• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well, it's Friday and high time to spill the beans on the new expansion for Crusader Kings II; the Sword of Islam. Judging by the forum, playable Muslims is the most requested feature for CKII, and who are we to disagree? We always wanted to do it, provided we could do the Muslim world justice. That time is now (or, well, soon :) ). As with the Ruler Designer DLC, the Sword of Islam will be released together with a major content patch. What you get with the Sword of Islam is simply the ability to play as the Muslim rulers, but all the new mechanics will be there and running for the AI (or other players in multiplayer) even if you don't have the expansion.

I'll be doing three dev diaries on the Sword of Islam, each one dealing with some unique features for the Muslims as well as some free features that everyone will have access to simply by patching to 1.06.

THE SWORD OF ISLAM

One of the major hassles with making Muslims playable was the prevalence of text with obviously Christian or Western terminology. Therefore, we had to go through all text to make it fit the setting if you are playing a Muslim. Often, this required writing whole new events and decisions. For example, Muslims don't hold tournaments, they have the Furusiyya instead, which is an exhibition of martial arts and horsemanship. They don't hold Grand Feasts, they observe the Ramadan, etc. We also added some completely new decisions, like going on the Hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca), which will initiate a cool little event driven story of what happens on the way to and from the holy city. Of course, there is also a whole slew of events dealing with various new gameplay features (more on that in later dev diaries.)

Another issue we needed to solve was the Gothic looking graphical interface of Crusader Kings II, which we felt did not really work when playing as a Muslim ruler. So we did a complete reskin with sand tones and green symbols and patterns instead of the church window graphics of Christian rulers. Yet another problem was that many event pictures looked distinctly Western/Christian, so we've added about 25 new ones to serve as Muslim equivalents. Then there are all the little things, like trait icons with crosses, the Crusade banner, etc. All of that has been changed to provide the right atmosphere. We've even changed the five councillor models for Muslims when they're out in the provinces performing jobs. It's all been a lot of work, but I think it turned out really well.

Muslims get a slightly different set of character traits; they don't get the Kinslayer, Crusader, Celibate and Chaste Traits. Instead, they get the Mujahid, Hajjaj, Faqih (Islamic law expert), Hafiz (has memorized the Koran), Sayyid (agnatic descendent of Fatima or one of Muhammad's uncles) and Mirza (child of a Sayyida mother) traits.

Lastly, Muslims get another set of honorary titles to hand out to their vassals. They all get a few special flavour events - especially the Chief Qadi - a position requiring an ecclesiastical education.

SoI_04.jpg

That's it for the Sword of Islam in this dev diary; next time I will go into the core dynamics of playing as a Muslim ruler.

THE 1.06 PATCH

Now then, here's some of the free stuff we're giving ya'll in the 1.06 patch...

First off, we thought the southwest corner of the map looked a bit dull, so we added a bunch of new provinces down there, representing the flourishing civilizations of the Manden people; Ghana, Mali and Songhay. The area comes with historical rulers (of course) and a new West African culture group. The region is rich but hard to reach.

SoI_05.jpg

For flavour, we have also made it so that duchy tier and above titles held by rulers of Iranian, Arabic and Turkish cultures are named after the ruling dynasty. For example, the Kingdom of Egypt automatically becomes the Fatimid Sultanate while the Fatimids are in power (though the original name is also used where appropriate.) In case the same dynasty holds several high rank titles, only the highest is named after the dynasty. Thus, we can have both a Seljuk Sultanate and a Sultanate of Rum, both ruled by the Seljuk dynasty. Randomly generated characters of these cultures automatically get a dynasty name suitable to name states after (ending with -id or -n, etc).

SoI_01.jpg

Lastly (for this dev diary), there are seven new creatable empires (the Arabian Empire, the Empire of Persia, Britannia, Scandinavia, Francia, Spain and Russia) and a whole slew of new de jure kingdoms, mostly to break up the old kingdom of Khazaria. Now, I know the addition of the new empires is controversial, but the creation conditions are designed to be fairly difficult to achieve, so the AI will very rarely do it. We want players to have the imperial option to strive for if they so desire - the Unions turned out to be a popular feature in Europa Universalis III.

SoI_02.jpg

Oh, and before anyone asks, patch 1.06 will be semi-compatible with old save games: you will be able to keep playing, but we're making no guarantees that the balance will not be completely upset, or that any added new provinces will be active and working.

That's it for now. Next week I'll talk about polygamy, decadence, and strong and weak claims!
 
Something funny.

