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

 

[SirRitter]

The poster above thinks women should lead armies and rule more often because it would be more "just".

There was no feminism in the middle-ages, therefore you cannot call anything related to it "anti-feminist".

 

[Tom013]

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'?

Of course, this is all irrelevant to the game and the only one I saw using this as any basis for an argument was SirRitter who seemed to find it a fitting way to attack those of you who are disagreeing with him.

From my point of view, it's hard to understand someone who does not recognize that the definition of equality in the social sense does not require symmetry, identical traits in all senses. When one says "all men are equal," they don't mean we all have brown hair, that we're all suited to lifting heavy weights or doing math problems. Social equality is not mathematical equality. And yet, that's still entirely irrelevant to the game.

 

[Thure]

The poster above thinks women should lead armies and rule more often because it would be more "just".

There was no feminism in the middle-ages, therefore you cannot call anything related to it "anti-feminist".

Okay, I used the wrong term because English is not my first language... I just want to say... 'The middle ages were not as much against women than the early modern era'

 

[SirRitter]

I suppose I agree, after all the great witch scare was a hallmark of the early modern era.

 

[nOxr]

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?

Wow, your deep knowledge of women in history is only surpassed by your unmatched objectivity in the field!

 

[SirRitter]

thanks.

 

[Thure]

I suppose I agree, after all the great witch scare was a hallmark of the early modern era.

I never said this... I just said that women in the early modern era had a worse status than in the middle ages Not that the middle ages were glourious for women...

 

[Choksquaker]

I just hope this expansion receives the same love Paradox is giving to EU4's Common Sense

 

[The Great Bear]

I just hope this expansion receives the same love Paradox is giving to EU4's Common Sense

I'd really like if they added fortresses like what they're doing in Common Sense.

 

[nicochrish]

They practiced suicide, euthanasia and abortion.

And now, for God's sake, you're going to tell us how abortion is evil and suicude nets you hell?? Please.

And while Euthanasia might be unacceptable outside of very specific circumstances, citing it as a reason for the fall of the Cathars is more than a little ridiculous.

 

[illathid]

Given that this is trivially easy to mod in at the present, it shouldn't be to hard to see how this would look in game.
-Step 1: allow any female with a landed title to serve as marshal
-Step 2: make an on_gains_title event that logs whenever a female gains a landed title
-Step 3: make an on_battle event that logs whenever a female is commanding a flank
-Step 4: run an observation game for whatever you deem to be an appropriate amount of time (e.g. 100 years, 400 years, etc.)
-Step 5: open the log and remove the duplicate entries for the same woman gaining multiple titles or the same woman leading multiple battles
-Step 6: count it up.
Now you can easily determine the proportion of women rulers who lead in battle as opposed those that did not. If you wanted to be really thorough you could log the same information for men as well.

 

[Donelloth]

I'm excited to see less rulers lead battles based on traits and circumstances. I'd imagine any women ruler without a high marshal or military background will be more likely to press the button to disallow themselves to lead armies. Probably pregnant ones too. Showing and pregnant that is. I know you get the flag before you get the trait. Really, any ruler without a dynastic heir or child heir should be pressing that button. Anyone craven or paranoid probably wouldn't be leaving their courts for various reasons and pressing that button.

Realistically, if the use of the 'disallow to lead armies' button is coded in this way for the AI, we'll be seeing less female flank leaders than there are females rulers. Even more so if they still can't become marshal or be given the commander title which I suspect is the case. More often than not, female characters are tutored in something other than marshal so coded like this we'll see few who feel confident enough to want to lead.

At that point, it becomes more something that the player can do if they want to and something the AI will do if it makes sense on the rare occasion it does. Short of event spawn characters I only ever see a few high marshal girls that I didn't train be like that and its so rare that they are ever in charge of anything anyways. I trust the dev team. It'll be fine.

 

[The Great Bear]

I'm excited to see less rulers lead battles based on traits and circumstances. I'd imagine any women ruler without a high marshal or military background will be more likely to press the button to disallow themselves to lead armies. Probably pregnant ones too. Showing and pregnant that is. I know you get the flag before you get the trait. Really, any ruler without a dynastic heir or child heir should be pressing that button. Anyone craven or paranoid probably wouldn't be leaving their courts for various reasons and pressing that button.

Realistically, if the use of the 'disallow to lead armies' button is coded in this way for the AI, we'll be seeing less female flank leaders than there are females rulers. Even more so if they still can't become marshal or be given the commander title which I suspect is the case. More often than not, female characters are tutored in something other than marshal so coded like this we'll see few who feel confident enough to want to lead.

