Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Un-nouncing Crusading Rulers 2: Warriors of the Steppe

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69868 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10588 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6361 After Action Reports
I think your on to a real winner with the idea of a Nomadism tradition. Makes sense that the Golden Horde remained more Nomadic (most of it's vassals being on the steppes) and the Mongols in Persia settled down and embraced the local culture.

I think that there should also be a mechanic that means that the Mongols cannot culture shift landed peoples (so no Mongol Moscow) and if they do settle should be allowed to naturalize into a local or even a special hybrid culture (Tatars maybe?) under the same idea as the division of Norse culture.

Also what about the idea of subjugating local rulers but you can only vassalize them and not replace them (once again, no chief of Moskova) but as long has you have a high Realm Nomadism bonus then they shay loyal, if it drops off then they'll more than likely fight for independence.

That's my thoughts great idea and I hope some of the mods are interested.
 
Cardinal Sin said:
Rantrantrant this game is called Crusading Rulers rantrantrant I want it to focus only and exclusively on kings that went crusading rantrantrant how dare you do something on an area I do not know much about and am to effing lazy to find out about and perhaps get interested in rantrantrant excuse me while I'm away fanboying over Richard the Lionheart and Baldwin IV. of Jerusalem and their western feudal deal.

Now, seriously - awesome!

However, how is "Nomadism" going to work if you change realms (ie. being booted out of the title of the Khan of Cumania and only staying some duke-level nomad)? Also, what if your son, who is holding a realm with low nomadism, inherits your high-nomadism realm?
Click to expand...

Thanks! My vision would be for Realm Nomadism to be tied to titles, so that if you inherit the Khanate of Cumania, you "inherit" the relevant Realm Nomadism. To keep things simple, though, I would have Realm Nomadism calculated for only the *top* title, and the lower titles simply copy it. So, if you're the Khan of Cumania with a Realm Nomadism of 72% but then get booted down to High Chief of Aktobe, you still have a Realm Nomadism of 72% (though it will probably change, since your aggregate Provincial Nomadism will be different, because you own fewer provinces).


ghengilhar said:
I think your on to a real winner with the idea of a Nomadism tradition. Makes sense that the Golden Horde remained more Nomadic (most of it's vassals being on the steppes) and the Mongols in Persia settled down and embraced the local culture.

I think that there should also be a mechanic that means that the Mongols cannot culture shift landed peoples (so no Mongol Moscow) and if they do settle should be allowed to naturalize into a local or even a special hybrid culture (Tatars maybe?) under the same idea as the division of Norse culture.

Also what about the idea of subjugating local rulers but you can only vassalize them and not replace them (once again, no chief of Moskova) but as long has you have a high Realm Nomadism bonus then they shay loyal, if it drops off then they'll more than likely fight for independence.

That's my thoughts great idea and I hope some of the mods are interested.
Click to expand...

Thank you! A good part of my ideas arise from my attempt to more accurately reflect the divergent fates of the various nomadic empires.

I admit I too have been troubled by Mongol Moscow. What I might imagine for preventing this would be that low Provincial Nomadism provinces (those that are unsuitable for the nomadic lifestyle) are *much* more difficult for nomads to convert (since there's an entire indigenous sedentary society already there) and that they in fact exert an opposite force, culture-converting nomadic overlords. And there ought to be a Tatar melting pot event implemented —*and now that we're moving into Central Asia, Chagatai, Uzbek, etc.

As for your final point, well, let's see what you think about my idea for Tributaries...
 
I bow to your genius, friend. This is better than any of my ideas.
 
I don't think there's a need to ascribe nomadism value to all provinces in the game. Just the select steppe/pasture/desert provinces (whereas everything else subscribes to cultural resistance/melting pots). These are the lands that tribes would settle and displace locals. Persia too has such lands. In particular Tabriz and around was the favorite grazing ground of every horse archer arriving there. Add in Khwarezm in north-eastern Persia, and you have enough room to settle invaders who'd want to dominate the plateau. Anatolia is a conspicuous candidate. Wallachia btw. Nomads would try to settle in neighboring countries only when pushed out from the steppe proper (the fate of Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans, to an extent Seljuks). And they'd prefer going west first before turning to Moscow.

