Remove borders and colours from distant realms

[Rags17]

I think that I already made this suggestion a few years back but I can't remember if it was it's own thread or not, in any event the idea recently popped into my head again so it must be worth repeating !

The idea is simple - all realms beyond diplo distance should have their realm colour removed, with "barbarian" (ie nomadic and tribal) realms also having their borders removed. Players would still be able to hover over the target ruler and or dig down into their vassal structure but at a glance this would turn all nomadic and tribal realms into vague blobs that seem to occupy a general area rather than a fixed piece of territory, which is how I think RL realms of these sorts would operate. This would also keep distant realms distinct but remove the main differentiation from them making them a little bit hard to scrutinize, which again is how I think that would be seen.

So I am the King of France and I am looking at central Asia - AFAIK there are vague blobs of horsemen to the north and in the Tarim Basin there are a number of clearly defined states, but unless I click on each one I won't immediately have any idea what religion, culture or government type they are.

This should be pretty easy for PDX to adjust the coding (I think) but AFAIK most definitely can't be implemented via a modding workaround.

 

[klopkr]

This is dumb and ugly as an idea but I'd totally support them having muted colours.

 

[Tryvenyal]

I think you always get far too much information in this game. Down to the last serf, you always know excactly the number of soldiers you are facing in a war, the excact number of coins in the enemy pocket. Not to mention the stats of any loosy bishop on the opposite side of the map.

As a loosy count, you know far more than as a grand emperer in EU4.

Any changes to decrease this knowledge would appease me at least!

 

[Tyrelas]

I really like the "fog-of-war" in EU4, you have to explore it or buy maps to know that place even exists. It's kind of silly that in EU4 (where international comunication is more advanced) you know less about the world than in early medieval... Example, Viking age IRL.. Vikings did not know about Englaland until legendary Ragnar found it.

 

[BeyondExpectation]

Example, Viking age IRL.. Vikings did not know about Englaland until legendary Ragnar found it.

Do you have a source for this? I am skeptical, but I also ask because I would like to learn more about historic exploration limits.

 

[Tyrelas]

No I do not, that's true. I'm sure there is plenty enough evidence on the internet. Yet, there is evidence that norsemen were far-away traders... Maybe they just did not have maps or such.

 

[mairao.ferreira]

I think you always get far too much information in this game. Down to the last serf, you always know excactly the number of soldiers you are facing in a war, the excact number of coins in the enemy pocket. Not to mention the stats of any loosy bishop on the opposite side of the map.

As a loosy count, you know far more than as a grand emperer in EU4.

Any changes to decrease this knowledge would appease me at least!

This!

I'm fairly new to CK2 but agree that we shouldn't know as much about other realms. Within our own, I'm fine with it. But we should need to use our spymaster to know how many soldiers could other people get. And even then it should be an approximate number, an interval, being more accurate the more skilled the spymaster is. The same goes for funds.

 

[Veag]

I really like the "fog-of-war" in EU4, you have to explore it or buy maps to know that place even exists. It's kind of silly that in EU4 (where international comunication is more advanced) you know less about the world than in early medieval... Example, Viking age IRL.. Vikings did not know about Englaland until legendary Ragnar found it.

Do you have a source for this? I am skeptical, but I also ask because I would like to learn more about historic exploration limits.

The only source for that story that I know of is a TV show with little regard for historical accuracy. England was already conquered by other Norse people several times before Ragnar was born. England's transformation from predominantly Romano-British to predominantly North Germanic was more like a gradual process spanning the whole Anglo-Saxon period, starting with the withdrawal of the Roman legions around 410 and ending with the Norman conquest around 1066. And the Romans were already complaining about Britain being plagued by Norse "pirates" before that. The Anglo-Saxon or Old English language that was dominant in England at the start of the viking age was already a dialect of Old Norse, and should have been mutually intelligible whichever Norse dialects the vikings were speaking. What I am trying to say is that, it is hard to give someone credit for discovering a place if their cousins already live there.

Personally, I find the Ideological theory of the Viking Age the most believable explanation of the viking age by far. The theory is, in short, that the period famous because it was a period of intolerance, not because there were suddenly more Norse people going places, doing things, and being jerks along the way. In other words, that it is not a coincidence that the viking age started at the same time as Charlemagne's Saxon Wars. There is plenty of evidence of Germanic, and especially North Germanic people traveling, trading, raiding, and settling all over Europe starting centuries before. We remember this particular era more as The Viking Age because Christianity was spreading into northern Europe and the Christians and Pagans were deliberately going out to loot and burn each other's holy sites, and be jerks to one another rather than it just cruising around looking for easy money.

Anyway, back to the point. The problem with historic exploration isn't with people's ability to travel, it is with their ability to make reliable maps, measurements, and records along the way. Merchants, raiders, settlers, and so on, traveled all over the place. Crossing Europe on foot would take months, assuming you don't get lost or stuck along the way. But you know how humans are, that isn't going to stop them. And it's faster by boat. It isn't that you couldn't find a Swede in Greece or a Persian in Germany, it's that they probably can't tell you any more about where they came from than a general distance or direction. Without a lot more information "It took about twelve days of sailing" isn't useful information from the perspective of cartography or military intelligence or anything like that.

So, yes. We should have more fog of war. Sorry to go on so long.