CK3 and border gore

[Limbojack]

One of the things that both annoy and entertain me about CK2 is the game's tendency towards border gore. Instead of consolidating its power, the AI ends up holding a barony here and another one half a light-year away, resulting in a horrible campaign map. Is this an issue that will be improved upon?

I know that this is fairly historical, but I'm not sure it improves the game.

 

[DukeDayve]

It always annoyed the hell out of me as well. I've abandoned games because the map got so bad and I quit playing in 769 because the majority of the map ended up looking like vomit in 99% of games.

Some bordergore is historical, especially internal bordergore with powerful dukes and such holding land all over a kingdom/empire, but the extent that bordergore goes to in CK2 isn't historical really.

 

[Limbojack]

I had a game once where the duke of Essex somehow managed to get a county in Novgorod. It was.. a laugh.

 

[Fitzjacob]

CK2 introduced exclave independence to deal with border gore, and while rules such as Harsh Exclave Independence is certainly an improvement, I hope they take another approach for CK3.

Ideally, characters should not be strictly part of a single realm. Their held titles should instead have lieges meaning they can have separate lieges for separate titles.
Here is a well argued post about the matter.

 

[vandevere]

I never really minded the Border Gore. If the rules of heredity meant my Custom King of Wessex meant I wound up with a county in Anatolia, that was just hilarious.

I love it when hilarious things happen in my games...

 

[Denkt]

Border gore is a Beautiful thing that make the World actually feel alive.

 

[AmericanViking]

Ck2's border gore could have easily been fixed with one simple change to the rule. When your leader dies you automatically, and without any consent to the AI, lose any land that is not connected by a continuous series of land that is connected to dejure territory, or through a specific water distance. The issue seems to be that even on Total, the AI often still has a choices whether they wish to leave or not, and more than not chooses to stay.

 

[noknok]

Ck2's border gore could have easily been fixed with one simple change to the rule. When your leader dies you automatically, and without any consent to the AI, lose any land that is not connected by a continuous series of land that is connected to dejure territory, or through a specific water distance. The issue seems to be that even on Total, the AI often still has a choices whether they wish to leave or not, and more than not chooses to stay.

Taking away border gore would be very non-historical. I like the idea that when a character dies, there is a chance you lose exclusives, but only a small chance

 

[Denkt]

Taking away border gore would be very non-historical. I like the idea that when a character dies, there is a chance you lose exclusives, but only a small chance

We could make isolated areas lose Control over time which make some sense and maybe if Control reach zero it is lost?

 

[vandevere]

Again, that's probably best addressed by making a game rule for it. There are people out there who might be just a little irked if they lost lands "Just because"...

 

[Bearnest]

Is this an issue that will be improved upon?

From the DD dedicated to the Map:

Baronies exist with a few things in mind. For example, they can never leave a county. This means Counties stay the same over time, avoiding weird splits where a single barony goes independent or to another realm (reducing that hideous border-gore ever-so-slightly).

So, no; no more Baronial border gore. Whether this is an improve or not is for each one to decide.

 

[Arko]

In CK1, distant lands tend to rebel for independance quite soon. It somehow autoregulates.
With the county control we have now it could serve that purpose.
Other forms of said border gore killer system might be rule based as it was just unatural hacks.

 

[guinea prince]

I'm all for the gore. If we want to be rid of it, we'll need to lobotomize our AI and make them perfectly obedient vassals who always act within their station and mever take any stray opportunties to improve their station.

And if we do that, why would we play a game about dynasties and court dynamics?

 

[Chlodio]

Most of the border score stems from poor depiction of personal unions and lack of multiple lieges.

Example of a bad depiction of personal unions: Frederick II was simultaneously the monarch of the Holy Roman Empire and Sicily, but the latter wasn't part of the Holy Roman Empire. Yet, in CK2 it would be depicted as such. On de facto map mode, Sicily should be depicted as independent even if its monarch is also the Holy Roman emperor, rather there should be a "personal map" mode that would depict an individual's possessions.

Example from lack of multiple lieges, from 1201 to 1316 the counts of Champagne were also monarchs of Navarre, but Champagne wasn't part of Navarre, but still a fief of France. CK2 would depict Champagne as being part of Navarre.

 

[BeyondExpectation]

I think much of the hate for bordergore in CK2 is that it's a bad thing; dukes controlling counties on the other side of the realm, instead of the duke it's de jure under, weakens your position. The "desires county of x" was not historically a thing; internal bordergore was everywhere in Christendom without major downsides (the gore was a sign of Gavelkind, which was disadvantageous; the gore did not cause the disadvantage.)

That's not to say between realm gore should be fine; it was very rare in the Crusader Kings era.

 

[Pied-Noir]

Most of the border score stems from poor depiction of personal unions and lack of multiple lieges.

Example of a bad depiction of personal unions: Frederick II was simultaneously the monarch of the Holy Roman Empire and Sicily, but the latter wasn't part of the Holy Roman Empire. Yet, in CK2 it would be depicted as such. On de facto map mode, Sicily should be depicted as independent even if its monarch is also the Holy Roman emperor, rather there should be a "personal map" mode that would depict an individual's possessions.

Example from lack of multiple lieges, from 1201 to 1316 the counts of Champagne were also monarchs of Navarre, but Champagne wasn't part of Navarre, but still a fief of France. CK2 would depict Champagne as being part of Navarre.

Indeed, and Richard of Cornwall would be another extreme example - king of the Romans (depicted as HRE in game) whilst also owning land in England.

 

[Vanhal]

This is one of the rare issues where i will gladly dump the history entirely. Bordergore is terrible and no fun at all.

 

[KKrive500]

Maybe vassals who aren't connected to the main territory should get a negative opinion modifier towards their liege so they're more likely to revolt? I could understand wanting your independence if your ruling government is 500+ miles away. That could be a way to solve this issue without directly giving vassals independence.

 

[Taylor138]

I’ll first start off by saying I’m NO fan of extreme border gore it ruins the game for me personally. But with that being said I understand why others like the constant chaos of inheritances across different continents, I would also be somewhat ok with it if the AI especially had high chances of regaining lost Dejure land and was able to kind of keep a game of back and forth conquest and reconquest through the ages now that makes for a fun game even if your not involved, but it rarely goes that way. Once a kingdom has lost significant amounts of land there basically done for even with a strong king that’s my issue with border gore the AI doesn’t have the ability to basically reestablish the proper dejure order of things through a series of wars like the player can do most of the time, this is also how you get nobody’s sitting on the thrones of England and France within 50 years. Not fun for me whatsoever.

 

[Vohen]

Most of the border score stems from poor depiction of personal unions and lack of multiple lieges.

Example of a bad depiction of personal unions: Frederick II was simultaneously the monarch of the Holy Roman Empire and Sicily, but the latter wasn't part of the Holy Roman Empire. Yet, in CK2 it would be depicted as such. On de facto map mode, Sicily should be depicted as independent even if its monarch is also the Holy Roman emperor, rather there should be a "personal map" mode that would depict an individual's possessions.

Example from lack of multiple lieges, from 1201 to 1316 the counts of Champagne were also monarchs of Navarre, but Champagne wasn't part of Navarre, but still a fief of France. CK2 would depict Champagne as being part of Navarre.

I like this idea, and a relatively simple way to implement it I reckon would be to associate liege-vassal relations with titles instead of characters.