• 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.
It's time for another cycle of developer diaries on Crusader Kings II and I thought I'd begin by talking about the new start date and giving you a broad overview of the upcoming expansion; The Old Gods. Yes, we're pushing back the earliest possible start date to 867 AD. This is a special bookmark that comes with the expansion (and you will not be able to start at dates between 867 and 1066 without modding.)

Europe is a very different place in 867... Many of the familiar countries have not yet come into being. There is no Hungary, no Poland, no Russian principalities and the British Isles and Scandinavia are full of petty kingdoms. The Carolingians still rule the Franks, but the great Empire of Charlemagne has been divided between four of his descendants. In the Byzantine Empire, a new dynasty has just risen - the House of Makedon - destined to restore some of its former glory. The Muslims are in the middle of a drawn-out crisis as the once enormous Abbasid Caliphate has fractured, with a succession of Caliphs being murdered by their own Turkish generals.

CKII_ToG_DD_01_Europe_867.png

Most importantly, however, the North and East are completely dominated by bustling tribes of unrepentant heathens who remain less than impressed with the White Christ. Why debase yourself before a dead man on a cross when you can loot the riches of his fat clergy instead? Just as the fury of the Northmen descends on the undefended shores of Europe, other, equally pagan threats are on the rise in the steppes of Tartaria. Like the Avars before them, the feared Magyar horse lords are pushing into Europe from beyond the Carpathians. Why is all this more important than the affairs of Christians and Muslims? Because with The Old Gods, all these heathens are finally playable! (But you probably knew that already. :D )

CKII_ToG_DD_01_Magyar_Invasion.png

Playing a pagan chieftain is at least as different as playing a Muslim. Not only that, there are significant differences between the various heathen religions. Some are aggressive in nature, like the Norse and Tengri beliefs, and some are more defensive, like the Finno-Ugric faith. For example, the warlike Norse will suffer a prestige loss for being at peace for too long, and will need to wage war or set sail to pillage and loot. The Finns don't have this problem, but on the other hand, their vassals will dislike having their troops raised (like Christians). Some faiths get defensive bonuses and larger garrisons in their homelands, some don't, etc. However, they can all potentially be reformed to withstand the allure of the new religions.

CKII_ToG_DD_01_The_Great_Heathen_Army.png

In the coming weeks, I will explain the different religions in detail. I will, of course, also talk about other new features, like traversible rivers, new cultures, Zoroastrians, Adventurers, and much more. Stay tuned, and here are some more screenshots to tease and titillate!

CKII_ToG_DD_01_Loot_and_Pillage.pngCKII_ToG_DD_01_Varangians.pngCKII_ToG_DD_01_The_Last_Zoroastrians.png



[video=youtube;V-edUnWQgyM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-edUnWQgyM[/video]

Web page: http://www.crusaderkings.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Crusaderkings
Twitter: http://twitter.com/Crusaderkings
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's only for big rivers, and there are a few portages (basically reverse straits.)
Does this mean we can finally have navies in the Red Sea, with portage over to the Nile?
 
the Idea that the entirety of the British isles were completely christian by this date(867) is comical, most pagans for years paid lip service to the Christians, and their is some evidence that paganism continued in remote areas for centuries. Though open and hidden worship was most likely stamped out completely by the 18th century, only to be revived in the late 19th century. There is little written about it(since it was the christians doing the writing) its not completely ahistorical to think that there were still openly pagan Nobles in Great Britain until about the 11th or 12th centuries. IE. Pre-Inquisitiaiton
Sure the peasants might have still clung to some old customs (which peasants don't?) and made the occasional sacrifice to a tree or a well. But for nobles this is quite nonsensical.

Please give some sources for your claims at least, otherwise this is just wishful thinking on your part.
 
First of all excellent work ! All seems pretty nice.Baby HRE is cute,great Moravia and Bulgaria seems intimidating.Judging by screenshots,there are some impressive and powerful pagan armies ready to roflstomp certain kingdoms.For instance,I think AI controlled Bulgaria will have little chance against invading Magyars.(for 867 A.D 18k troops should take Bulgaria in a heartbeat).Based on this :

1-As Paradox are you planning to orchestrate the founding and collapse of certain Kingdoms via scripting and events so that eventually at 1066 A.D campaign started from 867 A.D will look familiar give or take? Mind you I'm fine either way.
2-So we can start from 867 A.D and go all the way to 1453 A.D is that correct? Thank you.

