• 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 again folks! Stay a while, and listen. The highlights of today's third and last Sword of Islam developer diary are Muslim Casus Bellis, revised combat mechanics and cultural buildings. You know the drill by now; I'll talk about both some unique Sword of Islam features and some free stuff that comes with patch 1.06.

THE SWORD OF ISLAM

Our direction with the Sword of Islam expansion is that Muslims should have an easier time expanding, but have an additional layer of internal strife in the form of the Open Succession Law and the Decadence system.

Muslim Casus Bellis

Muslim rulers have three new options for conquest:
  • They can declare Holy Wars on anyone not of their own exact brand of Islam
  • They can use a form of the Invasion CB for the cost of 500 Piety
  • They can conquer any province bordering one of their own for 50 Piety (vassalizing the current count if possible)

Pious Muslim rulers can thus easily expand, although they lose 2 Piety per month while attacking a brother of the faith (same exact religion.) The councillor job to fabricate a claim is thus less useful for Muslims, but can still be handy versus islands or juicy coastal counties.

SoI_InvasionCB.jpg

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.)

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...

Temple Holdings

In the Muslim world, there is no proper equivalent to Bishoprics, so Temple Holdings are treated exactly like Castles, except for their different set of buildings. You gain Piety for having a Temple Holding in your demesne, but they are slightly poorer and provide smaller levies than their Catholic equivalents (in order to balance them against the investiture mechanics.)

Passing Laws

Muslims do not need to bother with a voting process when passing laws; they just spend an amount of Piety. However, there is still a cooldown and Crown Laws can only be changed once per ruler. The vassals will also still get upset in the same way as Christians.

Jizya Tax

To represent the Jizya tax (a special tax that should, according to Sharia law, be levied on infidels), Muslims gain a 25% tax bonus from infidel counties and a 10% tax penalty in Muslim counties. This creates an interesting dynamic where it's not always obvious that you would want to convert an infidel province to Islam. However, there is a special event where this happens anyway, even if you don't send in your Court Imam to convert the populace.

SoI_Jizya.jpg

That's pretty much it for the Sword of Islam expansion, although I'm sure to have forgotten about many minor little changes and tweaks.

THE 1.06 PATCH

Alright, so here are a few more freebies coming your way soon with the 1.06 patch...

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.

SoI_Commander.jpg

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.

Destruction of Titles

You are now allowed to destroy ducal tier titles and above, at a hefty Prestige cost. This will greatly upset (-50 opinion) all vassals who are de jure part of the destroyed title. You cannot destroy your current primary title.

SoI_TitleDestruction.jpg

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.

That's it for dev diaries for now. Next week, we'll post a short AAR by a member of the dev team!
 
I want to echo this point. It seems weird that you can fill France full of Knight Lists and then the moment a Dutchman accidentally inherits the throne he burns them all down, wasting thousands of gold. Then three days later he's deposed for a Frenchman and you have to start all over from Squire Lists... It really bugs me and I usually avoid culture buildings for this reason too. Too easy to see centuries of investment go up in flames in an instant.
Syren's culture buildings mod actually fixed this problem by tying buildings to a province's culture rather than a liege's -- I asked Paradox about whether they'd changed the vanilla game to use this system but never got a response, so I'll assume they haven't. That and we're still getting the famous Saxon longbow. :p
 
Syren's culture buildings mod actually fixed this problem by tying buildings to a province's culture rather than a liege's -- I asked Paradox about whether they'd changed the vanilla game to use this system but never got a response, so I'll assume they haven't. That and we're still getting the famous Saxon longbow. :p

Could you please provide a link to this mod? I'd be keen to take a look at it.
 
That and we're still getting the famous Saxon longbow. :p
Because shortly after the game begins every Saxon province will start changing to an English province, and Saxon lords become English lords.

At the moment, any longbow training grounds they've built will remain. Your preference would be for England to be set ablaze from north to south with the ceremonial burning of all the huscarl barracks, so they can be replaced by archers?
 
