So that time of the week again and its time for me to make something up to write about. Today I decided to talk about regions and forts, two new concepts in Crusader Kings II.

First, regions isn't something that is going to affect you directly but it works somewhat like how it have done in the Europa Universalis Games. It's an area on the map that denotes a region with a name and it's mostly used to improve on our localization of things, such as hunting for tigers in India or hunting a deer in western Europe. So no longer will you find Tigers in the woods of Poland if you manage to move your capital of your Indian Empire out of the subcontinent. You can see these regions by opening up a province and click on the new region icon to get an outline of the region. It's also possible to search for regions in the old title finder.

Next is a gameplay feature you will actually interact a bit more actively in. It's called forts which is an additional type of holding you can build in provinces next to the normal ones and trade posts. Because of this we had to extend the province view with a window you can open and close which will show "extra holding slots" which will contain the trade post and fort slots. The fort can be built anywhere from your own territory even enemy provinces that you have under your control. Their biggest advantage is that they are fortifications that you can build up really fast and very cheaply. The main point of them being to let you build up a region as your march towards a big neighbor which will let you slow down their advance but at the same time let you set up forward positions in the enemy territory.

They do have some added bonuses though beyond that, for instance in Tribal land where you have the homeland attrition bonus, that bonus will be removed from the province as long as you have a fort there to supply your troops with. There is also a feature for the forts that is too related to the expansion so I can't delve into that any deeper.


And again here's some more random changelogs

Spoiler

- Fixed crash when a war is invalidated because of no defender
- Fixed the "hostile against everyone" bug
- Fixed bug where the AI would keep their units attached to characters they no longer participate in a war with.
- Added alert for having high prio minor titles available to grant.
- Fixed various provinces in India that had no rulers scripted for some start dates.
- Monks and other people living in celibacy will no longer try to arrange stealth marriages if ruled by a patrician.
- Defensive religions now properly also give defensive modifiers for Camel Cavalry and Elephants.

 

[ReichEu2]

I got very excited about Zone-of-Control rules for forts until Groogy shot it down.

The only thing that will fix that it confirmation of Myths, Legends, and Fantasies DLC so I can play werewolf prince.

I like that idea!

But I'm intrigued by the forts. Will this mean Crusaders can build castles or like Richard I did in his possessions in Normandy build Chateau Galliard, or Edward I built the castles in Wales?

 

[Thure]

Doesn't it already do that though? although I personally think its dumb that each will get a county of yours is they can even if they are all in the same duchy

Yes... but you should choose which son get which title. So you can choose: Son 1 gets England, Son 2 gets Norway and Son 3 gets France. Currently the player has no influence in this.

 

[Maelvona]

Yes... but you should choose which son get which title. So you can choose: Son 1 gets England, Son 2 gets Norway and Son 3 gets France. Currently the player has no influence in this.

Why is this an issue? You already can choose your primary title, which goes to your heir. Why do you care which son gets France, and which gets Norway?

 

[Thure]

Why is this an issue? You already can choose your primary title, which goes to your heir. Why do you care which son gets France, and which gets Norway?

Because I want to manage my realm. And's not just about the highest title. You should choose for ALL your titles which son should get what. Whit this you can make more beautiful realm splits.

And... why not?

 

[Jorlem]

Oh I think I somehow I think there came a misunderstanding in reference to forts. Yes you can walk past them. My no was in reference to about how you get prickled by a hedgehog. Actually pet hedgehogs don't prick you, mine at least want to cuddle with you all time.

Aww... I had really gotten my hopes up, especially as that functionality to forts is being added to EU4. Would have made a lot of sense too, as then you could work to fortify your borders, and have it mean something, instead of the current "siege everything" method of warfare.

 

[fanoI]

Because I want to manage my realm. And's not just about the highest title. You should choose for ALL your titles which son should get what. Whit this you can make more beautiful realm splits.

And... why not?

I'd say the real "why" is "because was so that worked historically" the King decided this son gets the King of Danemark (and overlordship over the others), this gets Norway and this gets England. If the King died without decide who get what was normal to have a civil war on his death, surely the brothers did not divide the realm randomly as CK2 do!

Aww... I had really gotten my hopes up, especially as that functionality to forts is being added to EU4. Would have made a lot of sense too, as they you could work to fortify your borders, and have it mean something, instead of the current "siege everything" method of warfare.

If they are passable and do not diminish attrition what is the scope of forts? I have not understood if they are real holding and count for your demesne limit or not too...

