It's time for the weekly dev diary and this time it's a biggie, as we proudly announce Horse Lords, the new Crusader Kings II expansion! So what makes the proud rulers of the endless steppes unique? Well, in short, their relative lack of permanent settlements. This expansion gives the nomadic peoples of the steppes a unique type of gameplay which is not centered around Castles, Temples and Cities at all. Playing as a Nomad, you are allowed to conquer and even own normal Holdings, but they are worth little to you except as vassal cash cows. What you really care about is more grazing land for your sheep and horses. Thus, nomad hordes simply have a total population, which grows relative to how many empty Holding slots exist in your provinces (steppe provinces are best, but some other terrain types are also acceptable).

A large fraction of your total Population counts as your Manpower, which is used to raise your regiments (much like the Retinue system.) Of course, if all your fighting men are dead, it will be a while before your Manpower replenishes! War on the steppes is fast and fluid; you only occupy an empty province for as long as one of your armies is standing there, or if you build a fort there to lock it down... and even then, you do not get much war score from the open wastes.

This brings us to the one Holding that actually means a lot to the hordes; their capital. Each nomad clan can only one of this special holding type, but there are more upgrades for it than any of the regular types, and these improvements have more unique effects too... To really defeat a nomad horde, you need to occupy their capital (or decisively beat them in battle, of course.) However, Nomads are allowed to move their capital around often; and that means they actually pull up stakes, 'buildings' and all, and move the whole thing to another location!

Another special twist to the nomadic hordes is that even in defeat, they are still dangerous. Should a horde lose its last province, the tribe will still exist, and may use its remaining armies to conquer another land in which to settle. Naturally, nomads can choose to settle on a more permanent basis, by completely switching over to a Feudal, Tribal or Republican lifestyle. This is done by special decision, reminiscent of how Tribes work.

Now, as the astute among you might have wondered, Crusader Kings is largely about managing your turbulent vassals, so what replaces that important gameplay aspect for the Nomads? The answer to that, my friends, is the Clans, and that will be the subject of next week's dev diary! Until then...

 

[Slavicist]

Pretty much everything in this post. Yes the clans can force a new Khan or form their own horde.

Does the DLC bring forth the feature of tribute?

 

[riadach]

Well the thing is that the feudal system isn't that diffrent from a tribute system in itself. The feudal lords supplied levies more than taxes but the diffrence isn't all that big. It certainly wasn't as organised as it seems in game.

Hopefully, it will be a diplomatic action. Perhaps it will be a way of buying a truce from the great mongol hordes.

I'd like to see it apply to tribals as well. My Irish tribes need their black rent.

 

[Slavicist]

To iterate:

So...possibly one could mod the game to be able to play adventurers now, what with all the holdingless hordes gameplay?

There are already mods for that.

 

[Riekopo]

They're fixing the Mongols! Now I can stop posting about it.

 

[Slavicist]

So, the fact that my Catholic rulers went on twelve different crusades in my last Catholic game (twice to Jerusalem, and once against Lollard heretics in Hungary) doesn't count as actual crusades?

You can even start on a date when an actual crusade is in progress and go fight it. You don't have to wait for the Pope to call one in a full game.

Crusades exist, only they're godawful implemented.

 

[Redwulf_Storm]

Is Glitterhoof finally fleshed out with this expansion? He has always been my best chancellor, and he really deserves a good saddle.

Now truthfully, thank you guys/gals, this is a great expansion, better than I could of hoped for. I really am happy about all this hard work you do, and am now counting down the weeks until I can ride the steppes and burn everything in sight!

May I suggest a "Unite the Clans" intrigue decision: Once all other nomads are under your sway (or wiped out) you can do this and become the Khan of Khans? Giving you a "horse lord" trait similar to the Caesar trait that the Roman Emperor has (a vassal opinion bonus). Just a small idea!

Yeehaw!

 

[BFKelleher]

Someone's probably asked this, but what's the horse tab?

 

[Serbian Centurion]

So, the fact that my Catholic rulers went on twelve different crusades in my last Catholic game (twice to Jerusalem, and once against Lollard heretics in Hungary) doesn't count as actual crusades?

You can even start on a date when an actual crusade is in progress and go fight it. You don't have to wait for the Pope to call one in a full game.

That is not what i meant i think that crusades need more work and it is pointless to participate in them if only one king can gain land while in actual history more petty lords gained power and wealth during crusades.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

Whaaa??

