• 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!
 
The Emperor of Scandinavia can give the Kingdom of Poland to a relative, and the King of Poland will be a vassal of the Scandinavian Emperor from that point onward. After a century, the Kingdom of Poland de jure becomes part of Scandinavia and stays that way for the entire game unless another empire conquers it.p

This is exactly why they emperor level tiers are valid. Several examples of kings swearing fealty to other kings are in medieval history. The saddest one (for me) the long fealty of the scottish kings to the english throne (Alexander II almost got away from it, taking a lot of vassals with him, but then the english king died sadly).
 
Sounds really great. Instant purchase.
 
This is exactly why they emperor level tiers are valid. Several examples of kings swearing fealty to other kings are in medieval history. The saddest one (for me) the long fealty of the scottish kings to the english throne (Alexander II almost got away from it, taking a lot of vassals with him, but then the english king died sadly).

Ah, but kings don't swear fealty to kings in CK2, and they don't swear fealty to emperors either. If you're an emperor and you try to offer vassalization to a king, you quickly realize that it's not possible because there's a negative infinity "I'm a King!" modifier which prevents them from ever saying yes. As far as I know, Kings don't have the option to swear fealty to emperors either. The only way you get Kingdoms as imperial vassals is through inheritance or conquest, as far as I know.
 
I know you didn't say that. I was trying to look at it from both possible points of view because you didn't offer a view point on that. My point is that if we're talking about mechanics, then we're talking about the game play differences being an emperor brings to the table. I too grow weary of people whining about historical semantics, so I like I talk about gameplay mechanics when I can.

So tell me what you think. Does making Scandinavia an empire introduce any game play related utility? Does the addition of an extra title to the King of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway really change the gameplay experience for him? If not, then what purpose does it serve? Going back to your point, the mechanics aren't even really "I am an emperor" or "I am not an emperor." The mechanics are more to the tune of "I can have kings as my vassals" and "I can not have kings as my vassals." The concept of an "emperor" in context isn't something the game recognizes, because it's a mindless AI. "Emperor" in this context is just something we see through the localization. The game only knows "this tier can vassalize kings and these tiers cannot."

Like Kanin_Usagi just said - delegate.
 
I do agree that titular is the way to go but we can just have both so I don't really see it as a problem -shrug-. I absolutely love the work that's gone into Sword of Islam so far and I hope the future DLC will have this much thought put into it; is it safe to say DLC that integrates proper mechanics for Republics will be coming? I only ask because I'd love Essos in the Game of Thrones mod haha!
 
Surely writers do take all the decisions about how a character turns out and by the time the reader sees this it's already written and published? But let's not get lost in analogies: If you don't like the new empires, how exactly does their presence affect your gameplay? I suppose you see them on the de jure empire mapmode, but that's about it. If you dislike them you obviously won't form them, and it's pretty unlikely you'll see the AI make them, so they have pretty much no effect on you at all. On the offchance the AI does manage to make one in a game you're playing, does their being called "Empire of <place>" rather than "King of X, Y, Z" make any practical difference to you? And finally, if you hate them to the point of modding them out, it's not hard to do.

Darn. I was trying to delete that post and avoid that line of discussion. Sent you a PM. As for the iure empires, my point is that they shouldn't be de iure. This is not because I'm trying to tell you guys how to make your game, as in mechanics or inspiration or whatever, but because 'de iure' is a fixed expression, it means that something exists legally if not for practical purposes (everyday life etc.). Like a de iure liege, who may have no power over you or a de iure vassal who may be able to tell you to please mind the area you can actually enforce your decisions in. But 'of right' (because some such custom formed, treaty was made, whatever), one of you is the other's liege. A good example is Derbent being a de iure duchy of Georgia as of 1066, even though it has been a Muslim emirate since early 9th century (or at least that's how far the list of rulers goes, all of them Muslim).

