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

 

[Knotz]

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.

You can always click on the sources wikipedia uses. Assuming the article has them ofc.

 

[SirRitter]

How about a new commander title exclusive for women which involves "planning strategy and staying in the background when the fighting happens"? It would be historicaly accurate for Mathilda and Melisende and wouldn't break the way commanding center or flank currently works in the game.

 

[Thure]

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

But we have exemples... Man...

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

Have you any source for this nonsens?

 

[Tom013]

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

Burden of proof is fluid here on the Internet... On the Internet, we generally prefer to argue in circles with neither side giving any ground or acknowledging any merit or even goodwill in the position of the opposition. It's easier that way.

 

[Knotz]

But we have exemples... Man...

Of specific, singular women. Not of every single female ruler picking up a bit of sharp metal and wrecking shit. In fact the women who ruled and ALSO stabbed things in their spare time are usually highlighted because they were the exception, not the rule.

I'm not saying female rulers shouldn't fight, in fact I dig the idea. I'm just saying that they should have some prerequisites that reflect the fact they were not the norm, yes even being female and ruling wasn't the norm, but female rulers who personally led their armies are even MORE exceptional. And this should be reflected in the game mechanics.

 

[SirRitter]

Have you any source for this nonsens?

Hah. There is no record of her fighting. One would think such an admired heroine and defender of the papacy would have chroniclers going on and on about her feats of strenght and skill and slain foes. You know, as they do about every single successfull knight or warrior king.

You quoted yourself mention of how historians consider nonsensical the idea that she received military training of any sort. That simply did not happen to girls, royal progeny or otherwise.

 

[Zolotaya]

Hah. There is no record of her fighting.

Your ignorance shows yet again.

For all we know she couldn't hold a sword.

How about a new commander title exclusive for women which involves "planning strategy and staying in the background when the fighting happens"? It would be historicaly accurate for Mathilda and Melisende and wouldn't break the way commanding center or flank currently works in the game.

... You quoted yourself mention of how historians consider nonsensical the idea that she received military training of any sort. That simply did not happen to girls, royal progeny or otherwise.

The very fact that you question the ability of a woman to hold a sword or fight means you have no credibility. None.

In addition to the historical evidence, you ignore one very important game mechanic: Catharism and its ability to become the dominate Western Rite church. In a scenario that Catharism becomes dominate, women, and more than a few, should have the ability to lead armies.

 

[aitaituo]

The very fact that you question the ability of a woman to hold a sword or fight means you have no credibility. None.

Not to mention our leper-King had to hold his sword with his left arm, because his right arm was in such bad shape from the leprosy, but was nonetheless a great warrior king, apparently, and certainly not leading from considerable distance from the actual melee like those weakling women.

 

[SirRitter]

Not to mention our leper-King had to hold his sword with his left arm, because his right arm was in such bad shape from the leprosy, but was nonetheless a great warrior king, apparently, and certainly not leading from considerable distance from the actual melee like those weakling women.

Yes, actually. William of Tyre mentions that he was in the thick of fighting during Montgisard.

 

[SirRitter]

The very fact that you question the ability of a woman to hold a sword or fight means you have no credibility. None.

In addition to the historical evidence, you ignore one very important game mechanic: Catharism and its ability to become the dominate Western Rite church. In a scenario that Catharism becomes dominate, women, and more than a few, should have the ability to lead armies.

Jean of Arc knew how to hold a sword.

Never had Cathars becoming the dominant religion in my games.

 

[TheAnguishedOne]

Never had Cathars becoming the dominant religion in my games.

And? Just because something never happened in one of your games, that means it never happens? There are AARs specifically about people setting out to make a heresy overtake the parent religion and others where it just happens by luck.

 

[SirRitter]

I'm not complaining about it at all. I like the way heresy mechanics work right now and Cathars indeed believed in "gender equality"(no surprise they got wiped out).

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. My problem is with having every single Catholic or Orthodox queen, empress, duchess or countess leading armies as Joan of Arc did. You don't make a rule out of something exceptional and extremely rare.

 

[Zolotaya]

Jean of Arc knew how to hold a sword.

