It's computer generated nonsense, not borders that would ever could be plausibly drawn by humans.
>>1447525It's because the succession system in this game is retarded and the AI can't handle partition.
>>1447525thats what you get for starting in 867
>>1447525What's wrong with the map?
Every time bordergore seems annoying I just look at a map of the realms within the historic hre and it doesn’t seem so bad anymore.
>>1447545>random county in Siberia gets inherited by Norway>exclave rule only kicks when ruler dies, so the random exclave will stay there fo 40 years>>1447779compare real map, CK3 produces very long salients which would be impossible to defend, while historic borders tended to be blobby because all minor rulers for recognize the strongest nearby king as their liege>>1448064HRE's border gore is justfiable because scale HRE is small, Ireland owning land in India isn't the same same as Prussia owning 5 acres in Bavaria
>>1448087>Ireland owning land in IndiaI mean, England owned land in Indian and Ireland… or that time period where the Hanovers owned land (and were electors) in the HRE but became the rulers of England.But of course, that came after the medieval period.I didn’t see any Ireland in India in that map OP posted.
>>1448101terrible bait, don't know why you even bothered
>>1448101are you fucking stupid
>>1447525>starting in 867
>>1448307The map will look inhuman no matter where you start after 200-300 years of gametime, it's just how CK works.
I am almost tempted to try a campaign in which I will lower the default penalty for diplovassalization, to see how would that play out.
>>1448235Bait?>>1448283Well okay not technically England but if you look at it from the empire basis with crowns beneath then it still works out. Like how you can see a bit of the Byzantine empire in Africa in the OP.
Is there a mod that fixes these borders to be less or no longer repulsive?
>>1448456No marriage alliance, more interactive vassals and expanded succession improved it for me but it makes nomads stupidly powerful
>>1448486>No marriage allianceInteresting, that must make the game must harder.It's so, easy to start as a count, fabricte claim your liege and get marriage alliance with nearby king, then let ally fight the war for you.
>>1447545I think it's more because the way titles work is ahistorical. It's kind of funny because the split between "de jure" and "realm" maps actually has the seed for how the game should probably work. The problem is the rigid hierarchy system, so everyone has to have one king and one duke and such. This would be kind of analogous to a game about the modern era having ownership of property in multiple jurisdictions result in that jurisdiction being consumed by the borders of the country of the person's birth. You could imagine the borer gore that would occur if this was on the level of like, plots of land. Like the footprint of a house or a factory in France is technically in the borders of Germany because the owner is German.Of course, CK3 has a lot more historical simplifications for gameplay purposes, and the succession system is entirely simplified because reality was very complex, but a permanent fix to the borders would be to redesign the basics of titles so that inheritance of titles doesn't have implications for borders, rather it just changes the relationships that the character is involved in. If a character owns a county in Lotharingia and one in East Francia, the individual titles have different obligations associated with them, entirely akin to having a business with property in different tax and regulatory jurisdictions. The only way you actually disrupt borders, which are better thought of as jurisdictions of claimed authority at the time, is by directly waging a war to dispute the authority of a "sovereign" like a king. It would be a different kind of war than simply claiming a title, which doesn't necessarily remove the authority a king might claim for that title out of tradition or military might or whatever. People could be beholden to multiple authorities and jurisdictions.
>>1449681Or really, it should be that the "realm" screen should probably just represent holdings by name and coat of arms. It would be a fucking mess just for the record, but it's not the actual "borders". It's just an overview of influence and what lands the actual characters claim. If you want to see the de jure map, you can see what territories the kings claim and effectively what jurisdictions the different titles and lands fall under. I really don't even think this would've been so hard to design. I think they were afraid it would be too confusing for the player, but I'd straight up have a tutorial just giving the example of having houses in two different countries and it should be clear. In many ways the world actually hasn't changed that much, at least in the sense that jurisdictions and claims on people and assets can overlap. An American corporation can own assets in foreign countries, but that doesn't change the territorial claims of the countries in question. America isn't interested in waging wars every time a person that lives in America buys property elsewhere, that would be insane. They simply want to make sure they're getting paid what they're owed. Not much different from the way people would've existed in the medieval period, it's just that "private" and "public" were much more intertwined through persons and dynasties. Rather than businesses, we're basically talking about tax authorities and even juridical authority over people of an area through overlapping claims to the land. But much like the example of America not wanting to go to war for every random American's privately held assets in foreign jurisdictions, if some HRE dude inherited manors in France why would he want to go to war on behalf of the emperor to bring them under the "HRE"? And why would France care to muster its forces to force the HRE guy to pledge all of his lands to France? THEY WOULDN'T! So they just agree to observe different jurisdictional authorities.
