• 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 #95: Amending Africa

Greetings!

We’ve shown you plenty of map changes already, including updates to Russia, Scandinavia, and most recently Italy and the Alps. But surely, we couldn’t do all of these wonderful updates without looking at the continent that deserves it the most, right?

So let’s have a look at Africa.

You read that right. Africa is finally getting the love and attention it deserves! Northern Africa and Mali have long needed an update. Where counties resembled squares and rectangles more than anything else. But no more!

Let’s start with the northern kingdoms. The kingdoms themselves remain the same. Only Mauretania has been renamed to Maghreb, and has along with the kingdom of Africa been placed in the Empire of Maghreb. Mainly to break down the very large Arabian Empire slightly. On the county level, every single county has been repainted in order to place them where they should be and give the borders a much more natural feeling.

01_updated_maghreb.png


02_updated_k_africa.png


All in all, the new provinces and additional holding slots will make North Africa stronger than before. But to offer additional protection against aggressive Holy Wars from the major powers of Europe, we’ve increased the number of sea zones slightly in the mediterranean. The stronger realms of central Europe will now have to first conquer their way down to the coast of Iberia, Southern Italy, or go through Mallorca or Sardinia, before they will be able to reach the shores of Africa. This should give the realms in Africa some time before the Europeans attempt to make their way onto the continent.

As for Mali. The area has about twice the number of provinces compared to what they had before. This in turn allows for more than just the lonely kingdom of Mali to exist, which has been split into the three kingdoms of Ghana, Mali and Songhay. One kingdom for each of the major powers that inhabited the area during the timeframe of the game. They’ll all still be part of the empire of Mali, which is finally no longer the only empire with a single De Jure kingdom.

03_updated_mali.png


Here is an overview of the De Jure kingdoms:

04_west_african_kingdoms.png


Updating the existing parts of the map is not the only thing we’ve done for Africa however. Kanem-Bornu and the region around lake Chad is now on the map as well! The area consists of the two kingdoms Hausaland and Kanem. These consist of three and four duchies respectively and together form the empire of Kanem-Bornu. So not only do we get new rulers and titles to play with, but it allows both east and west to move across the continent without always having to expand north and, usually, through a Muslim blob that more often than not forms in Northern Africa and Arabia. Instead, you’ll be able to cross Africa through Ghana/Mali in the west, through the Sahara and the Fezzan corridor in the center, and finally through Wadai and Abyssinia in the east.

05_kanem_bornu.png


Let’s not stop there though.

To make Africa more distinct from other regions, a second trade route has been added to the game; the Trans-Saharan Trade Route.

06_trade_route.png


It requires either Horse Lords or Jade Dragon to be unlocked and functions very much like the updated Silk Road from 2.8. There is however, a certain twist to it. The base value of the trade route is very low. Granting next to no bonuses to the counties it passes through. What you need to do in order to benefit from it, is to control certain locations along the trade route and construct unique production buildings in established trade posts. To be clear though, these are merely special buildings within the trade posts just like you would upgrade a trade post on the Silk Road. These buildings represent some of the trade goods that historically had a large impact on the trade in the region. The most important of these will be the Gold Mines.

08_gold_mine.png


There are two Gold Mines located on the map, both of them in the kingdom of Mali. The Gold Mines will allow Mali to amass great wealth. Just like they did historically. If you would prefer to do it differently and take the mines from them, conquering Africa will very much be worth the effort. Not only will Gold Mines greatly increase the value of the Trans-Saharan trade, it will also grant the owner a large bonus to the county’s income. There will also be some flavour events that can trigger for anyone owning them.

Remember that what I’ve shown here is still a work in progress and things may be subject to change. Now, let’s wrap up the dev diary with some smaller additions.

We’ve renamed the West African religion to simply “African”, as to not exclude the newly added region around lake Chad, and updated the Patron Deities accordingly. The religion will also get a new set of shields for displaying the CoAs on the map.

african_shields.jpg


I hope that you look forward to these changes and the overall improvements for Africa!
 
Last edited:
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I forgot about this, so here you go @TheDungen

Here's a study that debunks the myth about Almoravid conquest o Ghana. Hope you'll find it informative. Enjoy the read ;)
Pekka Masonen and Humphrey J. Fisher: Not Quite Venus from the Waves: The Almoravid Conquest of Ghana in the Modern Historiography of Western Africa

I think this one is better than other papers, because it traces the mentions about the military conquest in primary sources from various periods and compares them with European historiography
Thank you i'll be sure try and find it. But it's not really what I meant with 'take it up with the source'. What I means was if what i said was wrong then you should take it up with my source. Essentially if I am being misinformed by my source (that is extra credit's YouTube channel) then so are likely others and you should correct them because me being wrong is just a symptom of them being wrong.
 