Cite or it didn't happen!

Just wait for my magic fingers okay? I am pretty certain that with 2.4 the game will run much much faster than 1.0. (disclaimer is that is 3 years ago so might not remember speed but you are free to disprove me, anyway I've done a ton of late game optimizations among other things )

---------

Does the DLC bring forth the feature of tribute?

Tributaries: New diplomatic relationship for nomad states forces defeated enemies to keep the Khan’s coffers filled.

 

[Secret Master]

The crusades are fairly key events in the ck2 era, and they generally never succeed unless the player plays catholic and make sure they do. The early crusades were massive sucesses.

Huh? Even the 1101 mini-Crusade was soundly defeated by the Turks under Kiliji Arslan. Aleppo was captured by non-Christian forces in 1128, and was one of the reasons the Pope called for a second crusade.

The actual Second Crusade took Lisbon in 1147 (good for them), but the main body in the Holy Land failed to take Damascus.

The initial crusade against the Wends in 1147 was a failure, although the Scandinavians managed to eventually defeat the Wends later (ironically enough, when no Papal Bulls officially calling for crusades were promulgated, making them Holy Wars in CK2 terms).

The Third Crusade could hardly be called a victory since Saladin still held Jerusalem. That's certainly not a successful crusade in CK2 terms.

The Northern Crusades were largely successful once the Livonian Sword Brothers and Teutonic Knights got involved, as the local Christians were unsuccessful in conquering the pagan Prussians by themselves. In the game, the Baltic pagans tend to get wiped out once Christians in the region get access to holy orders. Seems historical to me.

The Fourth Crusade didn't even attack non-Christians and instead took Constantinople. Call that a win if you want, but it doesn't even seem to meet the game criteria for a crusade.

The Albigensian Crusade was a success.

Seems to me, just looking at the first century of crusading, that the crusades were not a massive success.

it's only later that they start getting repelled. Catholicism realy does quite badly in game, in reality it spread like a wildfire. Being expelled from the holy land was basically the only major defeat of catholic powers as the hands of others in the period.

Hmm, spread like wildfire and the only major defeat of Catholic powers in the period? I don't think so.

Aside from the crusades I listed earlier, let's look at some other defeats.

In 1249, the King of France, Louis IX, was captured during his campaign to take Egypt. (You know him better as Saint Louis.) He also later loses in an attempt to take Tunisia.

In 1244, the Khwarezm took Jerusalem, defeating the Christians there just like they defeated everyone else.

In 1195, Catholics lose the battle of Alarcos, resulting in a retreat to Toledo and the Almohads taking a bunch of stuff.

In 1221, crusaders are beaten and surrender in Egypt, bringing the Fifth Crusade to a miserable end.

There are countless cases of temporary successes (Sixth Crusade comes to mind), but aside from gains in Iberia, long term successes were lacking in the Holy Land, Anatolia, North Africa, and Egypt.

In fact, the consistent inability of Catholicism to take and hold territory in certain areas suggests that Catholics had an easier time defeating or converting pagans than defeating or converting Muslims. Which is more or less how it works in the game.

 

[TheDungen]

That is not what i meant i think that crusades need more work and it is pointless to participate in them if only one king can gain land while in actual history more petty lords gained power and wealth during crusades.

Which would in turn requie a open ended liege system where the titles you held in the kingdom of jerusalem were your but subjects of the king there while the ones you held at home were the subjects of whatever king was above them. Honestly we need this anyway.

 

[gnarviking]

.... I wish this was infractable....

lol
Sorry Goorgy, this will not happen again

 

[Secret Master]

That is not what i meant i think that crusades need more work and it is pointless to participate in them if only one king can gain land while in actual history more petty lords gained power and wealth during crusades.

Crusades exist, only they're godawful implemented.

Now, if you said to me, "I want a crusade system that lets the land be divided up amongst the participants of the crusades, especially the second sons and other unlanded aristocrats," then I'm all on board with that.

I have no problem with the military and political successes of crusades in Ck2. It's variable, but appropriate.

But I would like a better system of allocating the land and fewer "King's crusades" where big time rulers get involved and take everything.

 

[a89a89]

Why would the devs showcase their upcoming patch witch a mod installed??

It's a feature of 2.4, with the ribbons indicating government type and the colour + jewels the ruler's tier.

