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.



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.



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.



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.



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!

 

[Damorte]

De jure in the context of the game =/= de jure in the context of law or tradition.
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.

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. The ai is most likely never going to create empires anyways.. also empires can be modded out quiet easily if you really dont like them. The new empires are a treat for any player who likes conquering alot of lands (im not one of those btw im more in for dynasty spreading and diplomacy).
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.

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)

 

[Sleight of Hand]

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)

Not only do I heartily agree with this, but there's even an obvious space for another map mode button!

 

[Joel M Bridge]

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. The ai is most likely never going to create empires anyways.. also empires can be modded out quiet easily if you really dont like them. The new empires are a treat for any player who likes conquering alot of lands (im not one of those btw im more in for dynasty spreading and diplomacy).
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.

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)

My friend you just made ass out of yourself. That half fun is emulate some crazy political realism of day.

 

[Damorte]

My friend you just made ass out of yourself. That half fun is emulate some crazy political realism of day.

Im sorry but i dont actually understand what your trying to tell me in that post please rephrase it.

 

[Darkath]

Not only do I heartily agree with this, but there's even an obvious space for another map mode button!

Isn't the space taken up by the player view in multiplayer ?

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Isn't the space taken up by the player view in multiplayer ?

Oh, is it? That would make sense -- I've never really played MP. :blush:

 

[Sard]

As requested, a few examples...
Scandinavians can build Housecarl training grounds which grants heavy infantry with an offensive bonus, but a slight defensive penalty.
.

I am curious to know why the housecarls were chosen. As far as I understand they were on the way out during the period covered by Crusader Kings II; apart from the Battle of Hastings, I cannot recall any battle in which they played an important part (And if that is deemed enough, I would imagine that it would make more sense to make the cultural specific to the Saxons, rather than the Scandinavians). As I understand the period, it would make more sense to have a building representing the leding-system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leding <- For those not in the know). While the leding as an effective fighting force was past its prime by the end of Crusader Kings II, it still lasted a good while longer than the hoursecarls. In addition, it could be an interesting way for the holders of a castle to be able to increase the number of ships (and light infantry perhaps) they could raise, without having to turn to the various lord mayors of the realm.

 

[Nuril]

Im sorry but i dont actually understand what your trying to tell me in that post please rephrase it.

That you're making a fool out of yourself when calling people names, I suppose. That you don't have a clue why people object to their inclusion, as it's absolute nonsense for Europe in this period, and this is not Victoria 2 where Empires just means "has a lot of land". It doesn't matter how much you conquer, the political reality of the Middle Ages meant that in European Christendom only two Empires could realistically be considered to exist: One with unbroken existence from the original one (ERE) and one bestowed by the Pope as the successor to the West via the Donation of Constantine (HRE), which was taken seriously at the time. In order to become an Empire in a Medieval game (IE: Gameplay) one would not necessarily have to be hamstrung by those specific titles, but one ought to have to go through a similar process (IE Western Empires needing a vacant throne and being crowned by the Pope and in the East, say, either usurping the claim from the ERE or becoming part of the Imperial line and essentially setting up a rival claimant within the Dynasty*).

There are plenty of things one could do in a medieval setting that would make for unique and historical gameplay that would allow for alternative History. It isn't to do with being stuck up about the names "Holy Roman Empire" and "Byzantium", the latter of course being a fictional name as well, since I'm sure many of us would be fine with the Empire in the West turning into "Francia" or "Hispania" as long as they had a logical path for becoming the Empire, such as having the Pope on their side whilst a succession crisis in the HRE takes place and defeating them in a war to press the claim. If conditions like that are fulfilled I'd be fine with them being crowned Emperor and Germany being demoted to Kingdom-status.

Making things logical within the Political constrains of the period in which the game is set = "Emulating the crazy political realism of the time-perior", I'm presuming.

* What I mean by that is intermarrying with the Imperial line so your descendants can end up with a claim to the Empire-tier title, not that you'd have to switch dynasties (Game over). Otherwise going the "Usurpation"-root. Even one of the most significant challengers to Eastern hegemony, The Bulgarian Empire, had part of their actual title as "Autokrator of the Greeks" as a direct challenge to the ERE (which was sanctioned by the Pope, but they weren't specifically Orthodox yet, so that's neither here nor there), with whom they constantly warred for supremacy until Basil the Bulgar-Slayer.

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.

Sounds legit.

 

[Darkath]

That you're making a fool out of yourself when calling people names, I suppose. That you don't have a clue why people object to their inclusion, as it's absolute nonsense for Europe in this period, and this is not Victoria 2 where Empires just means "has a lot of land". It doesn't matter how much you conquer, the political reality of the Middle Ages meant that in European Christendom only two Empires could realistically be considered to exist: One with unbroken existence from the original one (ERE) and one bestowed by the Pope as the successor to the West via the Donation of Constantine (HRE), which was taken seriously at the time. In order to become an Empire in a Medieval game (IE: Gameplay) one would not necessarily have to be hamstrung by those specific titles, but one ought to have to go through a similar process (IE Western Empires needing a vacant throne and being crowned by the Pope and in the East, say, either usurping the claim from the ERE or becoming part of the Imperial line and essentially setting up a rival claimant within the Dynasty).