Thank you i'll be sure try and find it. But it's not really what I meant with 'take it up with the source'. What I means was if what i said was wrong then you should take it up with my source. Essentially if I am being misinformed by my source (that is extra credit's YouTube channel) then so are likely others and you should correct them because me being wrong is just a symptom of them being wrong.
Sorry, I don't take some youtube 'documents' channels as sources for history studies.

If somebody believes that some popular youtube channel is as valid as scientific articles, it is his problem. And it's not just about history.

And I'm not here to chase everybody who's wrong in this world.
 
Who are the new patron dieties?

I don't know much of the gods of Chad.
 
Will we get African pagan society based on "Sorcer Kings". Mentioned in Mali's semi historical legends?
 
Sorry, I don't take some youtube 'documents' channels as sources for history studies.

If somebody believes that some popular youtube channel is as valid as scientific articles, it is his problem. And it's not just about history.

And I'm not here to chase everybody who's wrong in this world.
You are the one who gets upset when people are wrong so I would argue that it is in fact your problem.
 
You are the one who gets upset when people are wrong so I would argue that it is in fact your problem.
Sorry, i didn't mean it so rough.

Correcting somebody who insists on untruth in my eyes just in front of me and going somewhere to correct somebody are two very different things.
I'm really sorry if I touched you
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I don't take some youtube 'documents' channels as sources for history studies.

If somebody believes that some popular youtube channel is as valid as scientific articles, it is his problem. And it's not just about history.

And I'm not here to chase everybody who's wrong in this world.
It seems really presumptive to assume that a video can't also contain correct information...
That aside, I've only watched a few Extra Credits series, and I know that each of their series includes a video that goes over their sources, methodology and correcting any mistakes they make. The series I watched even had a professor who had assisted them in their research. If a video series is trying to make a topic more approachable, digestible, and engaging without deliberately trying to mislead- I don't see the evil in that you seem to.
 
It seems really presumptive to assume that a video can't also contain correct information...
That aside, I've only watched a few Extra Credits series, and I know that each of their series includes a video that goes over their sources, methodology and correcting any mistakes they make. The series I watched even had a professor who had assisted them in their research. If a video series is trying to make a topic more approachable, digestible, and engaging without deliberately trying to mislead- I don't see the evil in that you seem to.
They get a lot of stuff wrong though but then on the other hand they said in one of the early ones that they will allow accuracy to stand back in favour of good story telling at times.

I often come into contact with a similair discussion with regard to natural science and the science communicators. Many of my colleagues utterly loathe them, but I feel that even if they may at times oversimplylify things they do a lot of good making subjects approachable for those without a degree in the subject.
 
They get a lot of stuff wrong though but then on the other hand they said in one of the early ones that they will allow accuracy to stand back in favour of good story telling at times.

I often come into contact with a similair discussion with regard to natural science and the science communicators. Many of my colleagues utterly loathe them, but I feel that even if they may at times oversimplylify things they do a lot of good making subjects approachable for those without a degree in the subject.
I feel like people ingratiated deep into fields often get disconnected from how advanced some of the sources we use really are. Journals are fantastic, and I've done some seriously deep fives into subjects of interest. That said, if you try to use that as an introduction, most people will struggle, or even might find them incomprehensible. Even if they lack detail on the periphery of the subjects they cover, simple, clean, and organized pieces have value for their approach alone.
As long as it describes itself as an overview, rather than an exhaustive encyclopedic account, there is no harm in using it as a good place to start or reccomending them to people who have no knowledge of the subject.
 
I feel like people ingratiated deep into fields often get disconnected from how advanced some of the sources we use really are. Journals are fantastic, and I've done some seriously deep fives into subjects of interest. That said, if you try to use that as an introduction, most people will struggle, or even might find them incomprehensible. Even if they lack detail on the periphery of the subjects they cover, simple, clean, and organized pieces have value for their approach alone.
As long as it describes itself as an overview, rather than an exhaustive encyclopedic account, there is no harm in using it as a good place to start or reccomending them to people who have no knowledge of the subject.
Except that EC occasionally include blatant inventions in their videos, which makes it an entertainment channel, not a history one.
 
Except that EC occasionally include blatant inventions in their videos, which makes it an entertainment channel, not a history one.
I woudlnt say inventions but they take some artistic liberties.
 
