Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries
Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69948 Bug Reports 19720 User Modifications 10606 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6376 After Action Reports
Previous dev diary Next dev diary
Show only dev responses
It's Wednesday, and time to answer some questions about the upcoming DLC for Crusader Kings II; Legacy of Rome. The focus of this mini-expansion is going to be the Byzantine Empire and the Orthodox church. First off, in order to clear up any confusion from the original announcement, it's a bit smaller in scope than the Sword of Islam so the price is set at $5.99. While I say it's smaller in scope, if you include all the stuff we're adding for free in the accompanying patch (v1.07) it's probably about the same size as SoI and v1.06.

So, let's take a look at what's in the DLC and what's in patch 1.07...

LEGACY OF ROME DLC

  • Retinue system. If you don't have the DLC, you won't see the new interface and you cannot hire retinues (and neither will the AI.) The technology that controls the max size of your retinue and relative decrease of normal levy sizes simply does not have this effect without the DLC.
  • Orthodox Councillor models
  • Major Decisions for the Byzantine Empire
  • Byzantine Events

Oh, and we're taking another tack with the DLC this around - if you don't own the DLC, the AI won't be using the new mechanics or events either. Also, from now on in multiplayer mode, the host will control which DLCs are active.

PATCH 1.07


  • Faction system. Replaces many existing plots and normal revolt mechanics with factions.
  • Personal Improvement Ambitions
  • Orthodox Patriarch system
  • Have both a Plot and an Ambition at the same time
  • Revised levy raising. (You raise a single, large levy from each direct vassal. The opinions of vassals of vassals are irrelevant.)
  • Leader Focus on Combat
  • More Cultural Buildings
  • Improved AI
  • Bug fixes (of course)

I will talk about all these features in detail in upcoming dev diaries, but for now, that's all!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Click to expand...
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
D.PHa said:
BTW i very much supported an idea of every little kingdom could become empire after considerable expansion of its borders and power, BUT if you had read the wiki link i posted above i don't think you'd say the same, i suggest you to do so :),
FYI:
geography of Georgia and Georgian regions is too damn inaccurate in the game pitifully.
Georgia survived to this very date, ERE couldn't make it btw :)
Caucasus and black sea region is quite a HUGE area and probably very very much more populated and technologically advanced especially and at least at those times, so kingdom representing dominant power in that region -- quoting:"very possibly could have been an empire", IMHO ofcourse :)
Click to expand...

i did read the wikipedia article. HOWEVER, thats the empire of trebizond which had strong ties with georgia. strong ties =/= a empire. if YOU had actually read the georgia article, you'd notice this:

"David the Builder's granddaughter Tamar succeeded in neutralizing opposition and embarked on an energetic foreign policy aided by the downfall of the rival powers of the Seljuks and Byzantium. Supported by a powerful military élite, Tamar was able to build on the successes of her predecessors to consolidate an empire which dominated the Caucasus, and extended over large parts of present-day Azerbaijan, Armenia, and eastern Turkey, until its collapse under the Mongol attacks within two decades after Tamar's death."

so yeah, a strong realm, to last only a single generation. not worthy of an empire. unless were going to give every king title a emperor title georgia doesnt deserve one.

also, about surviving till this very date: that says nothing. england survived for some thousand years. india survived soem thousand years. japan did. its about suriving without falling. georgia was annnexed by russia for quite some time(not WW2 occupation of france, but roman occupation of egypt and france like).

thirldy, empire is just a word in hsotory. many called themselves empires unworthy of it(like trebizond), some didnt call themselves it but were worthy of it in turn. its all abut gameplay. and georgia is certainly not worthy of an empire tier title.

that being all said, i do agree we need more titular empire titles in case you grow huge. im not opposed to giving georgia a titular title which they csan create if they have 3+ king titles and a realm of like? 150+?. same goes for other king titles, like mauritania, africa, italy, sicily. same goes for more titular king titles.
 
Empire is an overused term, The term "Empire" was actually used to denote a decentralized semi-tribal collection of annexed territories, like the Romans or Alexander's Empire. This is why China started as an Empire but officially became a centralized state under the Qin. However because people liked the term it became something everyone wanted to be.
 
Which is why I have said previously said all kingdoms should be able to declare they are an empire after their realm is 90% of the average of all existing empires. Creating a titular empire. The current empires and kingdoms would at this stage also gain a cb that allows them to declare war to destroy the empire title, this cb would only be available whilst it is titular, so after 100 years it is a de jure empire and recognised.

Making it a set figure is a terrible idea, it should be hard to create and even harder to hold that title with 2+ empires, and their allies converging to destroy you.
 