So my point with the de iure empire of Scandinavia thing (for example) is that when I load a historical start, like the Norman Invasion or Third Crusade, called so for a reason (as in it supposedly roughly reflects the state of this part of the world at that time in history), it tells me that, let's say, Orleans is legally or customarily considered to be part of an Empire of Francia. Which very obviously is not a part of the recorded history preceding the point from which the player takes over (and other guys are also freed to do as they want or can). This is really as bad to me as seeing, let's say, a duchy being in a different de iure kingdom than it was historically (sorta like putting Lancaster in Scotland for balance, lame example but still). At best, it makes me feel like I'm starting from a point which is already in alternative history (not 'real' Europe in e.g. 1066, very much similar to having e.g. a 1067 start in which Harold Godwinson won), or a wrong kind of history (like in the example with a de iure duchy being under the wrong de iure kingdom). I do mind their de iure existence much more than the fact that AI could form them. If I see an Emperor of Francia on the map, I don't really need to delve into how he got the title. But if I see a pre-existing de iure Empire of Francia, this hurts me (I'm not kidding, it really does). To an extent, the same was true with K. of Jerusalem existing de iure in the 1066 start (especially back before there was a separate K. of Syria).

I am in no way opposed to there being formable empires (as titular ones) and to those empires, with time, acquiring de iure vassals like everybody else, becoming de iure titles at that point. In fact, I believe the idea is sensible. But they should be titular, like, let's say, the Kingdom of Trinacria, or Cyprus, or Nubia (and, for the record, I think Jerusalem should be titular too, at least if we start in 1066), only starting to have de iure land when some land has actually been absorbed into them through the usual 100 years of continued rule. Which, IMHO, would be perfectly fine for them to be allowed to do, just like the HRE or ERE absorbing whatever kingdom it inherited or conquered outside.

Again, my only point being that a historical start shouldn't imply that there exists, by right or custom, an Empire of France or Spain or Britain as of 1066, or as of any specific day, month and year. I am not denying the kings of those parts of the world their 'right' to get powerful and get ideas. ;) My only problem with de iure empires like Scandinavia or France is the implied pre-existence or existence in a dormant form etc.

Okay, another argument that comes to my mind is that with difficult conditions like 80% of the land, a kingdom held outside etc., it really sounds like a tailored script event rather than the usual de iure title creation. Once a de iure empire exists, I think it shouldn't be any harder to form than any other already existing de iure empire (regardless if it has a current holder). From my point of view, if you already acknowledge that something de iure exists, it shouldn't be harder to form than any other de iure (like requiring a higher percentage of the affected land than other de iures do etc.).

Perhaps I could ask you a question (supposing that those are de iure empires, not titular): what benefit is there in those empires being de iure that couldn't be achieved by making them titular empires?

Edit: Another question that I dread to ask: Does the Russian Empire include Lithuania? (I presume it wouldn't include Poland.)

Personally, I don't really like having extra empires in the game; the original empire setup was closer to how I wanted it. But as long as, as was said in the DD, they are difficult enough to make that the AI won't be making them (often), it doesn't bug me too much.

On the other hand, I'm glad that Kingdom of Byzantium was split into fantasy kingdoms. To me, the point of those is essentially, if the Empire breaks up, what kingdoms could form in its lands.

I think that's because initially there were probably no plans to make player-creatable titular kingdoms and existing titular kingdoms (and other tier titles) served to reflect the titles and powers of certain historical rulers in the historical starts.

Now we got the ability to form titular kingdoms with different conditions from de iure kingdoms... And there is some overlapping and some redundancy. This said, I can understand the Kingdom of Byzantion. To me, it's basically the core Byzantium, different from the lands covered by the historical kingdoms all around (Armenia is perfectly historical and I'm gonna defend it to the last drop of virtual blood ;)). There are some kingdoms I can't really understand.

But back to emperors, I think titular empire creation would be a better choice. This is what the 'emperors' of Serbia and Bulgaria did. Some of whom were actually recognised by Byzantium (and as early as 9th century):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bulgarian_monarchs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_monarchs

Those guys in Spain or Britain would fall in the same category, except less successful.

For the record, there was once a Trebisond Empire (although in the ruler's mind he was the true Roman Emperor), which is a despotate (titular kingdom) in the game. How about a titular empire for them? I mean, in historical starts from 1204 onwards. It wouldn't make much sense to make a formable titular Empire of Trebisond as of 1066, since it resulted from a Byzantine claimant having enough power to assert himself at the eastern border following the botched fourth crusade and sack of Constantinople. Different things would happen to Byzantium in a game that started in 1066.
 
Last edited:
Well it also means you won't have to deal with however many dukes. What's easier? Dealing with three Kings and a couple of dukes, or dealing with fifty dukes and counts? It will help clean up any mega-kingdoms people create by the end of the game.

