Hi all! I am Karolus Magnus, programmer at Crusader Kings II. Now is finally the time for my first dev diary! Today I will be talking about the Silk Road and Raiding Adventurers.

With Horse Lords we are adding in an addition to the trade system which is the major trade route of the Silk Road that stretched all the way from Cathay to the Italian States. It does not require you to be a Patrician or Republic however to utilize this system. As long as you own the provinces yourself you are allowed to build Trade Posts along the trade route no matter what government form you are. You can upgrade these trade posts to make the Silk Road worth even more.

However the Silk Road is much more dangerous to deal with than normal coastal trade posts as it relies on safe passage through land. If a war breaks out and a part of the trade route is caught in the conflict, the trade will be cut from that province and onwards for that branch. The trade will instead go through any other branch and result in them receiving more of the trade than they normally would. The Silk route can be viewed from the Economic mapmode but also in more detail from the Trade zone mapmode.

Next feature is Raiding Adventurers. This system was made to better represent the Normans in Northern France and Sicily in how they settled in foreign land. It is also used for nomads who lose their home. The Germanic raiding adventurers spawn with ships, but even nomads who do not get ships can travel far, as these raiders unlike others can raid in any province (except the provinces of the one who conquered your home lands).

Raiding adventurers will use the money they gain from raiding to recruit more troops, and when they have grown to a certain level, they will try to become landed. A ruler can offer to settle these raiding adventurers, giving them coastal or border provinces. They might however refuse to be settled if they do not like the lands that you are offering. Ambitious raiding adventurers will usually not be settled unless they are given a duchy. If no such offer is made however, they will eventually start a war on one of the rulers they have raided, targeting a duchy.

The same Settle Adventurer interaction can be used to settle the dynamic mercenaries we already covered, if you have managed to make them your friend. Settled raiding adventurers will become Feudal or Iqta depending on their religion, and also be disinherited from the nomad realm from which they came from.

One of the benefits of settling a raiding adventurer is that the provinces that are given away will be blocked from raided again in the near future.

Raiding adventurers that do not spawn from being conquered as well as dynamic mercenaries will get the Adventurer trait that makes the character much more ambitious and military capable. So even if they give you several benefits to settle, they can become dangerous for your future generations.

That's all for this week! Next week we are going to go through map and culture revisions and new events!

 

[Thure]

That is in no way at all similar to what happened with William. He was given the right to invade by the Pope and someone like him exist would require:

• A Norse ruler taking land in France
• Flipping to Norman
• The last king of England to die heirless
• Both him and the King of England to be Catholic
• The Pope to dislike the King of England
• The Pope to grant this Norman a claim on England

Without major railroading that will happen in 0.0001% of games.

Actually... William had a claim on England because of his ancestors... and the English succession He didn't need a claim by the pope.

 

[theKing1988]

As I acknowledged the "fur route" branching along and among all those realms between the Khazar and the Baltics were important (fur, slaves and amber ) the alternative to the Persian/Syrian routes is just as much a factor and I would argue it was more of the weighty factor for Venice, Genoa and Pisa. Their insatiable need to keep their routes open drove a lot of what we would consider important in CK2 terms. So, from the perspective of the CK2 trade mechanic, the needs of silk outweigh the needs of the slaves.





@theKing1988 - I do hope your interpretation is correct, although if it is, two immediate questions spring to my mind. 1st, if Pdox had the forethought to implement such a route, why not extending a few provinces further to the historical terminus was not implemented and 2nd, by not ending it in Cheron (the ERE province) do they not overvalue the current turminus, displacing the historical in importance and relevance?

@SBolshevik - If this is the case, then any power, be it the ERE, Venice or Genoa would be stupid to fight for the control of Cheron instead of focusing on the Asov termunis. What this suggests is an non-historical shifting of everything from the Crimea to Azov.

It wouldn't take too much effort to end it at Cherson, if i am correct and there is indeed a branch ending at Azov at the moment. So i hope that they do take the time to extend it before releasing. It would just continue into the sea of Azov and then go through the three southern Coastal provinces on Crimea.

 

[Tom013]

Actually... William had a claim on England because of his ancestors... and the English succession He didn't need a claim by the pope.

But he did seek and receive permission from Pope Alexander II to press his claim in battle, yes?

If we're fitting history to game mechanics, Papal Invasion mechanics as they are represented in game actually work well for this instance -- William had a relatively weak claim (more than a generation back plus Harold's promise) and the Pope validated "Invasion" on behalf of that weak claim. Perhaps he could have simply pressed the weak claim in a succession war, but he didn't -- he asked the Pope.

