• 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.
 
I think the game needs a stronger mechanic to make holding certain areas (deserts, mountains, and the steppes) more trouble than it's worth unless you are from that area (the nomadic and tribal governments were good attempts at this, but more could be done). If a realm from a more built up area wants to exert control over the area, they could conquer it; but it should be that the optimal arrangement, and the one the AI mainly goes for, is tributary status.
It could also be tied to communications efficiency and technology. So say you take a scaling penalty to control territory in 'remote' terrain. The better your tech, the further out you can push your frontier efficiently. This could apply to areas like the Americas as well, where it's very hard to push inland before infrastructure is built up or gaining better tech.
 
I know I'm late to the party here but what about a setting so that enclaves are inherited not the the primary heir but to the next person in line if they are also a child of the current ruler? Or having an option that the enclave populous or lords try to revolt without appoint someone local to take care of there needs so that it's semi-independent but not completely?
Tthis would be more historically accurate for distant lands and if nothing else I think it would be a fun option personally.
It would still make it at least a semi-independent enclave that way but would reflect that you hold some sway over the territory even if it's not your character themselves.
 
Just skimmed. Maybe it was answered.

Aside from counties and duchies, a big issue I always face are the odd baronies. Either thru inheritance or war mechanics, you or some AI will have a barony a 1000 miles away. The biggest issue this will cause is eventually someone with a higher title will inherit it and so you'll have a Kingdom title in some pissant county and thats all they own. Well, that and the fact you have to declare war on say the Byzantine empire for some inconsequential castle in the middle of nowhere. No one would commit 20K troops and start a world war for that. So hopefully it applies to Baronies/Temples as well
 
So it's about time! We're mourning you, devs!
 
Dev diary 82: "I don't feel so good, Mr. Johan..."
 
Why won't you just force the player / PC ruler to give rule over exclaved province (-s) to someone else?
Like it is too far to rule it directly. So you give for this like...one year? And if player / PC don't choose anyone they like, game creates a new random governor (same culture&religion) of the territory. And there's a modifer that works like *long ruling ruler* but in the opposite way. *far exclave* that gives more penalty with the every new year.
Well, the minus of this decision is, of course, is that you forced to created a new vassal, cause there's no such type as *governor*.

But the minus of the current decision is that exclave could be a part of empire for...er...80 years with some long-time-don't-want-to-die rulers.

Another variant is to make there a chance of the appearence of some host/rebeliions or any with the leader that can be (by chance) the same religion/culture as ruler or as of the territory. Maybe 20% for ruler, 80% per territory or something.
 
What if my king died every time during war? Would it make me keep my enclaves indefinitely?
 
Looking forward to this update, as it looks as if it should solve one of my biggest gripes with the game. I think Eastern Europe in my current playthrough would have turned out very differently using exclave rules, and I'm sure we must all have similar examples of domain splatter.

NRENTHS.jpg

Using the Bristol Stool Chart as a guide, this update should help CK II realms come out more like a normal Type 3 or 4, which are the best types.

400px-BristolStoolChart.png
 
Looking forward to this update, as it looks as if it should solve one of my biggest gripes with the game. I think Eastern Europe in my current playthrough would have turned out very differently using exclave rules, and I'm sure we must all have similar examples of domain splatter.
:

100% agree - eliminating or reducing putrid bordergore is by far the best mechanic coming in HF.
 
What is the deal with rivers then? Do they count as naval? Does whoever controls the land the river flows through make any difference?

For example, in the screenshot I posted a couple of posts ago, the Seljuks on the right. The Seljuk land on the north coast of the Caspian Sea would, I presume, be okay as it would be supplied across the Caspian Sea from Seljuks on the coast to the south. What about the Seljuk land to the north-west up the Volga? What exclave game rule setting would keep the Seljuks on the Caspian Sea, but make the Seljuks up the Volga go independent?
 
Who can use rivers in this game? Only Norse? I've also read that rivers can be blocked when adjacent counties' average fort level reaches 10. How do these things interact with the exclave game rules?

Also, which exclave settings are people thinking of using? I'm currently thinking Total, as it removes de jure allowance of unconnected counties. With de jure allowance, one could be, say, emperor of India and potentially have multiple unconnected counties, so Total exclave rules would prevent this, I think.
 
I'm not sure rivers count as seas, since I don't think you can found a merchant republic anywhere on a major river, so that might indicate that rivers not count as sea spaces for enclaves? But I'm not sure.