Hello everyone! So finally we address the Elephant in the room, specifically the War Elephant in the upcoming Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India expansion.

When making an expansion based on India we simply couldn't ignore the elephantry that they fielded. These giants will help your Indian rulers to conquer and stampede over any opposition you face, being the heaviest cavalry you can field in Crusader Kings 2. These beasts of war will be mostly available from retinues but there will also be cultural buildings that will produce them for you. They will only exist in very limited numbers compared to other troop types but will have a devastating effect on the battlefield during the melee phase. The Indian general that makes sure to use his unique set of tactics available for these units will without a doubt be victorious.

We also fixed so that the Arabic cultures can field their own camel warriors to face the heathens with.

View attachment ck2_2.png
Showing off their mighty War Elephant Retinues

The old troop type system was very limiting, not allowing for a lot of creativity, and we had nowhere to place the new war elephants in the user interface, it was already over-crowded with the other troop types. So what we did was remake the Horse Archer with a fully script-able troop type known as Special Troops. These now represent Horse Archers, Camel Warriors and the mighty War Elephants. It will be even possible to field Camel Warriors and War Elephants in the same army in your grand pan Arabic-Indian Empire if you so desire. The most important thing is that now modders can utilize this to make their mods even more diverse and interesting, allowing them to add troop types ranging from Wizards to gunpowder troops.

View attachment ck2_3.png
The breakdown of special troops, everything is quite similar to
before except for the numbering of the horse archers.

What is the actual difference for the modders from the previous system then? Well Korbah made an excellent diagram he posted on the beta forum which I am going to borrow from him.

View attachment hkjhkjh.jpg

Previously the troop types were hard-coded in place which gave very little option with what you could actually do with them. Each regiment always had six entries: Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Archers, Pikemen, Light Cavalry, Heavy Cavalry and Horse Archers. This meant an army would always consist of a composition of these troop types. The new system removes the Horse Archers and replaces it with the special troop type, meaning it can be anything and every regiment can have a different composition of troop types and still function as a unified army. The only limit on this is that a regiment can only have one special troop type, so one holding can not produce several different special troop types and mercenaries and retinues can only have one special troop type assigned to them.


With the India expansion the world grows immensely giving us a good opportunity to add some common tactical problems that commanders of the time faced. First we gave the Indian subcontinent the jungle terrain type which will harshly increase your attrition and defense bonuses. But the other problem is supplies, it won't be a simple task to just walk across all of Europe with every single soldier you started with alive. You will now have to combat starvation as you march far away from your home. This means that Norse Vikings armies will have starved to death before even reaching India.

How it works is that while you are nearby your realm or your top-liege's realm your soldiers will fill up on supplies to keep themselves fed. These supplies will always last for 31 days. When they step too far away into neutral territory they will start to starve for supplies and have a ticking attrition that goes up slowly for each day. A good martial leader can of course counter-act it to a certain point. When you do finally reach the enemy territory, the troops will start foraging from their surrounding area to keep themselves supplied. The foraging builds on the pillaging from the loot bar except it goes a lot slower. When the soldiers can't take more from the loot bar they will start to starve again in 31 days. This will balance the rulers of Europe to invade their neighbors instead of happily jump over the Egypt and start carving their piece of India. Instead they will have to put a bit effort into it if they want to actually reach India.

So yes we will see a Norse India eventually, but it will be quite an achievement.


There has been some big issues with what people have dubbed "North Korea Mode", making the game way too easy to play and removing the entire feudal point of the game. So we have made playing this way a lot less rewarding by reducing the amount of levies and income they actually get from doing this. It is of course still completely possible to play like this if you still want to, but you will be a bankrupt France with only 400 troops while the strong HRE will be raising a lot more troops than that. Small counts and dukes who go over their demense limit just a little bit will be a bit penalized but not to the same degree.

