Second week and a second dev diary! We will continue for this week as well to discuss new patch features and changes.

I'll start with some more quality of life changes we've done with the right-click menu to make interactions with various entities in the game even more smooth. For starters we've finally removed the capital letters in the tooltip to hint about how to now interact with characters, but that's not really a big deal. We have also extended the menu to now include actions such as plot to kill in this menu to make life a little bit easier.

But we didn't end there because we also felt that you should be able to interact more with holdings and titles so we added it to them as well, including a decision to switch what you want as your capital holding. Obviously the bishopric of Uppsala should be the capital of Sweden now that the capital holding type doesn't matter for government anymore.

There's also a thing that has been very difficult to do in Crusader Kings 2 is to get a visual overview of your realm and its hierarchy which is why we have merged the Independent Realms mapmode and Direct Vassals mapmode into one superior mapmode which combine the both plus some more. Let's have a look at the Holy Roman Empire and his realm.

To now see the breakdown of this realm you Ctrl+Left Click on a province on the map belonging to the Empire and it will break up in-front of you to show you what hides within. Showing you the various duchies and counts beneath the Emperor. Pretty standard to how the Direct Vassal mapmode works but you can isolate it to one realm at a time.

But let's say you want to look deeper into the hierarchy and break up the Kingdom of Bohemia to view what duchies and counties that it contains? You just click it again and this sub realm will also be broken apart to reveal the King's own direct vassals letting you examine your vassals vassals.

And like Doomdark did last week I'll finish up with some random snippets from our huge Changelog

Spoiler

- Several Lovers events now checks that ruler/spouse/lover isn't incapable/imprisoned
- Rügen, Öland and Djerba are no longer considered to be ocean terrain provinces.
- You'll no longer try to talk to your dead children when you have the family focus.
- It is now possible to gain the Crusader/Mujahid trait as a character of any religion participating in a Crusade/Jihad.
- To become a cardinal you have to be within the pope's diplomatic range
- Can no longer enforce plot to take vassal land if he is in revolt.
- Go tiger hunting no longer disappears after creating a custom Empire in India.
- Fixed get married ambition for homosexuals.
- Now we have visual indicator when settlement slots are being used by tribals
- Paranoid parents should no longer worry about potential plots against dead children.
- Lovers in prison can no longer get impregnated normally
- Anglo-Saxons are now also allowed to create the Kingdom of Saxony

 

[Rhoanna]

To the point, I'm not essentially against the idea of having females leading armies occasionally, but if the devs don't want to make fools of themselves and turn their game into a completely ahistorical PC joke, they should severely limit that possibility.

The developers have already shown a preference for fun and playability over strict historical accuracy (or plausibility, or whatever, since every game play deviates from history). We already have an Aztec invasion of Europe, studying the Necronomicon, judgement by Zun, and reforming pagan religions. I find it hard to believe that woman rulers commanding troops (which, unlike those other things, actually happened) is the breaking point for many people.

 

[Knotz]

If I understand Groogy right, every single female ruler will now be leading forces into combat, which is utterly nonsensical.

Where was this stated?

 

[The Great Bear]

To the point, I'm not essentially against the idea of having females leading armies occasionally, but if the devs don't want to make fools of themselves and turn their game into a completely ahistorical PC joke, they should severely limit that possibility. If I understand Groogy right, every single female ruler will now be leading forces into combat, which is utterly nonsensical.

Say, it would be reasonable if only female rulers with very high martial skill and the "brave" or "strong" trait were allowed to actually lead troops. That would be historically acceptable actually. We are after all talking about something very rare and which only happened with exceptional women.

I'm pretty sure your confused now...
I think that Groogy means that only female rulers WHO OWN TITLES can lead armies in the 2.4 patch
NOT COUNTING QUEENS THROUGH MARRIAGE

Meaning in a normal game there should only be at MOST a few dozen female rulers in the span of 500 years in game.

So Female commanders will be EXTREMELY rare to see(they will also need to have a high martial to be effective further making female commanders rare), just like in real life in this period.

