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.

 

[omega20056]

French is what happens when a german ruler tries to ressurect the roman culture. And between the visingoth the frankish and the lobards that pretty much covers western europe.

Visigothic and Frankish aren't Gallo-Roman and Ibero-Roman, their names are Germanic rather than Latin and Frankish is even in the Central Germanic culture group.

 

[Thure]

French is what happens when a german ruler tries to ressurect the roman culture. And between the visingoth the frankish and the lobards that pretty much covers western europe.

French wasn't ressurected Roman culture by Germans... Most of France was still Roman under the Frankish rule. Franks just lived around Benelux, Western Germany and Nord-Pas-de-Calais.

Visigothic and Frankish aren't Gallo-Roman and Ibero-Roman, their names are Germanic rather than Latin and Frankish is even in the Central Germanic culture group.

Visigoths ingame are pretty much Ibero-Romans.

 

[omega20056]

No because of reasons I feel too obvious to say. I can start with that Charlemagne didn't try to recreate the WRE he was piecing together his father's empire, his model of land owner obligation were based on theirs but if anything he was doing big moves away from the old. Being crowned by the pope being one of them

If mods change any of this, good for them. Use them instead.

He was crowned by the Pope as "Emperor and Augustus" in opposition to Irene. He claimed to be the true Roman Emperor, not just the Western Emperor, but the option to recreate the WRE should have still been there for those who find it interesting.

 

[omega20056]

French wasn't ressurected Roman culture by Germans... Most of France was still Roman under the Frankish rule. Franks just lived around Benelux, Western Germany and Nord-Pas-de-Calais.



Visigoths ingame are pretty much Ibero-Romans.

I understand that Visigothic is meant to represent the Ibero-Romans, but the names and dynasties are more Germanic than Latin. It's a gross simplification when you see that Spain had a population of six million Romans and two hundred thousand Visigoths (99% of which spoke Iberian Latin).

 

[TheDungen]

Visigothic and Frankish aren't Gallo-Roman and Ibero-Roman, their names are Germanic rather than Latin and Frankish is even in the Central Germanic culture group.

Thats because ibero roman and gallo roman are gone after centuries under lombard frankish and visingothic rule.

With the influx of latin root in these cultures you get french italian castilian and catalan. Roman culture being ressurected is a dream a dead culture is dead. Perhaps the byzantines could really have ressurected roman culture by going latin again, but the west european states all tried and ended up with soemthing else.

 

[Thure]

I understand that Visigothic is meant to represent the Ibero-Romans, but the names and dynasties are more Germanic than Latin. It's a gross simplification when you see that Spain had a population of six million Romans and two hundred thousand Visigoths (99% of which spoke Iberian Latin).

Because most people in Spain used Germanic names...

Thats because ibero roman and gallo roman are gone after centuries under lombard frankish and visingothic rule.

The population of France was still Romance and not Germanic... And Lombard were Romanised/Italised and not the other way around.

 

[TheDungen]

Because most people in Spain used Germanic names...



The population of France was still Romance and not Germanic... And Lombard were Romanised/Italised and not the other way around.

Eventually yeah and guess what they didn't become romans they became italians. The merger between the lombard and roman cultures.
Same thing with spain and france, in boith case the latin heritage eventually resurfaced but did so in a modified way.

 

[omega20056]

Thats because ibero roman and gallo roman are gone after centuries under lombard frankish and visingothic rule.

Iberian Latin survived until the 900s to become the Iberian Romance languages and Gallic Latin is well attested until it starts to turn into French around 820.

The Visigoths stopped speaking Gothic around 600 and their language was pretty much dead by 750. The Frankish language was confined to western Germany and the Low Countries, it never took hold in central Gaul/France. The Lombards were also speaking a dialect of Latin by 769, their Germanic language was nearly dead by that stage.

 

[TheDungen]

Language isn't culture. And the ruling classes had the germanic culture. Just notice that they have kings. An idea that was abbhorrent by roman ideals.

