• 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.
So folks, we are releasing the fifth expansion to Crusader Kings II, on Monday next week; Sons of Abraham. In the previous dev diaries, I have gone through the various features we've added in the expansion, so today I'll speak of the 2.0 patch. Usually when we release expansions for Crusader Kings II, we add a lot of free stuff in the patch as well, and this time is no exception. It's almost funny how many features we plan for the expansions that we end up putting in the patch instead, simply because they alter the core gameplay too much. Now, where to begin?

Perhaps the biggest - yet quite subtle - change we did was to reduce the amount of levies you get, particularly from your vassals. There are several changes to the rules; first off, levies from outside your de jure capital region get progressively smaller in stages (county, duchy, kingdom, empire, outside). Secondly, vassals will not give you any levies if they don't have a positive opinion of you (previously the threshold was -25). On the other hand, you now always enjoy a big opinion boost if you are being attacked by foreigners, particularly by infidels. This means that you can usually raise something approaching your theoretical max while being attacked, but not when you are doing the attacking. (Incidentally, this also means that factions tend to be less dangerous while the whole realm is under threat.) Lastly, the ruler's martial skill has a direct and significant effect on the size of the levies that can be raised from his or her demesne.

CKII_SoA_DD_04_Levies.jpg

We have also added whole new feature to improve the military side of the game; terrain bottlenecks. This is a system where the defending side in a battle has sometimes found suitable terrain before combat commences. The chance of this depends on the main province terrain and leader skill (there is even a new commander trait for this.) Each flank may have a narrow approach, preventing the attackers from attacking in numbers greater than the number of flank defenders (their number at the start) during the melee phase. The main reason we added this feature is that being outflanked is now much, much more devastating than it used to be, particularly if you are being outflanked from two directions, or through your (fallen) center. We have also updated all mercenaries and holy orders so they actually have three regiments instead of one (and can thus fill a battle line on their own.) Mongols and Aztecs also arrive with more but smaller regiments, etc. What else? Oh yes, we unleashed Wiz (Martin Anward, who improved the EUIV AI) on the military AI to see if he could kick it up a notch...

CKII_SoA_DD_04_Bottleneck.jpg

CKII_SoA_DD_04_Mercenaries.jpg

Another really nice thing with the 2.0 patch is of course the addition of Ironman mode, like in Europa Universalis IV. To complement this, we added 50 Steam achievements that you can only get in Ironman mode. The multiplayer metaserver, however, will be discontinued. RIP.

Now, as you know, playing Crusader Kings II is a pretty cheerful and lighthearted experience, so we thought it was high time to bring in some much needed tragedy. Thus, there is now a chance that women might die in childbirth, either at once or after a period of illness. Infants can also be born "Sickly" (new trait), which means it is unlikely they will live past their third year. Surprisingly, we are not simply doing this out of pure malice; there are interesting gameplay effects where marriage alliances can suddenly be reset and you don't know if your sickly heir will actually survive to adulthood.

When characters convert religion, there is now a chance they will be tolerant of their old faith. These are new traits which affect the opinions of both the character and of other characters. For example, a former pagan king might get no opinion penalty versus pagans, nor will they of him.

CKII_SoA_DD_04_Tolerance.jpg

I know I'm forgetting stuff here, but you can all read the change log for yourselves when I post it. Needless to say, it's full of bug fixes and modding improvements as well.
And in case anyone missed it, Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham will release the 18th of November.
That's all for now, but there will be a live stream with yours truly on Tuesday, the day after release!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bolding is mine. If it means de jure capital region (the word 'region' included in the word), I don't know it means. But I know what de jure capital means, and I don't like the implied effect on the gameplay.

I HOPE it is this way, because the de jure capital counties of the duchies and kingdoms would irrelevant to the feature and it wouldn't force us into de jure capitals any more than the game forces already. "Forcing" of course means that doing otherwise will somewhat penalise the player who is willing to optimise his stuff.

