• 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
 
It must have been asked before, but can only Indians use war elephants? Or is the Seleucid Empire Reborn still a possibility?
Well the devs did mention you could have both camel and elephant riders in your great Arabic-Indian Empire, sooo... :D
 
Will I get elephants as indian duke of Finland? Or is it somehow regionally restricted?
Availability is determined by province, I think, so, if you happen to be a duke of Finland who has holdings in India you will be able to get them. Otherwise, no.
 
Availability is determined by province, I think, so, if you happen to be a duke of Finland who has holdings in India you will be able to get them. Otherwise, no.

Province culture or province de jure or province pre-defined is still a question

If you happen to be a duke, who sticks there long enough without assimilating to bring finland the indian culture and religion? then it might be plausible that hes got a breeding population of elephants set up too
 
Province culture or province de jure or province pre-defined is still a question

If you happen to be a duke, who sticks there long enough without assimilating to bring finland the indian culture and religion? then it might be plausible that hes got a breeding population of elephants set up too

Actually, all elephants were captured in the wild. (Sounds weird, but I think it was that way)
 
Actually, all elephants were captured in the wild. (Sounds weird, but I think it was that way)

But in Finland, thats not an option, so a captive breeding population would be needed by an ambitious ruler desiring elephants
 
What about the Mongols? will they just steamroll through the continent, I must admit I usually play smaller dukes or petty kings and do not much pay attention to distant mongols, but I do know they push pretty far before faltering. I am really just curious to see if there will be a way to dramatize the conflict into northern areas as it was historically
 
Elephants were never domesticated, each elephant has to be captured and broken individually.
 
Crusades handled differently you say? Very interesting! Is this going to be a big overhaul of the crusading mechanism in terms of who gets the holy land? Or are we just talking about crusaders handling starvation differently?

Biggest problem in crusades currently is how unrealistic they are. Succesful crusade should always create new independent realm. Current way with Irish jerusalem and Polish Iberia is stupid and unhistoric. There is many other things that Crusades are lacking. Its sad that all Norse hype and other things have overrun whole crusade part of this game.

Mandatory reading if you want to know anything about crusaders and realms they made is Malcolm Barber´s The Crusader States book.
 
Last edited:
I'd suggest Bellocs The Crusades; The Worlds Debate.

But with the crusades, could the TOG adventures fix it?
The most important people in the historic crusades, weren't the rulers back home, but their sons or brothers acting on their own, hungry to carve out realms of their own, thats where all the division and infighting came from.
Surely having your younger brothers and sons run off and raise armies like pagans do, but go join the crusade rather than start new invasion wars?
If they got double points in the crusade too, then that'd increase the chance of independent Jerusalems
 
I'd suggest Bellocs The Crusades; The Worlds Debate.

But with the crusades, could the TOG adventures fix it?
The most important people in the historic crusades, weren't the rulers back home, but their sons or brothers acting on their own, hungry to carve out realms of their own, thats where all the division and infighting came from.
Surely having your younger brothers and sons run off and raise armies like pagans do, but go join the crusade rather than start new invasion wars?
If they got double points in the crusade too, then that'd increase the chance of independent Jerusalems

There were many landed lords that joined crusades that gave away all they lands to relatives or sold them to raise funds for journey. They were not only about greed for carving new lands.
 
There were many landed lords that joined crusades that gave away all they lands to relatives or sold them to raise funds for journey. They were not only about greed for carving new lands.

The leaders of the First Crusader weren't the Kings, but the 'minor' nobles who didnt have the responsibilities at home so could go out and dedicate themselves to it, and that included those who saw it as there chance to be something.
And I didn't say it was only about greed for carving out land, I said that it was for some (the Baldwins for example) was were it went wrong.

Also remember the king was elected by the crusader leaders, being there, and not having a duty to a kingdom back home was a big part of why the man who got it did
 
The leaders of the First Crusader weren't the Kings, but the 'minor' nobles who didnt have the responsibilities at home so could go out and dedicate themselves to it, and that included those who saw it as there chance to be something.
And I didn't say it was only about greed for carving out land, I said that it was for some (the Baldwins for example) was were it went wrong.

Also remember the king you was elected by the crusader leaders, being there, and not having a duty to a kingdom back home was a big part of why the man who got it did

They were not kings you are right about that ofc. But even in first crusade there were many powerful landed nobles. Raymond IV Count of Toulouse, Godfrey of Bouillon Duke of Lower Lorraine, Eustace III, Count of Boulogne, Robert II Count of Flanders.

You did not say it was only about greed. Mayby I just got little too defensive there. Its just that these days people dont really dont know anything about crusades (They say it was only about greed and evil christians). What schools here teach is severly lacking or outright false.
 
Last edited:
Maybe this question has been already asked, but, can you tell me if the new troop system and the new attrition system will be added for free in the patch ? Or only in the expansion ?