• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
As for Beta Israel keep two things in mind:
1) It would be easier for them to cut it off the map then to implement an entire religion for just that one County. If it's even big enough to be a County.
2) It's not gonna be playable if exists. It's not Christian. If you want to play it you'll have to mod it in yourself, or hope it gets included in the Moslem expansion.
Nick
The Jewish Kingdom was big enough to cause trouble for the Ethiopian emperors sveral times, and it lasted to the 1600s.
 
CK is a simulator of the Midieval Christian High Nobility.
Please don't use this argument, it's bunk.

There are very important reasons to simulate non-Christians even if they aren't playable:
1) Simulating people who aren't "Midieval[sic] Christian High Nobility" makes the experience of playing "Midieval[sic] Christian High Nobility" better. We could just make everyone who's not a Christian of the Heathen religion, but that would be a shallow and boring experience.
2) Non-Christians are probably going to be playable at some point, whether in an expansion or through modding. It's better to have them there and modeled correctly from the beginning, so Paradox doesn't have to try to do a quick and dirty fix to get them playable later on.

Also, re: your point #1, it's not an entire religion for "just that one County[sic]," it would also be the religion of the Khazars and various courtiers.
Guys lets end this discussion now, we dont even know if Nubia and Ethiopia will be playable at all.
Why would we end the discussion just because we don't know if they're playable? And why wouldn't they be playable? Nubia was playable in CK1. I doubt Paradox would make Orthodox countries unplayable.
 
Why would we end the discussion just because we don't know if they're playable? And why wouldn't they be playable? Nubia was playable in CK1. I doubt Paradox would make Orthodox countries unplayable.

Because apart from christianity, those countries dont have much in common with the rest of Europe. Their cultures and customs were so different from the rest of Europe. Im uncertain even if the feudal system of Europe can be applied to those countries. Paradox would need to implement powerful tribal factions in those countries in order to make them historically accurate.

Off topic: County is not a misspelling.
 
Because apart from christianity, those countries dont have much in common with the rest of Europe. Their cultures and customs were so different from the rest of Europe. Im uncertain even if the feudal system of Europe can be applied to those countries. Paradox would need to implement powerful tribal factions in those countries in order to make them historically accurate.
The feudal system of "Europe" is actually the feudal system of Catholic Western Europe, so unless you're suggesting that all Orthodox and Eastern European polities be unplayable, your logic does not obtain.
Off topic: County is not a misspelling.
Capitalizing county when it's not a proper noun is a misspelling.
 
Because apart from christianity, those countries dont have much in common with the rest of Europe. Their cultures and customs were so different from the rest of Europe. Im uncertain even if the feudal system of Europe can be applied to those countries. Paradox would need to implement powerful tribal factions in those countries in order to make them historically accurate.

Off topic: County is not a misspelling.

You're assuming that because they're not Europeans they're tribals? Representing Ethiopia, at least, as tribal would be inaccurate. And again, Nubia was playable in the first CK. What would the reasoning be to change that?
 
Please don't use this argument, it's bunk.

There are very important reasons to simulate non-Christians even if they aren't playable:
1) Simulating people who aren't "Midieval[sic] Christian High Nobility" makes the experience of playing "Midieval[sic] Christian High Nobility" better. We could just make everyone who's not a Christian of the Heathen religion, but that would be a shallow and boring experience.
2) Non-Christians are probably going to be playable at some point, whether in an expansion or through modding. It's better to have them there and modeled correctly from the beginning, so Paradox doesn't have to try to do a quick and dirty fix to get them playable later on.

Also, re: your point #1, it's not an entire religion for "just that one County[sic]," it would also be the religion of the Khazars and various courtiers.