Ah, I somehow missed that inference every time I looked at it. I agree and hope that is not what it means as I don't always necessarily want to work out of my de jure capital. Further for an empire what is the dejure capital? If you play as England and form Britannia sure you could say it is Middlesex, but what if I played from Ulster and formed it from that side of the map? Maybe I never even formed Ireland, but I usurped Scotland and England. I find determining what is and is not a de jure capital to be a lot harder. Yes, I hope that the penalty is not based on de jure capital, but that you draw the most from your physical capital, then from the duchy it is in and so on.
 
No love for the orthodox faith?
 
Bolding is mine. If it means de jure capital region (the word 'region' included in the word), I don't know it means. But I know what de jure capital means, and I don't like the implied effect on the gameplay.
TBH, I would prefer to simply have capacity to relocate de jure capital. Conditions like like being capital of Kingdom/Empire for 100 years should be enough for the province to become 'de jure capital' of its Empire/Kingdom.

(either way, I fear that if your prediction about 'de jure capital region' would be true, HRE would be represented in truly awful fashion; really, those mechanics doesn't fit at all with its elective succession... - think about Frederick II Hohenstauf and his levies...)
 
I find myself getting confused over this talk of distance as that is not what I interpreted in the original post. The levy size changes based on level not on distance to your capital. So you draw the most troops from your capital province, then from your duchy, then from your kingdom, then from your empire, then from vassals not considered a dejure vassal.

At least that is my interpretation. So if I am the King of England and my capital is in Cornwall, for the sake of argument, I will draw my most troops from Cornwall, then from the Duchy of Cornwall, then from the Kingdom of England. If England also controls the Duchy of Albany and Normandy I will draw less troops from those two due to them not being dejure vassals of England, thus them being the 'outside'. If I then become Emperor of Britannia I will draw less troops from Albany then I would from Cornwall or York (Since I am still King of England) but still more troops from Albany then from Normandy since Normandy is still not a dejure vassal, again being outside.

If I happen to also control the Duchy of Toulouse, I should be drawing troops at the same penalty as Normandy even though Toulouse is physically further away due to both of them being 'outside'

Though I of course could be completely and totally wrong on this mechanic. This is just my interpretation.

Duruial, This seems pretty much how I interpreted the new change in levies as well. Regardless of demesne levy or vassal levy, all are affected evenly by the above penalty. This seems to make Mercenaries more valuable; and while levy's received a nerf, income did not. Therefore, as your first ruler you could still imprison/banish all mayors/bishops to increase your total levy. This would increase your current max allowable retinues which you could start building/maintaining. Combine this with building more holdings in your capital and your still at the advantage in the overall game, unless tyranny got addressed.
 
Oh, thank goodness. Smaller and more stacks will be much more manageable.

The return of childbirth deaths is a welcome addition too (that does sound weird...)
 
Oh, thank goodness. Smaller and more stacks will be much more manageable.

The return of childbirth deaths is a welcome addition too (that does sound weird...)

Its still stacks. If you could just order your vassals to go and fight for you or put on in charge of your army then the hassle and tedium of having to manage each and every movement of each and every stack would go away and then it wouldnt matter so much what size they were.

Cardinal Sin;16426191 I am very chuffed about the nerf of blobs. I hope now France finally stands a chance against the HRE.[/QUOTE said:
Generally it seems to be inheritance not war that sets France on a course to non-existence, once aquitaine goes the HRE has a way in and eats from there but in games where they dont pass into the HRE France does pretty well at standing strong and dominating south.
 
Well gee, I'm glad I played my Basque Absolute-Cognatic Elective realms to death already (although there'll probably be some achievements relating to a female ruler). Although it shouldn't really affect an Elective strategy much anyways because... well... Elective. Never have a regent unless you want to!

The stillborn/die young thing is interesting... if they remove the max children cap that they added with the last patch (or if that cap doesn't count dead children). Savegame bloat is always a concern, especially for longer games, but maybe they've optimized something here?

The levies thing is a very welcome change, but they better have balanced it properly. 867 was already a giant Norse faceroll of England, and then they went and made their free stacks BIGGER. Same with the Magyars (who even the AI can't screw up on their easy ride to the Carpathia title). The event troops and free troops need to get a major nerfing. Also, the Aztec and Mongol invasions are said to get smaller stacks, but more of them? How exactly is that going to balance anything? They'll just combine all the stacks into the mega doomstack that we deal with now, and we're just left fighting the Mongols with less troops than we had before.