All the desert nomads want some love too, be they the Syrian Desert bedouins or berbers. Similar mechanics could apply.

I'd say frequent migrations is too much micromanagement. Furthermore, it seems to be a somewhat universal feature of established hordes (say, levels of khan and above) to build up their one glorious capital city. Since movements were often complete within one season (and since the actual location of the body of your horde has zero impact on CK2 warfare), it's somewhat inconsequential. What was really triggering horde movements and conquests? The pattern to me seems to be that conquests trigger migrations. And conquests are often initiated by "charismatic leaders capable of uniting tribes". Say, some decent stats and high crown authority to get subjugation CB. Whereas subjugated tribe should form the army with an option to migrate west/south.

As was already pointed out, we badly need a new set of diplomatic relations. Tributary state, client state and something alike. Anything to break the "all your vassals obey the same rules" mold.
 
Comments! I love comments.

Portal said:
I bow to your genius, friend. This is better than any of my ideas.
Click to expand...
Aw, shucks, I liked your estates of the realm idea.

Konstantinos XV said:
Many things.
Click to expand...

Let me try to respond to your points:

1. I would agree with you that we wouldn't need to ascribe nomadism values to all provinces if the game were AI-only. Knowing us pesky players, though, we like nothing better than taking our Vikings and moving them to the Punjab, and transplanting our steppe nomads to Paris. All your geography is totally spot on, I just wanted to make a system that allows for player, uh, creativity.

2. There is certainly no reason to exclude our desert brethren, I just know much much less about their culture and history. But all nomads should receive our attention — nomads unite!

3. I'm very sympathetic to the issue of micromanagement, and I admit I'm not in love with my migratory system. I should say, though, that you don't *have* to migrate: I see it mainly as a proactive way to boost one's Realm Nomadism, so the player doesn't feel like they're being geographically determinized. Besides, at +10% a pop, you don't have to do it too much of the time (I imagine the yearly decay of Realm Nomadism would never exceed -5, barring something a bit unusual).

I suppose there could be two bi-annual intrigue decisions, "Move to Summer Pasture" in the spring and "Move to Winter Pasture" in the fall, but that's still micro-y. But I'd love to hear your (and others') further views into the matter.

3b. I really like the idea of losers being booted out of their territory, and now I'm going to steal it.

4. Did someone say tributaries!! (I admit that the system I have in mind is a bit flat, but at least I think it's simple).

thekaje said:
This is what the Paradox forums have been known for for over a decade. Awesome thread.
Click to expand...

Thanks!
 
Crusading Rulers 2: Warriors of the Steppe — Dev Diary 4 — Steppe Diplomacy

No, this Dev Diary isn't about "diplomacy by other means" — life on the Steppe wasn’t all about warfare and bloodshed (we're going to save that for next time). Instead, we're going to look at some of the new diplomatic features that will be included in Crusading Rulers 2: Warriors of the Steppe.

For starters, male nomads have the chance to seek out any fellow nomadic character and request that they become Blood Brothers. This grants a significant opinion boost and forms an alliance between the two characters. But beware! He who was once your staunchest ally may in time become your fiercest enemy...

0bsoFeT.png


Nomads also have the opportunity to hire themselves out to settled characters for gold: for an up-front payment of gold, nomads become the allies of their sedentary neighbors, called on in times of war — though with sharper penalties for refusing or failing to meet a certain war contribution percentage. Note that you can only offer your services to one foreign realm per ruler.

