The Sword of Islam - Dev Diary 3 | Page 10

Le_Carabinier · Jun 15, 2012

Can't wait to get my hand on SoI.

Will it be possible for a muslim ruler to claim the Caliphate for himself ?

Not long before 1066, they were 3 Caliphs (Abbassid in Baghdad, Fatimid in Cairo and Umayyad in Cordoba). In 1066 only the first two remained, but later on the Almohads of Marrakech declared themselves to be Caliphs.

I think it would be great to be able to do that.

Arko · Jun 15, 2012

qbln said:
there many mods that allows you create titular titles as emperor. so it wont be problem.

I only spoke for vanilla though.

Mods can twist thing a lot.

KevUK · Jun 15, 2012

Gorgeous DLC. Well done Paradox.

Jia Xu · Jun 15, 2012

Le_Carabinier said:
Can't wait to get my hand on SoI. Will it be possible for a muslim ruler to claim the Caliphate for himself ? Not long before 1066, they were 3 Caliphs (Abbassid in Baghdad, Fatimid in Cairo and Umayyad in Cordoba). In 1066 only the first two remained, but later on the Almohads of Marrakech declared themselves to be Caliphs. I think it would be great to be able to do that.

I don't think three Caliphates would fit in very well. In the game, the Caliphates aren't just more imperial-level titles. They're religious heads. They're the Byzantine Empire and the Ecumenical Patriarch in one. The Sunni Caliphate is the head of the Sunni religion. The Shia Caliphate is the head of the Shia religion. Where does the 3rd Caliph fit in? I suppose you could script another emperor title and call it a Caliphate, but it wouldn't be a religion head and it would be objectively inferior to the real Caliphates as far as the game goes.

Alerias · Jun 15, 2012

Jia Xu said:
I don't think three Caliphates would fit in very well. In the game, the Caliphates aren't just more imperial-level titles. They're religious heads. They're the Byzantine Empire and the Ecumenical Patriarch in one. The Sunni Caliphate is the head of the Sunni religion. The Shia Caliphate is the head of the Shia religion. Where does the 3rd Caliph fit in? I suppose you could script another emperor title and call it a Caliphate, but it wouldn't be a religion head and it would be objectively inferior to the real Caliphates as far as the game goes.

Well two Sunni Caliphs could both be claiming to be the religious head. Sort of an Islamic 'Anti-Pope' situation that comes with an Imperial-level title? Could harm religious authority, etc.

NewbieOne · Jun 15, 2012

Doomdark said:
Revokation of Duchies

Duchies (emirates) are not considered to be intrinsically hereditary, so Muslims are allowed to revoke duchy titles at no opinion penalty from other vassals. This is also a good way of properly landing your sons to avoid gaining Decadence. (Incidentally, the Byzantine Empire is now allowed to do the same thing, though it does not have the Decadence mechanics.)

Well, shouldn't the free revocal option be available only when the old duke dies? What about new vassals, as in a formerly independent duke agrees to become vassal and is revoked the next day? Might want to restrict that one a bit.

As a side note, from a historical point of view, it wouldn't be off for Byzantium to have a Muslim-style decadence mechanic. Things worked similarly in many ways.

Dynastic Imprisonment and Execution

Another Muslim exception to the normal rules is that they are allowed to freely imprison and execute men of their own dynasty, except for their own sons. Brothers and uncles are the usual targets for these Decadence reducing purges...

I think Christian rulers should dislike them for that (i.e. for kinslaying), as well as for the conquest-related CBs (especially the one where they invade a neighbouring Christian county just because they want to grab it).

I also think arbitrary (without a cause) imprisonment and execution of men of their own dynasty without causing any resentment among the vassals and subjects is a bit too far.

Expanded Combat Tactics

We have added a bunch of more (and more decisive) combat tactics, to make combat less predictable and to tie in with the new Commander traits...

Commander Traits

We have added a special type of trait called Commander traits. These are only available to characters with a Martial education, and give more specific bonuses to the character's ability to lead various troop types, and the choice of combat tactics. Characters gain one or two Commander traits when they finish their education. The effects of the Commander traits directly scale with the Martial skill of the character.

Sounds cool!

More Culture Specific Buildings

One thing that many people have requested is a broader range of culture specific buildings, and who are we to argue? We have added loads of these to give more variety and flavor.

Yay! Can we have some examples, please? Edit: Scratch this one.

