• 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 #84 - Renovating Russia

Greetings!

Today we’re going back into the cartographer’s office to view the latest maps of the vast lands that lie just before the eternal steppes, where the Volga flows - the land of the proud Rus’. The Russian lands have always felt rather underdeveloped in CK2 compared to their size, even very important sites such as Kiev or Novgorod have been occupied by massive Counties that hardly give the area justice. As the area is one which lies in between the lords of feudal western europe, the Roman remnants in Byzantium and the relentless nomads of the steppes we thought it much too interesting to not develop further.

As Russia is quite big, we’ve broken the images up into three parts. These pictures are all from the year 769, so if something isn’t named as you expect it to be (i.e. Novgorod being named Ilmen) that’s the reason why.

Starting off with the north:
RussiaDD_North.png

As you can see, the definition has increased rather significantly. Historicity has also been improved, as the new borders are all based on sources from between the years ~600 to ~1300 (From proto-slavic tribes migrating in the area to the dissolution of the Kievan Rus' by internal strife and the Mongol hordes) with a focus on the 700-1100 timespan.

Now the south:
RussiaDD_South.png

Of primary note is that Kiev is now split up, and no longer one single humongous County. Those of you with sharp eyes might also notice that there is a new nomadic nation up by Radimichia and Severia - the Burtas clan, which is Turkic.

And as a bonus, Wallachia:
RussiaDD_Wallachia.png

As Bessarabia was so interconnected with the Kievan and Crimean lands, it felt right to also give the kingdom of Wallachia a facelift.

And now for the De Jure maps, as they have been requested in every previous map Dev Diary so far!

Duchies:
RussiaDD_769DeJureDuchies.png


Kingdoms:
RussiaDD_769DeJureKingdoms.png


You may notice that the old Rus’ kingdom is gone, replaced with the much more historical kingdoms of Novgorod and Vladimir. There are also several new smaller kingdoms, such as Galicia-Volhynia and Chernigov which both provide new opportunities and new risks, depending on if you’re playing in the Tribal era or Feudal era.

Empires:
RussiaDD_769DeJureEmpires.png

There was no doubt that the Tartarian empire was too big, that’s why when we had to add to it (the Kingdom of Perm is now part of it instead of Russia) we felt the need to break it up. In the south you can now see an empire of the Pontic Steppe - closely representing the Khazarian sphere of influence at its height.

Here’s a screenshot of how the 867 setup will look:
RussiaDD_867.png

And here’s 1066:
RussiaDD_1066.png

The major thing in this date is that after Yaroslav the Wise's death in 1054, his land in the Kievan Rus was divided between his 5 sons. Internal strife erupted quickly after between the sons and other relatives (like the prince of Polotsk), hurting the stability of the state.

That's why although the Kievan Rus' still existed as somewhat centralized around the Grand Prince of Kiev, at least for a while, unity wasn't the key word to describe the state. We've reflected that by keeping the different duchies independent but still tributaries to Kiev - until civil war starts again when brothers, sons, and cousins start pushing for their claims...

Changelog:
Code:
- Map Update to Russia
   - Major overhaul of the whole russian sphere
    - All major & minor rivers reshaped
    - e_russia is now created through 5 kingdoms (Ruthenia, Novgorod, Vladimir, Chernigov & Galicia-Volhynia)
    - 3 new kingdoms : Vladimir, Chernigov, Galicia-Volhynia
    - k_rus renamed from "Rus" to "Novgorod"
    - 4 new duchies (Cherven Cities, Karachev, Novosil, Murom)
    - 37 new provinces added to the general area
    - A few titular russian-tribes-themed duchies added for earlier startdates

Note that from now on, CK2 Dev Diaries will take place on Fridays rather than Mondays!
 
Due to the nomadic nature of the area, the name constantly changed throughout the Middle Ages. "Scythia" was, at the very least, a constant, even if an outdated term. People used it because their ancestors used it, and it'd get real awkward around the time that, say, the Cumans rule "Khazaria", or the Greeks are in control of "Pecheneg", or whatever medieval neologism was made for the region that one might settle on since just listing its name as the Pontic Steppe is hardly a better name than Scythia.

