• 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!
 
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."

Well, I'll have to see it in action in the game, but with the current set up, it will make the game slightly easier. Generally, having fewer and more powerful vassals makes the game easier (if I pull off an arrest/banish on a king vassal I consolidate more power than if I pull it off on a count). It will also make succession a tiny bit easier since you only have one title to worry about (but any player with significant experience is going to manipulate mechanics to ensure identical laws in all kingdoms and make sure all kingdoms go to the same heir). It will reduce the multiple top tier malus, which gets to be a real pain at certain points.

I think, based on existing mechanics, the inclusion of additional empires will make the game easier. It will also inflate prestige. I also think that, with existing mechanics, it will result in a general consolidation of the map into larger political entities sooner (a civil war in an established empire has less chance of causing a splinter than in a multi-kingdom). But I'll have to see how the whole thing turns out.
 
I think quite a lot of people in this thread don't like the idea of ahistorical de iure empires.

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.

Normally, you'd keep a small kingdom entirely in your demesne or make the gamble and create superdukes. Or you'd hand them out as training kingdoms to your eldest sons, or even totally give them up to someone from your dynasty.

Where I actually wish I could become an emperor is when I have a vassal with a kingdom claim. But then he's not from my dynasty and the kingdom is not my de iure vassal. Otherwise this would be the most obvious benefit of being an emperor.

And for people who don't need the ability to have kings as vassals but e.g. want more prestige or better marriage options or nicer title or the knowledge they've climbed to the top, I think inheriting an existing empire could be the kind of challenge but at any rate titular creatable empire would certainly satisfy that need.

I think, based on existing mechanics, the inclusion of additional empires will make the game easier. It will also inflate prestige.

Actually, won't having n-1 kings as vassals while being emperor result in less prestige than holding n king titles yourself without being an emperor, with a sufficiently high n? I remember how I went from multiduke to king in CK1 (24 or 26 ducal titles, I don't remember)... wasn't good for my prestige.

Darkenrown said you could mod them out if you don't like them. (A number of us have commented on wanting to do this.)

I don't want to sound spiteful or anything but I'll be one of the people editing them out. In fact, I'd actually mod them into titular titles just so the AI can form them and to be as close to vanilla as possible, but without actually being emotionally agitated while writing this, I just wouldn't be able (or rather won't be able) to feel comfortable knowing that they are there, as de iures. As much as they don't at all bother me as scripted titulars.
 
Last edited:
I'm tired of hearing all this bickering over the kingdoms/empires. I think I have a solution for the empires at least that will satisfy both sides
Have conditions for, for instance, Francia's formation as a TITULAR TITLE the following:
Has king title Brittany
Has king title France
Has king title Aquitaine
Has king title Burgundy
Number of kingdom-level titles held: 5 (referring to the fact that devs already mentioned have to own at least one kingdom outside the de jure lands)

Also have a solution for the whole "high king" dilemma.
It's quite possible to set the names for titles based on culture. Scotland and Ireland already call their counts Earls. Make it so ducal-level titles held by Celtic rulers are Kings, and kingdom-level titles held by Celtic rulers are high kings.

In addition, I don't like the whole Kingdom of Pomerania thing any more than most of you hard history people (I'm leaning more that direction but am a bit more flexible). I think I'd like some clarification from devs: I think Kingdom of Byzantion only exists in game to keep the Empire-level title having Byzantium as de jure lands. What I'm curious about is: is it possible for ducal-level titles to be not under any higher ruler? Could take Pomerania out of the game that way. Incorporate the Pomeranian duchies that are in HRE at 1066 start into Germany. Leave the ones outside as duchies not de jure part of any kingdom. Since we can now assimilate duchies to kingdoms, those lands could later be added to, say, Germany and Poland.

Same thing could happen with the Khazarian lands, excepting perhaps Cumania, Khwarezm, and likely Alania.

Regarding the Rus, make it an Empire level title. Rename Ruthenia-->Kiev, Rus-->Novgorod. Change localization so Russian culture kings are called Grand Prince.

