• 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.
Well, it's Friday and high time to spill the beans on the new expansion for Crusader Kings II; the Sword of Islam. Judging by the forum, playable Muslims is the most requested feature for CKII, and who are we to disagree? We always wanted to do it, provided we could do the Muslim world justice. That time is now (or, well, soon :) ). As with the Ruler Designer DLC, the Sword of Islam will be released together with a major content patch. What you get with the Sword of Islam is simply the ability to play as the Muslim rulers, but all the new mechanics will be there and running for the AI (or other players in multiplayer) even if you don't have the expansion.

I'll be doing three dev diaries on the Sword of Islam, each one dealing with some unique features for the Muslims as well as some free features that everyone will have access to simply by patching to 1.06.

THE SWORD OF ISLAM

One of the major hassles with making Muslims playable was the prevalence of text with obviously Christian or Western terminology. Therefore, we had to go through all text to make it fit the setting if you are playing a Muslim. Often, this required writing whole new events and decisions. For example, Muslims don't hold tournaments, they have the Furusiyya instead, which is an exhibition of martial arts and horsemanship. They don't hold Grand Feasts, they observe the Ramadan, etc. We also added some completely new decisions, like going on the Hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca), which will initiate a cool little event driven story of what happens on the way to and from the holy city. Of course, there is also a whole slew of events dealing with various new gameplay features (more on that in later dev diaries.)

Another issue we needed to solve was the Gothic looking graphical interface of Crusader Kings II, which we felt did not really work when playing as a Muslim ruler. So we did a complete reskin with sand tones and green symbols and patterns instead of the church window graphics of Christian rulers. Yet another problem was that many event pictures looked distinctly Western/Christian, so we've added about 25 new ones to serve as Muslim equivalents. Then there are all the little things, like trait icons with crosses, the Crusade banner, etc. All of that has been changed to provide the right atmosphere. We've even changed the five councillor models for Muslims when they're out in the provinces performing jobs. It's all been a lot of work, but I think it turned out really well.

Muslims get a slightly different set of character traits; they don't get the Kinslayer, Crusader, Celibate and Chaste Traits. Instead, they get the Mujahid, Hajjaj, Faqih (Islamic law expert), Hafiz (has memorized the Koran), Sayyid (agnatic descendent of Fatima or one of Muhammad's uncles) and Mirza (child of a Sayyida mother) traits.

Lastly, Muslims get another set of honorary titles to hand out to their vassals. They all get a few special flavour events - especially the Chief Qadi - a position requiring an ecclesiastical education.

SoI_04.jpg

That's it for the Sword of Islam in this dev diary; next time I will go into the core dynamics of playing as a Muslim ruler.

THE 1.06 PATCH

Now then, here's some of the free stuff we're giving ya'll in the 1.06 patch...

First off, we thought the southwest corner of the map looked a bit dull, so we added a bunch of new provinces down there, representing the flourishing civilizations of the Manden people; Ghana, Mali and Songhay. The area comes with historical rulers (of course) and a new West African culture group. The region is rich but hard to reach.

SoI_05.jpg

For flavour, we have also made it so that duchy tier and above titles held by rulers of Iranian, Arabic and Turkish cultures are named after the ruling dynasty. For example, the Kingdom of Egypt automatically becomes the Fatimid Sultanate while the Fatimids are in power (though the original name is also used where appropriate.) In case the same dynasty holds several high rank titles, only the highest is named after the dynasty. Thus, we can have both a Seljuk Sultanate and a Sultanate of Rum, both ruled by the Seljuk dynasty. Randomly generated characters of these cultures automatically get a dynasty name suitable to name states after (ending with -id or -n, etc).

SoI_01.jpg

Lastly (for this dev diary), there are seven new creatable empires (the Arabian Empire, the Empire of Persia, Britannia, Scandinavia, Francia, Spain and Russia) and a whole slew of new de jure kingdoms, mostly to break up the old kingdom of Khazaria. Now, I know the addition of the new empires is controversial, but the creation conditions are designed to be fairly difficult to achieve, so the AI will very rarely do it. We want players to have the imperial option to strive for if they so desire - the Unions turned out to be a popular feature in Europa Universalis III.