>>1449697>>1449681Though I take back one thing, it would probably still be hard to avoid border gore unless you could really model the incentives correctly and reduce the player's desire to constantly declare themselves a king. Sometimes kings were very weak, but nobody cared to usurp their title. Unlike in CK3, titles themselves didn't have to carry value. It was just your land and prestige and such. Sure, being a strong emperor or king was prestigious, but if you usurp the title of king from a weak king are you really a strong king? No, you just beat up a guy everybody already kind of walks over. Your dilemma is the same as his, you need to subjugate your territorial vassals to your authority to be strong. So really, the king isn't high value. For another gay modern analogy, it's like spending a bunch of money on a shell corporation. But what makes the shell corporation its money is the assets held in various other entities it has relationships with. That is where the value is, the shell corporation is just there as a tax shelter. It only has an office in Bermuda with one guy in it receiving checks from the separate business segments that actually make the money.Basically I could see there still being border gore unless you really made wars of independence and usurpation actually balanced so that they don't always even seem worth it. The goal is prestige and wealth, and having your own independent kingdom can be more expensive than its worth compared to being a very big and powerful duke, especially if they king is a weenie and meekly refrains from ever asking you for anything.
>>1449697>But much like the example of America not wanting to go to war for every random American's privately held assets in foreign jurisdictions, if some HRE dude inherited manors in France why would he want to go to war on behalf of the emperor to bring them under the "HRE"? And why would France care to muster its forces to force the HRE guy to pledge all of his lands to France? THEY WOULDN'T! So they just agree to observe different jurisdictional authorities.It might create all sorts of weird shit around wars, especially because of how limited CK2/3's wars are. You could maybe clear up some of it by giving lieges the option to force duel vassals to chose between abandoning lands in the other realm or getting a revoke reason on their shit in this one when at war with the other realm in question
>>1447545Yeah partition always fucks over the AI, they do pretty well with elections though.
>>1447525 I think upping AI aggressiveness and letting you start with the "seize all de jure lands casus belli would help with this a lot.
>>1448087Thank you for posting this map. I'm so tired of Paradox bootlickers posting some 18th century internal border map of the HRE as some kind of argument as to why we need to accept the border nonsense we see in the Crusader Kings series.
>>1447525Medieval borders were messy irl. I use this to suspend my disbelief.
>>1449793I'm not sure what this map is supposed to prove. The 1066 map looks pretty close to this and it rarely gets worse. Also, "Russian Principalities" is doing some very heavy lifting. Considering OP's map is clearly from an 867 game, I'm not sure what you expect after simulating almost 300 years later. People used to bitch constantly that the large realms were too stable, going back to CK2.
>>1449901>The 1066 map looks pretty close to this and it rarely gets worse.>Considering OP's map is clearly from an 867 game, I'm not sure what you expect after simulating almost 300 years later.You missed the point, the pont wasn't should exactly like it, but the as you can see it lacks any random salient and only has few large blobs and a handful of smaller ones, as a contrast to OP's map full of salients and microstates.>Also, "Russian Principalities" is doing some very heavy lifting. Princes recognized the grand prince of Kiev as their overlord, so that's all counts, similar how many HRE princes recognized the emperor as their liege while being de facto independent.
