The Sword of Islam - Dev Diary 1

[Captain Gars]

Can't modders simply change "muslim" into "muslim2", and then they're playable in exactly the way they are now because the DLC targets the "muslim" religion, rather than the "muslim2" religion? (i.e. using the christendom game mechanics?). That'll take all of 2 minutes to do using your favourite text editor's search and replace tool.

That might be possible but I'll leave that up to the development team to answer as I'm no longer directly involved in the day-to-day development of CKII.

 

[Meneth]

Why can't you do this, Paradox?

No reason not to both have and eat the cake in this case, truly.

That sounds like the best way of doing it, as that doesn't hinder modding (to any major degree), while still limiting the muslim features to only those who've purchased the DLC.

Would it be possible to change the interface slightly, to make non-existing but achievable titular titles visible somewhere?
As a list - or perhaps as a new mapmode?
Then the new empires would not have to be "de iure" empires from the beginning, for the sake of new player friendliness, but could rather start out as titular.

You can see them by searching for them in the title-finder.

 

[King]

Would it be possible to change the interface slightly, to make non-existing but achievable titular titles visible somewhere?
As a list - or perhaps as a new mapmode?
Then the new empires would not have to be "de iure" empires from the beginning, for the sake of new player friendliness, but could rather start out as titular.

That is not a slight interface change that is a pretty major overhaul, because it would require a lot of work to match the clarity of the De Jure map mode. So basically no.

 

[Meneth]

It's funny how people feel so entitled.

Please don't generalize.

 

[Meneth]

Yes, thats how it would work.

Thank you for confirming that. It won't be an issue to total conversions, then.
Will it still be possible to make pagans playable (until the inevitable pagan DLC)?

 

[King]

I get what you're saying, but I think de jure kingdoms "guide" the player just fine - unless you think that most players have been stumbling around for the last four months or however long it's been since release since they don't have a creatable Scandinavian empire? I don't understand the rationale behind the decision to make fantasy empires a part of vanilla when they're very easy to mod in, but they're also very easy to mod out so it's not nearly as huge a concern as people are making it.

Because we hope that more people buy the game, not just current players. Thus we conitnue to develope with on eye on these people.

 

[Meneth]

Of course. Its just any religion actually named muslim needs to have the dlc.

Thank you. That's all my concerns about playable muslims addressed.

I guess I can get back to empires, then
Like mentioned before, I think the best solution would simply be to name them something other than "empire". Make Russia a Grand Duchy for example, Scandinavia a High Kingdom, and so on. It'd be exactly the same for gameplay purposes, but without misusing the word Empire. I don't think anyone would mind the Arabian and Persian Empires being named empires though.

 

[Captain Gars]

Not true. The switch to enable Muslims is in the game right now. It's just like having an .ini file with various game settings that you don't want to build a GUI specifically for. You may not want to provide technical support for people who enable that function (which is fair enough) but you can't pretend that it isn't a feature of the game that everyone has *right now*.

When you are doing is developing the precedent that you're are willing to take away existing content in order to sell it back to the customer in the form of DLC, which, from a consumer's prospective, reduces the value of any base game because they can expect that features will be actively *removed* for reasons besides them being "broken" or causing technical glitches.

As I see it, you had three ways to handle this properly.

1. Never release the ability to play as other factions, so you would not be taking away existing content in order to sell it a second time to the player. (The cat's out of the bag on this, and you can't do that now)

2. Release a full-fledged expansion for all of the other religions so that you can continue supporting one line of code, while still not removing the ability to enable the other religions for play, even though they have somewhat less content than Christians. (Could still do this, but you'd need to expand this DLC into a full-fledged expansion which covers a great deal more, and it's probably too soon for an expansion for the game.)

3. Treat content expansions for various religions like "mods" where they merely plug in to enable additional content, without affecting the ability to play as any religion if the player ticks that flag. This creates the issue of needing to support multiple code lines however, and may be more prone to piracy given how you don't have a special notch for your dlc to plug in as a mod using encryption keys only you have access to.

The way you are handling it, however, is arguably deceptive as a business practice and certainly harmful to the value of your product.

Edit: Jonan posted after I wrote this. His response alleviates my issues. I would like to remind, Gars, however, that just because a function is in a text file doesn't mean it's not game content, and you shouldn't pretend as such.

It doesn't matter how many times you write that playable Muslims is a feature in vanilla CKII - it's still not true. Neither is playing it as Game of Thrones - both are just side effects of us trying to keep the game as modable as possible. But we reserve the right to change those things if they happen to conflict with the development of the actual game.

