• 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.
 
Will the mercantile republics follow the same rules? Exclaves are life for them (for example Who Needs Vasco da Gama? achievement)
 
Last edited:
I feel quite sad about this announcement. To think that we now know such a great feature is coming but we still have to wait ages for it. The update looks like it will be amazing so far!
 
I feel quite sad about this announcement. To think that we now know such a great feature is coming but we still have to wait ages for it. The update looks like it will be amazing so far!

Yeah it pretty much kills me playing it between now and the update, but admittedly I'll be playing it a lot more afterwards. This has always and ever been my #1 gripe about the game.
 
It's a very generous distance, basically the entire mediterranean. This means you can hold things in, say, Greece and Spain, but not Greece and England or Finland.

I'd actually like to see this a bit less generous, at least on the 'Harsh' and 'Total' settings. Say, maybe, Greece and Egypt is fine, Greece and Sicily is fine, but Greece and Spain is too far. 500 units maybe?
 
It's a very generous distance, basically the entire mediterranean. This means you can hold things in, say, Greece and Spain, but not Greece and England or Finland.

So in other words, if I want to hold onto my Crusade holdings as the king of England, I'll just need to move forward my plans for the conquest of Gibraltar....
 
I'd actually like to see this a bit less generous, at least on the 'Harsh' and 'Total' settings. Say, maybe, Greece and Egypt is fine, Greece and Sicily is fine, but Greece and Spain is too far. 500 units maybe?

I think it's perfectly fine and historically. The whole mediterranean was interconnected. Holding something in Catalonia and Greece wasn't that farfetched.
 

As I said, closer (still miles away from how it should be). With that said, right now we don't have this case at all, we have Kings become Kings rather than Counts becoming Kings. Sometimes I see a strong Duke become a Crusader King, but a Count? No, I have yet to see that. So it's not like this makes it any worse.
 
That sucks tho if I win Jerusalem from crusade as England and lose it from the main realm once the monarch dies, leaving it so vulnerable to surrounding Muslims.
 
I'd just like to go ahead and proclaim my love for you all, as this is one of my worst pet peeves with CK2. Now, just make more cultures and melting pots so my conversions to EU4 are more fun and I'll have no reason to play any other company's games.
 
That sucks tho if I win Jerusalem from crusade as England and lose it from the main realm once the monarch dies, leaving it so vulnerable to surrounding Muslims.
Then give it to your close family, so that you can keep blood relations around when the split comes.
 
That sucks tho if I win Jerusalem from crusade as England and lose it from the main realm once the monarch dies, leaving it so vulnerable to surrounding Muslims.
Yeah. That means I will have to conquer Gibraltar and maybe Sicily to link back home. I hope something like that would be enough.
 
Shut up and take my-- wait, free patch?
...I don't know what meme to use now...
 
Please note that the time between Dev Diaries will be irregular, as we’re still early in the development cycle.
Yay, there's no "very" anymore.. Maths say we'll get this in the year 2020. Hurray!!
 
I love that idea, but...



I really don't like that. I read something about Navarresse exclaves where local nobles seized power, wouldn't it make more sense if instead of generating a new character, one of the barons in the province would seize the control of the capital county? Also, many crusaders left their counties to their second sons, so if the King of Kent becomes the King of Italy, wouldn't it make more sense if his second son (who got nothing from his father's demise) would flee to Kent and take over it?

I'd go with the following priorities:
  1. Landless claimant.
  2. Local baron.
  3. Generated peasant leader.
Completely agree. This is logical.