For one thing you're overestimating the influence of the Khazars if you think there's a historical reason for any of them to be in the 1066 scenario. They disapear from the historical record rapidly after the sack of Itil in 968. It's probable they survived that event as a political unit, but by 1066 they were not even a Baronial-level power. If we need Jews because there were Khazar remnants running around we also need Zoroastorians, heck probably some Roman pagans too

Which leaves Court Jews and a County.*

You seem to be underestimiting the technical difficulty of including Court Jews. Here's the problem, and it's one that appeared in CK1: they never got married, so they had no kids. Even if they'd been equipped with their own marraige AI (as Baron-level characters may be) there wasn't exactly a sizeable population base to start with. Why bother with a single man-hour of work on a religion that's gonna dissapear after 30 years of gameplay? I don't neccesarily agree with this decision, but I understand it.

Now we're down to a County. If it was just the County you might win, but remember those Court Jews. If you're including the Ethiopian Jews you can't justify not including Court Jews, which means you have to add in special marraige AI (or they'll die out) and make it smart enough that it doesn't marry every Iberian Jew to an African on the first day of the game. And you've got to add the work they're putting into every CK2 religion, including lots of Jew-specific events for those Court Jews. Sounds like a couple man-days, minimum. From a really good man. Give it to somebody whose not really good, or demand specific events for every High Holiday, and we're talking man months. That's got to be 2%-3% of the development budget.

Nick

*Capitalized, incorrectly, because I can. What can I say "I feel petty, oh so petty..."
 
For one thing you're overestimating the influence of the Khazars if you think there's a historical reason for any of them to be in the 1066 scenario. They disapear from the historical record rapidly after the sack of Itil in 968. It's probable they survived that event as a political unit, but by 1066 they were not even a Baronial-level power. If we need Jews because there were Khazar remnants running around we also need Zoroastorians, heck probably some Roman pagans too

Which leaves Court Jews and a County.*

You seem to be underestimiting the technical difficulty of including Court Jews. Here's the problem, and it's one that appeared in CK1: they never got married, so they had no kids. Even if they'd been equipped with their own marraige AI (as Baron-level characters may be) there wasn't exactly a sizeable population base to start with. Why bother with a single man-hour of work on a religion that's gonna dissapear after 30 years of gameplay? I don't neccesarily agree with this decision, but I understand it.

Now we're down to a County. If it was just the County you might win, but remember those Court Jews. If you're including the Ethiopian Jews you can't justify not including Court Jews, which means you have to add in special marraige AI (or they'll die out) and make it smart enough that it doesn't marry every Iberian Jew to an African on the first day of the game. And you've got to add the work they're putting into every CK2 religion, including lots of Jew-specific events for those Court Jews. Sounds like a couple man-days, minimum. From a really good man. Give it to somebody whose not really good, or demand specific events for every High Holiday, and we're talking man months. That's got to be 2%-3% of the development budget.

Nick

*Capitalized, incorrectly, because I can. What can I say "I feel petty, oh so petty..."

Those assumptions about court jews are based on the original CKI religious conversion mechanism. They won`t die out if their conversions to other religions are coded to be difficult, or extremely rare, and if there are increased chances for their children to keep the jewish religion. Thus, there is no need for a special marriage AI.

The problem here, at least in my opinion, is that keeping them out - even if there are good technical reasons for this - is so extremely ahistorical that the depiction of medieval Europe would be, well, flawed beyond plausibility.

Anyhow, I would also agree that zoroastrians and roman pagans should be there as well.
 
Those assumptions about court jews are based on the original CKI religious conversion mechanism. They won`t die out if their conversions to other religions are coded to be difficult, or extremely rare, and if there are increased chances for their children to keep the jewish religion. Thus, there is no need for a special marriage AI.
Unless there's been a dev announcement I'm not aware of there won't be any marraige AI for non-Barons. Which means that, unless our Court Jews all get baronies (and we know how much the Pope'd love that) they'll all die virgins. Unless there's a specific AI created to match Jews...

As for it being "ahistorical," I'm not sure where you're getting your info. My recollection is that in Midieval times the practice was limited to Iberia. Other areas are being evenly more brutally reduced to the Midieval Catholic Mean. Irelands Brehon Laws, for example, won't appear. The extremely important institution of Tanist (Crown Prince), and the unique legislative process that led to the selection of a new one (the Derbfhine) aren't gonna be present. If you ask me that's a bit more important then whether the King of Navarre's got a Jewish Steward.

