• 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.
Hello everyone! So finally we address the Elephant in the room, specifically the War Elephant in the upcoming Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India expansion.

When making an expansion based on India we simply couldn't ignore the elephantry that they fielded. These giants will help your Indian rulers to conquer and stampede over any opposition you face, being the heaviest cavalry you can field in Crusader Kings 2. These beasts of war will be mostly available from retinues but there will also be cultural buildings that will produce them for you. They will only exist in very limited numbers compared to other troop types but will have a devastating effect on the battlefield during the melee phase. The Indian general that makes sure to use his unique set of tactics available for these units will without a doubt be victorious.

We also fixed so that the Arabic cultures can field their own camel warriors to face the heathens with.

View attachment ck2_2.png
Showing off their mighty War Elephant Retinues

The old troop type system was very limiting, not allowing for a lot of creativity, and we had nowhere to place the new war elephants in the user interface, it was already over-crowded with the other troop types. So what we did was remake the Horse Archer with a fully script-able troop type known as Special Troops. These now represent Horse Archers, Camel Warriors and the mighty War Elephants. It will be even possible to field Camel Warriors and War Elephants in the same army in your grand pan Arabic-Indian Empire if you so desire. The most important thing is that now modders can utilize this to make their mods even more diverse and interesting, allowing them to add troop types ranging from Wizards to gunpowder troops.

View attachment ck2_3.png
The breakdown of special troops, everything is quite similar to
before except for the numbering of the horse archers.


What is the actual difference for the modders from the previous system then? Well Korbah made an excellent diagram he posted on the beta forum which I am going to borrow from him.

View attachment hkjhkjh.jpg

Previously the troop types were hard-coded in place which gave very little option with what you could actually do with them. Each regiment always had six entries: Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Archers, Pikemen, Light Cavalry, Heavy Cavalry and Horse Archers. This meant an army would always consist of a composition of these troop types. The new system removes the Horse Archers and replaces it with the special troop type, meaning it can be anything and every regiment can have a different composition of troop types and still function as a unified army. The only limit on this is that a regiment can only have one special troop type, so one holding can not produce several different special troop types and mercenaries and retinues can only have one special troop type assigned to them.


With the India expansion the world grows immensely giving us a good opportunity to add some common tactical problems that commanders of the time faced. First we gave the Indian subcontinent the jungle terrain type which will harshly increase your attrition and defense bonuses. But the other problem is supplies, it won't be a simple task to just walk across all of Europe with every single soldier you started with alive. You will now have to combat starvation as you march far away from your home. This means that Norse Vikings armies will have starved to death before even reaching India.

How it works is that while you are nearby your realm or your top-liege's realm your soldiers will fill up on supplies to keep themselves fed. These supplies will always last for 31 days. When they step too far away into neutral territory they will start to starve for supplies and have a ticking attrition that goes up slowly for each day. A good martial leader can of course counter-act it to a certain point. When you do finally reach the enemy territory, the troops will start foraging from their surrounding area to keep themselves supplied. The foraging builds on the pillaging from the loot bar except it goes a lot slower. When the soldiers can't take more from the loot bar they will start to starve again in 31 days. This will balance the rulers of Europe to invade their neighbors instead of happily jump over the Egypt and start carving their piece of India. Instead they will have to put a bit effort into it if they want to actually reach India.

So yes we will see a Norse India eventually, but it will be quite an achievement.


There has been some big issues with what people have dubbed "North Korea Mode", making the game way too easy to play and removing the entire feudal point of the game. So we have made playing this way a lot less rewarding by reducing the amount of levies and income they actually get from doing this. It is of course still completely possible to play like this if you still want to, but you will be a bankrupt France with only 400 troops while the strong HRE will be raising a lot more troops than that. Small counts and dukes who go over their demense limit just a little bit will be a bit penalized but not to the same degree.

Bonus: Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India Interview with Project Lead Henrik Fahraeus
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Excl...ith-Project-Lead-Henrik-Fahraeus-429067.shtml
 
@Balesir
In case you missed it on the second page
Thanks - I saw it after I posted (bad habit of replying without reading the whole thread...)

I don't think it's limited to crusades, though - in fact, I don't even think crusades are really any sort of "special case". It's pretty clear from what little we know of the logistics of the first two crusades that the measures taken to supply the army on the journey south were not considered particularly unusual by the commanders. In fact, what it shows is that their route was probably determined to a high degree by where they were confident they could buy supplies. Since they had not been on crusade before, it seems safe to say that they had some other experience that gave them this information!
 
Would there be a new set of rules that influence who you should give out titles to?

Like in the current setup, you just give away everything to your kinsmen, from close to distant. For me it doesn't feel fairly realistic.
 
Would there be a new set of rules that influence who you should give out titles to?

Like in the current setup, you just give away everything to your kinsmen, from close to distant. For me it doesn't feel fairly realistic.

Haha, that sounds like a terrible way to do it. That'd just land you in 50 million claim wars as soon as your ruler dies... Nothings forcing you to do that. In fact, I'm pretty sure the game really encourages you not to do it...
 
I am very sad you have decided to 'fix' north korea mode.
This private way of playing the game is both enjoyable and it hurt NOBODY.

I was going to buy Runemaster and Rajahs of India but now I will save my $80.
You just lost a loyal customer.

It hurt everyone using it, because they were effectively cheating rather than actually playing the game, which is just silly.

Anyway, good DD :D.
 
I am very sad you have decided to 'fix' north korea mode.
This private way of playing the game is both enjoyable and it hurt NOBODY.

