• 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 #81 - Cleaning up the Map

Greetings!

The last few Dev Diaries have had you visit the Cartographer’s office to look at several reworked areas of the map - while there are more, we don’t want to show them all in a row, lest we risk you getting bored of them!

Today we will instead take a look at a minor free feature, an optional new Game Rule that might just help those of us that really can’t stand irregular borders! Like the map changes, this change will arrive in the free update that will accompany the next expansion. This feature is a pet project of mine, and an attempt to cure situations such as these:
Bordergore_example.png

As you can see in this example, Scotland holds a province in mainland Anatolia. There’s no logical way for them to control this territory - there’s no land connection, it’s not connected via ports, and it’s not part of their De Jure area.

The Game Rule is called ‘Exclave Independence', and aims to do just that - set exclaves independent. Being an optional Game Rule, it’s very modular, and is mainly intended as a tool for increasing immersion.
Exclave_GR.png


The Scotland example pictured previously is really the worst case scenario, and would be covered by any of the settings. As the ruler of Scotland dies, the game will try to identify any ‘exclaves’ and take appropriate action. If there are rulers whose land is completely situated in an exclave, they will be set independent, otherwise a peasant leader will seize control of the land. In this case the result will look like this:
Bordergore_cured.png


I can tell you that, if you’re like me, the difference playing with this Game Rule is like night and day. After a few hundred years you’ll no longer have a map that makes you want to claw your eyes out! As I mentioned earlier there are many different settings, and here is a full list of them:
Added the ‘Exclave Independence’ Game Rule, with the purpose of eliminating disconnected land on succession. As long as the new ruler during a succession isn’t at war, their exclaves should be set independent according to the setting. If the AI is at war during succession, they will try to remove exclaves once every year until such a time they are no longer at war (does not apply to Players). Settings:
  • Off - The default option, no removal.
  • Limited - Exclaves of Independent Rulers at peace will be removed on succession unless they are connected to the Capital area with gaps no larger than one County, via a naval path or part of the characters primary De Jure territory.
  • Limited (Naval) - Exclaves of Independent Rulers at peace will be removed on succession unless they are connected to the Capital area with gaps no larger than one County, via a limited naval path (1000 distance units) or part of the characters primary De Jure territory.
  • Significant - Exclaves of Independent Rulers at peace will be removed on succession unless they are connected via a naval path or part of the characters primary De Jure territory.
  • Harsh - Exclaves of Independent Rulers at peace will be removed on succession unless as they are connected via a limited naval path (1000 distance units) or part of the characters primary De Jure.
  • Total - Exclaves of Independent Rulers at peace will be removed on succession unless as they are connected via a limited naval path (1000 distance units). Disables Achievements.

To show a more tangible example, I loaded up an old save and added the Game Rule to it. It looked like this:
Exclave_ex2.png


After the death of the ruler of the Mongol Empire (the light blue spots) the result produced this:
Exclave_cure_mongol.png


And after the death of the King of Bengal:
Exclave_cure2.png

As you can see, the two Mongol provinces were overtaken by Peasant Leaders as they were much too far away from their steppe overlords. Bengals land, on the other hand, simply had the vassals declare independence, as they held no land in non-exclave land.

I hope this small feature will be of interest to some of you, in the next DD we will return to the cartographer's office with another exciting update!

Please note that the time between Dev Diaries will be irregular, as we’re still early in the development cycle.
 
Say if I hold the de jure Kingdom of, say England and some landlocked kingdom, say Bavaria, I will loose one or the other next succession?
Yes.
 
Greetings!

The last few Dev Diaries have had you visit the Cartographer’s office to look at several reworked areas of the map - while there are more, we don’t want to show them all in a row, lest we risk you getting bored of them!

Today we will instead take a look at a minor free feature, an optional new Game Rule that might just help those of us that really can’t stand irregular borders! Like the map changes, this change will arrive in the free update that will accompany the next expansion. This feature is a pet project of mine, and an attempt to cure situations such as these:
View attachment 356427
As you can see in this example, Scotland holds a province in mainland Anatolia. There’s no logical way for them to control this territory - there’s no land connection, it’s not connected via ports, and it’s not part of their De Jure area.