SoI_02.jpg

Oh, and before anyone asks, patch 1.06 will be semi-compatible with old save games: you will be able to keep playing, but we're making no guarantees that the balance will not be completely upset, or that any added new provinces will be active and working.

That's it for now. Next week I'll talk about polygamy, decadence, and strong and weak claims!
 
..You are using Greek and Latin in the same phrases and "Basileus", unless specifically used in the context of the ERE (where "... Basileon Basileuon Basileuonton" is implied), as a word means "King" in Greek. Also: what's your source on that?
I'm not using Latin and Greek in the same phrases: at least eight historical rulers of Britain used the two languages together in their charters, on their seals, and so forth. :)

And by the 10th century AD 'basileus' definitely meant 'Emperor', not 'King' as it had in Classical Greek.

Source one: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...asileus Anglorum et totius Britanniae&f=false

Source two: http://195.220.134.232/numerisation/tires-a-part-www-nb/0000005547609.pdf



Ok, this pairs with the "Imperator totius Hispaniae" thing and can be ascribed, according to some previous poster, to the "oddities" category.
Sure. But it's an "oddity" that actually existed in history, and was used for official purposes by at least eight successive rulers of Britain from 930 until 1066, a period of over a century. It can't be dismissed as "fanfiction" or "fantasy", is what I'm saying.

Remember that none of these empires will exist at game start, and forming them is supposed to be difficult. As for the people saying "Claiming a title is different from getting other people to recognise it"; sure, I get that. In the game, you won't be able to claim the title until you've crushed anybody in a position to challenge your power beneath your iron boot and forced them all to swear homage to you. Eadgar definitely had kings as vassals; he got them to take him for a boat ride on the River Dee.
:)
 
Last edited:
He didn't rule Sweden either. Also, like all Non-Roman Empires in the middle ages it is just a name we use in hindsight to keep track of things. He wasn't actually an Emperor by their standards, he just had several Kingdoms and gave his son Norway (the technical reason for creating a Titular title for it in Terra Normannorum, since he shouldn't be independent from his father). The Angevin Empire wasn't an Empire either, for that matter.

Let me quote the entry on the North Sea Empire for you:

"Though technically Canute was counted among the kings, his position among his fellow-monarchs was truly imperial. Apparently he held in his hands the destinies of two great regions: the British Isles and the Scandinavian peninsulas. His fleet all but controlled two important seas, the North and the Baltic. He had built an Empire."

That's Victorian-era thinking. At the time, as it starts off, he was just a King that was so powerful that lesser Kings revered him. The difference in perspective as to what defines an "Empire" for Medieval people as opposed to modern people shows in just a few sentences.
I knew all of that, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to give me a lecture. I never said Cnut should actually be an emperor. :)
 
I'm not using Latin and Greek in the same phrases: at least eight historical rulers of Britain used the two languages together in their charters, on their seals, and so forth. :)

And by the 10th century AD 'basileus' definitely meant 'Emperor', not 'King' as it had in Classical Greek.

Source one: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...asileus Anglorum et totius Britanniae&f=false

Source two: http://195.220.134.232/numerisation/tires-a-part-www-nb/0000005547609.pdf

Your sources all seem to use the title "Basileus", not "Imperator", and even with that taken into consideration it's just what they called themselves as a matter of internal prestige. Do we make the Kings of Ireland and Scotland Emperors too? They all claimed sovereignty above Kings. Should their Duchies be Kingdoms and their Counts be Dukes? No one else considered them above Kings. Also I fail to see how one can claim the definition of "Basileus" had changed since that renders the term "Basileus Basileon Basileuon Basileuonton" absurd. Emperor of Emperors, Ruling over Emperors? They didn't rule over Emperors! The term is "King of Kings" as equivalent to being an Emperor. In it's usage with the ERE the "of Kings" part is implied, but that doesn't mean the people ceased to understand what the basic meaning of the word was (thus why the whole phrase still makes sense).