Bonus: Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India Interview with Project Lead Henrik Fahraeus
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Excl...ith-Project-Lead-Henrik-Fahraeus-429067.shtml

 

[DominusNovus]

Why? Because I might be 65 years old and I'm looking at the Stewardship of my heir and knowing that I should start building it before I die? And yes, marriages can't lower your limit, but a LACK OF ONE CAN. So can regencies, incapable, etc. There are plenty of reasons to be over your demesne limit by a couple holdings, and yet we're all going to get punished because of a heavy-handed action by PDX trying to go after one style of play. As I've been saying, it's not about "stopping NKM", it's about the heavy-handed nature of their "fixes" that usually ends up impacting far more people than ever used whatever tactic it was they were trying to prevent.

So, let me see if I understand this:

You want to maximize the number of years that your heir will be ruling over the maximum number of holdings he could possibly hold and, so, wish to build them as the less capable ruler? How is that not just unrealistic min-maxing of the system? What ruler, historically, would expand beyond his ability to rule, all on the assumption that his heir would be able to rule the new territory well enough on his own? Further, in strict gameplay terms, at what point is having a few extra holdings going to make a huge difference in the game play? I've never found the size of my demense to be much of an important factor in any of successes or failures in the game. The *only* time I could see it mattering is if you're a count in a duchy for which 51% of its counties are more than your ability to rule. Which is pretty rare. You'd have to be a horrible steward, with horrible tech, and ruling in a large duchy like Birjand.

As for the lack of marriages, well, all I can say is: get married. Its really easy. If you don't want any more kids, then just marry someone old, there's usually a few widows floating around Europe at any given time. And honestly, if things are going less than ideally during a regency when the liege is incapable of ruling, then thats just realistic.

 

[BritNavFan]

I'm not sure I follow. Care to elaborate?

You were representing this as a learn-to-play issue:

I really don't understand people who are obsessed with troop numbers like they were pre-2.0 (before the so-called "levy-nerf"). Troop numbers and levies are now ok (as it is with vassals - the normal way of playing), it is the NKM which had ridiculous troop numbers in addition to it being just dumb and uninteresting. Feudalism doesn't need a "buff" it's fine as it is. If you want more troops, adjust your laws, make yourself and your vassals military men, make them happy, improve your holdings, increase your demesne limit. It shouldn't be hard.

But if I'm playing as, for example, early Byzantium, I want the AI Abbasids to be a strong opponent. And they're not, because the levy nerf really cripples them. Even if it was a "learn to play" issue, my learning to play wouldn't help, because the AI would be the one who needs to "learn to play". But it's not a learn to play issue: it really is a "levy nerf". The Egyptians, Persians, and Byzantines all get vassal mercenary companies, which insulate them from the levy nerf. The Abbasids don't. There's nothing "learn to play" about that. All the Abbasids get is a wrong-Empire penalty for most of their realm if they put their capital in its historic location, Baghdad. ("Fortunately" the AI has "learned to play" enough that it doesn't further cripple the Abbasids by choosing their historic capital for their capital.)

Then you get additional "features" such as Venice getting wrong-Empire penalties for any holdings it has on the Italian mainland. I guess AI Venice should "learn to play" by taking holdings in Georgia instead of Italy, so it doesn't get wrong-Empire penalties.

You call this good game balance? How is this good game balance? It's terrible.

The de jure borders were designed for the political game, and, with some exceptions (e.g. e_byzantium should lose 3 kingdoms IMO) they do a decent to great job of that. But they don't, in general, make sense for the economic/military game.

Then there's the whole issue that making mercenaries so much relatively stronger than levies greatly favors strategic attack over defence. Because the attacker can choose to attack when they have money for mercenaries and the defender doesn't. You say the AI is weaker than the player because it's AI, but it wouldn't be that hard to teach the AI to hire mercenaries and jump a neighbour who can't afford to hire mercenaries when it gets the opportunity. Paradox AI's already handle harder stuff than that. It just wouldn't be any fun to play a game where any neighbouring AI may jump you with a couple of mercenary companies any time you don't have enough cash banked to hire a couple of mercenary companies yourself.

You want republics removed? Give me a break.

It costs 800 gold to create a barony-level republic. I don't see any reason why you should be able to make duchy-level ones for free.