Not that it really matters. I don't think the AI even declares using the (Papal approved) Invasion CB anyway, so I don't think the AI would EVER follow this bit of history.

 

[Thure]

But he did seek and receive permission from Pope Alexander II to press his claim in battle, yes?

If we're fitting history to game mechanics, Papal Invasion mechanics as they are represented in game actually work well for this instance -- William had a relatively weak claim (many generations back) and the Pope validated "Invasion" on behalf of that weak claim. Perhaps he could have simply pressed the weak claim in a succession war, but he didn't -- he asked the Pope.

Not that it really matters. I don't think the AI even declares using the (Papal approved) Invasion CB anyway, so I don't think the AI would EVER follow this bit of history.

Williams claim was that Edward the Confessor chose him as his heir. Which would be more as a week claim if this was true. Williams claim wasn't less weak tha Harolds. And yes he get Papal permission for it.

But William wouldn't make sense if all this circumstances wouldn't have happened. If you start 769 it's very unlikely that similiar constelations would occure. You would need the exactly same marriages between Normans and Englishmen. You would need Edward the Confessor etc. etc.


I see no problem if this don't happen in the game, because it was a special event which just could happened because of circumstances.

 

[Ruwaard]

Don't forget the merc stack that apparently didn't need to be paid... The Duke of Normandy could never conquer a Kingdom like England with its levy.

Historically William also invited nobles from all over northern France and also Brittany and Flanders with the promise to be rewarded with lands. Perhaps in game this might encompass younger sons outside Normandy, but from the same region. Rewards probably should be relative to their support, augmented with what they capture themselves.

Another idea might be to invite a character to become a landed noble and your vassal. When they accept, they'll get the fief they were promised, naturally they would be more enthusiastic about a duchy than a barony. Though a barony would still be better than just an invite to your court.

Williams claim was that Edward the Confessor chose him as his heir. Which would be more as a week claim if this was true. Williams claim wasn't less weak tha Harolds. And yes he get Papal permission for it.

But William wouldn't make sense if all this circumstances wouldn't have happened. If you start 769 it's very unlikely that similiar constelations would occure. You would need the exactly same marriages between Normans and Englishmen. You would need Edward the Confessor etc. etc.


I see no problem if this don't happen in the game, because it was a special event which just could happened because of circumstances.

A William scenario should IMHO still be a possibility, but it could happen between different titles in an alternate scenario.

 

[The Great Bear]

Slightly off topic I know, but will the Hungarians be reworked in the Old Gods start with Horse Lords.
Because seeing this, Paradox has TWO ways that they could do that much better.

 

[Karolus Magnus]

Slightly off topic I know, but will the Hungarians be reworked in the Old Gods start with Horse Lords.
Because seeing this, Paradox has TWO ways that they could do that much better.

The decision to form Hungary will be replaced with a more generic "Adopt Feudalism" decision, which will give up all steppe lands (provinces without settlements) to settle down in a conquered castle, along with culture conversion in some provinces and the stuff that is already in the form Hungary decision. They do not start as raiding adventurers however.

 

[Tabris01]

I was a bit unclear. If the nomad gets nomad lands, the adventurer will stay nomad. And if the adventurer gets tribal lands, the adventurer will be tribal.

So does that mean a nomad adventurer can't simply torch down some holdings to free up space for pastures?

 

[ahhheygao]

I'm very excited about the introduction of the Silk Road mechanics, as trade has been nearly non-existent in the game even after the introduction of The Republics. However, I feel you are missing out on a golden opportunity here to address some long standing deficiencies regarding trade routes and especially for the merchant republics gameplay.

Now, I completely understand how this sounds ungrateful, like "give an inch and they'll take a mile," but given the way you are describing how easy it'd be to just mod in more trade routes, I'd implore you to reach for some of these low-hanging fruits.

The coastal trade posts in The Republics has been a long-standing issue for me. The last time I played as doge, the optimal trade post placement was to stack them as close to my capital's coastal zone as possible instead of establishing and controlling far-flung coastal outposts at important historical trade ports like Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, or Crimea. There's also no need to secure the sea route along the coastline of the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea. This made absolutely no sense to me. In the end, the only incentive to establish trade posts at those historically important trade ports was to drum up CB and steal land. That is not trade.

In that Silk Road trade route screenshot, I noticed the coastal zone of Alexandria and Antioch are shaded and presumably more worthwhile to establish trade posts there. If that is correct, then I'd like to see other important trade nodes such as Constantinople and Crimea also become valuable trade post locations. I'm not asking that they be as lucrative as Alexandria or Antioch if you want to model "diminishing value" past the currently modeled Silk Road, but at least make those prime real estate worth fighting for among merchants and rulers.

