• 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 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.

CKII_ToG_DD_02_Heathen_Raid.png

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.

CKII_ToG_DD_02_Loot_Bar.png

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.

CKII_ToG_DD_02_Raid_on_Paris.png

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]
 
Last edited:
Great news. This will be the best DLC so far to come. I already know that my first goal will be to settle into the Po basin rather than the Carpathians as the Magyars.

Perhaps you could make a Magyar dev diary as well?
 
I was going to ask if building/holding razing had been put into the game as you guys had mentioned it might be, in earlier discussions. Since you answered that question before I could even ask, allow me to ask this:

Can buildings or holdings be razed during normal sieges, or only raids?

Follow up: Is this aspect moddable?

I modded this into the game around 5 months ago now.... so yes :)
 
I especially liked the improvement in the technology system.Up to this point technology was totally irrelevant,I never bothered with it because as a player I have no interest in trying to control or improve something which is extremely chance based and that chance percentage is extremely low and tech is mainly based on vast amount of game time,it takes decades (and considering currently base technology advancement chance is : 0.2 (correct me if I am wrong) with set focus on a particular technology we get 100% boost to it,and with a council member with skill of 25(for instance 25 stewardhip) we get another 125% so endresult comes to 0.7% yearly particular technology advancement chance which imo is pathetic (and there needs to be advancement 10 points in certain tech to get to other level) that's the part for technology as a player I can control.I am not sure whatking of percentage boost state learning contributes to technology.Other than that as you know there are specific time periods(two of them) if you are behind in technology you get boost to it and if you are ahead,your tech slows down.

One of the few flaws of CK 2 as a game is that in certain circumstances it takes away most if not all control from the player.In any case I think point buy tech system is what should have been from the very start.And it's great to see finally a system is being implemented which player has more control and more choice over it for improvement.
 
@ zephrelial: the announced new tech system IMHO is an improvement too. Then only concern could be, that for some it could be too much micro management. Still as long as it is optional or rather not a necessity, it could be fine. Furthermore I guess, that tech points within the same field will increase exponentially as the tech will become relatively more modern for the period.
 
So... I was thinking there is petty kingdom, but why there is NO petty empire? Bulgaria was few time empire, serbia, macedonia...

I don't think any of the devs have said that there are no petty empires. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if 867 Italy was a petty empire.
 
I don't think any of the devs have said that there are no petty empires. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if 867 Italy was a petty empire.

Why petty? Italy in 867 was THE Empire - crowned by the Pope and all. Not like Bulgaria or Serbia or Trebizond, that used claims to justify their title.
 
Why petty? Italy in 867 was THE Empire - crowned by the Pope and all. Not like Bulgaria or Serbia or Trebizond, that used claims to justify their title.

Because the color clearly proves it's not HRE and the new de jure map has Italy as part of Byzantium. So if it were to be an actual empire it would need to be titular and I doubt they would add any more of those. Just to be clear - I'm not saying that petty empire is what they should do, just that it seems likely that this is what they will do.
 
Because the color clearly proves it's not HRE and the new de jure map has Italy as part of Byzantium. So if it were to be an actual empire it would need to be titular and I doubt they would add any more of those. Just to be clear - I'm not saying that petty empire is what they should do, just that it seems likely that this is what they will do.

That's fortunate! Louis II, king of Italy and Roman Emperor being a petty emperor? What a strange idea!

And no, the Carolingian empire was not the Holy Roman Empire. They are two distinct empires, one after the another, and there was quite a gap between Berengar, died in 924, and Otto the 1st, crowned as emperor in 962.
 
Last edited:
And no, the Carolingian empire was not the Holy Roman Empire. They are two distinct empires, onen after the another, and there was quite a gap between Berengar, died in 924, and Otto the 1st, crownedas emperor in 962.

Whatever, I'm just saying that the colour isn't gray, which means it's not using the HRE "tag" (an EU term, but it is easier to avoid confusion with), whatever it's called. The names are no longer going to be fixed across the entire timeline in TOG, anyway (France's "tag" is using the name West Francia in the screenshots and Germany's is using the name East Francia).

And just to avoid any further confusion: what I mean is what the Muslims are using - the Kingdom of Egypt's "tag" is called Fatimid Sultanate in 1066, but it's using "Kingdom of Egypt" as "base" title - among other things it uses its colour. So, what I mean is, Italy, whatever it is, is not using HRE as the "base" as evidenced by not using its colour.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
So can you play as landless characters now?
I'm looking forward to it, it looks amazing.
 
So can you play as landless characters now?
I'm looking forward to it, it looks amazing.

No, you can't play landless characters.

The adventurers will act by themselves, join you if they want to, conquer new lands if they want to, but you can't play them.

The engine don't work for such a case, it seems, dixit King.
 
Why petty? Italy in 867 was THE Empire - crowned by the Pope and all. Not like Bulgaria or Serbia or Trebizond, that used claims to justify their title.

Don'y have anything to add to this.

1) That's fortunate! Louis II, king of Italy and Roman Emperor being a petty emperor? What a strange idea!

2)And no, the Carolingian empire was not the Holy Roman Empire. They are two distinct empires, one after the another, and there was quite a gap between Berengar, died in 924, and Otto the 1st, crowned as emperor in 962.

1) We seem to agree on something. ;) Louis II was deserves a proper imperial tier, he wasn't a petty, since he was the emperor in the West.

2) Distinguishing between those is like distinguishing between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire... You're exaggerating about the gap; the Ottonians, named after Otto the Great, resumed the Empire.
Or might this be the difference between a West Francian PoV and a East Francian PoV (both were parts of the 'Carolingian' empire (not Empire))?;)


Whatever, I'm just saying that the colour isn't gray, which means it's not using the HRE "tag" (an EU term, but it is easier to avoid confusion with), whatever it's called. The names are no longer going to be fixed across the entire timeline in TOG, anyway (France's "tag" is using the name West Francia in the screenshots and Germany's is using the name East Francia).

And just to avoid any further confusion: what I mean is what the Muslims are using - the Kingdom of Egypt's "tag" is called Fatimid Sultanate in 1066, but it's using "Kingdom of Egypt" as "base" title - among other things it uses its colour. So, what I mean is, Italy, whatever it is, is not using HRE as the "base" as evidenced by not using its colour.

Might have been a wiser response; it gets the message across without taking sides in the 'empire' debate. :)
 
2) Distinguishing between those is like distinguishing between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire... You're exaggerating about the gap; the Ottonians, named after Otto the Great, resumed the Empire.
Or might this be the difference between a West Francian PoV and a East Francian PoV (both were parts of the 'Carolingian' empire (not Empire))?;)

Might have been a wiser response; it gets the message across without taking sides in the 'empire' debate. :)

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:
* 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.

* 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.