I was going to buy Runemaster and Rajahs of India but now I will save my $80.
You just lost a loyal customer.
The loss of one customer surely affects them. :rolleyes:
 
Meanwhile, Paradox's renewed focus on their games being the deepest accessible simulations on the market will ensure that plenty more fans stay and still more find them.
 
I am very sad you have decided to 'fix' north korea mode.
This private way of playing the game is both enjoyable and it hurt NOBODY.

I was going to buy Runemaster and Rajahs of India but now I will save my $80.
You just lost a loyal customer.


ByeBitch.gif
 
One, it isn't removed. It isn't as rewarding as it was before. For second there has been two cheat codes for that since the game was released. They are called techpoints and add_stewardship.

Is this at least adjustable in the defines file? Many of us don't play NKM but do end up over our demesne limit frequently due to regencies, marriage, building holdings, etc.
 
What are you, 12? If you're the maturity level of the people who are defending PDX at this point, I'm not sure you're doing PDX any favors...
In all fairness this has been the normal response to those who threaten to 'boycott' the game in order to change developer decisions for years. I think I remember these sorts of posts during the Sunset Invasion fiasco and possibly on the EUIII forums.
 
Is this at least adjustable in the defines file? Many of us don't play NKM but do end up over our demesne limit frequently due to regencies, marriage, building holdings, etc.

It's already been said that if you're only a little bit over the limit it's not going to cripple you. And how does marriage put you over the demesne limit? Doesn't getting married increase your state stewardship (or whatever it's called)?
 
It's already been said that if you're only a little bit over the limit it's not going to cripple you. And how does marriage put you over the demesne limit? Doesn't getting married increase your state stewardship (or whatever it's called)?

Well, it's been stated that even going a little over the limit is going to impact you, just that going WAY over will cripple you. So I'm guessing that even being ~2-3 over the limit is still going to suck. And my point on marriage is that your stewardship can fluctuate based on *who* you've married or even whether you're married at any point in time. Let's say your high-stewardship wife dies, and you betroth a 12 year old princess. In another 4 years your demesne could be back up to where you were previous to her death, but until then you're stuck with the penalties. Most experienced players can deal with that -20 to -30 opinion malus for a couple years, as well as the reduction in income while you wait to get married again and get your stewardship back to where it was previously. There are penalties for being over your demesne, but not to the point that you're seriously impacted. Now, however, it looks like the penalties are going to be a LOT worse, and all because of a heavy-handed "fix" for a tactic that probably 99% don't use anyway.
 
Well, it's been stated that even going a little over the limit is going to impact you, just that going WAY over will cripple you. So I'm guessing that even being ~2-3 over the limit is still going to suck. And my point on marriage is that your stewardship can fluctuate based on *who* you've married or even whether you're married at any point in time. Let's say your high-stewardship wife dies, and you betroth a 12 year old princess. In another 4 years your demesne could be back up to where you were previous to her death, but until then you're stuck with the penalties. Most experienced players can deal with that -20 to -30 opinion malus for a couple years, as well as the reduction in income while you wait to get married again and get your stewardship back to where it was previously. There are penalties for being over your demesne, but not to the point that you're seriously impacted. Now, however, it looks like the penalties are going to be a LOT worse, and all because of a heavy-handed "fix" for a tactic that probably 99% don't use anyway.

Yep. That one-size-fits-all punishment because of a a playstyle that not many people use at all. I don't use NKM, and it looks like my fears are going to be realized after all. I *AM* going to get punished for NKM even though I've never used NKM.

Please PDOX, try looking at it from *MY* viewpoint. I'm sick and tired of losing stuff because of what other players do.

I've always used vassals, I like them, and use them on my councils whenever possible.

Why couldn't you buff feudalism? It would have had the same affect on NKM as nerfing would have had; and it would have had the added feature of *PLEASING* those of us who never used NKM. It's nice to be rewarded every once in a while. As opposed to everyone getting the same punishment as a result of what a minority was doing...
 
Yep. That one-size-fits-all punishment because of a a playstyle that not many people use at all.

Groogy said:
It is of course still completely possible to play like this if you still want to, but you will be a bankrupt France with only 400 troops while the strong HRE will be raising a lot more troops than that. Small counts and dukes who go over their demense limit just a little bit will be a bit penalized but not to the same degree.

One-size-fits-all???
 
"Buffing" feudalism is simply a wholesale decrease on the difficulty of the game. That's an absurd way to balance around an exploit.

Hey guys, don't fix the exploit, just make the entire game easier top to bottom so you have no incentive to use the exploit anymore!
 
Is this at least adjustable in the defines file? Many of us don't play NKM but do end up over our demesne limit frequently due to regencies, marriage, building holdings, etc.

Why would you build a holding when you're at your desmense limit, unless you intend to give it away? Further, marriages cannot lower your desmense limit, only increase it to greater or lesser proportions. Its not the end of the world if you're over it by a bit for awhile, after all, and its actually fairly reasonable to see things go somewhat awry under a regency (admittedly, I think a voluntary regency, such as when you go on pilgrimage, should allow for you to pick your regent in your absence).
 
"Buffing" feudalism is simply a wholesale decrease on the difficulty of the game. That's an absurd way to balance around an exploit.

Hey guys, don't fix the exploit, just make the entire game easier top to bottom so you have no incentive to use the exploit anymore!

How has feudalism been buffed? Penalties have been increased for being over your desmense limit.

I really don't understand the controversy about all this.