Because shortly after the game begins every Saxon province will start changing to an English province, and Saxon lords become English lords.

At the moment, any longbow training grounds they've built will remain. Your preference would be for England to be set ablaze from north to south with the ceremonial burning of all the huscarl barracks, so they can be replaced by archers?

Only if William Wins. Or does the event fire if Harald wins as well?
 
Sure, here you go. You want the Liege + County version. Enjoy. :)

Had a look at the code behind this. There seems to be a flaw in how this would work where the province is a culture separate to the ruler. For example, my ruler is Norman, but I hold Acre and Jaffa, both of which are Levantine. I can build Squire Lists in each province, but if my ruler becomes Greek, the Squire Lists still disappear as the province culture is Levantine.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a step up, but I wish they'd fix this at the engine level. Once a building is built, it should never just disappear, especially not if the ruler changes culture.
 
Don't get me wrong, it's still a step up, but I wish they'd fix this at the engine level. Once a building is built, it should never just disappear, especially not if the ruler changes culture.
I completely agree with you -- I just think Syren's way of doing things is currently the lesser of two evils.
 
Because shortly after the game begins every Saxon province will start changing to an English province, and Saxon lords become English lords.
First of all you're assuming that the Normans will always win, which is certainly not the case. Secondly you're suggesting that the Saxons should get longbows (with whatever bonuses they confer), which they obviously shouldn't.

Finally, I've said that my preferred setup would be Paradox adopting the method of culture buildings being tied to a province's culture and not a liege's. It's not my fault that England would be 'set ablaze from north to south with the ceremonial burning of all the huscarl barracks, so they can be replaced by archers' is it? Clearly it's a flawed concept -- and one which modders have attempted to improve and Paradox themselves should/could in time. Either way, the Saxons clearly shouldn't get longbow ranges, and it seems especially bizarre that they do should the Norman Conquest fail.

I appreciate your flippancy though; there's a lot to be said for it nowadays.
 
Im just trying to open up the debate from the other side. The comments from Nuril and others refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of there did or could ever have plausibly existed an Empire besides HRE and ERE in this period and mock any one trying to say different. That link I posted at least demonstrates its not so black and white, and there is a fairly large list if historical docs/sources listed in which Spanish rulers specifically referred to themselves as Emperor.
I agree that real life feudal relations were not as black and white as the game portrays them, but unfortunately it's a game and it has to have simpler rules or the devs would never be finished scripting exceptions and gray areas (never mind all the new bugs). So in my opinion, and I suppose the opinion of other people in this thread, this case is not strong enough to deserve abstraction into emperorship. In game terms, the handful of kings who called themselves Imperator totius Hispaniae (who, incidentally, did not last even a century into the game's time period--why aren't you clamoring for a title disappearance mechanic?) are really just strong kings who held multiple king titles and had high prestige. What would be far more appropriate to simulate the dominance of e.g. Alfonso VI is a mechanic where kings can vassalize other kings, which is what you should actually be arguing for.
Really? What I find laughable is the cognative dissonance of you guys passionately arguing against the developers decision to include more Empires in their game. I am prepared to be open minded about it. Why do you, Nuril and Co. stoop so low as belittling other posters intelligence, spelling or use of wikipedia just because they dont agree with your narrow 2 Empires only stance?
I'm not "stooping" to anything, you're the one who acted like your case was a slam dunk just because you'd linked to a Wikipedia article and then proceeded to berate other people about their lack of sources. You gave up your right to censure other people about their behavior when you came in this thread and posted as abrasively and condescendingly as possible.
 
I think it's up to developers incude more empires or not. From my personal perspective I dont like empire of rusia, but can accept empire of Spain. Speaking about emperors even Grand Duke of Lithuania Algirdas is refered as Basileus Litvania in some Byzanines documents after he dealt with Golden Horde in 1362 or 63 dont remember exactlty. He freed Kiev form these saveges as reported by Byzantines.