>>1449728Yeah, it probably would, but it would be more of a "simulation" in that sense desu. Like, I make the comparison to modern nations and private property, but obviously in the medieval period there weren't territorial nations as such. People didn't even have good maps, they tended to think in terms of towns and roads and some major natural features of the land, like rivers. And lords cared about controlling towns and roads and such. If someone was traveling they'd figure out where they were by the road they were taking and a list of the towns expected along the road. If I was going to make another gay analogy, it's like the way the territorial integrity of a crime syndicate like a cartel or urban gang isn't necessarily a rigidly mapped thing, it's just a matter of knowing what areas that group roams or generally inhabits. At some point you're clearly in their territory, every business around you is being extorted by them once a month. But at the edges of their territory businesses might not pay them, but sometimes their members burst in and act like they own the place. And sometimes they rob or harass people walking the streets in that area. THAT is the really hard thing to model, the informal nature of the border areas where influence and allegiance is kind of disputed and you get towns and villages that have a semi-autonomous existence because no lord strongly claims them, but neighboring lords may occasionally act like the town owes them things. And that dynamic also basically applies to "foreign" lords that may have a stronger allegiance to the Emperor but still have some lands in France. The French king may demand things of them, but the German lord may seek to provide what is owed in the most minimal way and while dragging his feet, whereas a properly French lord would provide more than is asked for and even undertake activity for the benefit of the crown that the king didn't request because they want glory or prestige or whatever.
>>1450286That stuff kind of exists in the way bishops and theocratic vassals work, like how your devotion increases the amount of levies and taxes the theocratic vassals provide, or obviously the opinion of your bishop being important. But it's weird it kind of stops there. It feels like the game has very little actual political simulation, but it has the bones to have more of a political simulation. You already have vassal mechanics with flexible outcomes like with the bishops, but when it comes to feudal vassals it's basically assumed all feudal vassals only want to do the bare minimum of their "contract". Why not make it more dynamic? You could do that without even changing current systems much by just making a lot more dependent on opinions and such, but if you did overhaul the system of titles so that inheritance doesn't necessarily grow your liege's realm, it could be that you can see which of your vassals have another liege associated with other holdings of theirs. When a vassal has a closer cultural connection to one liege over another, or has more holdings with one liege over another, then they have debuffs for loyalty to the liege with less influence or closeness to them. They provide you less than they might if they were more loyal to you, and there is the danger that they revolt or just refuse to provide anything if you go to war with their other liege. You immediately get much more political consideration. Do you want to have vassals like that? If your realm is big enough you'll probably have to learn to deal with it, but it also suddenly makes gimmicky shit like red weddings more realistic. The blood court at Cannstatt was an event where Carlomann, son of Charles Martel, invited nearly all of the Alemanni leaders to council and then murdered them, afterwards consolidating their region under Frankish dominion. Uncommon kind of event of course, but it was one way to consolidate control.
>>1450299But anyways, it's just annoying because some of this stuff does exist here and there, and the de jure map has elements of this, but overall I think the way the player interacts with the de jure map feels very static and uninteresting. It feels like the de jure map implies that people were all thinking of who their "lawful" liege was, when for most of the early to middle medieval period I don't think people were so rigid about their concept of law and state. If anything, it might be that the "de jure" map could represent something more like explicit claims, and there would be overlapping areas. The overlapping areas would more likely be over towns and roads and such, and the opinions of republican vassals would matter a little more in those places because they're playing politics with you. If they don't like you they lean more towards pleasing your rival and acting as though they're his subject, but if they do like you they give you more favor. Sometimes they don't like anyone and they're very obstinate about independence from surrounding lords, but that just gives more excuse to outright send in soldiers. This would also give a non-war conflict level, to simulate the small conflicts that would occur throughout the medieval period. It's not that the Empire is going to war with France over this town, but the town is being insulting and acting like it doesn't recognize imperial authority at the same time it refuses French authority. France might not care if you go beat up some townsfolk over this, but in a couple of years France might come beat up the townsfolk too to reassert dominance. It's not really either of your towns per se, it's an object of occasional extortion and bullying largely because neither of you care to always assert an exclusive claim to it, since the consequence of that may be more expensive than just occasionally bullying the town. The game would get a lot more complex but I think that'd make it a lot more interesting.