BTW, I checked the wiki on Court Jews. Most of the ones listed were late Rennaissance/Early Modern Period. There was one guy listed in period.

Nick
 
You're assuming that because they're not Europeans they're tribals? Representing Ethiopia, at least, as tribal would be inaccurate. And again, Nubia was playable in the first CK. What would the reasoning be to change that?
Acctually tribes did exist in Ethiopia, but the Ethiopian upper echelon was not that tribal. My thoughts are more in the line of: Why the Hell are they on the map, since they won't be very well represented anyways.

But I wish they were playable and well made, since I'd like to play as some cadet branch of the Solomonic dyansty, trying to forge an alliance with the different ethnic groups, tribes and princes to claim the throne, and then try to invade my Jewish and Muslim neighbors.:D
 
For one thing you're overestimating the influence of the Khazars if you think there's a historical reason for any of them to be in the 1066 scenario. They disapear from the historical record rapidly after the sack of Itil in 968. It's probable they survived that event as a political unit, but by 1066 they were not even a Baronial-level power.
There's absolutely no basis for you to say that they only existed as a baronial-level power, that's pure conjecture on your part. The historical record is so sparse in this time and on this subject, it's impossible to say. And since it's impossible to say, I don't see why having a small county- or duchy-level state to represent a Khazar remnant is such a bad thing. It adds flavor and diversity to the region, instead of having it just be Yet More Muslims and Pagan Nomads.
If we need Jews because there were Khazar remnants running around we also need Zoroastorians
Why not? There were some parts of Persia that were still majority Zoroastrian in 1066. For that matter, Egypt and parts of Syria were still mostly Christian at game start as well. I don't think that Paradox needs a painstaking recreation of medieval religious demographics, but some acknowledgment of the diversity and complexity of the religious situation would be nice, instead of having the entire Middle East and North Africa be Sunni.
probably some Roman pagans too
lol
You seem to be underestimiting the technical difficulty of including Court Jews. Here's the problem, and it's one that appeared in CK1: they never got married, so they had no kids. Even if they'd been equipped with their own marraige AI (as Baron-level characters may be) there wasn't exactly a sizeable population base to start with. Why bother with a single man-hour of work on a religion that's gonna dissapear after 30 years of gameplay? I don't neccesarily agree with this decision, but I understand it.
Uhh. Generate more by event. Give the event(s) a low MTTH for Iberian and Polish monarchs. Problem solved.

It would be inappropriate if they were founding their own dynasties actually. Part of the reason that Jewish courtiers were used is because (unlike the Christian nobility) they had no power base of their own, and thus were dependent on their liege and unlikely to work against his interests. If they are marrying and founding their own dynasties, well, that kind of implies that they have their own power base.
And you've got to add the work they're putting into every CK2 religion, including lots of Jew-specific events for those Court Jews.
You mean Paradox will have to do their job, and create medieval flavor for their medieval history game? Quelle horreur!
That's got to be 2%-3% of the development budget.
Cool, again with the baseless conjecture. You've even made up a statistic to go with it.
 
Last edited:
Unless there's been a dev announcement I'm not aware of there won't be any marraige AI for non-Barons. Which means that, unless our Court Jews all get baronies (and we know how much the Pope'd love that) they'll all die virgins. Unless there's a specific AI created to match Jews...

As for it being "ahistorical," I'm not sure where you're getting your info. My recollection is that in Midieval times the practice was limited to Iberia. Other areas are being evenly more brutally reduced to the Midieval Catholic Mean. Irelands Brehon Laws, for example, won't appear. The extremely important institution of Tanist (Crown Prince), and the unique legislative process that led to the selection of a new one (the Derbfhine) aren't gonna be present. If you ask me that's a bit more important then whether the King of Navarre's got a Jewish Steward.

BTW, I checked the wiki on Court Jews. Most of the ones listed were late Rennaissance/Early Modern Period. There was one guy listed in period.