That's because, strictly speaking, Basileus doesn't actually mean emperor. It is more equvilent to king and is a term used by the ERE to refer to a range of outside rulers. Basileus Basileon is used (from around I think the 8th century on) meaning first king or high king or some sort of equivalent. It is hard to translate because the word itself refers to a wide range of rulers.

The term "emperor" is an english corruption of Imperator (well english corruption of french corruption). Which actually in old rome was a honorary and high ranking military title that Augustus used because the word rex was too obvious and he didn't want the senate knifing him like they did Caesar. There is a reason that the HRE used the word Kaiser and not a form of emperor. Because emperor didn't actually mean that, Caesar was a much closer to what we today conceive emperor as being.
 
Augustus being another term for Roman leaders during the Dominate. There's around a dozen words that roman emperors have been called throughout the empire, including the eastern one.

I would argue that the augustus part is more important then the imperator part. Though I don't know the medieval western concept of the word imperator compared to the original concept of the term as it applied to Octavian.
 
I think it's up to developers incude more empires or not. From my personal perspective I dont like empire of rusia, but can accept empire of Spain. Speaking about emperors even Grand Duke of Lithuania Algirdas is refered as Basileus Litvania in some Byzanines documents after he dealt with Golden Horde in 1362 or 63 dont remember exactlty. He freed Kiev form these saveges as reported by Byzantines.

First of all, calling an ethnic group "savages" is really, really offensive. Secondly, the Russian empire is really the only one that makes sense, because historically the Russian "empire" was created as a successor to Byzantium. If I leave any of these alone when modding, it would probably be the Russian one. I'll probably just put in some creation clause making it so no one has the Byzantine title before you can create it.
 
De jure in the context of the game =/= de jure in the context of law or tradition.

Nice try but 'de iure' is a fixed expression that has a certain meaning. You use the code word 'de iure' to invoke that coded meaning. It poses no value to you if openly say that you're using a non-standard definition.

You can use any word you want for anything you want but as long as you use the excuse that you understand the world differently, you cannot claim the benefit of the normal understanding.

For a CK/EU example, you can't be a duke and call yourself king and say, "oh, in our language or culture this is just the word for duke," (therefore you are not "guilty" of using an unsubstantiated royal title) while insisting that you get translated as king and awarded royal protocolar perks during diplomatic meetings. This would be having a cake and eating it. Same way, you can't use the phrase "de iure" like normal but only ever claim a nonstandard understanding when someone criticises the inclusion of some things in the category that you realise the normal understanding wouldn't cover.

CK2 is supposed to start in a real 1066, not in a 1066 that has already been affected by alternative history. We are not officially starting from some guy's alternative vision of Europe (like in an alternative history novel where everything is like normal except that the Western Roman Empire never crumbled and it exists in 1066, similarly to those films in which there are no fantasy elements per se but e.g. the Nazis won WW2).

They should probably just rename de jure to something else. What? I don't know, but people sure seem upset by them adding in empires to shoot for.

Basically, de iure kingdom, duchy etc. means the relevant kingdom, duchy or whatever else it is, in a shape given to it by the law (or "right", basically some highly respected custom), as opposed to the de facto reality of this or that noble controlling this or that position (the latter being the reality of your everyday basic map from which you go about your daily business, issue most commands etc.).

It seems important to me to note that it would not work very well for these new empires to be titular, they are based on specific geographic locations with difficult criteria for creation. That is a lot harder than the requirements for most of the titular titles I have seen.

I believe the proper place could be in decisions/intrigue, kinda like it was in EU3 if my memory serves me well.

And what a bunch of whiny babies they are. Im sorry but it just had to be said by someone. Nothing is forcing anyone to create empires if they dont want to.

If you really are an educated historian as you say, then you just cannot be ignorant of the "de iure" vs "de facto" differentiation or the issue of legal borders of "states" (polities, more like, as far as the middle ages are concerned) versus whatever the current political reality is.

It is also a bad testimony to your method of discussion or the attention you pay if it is said one million times that the problem is not the creatability of those empires but rather their existince on the de iure map, and you still react with a, 'you don't need to create those empires.'