I love how the Silk Road sea route along the coastline of the Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf, and Gulf of Aden are shaded as well. If feasible, I'd like to see similar sea trade routes be extend to the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, and up to the Baltic Sea and North Sea. To keep the currently implemented Silk Road as the more lucrative route, either define multiple route tiers or set those other routes at lower base value.

Inland trade through the Russian river network, India, or even desert caravan routes can also be modeled as "lesser" routes. I'm not asking for playable inland republic (which should be feasible if you give them the ability to build "trade post" equivalents along inland trade routes), but please at least model the routes in for the benefit of the rulers along the routes.

Please reconsider your position and implement these things in vanilla instead of just relying on the modders (think of those poor Ironman players and achievement farmers). You can greatly enrich the base game and appeal to those "Crusader! Kings!" players who otherwise don't care for a DLC about steppe nomads and the Fast East.

 

[richvh]

If he can, he'd have to do it before accepting the land.

 

[riadach]

The decision to form Hungary will be replaced with a more generic "Adopt Feudalism" decision, which will give up all steppe lands (provinces without settlements) to settle down in a conquered castle, along with culture conversion in some provinces and the stuff that is already in the form Hungary decision. They do not start as raiding adventurers however.

Do you lose nomadic vassals on feudalising?

 

[theKing1988]

I'm very excited about the introduction of the Silk Road mechanics, as trade has been nearly non-existent in the game even after the introduction of The Republics. However, I feel you are missing out on a golden opportunity here to address some long standing deficiencies regarding trade routes and especially for the merchant republics gameplay.

Now, I completely understand how this sounds ungrateful, like "give an inch and they'll take a mile," but given the way you are describing how easy it'd be to just mod in more trade routes, I'd implore you to reconsider your current position and reach for some of these low-hanging fruits.

The coastal trade posts in The Republics has been a long-standing issue for me. The last time I played as doge, the optimal trade post placement was to stack them within and as close to my capital's coastal zone as possible instead of establishing and controlling far-flung coastal outposts at important historical trade ports like Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, or Crimea. There's also no need to secure the sea route along the coastline to these locations in the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea. This made absolutely no sense to me. In the end, the only incentive for me to establish trade posts at those historically important trade ports was to drum up CB and steal land. That is not trade.

In that Silk Road trade route screenshot, I noticed that the coastal zone of Alexandria and Antioch are shaded and presumed it will now be more worthwhile to establish trade posts there. If my presumption is correct, then I'd like to see other important trade nodes such as Constantinople and Crimea also become more valuable as trade post locations. They don't have to be as lucrative as Alexandria or Antioch, but at least make them worthwhile.

Moreover, the Silk Road sea route are shaded as well. If feasible, I'd like to see these sea routes be extend to the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, "inland" along Russian river network, and up to the Baltic Sea and North Sea. To keep the currently implemented Silk Road as the more lucrative route, either define multiple route tiers or just set the other routes at notably lower value.

Please make this happen instead of rely on the modders. You can greatly enrich the base game and appeal to those "Crusader!" and "Kings!" players who otherwise don't care for a DLC about steppe nomads and the Fast East.

I doubt that the sea zones of Alexandria and Antioch are actually part of the Silk Road. I think they are shaded because the provinces next to them include regular merchant republic trade posts.

 

[riadach]

I wonder will there be a trade post in Abyssinia. It looks as though the white line bends that way.

 

[richvh]

I doubt that the sea zones of Alexandria and Antioch are actually part of the Silk Road. I think they are shaded because the provinces next to them include regular merchant republic trade posts.

I doubt it matters if it's a Merchant Republic trade post or a Silk Road trade post... the mechanics of trade posts will probably be the same for both when coastal.

 

[Joel M Bridge]

So are nomads raiding adventurers playable?

 

[HREmperor]

So are nomads raiding adventurers playable?

Yes and no. If you do the "play" command, you can play as an existing adventurer the same way you can play mercs and holy orders now. However, if you lose all your land as a nomad, you just get a game over and don't become am adventurer.

 

[Joel M Bridge]

Wait I thoughts you could since you are nomadic :-\

 

[HREmperor]

Wait I thoughts you could since you are nomadic :-\

Almost certain the devs said you can't somewhere in this thread.

 

[blackchoas]

Actually... William had a claim on England because of his ancestors... and the English succession He didn't need a claim by the pope.

Yeah but he did also go to the Pope about the issue and get permission/holy approval of his invasion to take the English Throne

 

[Faycron]

Will a settled horde retain it's empire-level?