• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

CK2 Dev Diary #67: Revisiting the Middle East

Greetings everyone!

I’m Emil “Servancour” Tisander. Most of you might remember me from the update I did to Hungary and the Danube with the release of 2.7. This time however, I wanted to do something of a larger scope, and with the expansion focusing on the eastern part of the map, what better time to revisit the Middle East and bring it a much needed overhaul?

Those of you who watch the streams might already have seen most of what I’ll show you here but I’ll start by explaining what I’ve done and why.

I had a few goals in mind when I started working on the update. First and foremost I wanted to improve the overall geography and move counties to where they are supposed to be. Some having been placed much too far from their actual location (I’m looking at you Damascus). Secondly, there are plenty of titles in the region that are inappropriately named for the time period, so I wanted to go through what makes sense and what doesn’t to improve the historical accuracy as much as possible. Another thing I wanted to do was to split up the kingdom of Persia somewhat. Persia in CK2 has always been a very large kingdom. Splitting it up into several kingdoms will allow for a more dynamic experience.

Empires remain very much the same, though both the Persian Empire and the Arabian Empire have been increased somewhat in size, due to the addition of new counties. Kingdoms however, have been changed quite significantly. The following kingdoms have been added or renamed accordingly:
Added the kingdoms of Daylam, Khorasan, Iraq and Yemen.
Renamed Mesopotamia to Al-Jazira, Afghanistan to Kabulistan, Baluchistan to Sistan, Khiva to Transoxiana.

01_kingdoms.png


The county layout is also something that you will notice has changed dramatically. Gone are all the weirdly shaped counties, that would either look like a square or be stretched into all manner of shapes. Every single county in the region has been moved and/or reshaped. The single most noticeable addition will be the Syrian desert. Which, in my opinion, is needed to make sure that the surrounding counties can be placed and shaped properly.

02_syrian_desert.png


As much as I would like to, I won’t go into detail for all changes I’ve done to the counties. But I’ll highlight some of the more major ones.

Both Fergana and Khuttal are now full-fledged duchies, with three and four counties, respectively.

03_fergana_khuttal.png


Several new counties have been added to Yemen, which consists of the duchies Sanaa, Taizz and Hadramut.

04_yemen.png


The duchy of Medina is renamed to Hijaz and got three new coastal counties added, making the duchy consist of six counties in total.

05_hijaz.png


We’ve also decided to increase the number of counties in the Tarim Basin, in order to make the area more fun and interesting to play in. It has about twice the number of counties compared to the old setup.

06_tarim_basin.png

07_tarim_basin.png


That’s some of the biggest changes that you’ll see on the map which is, as always for map updates, a part of the free 2.8 patch. Bear in mind that it’s still a bit of a work in progress. Some counties are likely to get another set of name changes and other tweaks.

Finally, I would like to give a shout out to @elvain, who helped me with a lot of research. Making this update possible to do to such an extent.

Don’t forget to tune into the Medieval Monday streams 16:00-18:00 (CEST)! During which you can poke me if you want to see a specific region or have any other questions.
 
It's a dead title for most of the CK2 timeframe, well before the de jure formation of France proper. Duchy of the Franks =/= Duchy of France in any case. ;)

You can replace it with Duchy of England, Duchy of India, Duchy of Cumania, whatever - the point is, "Duchy of Arabia" makes very little sense.
The duchy is called Arabia because that's what the Romans called it. It doesn't mean Arabia in the sense of the peninsula. Just like how there's a duchy of Mesopotamia that isn't actually in the Fertile Crescent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabia_Petraea
 
So... how long have we been waiting for a release date on this patch/DLC? Two months? Three?

I have real income now, but not a lot of it, and I want to give it to Paradox, both for Stellaris and CK2 DLC, but I don't know when I should budget for it!

(Well, I know the Synthetic Dawn release date, and I should be able to afford it, but I have no idea of the CK2 release date. Are we a week away or are we ten weeks away? Just ballpark it for us?)
 
Daylam seems weird as a kingdom, especially since it isn't even a ducal capital. Padishkhwargar (Persian) / Farshwardgar (Arabic) was a kingdom-rank title in pretty much that exact place (sans Dihistan) and was actually used within the timeline (Bavandids should probably start with a claim on it).

Has Konjikala been given to Merv?

Anywho, looks like really nice stuff in general, should be awesome.
Ehhhhhn. Farshwardgar is pretty obscure and seems to be less well-attested than Hyrcania. In fact that name was well-known enough from antiquity that the Caspian Sea was known to the Greeks and the Persians as the Hyrcanian Ocean. Certainly most medieval geographers outside the region would know the region as Hyrcania.