The whole "its a-historical" argument is just a bunch of nonsense. If i want a history lesson im not gonna be playing computer games, im gonna research history, bare in mind that im an eduacated historian irl.
Gameplay goes way before realism for me in all cases.

Nobody says the game "has" to be historical. The game basically has to go either way: EITHER better or worse reconstruction & alternative history from a real historical start (which is the "selling proposition" of EU and all of its offspring, including CK2), OR a semi-fantasy game loosely based on mediaeval Europe, where you just play with the mechanics. The problem with where CK2 is going right now is that on the one hand you have meticulous reconstruction of who held the smallest holding in the most backyard part of the world but on the other hand you have fantasy stuff like a de iure "Empire of Scandinavia" (let alone Francia etc.).

More mapmodes would be a very welcome addition though, i would really like to see a vassal map modes where you can see all the different duchies of an empire (this is kinda annoying to me in GoT mod where you can only see kingdoms)

It would be cool to have a way to spot all the creatable titular titles.

You are the ones making a fool out of yourselves for telling other people how you think they should play their games. Some players like to conquer lands and form empires and for those who dont they can skip the entire feature. There are times when i feel that history helps alot with the setting but in this case i couldnt care less about historical reasons since it doesnt the break immersion at all.

I believe you said something along the lines of, "you don't have to form those empires." So you're basically telling people to shut up and ignore those empires, as in abstain from forming them. That is not an optimal solution for many reasons.

Thank you for being rude! It was just the kind of attitude that I was looking for in the discussion.
I do have a clue as to what I am talking about. I am not an expert on medieval history but I am not clueless. I did look into the subject before posting.
I did some further reading and have found several instances of temporal leaders proclaiming them Emperor of this place or that, not Emperor of the Romans or of Rome but of whatever area they ruled. None of them kept the titles for very long, but that's not the point. Just because Translatio imperii allowed for the transfer of the old Roman Emperor title does not mean that they were the only people to have the title of Emporer. Convention =/= hard law. And the Papacy, while incredibly powerful, was not ALL powerful and could not control everything every christian king did. Sometimes they had to adapt.

It would be cool to have a mechanic reflecting that. Creating empires via events or titular creation would be cool. Putting up a fiction that there is a legally or customarily distinct Empire of Scandinavia or Francia that's waiting for somebody to resurrect it is not really optimal here.

Empire is a tier of titles in the game. The Golden Horde is an Empire. The Caliphates are Empires. In the game anyway, it is what a ruler who can have king tier title holders as vassals are called.

Tier is one thing, title does matter too. I don't have a problem with a baptised Khagan changing to Emperor or with a Caliphate functioning on the empire engine. I could probably get along with High Kings (although I think high kings should still be "vassalisable" by emperors). Preconceived de iure Empire of Francia in 1066, however, is a different matter.

Now you are just mincing words. What is alternative history? It is fiction. History is the record of what happened in the past. Alternative history is ahistorical, in that it did not happen.

Alternative history is a specific kind of fiction that consists in taking a real point in history and diverting history in a fictional direction from that point. In EU and derived games you're supposed to be creating that alternative history from Day 1 in your game. But you're not supposed to be already starting in a heavily tweaked, fictionalised world. (And if there were a fantasy edition of CK2, openly referred to as such, I'd probably buy and enjoy it.)

But when you get right down too it all comes down how the changes affect your gameplay. Do you want to form a new empire? Go for it! Do you not want to? Then don't. If the AI does it then either it is a once in a long while fluke, or the changes are not working as intended and you can submit a bug report. It is a single player game, and the multiplayer aspect already has unofficial 'rules' to prevent things like this. I have a sneaking suspicion that most multiplayer games will ban the formation of new empires.

I don't mind the ability to form those empires per se. An "Empire of Francia" on the actual game map some time in 1157 or 1226 or whatever, arising as a course of events in a unique game run is much less offensive to me than a de iure Empire of Francia on the starting de iure map in 1066. It would actually be easier for me to tolerate the empire on the de iure map once it got created by some AI and started acting on the political map. So, paradoxically, once some AI actually formed it, it would then become much easier on my eyes (than when it exists unformed on the de iure map).