 

[Slayen]

Where was this stated?

Here:

Actually we have been looking into giving the glory and praise Matilda she and many other ladies deserve. Any female ruler will be able to lead her own armies now actually with 2.4.

 

[Knotz]

Here:

Interesting, thanks.

 

[SirRitter]

Groogy stated a couple of pages ago that femalre rulers will now be able to lead troops. He didn't mention any requirement for that capacity.

But we have exemples for bad female army leaders... Look at the battle of Cassel I linked. It would make no sense if only strong women could do it. Because he have also exemples for bad female army leaders.

You mean one of those one-paragraph articles without citations or with a few dubious links? Right... I don't know if you could actualy state that the woman in question was incompetent, if only for the fact that she lost and was captured. Joan of Arc was captured, and nobody can question her abilities as a commander and the major victories she scored(her appearance actually turned the tide of war for the French).

Most women(specially medieval women) don't have any interest in martial pursuits. Again, if you want a shred of historical realism there must be requirements. To require only that the female in question has a martial background would be good but still too lenient, since we would eventually have dozens of females leading armies every decade or so.

 

[SirRitter]

The developers have already shown a preference for fun and playability over strict historical accuracy (or plausibility, or whatever, since every game play deviates from history). We already have an Aztec invasion of Europe, studying the Necronomicon, judgement by Zun, and reforming pagan religions. I find it hard to believe that woman rulers commanding troops (which, unlike those other things, actually happened) is the breaking point for many people.

Sunset invasion is despised by most and I assume most players don't give a damn about most fantasy events, rare as they are. The demon child event might be fun for the first time, but it gets old real fast. I also never liked meeting Robin Hood as the Byzantine Emperor and such nonsense.

Many if not most of the players of this game like medieval history, I don't think the devs are being sucessfull in these deviations.

 

[viola]

Sunset invasion is despised by most.

I fear I'll have to burst your bubble here: no, it's not.

Unless by "most" you actually intend "a bunch of annoying screaming kids that have nothing better to do other than bitching about optional and intentionally ridiculous scenarios made just for fun", if that's the case then you're absolutely right.

 

[SirRitter]

I'm pretty sure your confused now...
I think that Groogy means that only female rulers WHO OWN TITLES can lead armies in the 2.4 patch
NOT COUNTING QUEENS THROUGH MARRIAGE

Meaning in a normal game there should only be at MOST a few dozen female rulers in the span of 500 years in game.

So Female commanders will be EXTREMELY rare to see(they will also need to have a high martial to be effective further making female commanders rare), just like in real life in this period.

I don't think it is that uncommon. Most european titles have agnatic-cognatic sucession at 1066 start date, right? I never paid much attention, but I do frequently encounter counties and duchies ruled by females in france and elsewhere, if not kingdoms. Levies lead by women will now be quite frequent as the AI tends to put rulers to lead armies.

And what about the damn basques?

 

[TheAnguishedOne]

Sunset invasion is despised by most and I assume most players don't give a damn about most fantasy events, rare as they are. The demon child event might be fun for the first time, but it gets old real fast. I also never liked meeting Robin Hood as the Byzantine Emperor and such nonsense.

Many if not most of the players of this game like medieval history, I don't think the devs are being sucessfull in these deviations.

The events you're talking about are extremely rare to occur, and Sunset Invasion is an optional DLC (I enjoy it, but I know some don't like it).

As for your second point, you're forgetting people that use mods. I love the AGOT mod, but it isn't exactly historical.

 

[SirRitter]

I fear I'll have to burst your bubble here: no, it's not.

Unless by "most" you actually intend "a bunch of annoying screaming kids that have nothing better to do other than bitching about optional and intentionally ridiculous scenarios made just for fun", if that's the case then you're absolutely right.

Oh, come on. I bet you my lunch that it is the least sold dlc they have. I bought the game in a promotion otherwise I would never have it. It is the only dlc I have disabled as of now(and I own all dlc).