Those moaning about de jure Empires that aren't strictly historically, still haven't answered why they don't have a problem with Kingdom of Portugal, or Kingdom of Finland, which as per 1066 (and for Finland untill some 1600) weren't even thought of.
 
Aethelstan was certainly an emperor of sorts -- the Welsh, (some) Irish, Norse-Gael and Cornish petty kings all swore allegiance to him, as well as Constantine of Scotland and the duke of Brittany.
 
Something funny.

Those moaning about de jure Empires that aren't strictly historically, still haven't answered why they don't have a problem with Kingdom of Portugal, or Kingdom of Finland, which as per 1066 (and for Finland untill some 1600) weren't even thought of.
Because those are already in the game, and not a proposed addition? Also Portugal at least actually existed in this time period, so you could argue that the game is trying to encourage a historical formation of the kingdom. You can't argue the same for an Empire of Britain or whatever, because no such thing existed.

You could also try arguing the things people actually wrote instead of bringing up unrelated things and assuming they have this or that opinion about them.
Aethelstan was certainly an emperor of sorts -- the Welsh, (some) Irish, Norse-Gael and Cornish petty kings all swore allegiance to him, as well as Constantine of Scotland and the duke of Brittany.
Lesser rulers were in a state of (very temporary) submission to Aethelstan, yes, but that wasn't an unusual situation for the Early Middle Ages. Real life didn't have strict tiers the way CK2 does. There were gradations of authority, which were influenced by material power and the particular prestige and legitimacy associated with a specific title. I don't think the temporary pre-eminence that Aethelstan achieved in any way justifies the notion of a de jure British Empire, and I don't regard Aethelstan or his successors as any kind of emperor. It's wrong to think of his dominant position vis-a-vis other British monarchs as being analogous to the Byzantine emperor's authority over his provinces or what have you--the relationship was much looser, much easier to dissolve.
 
Did people in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales regard these so-called "rulers of Britain" as their emperor? I doubt even people in England did. All you've proven is that a handful of Anglo-Saxon kings were puffed up and arrogant enough to put the imperial title on a piece of paper.
The kings of Scotland and Wales paid about as much attention to the basileus totius Britanniae's claims over them as the rulers of Milan and Florence paid to the claims of the Holy Roman Emperor, actually. If he was nearby with an army they bowed their heads, did homage and paid him tribute. As soon as he left they carried on ignoring him.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that these Empires should exist in the game from day one. I'm saying that they had enough historical precedent that including them as an option for players to create is historically valid -- not "fantasy" or "fanfiction". Sure, getting the title recognised by everyone would need a ruler of Britain or Spain or whatever to be stronger and have more legitimacy than their historical counterparts ever managed. However, the simple fact that they claimed the title at all disproves this theory that in mediaeval times "Emperor", for Christians, could only ever mean the Roman Emperor.

a British emperor would be able to press de jure claims on all parts of the British Isles, even parts he had never actually ruled before
Not if he's only allowed to create the title in the first place if he already rules all the territories making up the empire! (Or ~80% of them at least, which might be more reasonable).
 
Because those are already in the game, and not a proposed addition? Also Portugal at least actually existed in this time period, so you could argue that the game is trying to encourage a historical formation of the kingdom. You can't argue the same for an Empire of Britain or whatever, because no such thing existed.

Things that are already in the game can be removed or modified (cf kingdom of Brittonia f.e.).
I don't think new de jure empires are only a proposal. they will be in patch 1.06 whatever is discussed here.
 
So ... because they're allready in the game its okay?
... No? Nobody said this. Try arguing things people actually wrote instead of arguing what you assume to be their opinion on other things.
Things that are already in the game can be removed or modified (cf kingdom of Brittonia f.e.).
Yes, and that's why there are literally hundreds of threads where people suggest changes to the game. This isn't one of them, we are talking about a change that has yet to be officially introduced in the end product.
 
Something funny.

Those moaning about de jure Empires that aren't strictly historically, still haven't answered why they don't have a problem with Kingdom of Portugal, or Kingdom of Finland, which as per 1066 (and for Finland untill some 1600) weren't even thought of.

You may leave strictly:p.

Portugal isn't that hard, you need to mod the history files of the duchies comprising Portugal. For the northern half the de jure liege should be the kingdom of Galicia until 1139, then add liege = k_portugal. León and Castille recognized Portugal in 1143, but the Papal recognition came in 1179.

1139.7.26=
{
liege="k_portugal"
}

1179.5.23=
{
de_jure_liege="k_portugal"
}

Before that Portugal could be titular though (everyone can mod that the way they like :)).

Finland is trickier, but every region needs a de jure liege, so maybe add the condition that only a Finnish ruler could create this title.
 
