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.

 

[TheDungen]

The question he is answering is specifically about forts in enemy territories and what happens to them at the end of wars. Which you would notice if you re-reads the question

I know what the question was, but the answered didn't specify. And I kind of grasping at straws that they won't make this too much like EU4 it makes no sense for it to be.

Remeber Ck2 is about dynasties not about countries. If you controll a fort then you as a person control that fort, the country doesn't do anything in ck2 it's the character you're currently playing. If they compromise whit that too muc they may as well abandon the CK series and do Europa universalis: middle ages.

 

[Slavicist]

It's old news. It's the new Form of Government mapmode.

Doesn't everyone think a supply mapmode could be more useful?

 

[Carmilla]

After reading about the forts, the first thing that came to mind was "when in rome do as the romans do". Which now includes using forts for offensive(and defensive) wars.

 

[TheDungen]

Doesn't everyone think a supply mapmode could be more useful?

I think a province distance mapmode would be more useful. So we could know which provinces was actually fastest to travel in between.

 

[TheDungen]

After reading about the forts, the first thing that came to mind was "when in rome do as the romans do". Which now includes using forts for offensive(and defensive) wars.

And those forts (or well the concept) evolved to the feudal castles. The word count comes from comitatenses. The soldiers stationed in the roman forts. When the roman left the new lords of those forts began to refer to their elite men as their comitatenses, and when their power grew so did the power of their comitatenses. Until they eventually became counts.

 

[Steel_atlas]

That would be nice but really they should have a special holding slot of their own. Though really there should just simply be a soft cap on holdings.

I think they would function like tradeposts function for merchant republics, or at least that's what I thought would be a good fit in my Holy Order/Merc thread in the suggestion forums.

 

[Khanwulf]

Do forts extend the supply range of your armies?

 

[theKing1988]

I know what the question was, but the answered didn't specify. And I kind of grasping at straws that they won't make this too much like EU4 it makes no sense for it to be.

Remeber Ck2 is about dynasties not about countries. If you controll a fort then you as a person control that fort, the country doesn't do anything in ck2 it's the character you're currently playing. If they compromise whit that too muc they may as well abandon the CK series and do Europa universalis: middle ages.

But you're not building a fort in Enemy territory with the ambition of annexing part of the province to your territory.

You're building a fort in enemy territory to either help defend against an enemy counter-attack or to secure your supply line. Medieval peace treaties functioned pretty similarly to EU4 era peace treaties, so if the fort were to remain constructed it should either revert to the original holder of the province, unless it is situated in a target province during the war.

 

[zbyrne]

@Groogy Hey quick question, but in the second [tribal] image the third and fourth (grayed out) holdings, after the temple holding, have little two hut tribal images rather than blank ones, is it now possible to build smaller tribes as a tribe, or is this simply cosmetic. I'm quite sure they were not there before.

 

[riadach]

@Groogy Hey quick question, but in the second [tribal] image the third and fourth (grayed out) holdings, after the temple holding, have little two hut tribal images rather than blank ones, is it now possible to build smaller tribes as a tribe, or is this simply cosmetic. I'm quite sure they were not there before.

They were mentioned a few weeks ago. They are merely icons to represent the fact that tribes draw their wealth from empty holding slots in the region.

 

[TheDungen]

But you're not building a fort in Enemy territory with the ambition of annexing part of the province to your territory.

You're building a fort in enemy territory to either help defend against an enemy counter-attack or to secure your supply line. Medieval peace treaties function pretty similarly to EU4 era peace treaties, so if the fort were to remain constructed it should either revert to the original holder of the province, unless it is situated in a target province during the war.

Medieval peace treaties? That depends on which part of the game era you're talking about. In the HYW maybee but in the viking age? If you had a fort and could hold on to it any land you could tax from that was your's, by the only right there was... Might! Again the early feudal system was basically a protection racket, or a tribute system. You didn't pay tax to the king because he protected you you paid tax(Or provided him with troops) to him because if you didn't he'd take your castle and put someone who would in it. That's why Rollo's invasion of normandy worked out the way it did. They took some land, the king showed up and wanted them to swear fealthy to him, they did and thus he was fine with it.
Which is why no feudal lord would like his liege to have fort on his land filled with soldiers who was sworn to the liege.

 

[theKing1988]

Medieval peace treaties? That depends on which part of the game era you're talking about. In the HYW maybee but in the viking age? If you had a fort and could hold on to it any land you could tax from that was your's, by the only right there was... Might!
Which is why no feudal lord would like his liege to have fort on his land filled with soldiers who was sworn to the liege.

There is plenty of treaties to use as examples that regulated peace and war between Medieval realms. Even in the viking age.

It was a very Abrahamic phenomenon though, so you of course have exceptions that you can pull out and show me.

 

[AchedTeacher]

Since forts are cheap and quick to build, is there a downside? Will it be destroyed once sieged down?

 

[Rob85]

Do forts count in your demesne limit? I guss not, but still would be nice to get confirmation.

 

[zbyrne]

They were mentioned a few weeks ago. They are merely icons to represent the fact that tribes draw their wealth from empty holding slots in the region.

explain how? if they're empty where is the wealth coming from?

 

[KestrelGirl]

- Fixed various provinces in India that had no rulers scripted for some start dates.

Thank god! I'm assuming this means they're fixed in the start menu (i.e. no dead placeholders)?

 

[onodera]

Damn, I expected forts to function as tribute collection markers, especially for inland republics. Would've been fitting for Novgorod to have forts in Northeastern Europe instead of owning tribal holdings.

 

[TheDungen]

Since forts are cheap and quick to build, is there a downside? Will it be destroyed once sieged down?

yes they said it would.

 

[Daronaollard]

This just gets better and better with every week.

 

[TheDungen]

There is plenty of treaties to use as examples that regulated peace and war between Medieval realms. Even in the viking age.

It was a very Abrahamic phenomenon though, so you of course have exceptions that you can pull out and show me.

We're getting away from the subject, I have no problem with forts going poof when a peace deal is made, I have aproblem with the existance of permanent forts controlled by the crown in counties that aren't.