At that point, it becomes more something that the player can do if they want to and something the AI will do if it makes sense on the rare occasion it does. Short of event spawn characters I only ever see a few high marshal girls that I didn't train be like that and its so rare that they are ever in charge of anything anyways. I trust the dev team. It'll be fine.

Groogy make sure that pregnant women aren't leading the battles please
Don't forget

 

[Donelloth]

Groogy make sure that pregnant women aren't leading the battles please
Don't forget

As I understand it, it's not something the game currently worries about. Like, at all.

 

[Tancred DH]

Good point, and another example of where the sjw brainwashed arguments fall flat when faced with reality. The most important and highly respected role of a noblewoman was the the nurturing of healthy heirs. It wasnt like today where infants are thrown into daycare at 6 months so the strong women go carry on being corporate warriors. You peoples twisted view dominates all aspects of our lives now, isn't that enough? Why do you have to shoehorn contemporary PC nonsense into a computer game set in medieval times too?

 

[The Great Bear]

As I understand it, it's not something the game currently worries about. Like, at all.

For the next patch I mean

 

[JacobMunro]

Any word on fixing performance problems in the late game? Its all well and good to add new features, but what about getting old features (playing from the charlemagne bookmark to 1453) working? ive been waiting a very long time to finish my india campaign.

 

[illathid]

Any word on fixing performance problems in the late game? Its all well and good to add new features, but what about getting old features (playing from the charlemagne bookmark to 1453) working? ive been waiting a very long time to finish my india campaign.

Just wait for my magic fingers okay? I am pretty certain that with 2.4 the game will run much much faster than 1.0. (disclaimer is that is 3 years ago so might not remember speed but you are free to disprove me, anyway I've done a ton of late game optimizations among other things )

 

[SirRitter]

And now, for God's sake, you're going to tell us how abortion is evil and suicude nets you hell?? Please.

And while Euthanasia might be unacceptable outside of very specific circumstances, citing it as a reason for the fall of the Cathars is more than a little ridiculous.

What, do you think suctioning babies out of women's wombs and throwing the mutilated remains in the surgical trash bin is a good thing? That taking one's life is a good thing?

Please... but to not derail the thread further, the point I was making was that the Cathars were simply not able to follow up a civilization due to their mad beliefs. Besides the abortions and suicides, they believed procreation was a sin(Grand Inquisitor Bernardo de Gui called them "filthy sodomites" because apparently they encouraged the practice of homossexuality and anal sex as to avoid conception in those who could not refrain from sex). They were like a growing tumor in the heart of Europe and once they stopped converting the poor fools who fell prey to their doctrines they would simply die off from old age or from voluntarily offing themselves.

I don't complain because Catharism rising up is extremely rare in the game(I never seem it myself), but yeah, they would never have been able to become the dominant version of western Christianity in Europe. At least not for more than one or two generations. When this happens in the game it would be unplausibe.

 

[SirRitter]

I'm excited to see less rulers lead battles based on traits and circumstances. I'd imagine any women ruler without a high marshal or military background will be more likely to press the button to disallow themselves to lead armies. Probably pregnant ones too. Showing and pregnant that is. I know you get the flag before you get the trait. Really, any ruler without a dynastic heir or child heir should be pressing that button. Anyone craven or paranoid probably wouldn't be leaving their courts for various reasons and pressing that button.

Realistically, if the use of the 'disallow to lead armies' button is coded in this way for the AI, we'll be seeing less female flank leaders than there are females rulers. Even more so if they still can't become marshal or be given the commander title which I suspect is the case. More often than not, female characters are tutored in something other than marshal so coded like this we'll see few who feel confident enough to want to lead.

At that point, it becomes more something that the player can do if they want to and something the AI will do if it makes sense on the rare occasion it does. Short of event spawn characters I only ever see a few high marshal girls that I didn't train be like that and its so rare that they are ever in charge of anything anyways. I trust the dev team. It'll be fine.

I'm not sure that would be accurate. A ruler who refused to lead his troops into battle would probaby be branded a coward and lose infuence over his subjects, since that was expected of him as one of his duties. Baldwin IV was mentioned in this thread, he suffered from leprosy and lead his subjects into battle even when suffering disability. I could also mention that the merovingians lost their power precisely because they passed military responsabilities to officers.

The ruler in question should receive an opinion malus from refusing to lead troops if he is able to do so. Not in the case of females though. And I do hope we won't see every singe female ruler playing Joan of Arc and kicking ass all over Christendom.

Can you imagine the poor Basques? The legendary amazons won't be legendary anymore.