Other military matters like Martial actually being important for raising a good number of levies and the bottleneck and mercenary changes are very nice.
 
Nice to see levies being fiddled, but my main beef is with retinues. I always adjust my play to have reinforcement cost changed from 1.0 to 2.0 and maintenance from 0.0 to 0.7, but I think there is one thing that can be improved.

Can you include a parameter in the defines.lua with a percentage of how much your vassals' holdings increase your retinue limit? You can leave it at 1.0 in the vanilla, and I could just change it to 0.1 or 0.0 in my plays. I would be most thankful.
 
Doomdark said if you are king you take full levy from Esecs. Is Esseks de jure capital of that country? i dont know. Okey you are HRE Emperor and sitting in Messina. Where you derive your full levy? From Aahen of course, not from Messina! Or if you Bisantin Emperor residing in Antiokh for example. Your full levy will be still in Konstantinople, not in Antiokh. Am i right?
 
So I'm a bit confused. What will we be able to use without SoA? I assume jews are unplayable without it and you can't bribe the cardinals but what about the additional muslim stuff? will that be locked? how will that effect Muslim gameplay if it is? Also will heresies become the orthodox religion without SoA?
 
Hmmmm, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out in real games. I think it'll definitely mean that players will strive to expand more in their du jure empires as opposed to spreading out over several different areas, which will either help to keep empires more compact *or* it'll just screw over those who desperately try to expand outside of their du jure boundaries in an effort to gain military might.

For example, when playing Aquitaine in 867 or Apulia in 1066 I usually try to expand into the Muslim areas (Africa or Mauretania) in an effort to generate troops so that I can be more influential back in my du jure Empire (Francia and the ERE, respectively). Nerfing the results of that expansion will certainly change the strategies, and it could make someone like Aquitaine far harder to play since Andalusia will have most of it's forces intact (most of it is in du jure Hispania), while West Francia could be relatively easier since it can expand into Francia's du jure area like Brittany.

The only thing I hope is that they don't nerf the mercenaries and retinues along with this. If you want to paint the map your color, just continue expanding through both of those, and after a certain point you don't really even *need* levies anymore when you're stomping around with 30-40k English Longbowmen....
 
here are several changes to the rules; first off, levies from outside your de jure capital region get progressively smaller in stages (county, duchy, kingdom, empire, outside).

If I gradually assimilate the entire map into my empire or even kingdom through de jure drift, can I substantially improve the levies I get from far flung provinces?
 
Its still stacks. If you could just order your vassals to go and fight for you or put on in charge of your army then the hassle and tedium of having to manage each and every movement of each and every stack would go away and then it wouldnt matter so much what size they were.

...Yes it would. Smaller stacks will attack one-by-one, because the AI is stupid. Form a decent defensive line and outnumber them about 5-1 in the mountains and you might actually be able to win against the Mongols.
 
Agreed absolutely. But the point is not whether or not Muslims or Christians have particular views on Apostasy, but that Islam, the religion itself, strictly prohibits it, in its sacred scripture, while there is no such prohibition in Christian scripture (largely due, of course, to the fact that the New Testament does not generally serve as a legalistic scripture, the way the Koran and Torah do).

The punishment for apostasy in Islam depends on what source you're checking and who you ask. There is no punishment by death for apostasy decreed in the Quran, so you're incorrect in implying it is. The basis for that custom is from various hadiths; some Islamic reformists reject that (particularly in modern times), often by interpreting Quranic verses that are much more lenient-sounding towards apostates (referring to them as merely having "strayed from the path", and such). Also the punishment for female apostates was sometimes imprisonment rather than death.

While it is historically true that the death for apostasy was a very common punishment in Islamic countries, it's a moot point because there was no place where large amounts of Muslims converted to other religions and and any Islamic authorities were still in place to do anything about it. Ergo, such a situation in CK is going to pretty much be alternate history, and it's up for debate on how it would be handled.

I'd say converting while there's still an Islamic ruler would be grounds for tyranny-free imprisonment, but that may be too much of a niggling detail for CK to bother with.