And I disagree on you assesement of frankish , if that was true then there would have been little need for charlamagnes doctrine of pushing latin speaking in his realm.

Charlamagne may have started out reuniting his fathers realm but after he took lobardy and was proclimaed holy roman emperor he actually bought the idea of trying to ressurect rome. Which is why he wante dhis people to speak roman. He failed miserably of course french is the romance language that is the last like latin.

 

[omega20056]

Because most people in Spain used Germanic names...



The population of France was still Romance and not Germanic... And Lombard were Romanised/Italised and not the other way around.

The vast majority of the people in Visigothic Spain would have used Roman names. The Visigoths were a small ruling elite who kept themselves away from the local Romans (Legally at first).

 

[GothicEmperor]

Eventually yeah and guess what they didn't become romans they became italians. The merger between the lombard and roman cultures.
Same thing with spain and france, in boith case the latin heritage eventually resurfaced but did so in a modified way.

They didn't resurface, they were always there. Linguistically (and I suppose culture) there was an upperclass that spoke a different language, a substrate, but that wasn't ever enough to change the language of the common folk (and indeed, by the 8th century the upper classes had already largely switched to the local Romance languages). The amount of words of direct Germanic origin in French and especially the Iberian languages is rather small.

The difference between Romans and Italians isn't due to some videogamey 'merge' but rather a different manner of self-identification based on geography (ie. the Italian peninsula) rather than 'Roman' (which had become relatively meaningless to them), and even that was mostly irrelevant until the 19th century.

The bit about Charlemagne pushing the local Gallo-Roman was because he wanted the upper class to all speak more or less the same language, ie. the local Romance dialect instead of Frankish. He didn't 'revive' Latin in any way.

 

[TheDungen]

And you think that culturall diffraction would have happened without the germanic conquests? Also again culture =/= language. That the adventuring thing. the french knights riding of to iberia to fight the moors and carve out their own holding with sword in hand (prior to the crusades), or the crusades themselves again the nobleclass (who has the msot germanic influence) going of to with military might carve out new realm for themselves. Exactly the same way they the oroginal germnaic chiefs did when they conquered what remained of west rome. Even colonialism is this adventuring in self intrest. The cultural idea under the roman empire was diffrent they carved out for rome in order to increase their standing in the capital, while the barbarians and their descendants belived themselves to have a right to what they could take and hold.

 

[omega20056]

Language isn't culture. And the ruling classes had the germanic culture. Just notice that they have kings. An idea that was abbhorrent by roman ideals.

And I disagree on you assesement of frankish , if that was true then there would have been little need for charlamagnes doctrine of pushing latin speaking in his realm.

The ruling classes of the Visigothic kingdom overwhelmingly spoke Latin by 700, Gothic was nearly dead by 769, so was Lombard, because as I said, the Lombards were speaking a Romance language.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langues_d'oïl

Gallic Latin was widely spoken until the early 800s in the area above. The Frankish language was largely confined to Germany and the Rhine.

 

[TheDungen]

The ruling classes of the Visigothic kingdom overwhelmingly spoke Latin by 700, Gothic was nearly dead by 769, so was Lombard, because as I said, the Lombards were speaking a Romance language.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langues_d'oïl

Gallic Latin was widely spoken until the early 800s in the area above. The Frankish language was largely confined to Germany and the Rhine.

It's amazing how you can respond to a post that litteraly said culture isnt the same as language with only statements about language.

But again my point remains dead cultures don't come back.

 

[omega20056]

And you think that culturall diffraction would have happened without the germanic conquests? Also again culture =/= language. That the adventuring thing. the french knights riding of to iberia to fight the moors and carve out their own holding with sword in hand (prior to the crusades), or the crusades themselves again the nobleclass (who has the msot germanic influence) going of to with military might carve out new realm for themselves. Exactly the same way they the oroginal germnaic chiefs did when they conquered what remained of west rome. Even colonialism is this adventuring in self intrest. The cultural idea under the roman empire was diffrent they carved out for rome in order to increase their standing in the capital, while the barbarians and their descendants belived themselves to have a right to what they could take and hold.