If one does not want to make ahistoric empires, one does not have to. I don't understand why people are getting upset about something that, if they don't want to be a part of their game, has very little to no chance of affecting their game at all.

It affects my game a lot because it defines huge swaths of land all over Europe as belonging to a fictional de iure empire that is only waiting for an emperor to turn the law or custom into fact by claiming and holding the crown. It messes up my entire de iure empires map by bundling the HRE and the ERE (which already have questionable de iure borders but let's not go there right now) with a number of fictional equals.

The AI has almost no chance of being able to form any of these Empires, and their being De Jure doesn't matter at all if they don't exist.

Again, I don't care if the AI can or cannot form them. This does not effect my experience of "de iure-ness" in this game. I'm totally okay with being able to call yourself "Imperator of all the Celts in the World" via gameplay events. Or "Imperator of Neopatras" if you move the capital from Constantinople (i.e. Byzantium). I'm not okay with the implication that Empire of Francia is a preconceived political/legal idea in a 1066 reconstruction. Even SCA/renfair style.

You keep stating your narrow opinion of only the HRE and ERE being allowed to exist as if its fact. A Spanish Empire within this timeframe is not fantasy / "alternative history":

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

Your didactic ranting and statement that for an Empire of Spain to exist HRE must be refused is facile.

WIKI: Imperator totius Hispaniae is a Latin title meaning "Emperor of all Spain". In Spain in the Middle Ages, the title "emperor" (from Latin imperator) was used under a variety of circumstances from the ninth century onwards, but its usage peaked, as a formal and practical title, between 1086 and 1157. It was primarily used by the Kings of León and Castile, but it also found currency in the Kingdom of Navarre and was employed by the Counts of Castile and at least one Duke of Galicia. It signalled at various points the king's equality with the Byzantine Emperor and Holy Roman Emperor"

Excuse me if I dont take your word for it Nuril

It was a title that actually had some currency but at least in my opinion the formation of it in real life history reflected a titular title more than a de iure title in CK2 categories. In plain English: dude took a title and started assimilating stuff into it.

Also, "Imperator Totius Hispaniae" was a device to mark superiority over other kings in Spain, whose titles appeared later, were less prestigious, had less legitimacy than Leon or Asturias. Asserting equality with the Holy Roman Emperor in the Catholic world (let alone exclusion of Spain from the Romanitas that would recognise the at least honorary supremacy of the Roman Emperor) would be a whole different task of greater difficulty. Running it through the Byzantines could pose similar problems.

Again, I'm all for the ability to become Imperator Totius Hispaniae in CK2. I'm against Spain being represented as an empire just because it was a large peninsula that got divided by several minor kings starting from one kingdom (not from an empire, of Spain at least). Using the same rationale one could make every Gaelic count in a Gaelic province a king and create an empire there to reflect the room for unity under a mightier ruler.

That title had just as much legitimate weight and recognition by his peer as title Emperor of Central Africa.

More, actually. Including papal recognition and shoving off the HRE's lawsuit regarding the matter. But it was still a titular creation by some guy at some point, not some big preconceived political idea (one Spain sure, Empire? nope).

IMHO there'd be nothing wrong with players having some feasible way of upgrading their titles – even creating a custom-named empire (or kingdom) once you fulfil some conditions (historically sensible would be preferred, this does not mean "historically accurate" because there is no such thing when we are speculating by definition; but feasible in the sense of keeping some boundaries/relevance, e.g. papal approval, prestige/piety requirement). The entire problem here is the "de iure" thing. I'm pretty sure everybody can live with de iure titles (along with the ability to assimilate vassals de iure) much more easily. Creatability itself reflects what you can do. "De iure" reflects some preconceived ideas that supposedly exist when you start the game. And the Empire of Francia does not exist as a preconceived idea in 1066.