Scythia has my vote. It's pretty much the one consistent term that is used in Byzantine and Latin sources that are not ethnonyms. Most of the main game's time-frame the whole area was named after the Kipchaks/Cumans in some form or another; Dasht-i Kipchak, Polovetskoye Pole, Cumania, etc. And where the Cumans were not, the usual ethnonyms were based after whoever lived there; Patzinakia, Alania, Khazaria, etc.
 
was the main or one of the main reasons for no new cultures the fact it'd be too time consuming to research them or actually implement them in the game?

More or less both. The problem is the effort-effect ratio of cultures in CK2 currently. Basically, updating our current culture base, even locally of course, would take quite a long time for not enough gameplay value behind : bear in mind that CK2's use of cultures isn't too extensive. What you need to realize if you haven't try to mod that before, is that updating existing cultures takes a really long time for what it is, and I know flavour and historicity is very good, but we have to kind of juggle with priorities.

If we're talking about fixing the culture of some specific characters to another culture that we already have (say we have a king of France of Han culture for seemingly no reason), feel free to make a post about that in the Bug Forums of course. But replacing old cultures with new ones is very time consuming for not enough "reward". I also want to point out that this is something we actually discussed possibly doing in the expansion for some places (just so you guys know that we're actually talking about these things :D), but y'know, is like I said above, have to juggle with priorities. We sadly haven't found a way to have infinite time, budget and people yet, ha ha !

On a sidenote, since we're talking about that and you mentioned research, I've also noticed that it can be very tricky for some places, especially when you go back to earlier bookmarks (goddamn 769...) with a lot of conflicting information in certain cases. When I was researching proto-russian tribes locations before Rurik's fun trip, let's just say I couldn't rely on awesome Roman maps with the names and exact locations of every bit of land with people, if you see what I mean. I remember from the Baltics Dev Diary (and some of our Beta Testers) discussions about cultures of some tribes between Prussia and Estonia and yeah, there was a lot of "these guys were kinda lithuanians but also kinda prussians, GLHF bruv".

All quite interesting to research though :D


Arthur
 
More or less both. The problem is the effort-effect ratio of cultures in CK2 currently. Basically, updating our current culture base, even locally of course, would take quite a long time for not enough gameplay value behind : bear in mind that CK2's use of cultures isn't too extensive. What you need to realize if you haven't try to mod that before, is that updating existing cultures takes a really long time for what it is, and I know flavour and historicity is very good, but we have to kind of juggle with priorities.

If we're talking about fixing the culture of some specific characters to another culture that we already have (say we have a king of France of Han culture for seemingly no reason), feel free to make a post about that in the Bug Forums of course. But replacing old cultures with new ones is very time consuming for not enough "reward". I also want to point out that this is something we actually discussed possibly doing in the expansion for some places (just so you guys know that we're actually talking about these things :D), but y'know, is like I said above, have to juggle with priorities. We sadly haven't found a way to have infinite time, budget and people yet, ha ha !

On a sidenote, since we're talking about that and you mentioned research, I've also noticed that it can be very tricky for some places, especially when you go back to earlier bookmarks (goddamn 769...) with a lot of conflicting information in certain cases. When I was researching proto-russian tribes locations before Rurik's fun trip, let's just say I couldn't rely on awesome Roman maps with the names and exact locations of every bit of land with people, if you see what I mean. I remember from the Baltics Dev Diary (and some of our Beta Testers) discussions about cultures of some tribes between Prussia and Estonia and yeah, there was a lot of "these guys were kinda lithuanians but also kinda prussians, GLHF bruv".

All quite interesting to research though :D


Arthur
Thanks for the helpful info! While we're at it, are some things that are quite easy to implement and add great historical value and/or immersion to that area or concept? I guess something like custom titular titles would be ones like it, but OTOH I could be totally wrong :confused:
 
More or less both. The problem is the effort-effect ratio of cultures in CK2 currently. Basically, updating our current culture base, even locally of course, would take quite a long time for not enough gameplay value behind : bear in mind that CK2's use of cultures isn't too extensive. What you need to realize if you haven't try to mod that before, is that updating existing cultures takes a really long time for what it is, and I know flavour and historicity is very good, but we have to kind of juggle with priorities.