Nick

Any discussion about what is historically more relevant - or not - is bound to fail. You mentioned the Brehon Laws and the Tanist - it´s bad that they won´t show up, for they should. But, anyways, it does not make sense that an european noble cannot have jewish courtiers, for there were jews - usually literate and extremely qualified - all along Europe. The medieval imagination was, in many aspects, profoundly linked to the presence of jews amongst christianity. Think of it - not having jews is like not having a whole culture or nation that existed during the timeframe.

I can´t see why there couldn not be a specific AI. But Calanctus proposal solves the problem even better.

By the way, did you really carefully check the wiki? Because the term "Court Jew" is very specific, and is by no means a synonim for courtier. But this discussion seems rather pointless - you´ll keep defending their exclusion, and I´ll keep defending that they should be included, so, I believe we can call it off.
 
By the way, did you really carefully check the wiki? Because the term "Court Jew" is very specific, and is by no means a synonim for courtier. But this discussion seems rather pointless - you´ll keep defending their exclusion, and I´ll keep defending that they should be included, so, I believe we can call it off.

The discussion was already pointless from the start, see this thread.

When the developers have decided on something like this it is very unlikely (or in other words, it is not going to happen) that they will change it.
 
The discussion was already pointless from the start, see this thread.

When the developers have decided on something like this it is very unlikely (or in other words, it is not going to happen) that they will change it.

I saw that thread before. I was only criticizing the decision, but without real hope of reversion ...
 
The discussion was already pointless from the start, see this thread.

When the developers have decided on something like this it is very unlikely (or in other words, it is not going to happen) that they will change it.

Hey Veldmaarschalk, since you're here I was wondering if maybe for one of the Dev Diaries could be about shedding some light on 'new' areas on the map that weren't there on CK, I think it would be pretty neat :)
 
You're assuming that because they're not Europeans they're tribals? Representing Ethiopia, at least, as tribal would be inaccurate. And again, Nubia was playable in the first CK. What would the reasoning be to change that?

Frist, the christianity practised in Ethiopia is very different from the one practised in Russia.

Second, to clarify, I mean that we dont know much about Ethiopia during this time. Sure they had a king, but did he grant fiefs to his vassals similar to the style in Europe or were there others factors involved? like giving them to powerful tribal factions in order to get their support. How did Ethiopian courts look like? How did the nobles act etc.?
 
Frist, the christianity practised in Ethiopia is very different from the one practised in Russia.

Second, to clarify, I mean that we dont know much about Ethiopia during this time. Sure they had a king, but did he grant fiefs to his vassals similar to the style in Europe or were there others factors involved? like giving them to powerful tribal factions in order to get their support. How did Ethiopian courts look like? How did the nobles act etc.?

We know tons about how the Ethiopian court worked like, its pretty well documented, especially compared to Nubia. You can find lots of information on it is as simple as looking through google books for 'Ethiopian royal court' or similar terms and there is a lot of information available. Basically though it was like in Castille, a royal court and a large retinue that would move from place to place with no real fixed capital in order to assert their dominance over their vassals. As for vassals it was structured very similarly to European feudal society, the Emperor had his own personal demesne and controlled several regional kingdoms such as Shewa and powerful tribes such as the Tigray and Agaw. I'd go into more detail but I'm sort of short on time right now but suffice to say that information on the structure of the Ethiopian royal court and of Ethiopian feudalism are not difficult to find at all
 
We know tons about how the Ethiopian court worked like, its pretty well documented, especially compared to Nubia. You can find lots of information on it is as simple as looking through google books for 'Ethiopian royal court' or similar terms and there is a lot of information available. Basically though it was like in Castille, a royal court and a large retinue that would move from place to place with no real fixed capital in order to assert their dominance over their vassals. As for vassals it was structured very similarly to European feudal society, the Emperor had his own personal demesne and controlled several regional kingdoms such as Shewa and powerful tribes such as the Tigray and Agaw. I'd go into more detail but I'm sort of short on time right now but suffice to say that information on the structure of the Ethiopian royal court and of Ethiopian feudalism are not difficult to find at all

Ok then I apologise for my ignorence...