For the purposes of the game, language and culture are the same thing. The divide in Vulgar Latin was already starting to appear before the fall of the WRE, it was merely sped up by the loss of central authority.

 

[omega20056]

It's amazing how you can respond to a post that litteraly said culture isnt the same as language with only statements about language.

But again my point remains dead cultures don't come back.

Ibero-Roman and Gallo-Roman were far from dead, while the Visigothic and Lombard cultures were dead and buried. Both kingdoms spoke Latin, and the vast majority of their people were Romans. The spread of Frankish so far into Gaul is completely wrong because the people were lived there were Romans who spoke Gallic Latin. Likewise, the idea of Spain being Visigothic in culture is utterly wrong, because 90% of the people were Romans who spoke Iberian Latin.

You can believe that, for the purposes of the game, culture and language are seperate, but the CM start is still historically incorrect and poorly balanced.

 

[TheDungen]

I dind't say loss of central authority I said conquests. If the former roman provinces had become free provinces without chinging out the nobility then the latin might not have decvolced so far, becuase the rulign classes would have spoken it and pushed for real latin amongst the people. With the barbarian conquests the only one who ever tried to do that was charlamagne who had his doctrine baut trying to get people to speak latin (proper latin).

 

[TheDungen]

Ibero-Roman and Gallo-Roman were far from dead, while the Visigothic and Lombard cultures were dead and buried. Both kingdoms spoke Latin, and the vast majority of their people were Romans. The spread of Frankish so far into Gaul is completely wrong because the people were lived there were Romans who spoke Gallic Latin. Likewise, the idea of Spain being Visigothic in culture is utterly wrong, because 90% of the people were Romans who spoke Iberian Latin.

You can believe that, for the purposes of the game, culture and language are seperate, but the CM start is still historically incorrect and poorly balanced.

The vast majority of people you couldn't tell the diffrence f they lived in 800 or 1800 and if they lived in russia or iberia. Poor people live and do as poor people do. They aren't intresting from a cultural perspective. The language is pretty much the only cultural trait they do have. The ruling classes are intresting. And they may have spoken romantic languages but they weren't latin cultured. The very structure of their society was diffrent.

Also I am well aware of the shortcommings of CM but you cannot ignore the cultural impact the germanic conquests had on western europe.

Also why should the low countries be frankish? They were frisians conquered by charlamagne's grandfather. While the frankia proper had been ruled by franks for centuries. Yes the modern day dutch are descended from franks, but in charlamagnes time that had barely began happening.

 

[omega20056]

The vast majority of people you couldn't tell the diffrence f they lived in 800 or 1800 and if they lived in russia or iberia. Poor people live and do as poor people do. They aren't intresting from a cultural perspective. The language is pretty much the only cultural trait they do have. The ruling classes are intresting. And they may have spoken romantic languages but they weren't latin cultured. The very structure of their society was diffrent.

Also I am well aware of the shortcommings of CM but you cannot ignore the cultural impact the germanic conquests had on western europe.

Also why should the low countries be frankish? They were frisians conquered by charlamagne's grandfather. While the frankia proper had been ruled by franks for centuries. Yes the modern day dutch are descended from franks, but in charlamagnes time that had barely began happening.

The Frisians were confined to the coastal areas, the interior was Frankish.

Regardless of how poor the peasants in Spain and Gaul were, they still spoke Latin and were Roman cultured. The Visigothic elite spoke Latin and the vast majority of the people in Charlemagne's empire spoke Gallic Latin.

 

[Groogy]

The Frisians were confined to the coastal areas, the interior was Frankish.

Regardless of how poor the peasants in Spain and Gaul were, they still spoke Latin and were Roman cultured. The Visigothic elite spoke Latin and the vast majority of the people in Charlemagne's empire spoke Gallic Latin.

In my reality everybody spoke pig latin.

(With that I want to say you are ludicrous because only 400 towns went through the Romanization during the time of the Empire and not entire populations)