Why should it be easier though or for that matter not create titles on purpose? When you manage to reach the top of the pyramid, managing many vassals is a part of the job; I'd call removing that easier, but not more fun (that may be just me though, but I don't dislike challenges). For instance the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire IMHO should have a few ducal vassals and not just vassal kingdoms. This IMHO should also apply to any newly added (not my preference) empires, because at least to me easy isn't the same as fun.
 
Last edited:
Why, Darkrenown? Really? I have spent words of high praise towards Paradox on these boards and with my real life friends for your customer care, your business model, your forum policy and overall your beatiful games but honestly, this approach seems to me somewhat unfair towards Nuril - and, let me say, also to some extent authoritative. I understand that you are promoting the new DLC also on this channel (I believe that 99% of the people would buy it anyways on these boards) but we should not be afraid of some inevitable a little bit 'warm' debate on single issues. I personaly do not think that Nuril's approach was offensive, his hyperbole was aimed at sterotyping an extreme view of a totally hypothetical gameplay-historicity tradeoff as interpreted from another player's post, a tradeoff which I guess does not exist, and not the new additions that have been announced.

Anyways, you guys expected from the first post the issue to be controversial. From the opening post it's apparent that you have looked for a compromise in the development stage when designing those new empires. Why don't we all take a more constructive approach to find the actual best compromise? The beauty of CK2, among the other things, is that it's an evolving game with high potential, and it can be made better and better in the years to come, like EU3, HoI3 and others. One thing is clear from this thread: that everybody would like to see a gameplay solution to the issue of holding multiple kingdoms outside HRE and ERE, and having more potential empires is a first step towards that. Another thing that's clear is that everybody in the "Roman faction" - the one that includes for instance Nuril and me - would be content with some mechanic claiming Roman or whatever Imperial legitimacy for new empires at least in Christendom. Clearly this is too late to be introduced now in 1.06, but why don't we discuss potential extension (I'm not saying developers should be involved in the discussion actively, or that this should happen in this thread) to make good suggestions for the future extensions and expansions? How the gameplay-enhancing possibility cannot be seen in this (to 'replace' an emperor from the otside would be even more satisfying for players, probably more than new countries decisions in EU3 and V2)?

Paradox has been making great games also for its ability to 'listen fans'; it would be weird if such an opportunity would be lost now.

Paolo

This deserves to be repeated. The gulf between "gameplay" and "historicity" is a false dichotomy, used both by fans and developers to push agendas and cut off discussion. If the mechanisms of history are interesting enough to make a game out of, surely they should be preserved as much as possible? It's really just a matter of abstraction, beyond that.
 
Why should it be easier though or for that matter not create titles on purpose? When you manage to reach the top of the pyramid, managing a many vassals is a part of the job; I'd call removing that easier, but not more fun (that may be just me though, but I don't dislike challenges). For instance the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire IMHO should have a few ducal vassals and not just vassal kingdoms. This IMHO should also apply to any newly added (not my preference) empires, because at least to me easy isn't the same as fun.

I do not think it would be necessarily easier. Since kings usually have much more power than dukes, it might just be a disaster when a civil war breaks out, more even so if the kings choose to marry their sons or daughters to those of another king, so that they can call up their allies when they plot against their liege.
 
Why should it be easier though or for that matter not create titles on purpose? When you manage to reach the top of the pyramid, managing a many vassals is a part of the job; I'd call removing that easier, but not more fun (that may be just me though, but I don't dislike challenges). For instance the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire IMHO should have a few ducal vassals and not just vassal kingdoms. This IMHO should also apply to any newly added (not my preference) empires, because at least to me easy isn't the same as fun.
I would assume that Kings would more than make up for it by being quite bitchy. You'd go from having a hundred dukes who are each fairly minor nuisances each, to two or three mega-blocs of power in your domain who could very well tear you, and each other, apart from the inside if you aren't careful. So not necessarily easier at all, just a different kind of challenging. I would even say that there should be new crown laws for Emperors, and at the lower one or two tiers, you have very little - or maybe even no - control over your Kings.
 
I do not think it would be necessarily easier. Since kings usually have much more power than dukes, it might just be a disaster when a civil war breaks out, more even so if the kings choose to marry their sons or daughters to those of another king, so that they can call up their allies when they plot against their liege.

My easier remark referred to the previous post I quoted; however IMHO managing some vassals is a part of the job. For empires this means their 'core' kingdoms like the kingdom of Byzantium used to be for the Byzantine Empire (or Germany before de jure kingdoms like Bavaria were added for the HRE), more distant part IMHO could be vassal kingdoms.
 