If we're talking about fixing the culture of some specific characters to another culture that we already have (say we have a king of France of Han culture for seemingly no reason), feel free to make a post about that in the Bug Forums of course. But replacing old cultures with new ones is very time consuming for not enough "reward". I also want to point out that this is something we actually discussed possibly doing in the expansion for some places (just so you guys know that we're actually talking about these things :D), but y'know, is like I said above, have to juggle with priorities. We sadly haven't found a way to have infinite time, budget and people yet, ha ha !

On a sidenote, since we're talking about that and you mentioned research, I've also noticed that it can be very tricky for some places, especially when you go back to earlier bookmarks (goddamn 769...) with a lot of conflicting information in certain cases. When I was researching proto-russian tribes locations before Rurik's fun trip, let's just say I couldn't rely on awesome Roman maps with the names and exact locations of every bit of land with people, if you see what I mean. I remember from the Baltics Dev Diary (and some of our Beta Testers) discussions about cultures of some tribes between Prussia and Estonia and yeah, there was a lot of "these guys were kinda lithuanians but also kinda prussians, GLHF bruv".

All quite interesting to research though :D


Arthur
I was always wondering how the CKii team carried out its research, I wouldn't mind a dedicated dev diary that goes more in depth on that (after holy fury ofc, when you have that inevitably void from lack of new content to discuss).
 
Why doesn't Cherven Cities duchy belong to Lesser Poland in 769? This area belonged to polish tribe Lendians until Kievan Rus beated them in 10 century (even ruthenian chronicler Nestor mentions that). This duchy should also have polish culture to 1066 bookmark.
 
I don't understand what this has to do with my comment, but it's an interesting observation. Ivan IV controlled de jure kingdoms of Vladimir, Novgorod and Chernigov, plus Perm, VB and Khazaria. Did he create a custom empire instead of e_russia?

I have a feeling the Tsar/Emperor thing needs clarification.

"Tsar" in Russian even though comes from "Caesar" through Bulgarian (or whatever), does not strictly mean "Emperor". It has a more generic meaning of "Supreme Ruler".

For example: Tsar Solomon, Tsars of Rome (the earliest ones, during the Kingdom), Tsar Leonid, Tsars of Egypt. All those are usually referred in English as "King". In the same time (just for the contrast), the word "King" in Russian is used for the post-Roman France, England, Sweden, modern monarchies, and so on.

And while the idea of the Third Rome and all that already existed before, it is usually understood in both Russian and English (I think) historiography that the Imperial period in Russia starts with Peter the Great, who was crowned as the Emperor ("Imperator") and there was a reference to the Romans and their Senate:

(my loose translation)
We though, by the example of the ancients, especially Roman and Greek peoples, at this celebratory day blah blah to thank you blah blah to ask you publicly to accept from us, as from your loyal servants, title of Father of the Fatherland, Emperor of All Russia, Peter the Great, like it was done traditionally by the Roman Senate for glorious deeds of the Emperors, their titles were publicly granted to them.

So I don't think the Ivan IV's rule and the "Empire of Russia" should really be any relevant to CK2. I mean, the title "Tsar" is good and okay for an alt-history, but it isn't the same thing.

Although, I have a bit of a weird feeling that just owning Kievan Rus in its historical boundaries gives you the title of Emperor... Maybe there should be another requirement, for example having a very high Crown Authority? To represent the sparse population and big distances of the region, and that historically Kievan Rus wasn't even a solid realm, more like a communal Rurikoviches' domain which they ruled with weird inheritance laws and constant conflicts.

Also, +1 to renaming Ruthenia to Kiev. Ruthenia is a name of the region, not of Kiev itself. And the period is called "Kievan Rus" (a late name) simply because for the most part Kiev was the main seat of power, at least nominally. But not always - some princes didn't use it as their "capital", they would put there a nominal ruler and stay somewhere else. It would be very weird to, for example, as a king of another principality to have "Ruthenia" as your tributary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a feeling the Tsar/Emperor thing needs clarification.

"Tsar" in Russian even though comes from "Caesar" through Bulgarian (or whatever), it does not strictly mean "Emperor". It has a more generic sense of "Supreme Ruler".