Empire-forming could use a generic mechanism in addition to the few historical scripted empires. Like that one time when tzar Peter I said "Sod being a tzar, I want to be an Russian emperor!" and started hacking his Window to Europe, because coming through the door was too mainstream.
Could be an event firing only once in 20 years or when the new ruler comes to power, requiring a certain number of provinces, one decently developed city area for the capital and the money for printing new stamps.
 
Im not really sure what it would add, apart from making Blobbing more common.
 
grumphie said:
so yeah, a strong realm, to last only a single generation. not worthy of an empire. unless were going to give every king title a emperor title georgia doesnt deserve one.
Click to expand...

Well, Swedish empire lasted not much longer(around century) than lasted Georgian Kingdom's prime power and dominance in the region(slightly more than a century) and if the power was the only reason of becoming Empire(in Sweden case) than the only difference between these two realms in this subject is that Georgian king didn't call himself emperor. Actually if you appeal to how many generation lasted the realms dominance, as i see Swedish kingdom(not even an Empire) had 5 monarchs while Georgia at its so called "Golden Age" had also 5. Moreover Georgia was in power(and i doubt very much Sweden had greater power and influence as an empire in later times) in the very time span of the game.

Tamar actually was David's grandsons daughter.
 
Especially like the part about being able to have an ambition and plot going at the same time. Since plots sometimes takes forever to complete and some ambitions also take a considerable time to complete this is a good thing.
 
NCreepy said:
I agree. And imagine the insanely rich muslims with shitloads of troops as it is with this in addition. Sad stuff...
Click to expand...
It seems that standing armies (retinues) will either be only for Byzantium (which is indeed historical) or won't go further than being just a small personal guard (which isn't really ahistorical). No need to worry.
 
Good morning Paradox!

I know that you very rarely answer questions about DLC early on and this might not be final yet, but is other Orthodox factions going to be improved on? Thinking of the Russian ones.

TheGreatSnoop said:
I don't know the first thing about Christian Orthodoxy, so can anyone explain what an 'Orthodox Patriarch System' is? :huh:
Click to expand...
A patriarch is the leader of the Orthodox church of a certain area. Their duties very likely varied in history, but they're essentially the leader of the church in a larger area (not necessarily restricted by borders.)

They are supposed to be equal in rank, and with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople ranking as the first of them and serving as adjudicator of a sort between the different patriarchs. Again dependent on how his role varied in history.
 
Last edited:
I find it quite odd to have independent (autocephalous) patriarchates of the Orthodox Church during the middle ages, especially while the Eastern Roman Empire still exists, beyond the five original patriarchies. Those other "leaders of the Orthodox church of a certain area" during medieval times were called Metropolitans, and they were subject to the Ecumenical Patriarchs. It wasn't until 1589 when, following the collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire and the rise of Russia, that the Russian czar appointed an independent Patriarch from Constantinople, action which was accepted by the now powerless Ecumenical Patriarch, prisoner in Constantinople.
 
Laur said:
I find it quite odd to have independent (autocephalous) patriarchates of the Orthodox Church during the middle ages, especially while the Eastern Roman Empire still exists, beyond the five original patriarchies. Those other "leaders of the Orthodox church of a certain area" during medieval times were called Metropolitans, and they were subject to the Ecumenical Patriarchs. It wasn't until 1589 when, following the collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire and the rise of Russia, that the Russian czar appointed an independent Patriarch from Constantinople, action which was accepted by the now powerless Ecumenical Patriarch, prisoner in Constantinople.
Click to expand...

Both the Bulgarian (927 and again in 1235) and Serbian (1219) had autocephalous patriarchs long before that.
 
Veldmaarschalk said:
Both the Bulgarian (927 and again in 1235) and Serbian (1219) had autocephalous patriarchs long before that.
Click to expand...

That is true, however, in all those cases, and, especially, after 1204, the Eastern Roman Empire was in deep trouble and was not in any position whatsoever to prevent the independence of Bulgaria and Serbia (which were, hithertho, provinces of the Empire) and their subsequent decision to appoint autocephalous religious rulers. Even the independence of the Papacy would not have been possible had the Empire been in a better situation rather than fighting for its life in the East. On the other hand, the christianization in the orthodox rite of the Rus, Moravians and other independent peoples at the peak of Constantinople's power did not result in the appointment of autocephalous Patriarchs of Morava or Kiev, but of Metropolitans, subordonated to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Maybe it could be made so that the degree of "autocephality" of the various realm churches could reflect the political and military power of the Eastern Roman Empire and the religious authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch?
 
Last edited:
Speaking of Serbia, should some of their characters be Catholic? I've noticed a few in 1066 (including, I think, a powerful duke with a large family) but I assumed they'd all be Orthodox.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back