Finally, rounding off the new diplomacy options, nomads can “offer” neighboring states their “protection” in the form of Tributaries (okay, maybe a little bit of warfare). In essence, a nomadic leader can demand that the ruler of a particular realm become his tributary. The latter can accept this demand outright (particularly if the nomadic ruler is very strong) or can reject it, leading to a Tributary War. If the nomadic aggressor wins the war, the loser is forced to pay up and become a Tributary. Once Tributary status starts, there is a ten-year truce: after this period, although the "relationship" automatically continues, the Tributary can decide to stop paying tribute at any point (granting them a prestige bonus), or the nomads can declare war (though they’ll stop receiving tribute, obviously). Both settled and nomadic realms can become tributaries.

TkRU3uJ.png


This type of relationship dispenses with all the feudal niceties of “vassals” and “loyalty,” and gets straight to the point, namely extortion. Tributaries maintain their independence, are not impacted by realm laws, and do not supply any soldiers. What they do provide is cold hard cash, both in a one-off lump sum as well as 20% of their annual income.

That's all... for now. Tune in later for the next Dev Diary of Crusading Ruler 2: Warriors of the Steppe!
 
Last edited:
Tributaries in particular excite me. I feel like something of the sort would make everything introduced by the Old Gods vastly better. It'd be quite satisfying, not to mention accurate, to be a steppe nomad intimidating enough to gain the fruits of raiding without all that troublesome risk-taking. It'd also work pretty well for viking warlords and the English Kings.
 
What annoys me immensely in CK2 is that all the subjects within a large empire have the same obligations (relations) with their overlord. In addition to tributaries I'd add client principalities. In this case overlords had the right to intervene (and often did) in disputes over authority in the said principality (support puppets), punish it for attempts of diplomatic action with outside actors (say, demand breaking an alliance), demand military aid and/or tribute. Naturally, like tributaries they are still "external vassals" (in other words they don't take part in inner plotting, don't have to obey crown laws etc). Russian principalities were client ones for a long time.

It's applicable not only to hordes, but to pretty much any Middle Eastern empire. Somehow they preferred to setup client buffer states and/or tributaries outside their "de jure" empires, rather than "vassalize" and "invade" everything left and right. But CK2 warfare will never be changed to accommodate reasons for sensible expansion, will it. :glare:

Anyways, the system can be effectively uniform. Either independent obligations which you can demand separately, or a scale of dependence (tribute -> military aid -> control over diplomacy ( -> or simultaneously with) right to intervene in disputes) ranging from tributary to the proverbial yoke. With the last step - integration. Either welcome the current ruling elite into the realm as nobility or demand to "accept a prince/beg" appointed by the master. Sedentary empires might sneak in the right to garrison the principality somewhere over there.

It could also vastly improve all the pagan "subjugation-unifications", which at least in Rus started out as tributary arrangements.

eustacethemonk said:
I suppose there could be two bi-annual intrigue decisions, "Move to Summer Pasture" in the spring and "Move to Winter Pasture" in the fall, but that's still micro-y. But I'd love to hear your (and others') further views into the matter.
Click to expand...
In general I'm against micromanagement for micromanagement's sake or overburdening micromanagement. However some sort of pasture migration events or decisions would do wonders to convey that flavor of playing a nomad society. No denying that. If I were a game dev, I could settle for some such events once every few years and justify it with gameplay considerations. :p
 
Last edited:
How will this interact with Crusading Rulers 2: Deities Which Came Before Current Deities, will other Pagans be nomadic, considering that almost all the Non-Christian and non-muslim religions where practically nomadic. and will this effect playing as a Muslim with Crusading Rulers 2: Muslim Handheld Weapons, because some of them were nomadic.
 
:D :D :D

I wish this was their next DLC!!!

