But my province isn't far away...

[unmerged(28030)]

I have been away from the board for several months and I would like to know what the situation is on this issue. Yes I have the latest patch. My character is the King of Cyprus. He has territory directly across the water in and around Tripoli down to Jerusalem. I get events saying it is difficult to control these provinces because they are so far away. Huh?

 

[LordLeto]

I belive there is some problems with that even and water. IE not WAD.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Generally significant bodies of water, like the one between Cyprus and mainland, are considered far away.

 

[unmerged(28030)]

Cyprus was close enough to be used as a base of operations in the Third Crusade.

Tripoli literally shares the same water space with Cyprus. If this is too far away then Normandy is too far away to be controlled from England.

Is there an exact figure for this, such as a certain number of land and water spaces?

 

[Hakkapeliitta]

Ah, I was just about to start a new thread about the widespread demesne events...

I started a new CK 1066 scenario with the latest (dec 8) beta. I hadn’t been playing CK for quite a long time so I was quite impressed by all the obvious enhancements and fixes that had been done. with the betas. However there seemed to be some things that still need a little tweaking. I’ll elaborate:

My country of choice was Denmark (a long time favorite in EU2, Vic and CK). Everything went along really nice until one peaceful day my widespread demesne proved too much to handle for my king and the far away province of Skåne flared up in revolt. Oh well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking the… WTF!! Skåne? Far away ?!?. The historical heartland of my realm, next my capital in Fyn was deemed to be far-away!?!.

I decided to have a look at the realm disruption events (5416,5417,5418). It took me some time to figure the events out (not being familiar with the event system in CK) but after 10 minutes I thought I found what the problem was (don’t have the game with me right now so instead of showing the event code I’ll just have to describe the content).

Skåne and Halland are lake-areas (scandinavia) provinces, whilst the nearby island of Fyn is an Elbe area province. The only non-lake-area provinces that are regarded to be near the lake-area are Sjaelland and Bornholm.

So I added a line to the capital (ai) and location (human) exceptions in the events in question that put also Fyn to the list of “accepted” provinces for capitals/locations near the lake-area. Haven’t gotten the events ever since.

But of course, that could be only good luck.

So I have some questions:

1. Was it really intentional that Fyn is considered far-away from Skåne and Halland? ( I doubt that the god of wisdom Odin would have established his first capital in Fyn if he could have gotten rid of the widespread demesne penalty just by moving into the neighbouring Sjaelland )

2. Should I also do some more coding or are the above changes enough. I’m not too familiar with the event system in CK. (but I do know the system in EU2). I understand that area conditions have been fixed and work as intended with the latest beta.

 

[unmerged(30761)]

im having problem with this too. as an emperor of byzantium i should have no problem controlling 12 provinces with my STE of 16 and my wifes of 12 (she is a steward)

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

im having problem with this too. as an emperor of byzantium i should have no problem controlling 12 provinces with my STE of 16 and my wifes of 12 (she is a steward)

I think you are talking about a completely different problem.

In the betas stewardship no longer determines the size of your demesne but rather your intrigue value and then just that of your ruler not that of you spymaster or steward.

The problem discussed in this thread is not about the demesne limit but about demesne provinces being 'to far' (in game terms) apart. Which result in nasty event in those provinces.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

How it is defined what is far away province? I had to give Danzig to my vassal in my Saxony (I'm duke of Saxony, Holstein, Mecklenburg, Pommerania and Prussia) game, because for some reason Pommerania is too far from Saxony to be controlled. It's not even very far from my other demense provinces in duchies of Saxony and Mecklenburg.

 

[Hakkapeliitta]

How it is defined what is far away province? I had to give Danzig to my vassal in my Saxony (I'm duke of Saxony, Holstein, Mecklenburg, Pommerania and Prussia) game, because for some reason Pommerania is too far from Saxony to be controlled. It's not even very far from my other demense provinces in duchies of Saxony and Mecklenburg.

Basicly, if I figured the events correctly all the provinces in the same "area" ("area" as defined in db/provinces.csv) are deemed to be not-far-away from each other as well as a list of exceptions i.e. some provinces are defined to be near each area even though they are actually from a different area. There is a section in the events for each area declaring these exceptions.

For example Sjaelland is an "Elbe area" province but is declared to be also near the "lake-area" (Skåne, Halland, Finnveden, ...).

Thus if the players capital is in Sjaelland then Skåne can't suffer from widespread demesne events, but if it happens to be in Fyn they can fire.

Note that this relation is not necessarily reciprocal, i.e. in theory province A could be not-far-away form province B, whilst province B could still be deemed to be far-away from province A.

The "direction" of this check is made from the province possibly suffering from the event to the location of capital (always capital for ai) or kings army (if mobilized and the player is human).

(Of course I could have read them wrong, I've only spent something like 15 minutes tinkering with the events.)

 

[unmerged(29883)]

AFAIK, that's pretty much how they work.

I believe that the general concept of those events was to prevent vast, widely spread empires from remaining unified - and, especially, to solve the problem of those far-flung counties, surrounded by hostile powers, that nonetheless are devotedly loyal to you.

