• 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.
* CKII: Charlemagne Developer Diaries will be released weekly on Wednesdays from now on up to release! *

Welcome to the Charlemagne dev diaries - and above all, welcome to the 8th century!

I'm Tobias Bodlund, scripter on the Crusader Kings II team, and in this first installment of the dev diaries for CKII: Charlemagne I will be talking about the new 769 start date and how we've chosen to represent that historical period in the game.

We've added a bunch of new cultures to the game. A few of these could arguably have been present in The Old Gods already, but going back to 769 we felt we really needed to shake up the map to properly represent the changing cultural landscape of the Early Middle Ages.

sw_eur_cult.png

In Spain we have the Visigoths, and they are in the Iberian rather than the Germanic group, since the Gothic migrations are long since over and they have been living in the peninsula since the early 6th century. With time, Visigothic provinces are likely to eventually become Castilian, Catalan or Andalusian depending on location and which other religious and cultural influences they are subjected to. In northwestern Iberia we also still have the Suebi, an old Germanic people. They have their own culture shift events which may see the rise of Portuguese culture.

Looking north, we have the Franks. They are still Germanic but becoming more and more latinized. You will see them slowly turning into something we call "French"...

Other new cultures you will find are Saxons, Lombards, Picts and Somali. Also, there are no Russians yet, but instead various East Slavic peoples such as the Ilmenians, Severians and Volhynians.

We've revisited cultural dynamics in some other places as well. For example, the emergence of Norman culture is now somewhat more likely than before.

Regarding religion, the old Norse religion in the game is now referred to as Germanic. We decided to do this because with the earlier start date this religion exists well beyond Norse lands (specifically, the Saxons), and the old name also sometimes caused players to confuse it with Norse culture.

Moving further south, the Ibadi faith is now its own religion and no longer a Sunni heresy.

We've also added a new pagan religion, available only in the Charlemagne start. They are the followers of the sun-god Zun, which was historically the Zunbil dynasty in Afghanistan. They start out surrounded by Muslims and Buddhists, and this should provide an interesting and possibly quite difficult start, comparable to the Jewish starts.

And where are the Jews in 769, you ask now - you will find them in Semien in Ethiopia (sometimes referred to as Beta Israel).

religion_map_persia.png

Oh, speaking of the Norse, yes... with the new start date the Viking Age hasn't begun yet. This means that the Norse will initially not be able to launch Viking expeditions overseas. This will change the early game for them as they'll need to focus more on local affairs initially. Don't worry, though, a few decades in things will start happening for them and the continent will properly learn to fear the wrath of the Northmen.

Finally, let's look at some of the large empires in the 8th century:

In 769, the Byzantine Empire is embroiled in what historians call the "First Iconoclasm". This basically means that the emperor and patriarch (and most of the elite) follow the Iconoclast faith, where religious icons are condemned as idolatry much like in Islam. There is a choice for the emperor to either stick with Iconoclasm or renounce it (via a special decision).

Meanwhile, the Abbasids are the great blob of the 8th century. During this time, they historically ruled an area from the Indus in the east to the Maghreb in the west. Though "rule" is perhaps a misleading word in some cases. To reflect the fact that in reality they had limited control over many of their nominal vassals, we have made some of these areas independent in the game. But the Caliph still has plenty of de jure CBs and claims on those areas, so beware...

In Spain, Umayyad rule is fairly recently established, so you have an Arab Muslim dynasty ruling over mainly Visigothic Christian subjects.

europe_map.png

Then there is the Frankish Empire. After Pepin died, his sons Charlemagne and Carloman inherited a kind of joint kingship over the Franks, with each of them ruling directly over a portion of the kingdom. In the game, this means the two brothers each have a king title but also a claim on the other's title. With powerful neighbors such as the Lombards, the Umayyads and the pagan Saxons, things may get very interesting here.

As you can see, the world in 769 is quite different from later starts, with many period-defining events still to unfold. Things such as the Holy Roman Empire (yes, you can found it), Vikings, Normans and Russians are still unheard of. There aren't even that many Karlings yet (!).

The 8th century is a strange and wonderful place. We hope that you'll enjoy it.
 