 

[Captain Gars]

If you try to please everybody, you may end up pleasing nobody, or if you try to attract an undefined group of potential buyers without really knowing if they would buy the game as a result of your changes (and sorry for being a bit blunt but I don't really see how an Empire of Francia is going to get you more sales for CK2), you may end up both failing to attract the new buyers and alienating some of the old players (unless you believe that the old players will buy your future releases regardless of how you treat them because they're already hooked). For example the method you're going about the empires (a radical change in the direction of the game, going against a core part of the perceived value/unique selling proposition of the EU and CK franchises etc.) and about the discussion in this thread (angry replies, indignant tones, noticeable condescension, even telling players they can leave if they don't like your new decisions) is already beginning to alienate me, a faithful fan so far. I would appreciate if you guys could be a little less authoritative and a bit more polite, regardless of the fact you're the final decision-makers (or actually because of it).

Empires in CKII work much like nations you can form in EUIII (like Prussia, Scandinavia etc.) and a lot of players find it a lot of fun to have that visual progression. Teutonic Order for instance is a country many EUIII players like to play, but it's seldom because they want to play the TO but because they want to form Prussia and then Germany. Personally I'm not a big fan of it so I never form Scandinavia even if I can, but I understand why some players like it. Same thing here. And since the AI most likely won't do it, I honestly don't see the problem with including them.

 

[Meneth]

Probably a stupid question but are Pagans going to be locked into unplayable along with the muslims or will we have them completely available to us until a respective Pagan DLC comes out?.

Johan/Balor confirmed on the previous page that they can still be made playable:

Of course. Its just any religion actually named muslim needs to have the dlc.

(In response to my question: "Will it still be possible to make pagans playable (until the inevitable pagan DLC)?")

 

[Meneth]

Found five screenshots on Russian site. Are they leaked or just from press release? http://www.ag.ru/screenshots/crusader_kings_2_sword_of_islam/429124#show

Nice Jihad banner, btw.

Probably leaked by beta testers.

 

[Captain Gars]

Uh, how do you know what people bought the game for?

I don't. But I do know what we sold, and playable Muslims was not one of the features - not even through modding which was only added later in a patch.

 

[King]

Probably leaked by beta testers.

No they are from a game I played to get screen shots.

 

[Meneth]

"High Kingdoms" is ugly. Better to just call them kingdoms - and possibly, but not necessarily, make kings who are vassals of 4th-tier kingdoms get a different title than "king".

We have 7 new empire-tier titles:
"the Arabian Empire, the Empire of Persia, Britannia, Scandinavia, Francia, Spain and Russia"
My suggestions for names:
The Arabian Empire (muslim, so being called an empire is fine)
The Persian Empire (see above)
United Kingdom of Britannia/Britain
(High) Kingdom of Scandinavia (the closest to an empire in Scandinavia was the Kalmar Union, which was known as a kingdom)
Grand Duchy/Princedom of Russia
Not sure about Francia
Not sure about Spain

So that only leaves two titles reasonable names have to be found for

 

[Meneth]

Maybe you don't understand that they are implementing a brand new Muslim system with their unique cultural things like having 4 viwes, Ramadan etc. rather than just adding "playable = yes" code.

He conceded the point several pages ago due to elaboration on Paradox' side. No point restarting the argument

 

[Meneth]

Sure, it derives from the Latin language, as do a whole lot of English words, but most people aren't going to mistake the Ming dynasty for successors to Rome. Just look at all the instances where "empire" is used nowadays. Its original meaning as a ceremonial title for victorious generals is obscure. CK2 uses modern terminology rather than that of the time, so you can't really expect "empire" to have the same meaning that it did then.

Do note that pretty much everyone having an issue with them being called "empires" are talking about Christian empires. What the Ming dynasty was called is irrelevant.

 

[Meneth]

...What would religion have to do with it? Imperator is a title originating in pagan Rome, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

The point is that an empire in the Medieval Christian world is a successor to Rome. A non-Christian empire obviously isn't.

 

[Meneth]

So "empire" labels should be used restrictively within the Christian world but not necessarily for muslims and pagans?

Plausibility of anti-popes naming "anti-emperors" or victorious heresies declaring their own empires?

Pretty much. Empire tier is fine, as that simply means you can vassalize kings.
An anti-emperor feature would be pretty awesome if it were rare.

 

[Meneth]

Will using the ruler designer to make yourself a muslim ruler of a normally catholic nation unlock all the special muslim abilities? I.E. start as king of scotland but muslim? What about if you convert to muslim do you all of a sudden have localization changes and the ability to marry 4 wives etc?

They stated at some point that if you convert, you'll get access to the muslim features (and you cannot convert if you haven't bought the DLC).

 

[Meneth]

Egyptian sultanate is Fatimid sultanate from now? And if there are more Fatimid sultanates (ex: Egypt, Syria, Persia, Arabia) - will we have 4 'Fatimidids' on the map?

Following this logic, the Austrian empire should be named only as 'Habsburgic Empire' and the Italian Kingdom only as 'Savoiard Kingdom'.
But it's still Austria.. and it's still Italy!

Well, the Habsburg Empire is pretty often referred to as such