Where the 'far-away' events trigger for provinces which are self-evidently not too far away, then there is a bug...provided that you're thinking of far-away in medieval terms rather than far away in player "Europe's not that big - Portugal's not that far from England, especially not when I own both" terms.

Furthermore, I believe these events can be partially contained (or, at least, fire less frequently) if you have a high diplomacy level. Ultimately, a lot of places in CK are too loyal. For anyone to keep a straight face and say that Scotland or Ireland aren't too far away from England to be controlled, or England too far from France, then I suggest they skim-read a few history books. Those little stretches of water and a difference in culture can be quite the barrier...

Barring a few minor bugs like whether the lake provinces at Denmark should be considered in *this* light, etc. etc. I think the new events seem to be working pretty well.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Essentially what Woz said. You may proceed to make cases that certain province combinations should not be eligble, for example I am tempted to agree that Fyn isn't actually that far from Skane or Halland. In most cases I'd say if it fires, it's WAD. Generally if you want to be spared from the events, your domains should be connected by land and exist within a rather small area. If you can't see all your demesne on maximum close zoom centered on your capital, it can be a problem.

However, the event fires rarely enough, that if you are willing to lower taxes to bring loyalty back up after it fires and are a bit lucky, you may well be able to keep a far away province part of your realm. For example, in a recent game of mine, I've been keeping Alexandria, when my capital is in Gent. I've had "Far away" fire for it just once in several decades, so it definitely has been worthwhile keeping.

 

[Alexandre]

The "direction" of this check is made from the province possibly suffering from the event to the location of capital (always capital for ai) or kings army (if mobilized and the player is human).

Oh? I didn't realize that. Cool. Very cool. I can go off on my crusades whenever I feel like it, but that's why my home provinces get hit by the too far away event. I've noticed the effect (and grumbled about it) but hadn't realized that there was an actual reason -- namely that I was greedily gobbling up distant provinces, keeping them away from my vassals until I'd made them nice, developed, and Christian.

Alexandre

 

[Rictus]

As England, I've had this event fire twice in about 30 years for Brugge/Essex (Essex being the Capitol province). It doesn't bother me that much really as, arguably, Brugge could be considered to be 'far away' for the time (even if it is just a short hop across the channel), but its just that this event has not triggered for any other continental possessions (which include Artois, Isle de France and Maine) although it did trigger for Dublin.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

As England, I've had this event fire twice in about 30 years for Brugge/Essex (Essex being the Capitol province). It doesn't bother me that much really as, arguably, Brugge could be considered to be 'far away' for the time (even if it is just a short hop across the channel), but its just that this event has not triggered for any other continental possessions (which include Artois, Isle de France and Maine) although it did trigger for Dublin.

It also depends on the geography and infrastructure. Too far away in England might be close in Italy.

 

[unmerged(29883)]

Sounds like bad luck. I can't believe Brugge is coded to be more difficult to hold from Essex than the Ile de France - although it is a sea square further away than the other territories you mentioned.

I know that its eminently possible to hold Holland and its surrounds, as after a very misguided DoW by that particular bishop against myself as England. I held that duchy area, plus Zeeland and Breda (same duchy area as Brugge, IIRC) with no problems for well over a century.

Speaking in medieval terms, it was a hell of an effort to cross a body of water with any sensible force unless you were fully equipped to do so. Some of the mediterranean powers, particularly in the late era, were exceptionally good at doing just that - but for the majority sea travel was a barrier. You could conquer and pillage lands over the sea, but holding them was very difficult unless they were content to be held.

Ultimately, its in a conqueror's best interest to hold a strong capital in central mainland Europe rather than try to carve an Empire from a position on the fringes. That might not be where your traditional power base lies, and moving there might well alienate that area, but such are the difficult decisions of an Empire.

 

[Hakkapeliitta]

Sounds like bad luck. I can't believe Brugge is coded to be more difficult to hold from Essex than the Ile de France - although it is a sea square further away than the other territories you mentioned.

Or good luck:

Brugge is secure from the event if you capital/kings army happens to be in:

Schelde area (Guines, Boulogne, Yperen, Artois, Brugge, Zeeland, Gent, Hainaut, Luxembourg, Liege, Brabant)

Seine area (Amiens, Eu, Arques, Vexin, Evreux, Avranches, Chartres, Ile de France, Vermandois, Reims, Troyes, Sens, Auxerre, Saintois, Dijon)

Rhein area (Andernach, Köln, Göttingen, Pfalz, Baden, Nordgau, Lorraine, Metz, Verdun, Sundgau, Besancon)

Main area (Nassau, Leiningen, Mainz)

Nieder Rhein area (Holland, Westfriesland, Sticht, Gelre, Frisia, Ostfriesland, Kleve, Jülich, Loon, Breda)


Ile de France is safe if your capital/army is in (I’ll skip the list of provinces, anybody interested can just have a look at province.csv ):

Seine area
Aulne area
Loire area
Massif_Central area
Rhone area
Rhein area
Schelde area

So if your capital is in Essex (South England area) neither Ile de France nor Brugge are safe from the “difficult to control” events.