Last edited:
Darn. I was trying to delete that post and avoid that line of discussion. Sent you a PM. As for the iure empires, my point is that they shouldn't be de iure. This is not because I'm trying to tell you guys how to make your game, as in mechanics or inspiration or whatever, but because 'de iure' is a fixed expression, it means that something exists legally if not for practical purposes (everyday life etc.). Like a de iure liege, who may have no power over you or a de iure vassal who may be able to tell you to please mind the area you can actually enforce your decisions in. But 'of right' (because some such custom formed, treaty was made, whatever), one of you is the other's liege. A good example is Derbent being a de iure duchy of Georgia as of 1066, even though it has been a Muslim emirate since early 9th century (or at least that's how far the list of rulers goes, all of them Muslim).

So my point with the de iure empire of Scandinavia thing (for example) is that when I load a historical start, like the Norman Invasion or Third Crusade, called so for a reason (as in it supposedly roughly reflects the state of this part of the world at that time in history), it tells me that, let's say, Orleans is legally or customarily considered to be part of an Empire of Francia. Which very obviously is not a part of the recorded history preceding the point from which the player takes over (and other guys are also freed to do as they want or can). This is really as bad to me as seeing, let's say, a duchy being in a different de iure kingdom than it was historically (sorta like putting Lancaster in Scotland for balance, lame example but still).

This is how I feel, too. Putting things as de jure is kind of like saying "this is how it really was" at the date you're picking, when that clearly isn't the case. I'd be less perturbed by them if they were titular (same with ahistorical kingdoms).

Edit: Also, just getting an empire tier so you no longer have to deal with having multiple kingdoms just feels like cheating after a certain point to me. If you're, say, Denmark in the Kalmar Union, dealing with those restive Norwegian and Swedish vassals should be a challenge. They want their own kings. Being able to basically sidestep that feels like just writing off a central part of the game.
 
I'm not really fond of the fantasy stuff (empires) and I'm not really into playing muslims, but I'll give SoI a try. I'll continue to support the game hoping the christian aspect of the game can continue to be expanded.
 
My easier remark referred to the previous post in quoted, however IMHO managing some vassals is a part of the job. For empires this means their 'core' kingdoms like the king of Byzantium used to be for the Byzantine Empire, more distant part IMHO could be vassal kingdoms.
Agreed. Although I believe the original post said that "...dealing with three Kings and a couple of dukes...," and it seemed to be exactly what you proposed, a "core" kingdom with some satellite kingdoms. And I doubt it would be necessarily easier since kings, especially with the new distance debuff introduced in 1.05, are quite likely to revolt. And when they do, it might just be a bloody mess.
 
This is how I feel, too. Putting things as de jure is kind of like saying "this is how it really was" at the date you're picking, when that clearly isn't the case. I'd be less perturbed by them if they were titular (same with ahistorical kingdoms).

Edit: Also, just getting an empire tier so you no longer have to deal with having multiple kingdoms just feels like cheating after a certain point to me. If you're, say, Denmark in the Kalmar Union, dealing with those restive Norwegian and Swedish vassals should be a challenge. They want their own kings. Being able to basically sidestep that feels like just writing off a central part of the game.

+ 1
 
I just had a thought. 'Ruler Designer' was Paradox' answer to 'Horse Armor'. This is going to be the first real DLC :)

QFT. Would love to hear them weigh in on that travesty. Still annoyed they haven't answered our questions about it.

Quick question (this thread has been TLDR), but will we still be able to mod out empires, and leave land unclaimed by any particular de jure empire? Or will they become like Kingdoms, where every inch of the map must be part of an Empire?
 
QFT. Would love to hear them weigh in on that travesty. Still annoyed they haven't answered our questions about it.

Quick question (this thread has been TLDR), but will we still be able to mod out empires, and leave land unclaimed by any particular de jure empire? Or will they become like Kingdoms, where every inch of the map must be part of an Empire?

Darkenrown said you could mod them out if you don't like them. (A number of us have commented on wanting to do this.)
 
QFT. Would love to hear them weigh in on that travesty. Still annoyed they haven't answered our questions about it.

Quick question (this thread has been TLDR), but will we still be able to mod out empires, and leave land unclaimed by any particular de jure empire? Or will they become like Kingdoms, where every inch of the map must be part of an Empire?
I'm fairly certain that its been said that there are places not covered by any given empire.