For example: Tsar Solomon, Tsar of Rome (the earliest ones, during the Kingdom), Tsar Leonid, Tsars of Egypt. All those are usually referred in English as "King". In the same time (just for the contrast), the word "King" in Russian is used for the post-Roman France, England, Sweden, modern non-Muslim monarchies, and so on.

And while the idea of the Third Rome and all that already existed before, it is usually understood in both Russian and English (I think) historiography that the Imperial period in Russia starts with Peter the Great, who was crowned as the Emperor ("Imperator") and there was a reference to the Romans and their Senate:

(my loose translation)


So I don't think the Ivan IV's rule and the "Empire of Russia" should really be any relevant to CK2. I mean, the title "Tsar" is good and okay for an alt-history, but it isn't the same thing.

Although, I have a bit of a weird feeling that just owning Kievan Rus in its historical boundaries gives you the title of Emperor... Maybe there should be another requirement, for example having a very high Crown Authority? To represent the sparse population and big distances of the region, and that historically Kievan Rus was a very loose realm, more like communal Rurikoviches domain which they ruled with weird inheritance laws and constant conflicts.
Also Great Khan of Mongols in Russian sources was often called Tsar.
 
I'd maybe rename the empire of the Pontic Steppe to something less clunky, even if it's just Khazaria.

I fully agree. And the same goes with the Duchy of Wild Fields. The name is of course an anachronism to begin with - being attested in documents from the 16th century onwards - but it also manages to sound like something from a fantasy novel.
 
I think, we still need East Galindians in Mozhaysk. (At least with Lithuanian or Prussian culture)

The Eastern Galindians (East Galindian: *Galindai, Russian: Goliadj, голядь, from Old East Slavic *Golędĭ), an extinct East Baltic tribe, lived from the 4th century in the basin of the Protva River, near the modern Russian towns of Mozhaysk, Vereya, and Borovsk. It is probable that the Eastern Galindians, as the bearers of the Moshchiny culture, also occupied all the Kaluga Oblast before the Early East Slavs peopled the Moshchiny culture's area at the turn of the 7th and 8th centuries.[2]

The Russian chronicles first mention Eastern Galindians as Goliadj in 1058. Prince Yury Dolgorukiy arranged a campaign against them in 1147, the year of the first mention of Moscow in the Russian chronicles. Subsequent chronicles do not mention the Eastern Galindians. Nevertheless, the Russians probably did not completely assimilate them until the 15th (or 16th) century.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galindians
 
God bless you Paradox. Great job guys!
I truly hope Anatolia and Egypt get reworked as well. They where one of the richest regions in the world at the time, and it's sad that they lack both and province density and detail. (Anatolian coastal provinces for example). I also think Egypt needs some 30% more provinces than it has now. And a better shape (Like in EU4 now)
I also hope Balkans get's reworked as well, seeing how Wallachia looks beautiful now.
 
Nothing actually, it's the same as current live version AFAIK ?

Arthur

Well, I actually mean this:

NBXIyC0.jpg


Just curious what are the reasons to change the province location in that way if earlier it was geographically correct.

Also, as was mentioned by someone before, pretty strange to see Khazasia lose Itil to Pechenegs probably in 867 start date.
 
More or less both. The problem is the effort-effect ratio of cultures in CK2 currently. Basically, updating our current culture base, even locally of course, would take quite a long time for not enough gameplay value behind : bear in mind that CK2's use of cultures isn't too extensive.

I totally understand that, it makes sense, but at the same time I just want to say (and I know I've mentioned it before) that I would absolutely buy a DLC that added nothing but new cultures and religions/heresies. I just love the variety.

Anyway, liking the changes to Russia and Wallachia, looks nice. A little disappointed about the shift to Fridays, I liked starting my week with a dev diary, but you gotta do what you gotta do. Besides, at least the Rome ones are replacing them.
 
The Renaissance started in Italy by the late 14th century, some scholars claim! Around the time the Médici rose to power.

For me, the cut off point between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance would be the emergence of cannon in warfare which isn't represented in CK2. It''s no accident that the last bookmark for CK2 is 1337 - the start of the Hundred Years War and the emergence of cannon (and Jean Bureau)
 
the emergence of cannon in warfare

The emergence of cannon in Western European warfare! I wish Paradox makes the next DLC all about the Late Middle Ages, and adds gunpowder into the mix.