Also it's very nice that you guys set AI flags and mechanics for offensive and defensive type pagans.I like the idea :) Great work I am looking forward to this dlc as ever. :)
 
Sure the peasants might have still clung to some old customs (which peasants don't?) and made the occasional sacrifice to a tree or a well. But for nobles this is quite nonsensical.

Please give some sources for your claims at least, otherwise this is just wishful thinking on your part.

He does seem to confuse customs with actual belief.
 
Considering my first question, will Iceland be Irish then (according to some legends), or you are still leaving it as Norse? ;)

Well according to the Norse legends there was an irish monastary there, but nothing else. They really did go missionering everywhere :D

You could make the city Norse and add an Irish bishop if you like.
 
Sure the peasants might have still clung to some old customs (which peasants don't?) and made the occasional sacrifice to a tree or a well. But for nobles this is quite nonsensical.

Please give some sources for your claims at least, otherwise this is just wishful thinking on your part.

that is part of the problem, very little has made it down to use, also there is a lot of rumour and suggestion. A lot was passed down orally since a written record would have gotten you burned at the stack. Also have to be careful of the sources that the revivalists use. I'll have to do some poking around.
 
Can't wait for the next DD
Can't wait to play as norsemen, Eastern Pagans, and the multiple smaller kingdoms in Europe.
But most of all we get a Byzantine Empire that can kick butt through most of the game.
Between this game and EUIV, it's going to be a good second half of this year.
 
They all claimed, yes, but it does not change that Louis II was at first co-emperor with Lothair, and at his death in 855 full Emperor of the Romans, crowned by the Pope and all.

My point is that the game tier of those titles does not have to match real history. Empire tier titles are only "needed" when someone has a vassal king, but someone with a king tier title may still be titled emperor. (Again, just like some duke tier characters are titled king in the screenshots.)

Now, though, it gets tricky: how does the crown go around? Elective, of course, and all the Kings would have a vote, being part of the de jure empire.

Shouldn't all those titles start with Gavelkind succession, since that's about how they got divided by Louis and Lothair?
 
that is part of the problem, very little has made it down to use, also there is a lot of rumour and suggestion. A lot was passed down orally since a written record would have gotten you burned at the stack. Also have to be careful of the sources that the revivalists use. I'll have to do some poking around.
Sorry but for stuff that happened 1200 years ago, saying "Nothing was written down about it" is the same as saying "There is absolutely no hint that this actually happened"
 
Sorry but for stuff that happened 1200 years ago, saying "Nothing was written down about it" is the same as saying "There is absolutely no hint that this actually happened"

ah...No if that was true anthropology would not have a leg to stand on. Oral tradition, is valid. and Anthropological and Archeological evidence has backed up a lot of Oral evidence. Your assumption that it has to be written down to have existed has not been accepted in the field since the late 60s, much research has moved foward when we started to recognize the importance of the oral histories of many peoples
 
SATRAPS!!!! :rofl:
 
Ok here is a biblography on the subject. Still looking for better examples.

Bibliography

Historical texts

Bede (circa 731). Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (Ecclesiastical History of the English People).

Books

Ackerman, John Yonge (1855). Remains of Pagan Saxondom. London: John Russel Smith.
Atkinson, John C. (1891). Forty Years in a Moorland Parish.
Branston, Brian (1957). The Lost Gods of England. London: Thames and Hudson.
Chaney, William A. (1970). The Cult of Kinship in Anglo-Saxon England: The Transition from Paganism to Christianity. California: University of California Press.
Ewing, Thor (2008). Gods and Worshippers in the Viking and Germanic World. Tempus. ISBN 0-7524-3590-6.
Griffiths, Bill (1996). Aspects of Anglo-Saxon Magic. Anglo-Saxon Books. ISBN 1-898281-33-5.
Herbert, Kathy (1994). Looking for the Lost Gods of England. Anglo-Saxon Books. ISBN 1-898281-04-1.
Hutton, Ronald (1991). The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: Their Nature and Legacy. Oxford: Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-18946-7.
Hutton, Ronald (1996). The Stations of the Sun: A History of the Ritual Year in Britain. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jones, Prudence and Pennick, Nigel (1995). A History of Pagan Europe. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-09136-5.
Macleod, Mindy. Mees, Bernard (2006). Runic Amulets and Magic Objects. Boydell Press. ISBN 1-84383-205-4.
Pollington, Stephen (2011). The Elder Gods: The Otherworld of Early England. Little Downham, Cambs.: Anglo-Saxon Books. ISBN 978-1-898281-64-1.
Kemble, John (1849). The Saxons in England Vol. I. London.
Wilson, David (1992). Anglo-Saxon Paganism. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-01897-8.