Monarchs don't go around showing themselves as inferior to their neighbours to their own people, even if they aren't on the same level.

I knew all of that, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to give me a lecture. I never said Cnut should actually be an emperor. :)

You said he ruled Sweden, so I corrected that, and it brought up the topic of being an "Empire" as labeled by modern books. Not directly targeted at you.
 
Yay, can't wait to pwn all the infidels and create eurabia :D

But I wonder if Ethiopians ever gonna survive more than 20 years into the game, that's my biggest gripe right now. How hard would it be to make muslims less likely to invade them? there's a tradition going all the way back to the Prophet's times that they must not attack Ethiopia, so maybe have them pay a big piety price to do it? Also since "monophisite" is not a heresy at all (it's one of the oldest, if not THE oldest forms of Christianity around so it's more like catholics are the heretics compared to them), they could be taken out of the heretic club so christians wont attack them either?

Anyway, I don't care how yall do it, please fix Ethiopians
 
What I'm saying is that Emperor-tier titles in CK2 just ambiguously represent the concept of "first among kings" and not necessarily "inheritor of the roman legacy"

Except that's exactly what Emperors were in Europe. In every case. The Russians claimed to be the Third Rome and to succeed Byzantium. Byzantium was the Eastern Roman Empire and the HRE, although with dubious legitimacy, claimed to be the Western Empire. No one took any other claim to "Empire" seriously at all.

or whatever.

Sums up the "Gameplay"-crowd nicely there (as if anyone is opposed to Gameplay. Historicity = Gameplay in a game like this, otherwise it's badly designed gameplay).


Yay, can't wait to pwn all the infidels and create eurabia :D

But I wonder if Ethiopians ever gonna survive more than 20 years into the game, that's my biggest gripe right now. How hard would it be to make muslims less likely to invade them? there's a tradition going all the way back to the Prophet's times that they must not attack Ethiopia, so maybe have them pay a big piety price to do it? Also since "monophisite" is not a heresy at all (it's one of the oldest, if not THE oldest forms of Christianity around so it's more like catholics are the heretics compared to them), they could be taken out of the heretic club so christians wont attack them either?

Anyway, I don't care how yall do it, please fix Ethiopians

What I did in the meanwhile was to write in a bit that disables Muslims/EthiopianChristians from Holy Warring against each other. Makes it much safer and I don't know about many attempts at Jihad were conducted southwards, as I understand there's natural barriers and trade?
 
Last edited:
Next Dev Diary should include this song:

[video=youtube;n_IXw1UOQJ8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_IXw1UOQJ8[/video]
 
Please stop bitching about ahistorical empires in sandbox game. HRE was not that long in existance, an the way to form a new empire could perfectly be quite similar.

Yea, the HRE was neither "holy", nor "roman" (lol) and not a real empire either, so whining about other fantasy empires seems pointless.
 
Yea, the HRE was neither "holy", nor "roman" (lol) and not a real empire either, so whining about other fantasy empires seems pointless.

It doesn't matter that WE know that their documents justifying their creation were forged. Again, that emphasis matters. It doesn't that we know it. They didn't at the time, so it was treated as a legitimate successor. In a game that takes place at that point in time it doesn't matter at all that they were basically the "United States of Germany", because they were afforded Imperial Dignity, like the ERE.

The "Empire of Scandinavia" did not and is friggin' ridiculous.
 
It doesn't matter that WE know that their documents justifying their creation were forged. Again, that emphasis matters. It doesn't that we know it. They didn't at the time, so it was treated as a legitimate successor. In a game that takes place at that point in time it doesn't matter at all that they were basically the "United States of Germany", because they were afforded Imperial Dignity, like the ERE.

The "Empire of Scandinavia" did not and is friggin' ridiculous.