>>1449681>>1449697Personally, I'd want it work like EU4 handles personal unions.If the king of Sweden inherits Norway, Norway shouldn't be depicted as part of Norway, because Norway would still be an independent kingdom with its own court and laws, even if they share the monarch with Sweden.In EU4 they are depicted as independent countries with other countries being controlled by AI.The same applied to vassals, if the Duke of Normandy is King of England, he would be forced to pick between his primary title, and appoint a regent to govern the other title, while Duchy of Normandy would remain vassal of France.
>>1447525This would fix itself if CK had more of a Total War / Mount and Blade style of warfare, not talking about real time battles but instead about standing armies on the map at all times, and a more fluid system of capturing, holding and losing towns rather than this rigid system of declaring war for a single county at a time and teleporting troops. That way the AI would actually get punished for having retarded borders, like in real life.
>>1450316That might actually be a good way to integrate it into the current game. Though I'm not sure if it can currently be modded in to have multiple regents since it sounds like you are hard locked to 1 regent. It'd be cool if you could have regents for territories with other lieges while you maintain your primary domain. And if regent mechanics were expanded then that would make regency a little more impactful if you have foreign territories because you'd constantly have a regent there, so you'd really have to make sure they're loyal to you. I guess it is probably to much for a standard mod using Paradox's scripting, you'd probably need a big overhaul mod that uses more advanced techniques. But I imagine if someone wanted to put that much effort in they'd rather just make their own game.
>>1450299>You already have vassal mechanics with flexible outcomes like with the bishops, but when it comes to feudal vassals it's basically assumed all feudal vassals only want to do the bare minimum of their "contract".But that is the point of the contract. CK2 had them varying by opinion and it was rather nonsense, though the taxation system of feudal nobles from conclave+ and CK3 isn’t really historical either.CK3 even has something still like what you mention: the Clan style of government, where what they pay is almost entirely based on their opinion outside of setting a minimum with authority levels and modifying it a little with special arrangements.
>>1449681>>1450313You know, one way to handle the “de jure” and realm split and partially simulate having multiple lieges would be to alter how the “not de jure rightful liege” penalty works. So instead of having the vassal just pay a % less of obligations for mot being the de jure vassal, the % they don’t pay to their “liege” still gets paid to the Dejure liege of that land instead, if such a person exists.It is still a simplification which would still lead to some confusion regarding why changing a contract impacts both but it could lead to one person paying several lieges depending on where the their lands fall. If the AI and succession logic were coded to account for this it would then also encourage realms that prefer whole grouping rather than splaying out like an octopus after a few generations. There is already the “desires title” opinion penalty that in their should encourage that too, unless that was only in CK2.
>>1450286>the informal nature of the border areas where influence and allegiance is kind of disputed and you get towns and villages that have a semi-autonomous existence because no lord strongly claims them, but neighboring lords may occasionally act like the town owes them thingsThey should've doubled down on CK2's idea of having holdings within provinces, add more of them and give them more agency. For one thing it would allow the kind of inter-realm border gore we're talking about to be represented in a way that doesn't make the map look hideous and it'd be closer to the scale that it usually happened IRLAnd town holdings could grow very rich but, as they do get richer they'll keep trying to gain royal burgh/free city status to bypass the local count and barons who might all be wanting taxes off them otherwise. >>1450313>and the de jure map has elements of this, but overall I think the way the player interacts with the de jure map feels very static and uninterestingI always thought changing the de jure structure should be more of an active process than just waiting for it to drift. England passed a law to make Wales part of de jure England, they didn't just wait 100 years until everyone forgot about Wales. Notably England never tried this with Ireland or France other than Calais in the CK period.>when for most of the early to middle medieval period I don't think people were so rigid about their concept of law and state.I think it depends on the area/time. It makes sense for there to be a de jure England even before it was a united realm because there was a shared English identity and ideas of nominal overlordship, or for France to exist de jure in places that have been part of West Francia for centuries so no one would think differently. But the "tribal" and non-christian areas probably shouldn't have a de jure structure at all until realms are stable for long enough for people to think of them like that. And they should be able to overlap, of course.