It seems really presumptive to assume that a video can't also contain correct information...
That aside, I've only watched a few Extra Credits series, and I know that each of their series includes a video that goes over their sources, methodology and correcting any mistakes they make. The series I watched even had a professor who had assisted them in their research. If a video series is trying to make a topic more approachable, digestible, and engaging without deliberately trying to mislead- I don't see the evil in that you seem to.
Yup, absolutely agreed. Except.. I don't see any evil in that.

I like that there are people who do videos which popularize history or basically any science.
My point rather was that even if they host experts about the topic, it's not like 100% of what they say is true. (Heck I do this for living, talk to experts and interpret their years long studies into 1.5-3 minute shots... and I know how easy it is to get something wrong... but if somebody who studied the case warns me that I was wrong I am humble enough to admit my lack of expertise and I don't argue with him!) Their main goal is to make the topic interesting and trigger interest and further research for those who 'get caught' and that is awesome... and that is also a reason why I don't see a reason why anyone should jump at them and tell them that something they say there is a myth which has been followed by generations of proffesional historians.

My point was that somebody here on this forum, where I naively expect some level of general knowledge or at least approach to knowledge, comes with this entertainment/history video as reliable source... against a person with whom he discussed very similar topics and a person who - as he has already learned - studied not some popularization videos, but academic sources... which is something I myself value slightly more than those videos (sorry for my arrogance)
If this was the first time and only my own experience I would probably let it be... but since this happened many times previously, I simply emphasized that such approach may be good for five graders, but not for people who have studied the issue on academic level for years.

I'm very sorry I have put it so roughly and that I may (again) sound arrogant.

EDIT: merged with another post to avoid doubble-posting
I feel like people ingratiated deep into fields often get disconnected from how advanced some of the sources we use really are. Journals are fantastic, and I've done some seriously deep fives into subjects of interest. That said, if you try to use that as an introduction, most people will struggle, or even might find them incomprehensible. Even if they lack detail on the periphery of the subjects they cover, simple, clean, and organized pieces have value for their approach alone.
As long as it describes itself as an overview, rather than an exhaustive encyclopedic account, there is no harm in using it as a good place to start or reccomending them to people who have no knowledge of the subject.
Sure, use it as introduction to the topic. Although they sometimes are more entertainment than history (can't judge as I don't watch them bevause I'm too academically arogant), they are definitely good at introducing something interesting and valuable to general populace. Who cares they do some mistakes or that they rely on theories which have been deconstructed in the meantime. No problem, as long as they inspire people to deeper studies of the thing.

But when you get corrected by somebody about whom you know that uses academic sources, please don't argue and insist he's wrong unles you have learned something more than that video... or before you start, get some more read and don't base your arguments on 'I was misled by popularization video'. Do you know how silly and disrespectful that is?

Anyways, if we want to continue in this, wouldn't it be better to move somewhere else? This awesome DD doesn't deserve this kind of debate, don't you think?
 
Last edited:
If you end up having time to fix up East Africa more, it'd be great if you could fix the province of Suakin so it no longer has a slice of the river that's mainly in the duchy of Nobatia. This is probably my biggest pet peeve with the current map. Either way, thanks again for all the work you guys are doing; I've never been more excited for a CK2 update.

View attachment 397340
Why though? Makes sense for a province to want access to a river.
 
Why though? Makes sense for a province to want access to a river.

Well I'll admit it bugs me largely on aesthetics grounds since it completely destroys the shape of the duchy of Nobatia. But I don't think it's realistic either; Suakin is a port city on the other side of the coastal mountain range, so it wouldn't gain any direct benefit from having access to the river's water. Additionally the controlled part of the river is on the far side of the province from the city of Suakin. If Suakin did control part of this river, I would expect it to be the closer southern portion. If it was the northern stretch, I'd rather see more of the river given to Suakin (or preferably a new province). But my guess is this province's borders weren't too accurate as was the case with a lot of provinces in Africa before this update. If I'm wrong and there is a historical reason then I'll accept it (though it'd still be nice if they improved the shape a little).
 
Yup, absolutely agreed.

I like that there are people who do videos which popularize history or basically any science.
My point rather was that even if they host experts about the topic, it's not like 100% of what they say is true. (Heck I do this for living, talk to experts and interpret their years long studies into 1.5-3 minute shots... and I know how easy it is to get something wrong... but if somebody who studied the case warns me that I was wrong I am humble enough to admit my lack of expertise and I don't argue with him!) Their main goal is to make the topic interesting and trigger interest and further research for those who 'get caught' and that is awesome... and that is also a reason why I don't see a reason why anyone should jump at them and tell them that something they say there is a myth which has been followed by generations of proffesional historians.