AI Improvements

Apart from some minor improvements, the AI is now better at jumping on rulers who are already embroiled in dangerous wars (though it's still not excessively aggressive about this.) I've also spent a bit of time on attrition avoidance for AI armies, and the AI will now assault besieged holdings when appropriate.

Ooops! I better go and finish my AAR.

iamdanthemansta said:
Free Duchy revocation seems incredibly powerful, keeping your vassals relatively weak is one of the most difficult parts of this game. I know this has a historical basis, one of the charges Saladin leveled at the Zangid dynasty was that they were treating titles as hereditary instead of as a gift of the Caliph, but I'm worried it will make the Muslims and the ERE, much easier to play then the Western Christians. Can you revoke other levels of titles, count king, in a similar fashion? Could this mechanic be balanced out by some sort of stronger seeks independence casus belli where several leaders could rebel together against one overloard, or just something else that drastically increases the chance of vassals rebelling to represent the looser nature of sovereign vassal relations in the Muslim world?

To be honest, I think there should be a law or some other variable to make certain titles strictly heritable, others freely given and taken by the monarch, yet others somewhere in between. For example, under the more eastern dynasties of Europe, like the Piasts or the Rurikovich, perhaps some baronies would be fixed, like in the west, but province and higher tier, if it at all happened to be given to a non-dynasty-member, would be held much as a lieutenant or magistrate for the monarch. Basically appointable by the monarch at will. Some titles in the HRE in 1066 should probably still be "at the pleasure of the Kaiser" in this way.

Further, for example, while granting a title, you could have the option to tick "hereditary" or "life time" (basically liege is heir) or "for the time being" (liege is heir and revocation isbasically free). But this could be a lot of hassle to make, I guess. Still, the hereditary principle wasn't so strong yet in a number of parts of Europe in 1066.

For example, I think that most titles within the ERE should be awardable by the emperor upon the death of the previous holder, or by whomever is the immediate liege of that title.

coldsteel · Jun 15, 2012

Hey guys, the changes in the upcoming patch and DLC look great. Although I'm not that interested in playing as a Muslim country, I'm going to get the DLC mostly to support your wonderful dev efforts! Although I really do like the idea that I'll be able to play Mongols after they convert.

One thing I want to note is I'm not happy about nerfing the Byzantines by for example reducing holdings just for the sake of nerfing them. That's a band-aid solution to a deeper problem that's got to do with empire mechanics. The problem to my mind is that when empires gain new provinces it is almost impossible for them to lose them which causes blobbing. The emperor might change, but often-times the result is a civil war that ends in white-peace offers or a new emperor and a status-quo. Almost never do you see independence happening, or external powers really taking advantage of the civil war.

Le_Carabinier · Jun 15, 2012

Historically, they were occurences where two Sunni Caliphates would coexist.

A Sunni Caliphate existed in Cordoba, but ended in 1031. Another one was proclaimed in Marrakech during the 13th century. And this happened while the "official" Sunni Caliph of Baghdad (Abbassid dynasty).

Moreover, Islam is supposed to have only one Caliph. The simple fact that there is a Shia Caliph and a Sunni Caliph is a proof that a proliferation of the title is in the mood of times.

Sleight of Hand · Jun 15, 2012

What about a mechanism similar to anti-popes, but for caliphs? If you have enough piety and prestige you could declare yourself a caliph?

NewbieOne · Jun 15, 2012

Le_Carabinier said:
Historically, they were occurences where two Sunni Caliphates would coexist.

A Sunni Caliphate existed in Cordoba, but ended in 1031. Another one was proclaimed in Marrakech during the 13th century. And this happened while the "official" Sunni Caliph of Baghdad (Abbassid dynasty).

Moreover, Islam is supposed to have only one Caliph. The simple fact that there is a Shia Caliph and a Sunni Caliph is a proof that a proliferation of the title is in the mood of times.

I think the Cordoban Caliph should exist as a king-tier ruler with a claim on the leading Caliphate, much like the "Empire" of Trebisond was solved, although I wouldn't actually mind historical small-time emperors finding their way in (and being capable of vassalising kings).

rashtrakut · Jun 15, 2012

Mitchmon said:
Finally I can play as the Kingdom of Leon, inherit all my kingdoms and then destroy the kingdom title of them all to end the hate and all the end plot spam because they want that kingdom.

There will be a Spanish imperial title in the new patch so if you get that you can pass along the kingdom

Joel M Bridge · Jun 15, 2012

Le_Carabinier said:
Historically, they were occurences where two Sunni Caliphates would coexist.