Enjoy is totally wrong; again IMHO both camps are telling the other what is supposed to be fun. Yeah we don't really like the current direction, but IMHO we have been positive critical fans; only giving applause without comment isn't helpful either. Anyway my point is that people give comments, because they give about the game.
In this debate we all do, calling names for any group in this thread is rather foolish; we disagree on the direction, but we both love the game.

I'm not really talking about what's supposed to be fun. I understand that putting a couple of fictional empires in a 1066 Europe can make for a fun game for a lot of people. I just believe it belongs in mods or Ruler-Designer-style tweaks where a player consciously chooses to alter the starting history. Not as a balance tweak in a game the unique value of which consists in "freeing up" the history of the world (or part of it) at some historical point so that the player (and the AI) can take it in his own hands.

Anyway in vanilla we have to, but any of you wouldn't like any change disliked by you and if it feels like, it was forced, upon (even if it really isn't), you wouldn't like it either. This is what we in the Netherlands would call 'rubbing salt in the wounds'

Yeah, it does feel wrong to have fiction "forced" on you that way in a historical reconstruction/alternative history game that's supposed to meet some threshold of approximate accuracy (with a lot of things being simplified, some things being tweaked, other things being simply wrong, but not really huge chunks of fiction... and an Empire of Francia is a huge chunk of fiction on the de iure map).

I think it's up to developers incude more empires or not. From my personal perspective I dont like empire of rusia,

Yeah. We can argue that the major grand princes controlled a lot of land but it's not like they were powerful enough to go out and play the betters of the actual kings of neighbouring kingdoms. An Empire of Russia could end up vassalising those kingdoms by pressing claimants from its own dynasty (after easily seeing Medium/High/Absolute authority throughout Russia, bringing all the countless dukes under tight control). So instead of a lucky prince/duke on steroids, given the imperial tier to reflect his real power and oomph more accurately in the game mechanics, we would have a real emperor capable of claiming superiority over Kings of Poland, Hungary, Sweden, whatever. So, basically, a Russian Empire would be a real empire, not a figure for Grand Princes of Whatever ("Whatever" being a different centre of power in different periods, which could obviously end up being completely different in a player's own game).

On the other hand, I believe Kingdom of Rus as a de iure Kingdom is actually okay. There was a sense of unity. There was at least one crowned king among the Russian princes. They did eventually put forth a claim to something higher than princehood. They were referred to as kings in early chronicles before the West conceived the idea that tribal rulers of pagan or post-pagan East Europe should be referred to as princes/dukes and below the king tier. So it's okay. And I probably would complain about Kiev or Novgorod being represented as kings in certain historical game starts (early, powerful, before GH).

but can accept empire of Spain.

Far stretch but better than Francia, I guess.

Speaking about emperors even Grand Duke of Lithuania Algirdas is refered as Basileus Litvania in some Byzanines documents after he dealt with Golden Horde in 1362 or 63 dont remember exactlty. He freed Kiev form these saveges as reported by Byzantines.

Basileus was a generic word for king. The Greeks of the Eastern Roman Empire started using that word for the Roman Emperors regardless that until some point Emperors avoided the impression of being kings due to Rome's historical circumstances. Western kings were referred to as "rigas", a Greek version of "rex", by them (while it wouldn't have been incorrect for a westerner to use the word "basileus" to describe his king when using Greek strictly as a language, in abstract from Byzantium's pretences). But before, even the tiny local tribal leader of an ancient Greek polis was a basileus (e.g. the mythical kings of Thebae, Mycaenae, Argos etc., not just big shots like Agamemnon) and there was absolutely no reason to deny the seven kings of Rome (before the republic) the title. The Byzantine court was simply being a bit less than consistent or logical. As for Algirdas, I suppose the Byzantines needed a word big enough to fit the extent of his power and so it ended up being Basileus. They were normally much more anxious about the title. Perhaps the fact that Algirdas was pagan (there are some assertions of his baptism but they don't find much corroboration) eased matters. It would have been much more difficult for a Christian ruler to get the title of Basileus from the Byzantines in correspondence.