Regarding Empires, if your religion is Catholic or Orthodox, a new decision should exist to petition the relevant Emperor to allow you to elevate yourself to Imperial dignity. This fires an event for the ruler that you must be simultaneously well liked and a decent match in power or a serious threat to their power in order to grant, giving you a flag that is among the requirements in an OR statement along the lines of AND (Is not Catholic/Is not Orthodox)/Has modifier Imperial Permission.

I think the Empire of Arabia should be done away with. There are two caliphates in close proximity to Arabia that could just as easily assimilate Arabia. Persia is perfectly acceptable, perhaps Mesopotamia+Persia+Khwarezm, and perhaps even being a non-titular empire at game start. Another Empire that would have precedence would be Bulgaria, existing de jure over Bulgaria + (needs a better name) Wallachia (Dacia?), the Second Bulgarian Empire only recently being dismantled by the Byzantines.

Switch Greece back to Byzantion, as an uncreatable title, representing the Imperial core. Take part of Anatolia along eastern Black Sea coast and make Tribezond. Take Albania area+Epirus as Epirus. Athens, Morea, and the islands as Morea. Perhaps not even bother with having an Anatolia.

This would deal with the common Byzantine player complaint of K. of Byzantion being too blocky and having an unmanageable number of vassals, and have somewhat precedented despotates.

In addition, the HRE could be done a bit differently. Rather than having Germany, Lotharingia, Bavaria (perhaps keep Frisia, there was a Frisian kingdom about 400 years prior) divide the Imperial lands into the stem duchies. Franconia, Saxony, Bavaria, Swabia, and Lotharingia. Not sure how to style those... certainly not a king.... Just a duke of higher status?

Thoughts?
 
Actually, won't having n-1 kings as vassals while being emperor result in less prestige than holding n king titles yourself without being an emperor, with a sufficiently high n? I remember how I went from multiduke to king in CK1 (24 or 26 ducal titles, I don't remember)... wasn't good for my prestige.

I don't want to sound spiteful or anything but I'll be one of the people editing them out. In fact, I'd actually mod them into titular titles just so the AI can form them and to be as close to vanilla as possible, but without actually being emotionally agitated while writing this, I just wouldn't be able (or rather won't be able) to feel comfortable knowing that they are there, as de iures. As much as they don't at all bother me as scripted titulars.

For the first part, it should be the same. Check your prestige modifiers sometime. You get the same prestige for holding a ducal title as you do for having a duke as a vassal. I'm assuming it would be the same with kingdom titles. For the second bit, I'll also be modding most or all of them out, as I simply do not care for the idea. I usually lean more on the side of these games being more open-ended, but I always want the starting situation to be as historical as possible, and for the game to let me change things after that.
 
I said it once, I'll say it again. There is only one good compromise for fantasy empires - have them be titular (only creatable by a ruler after owning three kingdoms, with the name of the empire dependent upon the ruler's culture or something to that effect) until a hundred years passes, and then they become de jure. I don't understand why this is so hard to do, honestly - it allows the "fun" of making your own empire, and further, it reflects how while plenty of people ran around calling themselves emperors, most people didn't really recognize that until it was hammered in with a big army. This is exactly how CK2+ does it, and it's frankly a much more elegant solution to the problem than just throwing in fantasy de jure empires.
 
Love the additions :) Sounds awesome definitely got to buy this DLC.

One question though the the Hajj event chain and not sure if its been asked yet as its an ever enlarging thread. And the question some may feel is derogatory but its an honest one.

Will players that complete the Hajj be given the name Hajji before their "first name" as this is the way of the Arabic world??

In fact its seen as a derogatory slur when I was in Iraq for the simple fact that if you called an Arab a Hajji and he hadn't gone on the Hajj it was a source of shame to the person directed at. So being called Hajji after completed the Hajj is actually in reference to completing one of the final pillars of Islam if I remember correctly.

Felt the question should be asked no idea how it could be implemented in game except as maybe something akin to "the Great" "the Just" "the Old" and it'd work since only Muslims can go on the Hajj :p just a suggestions I'd love to see in game somehow since the Hajj is an event.
 