Glad to see this Dev Diary! :)

I like others here, have a few remarks. First of all not all the Franks latinized, this happened to most of the Franks inside Neustria, but those within Austrasia remained Germanic. These Franks also need a culture shift. Germanic Frankish can roughly be split in two groups (made up of a variety of dialects), due to the fact that southern (and eastern) dialects were affected by the High German Consonant shift, but the northern (and western) dialects (Low Frankish) weren't (the ancestor of Dutch).
Still I do like how those Franks, which did latinize were handled.

@ Duarte: perhaps (seems likely to me) Suebi, like Visigothic is in the Iberian group?
So even in those provinces Frankish should probably shift to Dutch or become German.

Franks in Frisia will indeed become Dutch instead.
 
It had basically already happened. The split truly occurred in 726; after the Byzantines adopted Iconclasm, the two halves of the church were never really one, even after iconoclasm was abandoned; they actively competed against one another for conversions and had two distinct authority systems (patriarchy/papal primacy vs papal supremacy), even if they were technically not split at that point. But, to be honest, it's impossible to pinpoint a precise date for the schism; we only use 1054 because Gibbon used it, and he got practically everything wrong.

Some kind of events or mechanics representing the fact that they technically were still one could be added, but it's not vital and I'd be very cross if they merged the two Christianities, which would be utterly ridiculous at this point.

Uh, the Orthodox Church places the Great Schism at 1054 from my own conversation with priests and churchgoers. Also, there wouldn't be so many shared saints by both churches after 700s if your case was true.
 
If the Ibadi are their own faith, the Yazidi should definitely be, or at least a Zoroastrian Heresy.
Because Yazidi isn't influenced by other religion beside Zoroastrian...
Though I guess the question is, what would change by having Yazidi as Zoroastrian heresy? They died much quicker?

Also, I don't oppose adding Yazidi, the question of adding Yazidi as distinct religion isn't whether they are different enough or not, but do they ever in position that allow Jew to get its entry as distinct religion in CK2? That is, is there any independent ruler that has Yazidi as its religion?

Manichean seems to have one in this start date, so I agree that it should be included (though I doubt they will this expansion based on Dev Stream)...
There was a thread that answer this some months ago, but I forget what it was...
 
What's the reasoning behind the Visigothic/Occitan distinction? It looks a bit arbitrary to me.
Every wiki page of the time frame I am looking at considers them separate groups. If I read the pages right, the Vasconians (Basques), the Aquitanians (Occitans), the Goths (Visigoths) and Franks were the four distinct power factions fighting over the land around the Pyrenees for centuries before the Islamic Caliphate showed up. This is going to be the region I play first for sure!

edit - And awesome first look.
 
They could just be renamed to something like Hispanic or Iberian.

I don't mind them being there as a ruling class, but that many provinces being Visigothic culture seems quite wrong.
 
C was said to include "dozens of new cultures". So far we've seen 10. Does that mean that there will be some new cultures in later start dates?
 
Every wiki page of the time frame I am looking at considers them separate groups. If I read the pages right, the Vasconians (Basques), the Aquitanians (Occitans), the Goths (Visigoths) and Franks were the four distinct power factions fighting over the land around the Pyrenees for centuries before the Islamic Caliphate showed up.

Yeah but this isn't the Germanic Visigothic kingdom, it's more like a generic Iberian proto-culture. Since afaik there wasn't much distinction between Occitan and Catalan at the time it feels weird to have such a distinction between the two within the Frankish kingdom.
 
I think Visigothic (in the Iberian culture group) works perfectly fine as the name for a unified Iberian culture.
It's only been a few decades since the Visigothic nobility lost their hegemony over Iberia after all, it's imaginable that if they had never fallen we'd still have Spaniards calling themselves Godo or whatever to this day. Kind of like how the French call themselves after the tribal name of their old nobility rather than Gauls or Gallo-Romans.
 
Thank you for the DD. Perhaps you can expand on the culture shifting mechanics a bit more?


I am most likely in a minority but I am concerned that the cultural shift events will railroad the player into accepting the cultural change in whatever area we are playing in. I'd really like to be able to nurse the Saxon, Lombardy, Pict, etc culture I begin with to survive into the 15th century, if I chose to do so.

The Iconclastic decision for the ERE ruler sounds wonderful - will this type of decision be available for other heretical rulers or is this a one-of for this special situation?

I am also aware this is a WiP but are there plans to adjust the areas under control of the various religions to reflect the reality on the ground? Others are pointing out areas of concern there, so no need to repeat them.

More thoughts on this later.
 