Please note that Jogaila (Jagiello, Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland) entered the Christian monarchical family as a Grand Duke, which was the title of Vytautas, even as a vassal of Jogaila. I understand the Grand Duchy being a kingdom in the game but an empire would be a stretch. There was actually a point in early 15th century history when both Kiev and Novgorod were ruled by vassals of Jagiello (whose highest title was king), with borders running like 100 kilometres from Moscow, but that didn't make him an emperor, either.

First of all, calling an ethnic group "savages" is really, really offensive. Secondly, the Russian empire is really the only one that makes sense, because historically the Russian "empire" was created as a successor to Byzantium. If I leave any of these alone when modding, it would probably be the Russian one. I'll probably just put in some creation clause making it so no one has the Byzantine title before you can create it.

It doesn't. In Patch 1.06, the Russian Empire will enter as a de iure empire in 1066 (not owned by anybody, presumably). At that point Byzantium was doing well.

On the other hand, the "third Rome" thing originated after 1469, which is the date when Grand Prince Ivan III married Zoe Palaiologina, daughter of Thomas (himself titled emperor of Constantinople), brother of the last ruling emperor, Constantine XI (the latter having died in 1453 which is when CK2 stops, to state the obvious). The Grand Princes initially claimed (and with varying success) the title of "tzar", generally being believed to be equivalent to the western title of king. The use of the imperial title really began in 1721 under Peter the Great and recognition was limited. That was something between the "third Rome" pretence and more modern ideas. Muuuch different from a 1066 de iure empire of Russia (at which point, obviously, there is no third Rome or anything).
 
Last edited:
First of all you're assuming that the Normans will always win, which is certainly not the case. Secondly you're suggesting that the Saxons should get longbows (with whatever bonuses they confer), which they obviously shouldn't.
Having checked the code, I see that provinces will start converting to English provided that at least one person with Norman culture rules an English province after 1100. William winning in 1066 certaily makes that the most likely scenario, but it could actually happen (rarely) in other games if a Norman inherits, even as a vassal of a Godwinsson.

Why does it seem so bizarre to you that the Anglo-Saxons could adopt the longbow if the Normans failed to conquer them? There was nothing French or Norman about the longbow. The English kings also claimed the title of Emperor of All Britain (;)) so they would have good reason to invade and subdue Wales - and so they would see longbows in use there just as they did historically under Edward Plantagenet. The terrain, demographics and non-availability of good horse-breeding stock would apply to Anglo-Saxon England just as it would to Norman England, so once the technology evolved, why wouldn't they adopt longbows?

Having said that, I agree that cultural buildings should be tied to province culture. Or even that converting province culture should convert the building rather than destroying it.




That's because, strictly speaking, Basileus doesn't actually mean emperor. It is more equvilent to king and is a term used by the ERE to refer to a range of outside rulers. Basileus Basileon is used (from around I think the 8th century on) meaning first king or high king or some sort of equivalent. It is hard to translate because the word itself refers to a wide range of rulers.
That's not true, I'm afraid. Basileus used to mean 'king' in Classical Greek, but from the 4th century onwards it was exclusively used for the Roman Emperor and the Persian Shahanshah. The official title of the Emperor at Constantinople was not "Basileus Basileon", it was just plain Basileus. (or "faithful Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans" - pistós basileus kai autokratōr Rhōmaíōn - in full) Expressions like 'Basileus Basileon' or the even more fanciful 'Kosmocrator' ("Ruler of the Universe") were merely propaganda, not official titles.

In other words, if you want to claim that 'Basileus' only means 'king', you have to accept that the man in the purple boots and fancy hat in Constantinople was also only a King (and Autocrat), not an Emperor. And I don't think you want to do that.
;)
 
NewbieOne, I think the very fact that continually write it in the Classical Latin spelling 'de iure' shows that even you recognize that 'de jure' has a specific gameplay meaning that is not necessarily identical to its broader meaning in the outside world.
 