So ... because they're allready in the game its okay? ... that sounds like a weak reason don't you think?

1) You're trying to do a Red Herring. I'd advise you to stop that.

2) All provinces in the game must belong to a Kingdom. It's just a matter of opinion on whether you think Finland is better represented by not being subject to Russian or Swedish Crown Laws by fiat despite not being under their rule or if you're bothered enough by an ahistoric Kingdom. Either available option is ahistoric and therefore it is a null point to bring up. In Portugal's case I might not agree (don't really have any opinions on Iberia), so perhaps it ought to be part of other Kingdoms, but at least it was something real. Unlike the "Empire of Scandinavia" et al. It also doesn't breach major political dynamics of the continent.
 
I wanted to give a profuse capital "THANK YOU" to Doomdark for taking time to post these details about the upcoming DLC/expansion "The Sword of Islam". I would also like to extend some moral support to off-set the withering assault you endured by the "enthusiastic" pro-history faction that has such strong feelings about the direction of your product. Look at it this way, though, if they didn't love it they wouldn't feel so compelled to come after you like that. Still, I hope you haven't been discouraged from giving additional dev diaries.. there are plenty of us ignorant types who are VERY happy about the choices you've made.

I view your title, CK2, as a historical-flavored 'what-if' board game. You have given me the pieces and I can influence and/or watch the way it plays out. From the moment I un-pause the game, any historical similarity flies out the window. So, if I'm extremely successful and take over a large area it would be cool if I could become something more than a King... and now you're going to let me. Sweet!

I like history, but I don't want to replay history. There could be a game that was a series of pop-up windows that would just outline major historical events and engagements over a time period and you just keep clicking OK until the game is over.. because that is what history is.. it is static. That's not a game and it is not fun. CK2 is fun.. letting me grow my non-historical kingdom into a map-hogging monster empire could be fun.. I think it is. Playing marriages and alliances to your advantage is fun. Fighting wars that never really happened is fun. CK2 is fun.

Apologies if anyone's toes were trod upon.. it is not my intent to insult.

Very much looking forward to The Sword of Islam and patch 1.06 and another dev diary. Thanks again to the devs and all you do!
 
2) All provinces in the game must belong to a Kingdom.

-Technicaly not. You can let a province or duchy alone without any de jure kindgom above.
-Covering the map with de jure kingdoms (and maybe soon also with empires) is a development choice.
 
I wanted to give a profuse capital "THANK YOU" to Doomdark for taking time to post these details about the upcoming DLC/expansion "The Sword of Islam". I would also like to extend some moral support to off-set the withering assault you endured by the "enthusiastic" pro-history faction that has such strong feelings about the direction of your product. Look at it this way, though, if they didn't love it they wouldn't feel so compelled to come after you like that. Still, I hope you haven't been discouraged from giving additional dev diaries.. there are plenty of us ignorant types who are VERY happy about the choices you've made.

I view your title, CK2, as a historical-flavored 'what-if' board game. You have given me the pieces and I can influence and/or watch the way it plays out. From the moment I un-pause the game, any historical similarity flies out the window. So, if I'm extremely successful and take over a large area it would be cool if I could become something more than a King... and now you're going to let me. Sweet!

I like history, but I don't want to replay history. There could be a game that was a series of pop-up windows that would just outline major historical events and engagements over a time period and you just keep clicking OK until the game is over.. because that is what history is.. it is static. That's not a game and it is not fun. CK2 is fun.. letting me grow my non-historical kingdom into a map-hogging monster empire could be fun.. I think it is. Playing marriages and alliances to your advantage is fun. Fighting wars that never really happened is fun. CK2 is fun.

Apologies if anyone's toes were trod upon.. it is not my intent to insult.

Very much looking forward to The Sword of Islam and patch 1.06 and another dev diary. Thanks again to the devs and all you do!
You've got us. We actually hate playing games, and we also hate CK2. That's why we continue to post in this thread, it's just to harass the devs and turn CK2 into a history Powerpoint. That's our position exactly. Yes.
-Technicaly not. You can let a province or duchy alone without any de jure kindgom above.
I don't think that's true, I'm pretty sure unassigned provinces crash the game. That's why mods like CK2Plus which substantially alter the province setup still have de jure kingdoms everywhere, it's a hardcoded part of the game.
-Covering the map with de jure kingdoms (and maybe soon also with empires) is a development choice.
Well, yes. What's your point? Being able to remove provinces from all de jure kingdoms is a commonly requested feature. The Paradox devs have said it's difficult to do because of the way the game is coded. I don't know what the game code looks like but I'll take their word for it and accept that every province has to be part of a de jure kingdom. But that doesn't mean the current situation is my ideal situation.
 