Yeah but this isn't the Germanic Visigothic kingdom, it's more like a generic Iberian proto-culture. Since afaik there wasn't much distinction between Occitan and Catalan at the time it feels weird to have such a distinction between the two within the Frankish kingdom.

I agree with Kljunas, Occitan culture really should not exist as a separate culture at this moment in history. The Aquitaine "dukes" were still self-identifying as Visgothic peoples. The current set-up seems rather forced to me.
 
I agree with Kljunas, Occitan culture really should not exist as a separate culture at this moment in history. The Aquitaine "dukes" were still self-identifying as Visgothic peoples. The current set-up seems rather forced to me.

Indeed same with French. Slay that beast Paradox while you still can !
 
Indeed same with French. Slay that beast Paradox while you still can !

But how should they call them? And please suggest English adjectives and not French. The only possibility would be Frankish for French and Franconian for Frankish...
 
Why are the South Slavs Christian?

Shouldn't the Zunbils be there in 867 too?

Why is Egypt completely Arabic? I think there should be a new Coptic culture instead.

What's the reasoning behind the Visigothic/Occitan distinction? It looks a bit arbitrary to me.

Where there really that many Germanic people in Italy and Galicia (and France)? The Suebi in particular look really out of place.

Is Tengrism really a fitting religion for the Alans?

Everyone is so hard to please. I actually like the idea of there being more Germanic tribes, more chances to alter history, such as a Suebi invasion of England, and a survival of that culture throughout the centuries, and into EU 4. I prefer my own imagination and my own personal rendition of history over what actually happened. 100 percent historical accuracy gets boring, especially after a playthrough or two of it. I want things to change, this is why it's called a sand box strategy game. If the naysayers were heeded to the absolute, we would have a rigid, dogmatic, and very boring/narrow-minded game. These new cultures give us a chance to radically alter the future of European culture. Why must everything follow history to the "T"? I also like Visigothic and all the rest. Paradox please keep these new cultures! Not everyone wants to feel like they are just reading a history text book in their playthroughs.
 
But how should they call them? And please suggest English adjectives and not French. The only possibility would be Frankish for French and Franconian for Frankish...

Ruwaard suggested Francien. horrible name but a thousand time better than "french" . And I would add the non-existence of any french language of any sort in 769 in my long list of argument against that thing.


Cosmopolitaine :p

This I would agree with. :p
 
Ruwaard suggested Francien. horrible name but a thousand time better than "french" . And I would add the non-existence of any french language of any sort in 769 in my long list of argument against that thing.

Francien is not English sady... It would look wierd in the texts. I personally don't have a problem with French starting to spread around 840. But as I said.-.. Frankish and Franconian would be me idea for your suggestion. But are English terms.
 
How about Iconoclasts as at least a Catholic heresy which later splits by event. Iconoclasm doesnt really represent medieval orthodoxy, nor really the underlying power struggles between byzantium and rome

That's not the point. The adoption of Iconoclasm permanently split the church, and began causing power struggles. As I said, they were perpetually in conflict from then on even after the restoration of orthodoxy.

I don't think it would be ridiculous since the Eastern Empire would still be distinct from the west (by being Iconoclast).

Only to begin with. Again, they were still actively competing even after the restoration of Orthodoxy; the earlier adoption of iconoclasm was simply where east and west can first be seen to be distinct.

Uh, the Orthodox Church places the Great Schism at 1054 from my own conversation with priests and churchgoers. Also, there wouldn't be so many shared saints by both churches after 700s if your case was true.

They were still one church until around Alexios' time, when the Byzantines were aware of an active schism being in place. 1054 was one of the moments often proposed thereafter for when the actual schism happened, and as it was the one Gibbon adopted (and others after him) it has become the commonly mentioned date. Hell, at the time, nobody was really aware that there was any kind of "schism" going on.

But still, simply because the schism formally happened in the 11th century, that doesn't mean the Eastern and Western churches were anything like united before that. There was still active competition for converts, supremacy and authority over sees between Pope and Patriarch dating back, well, a very long time, but particularly since 726. The conversion of the Moravians and Bulgars are good examples; we can clearly see western and eastern rites and political organisations actively competing for converts.

I agree, simply having them completely split to start with and with no co-operation isn't at all a perfect mechanic, but it's a hell of a lot better than having a single religion. I'd rather that they were split but with some kind of events/mechanics representing the nominal unity which was still in place.