Academic Articles

Carver, Martin (2010). "Agency, Intellect and the Archaeological Agenda". Signals of Belief in Early England: Anglo-Saxon Paganism Revisited (Eds:Carver, Martin; Sanmark, Alex and Semple, Sarah), Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow Books, pp. 01-20. ISBN 978-1-84217-395-4.
Carver, Martin; Sanmark, Alex and Semple, Sarah (2010). "Preface". Signals of Belief in Early England: Anglo-Saxon Paganism Revisited (Eds:Carver, Martin; Sanmark, Alex and Semple, Sarah), Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow Books, pp. ix-x. ISBN 978-1-84217-395-4.
Crawford, Sally (2004). "Votive Deposition, Religion and the Anglo-Saxon Furnished Burial Ritual". World Archaeology Vol. 36. No. 1, 87-102.
Halsall, Guy (1989). 'Anthropology and the Study of Pre-Conquest Warfare and Society: The Ritual War in Anglo-Saxon England' in Hawkes (editor) (1989). Weapons and Warfare in Anglo-Saxon England.
Semple, Sarah (2010). "In the Open Air". Signals of Belief in Early England: Anglo-Saxon Paganism Revisited (Eds:Carver, Martin; Sanmark, Alex and Semple, Sarah), Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow Books, pp. 21-48. ISBN 978-1-84217-395-4.
Wormald, Patrick (1978). "Bede, Beowulf and the Conversion of the Anglo-Saxon Aristocracy". Bede and Anglo-Saxon England (Ed: Farrell, R.T.) British Archaeological Reports, British Series, 46.
Wormald, Patrick (1983). "Bed
 
So with navigable rivers, does that mean that republics that border the navigable rivers are now playable?

I would hope so, because that might give us Pskov, Novgorod and Florence as republics.

And hopefully a few republics could be added in Northern HRE too, to really contain the Gotlandish rampage.
 
I know that you're mainly approaching this from a standpoint that everything has to be as historically accurate as possible

Nah, not really. I'm all for "gameplay and fun over the historic accuracy" in moderation. That's why I wouldn't mind some (non-ruling) dynasties in Gaelic areas to be Celtic pagan, so you could give them land (or they come to power due to peasant revolt) and eventually re-paganise Britain :p Wouldn't that be awsum? You don't even have to invent mechanics to Celtic paganism, just leave it generic vanilla CK2 pagan.

But with Slavic areas, making two de jure duchies of Kiev and Novgorod area and giving them all nearest Slavic tribes and especially naming them "Holmgardr" and "Koenugardr" is too fricken viking-biased.
 
Nah, not really. I'm all for "gameplay and fun over the historic accuracy" in moderation. That's why I wouldn't mind some (non-ruling) dynasties in Gaelic areas to be Celtic pagan, so you could give them land (or they come to power due to peasant revolt) and eventually re-paganise Britain :p Wouldn't that be awsum? You don't even have to invent mechanics to Celtic paganism, just leave it generic vanilla CK2 pagan.

But with Slavic areas, making two de jure duchies of Kiev and Novgorod area and giving them all nearest Slavic tribes and especially naming them "Holmgardr" and "Koenugardr" is too fricken viking-biased.

Well considering that Rurik and his kin was viking i don't see any problems in that. Especially when they stack the two realms with loads of slavic vassals, i actually think that it simulates the reality of being invited to rule over a foreign people pretty well.

ETA: Plus i'm pretty sure that the names are their de-facto names and that they'll only keep them as long as the ruler is of Norse culture. I'm sure that the de-jure setup will not be tampered with.