Thats pretty sick

 

[SirRitter]

Will Mongolia be in the map? What about late game?

Will the Khwarazmians be in the game now? Will Seljuk finally span propery and actually be abe to conquer?

 

[Serbian Centurion]

Now, if you said to me, "I want a crusade system that lets the land be divided up amongst the participants of the crusades, especially the second sons and other unlanded aristocrats," then I'm all on board with that.

I have no problem with the military and political successes of crusades in Ck2. It's variable, but appropriate.

But I would like a better system of allocating the land and fewer "King's crusades" where big time rulers get involved and take everything.

Well you said it for me buddy i just think that a game that is focusing on this period sets crusades aside for things such as the hordes,Charlemagne ,expanding timelines and map while they should be focusing on more rpg elements ,people are liking that kind of content more.

 

[theKing1988]

Well you said it for me buddy i just think that a game that is focusing on this period sets crusades aside for things such as the hordes,Charlemagne ,expanding timelines and map while they should be focusing on more rpg elements because i see that people are liking that kind of content more.

Well to be honest. Hordes have been playable since ToG, several DLC's ago. And they have been a horribly shallow gameplay experience. So this one is actually doing something to a long present part of the game that needed some substance. Your rage against Charlemagne on the other hand i can easily get on board with. That timeline extension was so unneccesary.

 

[TheDungen]

Huh? Even the 1101 mini-Crusade was soundly defeated by the Turks under Kiliji Arslan. Aleppo was captured by non-Christian forces in 1128, and was one of the reasons the Pope called for a second crusade.

The actual Second Crusade took Lisbon in 1147 (good for them), but the main body in the Holy Land failed to take Damascus.

The initial crusade against the Wends in 1147 was a failure, although the Scandinavians managed to eventually defeat the Wends later (ironically enough, when no Papal Bulls officially calling for crusades were promulgated, making them Holy Wars in CK2 terms).

The Third Crusade could hardly be called a victory since Saladin still held Jerusalem. That's certainly not a successful crusade in CK2 terms.

The Northern Crusades were largely successful once the Livonian Sword Brothers and Teutonic Knights got involved, as the local Christians were unsuccessful in conquering the pagan Prussians by themselves. In the game, the Baltic pagans tend to get wiped out once Christians in the region get access to holy orders. Seems historical to me.

The Fourth Crusade didn't even attack non-Christians and instead took Constantinople. Call that a win if you want, but it doesn't even seem to meet the game criteria for a crusade.

The Albigensian Crusade was a success.

Seems to me, just looking at the first century of crusading, that the crusades were not a massive success.



Hmm, spread like wildfire and the only major defeat of Catholic powers in the period? I don't think so.

Aside from the crusades I listed earlier, let's look at some other defeats.

In 1249, the King of France, Louis IX, was captured during his campaign to take Egypt. (You know him better as Saint Louis.) He also later loses in an attempt to take Tunisia.

In 1244, the Khwarezm took Jerusalem, defeating the Christians there just like they defeated everyone else.

In 1195, Catholics lose the battle of Alarcos, resulting in a retreat to Toledo and the Almohads taking a bunch of stuff.

In 1221, crusaders are beaten and surrender in Egypt, bringing the Fifth Crusade to a miserable end.

There are countless cases of temporary successes (Sixth Crusade comes to mind), but aside from gains in Iberia, long term successes were lacking in the Holy Land, Anatolia, North Africa, and Egypt.

In fact, the consistent inability of Catholicism to take and hold territory in certain areas suggests that Catholics had an easier time defeating or converting pagans than defeating or converting Muslims. Which is more or less how it works in the game.

I said major defeats and held up the loss of the holy land as an example of the scale I meant and you mention battles? On the scale of the loss of the holy land you have nothing else. Only blobbing. Blobbing in iberia blobbing in central europe. But in the game the crusades never succeed in the first place (ever, without player intervention), in the early starts, iberiafalls to the muslims (90% in CM and 50% in ToG), instead of germany conquering pommeria we see pomeria conquering germany. And even in later starts the teutonic order gets eaten by lithuania.

 

[Dirt McStain]

lol
Sorry Goorgy, this will not happen again

Sorry Goorgy

Goorgy

 

[Memoryofthelost]

Well I know what I am doing when this dlc comes out Norse Germanic Pagan horde. Or well Jain horde who knows.