only get worse with my d_ochrid proposal), but it's also the simplest and cleanest way I can think of to encourage the AIs to fight over these key provinces: overlapping de jure claims.

the Byzantines would also never war against Christian Bulgaria in 867 due to lack of dejure claims

Having played many games both as Bulgaria and as the Byzantine emperors, and always keeping an eye on the region even if I'm not playing there, I can assure you that this simply isn't true as the game currently stands. The entire kingdom begins de jure under Byzantium, and the byzantine emperors take any opportunity to jump in and reclaim. This is especially obvious and consistant in 867 due to ahistorically early the war with the magyars providing just such an opportunity.

and Bulgaria will just east up the Serbs and Croats,

It's a possible outcome, but an overwhelming majority of the time when I consciously try to do this as Bulgaria in 867, the serbs choose to convert when you holy war them rather than go extinct. The Croats are already catholic and safe from being gobbled.

same for 1187 and beyond with Byzantium, plus Byzantium did own all of Bulgaria for over 150 years in ck2 time quite long enough to be dejure,

Certainly, and I'm not saying that Bulgaria be put in its own empire right from the start of any bookmark, merely suggesting that it be given a decision (Maybe with a very high prestige cost? 5000? Don't know) to form this imperial title as happened historically, without jumping through the hoops of creating separate kingdom titles ahistorically.

and for Thrace and adrianoplolis 867 is really the only start date where Bulgaria steadily controlled those regions, the games current Greece quite accurately represent the Greece Bulgarian divide post 1187, which is most of the game.

I disagree. The current Greece Bulgarian divide makes it look like Bulgaria never controlled anything south of the balkan mountain range (Which they did, often and for extended periods), and even worse doesn't give the opportunity to do so at all without going all the way to the sea (Which they rarely did).