The Game Rule is called ‘Exclave Independence', and aims to do just that - set exclaves independent. Being an optional Game Rule, it’s very modular, and is mainly intended as a tool for increasing immersion.
View attachment 356425

The Scotland example pictured previously is really the worst case scenario, and would be covered by any of the settings. As the ruler of Scotland dies, the game will try to identify any ‘exclaves’ and take appropriate action. If there are rulers whose land is completely situated in an exclave, they will be set independent, otherwise a peasant leader will seize control of the land. In this case the result will look like this:
View attachment 356430

I can tell you that, if you’re like me, the difference playing with this Game Rule is like night and day. After a few hundred years you’ll no longer have a map that makes you want to claw your eyes out! As I mentioned earlier there are many different settings, and here is a full list of them:


To show a more tangible example, I loaded up an old save and added the Game Rule to it. It looked like this:
View attachment 356428

After the death of the ruler of the Mongol Empire (the light blue spots) the result produced this:
View attachment 356429

And after the death of the King of Bengal:
View attachment 356426
As you can see, the two Mongol provinces were overtaken by Peasant Leaders as they were much too far away from their steppe overlords. Bengals land, on the other hand, simply had the vassals declare independence, as they held no land in non-exclave land.

I hope this small feature will be of interest to some of you, in the next DD we will return to the cartographer's office with another exciting update!

Please note that the time between Dev Diaries will be irregular, as we’re still early in the development cycle.
Sir you make my day, this is not a small feauture this is the long time needed revolution, I bow to you greater one, you are part of my pantheon now, I will make a sacrifice of thousands of cows this day in your honor. Thanks, thanks, thanks.
 
If he holds both kingdom titles he keep them both. Except he has an empire tier liege. Then he might lose that title not dejure to his lieges empire.

Why would both titles be kept without an empire, given that the check mentioned in the OP is for the primary de jure, not all de jures of the primary tier?
 
Some tweaks to consider if you have the time/really want to flesh out/optimize the concept:

- Teach AI to grant an exclave to a relative (who will end up with a different liege or independent) before it goes over to a peasant leader.
- Teach AI rulers to avoid moving capital/primary to an exclave
- Teach AI rulers to avoid building new holdings or expensive buildings in exclaves they're likely to lose.
- Teach new independents to swear fealty early to avoid unnecessary wars (may want to add some ++).
- Give existing claimants some priority before randomly generated peasant leaders (% chance).
- Count rivers (esp. navigable) under 'naval'.
- Possibly count trade routes in some way (more exchange, more merchants to pass mail).
- Allow any holding under the same top liege, including trade posts, not just counties, to grant connection.
- Allow diplomatic action to grant/ask/force access.
- Give more love to non-primary de iures in restriction levels (especially stuff like two adjacent duchies in the same de iure kingdom).
- If you really have the time, allow relative opinions, religions and cultures, perhaps also relative power, perhaps some RNG, to provide variant outcomes to mitigate the awkwardness that hard general rules could cause in specific individual applications.
 
If he holds both kingdom titles he keep them both. Except he has an empire tier liege. Then he might lose that title not dejure to his lieges empire.
I don't quite understand the logic you used, I think you have it backwards. As @Silversweeeper said, only primary de jure counts. Having a liege does not influence anything, except if that liege's territory happens to connect the two kingdoms. In that case, no land would be lost to anyone. There is no circumstance mentioned in the OP of land going to one's liege.
 
I don't quite understand the logic you used, I think you have it backwards. As @Silversweeeper said, only primary de jure counts. Having a liege does not influence anything, except if that liege's territory happens to connect the two kingdoms. In that case, no land would be lost to anyone. There is no circumstance mentioned in the OP of land going to one's liege.

Because if it would work this you think way it would kill playing as independent count.
 
Because if it would work this you think way it would kill playing as independent count.
It would kill playing as an independent count that you can no longer own other disconnected counties too far away? I don't play as an independent count very often, but and when I do it's not for long, so I don't think I would be that disturbed by it.
In any case, it's a game rule. Turn it off if you don't like it.
 
- If you really have the time, allow relative opinions, religions and cultures, perhaps also relative power, perhaps some RNG, to provide variant outcomes to mitigate the awkwardness that hard general rules could cause in specific individual applications.
Yeah. I'm also thinking about situations where, for example, I hold Kingdoms A and C, and my wife holds Kingdom B between the two, where our firstborn son is set to inherit all three. Seems like there needs to be some sort of exception so that our son doesn't lose Kingdom C on my death, since I'd expect his mom to grant him access.
 
Last edited:
It would kill playing as an independent count that you can no longer own other disconnected counties too far away? I don't play as an independent count very often, but and when I do it's not for long, so I don't think I would be that disturbed by it.
In any case, it's a game rule. Turn it off if you don't like it.
The issue is twofold, what’s too distant and what’s too disconnected.
IMHO the Scotland Bavaria example is somewhat problematic, both aren’t just an isolated province, but a whole kingdom. Administrating that would be easier than just one distant exclave.
Yes, seas and rivers should expand your range, but IMHO there should also be a land range.