A Sunni Caliphate existed in Cordoba, but ended in 1031. Another one was proclaimed in Marrakech during the 13th century. And this happened while the "official" Sunni Caliph of Baghdad (Abbassid dynasty).

Moreover, Islam is supposed to have only one Caliph. The simple fact that there is a Shia Caliph and a Sunni Caliph is a proof that a proliferation of the title is in the mood of times.

I am wonder how this will be portrait in game.

Jia Xu · Jun 15, 2012

Le_Carabinier said:
Historically, they were occurences where two Sunni Caliphates would coexist. A Sunni Caliphate existed in Cordoba, but ended in 1031. Another one was proclaimed in Marrakech during the 13th century. And this happened while the "official" Sunni Caliph of Baghdad (Abbassid dynasty). Moreover, Islam is supposed to have only one Caliph. The simple fact that there is a Shia Caliph and a Sunni Caliph is a proof that a proliferation of the title is in the mood of times.

I'm not talking about historically. In the GAME a religion can only have one head. Sunni and Shia are two different religions in the GAME, so they can both have a separate religious head. It's not possible to properly emulate this in the GAME, because in the GAME, the Cordobans are Sunni, and that means, religiously they automatically recognize the Sunni Caliph as their religious head.

tuore · Jun 15, 2012

The Farseer said:
I think the DLC just allows you to play as Muslims.

That's correct, but with the "unique in the expansion" lines in the recent dev diaries, I'm perplexed.

NewbieOne · Jun 15, 2012

Goosecreature said:
As requested, a few examples...

The Byzantines will get access to Cataphract training grounds which grants them some heavy cavalry and a small amount of horse archers, the Hungarians and Poles get Hussar training grounds which provides light cavalry with a slight defensive bonus.

Since I think only textual descriptions would be involved, would it be possible to rename the Polish version from "hussars" to "druzhina" (this)? While Hungarians had hussars earlier than we did (still only 14th century), in Poland we only really started deploying hussars (coming from Hungary and later from our own boys) in early 16th century, and I'm talking about the light cavalry version that looked like their Hungarian predecessors (basically this, although this is, strictly speaking, a predecessor unit), not the heavily armoured winged hussars the later period, i.e. from late 16th and 17th century (who looked like this). Just changing the name without any other tampering could go a long way here in terms of historical accuracy. Druzhina was basically the ruler's retinue, something akin to a bodyguard, composed of important people and their sons but probably not in its entirety. Knighthood would simply become somewhat integrated into this concept, although a western-style landed knight wouldn't necessarily need such a strong personal connection to the ruler as these guys had.

Or, alternatively, especially in the early period like 10th and 11th century, we relied heavily on shield-bearers/scutarii/tarczownicy (this). They were basically the backbone our army back then.

As for the Hungarians, actual hussars appeared in 14th century, so they'd be out of place if players or the AI could have them like in 1187. On the other hand, why not make Hungarians the only kinda-Western power with access to horse archers? They had some reputation in this regard and this went back to their initial struggles with the Kumans, as well as the fact that they were supposed to be descended from the Huns, so essentially nomads themselves several centuries back.

Druzhina cavalry & tarczownicy infantry would be the typical mix of troops deployed by a Polish prince from 10th to 12th century or so, maybe later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_army

From wiki: The Hungarian tribes of Árpád vezér who came to settle in the Carpathian Basin were noted for their fearsome light cavalry, which conducted frequent raids throughout much of Western Europe (as far as present-day Spain), maintaining their military supremacy with long range and rapid-firing reflex bows. Not until the introduction of well-regulated, plate-armored knight heavy cavalry could German emperors stop the Hungarian armies.

This is something unique that their neighbours didn't really have, so it could work well as a unique feature. The numbers might still be less than what the Mongols got. This would be very appropriate for the 1066 start Hungarians, I think, who weren't that far away from their nomadic roots at the time.

Doomdark said:
They have fewer Holdings. Mainly the Seljuks are more powerful, though, and the Caliphs are likely to call Jihad on the ERE. However, the ERE is still too powerful and we are looking into additional ways of nerfing them.