That said, the area currently slotted as Daylam does warrant its own de jure something-or-other, even if there was no historically prominent kingdom there; it was always somewhat culturally and religiously distinct within greater Persia, and especially after the Arab conquests (first in the form of being the last major holdout of Zoroastrianism and later in the form of Zaydi Shia Daylamite military castes like the Buyids coming in during the Iranian Intermezzo and muddling the map of the Middle East). The region's certainly distinct enough to warrant being a de jure kingdom with no previous holders.

My personal preference would be for it to be called Hyrcania as sort of a generic name, culturally modified to Gurgan for monarchs of the Persian culture group or Tabaristan if the top liege is in the Arabic or Altaic culture group. For comparison, Ireland, which becomes Eire only if an Irish ruler holds it, but the actual title is k_ireland. Same thing here.
 
The duchy is called Arabia because that's what the Romans called it. It doesn't mean Arabia in the sense of the peninsula. Just like how there's a duchy of Mesopotamia that isn't actually in the Fertile Crescent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabia_Petraea
Or how Asia to the Romans were Asia minor (atleast at first) and Africa was the area around Carthage. Also isn't the duchy of Armenia closer to modern day Armenia than ck2 era Armenia which as I recall it was further west even having coast on the Mediterranean. But still I would have gone with duchy of Petra, considering there were two other roman Arabias, Arabia deserta and arabia Felix.
 
Last edited:
All of central europe can use a map overhaul. Also fixing some duchies inside the HRE.
Pretty much this.
As already said above, Hungary got improved a bit (but it still isn't perfect, but.... what is? The map can never be perfect.*).
the German areas of HRE /Germany, Austria, Switzerland/ all desperately need to be re-drawn to the least (the province names and - except some total oddities like Cologne - even their placement are mostly okay, but the shapes are AWFUL - yes, awful to the point that it has to be capitalized)
Bohemia as a whole is pushed some 50-100 kilometers northwards than where it should be (based on rivers layout), which deforms not only Bohemia itself, but also Poland and north-east Germany...
but actually very little would have to be done in order to make it somehow more pleasing to look at:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! shameles SELF-PROMO ALERT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


WARNING: !!!!!THIS SCREENSHOT IS NOT part of thie Dev diary, nor of the patch !!!!!
ZBAFJiE.png

!!!!!THIS SCREENSHOT IS NOT part of thie Dev diary, nor of the patch !!!!!

the same amount of provinces, I think even the same duchy layout. The biggest change (except borders being redrawn) is that I removed province of Innsbruck and moved it to the Rhine as Berg in order to have Cologne where it is supposed to be.

* Well, I have an idea how to make a perfect map, but that would need totally different base system/engine, so not for CK2, perhaps neither CK3

Daylam seems weird as a kingdom, especially since it isn't even a ducal capital. Padishkhwargar (Persian) / Farshwardgar (Arabic) was a kingdom-rank title in pretty much that exact place (sans Dihistan) and was actually used within the timeline (Bavandids should probably start with a claim on it).

Has Konjikala been given to Merv?

Anywho, looks like really nice stuff in general, should be awesome.
I agree about Daylam, maybe if it was made a much smaller kingdom like Brittany and then the rest of the duchies given to other kingdoms. Though your suggestion for Padishkhwargar is good now that I read up on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padishkhwargar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabaristan

Oh and Deus Vult.
Ehhhhhn. Farshwardgar is pretty obscure and seems to be less well-attested than Hyrcania. In fact that name was well-known enough from antiquity that the Caspian Sea was known to the Greeks and the Persians as the Hyrcanian Ocean. Certainly most medieval geographers outside the region would know the region as Hyrcania.

That said, the area currently slotted as Daylam does warrant its own de jure something-or-other, even if there was no historically prominent kingdom there; it was always somewhat culturally and religiously distinct within greater Persia, and especially after the Arab conquests (first in the form of being the last major holdout of Zoroastrianism and later in the form of Zaydi Shia Daylamite military castes like the Buyids coming in during the Iranian Intermezzo and muddling the map of the Middle East). The region's certainly distinct enough to warrant being a de jure kingdom with no previous holders.