Last edited:
question.
As now empires require 80% of the de jure provinces to get formed, is it now also the case for duchies and kingdoms ?
 
Personally, I'd rather have creatable titular Empires that became De Jure like other titular crowns. I'm not a huge history buff, but even I'd rather not have clearly ahistorical empires with already established De Jure lands. I understand that the game is not an historical simulator, but it should at least be pretty close to historical at game start(I'm not a huge fan of the de jure lands of Aquitane or others, either, but I can live with that).

That way, it feels like I'm really carving an empire out of nothing rather than reviving a title that has been legally crowned in the past.
 
-Technicaly not. You can let a province or duchy alone without any de jure kindgom above.
-Covering the map with de jure kingdoms (and maybe soon also with empires) is a development choice.

Oh. Didn't know that. Then wasn't the place-holder "Can't be created" Khazaria of earlier versions pointless? I guess it was just to maintain aesthetic consistency, then. :)
 
Personally, I'd rather have creatable titular Empires that became De Jure like other titular crowns. I'm not a huge history buff, but even I'd rather not have clearly ahistorical empires with already established De Jure lands. I understand that the game is not an historical simulator, but it should at least be pretty close to historical at game start(I'm not a huge fan of the de jure lands of Aquitane or others, either, but I can live with that).

That way, it feels like I'm really carving an empire out of nothing rather than reviving a title that has been legally crowned in the past.

My problem with de iure empires from the get-go is not so much history (though I admit that I'm more on the "historicals" side of the argument), but playgame reasons. If adding titular, non-inheritable empires (at leat initially) adds a new, difficult goal for me to achieve in any game, then I'm all for it. If, as it looks, it's going to be quite easy ot become an emperor, and in turn it makes it easier to control larger chunks of territory, then I'm against it. It's both ahistorical (it was hard to keep power over large territories for feudal rulers), and it substracts fun from the game.
 
-Technicaly not. You can let a province or duchy alone without any de jure kindgom above.
-Covering the map with de jure kingdoms (and maybe soon also with empires) is a development choice.

I can vouch for that. You can have duchies without either kingdoms or empires as their de jure lieges. 'Free duchies' as I call them are stuck with the default crown laws but otherwise play okay. Of course, they can go after titular titles and all that. Barcelona is my pet peeve in this regard, but there are no easy answers. I also have in my mod a few counties without de jure lieges, though I might not leave it that way, namely Bigorre, Bearn, and Foix.

@BitRez: I see all the Paradox games as big board games, with the CPU doing all the un-fun work. I used to play Risk all by myself, so when I discovered EU on PC I fell in love. :wub: CK2 is even more so, with the way that events are selected now. So once a year, the CPU draws a character event card for you. You caught the plague, a child is born, a child is born--but it ain't yours ;) So yeah, that's a good way to think of it.
 
I don't think that's true, I'm pretty sure unassigned provinces crash the game. That's why mods like CK2Plus which substantially alter the province setup still have de jure kingdoms everywhere, it's a hardcoded part of the game.

It doesn't crash the game at start, but I didn't play it much to vouch for the rest, especially not for any events behaving strange. Also, the "de iure kingdoms display" behaves "funky" - it shows the "unaligned" duchies and counties as separate kingdoms ...

I don't use this display at all, so it doesn't bother me really.
 
My problem with de iure empires from the get-go is not so much history (though I admit that I'm more on the "historicals" side of the argument), but playgame reasons. If adding titular, non-inheritable empires (at leat initially) adds a new, difficult goal for me to achieve in any game, then I'm all for it. If, as it looks, it's going to be quite easy ot become an emperor, and in turn it makes it easier to control larger chunks of territory, then I'm against it. It's both ahistorical (it was hard to keep power over large territories for feudal rulers), and it substracts fun from the game.
I agree. Simply controlling 'De Jure' land is not difficult enough either imo. My ideal scenario would be that controlling 3 kingdoms gives you the option to form an Empire and that doing so gives a modifier that makes non-vassal Christian rulers, and maybe even vassals that like the HRE or Pope more than you, opinion drop significantly. If there was no HRE or the HRE was excommunicated, I'd like a plot/event that would legitimize the empire and remove the modifier. I'm not so much in favor of the non-inheritable aspect, but it would be cool that you don't just regularly transfer power to your heir for the first few successions and instead have to somehow 'prove' that everything is legitimate.
 
[video=youtube;lpAYY3BvviE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpAYY3BvviE[/video]
You should make atleast 1 more like these for this Expansion ^^