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.

 

[DesNibelungen]

When I read "forts", I was really hoping it was a way to deal with non stop raiding.

I'd give anything for a more streamlined mechanic for dealing with raiders. The constant process of raising levies to chase off never-ending streams of raiders is just anti-fun.

 

[Es57]

I'd give anything for a more streamlined mechanic for dealing with raiders. The constant process of raising levies to chase off never-ending streams of raiders is just anti-fun.

Well, that's what happened historically...

 

[Finnway]

Well, that's what happened historically...

I forget who, but didn't one of the English rulers raise taxes to pay for forts to protect against vikings? And then another one raised taxes to literally pay them off? So I guess maybe it wasn't what happened historically I thought the whole point of vikings was their raids were so fast they were gone before you could fight back.

 

[riadach]

Will forts in a province increase attrition for an enemy army?

Will they add protection for any troops you have located in the province?

 

[Isinfier]

I forget who, but didn't one of the English rulers raise taxes to pay for forts to protect against vikings? And then another one raised taxes to literally pay them off? So I guess maybe it wasn't what happened historically I thought the whole point of vikings was their raids were so fast they were gone before you could fight back.

Yes, Alfred the Great. They were the burhs, the majority of which are listed in the Burghal Hidage. They weren't a military fortification in the usual sense; the intention was that the inhabitants of the surrounding settlements would retreat to them with their livestock and valuables when under threat. Once they'd holed up in the burh the men that comprised the militia would man the defenses and wait for the Danes to bugger off.

 

[Empress Matilda]

Yes, Alfred the Great. They were the burhs, the majority of which are listed in the Burghal Hidage. They weren't a military fortification in the usual sense; the intention was that the inhabitants of the surrounding settlements would retreat to them with their livestock and valuables when under threat. Once they'd holed up in the burh the men that comprised the militia would man the defenses and wait for the Danes to bugger off.

So if forts have to be sieged first and add to the amount of wealth of a province that can't be looted they'd simulate them pretty well?

 

[Isinfier]

So if forts have to be sieged first and add to the amount of wealth of a province that can't be looted they'd simulate them pretty well?

Pretty much, although I'm not sure how you'd put together a modifier for that. Presumably the province capital would have to be a town or tribal holding as well.

Actually, that's a case for most of Britain being tribal in 867 bar a few settlements. Partially upgraded tribal holdings would make a decent representation of the villages and farms of the era.

 

[DesNibelungen]

Well, that's what happened historically...

Historically it was not the job of the ruler to personally command each and every response to every raiding party that showed up anywhere in his desmense, such that it occupied 90% of his time.

 

[Es57]

Will they add protection for any troops you have located in the province?

As Groogy said, that's one, if not the point of building forts in enemy provinces during war : it cancels the attrition penalties and allows you to station your troops in enemy territory as a sort of bridgehead.

It's particularly useful when fighting unreformed pagans, as the troops-slaughtering attrition penalty is completly negated in enemy provinces where you have a fort..

 

[riadach]

As Groogy said, that's one, if not the point of building forts in enemy provinces during war : it cancels the attrition penalties and allows you to station your troops in enemy territory as a sort of bridgehead.

It's particularly useful when fighting unreformed pagans, as the troops-slaughtering attrition penalty is completly negated in enemy provinces where you have a fort..

I'm referring to the forts in your own provinces though.

 

[fromar]

Why does the character portrait in the first screenshot have green ribbon? Is this the Muslim version of feudal government type?

 

[riadach]

Why does the character portrait in the first screenshot have green ribbon? Is this the Muslim version of feudal government type?

Yes, iqta government.

 

[TheDungen]

Well, that's what happened historically...

No it's not what happened. The use of ring forts were only semi sucessfull. The raiders would burn them down or capture them and use them as bases as often as they would save the people who lived there. Sure it made the small scale raiding harder but that only really led to escalation.
It's only with the rise of the knights caste and castles made out of stone that the raiding was really halted. Not to mention fortified stone chruches. Walls of dressed stone ended the viking age. And those are represented by holdings.

What do people thing that castle holdings are? Manors? They're defensive sturctures.

I agree on brittain being mostly 'tribal' pre norman invasion through.

 

[fromar]

Yes, iqta government.

Is that differentiated in the game now from christian feudalism aside from the iqta tax and crown laws? If so, does that mean that feudal pagans and eastern religions also will have their own government types?

 

[TheDungen]

Is that differentiated in the game now from christian feudalism aside from the iqta tax and crown laws? If so, does that mean that feudal pagans and eastern religions also will have their own government types?

I'm guessing tribal might not be only for tribal holdings any more.

 

[blackchoas]

Is that differentiated in the game now from christian feudalism aside from the iqta tax and crown laws? If so, does that mean that feudal pagans and eastern religions also will have their own government types?

The main difference is that it allows for the holding of both castle and temple holdings without penalties

with the reformed pagan religions not having anything unique like that they likely won't get a special type

although I do wonder, if I'm a Tribal Pagan and I become Muslim, do I still reform into Feudal or is there now a separate button to reform into Iqta?

 

[fromar]

The main difference is that it allows for the holding of both castle and temple holdings without penalties

with the reformed pagan religions not having anything unique like that they likely won't get a special type

although I do wonder, if I'm a Tribal Pagan and I become Muslim, do I still reform into Feudal or is there now a separate button to reform into Iqta?

Interesting. I always just thought there were 4 government types - tribal, feudal, religious, city. The religions and cultures gave those government types flavor, but I never thought of a muslim count as fundamentally different from a christian count. A lot of people have complained that western feudalism model isn't really applicable to the eastern peoples. Maybe this is why Groogy is saying this expansion is his favorite - it sounds like we could see some deeper fundamental differences between cultures and religions. Or maybe not!

/speculation

 

[blackchoas]

Interesting. I always just thought there were 4 government types - tribal, feudal, religious, city. The religions and cultures gave those government types flavor, but I never thought of a muslim count as fundamentally different from a christian count. A lot of people have complained that western feudalism model isn't really applicable to the eastern peoples. Maybe this is why Groogy is saying this expansion is his favorite - it sounds like we could see some deeper fundamental differences between cultures and religions. Or maybe not!

/speculation

You are actually correct, as far as I'm aware in the current game Muslim's ability to hold temples without penalty is linked to there religion, however when asked about the Green ribbons the devs elaborated that green was for Iqta government which allowed characters to hold castles and temples. This suggests that they are taking the ability to hold temples away from the religion and putting it in the muslim's government type instead.

May it be noted that as a Muslim Merchant Republic you can currently hold all 3 types of holding without penalty, but after the patch they will not be allowed to hold temples anymore since that is being moved from a function of the religion to a function of the government type

 

[Korashy]

Well, that's what happened historically...

Historically if almost every raiding party gets wiped out to the last man for decades, they wouldn't go there to raid.

That's the problem. There is no real consequence for the AI losing their troops over and over.

 

[riadach]

Is that differentiated in the game now from christian feudalism aside from the iqta tax and crown laws? If so, does that mean that feudal pagans and eastern religions also will have their own government types?

I assume it just means decadence and revokable duchies.

Not much as been said about it.