>>1450472>think it depends on the area/time. It makes sense for there to be a de jure England even before it was a united realm because there was a shared English identity and ideas of nominal overlordshipThat's true, it's not like people had no concept of territory, and of course if a people kind of inhabit an area for a long enough time and they share a cultural identity with their rulers, they start to feel like that area is "theirs" and the rulers are properly "theirs". It easy to hand wave it away as "it's very complicated" but it's true, medievalists still don't seem to agree on what to emphasize when trying to understand what social and political reality was like in the medieval period. Sometimes they seem to be reacting to concepts they think are too rigid so they emphasize how informal and personal everything was, but when it swings too far that way they pull out the evidence for people thinking very rigidly about the institutional status of rulership and its limits and such. I tend to lean towards thinking about what is probably similar between now and then, so that when I read a medievalist talking about dvidence of some people seemed indifferent and flexible around authority or jurisdiction I just think of how you can easily find videos of millenials and zoomers asking "How do I do taxes? How does a car note work? What is a stock market?". Those examples are more reflective of how bureaucratic the world is now, but I could imagine a medieval burgher finding questions of lordship agitating or uninteresting because what they're really interested in is continuing their craft, or getting drunk, or praying to God, or whatever. They probably take more note of socio-political issues of governance and stuff when something is wrong, so then they're like "This guy isn't even my king! Why is he meddling in my town and driving merchants away!"
>>1449901>The 1066 map looks pretty close to this and it rarely gets worse.italy always get independence in the first 10 years
>>1450472>there was a shared English identityThere wasn't. Angles and West Saxons were distinct people until Alfred began assimilating them. Anglo-Saxons are a historical concept that only applied to two centuries before the Normans.
>>1450648>There wasn't. Angles and West Saxons were distinct people until Alfred began assimilating them.Bebe talked about England and the English/Anglo-Saxons as a nation, and Alfred was only as successful as he was because there was already a sense of pan-Englishness that could be opposed to Norseness. People identified with their local kingdoms first almost certainly, but you wouldn't say there wasn't German identity prior to Bismark even if many Germans still more strongly identified with small states and regional identified. The Britons and the Irish in the same period as the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms also certainly had British/Irish identities, despite never managing to form a lasting state like the English did, so them having de jure realms on the map makes sense too. Though the case of the Britons verses the English is a good example of why overlapping de jure structures are needed to represent things properly. The Winter King mod covers the period and has a pretty neat system where the de jure structure changes via event depending on who's controlling it. So the top de jure realm is High Kingdom of Britannia over all Britain south of the Forth, but when Anglo-Saxons take territory from it quickly flips to England, and the je dure structure below the top changes to reflect Anglo-Saxons divisions instead of British ones
How tf do people play this with the events as shit as they are.
>>1451686You play it as cookie clicker. Pick the best options and don't even read them
>>1447525>not borders that would ever could be plausibly drawn by humansr u sure about that?
>>1452098yeah no your right op human boarders are simple
>>1452105man i wonder why ai make complex borders when mankinds so simple?
>>1452111You're an absolute fucking dumbassTHAT WAS ALL ONE REALM TRANNYINTERNAL BORDER GORE IS NOT TRUE BORDER GORE SPASTIC
>>1452111>Yep, so basically the inner administrative divisions of the HRE justify England owning a Tengri enclave in Siberia.>Thank you Paradox for another great historical experience!!!
>>1452148germany did not existthat is not one realm
>>1452249Not him but in my language HRE is called Holy Roman Empire of German nation.
>>1452249The Holy Roman Emperor also had the title of King of Germany
>>1452854Interesting yes and no.Between Louis the German and Otto the Great independent kings called themself kings of Germany.When the Otto was crowned as emperor of the Romans they stopped using the king of Germany officially, instead "king of the Romans" was taken by elected emperor not crowned by the pope.Popes began referring to kings of the Romans as kings of Germans to mock them.