But all the mechanics for both creating and destroying merchant republics are extremely basic and IMO should be redone in detail. If I capture Venice, the merchants don't flee to their widespread trading empire; instead both they and their trading empire vanish *POOF*. Then I create a new Greek Republic of Venice with Greek merchant families. It makes no sense. I should have the option of sacking or not sacking Venice: if I sack it I get really rich but there's no merchant republic to tax in the future; if I don't sack it I have a vassal merchant republic with Italian merchants.

 

[Garak]

I like the new Indian CoAs and the new special units (especially the elephant graphics). The fuss about "NK mode" bothers me a little, though. I find the sheer joy some people seem to be taking in its removal to be highly distasteful.

I only rarely see the Holy Orders actually taking chunks of land, which did happen historically. And I never see any ahistorical empires or reformed religions unless I'm doing it myself. Heck, it's been forever since I've seen tengri reform. It happens on occasion, but that's part of the fun of the game; things that didn't happen in history occurring.

Actually, I see Holy Orders taking land and reformed pagans in almost every game. I'm playing a game now where the Knights of Calatrava won crusades for Hungary and Andalusia.

 

[VolitionNewlove]

There has been some big issues with what people have dubbed "North Korea Mode", making the game way too easy to play and removing the entire feudal point of the game. So we have made playing this way a lot less rewarding by reducing the amount of levies and income they actually get from doing this. It is of course still completely possible to play like this if you still want to, but you will be a bankrupt France with only 400 troops while the strong HRE will be raising a lot more troops than that. Small counts and dukes who go over their demense limit just a little bit will be a bit penalized but not to the same degree.

Yes!

 

[The_13th_Ronin]

Paradox your decision to patch out North Korea mode has reminded me why I love you.

NOW TAKE MY MONEY!

 

[Alyiakal]

So, let me see if I understand this:

You want to maximize the number of years that your heir will be ruling over the maximum number of holdings he could possibly hold and, so, wish to build them as the less capable ruler? How is that not just unrealistic min-maxing of the system? What ruler, historically, would expand beyond his ability to rule, all on the assumption that his heir would be able to rule the new territory well enough on his own? Further, in strict gameplay terms, at what point is having a few extra holdings going to make a huge difference in the game play? I've never found the size of my demense to be much of an important factor in any of successes or failures in the game. The *only* time I could see it mattering is if you're a count in a duchy for which 51% of its counties are more than your ability to rule. Which is pretty rare. You'd have to be a horrible steward, with horrible tech, and ruling in a large duchy like Birjand.

As for the lack of marriages, well, all I can say is: get married. Its really easy. If you don't want any more kids, then just marry someone old, there's usually a few widows floating around Europe at any given time. And honestly, if things are going less than ideally during a regency when the liege is incapable of ruling, then thats just realistic.

+1

This was essentially the same argument I had in the other thread, where someone thought that being 10 counties over the demesne limit, in order to wait until their heir was "ready" to govern the land, was an acceptable use of game mechanics. It's just powergaming being disguised as RPing. If you're getting your demesne limit knocked around, it's for an in game reason; you can't effectively govern that land. And if you can't govern it, you have to delegate it, or have the vassals at your throat. This levy reduction will actually serve double duty, as crappy stewards won't be able to "ride out" situations like this, and would have to actually act like a ruler with their vassals clamoring for the lands. Bad regencies will lose cost the crown some power. These things happened.

 

[Orinsul]

Could there be little tigers and elephants on the map, like EU4 has little animals on the map?

Also, did indian rulers who were tyrants or insane, fed their prisoners to their pet tigers?
And if so, Will we be able to in game?

And shouldnt arabs get the best horses, as all the best horses of the era, came from arabia? instead of camels. Or might they get a choice between horse archers or camels, especially as many arabs are outside of camel friendly zones.

 

[Trin Tragula]

Don't know about tigers but there was such a thing as execution by elephant at least.

 

[BigMemer7]

The more I hear and see about this expansion the more I get excited. This expansion has restored my faith in Paradox after the WETN from EUIV. I can't wait until this is released.