It did not, yes. But we are talking about alternative history in sandbox game.
 
Except that's exactly what Emperors were in Europe. In every case. The Russians claimed to be the Third Rome and to succeed Byzantium. Byzantium was the Eastern Roman Empire and the HRE, although with dubious legitimacy, claimed to be the Western Empire. No one took any other claim to "Empire" seriously at all.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The new "Empires" in CK2 are just a 'first among kings' thing, and not necessarily related with the actual Empires.

...but couldn't in theory, someone in Spain or Britain declare themselves to be the continuation of Roman authority in those places anyway?
 
It doesn't matter that WE know that their documents justifying their creation were forged. Again, that emphasis matters. It doesn't that we know it. They didn't at the time, so it was treated as a legitimate successor. In a game that takes place at that point in time it doesn't matter at all that they were basically the "United States of Germany", because they were afforded Imperial Dignity, like the ERE.

The "Empire of Scandinavia" did not and is friggin' ridiculous.

Using the argument that they did not know that it was a forged claim, then why would it matter if you implement a similar "false" Empire that is ahistorical but uses a similar pretense? Sort of a hypocritical statement, to put it more bluntly.
 
I was already excited for this, now... I just don't know how to control myself
 
...but couldn't in theory, someone in Spain or Britain declare themselves to be the continuation of Roman authority in those places anyway?

Because that just means they're a pretender against the HRE for the West or the ERE for the East. They are trying to take on their titles, not create a new one. I'm absolutely fine with this. If they implemented a mechanic for creating a "Pretender Empire" and then if - and only if - you lever a decisive and permanent defeat against your respective half of the Empire then you could potentially be crowned as the legitimate successor in their place and they're reduced to Kingdom-tier. It should be very difficult but potentially doable. That'd be fantastic. That is not the same thing as throwing around nonsensical fanfiction all across the map and forcing it on everyone as the default game, though.

Using the argument that they did not know that it was a forged claim, then why would it matter if you implement a similar "false" Empire that is ahistorical but uses a similar pretense? Sort of a hypocritical statement, to put it more bluntly.

Not even slightly hypocritical at all, you just don't understand what it actually means. The claim isn't "Guys, Contantine I totally wrote a note that said I could have his stuff!" and then that someone else could re-write the same note. It's that he granted ultimate authority over the West to the Pope in Rome to decide over. He then crowned the HRE as -the- legitimate successor to the West. This could potentially be undone (although Popes who messed with the most powerful ruler in Christendom often found Anti-Popes taking their seat), but it would always be the same title and only one of the Empires would be Legitimate in the West.
 
Your sources all seem to use the title "Basileus", not "Imperator"
No, they mention both titles. Basileus just seems to have be the more commonly-used of the two, probably because it was better-known at the time thanks to the other basileus over in Constantinople.

and even with that taken into consideration it's just what they called themselves as a matter of internal prestige. Do we make the Kings of Ireland and Scotland Emperors too?
I don't know. Did they ever claim that title? Did they have people who are recognised in CK2 as being of king rank doing homage to them as vassals? Besides, it's hardly just a matter of "internal prestige" when you're actively fighting neighbouring kingdoms to force them to acknowledge your claim to be their imperial overlord.

You're arguing in favour of historicity. The rulers of pre-Norman Conquest Britain historically claimed the title of Emperor. So logically, shouldn't you be favour of this change instead of trying to argue against it? :)


Also I fail to see how one can claim the definition of "Basileus" had changed since that renders the term "Basileus Basileon Basileuon Basileuonton" absurd. Emperor of Emperors, Ruling over Emperors? They didn't rule over Emperors! The term is "King of Kings" as equivalent to being an Emperor.
Then why did Charlemagne negotiate for 12 years with the Eastern Empire, and even go so far as to cede them several provinces, just to get them to agree to address him as 'basileus'? Why did Nicephorus and Michael refuse for so long to use that title, if (according to you) it simply meant 'king'?