Well, it's been two weeks, so it's time for another bi-weekly entry in the saga of The Old Gods expansion for Crusader Kings II (we will ramp up the pace to weekly dev diaries from May 1). Today, I'll talk about what is, perhaps, the core feature of the expansion: raiding. All pagans have the option to raid, but it is especially important for Norse and Tengri rulers, who will start losing Prestige if they have been at peace for too long. Rather than declare a regular war, they can opt for some good old fashioned raiding.



So how does it work? It's easy; you simply raise an army, toggle it to raiding and move it to a suitable county. You cannot raid counties within the same realm as you, nor can you raid brothers of the faith, but everyone else is fair game. All counties now have a wealth bar that shows how much gold you can loot from the province. As long as your raiding army is standing in the province, it will drain the wealth bar. The loot is not taken from the treasury of the local ruler, but rather represents the possessions of the local clergy, burghers, farmers and lesser nobility. However, the top liege of the looted county will lose Prestige and all Holdings in a looted county will have a lower tax income until the bar has (slowly) replenished. Incidentally, all sieges (not just raiding) in a county will damage the wealth, but only raiders will get money from it.



Loot from counties neighboring your own realm goes directly into your treasury, so looting farther afield is normally relatively pointless. However, Norse pagans have the option of raiding all coastal areas, no matter how distant. The problem is that such loot must be carried on ships and when the ships fill up, the raiders must return home and deposit the gold in the treasury. Initially, Norse fleets are also able to navigate many major rivers, like the Volga and the Seine, but when fort levels get too high in the adjacent counties, the rivers will become blocked off, representing fortified bridges and other key fortifications. Using the great eastern rivers and portages, the vikings are able to reach even the Caspian Sea.

The fort level in Holdings has another effect on raiding; it can protect a part of the wealth bar. Unfortunately for the defenders, this protection is of course lost if the raiders actually manage to occupy the local castles, cities and temples. Even worse, when raiders successfully siege down a Holding, there is a chance that some of its buildings are destroyed. In fact, the entire Holding can be razed to the ground, although this is a rare event. The raiders will get much loot from cracking open such golden eggs in addition to draining the wealth bar dry.



The dynamic we have set up basically forces aggressive pagans (especially lower rank ones, like counts) to raid unless they want to live with negative Prestige. On the other hand, the gold and Prestige they get from raiding can be used to declare special wars, which I will talk about in the next developer diary (on April 17)!

Bonus:
A Paradox Development Studio Feature - Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods Highlights from the livestream:

Part 1
[video=youtube;eIX3zOChdgE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIX3zOChdgE[/video]

Part 2
[video=youtube;rysyfLfcpbw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rysyfLfcpbw[/video]

 

[Ruwaard]

Yes, I think I understand your point of view. In fact, I seriously believe there is two Western Roman Empires, not speaking about geography but about politics, ideology AND geography:
A)* The first one is the 'Carolingian' Empire, whose title had been held by Charlemagne, then--and his father would have been very surprized--Louis the Pious, then this same title wandered between the different kingdoms of West France, Lotharingia, Italy, Burgundy/Provence and East France, following the bursts and turmoils of history. This is 'the' Empire that should be existing in the 867 start date.

B)* Another thing is the HRE, whose title was linked to a territorial set of lands: this was a successor of both the Carolingian Empire and the Roman Empire, but not the same Empire, even if politically its strategy was to say, "There was Rome, then the Western Roman Empire, then the "Carolingian" Empire, and now we're the Empire. Yes, clear that's we're the Holy Roman Empire.'
And this is 'the' Empire we see in the 1066 start date.

For me, the questions about Empires with 1066 start date aren't relevant: there's the HRE, point.
But for the 867 start date (and this being until the end of a game begun in 867), there are three essential questions:

1) How will the title of Emperor be attributed to the kings in Occident after 867, whatever this situation lasts? (why not until 1217 if there's always a valid claimant for this title?)

2) How will these kingdoms of Germany and Bavaria (maybe also Bohemia, Lotharingia and Italy) will have the possibility to become the HRE, if there's no more valid claimant for the title of the 'Carolingian Empire'? (why not in 1327, if there was a valid 'Carolingian' Empire until 1217?)

3) If Germany, Bavaria... are unable to form the HRE, shouldn't France, Italy or whatever be able to create the 'Holy Roman Empire (of the Frankish/Italian/... nation)' instead of Germany/Bavaria?

I would be very disappointed by a set of events looking like:
'Sorry guy, but now it's 924, you can't be Emperor anymore. But be happy, you're still King of Italy! ', or
'Yeah, dude! It's 955, you ain't Otto the Great, you're an heretic, you lost half of your lands, but whatever: you're now the Emperor! :happy:'

To say the truth, I hoped since a certain time that we would receive more informations about nomads.