 

[Thure]

I'd say the real "why" is "because was so that worked historically" the King decided this son gets the King of Danemark (and overlordship over the others), this gets Norway and this gets England. If the King died without decide who get what was normal to have a civil war on his death, surely the brothers did not divide the realm randomly as CK2 do!

And this, of course

 

[DMcCool]

The new system sounds great, but will there be anything stopping us from just building forts in every single province in our Kingdom? You mentioned they are for creating a "march", but is there any reason why the AI or the player would stop there?

 

[Thure]

The new system sounds great, but will there be anything stopping us from just building forts in every single province in our Kingdom? You mentioned they are for creating a "march", but is there any reason why the AI or the player would stop there?

They get destroyed after their got sieged. So you would have to rebuild them. And this costs money you could have used to improve your holdings.

 

[Ezumiyr]

That's some new content.

 

[Empress Matilda]

The new system sounds great, but will there be anything stopping us from just building forts in every single province in our Kingdom? You mentioned they are for creating a "march", but is there any reason why the AI or the player would stop there?

They don't look as if they provide income or troops, just a fort with garrision. Like castle fortifications there would be little point building them where they aren't needed. I wonder if Crown laws will limit who can build them and where. In England you needed royal consent to build a castle except during The Anarchy.

 

[theKing1988]

They don't look as if they provide income or troops, just a fort with garrision. Like castle fortifications there would be little point building them where they aren't needed. I wonder if Crown laws will limit who can build them and where. In England you needed royal consent to build a castle except during The Anarchy.

You can still argue that they could be needed in a buffer zone behind all borders. A single line of forts doesn't really do much good as a defensive measure if the enemy can just walk past them and carpet siege everything else. 3 lines of forts or 4 lines would help a lot more in comparison

 

[TheDungen]

I just think we need the ability to choice which heir get what on succession.

True enough, I think I made a similiar post in the suggestions forum.

 

[TheDungen]

Reasonable, but what are the rules in regards to that? if you just give 3 sons baronies and 1 son 2 kingdoms, a duchy, and 3 counties where exactly is the downside to gavelkind?

Perhaps he'd raise up with a buttload of eventspawned troops if he felt that he got screwed over? I think the choice ought to be resonably free (not only with gavelkind, with any succession) but that'd make the freedom to make bad choices since there strictly speaking should be no good ones.

 

[Modmilai]

Gavelkind needs fixing? It's how thing were back then. If nothing else it should be better at killing realms.

It needs fixing in the sense that if I have three sons and a Mediterranean Empire it'd make sense to divide it contiguously. Not Tripolitania, Narbonne and ... Acre to the same heir... or indeed a menu to decide who gets what (according to preset rules or weightings).

 

[Voy]

Perhaps forts will be useful to protect against looters. Just place a line of forts on coast of England and hope the vikings chose another target without reinforced protection.

 

[Stuckenschmidt]

Forts? Are there still people out there who are "threatened" by the AI? Or is this yet another measure to make "WQ in 50 years" possible for everyone?

 

[theKing1988]

Forts? Are there still people out there who are "threatened" by the AI? Or is this yet another measure to make "WQ in 50 years" possible for everyone?

Not every player have achieved mastery of the game yet, so yeah, i think it is pretty safe to assume that as long as new players start playing the game there will always be people who are threatened by the AI.

It is a fine balance act to try and appease both veterans and newbies with these DLCs

 

[TheDungen]

Are you kidding me? This game is laughably easy. It's generally more frustrating then hard. Like when you're waiting for a rival who hold loads of kingdoms under gavelkind to have more than one son or when you're trying to fabricate a claim for a decade straight. Or when gavelkind gives disappropriate amounts of land to the primary heir for 'reasons'.

The game can be very irritating in how it's arbitrary but it's not hard. It's really difficult to game over, especially if you start as a king.

The AI is never a threat the game mechanics are.

The game should give the player more controll, and then make conditions much harsher. Meaning you'll lose the throne from time to time but you'll know exactly what will happen when you do. You'll know who you'll play what lands you'll hold and you'll start plotting to take that throne back before you've even lost it.

 

[theKing1988]

Are you kidding me? This game is laughably easy. It's generally more frustrating then hard. Like when you're waiting for a rival who hold loads of kingdoms under gavelkind to have more than one son or when you're trying to fabricate a claim for a decade straight. Or when gavelkind gives disappropriate amounts of land to the primary heir for 'reasons'.

The game can be very irritating in how it's arbitrary but it's not hard. It's really difficult to game over, especially if you start as a king.

The AI is never a threat the game mechanics are.

It sounds like you have achieved a reasonable mastery of the game then and that is great.

But not everyone has, that was all i meant to say with my reply. And people on the forums very easily tend to forget that.