 

[Orinsul]

Don't know about tigers but there was such a thing as execution by elephant at least.

An Arms dealer in the balkians feeds people to tigers, and im sure plenty of super villains have throughout fiction. I just dont think if indians ever did, or enough to make it into the game with a special death label 'was fed to tigers by X on Y' and a pretty angry tiger event picture

 

[unmerged(47028)]

As for the lack of marriages, well, all I can say is: get married. Its really easy. If you don't want any more kids, then just marry someone old, there's usually a few widows floating around Europe at any given time. And honestly, if things are going less than ideally during a regency when the liege is incapable of ruling, then thats just realistic.

You can't marry some old lady. The games doesn't longer allow it. You can marry only fertile ladies.

 

[Orinsul]

You can't marry some old lady. The games doesn't longer allow it. You can marry only fertile ladies.

Can you not still when youre also old and gross?
you just cant if youre still young
Though the AI still tends to the oldest allowed for its young sons which is annoying

 

[unmerged(47028)]

I have tried to marry my old ruler whose old wife died because of old age. The ruler already had a couple of heirs so I tried to find him and old lady with good stats so he could live the rest of his life in peace and quietness. He was not allowed to marry any old lady.

 

[kolpo]

Elephants look cool on the map, this seems like the biggest expansion since old gods

 

[DominusNovus]

And shouldnt arabs get the best horses, as all the best horses of the era, came from arabia?

No, because they didn't. They may have had the best light cavalry horses, but Arabians were all but useless for heavy cavalry.
An arabian horse
A warlander (modern attempt to bring back a destrier breed):

You don't need to know much about horses to be able to see the stark difference between the two. You just can't put an armored knight on an arabian and expect the horse to hold up under the weight. Arabians were breed for speed, stealth, grace, agility, all the skills useful for light cavalry raiding tactics. Now, once gunpowder became predominant in warfare, destriers became obsolete, and Europeans found that Arabian-style breeds were better suited to the new style of warfare.

 

[Darkrenown]

I have tried to marry my old ruler whose old wife died because of old age. The ruler already had a couple of heirs so I tried to find him and old lady with good stats so he could live the rest of his life in peace and quietness. He was not allowed to marry any old lady.

A quick experiment suggests this is incorrect:


The bride finder only suggests fertile aged women, but you can offer marriage to anyone you like.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

Thanks Darkrenown. I will check my game.

 

[Chris93]

You see Elephants, I see Mumakil for MEP mod

 

[zombieflanders]

A quick experiment suggests this is incorrect:
[...]
The bride finder only suggests fertile aged women, but you can offer marriage to anyone you like.

Can confirm. I regularly marry elderly (non-concubinage religion) rulers to old widows with high Stewardship to ensure that I maintain my demesne limit. Then again, I rarely use the bride finder unless I'm looking for a quick match that would be tedious with the character search.

 

[Hunteromega]

My problem with the current system of levies is how arbitrary it is as to how you get your levies from things. It doesn't matter that you put your capital in the center of your empire, if it spans more than one empire you're going to be getting less levies from the second one. I've had my capital be Lubeck and have owned all of Scandinavia for over two centuries but because I'm not in the proper capital I barely get any levies from my vassals, even though I gave them the entire dejure kingdoms of Sweden, Finland, and Norway to rule and have 40+ opinion with them. I think that the system should work like this: the more delegation you have the more levies you get. So let's give an example: You have your main duchy, let's say you have all your counties inside your main duchy, fine. Then you have a secondary one because hey why not, here you can own some but you can give it out to counts for better levies, then you have your kingdom, here you want dukes to fill out the rest of the duchies. Then you have an empire. Here you could have Dukes of the majority culture or Kings of your own culture to have good levies, then outside your empire you need kings of the correct majority culture to get the most out of your levies. This encourages the use of the Feudal system and, let's be honest, it makes a little more sense because you have checks and balances to make sure you get the proper number of levies and the kings will have a better ability to control. It ALSO makes the possibility of more powerful vassals when a rebellion or takeover does happen so it adds a better risk while still encouraging you to keep the nobility strong.