Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

[Map Mod] Ibn Battuta's Legacy - map improvement for CK2 (Middle East, Africa, Central Europe)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69870 Bug Reports 19708 User Modifications 10588 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6362 After Action Reports
OK no problems. I'll see that this week then.
And I yup, I confunded the IBL+ version with the balance improvement mod. I'll play with the IBL+ version then. I guess only one of the two version has to be activated...

By trying out the zunbils just now, I noticed two things (they may be already corrected in the updated version your just mentionned):
- the Zunbil duke is around d_sistan (and holds one county in d_kabulistan) but he holds the d_khuttal title. I know your map is not really optimized for starting dates before 1066 but I mention it still. Do (or not do) as you want with this. If you decide to do nothing, that just gives some free casus belli to expand in k_kabulistan, which is not a big deal. ^_^
- more annoying: there are two c_khuttal, two c_tokharestan and two c_khojand provinces; one at their right location, the other north of Yughra (the two versions or these counties are held by the same dude, which makes sens since the doubles have the same name). I verified this problem at the 1066 starting date.


note: to verify these problems, I deactivated the talvos map mod and the standard IBL map mod

I'll wait for the updated version you mentioned before doing further investigations ^_^ .
 
Last edited:
Will you also rework Kakheti province, Albania/Arran province, Bosnia and Dyrrachion? Especially Albania/Arran province, City of Ganja should not be there right I mean it's wrong position. Perhaps you can make like EUIV or SWMH for an example.
 
alfian said:
Will you also rework Kakheti province, Albania/Arran province, Bosnia and Dyrrachion? Especially Albania/Arran province, City of Ganja should not be there right I mean it's wrong position. Perhaps you can make like EUIV or SWMH for an example.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is a longer-term plan.

After the changes in Central Europe I want to primarily edit regions according to these parameters:
- Those who are the most irritating to look at (Spain is the first to come in my mind)
- Those which I find the most inacurace (here comes Anatolia, Caucasus, perhaps Balkans (?), perhaps Russia)
but I need to have some better knowledge about them, and it's been a while since I last checked my knowledge about these regions, so it will take me some time. I've been currently out of modding, but it might change.
ATM I'm little hitched in Spain, so maybe turing to Caucasus instead might not be a bad idea.
 
btw, Caucasus edited, that was fast.

AoW1oyH.png

Also the changes requested above by @CaptainPolyp were implemented - I mean those necessary fixes. The further details concerinng holders in 769 will come later.
Then I also moved Cologne to its right position and opened the Brenner pass for armies to come through... so far in my testing version

Adjustments of the landed titles will take little longer, but hopefully I will soon be able to upload a new version with all these changes included
 
Last edited:
  • 4
Reactions:
The mod has now been updated.

The new version has
- overhauled Caucasus, as could be seen in the screenshot above
- fixed Cologne - moved to its apropriate border, in its original place there is a new province of Berg (formerly Innsbruck)
- changes in Tyrol - Innsbruck merged with Tyrol province, Trento added to Tyrol duchy, Brenner pass was made passable (no more impassable mountains between Tyrol and Trento).

Also since now the officialy recommended version is IBL+ the version which is for now only available on Steam workshop.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
bontanel said:
Do you have any plans to fix the Dniester?
Click to expand...
in longer term I definitely would like to,

but since on editing rivers I have ro tely on other people's help (I don't have necessary tools to edit all the files propperly), I can't promise it, but I really would like to.

OTOH, my current priorities are Anatolia and Iberian peninsula.
 
Hey. Happy to have some news about your map ^^
This is nice that you fixed the problems with the Afghanistan-Ugra provinces names, and no problems for not fixing the little issues in the Charlemagne bookmark... This is not the focus of the mod so...

I'll take a look someday, to track a few more bugs, but for now I'm playing more EU4 so this is not for now unfortunately.
 
CaptainPolyp said:
Hey. Happy to have some news about your map ^^
This is nice that you fixed the problems with the Afghanistan-Ugra provinces names, and no problems for not fixing the little issues in the Charlemagne bookmark... This is not the focus of the mod so...

I'll take a look someday, to track a few more bugs, but for now I'm playing more EU4 so this is not for now unfortunately.
Click to expand...
I will try to check those things you mentioned about de facto setup in Charlie Afghanistan too, I just do admit that it is not my priority. Sorry for that.

anyway your feedback is always welcome. Any time.
 
ARADPLAUG said:
Hey, will this mod be updated to 2.7? Thanks
Click to expand...
I'd really love to, but I currently don't have much time... and even if I had I would most problably need somebody's help to give me some assistance with editing rivers.bmp since I can't save it propperly (or I couldn't last time I tried)
 
taken from another thread to the right place:
kiliopoli said:
There's a "bug" in the game where flags are mixed up. If you look at the Duchy of Socotora flag for example (in-game). the flag of Switzerland shows up.
This is most likely due to there missing a curly bracket or two.
That being said, the Duchy of Luxembourg also shows up twice in the landed titles file.

Hope it helps! :D

Edit: This is IBLA+ I'm talking about btw
Click to expand...

Thanks for remarks. Fixed in my current build (c_socotra is displayed correctly. the duchy is still somehow weird and I'm investigating it, though I can't find anything else missing.
 