I said it once, I'll say it again. There is only one good compromise for fantasy empires - have them be titular (only creatable by a ruler after owning three kingdoms, with the name of the empire dependent upon the ruler's culture or something to that effect) until a hundred years passes, and then they become de jure. I don't understand why this is so hard to do, honestly - it allows the "fun" of making your own empire, and further, it reflects how while plenty of people ran around calling themselves emperors, most people didn't really recognize that until it was hammered in with a big army. This is exactly how CK2+ does it, and it's frankly a much more elegant solution to the problem than just throwing in fantasy de jure empires.
The thing about them being dejure is that it allows you to require you to have a large amount of territory to make the empire. And dejure territory for an empire does make sense to some extent; with the titular system if Britannia loses England and it's ruler's claim to it, it would probably be justifiable for them to start dejure wars over Englands territory. And if Britannia is titular, a vassal king of scotland would begin dislikeing the Emperor of Britannia over it... which makes no sense.
 
In addition, the HRE could be done a bit differently. Rather than having Germany, Lotharingia, Bavaria (perhaps keep Frisia, there was a Frisian kingdom about 400 years prior) divide the Imperial lands into the stem duchies. Franconia, Saxony, Bavaria, Swabia, and Lotharingia. Not sure how to style those... certainly not a king.... Just a duke of higher status?

Thoughts?

Chopped your post up pretty good, just because I like this last part you said. The HRE did have something that went Duke > Grand Duke>ArchDuke So perhaps your suggestion of a higher status but minus King could be broken up into that. And that first part about the High King thing in Celtic lands, I was thinking in parts of the HRE and Italy it wasn't so much Dukes as it was Marquis (well for Italy) and one example in the HRE would be the Duchy of Meissen which was actually technically the Margraviate of Meissen ruled over by a Margrave. In the Feudal chain these two titles mentioned are technically below a Duke but could easily just be switched in to mean Duke, it would just give things a slightly more real feeling when playing in certain areas.

Not additions that I care about but suggestions just because I liked what you said in your post :p
 
For the first part, it should be the same. Check your prestige modifiers sometime. You get the same prestige for holding a ducal title as you do for having a duke as a vassal. I'm assuming it would be the same with kingdom titles. For the second bit, I'll also be modding most or all of them out, as I simply do not care for the idea. I usually lean more on the side of these games being more open-ended, but I always want the starting situation to be as historical as possible, and for the game to let me change things after that.
The reduction in prestige comes from having less vassals, since going from multi-duke to king means having to transfer a lot of your count vassals to your new duke vassals.
 
Well, I'll have to see it in action in the game, but with the current set up, it will make the game slightly easier. Generally, having fewer and more powerful vassals makes the game easier (if I pull off an arrest/banish on a king vassal I consolidate more power than if I pull it off on a count).

No, just no.
Look how many people say to go mega duke, or never create duchies and ensure your counts have one province.
Unless they also add the feature from CK2+ where if your vassal revolts all your other vassals join the war.
 
I'm tired of hearing all this bickering over the kingdoms/empires. I think I have a solution for the empires at least that will satisfy both sides
Have conditions for, for instance, Francia's formation as a TITULAR TITLE the following:
Has king title Brittany
Has king title France
Has king title Aquitaine
Has king title Burgundy
Number of kingdom-level titles held: 5 (referring to the fact that devs already mentioned have to own at least one kingdom outside the de jure lands)

[...]

Thoughts?

The Empire of Francia should only be creatable if you're Italian culture, >25 martial and Diligent Dwarf.

Just kidding. ;)

Basically, IMHO the only way to make France an empire would be to show the German Kaiser the bras d'honneur and lay a claim to the Roman legacy.

As for Grand Princes that you propose for the Russian culture, they wouldn't be bad, I guess. It'd be similar to the current solution used for Poland.

As for Persia, it's historical. Those kings were traditionally 'kings of kings', IMHO that's good enough.

I wouldn't really want a de iure Bulgarian Empire.

Wallachia etc. => duchies, only.