Now, I just wish a very rapid development diary that could calm all worries and questions we've see on the forums since a few weeks, due essentialy to the lack of information.

(Note I added A & B) I think a part from the disagreement is that IMHO 'B' follows from 'A'. The title did indeed wander until it finally ended up being resumed by the Eastern part. Another point is what exactly wandered around and was resumed. The Ottonians resumed the title of Emperor of the Romans also used by the Carolingians. However all the Carolingian kingdoms are heirs of the Carolingian empire (not not Empire). As a sidenote the Franks themselves also separated , linguistically speaking,in a Romance and a Germanic branch.
Another point is the Germanic argument with respect to the HRE, it's like saying ERE was Greek. The notion of a 'Roman' empire was much broader and in a way these imperial aspirations also came with their own price. Maybe here the idea of a Universal empire clashes with the in game concept.

These are three interesting questions.

1 As I understood it, a 867 is followed by a gap and then the 1066. At each start thing will start diverge.

2 & 3 Earlier in this debate I suggested to give all the Carolingian kingdoms West Francia (with Aquitania), East Francia (with Bavaria), Lotharingia, Burgundy and Italy a few (Francia (or Gallia*), Germania*, Italia (*= would be analogously to each other, given at that point each part was Francian (Frankish)) or called something else) in game de jure empires and make the HRE titular. Each part should be able to form a de jure HRE. This also connects with idea of the Universal (Roman) Empire. As such I too don't want to railroad things either.

Finally I can only with the wish you express in the last sentence of that post.

 

[Guilu]

I'm actually kind of disappointed by this. I was hoping for raiding to be open to everyone. The mechanics as they're set up now seem very limiting and tedious, with having to care about where your loot is. Raiding should be open to christians (and others) against anybody they're at war with IMO. I mean, they did it historically, and I know I do it all the time; as a vassal, I usually join in on my liege's wars to besiege some weak fortresses and get loot. You have to be very careful about who you attack though, because a lot of the castle are too strong; which was usually the signal in those times to go raid the countryside.
I mean wtf Paradox, it's fun, it's historical, why wouldn't you do it ?

Also still disappointed that rivers won't be vectors of trade. Why do you think Paris, Buda, London, Riga are where they are ? Because they controlled the flow of trade inland! There needs to be more competitions for republics (probably opening it to count level mayors, with titular counties being handed out later on) and trade over rivers. Trade just shouldn't stay as it is, it's neither fun (because of the lack of competition) nor again, historical.

 

[Jahasrad]

I think that I can deal with the raiding mechanic being exclusive to the pagan factions. As has been said before, the money from sieges is a good representation of looting for the Christian kingdoms. The pagans need something to differentiate them and I'm all for revisiting the expansion of the raiding mechanic down the line if it makes sense.

Though I do kind of like the declaring war requirement to raid other lands for Christians. Perhaps that would still make the pagans different enough.

 

[Chevaresqye]

(Note I added A & B) I think a part from the disagreement is that IMHO 'B' follows from 'A'. The title did indeed wander until it finally ended up being resumed by the Eastern part. Another point is what exactly wandered around and was resumed. The Ottonians resumed the title of Emperor of the Romans also used by the Carolingians. However all the Carolingian kingdoms are heirs of the Carolingian empire (not not Empire). As a sidenote the Franks themselves also separated , linguistically speaking,in a Romance and a Germanic branch.
Another point is the Germanic argument with respect to the HRE, it's like saying ERE was Greek. The notion of a 'Roman' empire was much broader and in a way these imperial aspirations also came with their own price. Maybe here the idea of a Universal empire clashes with the in game concept.

These are three interesting questions.

1 As I understood it, a 867 is followed by a gap and then the 1066. At each start thing will start diverge.

2 & 3 Earlier in this debate I suggested to give all the Carolingian kingdoms West Francia (with Aquitania), East Francia (with Bavaria), Lotharingia, Burgundy and Italy a few (Francia (or Gallia*), Germania*, Italia (*= would be analogously to each other, given at that point each part was Francian (Frankish)) or called something else) in game de jure empires and make the HRE titular. Each part should be able to form a de jure HRE. This also connects with idea of the Universal (Roman) Empire. As such I too don't want to railroad things either.

Finally I can only with the wish you express in the last sentence of that post.

Surprisingly, all Western Roman Emperor from Charlemagne to Charles V was control at least a part of Italy. Both Otto and Charlemagne was crowned when they conquered Italy. Some Emperors between Charlemagne and Otto, although held a very small territory, were crowned as Emperor because they control Italy!