How about making them subject to Decadence, only slightly modified, so as not to allow them to get away with kinslaying? This is basically how they worked, anyway. A new emperor would be hailed by the soldiers somewhere, then get confirmed by the senate (or not) and defeat the old emperor (or die trying), which could be reflected by the commander of a doomstack being given a claim on the Empire, as well as the loyalty of his troops (against the reigning emperor or designated heir a fellow claimant), sort of like when mercenaries revolt on you. The Byzantines could also have a large chance of succession crisis, as neither heredity was universally acceptable nor was the priority of elder sons before younger sons absolute. A more vigorous plotting behaviour could also help (many emperors died in assassinations).

KonradRichtmark · Jun 15, 2012

Will there be any disadvantage to collecting jizya? There should be. Historically, and legally, paying jizya exempts an infidel man from the duties mandated on Muslim men, most specifically conscription. Jizya should decrease levy size for the province in question, particularly regarding cannon-fodder troop types like light infantry. It'd not be a terrible liability, you could after all use the extra money to build more troop buildings in your Muslim provinces.

Federalist girl · Jun 16, 2012

I like duchy revocation, though it's already in CK2+.

I like title destruction a whole lot. I don't plan on destroying duchies or kingdoms, but I definitely would like to gain the HRE title and destroy it.

As for Byzantine nerfs... meh. I really hope any and all nerfs have a historical basis, and aren't something insipid like cutting income or something (when the ERE was the richest state around, historically). Really, the next DLC just needs to be Byzantine: both with the true strengths of the ERE as well as its true weaknesses. There are ways to make the ERE weaker without undermining accuracy.

Jia Xu said:
I don't think three Caliphates would fit in very well. In the game, the Caliphates aren't just more imperial-level titles. They're religious heads. They're the Byzantine Empire and the Ecumenical Patriarch in one. The Sunni Caliphate is the head of the Sunni religion. The Shia Caliphate is the head of the Shia religion. Where does the 3rd Caliph fit in? I suppose you could script another emperor title and call it a Caliphate, but it wouldn't be a religion head and it would be objectively inferior to the real Caliphates as far as the game goes.

Just wait. People complained and complained until they got multiple empire titles coming in an official patch: they'll complain until you can have multiple caliphates too, regardless of what empire and caliphate means.

NewbieOne · Jun 16, 2012

Vladislav said:
Out of curiosity, why would you want to destroy a ducal title?

Apart from the "desires the duchy of X" penalty malus, you can find yourself in a situation where you have too many ducal titles but no sensible candidates to hold them.

Federalist girl said:
Just wait. People complained and complained until they got multiple empire titles coming in an official patch: they'll complain until you can have multiple caliphates too, regardless of what empire and caliphate means.

Just using the opportunity to note my dislike of the fantasy empires. Perhaps if enough people complain about this, some kind of solution will be found, like having two separate scenarios or a menu option to exclude fantasy states, whatever.

RomanGuy · Jun 16, 2012

Related to the idea that Muslims gain a tax bonus in infidel provinces and the fact that they can change religion/culture without your control, I hope that you reduce the chance that a province will change religion/culture without your or your vassal's court chaplain specifically trying to. I think this would give much of the control to the player and still be somewhat random, but I also hate the fact that minorities in religion and culture are wiped out extremely fast.

Without specific intervention by the government, such as sending the chaplain, minorities should not change very often, if at all. This would better simulate areas where the lords were of one culture/religion and the people of another for most or all of the game's time frame, such as Norman England being ruled by Normans with Saxon provinces or Bulgaria with Bulgarian provinces and Greek lords.

Federalist girl · Jun 16, 2012

NewbieOne said:
How about making them subject to Decadence, only slightly modified, so as not to allow them to get away with kinslaying? This is basically how they worked, anyway. A new emperor would be hailed by the soldiers somewhere, then get confirmed by the senate (or not) and defeat the old emperor (or die trying), which could be reflected by the commander of a doomstack being given a claim on the Empire, as well as the loyalty of his troops (against the reigning emperor or designated heir a fellow claimant), sort of like when mercenaries revolt on you. The Byzantines could also have a large chance of succession crisis, as neither heredity was universally acceptable nor was the priority of elder sons before younger sons absolute. A more vigorous plotting behaviour could also help (many emperors died in assassinations).

Yeah, I like this idea. It's a nerf, but realistic and makes ERE more challenging in a fun way (by adding a new feature).

Politically Incorrect

Red zone

Captain

Strategist

Field Marshal

Field Marshal

Second Lieutenant

Politically Incorrect

retired modder

Field Marshal

Major

General

Strategist

Caramelised Utopian

Field Marshal

Field Marshal

Field Marshal

Field Marshal

The Guy of Rome

Field Marshal