Most of you probably noticed that the upcoming expansion is going to feature not only a map expansion into Tibet, but also rework some regions on which I have provided some sources to PDS. Few people already noticed that the map update looks similarily to this map mod, which I can confirm, but there still are differences.

To be honest, I consider this map update to be actually even little better than what you can see in Ibn Battuta's legacy.

So I was wondering what would you as users of this mod (or fans or its opponents or whoever is reading) prefer after Jade Dragon is released?
- IBL having the same map as vanilla in those regions which are reworked in JD map update (agree)
or
- IBL using the current IBL map (respectfully disagree) - this means the IBL after JD would be slightly updated with added Tibet and other minor necessary changes, but in general it would be the same as now. And most importantly it would not be the same as the new updated vanilla map (in regions which are going to be updated).

So what do you think?
 
I intend to continue using the mod regularly whatever solution you choose (and I plan getting back to CK2 with the next expansion).

That said, of the two solutions, I would prefer the first solution, especially if you think it is slightly more correct. I guess it will be easier to maintain too, that's always a good thing.

However, if my memory is good, there is a significant difference between your mod and the new vanilla map in Persia, that is the two deserts around Kerman/Fars/Yazd, with a branch of the Silk road passing between the deserts to the strait of Hormuz. I let you judge of whether these deserts and trade road are important to be represented (based on historical and geographical importance). If important (and if you have the time), do you plan on adding either the deserts or the trade route or both, to the vanilla map in case you choose the first solution? (which would require to adapt the borders of the provinces, for the deserts).
To be honest, I really like the trade road because it makes Hormuz region a very important center for trade in Persia (adding a few more trading provinces, besides the Persian Gulf branch of the Silk road already passing through one province). But again, I don't know if it is that important historically.
 
Last edited:
CaptainPolyp said:
I intend to continue using the mod regularly whatever solution you choose (and I plan getting back to CK2 with the next expansion).

That said, of the two solutions, I would prefer the first solution, especially if you think it is slightly more correct. I guess it will be easier to maintain too, that's always a good thing.

However, if my memory is good, there is a significant difference between your mod and the new vanilla map in Persia, that is the two deserts around Kerman/Fars/Yazd, with a branch of the Silk road passing between the deserts to the strait of Hormuz. I let you judge of whether these deserts and trade road are important to be represented (based on historical and geographical importance). If important (and if you have the time), do you plan on adding either the deserts or the trade route or both, to the vanilla map in case you choose the first solution? (which would require to adapt the borders of the provinces, for the deserts).
To be honest, I really like the trade road because it makes Hormuz region a very important center for trade in Persia (adding a few more trading provinces, besides the Persian Gulf branch of the Silk road already passing through one province). But again, I don't know if it is that important historically.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

Yes, maintenance is one of reasons, but to be honest I asked mainly because I wanted to know whether you (I mean you all people) prefer to have those wastelands where they're supposed to be or not.
So, since the result of the question above seems to be quite clear already, let's ask differently:

IMPORTANT:
1) Should I add the wastelands to the updated map for IBL (agree)
2) Should I keep those edited parts of map as they are (will be) in vanilla (respectfully disagree)
3) if you want only some wastelands to be kept, but some not, please write down which ones you want to be kept. There's 4 of them - 1) Dasht-e-Kevir near Rayy, 2) Dasht-e-Lut near Kerman, 3) Karakum south of the Aral sea, 4) Kyzylkum east of the Aral sea

The question is frankly only about Wastelands at the moment.
As for the trade route - I will definitely add (keep) a route which goes via Hormuz to IBL and I might also add a separate duchy there so a Merchant republic could potentialy be formed there.
 
xXConquerorXx said:
In my opinion, just the Karakum and the Kyzylkum deserts are fine, also, do you plan on making changes to Tibet or do you feel the devs did an alright job there?
Click to expand...
Thanks. I must say I pretty much understand this position about wastelands/deserts in the area.
As for the two Dasht deserts, what would you think if they would be represented not as deserts or as impassable strips (just like what we have in case of high impassable mountains. I admit they are rather small to be there as wasteland provinces.

Concerning Tibet, I did some research about the Pamir/Himalaya regions around upper Indus few years ago, but beyond that I'm not in a position to judge wherher the devs did an alright job or not. Also because I haven't seen anything more than regular forumites.
 
cldcrst said:
The north-western Tibetan needs to be a wasteland. The area even today is uninhabited.
Click to expand...
could be, but as it stands now, I can't really judge. I didn't do any research on that. Once I get some more time, I will check it (or if you could send me some sources, it would greatly help).

I'd just be cautious about todays settlements. Many places around the Sahara for instance, which are uninhabited (uninhabitable) today, used to be flourising a millenium ago. Being deserted today doedn't mean it always had to be that way. (just being cautious about judging that something - about what I have no idea about - is wrong, even though I do believe that you definitely know more than I)
 
About the trade road, glad you will adapt it. This is the most important part for me.
About the deserts I'm not sure. I like playing with the deserts since it forces you to adapt your expansion taking them into account. the downside is that they don't make a beautiful map.

Before voting, do we know if PDX will implement the extension of the realm's frontiers to the deserts if most of the surrounding provinces are controlled as in EU4?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back