My personal preference would be for it to be called Hyrcania as sort of a generic name, culturally modified to Gurgan for monarchs of the Persian culture group or Tabaristan if the top liege is in the Arabic or Altaic culture group. For comparison, Ireland, which becomes Eire only if an Irish ruler holds it, but the actual title is k_ireland. Same thing here.
I do admit that the way you people, who appatently know some Iranian history, voice up against Daylam concerns me.
To be honest, I never considered it an ideal name, but frankly, none of the names suggested I have ever found more sufficent.
Frankly, Farshwardgar looks like a rather good name. The problem is anachronism. It ceased to exist in 7th century, which is 4 centuries before CK2 propper game start (we should keep in mind that considering the base game without DLCs starts in 1066 and the map should reflect primarily this date rather than those brought by DLCs).
Hyrcania is similar case. It is also somehow anachronistic and furthemore it sounds like that... Have you noticed the remarks about Transoxiana being inapropriate? Hyrcania is even more, because Transoxiana at least was used by Europeans to refer about that region until Central Asia prevailed (and even some academics still prefer Transoxiana by now! - to refer to this region before its Turkization).
So basicaly what is left is Gurgan and Tabaristan, which both have similar problem like Daylam, though, I admit, are little larger and more important, and perhaps also better known than Daylam. Yet, Daylam still wins in my opinion due to Daylamites being used by contemporary sources as a generic name for northerners, or at least was - in the sources I have at my disposal - by far the most frequent term used. I do admit that in this issue Daylam leads only by a small margin over Tabaristan, but it still wins.
Gurgan - frankly, it is part of the kingdom for the same reasons like Azerbaijan - it has to be part of some kingdom, but none of them makes more sense than "kingdom of the Caspian lands".

This all is just my personal opinion. Note that whatever I think is just an opinion of somebody who provided sources to the devs. The final decision will be theirs.

And as noted above. The naming should not be taken too seriously. We can always try to find the best name, but there are some limits. The map will never be 100% accurate to perfectly reflect the reality and gameplay and game mechanics will always stand above accuracy. Therefore we need to have a "Caspian" kingdom stretching from Azerbaijan to Gurgan instead of layout in which this would a region only with duchy level titles being directly under the empire of Persia. That would have been ideal solution IMHO, because it would be much closer to reality, but there has to be a kingdom. So please keep in mind that this artificial kingdom will have artificial and not 100% sytisfying name. As stated above, any name for such artificial kingdom would trigger protests.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much this.
As already said above, Hungary got improved a bit (but it still isn't perfect, but.... what is? The map can never be perfect.*).
the German areas of HRE /Germany, Austria, Switzerland/ all desperately need to be re-drawn to the least (the province names and - except some total oddities like Cologne - even their placement are mostly okay, but the shapes are AWFUL - yes, awful to the point that it has to be capitalized)
Bohemia as a whole is pushed some 50-100 kilometers northwards than where it should be (based on rivers layout), which deforms not only Bohemia itself, but also Poland and north-east Germany...
but actually very little would have to be done in order to make it somehow more pleasing to look at:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! shameles SELF-PROMO ALERT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


WARNING: !!!!!THIS SCREENSHOT IS NOT part of thie Dev diary, nor of the patch !!!!!
ZBAFJiE.png

!!!!!THIS SCREENSHOT IS NOT part of thie Dev diary, nor of the patch !!!!!

the same amount of provinces, I think even the same duchy layout. The biggest change (except borders being redrawn) is that I removed province of Innsbruck and moved it to the Rhine as Berg in order to have Cologne where it is supposed to be.

Oh wow :D Those province shapes S2

Tirol and Innsbruck being two provinces is a bit weird, yes. Though maybe the "Tirol" province could be renamed to "Vorarlberg", since that's pretty much what it seems to represent, if you look at its holdings. Passau should be a part of the Bavarian duchy, it was always a bit weird how it was a part of Austria; it seems to have been a byproduct of it being placed so far to the east.
 
Oh wow :D Those province shapes S2

Tirol and Innsbruck being two provinces is a bit weird, yes. Though maybe the "Tirol" province could be renamed to "Vorarlberg", since that's pretty much what it seems to represent, if you look at its holdings. Passau should be a part of the Bavarian duchy, it was always a bit weird how it was a part of Austria; it seems to have been a byproduct of it being placed so far to the east.

Expect there was an important county of Tyrol not a County of Vorarlberg during this era...
 
Yes, Austria is disgusting. Also in CK ;)

Passau with Austria makes no sense at all. Give all counties somehow normal shapes instead of Blocks. If the duchy needs to be 4 counties put Passau to Bavaria and Salzburg to Austria. Still not perfect but better. Or incorporate one half of Passau to Niederbayern and Make Upper Austria and Lower Austria. Chur and St.Gallen also shouldn't be part of Tirol as well.

Also I think Switzerland should be creatable as titular title. Would be nice for EU4 conversion. Duchy of Styria should exist also in some way or another. Mostly because it has an awesome CoA, even if they use the wrong one in CK2, but still good, and the HRE would profit from more but smaller duchies because ingame they are more difficult to handle and the HRE wouldn't turn to primo 15 minutes in game.
 