Having checked the code, I see that provinces will start converting to English provided that at least one person with Norman culture rules an English province after 1100. William winning in 1066 certaily makes that the most likely scenario, but it could actually happen (rarely) in other games if a Norman inherits, even as a vassal of a Godwinsson.

Why does it seem so bizarre to you that the Anglo-Saxons could adopt the longbow if the Normans failed to conquer them? There was nothing French or Norman about the longbow. The English kings also claimed the title of Emperor of All Britain (;)) so they would have good reason to invade and subdue Wales - and so they would see longbows in use there just as they did historically under Edward Plantagenet. The terrain, demographics and non-availability of good horse-breeding stock would apply to Anglo-Saxon England just as it would to Norman England, so once the technology evolved, why wouldn't they adopt longbows?

Actually, even I might start a Wales game to show the Normans their place in light of the Pendragon legacy. In fact, if that empire makes it, I'll probably do just that at some point. Anyway, the English kings would have been laughed out of the hall if they had actually tried to get themselves introduced under that title somewhere in continental Europe.

Also, I think such use of the title of emperor might have been metaphorical or generic, as in, "for you guys here I might as well be the emperor."

Having said that, I agree that cultural buildings should be tied to province culture. Or even that converting province culture should convert the building rather than destroying it.

It's sad to go through like 4 upgrades and lose it all when the king gets inherited by someone with a different culture. IMHO those buildings should either stay or get converted. In fact, it might be more reasonable for them to stay, although preventing the construction of buildings unique to some other culture (so that you can't stack special buildings from more than one culture).

Also, I think it would be better to have buildings appropriate for the provinces's culture and not for its ruler's. So yes, you could then have buildings from many cultures in your kingdom but that's fine if you have a multicultural kingdom, and they'd still give benefits to only one holding per building anyway.


That's not true, I'm afraid. Basileus used to mean 'king' in Classical Greek, but from the 4th century onwards it was exclusively used for the Roman Emperor and the Persian Shahanshah. The official title of the Emperor at Constantinople was not "Basileus Basileon", it was just plain Basileus. (or "faithful Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans" - pistós basileus kai autokratōr Rhōmaíōn - in full) Expressions like 'Basileus Basileon' or the even more fanciful 'Kosmocrator' ("Ruler of the Universe") were merely propaganda, not official titles.

And probably not very much liked by the Patriarch or the Pope, very, very theologically inappropriate.

NewbieOne, I think the very fact that continually write it in the Classical Latin spelling 'de iure' shows that even you recognize that 'de jure' has a specific gameplay meaning that is not necessarily identical to its broader meaning in the outside world.

Nice try but it's just spelling. Like "color" and "colour", which are still the same thing.
 
Last edited:
It's sad to go through like 4 upgrades and lose it all when the king gets inherited by someone with a different culture. IMHO those buildings should either stay or get converted. In fact, it might be more reasonable for them to stay, although preventing the construction of buildings unique to some other culture (so that you can't stack special buildings from more than one culture).

Also, I think it would be better to have buildings appropriate for the provinces's culture and not for its ruler's. So yes, you could then have buildings from many cultures in your kingdom but that's fine if you have a multicultural kingdom, and they'd still give benefits to only one holding per building anyway.

It wouldn't just be better, it'd be historically accurate. Anytime a Kingdom or Empire had different kinds of people with different kinds of fighting within their borders, they generally tended to make use of them. The Persians used Phoenician naval might and the Romans used Germanic horseman.

People think the reward for subjugating a culture is the loot you'll get. Those people are idiots. The real reward for subjugating foreign people is the new whacking stick you'll get to use on the next group you target. Really, who doesn't like to get a new toy every once in a while :p
 
It wouldn't just be better, it'd be historically accurate.

For "accurate", you'd need to justify that you can still effectively train that kind of people. If the whole enterprise rests on the unique skills of your top guy and his cronies ("I'm Irish, so I'll show you Italians here how to fight as galloglasses"), then you're out of lack when they fade out of power. :p IMHO accuracy could be achieved by making it work on a by province instead of by ruler basis. This would be ideal. :p