Never had Cathars becoming the dominant religion in my games.

Here is the religious map of my current game where Cathar is the "Orthodox" religion of the Western Rite and Catholicism is a heresy. This was done with no player intervention.

It does happen, even if it never occurred in one of your campaigns.

Just to be clear: The point I am making is that in CK2 there are times where women (and sometimes more than just a few) should be able to lead armies and fight in wars. CK2 needs more than a "mystical magical" event of Joan of Arc that fires at random times.

 

[TheAnguishedOne]

I'm not complaining about it at all. I like the way heresy mechanics work right now and Cathars indeed believed in "gender equality"(no surprise they got wiped out).

Aaaaand I'm done talking with you. You think Cathars were wiped out because they believed in gender equality? Using that logic, any society or faith that had that mentality would fall against the others, meaning the present should still think women are inferior. Multiple people have have tried to talk to you about this, including Groogy, and you refuse to listen. Peace out, I quit. Next time I post on here, I'll be asking a question about the upcoming patch/DLC.

 

[Pomeranian]

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 think this is the best solution really. I think it would reduce the amount of female rulers leading armes down to an acceptable amount while also allowing Paradox to represent the rare phenomenon of female generals.

 

[SirRitter]

Aaaaand I'm done talking with you. You think Cathars were wiped out because they believed in gender equality? Using that logic, any society or faith that had that mentality would fall against the others, meaning the present should still think women are inferior. Multiple people have have tried to talk to you about this, including Groogy, and you refuse to listen. Peace out, I quit. Next time I post on here, I'll be asking a question about the upcoming patch/DLC.

Oh, cry me a river you poor thing.

No, I don't think women are "inferior" and I greatly admire figures such as Joan of Arc and the very Matilda of Tuscany which I have been somewhat bashing for the sake of argument. "Gender equality" is retarded because men and women are not equal. They are very different.

The Cathars got wiped out for many of their retarded beliefs, gender equality was only one of them. They thought reproduction was a sin, for instance. They practiced suicide, euthanasia and abortion. In short, they would have done an awesome job in offing themselves if they had not been crusaded to oblivion.

 

[Voy]

Jesus christ, @SirRitter you're not even trying to be likeable...

 

[The Great Bear]

@SirRitter
Okay listen...
Males already get MUCH more favoritism even with agnatic-cognatic succession, and in case the law switches to some variant of elective they will almost ALWAYS choose males so now we only have a small amount of female rulers to work with. In addition to that males with male sons get favoritism as well in inheritance.

So we have more males that will be rulers... AND in addition to that only male courtiers will be allowed to lead armies...
And in my experience its the landless courtiers that end up having the highest martial.

Males will massively outnumber female commanders...

AND even the females who are rulers who have low martial will likely never even be given the title of commander to begin with, further diminishing the pool of already few female candidates.

You're over thinking this.

Now @Zolotaya
>Cathar
>Woman pope
>Christianity crumbling

No connections here.

:3

 

[SirRitter]

Oh man. Why does everything have to be about "social justice" with you militant sjws? We are talking history here, and a computer strategy game about history. How can you fit your skewed modern notions of "reforming gender roles" and "transforming the world into a rainbow paradise" or whatever in here? Do you even like the medieval period?

I can only imagine what is next: "Pope Joan: The ultimate gender equality dlc" and "Gender neutral levies: avoiding emotional triggers". I bet the most maniac amongst you would love that.

 

[Thure]

Oh man. Why does everything have to be about "social justice" with you militant sjws? We are talking history here, and a computer strategy game about history. How can you fit your skewed modern notions of "reforming gender roles" and "transforming the world into a rainbow paradise" or whatever in here? Do you even like the medieval period?

I can only imagine what is next: "Pope Joan: The ultimate gender equality dlc" and "Gender neutral levies: avoiding emotional triggers". I bet the most maniac amongst you would love that.

Women in the middle ages were more equal and had more rights than in the early modern period. Of course on some places at some times you can find exceptions. But generally the middle ages were not that anti-feministic like you want to see it... And where is arguing with 'social justice'?