Re: Lotharingia, it's a historical kingdom. Its idea long did not die. I'd keep it. Both Lotharingia and Burgundia lay outside the historical Germany and its stem duchies, being Saxony, Bavaria, Swabia and Franconia. Those IMHO are fine as duchies.

As for cultural naming, in general, that doesn't look that bad. However, there were concrete reasons some of those people who had other dukes as vassals did not want to or could not get the actual duke title. Holding them equal to western kings would be tricky (even if you could fit the Kingdom of Cyprus like 100 times in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania).

The reduction in prestige comes from having less vassals, since going from multi-duke to king means having to transfer a lot of your count vassals to your new duke vassals.

Holding a duke title is worth more than having a duke as vassal. From >20 duchies to a 1-king with >20 ducal vassals, I doubt you'd be making more prestige (the bonus for being a king should be less than the difference between holding a ducal title and having a duke as a vassal). But for a 3-duke it could be worth it.

Chopped your post up pretty good, just because I like this last part you said. The HRE did have something that went Duke > Grand Duke>ArchDuke So perhaps your suggestion of a higher status but minus King could be broken up into that. And that first part about the High King thing in Celtic lands, I was thinking in parts of the HRE and Italy it wasn't so much Dukes as it was Marquis (well for Italy) and one example in the HRE would be the Duchy of Meissen which was actually technically the Margraviate of Meissen ruled over by a Margrave. In the Feudal chain these two titles mentioned are technically below a Duke but could easily just be switched in to mean Duke, it would just give things a slightly more real feeling when playing in certain areas.

Not additions that I care about but suggestions just because I liked what you said in your post :p

Archduke was just an invention by a Habsburgs, based on forged grant from Julius Caesar. Their problem was attitude. As in, they were not electors and they suffered pain from it. So they decided to fix the problem.

As for margraviates, I think as very powerful counts they got upgraded to dukes (same as Flanders), while weak dukes are represented as counts in the game (Piast and Rurikovich families mostly), possibly even barons.
 
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.
So what you're saying is it's extremely bad for game balance to have new de jure empires all over the place?
 
Holding a duke title is worth more than having a duke as vassal. From >20 duchies to a 1-king with >20 ducal vassals, I doubt you'd be making more prestige (the bonus for being a king should be less than the difference between holding a ducal title and having a duke as a vassal). But for a 3-duke it could be worth it.

That's incorrect. They give the same amount of prestige. If you don't believe me, load up a game as a king who holds at least one duchy and has at least one duke as a vassal, then check your monthly prestige gain to compare them.
 
I'd go for Rumelia or Romania (the latter sounds better), Hellas is as ahistorical as Greece - actually Hellas was a single theme that is what in vanilla is called, more or less, "Duchy of Athens" (a post-fourth Crusade entity). But the issue is that Rumelia or Romania should include even Anatolia, that is even more "core Roman, core Byzantine" than Greece (it was never lost to foreigners before 1066 unlike the interior of the Balkans and Greece). For my mod, I also thought about "west Romania" and "east Romania" but that sounds innatural for de jure Despotates.

They had to split Byzantium to help the Seljuks out, I guess, and those were the most reasonable names, although I think that some work can be made on redrawing the de jure borders in the area in general - Armenia and Syria for instance are quite ugly.


P.S. There were "East Francia" (Germany) and "West Francia" (France) so, why not having "West Romania" (Greece) and "East Romania" (Anatolia)?

Indeed, the name "Byzantine Empire" is a fabrication, while "Romania" is way more accurate since that's how they were calling it at the time.
 
Ok people this rather long discussion about the historical merits of Empires loses sight of something. So as this is a developer diary let me explain where this came from. As per of our weekly working structure we have 2 hours cleared on a Tuesday to play a currently in developement Paradox title, at this moment in time it is Crusader Kings 2. We added in these Empires because from our prespective they made the game more fun. This is very important because CK2 is and always will be a game. Now what about the arguement that just because we think it is fun doesn't mean it is? Well of course we fully understand that not everyone will approve every change we ever make, but we cannot aim to create a game from some mythical average gamer to maximise our mass market appeal, instead we allow the flexibility of mods.