There are plenty of things one could do in a medieval setting that would make for unique and historical gameplay that would allow for alternative History. It isn't to do with being stuck up about the names "Holy Roman Empire" and "Byzantium", the latter of course being a fictional name as well, since I'm sure many of us would be fine with the Empire in the West turning into "Francia" or "Hispania" as long as they had a logical path for becoming the Empire, such as having the Pope on their side whilst a succession crisis in the HRE takes place and defeating them in a war to press the claim. If conditions like that are fulfilled I'd be fine with them being crowned Emperor and Germany being demoted to Kingdom-status.

Making things logical within the Political constrains of the period in which the game is set = "Emulating the crazy political realism of the time-perior", I'm presuming.



Sounds legit.

What i would suggest if that if one ruler wants to crown himself as an emperor, it would require the sanction of the Religion's head, and launch a war against the existing empire (HRE for catholics, Byzantine for orthodox, Caliphates for respective muslim faiths) and in the end only one empire for a given faith would remain

 

[codeGnave]

The issue with that argument is that the pope, who allowed for a second empire because of political reasons, could certainly crown another emperor to sufficiently a pious(a requirement for creating ANY title, including these) ruler.

Beyond that as far as I can recall we have been given no indication that these titles will be 'Emperor' titles. They just have lordship over king tier titles. For all we know they will called High Kings.

I just really do not understand the vehement distaste for the new titles, the ahistorical nature of them is a moot point, since everything that happens after you fire up the game is ahistorical. If it is the 'de jure' elements of the new titles I guess I sort of understand, but even then the de jure maps are NOT meant to be historical, you can't see them when selecting a date to start. they are there almost exclusively for gameplay reasons.

 

[Nuril]

The issue with that argument is that the pope, who allowed for a second empire because of political reasons, could certainly crown another emperor to sufficiently a pious(a requirement for creating ANY title, including these) ruler.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. It's not just "The Pope", it's "The Pope via the Donation of Constantine". There is only his ability to give away "The Western Empire", not "You can be Emperor of Spain, and you Britain, and you Germany, and you France, and you Scandinavia!". In order for him to crown a new True Successor he would have to decisively refuse the claim of the HRE, which they wouldn't take for a second, so the new claimant would have to assert it by successfully defending the Pope from being ousted.

Beyond that as far as I can recall we have been given no indication that these titles will be 'Emperor' titles. They just have lordship over king tier titles. For all we know they will called High Kings.

Fan-suggestions != Fact. Paradox called them Empires themselves when naming them in the thread, so they'd need to state otherwise.

I just really do not understand the vehement distaste for the new titles, the ahistorical nature of them is a moot point, since everything that happens after you fire up the game is ahistorical.

No, it's "Alternative history" after the game starts, not absurdly non-Medieval nonsense. The mechanics are supposed to be true to the period, otherwise there's not point in calling it a Medieval game at all.

 

[Damorte]

That you're making a fool out of yourself when calling people names, I suppose. That you don't have a clue why people object to their inclusion, as it's absolute nonsense for Europe in this period, and this is not Victoria 2 where Empires just means "has a lot of land". It doesn't matter how much you conquer, the political reality of the Middle Ages meant that in European Christendom only two Empires could realistically be considered to exist: One with unbroken existence from the original one (ERE) and one bestowed by the Pope as the successor to the West via the Donation of Constantine (HRE), which was taken seriously at the time. In order to become an Empire in a Medieval game (IE: Gameplay) one would not necessarily have to be hamstrung by those specific titles, but one ought to have to go through a similar process (IE Western Empires needing a vacant throne and being crowned by the Pope and in the East, say, either usurping the claim from the ERE or becoming part of the Imperial line and essentially setting up a rival claimant within the Dynasty).

There are plenty of things one could do in a medieval setting that would make for unique and historical gameplay that would allow for alternative History. It isn't to do with being stuck up about the names "Holy Roman Empire" and "Byzantium", the latter of course being a fictional name as well, since I'm sure many of us would be fine with the Empire in the West turning into "Francia" or "Hispania" as long as they had a logical path for becoming the Empire, such as having the Pope on their side whilst a succession crisis in the HRE takes place and defeating them in a war to press the claim. If conditions like that are fulfilled I'd be fine with them being crowned Emperor and Germany being demoted to Kingdom-status.

Making things logical within the Political constrains of the period in which the game is set = "Emulating the crazy political realism of the time-perior", I'm presuming.

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.

Sounds legit.

Eh ok? Im happy that you find my eduacation legit, im not sure what you expect me to reply to that.

 

[Nuril]

You are the ones making a fool out of yourselves for telling other people how you think they should play their games.