Expect there was an important county of Tyrol not a County of Vorarlberg during this era...

That's just a matter of renaming Innsbruck to Tyrol.
 
So... how long have we been waiting for a release date on this patch/DLC? Two months? Three?

I have real income now, but not a lot of it, and I want to give it to Paradox, both for Stellaris and CK2 DLC, but I don't know when I should budget for it!

(Well, I know the Synthetic Dawn release date, and I should be able to afford it, but I have no idea of the CK2 release date. Are we a week away or are we ten weeks away? Just ballpark it for us?)
If we don't have a release date, it's safe to assume that it's at least one month away. It seems that some believe it'll be out in october/november, but we don't have any official information
 
Pretty much this.
That Germany map makes me tingle. I don't usually play there, but playing in Swabia recently made me appreciate how wonky some of the county layout is there.

Re. naming, I actually think Transoxiana is an appropriate name for that de jure kingdom.

I'm not necessarily opposed to calling it Daylam given the prevalence of ruling military classes referred to as Daylamites in period history, I just think Daylam's somewhat more narrowly "regional" than some of the other options. Hyrcania fits to me because once Isidore of Seville wrote about it, it got into a whole bunch of geography lessons throughout Europe, and even got name-checked by Shakespeare a couple of times. But there's probably no "right" answer to this one.
 
Have there been any new additions besides Assyrians? I feel like we could probably get like, Arameans along religious lines on the coast. I'd also personally like to see the Copts represented, but you know.
 
Dux Franciae translates into 'DUchy of Francia/France'. That's the reason why I linked to THIS part of the article.

The duchy of Arabia is based in this:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabia_Petraea

Nonetheless, I never saw Duchy of France in CK2, not even in mods. Perhaps because it sounds as weirdly as Duchy of Arabia?

The Duchy of the Franks was analogous to a kingdom in CK2 terms. It would replace Kingdom of France, not live under it.

The duchy is called Arabia because that's what the Romans called it. It doesn't mean Arabia in the sense of the peninsula. Just like how there's a duchy of Mesopotamia that isn't actually in the Fertile Crescent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabia_Petraea

The Romans had a province called Britannia. Do we have the need for a Duchy of Britannia?

There are plenty of local names to use for that area. Using a a foreign reference dead for centuries isn't the optimal thing, that's all.

"Arabia" refers clearly to the bulk of the peninsula, no one thinks of the area around Petra as the major reference - not even the Romans, since Arabia Felix was way wealthier and more economically relevant.

Duchy of Petra is fine actually.
 
I don't necessarily agree with all of ^'s arguments, but I do agree that Duchy of Petra seems to be a better name.
 
Why doesn't Paradox revamp the feudal system instead of applying late medieval French Feudalism to every society in the game? Why don't they add an actual HRE political structure instead of lazily abstracting it into a huge centralized empire? Why don't they revamp the poorly done and shallow crusades? Why don't they add dynamic culture blending? Why did they add 300 provinces in India and 50ish in Tibet when France, Germany, Italy, and Anatolia are seriously underrepresented in a game that is meant to be centered around Europe? Can Paradox stop going for lazy cash grabs that add nothing but bloat to the game? The Historical Immersion Project has a map 10x better than vanilla and they're a casual modding crew. I could continue but I feel I've made my point. The last good dlc they released was The Reapers Due which was a year ago now. The last good dlc before that was Sons of Abraham which was released 4 years ago, FOUR YEARS. I've stopped buying Paradox products because of their greedy and manipulative pricing policy. They've isolated and cast aside their old fanbase in favor of a larger, more casual audience which has proved beneficial in the short term. In the long term however, I doubt they're current business model can survive. Good luck to them in their attempts to go public.
 
Why did they add 300 provinces in India and 50ish in Tibet when France, Germany, Italy, and Anatolia are seriously underrepresented in a game that is meant to be centered around Europe?

Paradox doesn't care about Europe anymore. Rather than focusing on crusades they'd rather make content completely irrelevant to Europe like Tibet or India for some odd reason.
 
Why don't they add an actual HRE political structure instead of lazily abstracting it into a huge centralized empire?

Because the HRE works perfectly. The HRE wasn't decentralised during the largest part of the game. It was more centralised tan France during this era.
 
Paradox doesn't care about Europe anymore. Rather than focusing on crusades they'd rather make content completely irrelevant to Europe like Tibet or India for some odd reason.

You're still tilting at that windmill? o_O
 
How is he attacking anything? He's confused about the design choices of Paradox, what he said is just objectively true. Genuinely confused here, could you explain to me what you meant?

I would suggest you take a look at this thread. :p