Imperial title should belong to who controls Italia !

 

[Xiathorn]

I wonder if the raiding is because it would be too difficult to deactivate it if you didn't have the dlc? Hence forcing it to pagans only, as presumably playing as pagans requires the dlc.

However, I do plead with paradox to reconsider this. Large numbers of wars during this period were fought to MAKE money. This doesn't really get represented in the current game. Raiding would be a hugely important change, and Christians and Muslims did it all the time. In fact, most of the 100 years war was raiding to force the French to come out and fight - yes, sieges did occur, but raiding was a hugely important facet.

 

[Ruwaard]

Surprisingly, all Western Roman Emperor from Charlemagne to Charles V was control at least a part of Italy. Both Otto and Charlemagne was crowned when they conquered Italy. Some Emperors between Charlemagne and Otto, although held a very small territory, were crowned as Emperor because they control Italy!

Imperial title should belong to who controls Italia !

That's a bit of a rushed conclusion, though the imperial dignity certainly had a (symbolic) connecting with Italy. If we take the start date of 867 all three parts of the former empire of Charlemagne, West Francia, Middle Francia and East Francia could have ended up with the imperial dignity and thus a de jure HRE*. In 867 the imperial dignity is in hands on southern Middle Francia, aka Italy. Both East and West Francia are the two most likely candidates to eventually end up with it though, however West Francia must also control Burgundy to do so, since they don't share a border, unlike East Francia. Controlling Italy is a condition, but certainly not the sole condition.

How about a decision to make create a de jure HRE. A king of West Francia should also control the kingdoms of Burgundy and Italy and preferably the until then titular HRE. The king of East Francia should also control the kingdom of Italy and preferably the until then titular HRE (maybe to balance it out Lotharingia could be added). A titular HRE and king of Italy might also be left the German or French route in such a decision.

(*= before that it could be a titular title)

 

[theKing1988]

So this game have earlier game start date, and still same end date ? I will love extended gameplay time. More technology to research looks very nice, so only last thing remain to make perfect game - make us abiliyt to play as religion states/head of religions.

Religious states sure, religious heads no thank you.

 

[DLFebin]

Religious states sure, religious heads no thank you.

Well, it seems that with SoI and TOG we are able to play as feudal (and possibly republic) heads of every (reformed) religion except for Christian ones.

 

[Talq]

The whole reformed pagan religion thing made me cringe. I understand why they are doing it, but I still don't like it. I would strongly have preferred they found another mechanic to shut off the pagan features that need to be toned down in time, rather than the bastardised paganism (a la Julian) route. That so far as I know there is neither any contemporaneous evidence for this, and that, well, pretty much every other religious system world-wide survives just fine without religious heads does not help its case.

However, I do plead with paradox to reconsider this. Large numbers of wars during this period were fought to MAKE money.

You get money from sieges. And the increase in fortification levels over time make the viking style of raids plain unprofitable. By the by, the english chevauchees were basicly only profitable for the people doing them, and even then only in the first 20 or so years (after which finding anything valuable not behind a fortification was too hard). Many of the later ones were simply called for PR 'look at us, we're doing something about the war! Give us money and we might actually take something!'

 

[Guilu]

You get money from sieges. And the increase in fortification levels over time make the viking style of raids plain unprofitable. By the by, the english chevauchees were basicly only profitable for the people doing them, and even then only in the first 20 or so years (after which finding anything valuable not behind a fortification was too hard). Many of the later ones were simply called for PR 'look at us, we're doing something about the war! Give us money and we might actually take something!'

Profitable only for the people doing them ? Why, I do believe I have to pay my levies, being able to do so with loot from my enemies would be nice. And not attacking fortresses is just common sense when there are unprotected villages about. The Hundread Years War is far from being the only example of christian raiding as well, just the most famous to us.

 

[persianfan247]

The whole reformed pagan religion thing made me cringe. I understand why they are doing it, but I still don't like it. I would strongly have preferred they found another mechanic to shut off the pagan features that need to be toned down in time, rather than the bastardised paganism (a la Julian) route. That so far as I know there is neither any contemporaneous evidence for this, and that, well, pretty much every other religious system world-wide survives just fine without religious heads does not help its case.



You get money from sieges. And the increase in fortification levels over time make the viking style of raids plain unprofitable. By the by, the english chevauchees were basicly only profitable for the people doing them, and even then only in the first 20 or so years (after which finding anything valuable not behind a fortification was too hard). Many of the later ones were simply called for PR 'look at us, we're doing something about the war! Give us money and we might actually take something!'

