• 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.
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
 
How many times does Paradox have to say that those aren't one battle, but several smaller skirmishes which take place over a longer period of time for people to understand that battles aren't simply huge, short slaughterfests?
They can say it as much as they want, but the game mechanics clearly don't model that. If the battles modeled real life there would be some skirmishing much like the initial skirmishing phase, but the melee phase probably wouldn't happen unless one army was following the other closely and it wasn't being evaded (i.e. you'd need to be able to order your armies to seek or avoid battle). Finally, there would be a day where the battle ended and there were absurd casualties that day. What we have right now simulates a normal battle taking place in an accelerated time zone pretty much ripped from Halo Jones.

And there already are those sally out events...
Those don't really count, because they give simple percentage reductions to troops and morale without looking at numbers or commanders. It's just like you said: they're modeled with events, but only at the most basic level.
 
I still don't understand what would be so fun about shorter battles :unsure:

You get to pause the game and make tedious and repetitive movement orders chasing ping pong armies twice as often in the same amount of in-game time?
 
Ping-ponging should never happen. Armies should only fight when they wish to, unless a greatly superior commander is able to force an unwilling enemy to battle (the difference would make it a mean time to happen). After the battle, either the army is broken, in which case it acts as though you disbanded the army after sustaining your losses, or the army retreats in good order in which case you go back to trying to force a confrontation. This would really need a "follow enemy" order, like attaching an army to a friendly stack but ordering them to follow an enemy instead.
 
Ping-ponging should never happen. Armies should only fight when they wish to, unless a greatly superior commander is able to force an unwilling enemy to battle (the difference would make it a mean time to happen). After the battle, either the army is broken, in which case it acts as though you disbanded the army after sustaining your losses, or the army retreats in good order in which case you go back to trying to force a confrontation. This would really need a "follow enemy" order, like attaching an army to a friendly stack but ordering them to follow an enemy instead.

Or just an auto-hunt enemies the same as the auto-hunt rebels button

Especially as AI armies are with each patch getting smaller and more spread out but bigger stack wins is still the rule so wars are taking longer and longer and requiring more and more minor movement orders, and vassals still do nothing at all.
 
Or just an auto-hunt enemies the same as the auto-hunt rebels button

Especially as AI armies are with each patch getting smaller and more spread out but bigger stack wins is still the rule so wars are taking longer and longer and requiring more and more minor movement orders, and vassals still do nothing at all.

Since the Hunter-Killer stack now exists in CK2 too, why not have the option to designate your own Hunter-Killer stacks for the AI to control for you?
 
Auto-hunt enemies would probably not work very well if you went with a model where two armies wouldn't start a battle as soon as they entered the same province. I forgot to mention: my way, even if the armies don't set up for a pitched battle, they'll still be in Skirmish mode. If they set up and fight, or if the matter gets forced by a superior and lucky commander, it all gets resolved in a single day. The way I see it, it's both more realistic and you had ample time to reinforce the stack while they were skirmishing.
 
I'd like to ask the developpers why they're using this special units system as it adds the limit of only one special unit per city/castle.
Wouldn't it be a lot more modding friendly and realistic if you would've added just more units? With the new system recruiting Horse Archers and e.g. camel warriors wouldn't be possible in the same city. I think thats quite unfortunate esspicially from modder perspective :(
 
I'd like to ask the developpers why they're using this special units system as it adds the limit of only one special unit per city/castle.
Wouldn't it be a lot more modding friendly and realistic if you would've added just more units? With the new system recruiting Horse Archers and e.g. camel warriors wouldn't be possible in the same city. I think thats quite unfortunate esspicially from modder perspective :(

Interface issues. They don't want to include 2 dozen different units on the command screen.
 
Interface issues. They don't want to include 2 dozen different units on the command screen.

But different special units can be used in the same army can't they? So there'll be some interface issues or am I mistaken? As much as I can understand that you developers want to save work, but I'd prefer a more ideal solution on that one. But thanks for your answer anyway :)
 
But different special units can be used in the same army can't they? So there'll be some interface issues or am I mistaken? As much as I can understand that you developers want to save work, but I'd prefer a more ideal solution on that one. But thanks for your answer anyway :)

I'm guessing it's just going to be used as a special troop icon, which you can hover over for more information.
 
But different special units can be used in the same army can't they? So there'll be some interface issues or am I mistaken? As much as I can understand that you developers want to save work, but I'd prefer a more ideal solution on that one. But thanks for your answer anyway :)

Different units in army, but only one of those by regiment.
In the interface all under the Special Units icon, which was still the horse archer icon in the stream.
 
Different units in army, but only one of those by regiment.
In the interface all under the Special Units icon, which was still the horse archer icon in the stream.

No. I think you can have more than one in a regiment. They are just put together under the icon. And then you would read:

"Horse Archers = 8000
War Elephants = 20"

for exemple.
 
How many times does Paradox have to say that those aren't one battle, but several smaller skirmishes which take place over a longer period of time for people to understand that battles aren't simply huge, short slaughterfests?
Its immersion breaking when a battle takes 2 ingame months to finish.
 
Its immersion breaking when a battle takes 2 ingame months to finish.

its alot less annoying than dozens of little battles in the same time though
 
No. I think you can have more than one in a regiment. They are just put together under the icon. And then you would read:

"Horse Archers = 8000
War Elephants = 20"

for exemple.

The only limit on this is that a regiment can only have one special troop type

One per regiment, several per flank and army. The second part is correct, they are just combined under the icon in the specific UI that's used.
I understand it's just a misunderstanding of 'regiment'. Well i was confused at first, as nobody ever spoke of 'regiments', but it's easier for a name to distinguish.
 
Its immersion breaking when a battle takes 2 ingame months to finish.
It's sanity breaking when people don't understand it's not a single battle lasting for 2 ingame months.
 
It's sanity breaking when people don't understand it's not a single battle lasting for 2 ingame months.
It is, but then the current system is really limited in its representation of local operations. It's not possible to set a "stance" for an army such that it tries to evade or minimise contact, or where it attacks with vigour, perhaps taking risks to do so. As a result, delaying actions and harrassing are not possible - although such strategies were well known at the time.

What might improve matters would be some ability to set an "attitude" or "stance" for each army, from "evade the enemy" to "attack at all costs". These would generate an intensity, or speed, of combat (using the current system) - more skirmishing for stances such as "raiding" or "delaying", more melee battles for "vigorous attack". Which stance (since all armies in the province would have one) determines the actual combat intensity used would depend on the relative manoeuvre ratings of the commanders, modified by troop movement speeds, numbers and terrain.
 
It must have been asked before, but can only Indians use war elephants? Or is the Seleucid Empire Reborn still a possibility?