So many great ideas. Full-fleshed nomadic game play along the lines described in these not-quite-dev-diaries would SUPERCHARGE the game. Everyone would suddenly want to play Khazars, Magyars, Pechenegs and Mongols... and not because of any "free" stacks.
 
sealy300 said:
How will this interact with Crusading Rulers 2: Deities Which Came Before Current Deities, will other Pagans be nomadic, considering that almost all the Non-Christian and non-muslim religions where practically nomadic. and will this effect playing as a Muslim with Crusading Rulers 2: Muslim Handheld Weapons, because some of them were nomadic.
Click to expand...
Can you somehow turn that into a question?
It's hard to understand what you are trying to ask / say.
 
sealy300 said:
How will this interact with Crusading Rulers 2: Deities Which Came Before Current Deities, will other Pagans be nomadic, considering that almost all the Non-Christian and non-muslim religions where practically nomadic. and will this effect playing as a Muslim with Crusading Rulers 2: Muslim Handheld Weapons, because some of them were nomadic.
Click to expand...
Nomadism is not a religion. It's a way of life. Although I'm not sure almost all pagans were practically nomadic in the same way as warriors of the steppe (and desert).
 
JodelDiplom said:
Can you somehow turn that into a question?
It's hard to understand what you are trying to ask / say.
Click to expand...
How will this interact with Crusading Rulers 2: Deities Which Came Before Current Deities? Will other Pagans be nomadic? Considering that almost all the Non-Christian and non-muslim religions where practically nomadic at this time. and will this effect playing as a Muslim with Crusading Rulers 2: Muslim Handheld Weapons? because some of them were nomadic especially in Arabia and North Africa.
 
eustacethemonk said:
Thanks! My vision would be for Realm Nomadism to be tied to titles, so that if you inherit the Khanate of Cumania, you "inherit" the relevant Realm Nomadism. To keep things simple, though, I would have Realm Nomadism calculated for only the *top* title, and the lower titles simply copy it. So, if you're the Khan of Cumania with a Realm Nomadism of 72% but then get booted down to High Chief of Aktobe, you still have a Realm Nomadism of 72% (though it will probably change, since your aggregate Provincial Nomadism will be different, because you own fewer provinces).
Click to expand...

Does that mean that, if a "duke" inherits a "kingdom", the nomadism of the value of the "kingdom" will overwrite the nomadism of the "duchy"? Meaning that anything you did before inheriting the kingdom in order to bring up nomadism will have been in vain?

Also, will nomads whilst migrating get a special barony holding, like the patricans do in Crusading Rulers 2: Wow, much Doge, so Election, very Trade?
 
sealy300 said:
How will this interact with Crusading Rulers 2: Deities Which Came Before Current Deities? Will other Pagans be nomadic? Considering that almost all the Non-Christian and non-muslim religions where practically nomadic at this time. and will this effect playing as a Muslim with Crusading Rulers 2: Muslim Handheld Weapons? because some of them were nomadic especially in Arabia and North Africa.
Click to expand...
Ah, you meant The Old Gods. That wasn't so easily understood ;) Also why don't you say "Norse pagan" instead of "non-christian and non-muslim religions"? Sorry, your made-up names are just so much harder to understand than the OP's made-up name. :p

More to the point: The old Norse weren't nomadic, neither were the Slavic or finnish peoples at those times. So there's no reason to apply nomadic stuff to them. The Lapps perhaps, but does CK2 model them??

Few of the Muslims factions in the CK2 game were nomadic - except for some groups in the Sahara and the Arabian desert, which CK2 should include but does not actually. AFAIK the nomadic groups in the Sahara and Arabia did not form huge kingdoms in the way the Central Eurasian nomads did. They were more like small, county-level tribes and did not roam a lot, or not outside their "province" boundaries. There were clashes between settled and nomadic people in the middle east but that would be another chapter... does the game model the coexistence between city people and nomad people who live in the same province? Perhaps there should be some "nomadic baronies" in desert provinces, to represent tribal groups. The famous Muslim historian Ibn Khaldum wrote at length about their interaction (most famously, his theory of the four-stage rise and decay of Muslim dynasties).
 
JodelDiplom said:
Ah, you meant The Old Gods. That wasn't so easily understood ;) Also why don't you say "Norse pagan" instead of "non-christian and non-muslim religions"? Sorry, your made-up names are just so much harder to understand than the OP's made-up name. :p
.
Click to expand...

I had no trouble understanding his made up names I especially liked the Muslim one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back