..Except that I never said that and also you asked what he might've meant? There's loads of mods that include additional Empires for people who don't care about what an Empire really was in the Middle Ages. Go play one of those if you want, but that doesn't mean people who "couldnt care less about historical reasons" are a good driving force for making the base game better.

but in this case i couldnt care less about historical reasons since it doesnt the break immersion at all.

Except that obviously it does break it for a great many people.

"i couldnt care less about historical reasons"..

 

[Orinsul]

And for those players who like conquering lands and forming empires, what would be wrong with conquering lands and forming empire-tier titles called Kingdoms? Representing Kings so powerful they can have other Kings as vassals.
Which would surely be a compromise everyone would be happy with, the tier there for the formers and the word empire not there for the historians.

 

[Blastaz]

Creation of empires allows a fun game mechanic that will improve peoples experience and give them something to aim for. That trumps any naive belifes about their lack of historical legitimacy.

I am the king of, in my current game, England, Scotland, Ireland, France Aquitaine, Leon, Castille, Aragon, Gallicia, Portugal, Mauretania, Egypt, Abysinnia and Jerusalem. My family has personally won all 4 crusades.

Do you really think that if I petitioned the pope to be created an Emperor he would have gone, oh sorry only the HRE has legitimacy through its "link" to the Romans... Really? Do you think he would still be Pope two years later if he said no? After all Supreme Pontif, you are only the Vicar of Christ for life...

Did anyone ever achieve a combination of greatness and stablity to rival Charlegmane and Constantine and thus establish an Empire in real life? No.
Is it possible in a game of CKII? Yes.

Please stop this discussion!

 

[Ruwaard]

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.
(...)

IMHO both 'camps' actually do the same, some like to create those empires and others have objections against those. IMHO a good compromise would be to make those extra empires optional, which can be selected at the start of a game. You may call me a fool as many times as you want, heh I thought Orange (the Netherlands) would play a better Euro 2012o; but what's fun for someone doesn't have to be for someone else.

Note that I in principle agree with Nuril, NewbieOne etc. I'm not a fan of extra empires and IMHO ideally de jure assimilation should have depended on more conditions than just 'an ownership of 100 years'; nonetheless I don't like to force people into a direction they dislike, but I evenly dislike being forced into a direction I do not want. Hence IMHO making controversial stuff optional is fair to all of us. I'll even settle to make the current and new set up standard and to make it optional to disable those.

 

[Nuril]

Creation of empires allows a fun game mechanic that will improve peoples experience and give them something to aim for. That trumps any naive belifes about their lack of historical legitimacy.

It's nice how you managed to say nothing yet still get a condescending statement in there. It's just an opinion of yours, nothing objective about the quality of the game.

I am the king of, in my current game, England Scotland Wales, Ireland, France Aquitaine, Leon, Castille, Gallicia, Portugal, Mauretania, Egypt, Abysinnia, Jerusalem. My family has personally won all 4 crusades.

Do you really think that if I petitioned the pope to be created an Emperor he would have gone, oh sorry only the HRE has legitimacy through its "link" to the Romans... Really? Do you think he would still be Pope two years later if he said no?

Did anyone ever achieve a combination of greatness and stablity to rival Charlegmane and Constantine and thus establish an Empire in real life? No.
Is it possible in a game of CKII? Yes.

You aren't listening. Read the posts again. What I said would obviously mean you could easily become the new Emperor in a situation like that as there'd be no chance the HRE would be able to oust a Pope supporting your claim to Empire. If the current Pope won't support you then, in that situation, I'm willing to wager you'd rather easily afford an Anti-Pope, make swift work of the old annoying Pope and then the new one agrees. Then you beat up the Empire when they try to stop you and then they can go home and cry about it, hoping one day to be strong enough to properly press their claim of Imperium.

The point is simply that the HRE -wouldn't- be the True Successor in that case, you'd be the Restitutor Orbis, so to speak.

Edit: And it wouldn't necessarily be overly complicated to make each successive Western Emperor be crowned by the Pope. Wouldn't have to demote them to Kingdom-tier or anything mid-conflict, just have a Character-effect for "Imperial Coronation" that, until that effect is gained following the succession, could leave it vulnerable to outside claimants defending the Pope's right not to crown the next one as the HRE (in accordance with the Donation giving him the right), with the effect being a needed condition for creating an Empire-tier title and, if two exist simultaneously, the ruler without the Coronation-trait would be demoted from Western Emperor to King-tier (HRE-title destroyed -> King of Germany, Francia or what-not reign supreme).

Please stop this discussion!

Or you could deal with people not agreeing with you rather than tell them to keep silent.

 

[s1234567890m]

Im curious those on the it should be accurate on day 1, can you activate any of the 'fantasy' kingdom/empires on day 1?

 

[Zghuk]

does anybody know the release date and time?

 

[louie97]

does anybody know the release date and time?

I thought it was sometime next week.