>>1450351We should ask PDX on their forum for this feature so it can be [SPOILER]totally ignored[/SPOILER]
>>1448456there's a setting in the options where all land not connected by land or sea to the de jure liege's realm is granted independence on succession
>>1450316I like your regent idea now that they're in the game. Currently, regents feel pretty pointless unless you die and you're playing 15 years as a child. But if you could make it so that your heir or regent could rule another Kingdom in your name, I think there would be a lot of potential for RP and reduced bordergore
>>1453259Considering all rulers live to +60, it's uncommon play as a minor
>>1448307If you start in 1066 you'll end up with massive blob empires all over instead. There's no winning
>>1452310That is its full and proper name. "Germany didn't exist" copers are just retarded and historically ignorant. The HRE was the German country for a thousand years.
>>1447525>It's computer generated nonsense, not borders that would ever could be plausibly drawn by humans.VGH. So organic.
>>1454054Why do you retards always post small scale maps of one island/kingdom in comparison to continentwide ones ? Not to mention those borders still look much better than the ones in the op
>>1454078>Uhhh why you have to post evidence ruining my hateboner for paradox games?Just for you anon I'll post all 6 continents. I dare you to write 3 paragraphs explaining why they look reasonable
>>1454233>>1454236>>1454237>>1454239>>1454240>>1454242>just waste an hour of your life explaining to a moron the history behind each continent's bordersno?maybe if you pay me
>>1454236I'm not the guy you are talking to, but this map of asia is actually contains a good example of what makes paradox games nonsensical. Notice how Pakistan and Bangladesh are separate countries? After the end of colonization, they were just one country; Pakistan. They split apart because of the distance and cultural differences. Does that sound like something that usually happens in CK3?
>>1454233>>1454236>>1454237>>1454239>>1454240>>1454242None of these look like CK3 bordergore
>>1447525>How am I supposed to be invested in my world and characters when the map looks like THIS?
>>1454430Paradrones are mentally ill.
>>1454486England doesn't seem all that inaccurate.
>>1454485Is this like at release or late-game? I haven't seen this in my game... yet. Only breakups and dissolutions. You got diplomatic range turned on and that Exclave rule?
>>1454492THAT is your takeaway from the fucking image?
>>1454496It's a humorous observation. Do you want me to explain the joke?
>>1447525(OP)>How am I supposed to be invested in my world and characters when the map looks like THIS?
>>1454500>>1454507why do you keep posting this? are you really that starved for attention? nobody would have any issue if the inner vassal map of France and the HRE looked like that, vassal dukes and counts in fact tend to have more consolidated domains while indendent realms are a complete vomity mess
>>1454508Not to say that even when you discount scale the borders in those maps are much more continuous than the CK3 ones, it's not even a comparison.
>>1448456ck2 with hip
>>1454588Is this any better?
>>1450472Realistically, tribal identity should be the loose structure that comes under the control of a single leader when Catholicity Co. decides to open a sustainable franchise in the area. That is how it went in reality. Alfred and sons couldn't have done what they did without and existing sense of Englishness (ASness). At the same time, had Wessex merely been a pagan core (not in the paradox sense) attempting to dominate all that periphery, it would have lacked the logistical/economic/military/informational ability to do so. Realms solely propped up on the military/economic power of a homogeneous power base core looked like picrel. To go beyond those bounds and link together diverse peoples, you need a raison d'etre. In Alfred's case it's the faith, which is enteral. In the Vikings case it's the ability of the leader to be a "giver of rings", which depends on raiding success, which is obviously more ephemeral and situationally dependent. In nowheresbard russian, neither of these "raisons" exist in 867, hence the shitty map which looks like picrel.
>>1447545>succession system in this game is retarded and the AI can't handle partitionYeah because real people did much better
>>1454742>not reading the thread before postingwhy are you paradrones so fucking retarded
>>1454913It wouldn't have made any difference if he read the thread, Paradrones will repeat the same points regardless.
>OMG THIS IS SO AHISTORICAL >:(((((((
>>1453455936 is the answer.
>>1454252Doesn’t the game already have mechanics and rules for that?
>>1454742this is really dishonest because the HRE in ck3 is just a giant blob and eats other countries at will and doesn't reflect the actual decentralized one at all
mind broken by maps
>mind broken by maps
>>1454486Hate Byzantine expansion to Russia, how would that even work?