 

[Knotz]

I dunno man, this is Paradox we're talkin 'bout. They added a heftier malus to females being caught cheating and they didn't seem too concerned about how politically incorrect they were being. The same Paradox that gives you a malus for being a female ruler or having a female heir. All historically kosher but not polite to say today. I'm sure that if they add this it'll be as either a rare thing that some suitable AI female rulers (ie military training, brave/zealous/ambitious etc) take or the player can take at any time with suitable ramifications (maybe an opinion malus until X amount of battles/wars have been won? Or even just a static one? "Threatens my masculinity by existing -25").

 

[SirRitter]

Knotz, I hope you are right. I hate when something is ruined by PC sensibilities and catering to ideological distortion.

"Kingdom of Heaven"(the Ridley Scott flick) made me puke.

 

[Thure]

Groogy stated a couple of pages ago that femalre rulers will now be able to lead troops. He didn't mention any requirement for that capacity.



You mean one of those one-paragraph articles without citations or with a few dubious links? Right... I don't know if you could actualy state that the woman in question was incompetent, if only for the fact that she lost and was captured. Joan of Arc was captured, and nobody can question her abilities as a commander and the major victories she scored(her appearance actually turned the tide of war for the French).

Most women(specially medieval women) don't have any interest in martial pursuits. Again, if you want a shred of historical realism there must be requirements. To require only that the female in question has a martial background would be good but still too lenient, since we would eventually have dozens of females leading armies every decade or so.

No I mean this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cassel_(1071)

But I see... you don't even read ANY of my articles. Because I already linked many with enough citations...

Most women are not ruler!

 

[Knotz]

Most women are not ruler!

But for every one you can mention that did lead her troops personally there are two or three who never did, right?

 

[SirRitter]

Wikipedia articles on medieval history that lack enough citations and sources are shite. Period. But I did read it, all the 10 or so lines of it and the whole 10 seconds it took me. Where does it say that the woman in question was incompetent? Moreover, why do you fail to make a point so frequently?

The fact stands that it was very rare to see a woman commanding a military effort and even more rare to see one actually fighting and leading troops into battle. We have an average of what, 1 or 2 verifiable examples per century of women who actually fought in medieval Europe?

 

[Thure]

But for every one you can mention that did lead her troops personally there are two or three who never did, right?

No. For the most female rulers we have no source if she lead or not And actually their are not many female rulers on their own right on this era. Could you show me one who clearly never lead an army? If they are rulers on their own right it makes sense if they lead their troops. That's the duty of a ruler. So what's the problem?

I don't want every women as leader. Only female rulers. And maybe princesses and royal consorts with military education

Wikipedia articles on medieval history that lack enough citations and sources are shite. Period. But I did read it, all the 10 or so lines of it and the whole 10 seconds it took me. Where does it say that the woman in question was incompetent? Moreover, why do you fail to make a point so frequently?

The fact stands that it was very rare to see a woman commanding a military effort and even more rare to see one actually fighting and leading troops into battle. We have an average of what, 1 or 2 verifiable examples per century of women who actually fought in medieval Europe?

Most of them are sourced... you just need to read the book which is referenced on the page... If you don't want to read books I can't do more than give you internet links.

 

[SirRitter]

No. For the most female rulers we have no source if she lead or not And actually their are not many female rulers on their own right on this era. Could you show me one who clearly never lead an army?

Yeah. Matilda of Tuscany. For all we know she couldn't hold a sword.

 

[Knotz]

Could you show me one who clearly never lead an army?

I think the burden of proof goes the other way in this case. You don't usually prove a lack of something right?

I don't want every women as leader. Only female rulers. And maybe princesses and royal consorts with military education

Sure, military educations and traits that make it seem reasonable that they'd stand up to centuries of gender stereotyping and potential religious censure.

 

[Voy]

So much hate flowing around. I seriously doubt we can trust these sources about women leading troops in battle, but then again the accounts on many of the game's characters are also dubious. Might as well add women leading troops if the least dubious sources say so, it's more colourful that way. Im all for it.

On that note, it would be nice to see other sources than wikipedia from time to time if it's not too much to ask for.