Anyway I think the widespread demesne events are wonderful, and in general do their job very well. So far I only have one minor nitpick (i.e. that the historical Danish capital in Fyn should be able to control the nearby historical Danish province of Skåne)

 

[Olaus Petrus]

Speaking in medieval terms, it was a hell of an effort to cross a body of water with any sensible force unless you were fully equipped to do so. Some of the mediterranean powers, particularly in the late era, were exceptionally good at doing just that - but for the majority sea travel was a barrier. You could conquer and pillage lands over the sea, but holding them was very difficult unless they were content to be held.

I disagree. Historically sea connections were more practical than land connections at that time. Roads were in bad shape and in many places there was practically no roads at all. Good example about importance sea connections is medieval Finland. After Swedish conquest Finland was made quickly as part of Sweden. Sea connections actually made it easier for Swedes to rule it, because there were only few roads in Scandinavia at that time, so seas and waterways were practically only reasonable way to move around armies and goods. Swedish king had less power in some inland provinces of Sweden than he had in Finland.

 

[unmerged(29883)]

True, but the Scandinavian countries were amongst the better naval powers of the north sea at the time. Consider England as a counterpoint argument - the English Channel made invasion attempts in either direction fairly major affairs. England's post-1066 record of never having been conquered had a lot to do with the English Channel - and even if you did conquer it once, it wasn't necessarily easy to hold with your power base on the wrong side of the Channel.

Sicily you could give as another good example. Despite being only a short hop from Italy, it was the scene for massive struggles between Christians and Muslims, falling both ways at different points in time.

My point was really about the nature of putting vast armies onto fleets and sailing them around. It was expensive, logistically a pain in the arse, and people far away knew that full well. The distance between Sweden and Finland, and the specific situation, is an example of where it works. The distance between, say, Denmark and England is an example of where it probably wouldn't.

 

[esbenmf]

The mentioned examples are more political in nature: The Danish-english empire of Canute the Great split up because of different choises of kings. Canutes dynasty continued on the danish throne, the english chose another king, whereas the Swedish control of Finland largely was possible because of the lack of controlstructure in Finland before the swedish conquest and colonisation.

My best example of distant vassals breaking away is the italian areas of the HRE, which was in effect independent as soon as the emperor was north of the Alps.

Then of course the crusader states in the middle east, which my guess is that no western european king had the intention or idea of controlling.

Then as a last comment: There has newer been a danish capital on Fyn - ever. Before around 1400 is is meaningless to even consider a capital and after the seat of administration has been Copenhagen in the center of the realm of the danish king (till 1645)

Esben

 

[unmerged(29883)]

I think one of the key problems with this whole issue is that CK doesn't simulate the micro-level problems of breakaway and desire for independence very well.

Taking the Viking and Norman invasions of England as an example, here you have two different cultures (danish, norman) occupying a saxon cultured territory. Both have their primary power bases on the wrong side of the sea - Denmark and Northern France.

The Danes siezed land by strength of arms, pillaged a lot of it and only settled after a peace treaty with a saxon king who granted a vast tract of the north to the Danes. On a fairly regular basis, the saxons resisted their danish overlords and it was clear that Denmark would have to be prepared for regular warfare if it wanted to hold onto the Danegeld. They weren't, they didn't.

The Normans attacked with a dubiously legitimate claim to the throne of England, killed the saxon King and took the throne. The land was incredibly unsettled, even though there were several norman noblemen already present, and a major rebellion happened in the following years - a Scottish-Saxon led rebellion of the two surviving saxon Earls to install the 'rightful' saxon heir. The Danes also gave their support, and continued to support rebels against the Normans for some time afterwards.

The Normans, having moved their power base to England, quelled the rebellions and kept the land relatively loyal, if uneasy. Two generations down they married into the saxon royal line and satisfied the feelings of many of the saxon populace, at cost of losing some of the support from their norman supporters. After this, saxon and norman gradually fused into 'english' culture.


Now, CK doesn't model anything like that, except possibly the movement of the capital by the Normans - but then they didn't have immediate rebellions in Normandy as a result, since that was still very adamantly part of their realm - easily one of the most loyal regions, for that matter. Legitimately inheriting a far-flung territory would give you a far easier time to hold the loyalty of its populace than taking it by violent means. Especially if your culture is the same. Equally, lowering taxes and putting money into the area would earn you the respect and possible admiration of the local people. The loyalty of the stands should make a tremendous difference.

Equally, far-flung vassals should react similarly. If they're of the same culture as you in a province of a different culture, they would be more likely to stick with you since they're unlikely to have as much support amongst their people. Where they would suffer is a greater likelihood of rebellions from the cultural group which is being occupied (aiming to install a member of their own culture), which you might need to assist them with.

However, if they are of a different culture to you (and the same as their province) then they are more likely to rise up in rebellion against you...plus, they should have the chance of triggering similar rebellions amongst other lands in your realm in the same region, if they have the same culture.