My point was that somebody here on this forum, where I naively expect some level of general knowledge or at least approach to knowledge, comes with this entertainment/history video as reliable source... against a person with whom he discussed very similar topics and a person who - as he has already learned - studied not some popularization videos, but academic sources... which is something I myself value slightly more than those videos (sorry for my arrogance)
If this was the first time and only my own experience I would probably let it be... but since this happened many times previously, I simply emphasized that such approach may be good for five graders, but not for people who have studied the issue on academic level for years.

I'm very sorry I have put it so roughly and that I may (again) sound arrogant.
This is a video game forum. You can't expect everyone here to have a degree in history. Much less know the specific paper that makes the claim you consider the truth. You are talking about general knowledge but general knowledge is about on the level that there was an empire of Mali. I don't think that.the fact that it was proceeded by and empire of Ghana is general knowledge much less specifics on how it collapsed.
 
Why though? Makes sense for a province to want access to a river.

Well I'll admit it bugs me largely on aesthetics grounds since it completely destroys the shape of the duchy of Nobatia. But I don't think it's realistic either; Suakin is a port city on the other side of the coastal mountain range, so it wouldn't gain any direct benefit from having access to the river's water. Additionally the controlled part of the river is on the far side of the province from the city of Suakin. If Suakin did control part of this river, I would expect it to be the closer southern portion. If it was the northern stretch, I'd rather see more of the river given to Suakin (or preferably a new province). But my guess is this province's borders weren't too accurate as was the case with a lot of provinces in Africa before this update. If I'm wrong and there is a historical reason then I'll accept it (though it'd still be nice if they improved the shape a little).

I believe it's about the far side of the river and the province being on both its banks. The rivers there excepept the Nile shouldn't really present a barrier in this region, but anyways, I also share the opinion that it doesn't look good from aesthetic point of view, and this little section of province doesn't even have any strategic or gameplay meaning. So I believe it shouldn't be a problem for PDX to correct it

EDIT: merged with prefious post, since there would be doubble-post

This is a video game forum. You can't expect everyone here to have a degree in history. Much less know the specific paper that makes the claim you consider the truth. You are talking about general knowledge but general knowledge is about on the level that there was an empire of Mali. I don't think that.the fact that it was proceeded by and empire of Ghana is general knowledge much less specifics on how it collapsed.
You're right about general knowledge. And I don't expect it...That's why I wrote approach to knowledge there.
I don't really expect everybody to know the circumstances about the collapse of Wagadu/Ghana.
OTOH I do expect something more from you, who has behaved here like somebody who knows a lot abot Africa, somebody who has was informing other forumites about how African history went... and as you know, I expected it from a person with whom I had several discussions about African history and who really looks like somebody who knows something beyond general knowledge. And btw it's not one specific paper. I chose the best one, not the only one... the myth of Almoravid conquest after all isn't accepted as fact among Africanists for like 20 years now...which isn't about one specific paper ;)
PS: It doesn't make a claim that I consider truth. It goes through primary sources and analyzes historiographic literature which is based on them... and analyzes how these sources and books were later used as sources and were getting more and more misinterpreted. No study from professional historian after that "claim" claims that Almoravids conquered Ghana. It's just that books released before 1990's are easier to access online or even current teachers have usually studied those older works. Deconstructing a myth used by generations for over 2 centuries simply takes little more than 22 years. It doesn't make the myth less of a myth and the truth less of a truth, though. You can disagree and call the truth a claim but it won't change facts, my dear

But please, if you feel the need to discuss this matter, could we move somewhere else? I don't think this DD thread deserves this discussion. Or shall I ask moderator?
 
Last edited:
You're right about general knowledge. And I don't expect it...That's why I wrote approach to knowledge there.
I don't really expect everybody to know the circumstances about the collapse of Wagadu/Ghana.
OTOH I do expect something more from you, who has behaved here like somebody who knows a lot abot Africa, somebody who has was informing other forumites about how African history went... and as you know, I expected it from a person with whom I had several discussions about African history and who really looks like somebody who knows something beyond general knowledge. And btw it's not one specific paper. I chose the best one, not the only one... the myth of Almoravid conquest after all isn't accepted as fact among Africanists for like 20 years now...which isn't about one specific paper ;)

But please, if you feel the need to discuss this matter, could we move somewhere else? I don't think this DD thread deserves this discussion. Or shall I ask moderator?
No I think we're about done here. But really if I know about things it's because I am wrong a lot and when people correct me I learn something new.