It is my understanding that Pagan regligions did change under the influence of Christianity and organised themselves along Christian lines. They became more organised. Though I don't think it happened instantly

 

[cybrxkhan]

The whole reformed pagan religion thing made me cringe. I understand why they are doing it, but I still don't like it. I would strongly have preferred they found another mechanic to shut off the pagan features that need to be toned down in time, rather than the bastardised paganism (a la Julian) route. That so far as I know there is neither any contemporaneous evidence for this, and that, well, pretty much every other religious system world-wide survives just fine without religious heads does not help its case.

I agree with this sentiment. While I generally look forward to TOG, this is something that's bothersome. While I don't think it's unfeasible to think a pagan religion might have re-organized itself somehow, I don't think this requires a Chrisianity-like religious head. I do hope that "reforming" a pagan religion will be given more depth than this...

I also hope it's extremely difficult - nigh impossible - to achieve, or at least that it won't require some simple amount of piety. I woudl also wish it isn't instantaneous, but I guess it's too late for that.

 

[NoUsernamesHere]

It is my understanding that Pagan regligions did change under the influence of Christianity and organised themselves along Christian lines. They became more organised. Though I don't think it happened instantly

I don't remember reading about anything of the sort.

Quite the contrary, I do remember reading about how much Christianity was changed by the indigenous faiths they sought to overtake. Most traditions of modern Christianity are based on pagan practices and beliefs. I would argue that it was paganism that influenced Christianity, not the other way around.

 

[unmerged(221372)]

I WILL SEE FINLAND AS THE DOMINANT POWER IN THE NORTH JUST YOU WAIT

Already succeeded once in CK2+, When King Urho I the Great ruled over Finland, Estonia and Norway whilst the swedish fought the danes and the russian princes squabbled among themselves. Then my save was corrupted :C

I have a screenshot of the kingdom pre-norwegian invasion though if beliefs are beggared

 

[Ruwaard]

Profitable only for the people doing them ? Why, I do believe I have to pay my levies, being able to do so with loot from my enemies would be nice. And not attacking fortresses is just common sense when there are unprotected villages about. The Hundread Years War is far from being the only example of christian raiding as well, just the most famous to us.

Yes, I tend to agree. Wars in general tend to be costly, so profitable IMHO goes a bit far; but loot might reduce your net costs.

 

[smeggy]

I don't remember reading about anything of the sort.

Quite the contrary, I do remember reading about how much Christianity was changed by the indigenous faiths they sought to overtake. Most traditions of modern Christianity are based on pagan practices and beliefs. I would argue that it was paganism that influenced Christianity, not the other way around.

The transformation pagan to christian seems to have been gradual: at first the group / people converted to christianity, often without them knowing what it was about, or simply because the leader liked the baptism ceremony. Look at Iceland: in 1000 the Allthing desided the Icelanders where christians (due to the politics with Norway), but in reality, in the private homes, the pagan gods continued tobe worshipped. Or Charlemagne's conquest of German tribes: they all got babtised, but didnt had a clue what or why. Missionaries came later, to explain their new believe. The result was we still have a mix: the easter bunny, the xmas tree, and so on. Shamefully some of the worse parts of christianity like womans- and animal rights became the norm instead of the more civilized pagan views.

 

[Morgothic]

*licks lips*

 

[Guilu]

The transformation pagan to christian seems to have been gradual: at first the group / people converted to christianity, often without them knowing what it was about, or simply because the leader liked the baptism ceremony. Look at Iceland: in 1000 the Allthing desided the Icelanders where christians (due to the politics with Norway), but in reality, in the private homes, the pagan gods continued tobe worshipped. Or Charlemagne's conquest of German tribes: they all got babtised, but didnt had a clue what or why. Missionaries came later, to explain their new believe. The result was we still have a mix: the easter bunny, the xmas tree, and so on. Shamefully some of the worse parts of christianity like womans- and animal rights became the norm instead of the more civilized pagan views.

Actually, from some of the historians I'm reading, even nominal pagans evolved their beliefs and organization (because that's what this represents) when in contact with christianity. Having a head of religion shouldn't be automatic I agree, but the change should definitely be there.

 

[NoUsernamesHere]

Actually, from some of the historians I'm reading, even nominal pagans evolved their beliefs and organization (because that's what this represents) when in contact with christianity. Having a head of religion shouldn't be automatic I agree, but the change should definitely be there.

For the sake of non-accusatory reference, could you provide some examples of these historians that I may take a look into this information?

 

[unmerged(150945)]

Will North African Muslims invade the Mediterranean coast?