• 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:
Greater Moravia is my favorite new nation on this map. A world of possibilities here. Defend the new realm against the Hungarians and the Germans, make the Slovaks the greatest nation among the Slavs, Eastern and Western both, etc, etc, etc. Not many have heard about this realm and even fewer recognize its importance to the future Slavic states. Those Russian royalnames after Oleg, Igor and Olga were a copy of the Moravian royal names, some in structure and some a direct translation: Mojmir, Rastislav, Svyatopluk (Svyatopolk) and Slavomir. Compare it with Russian royal names: Svyatoslav, Yaropolk, Svyatopolk, Vladimir, Yaroslav, etc.

Lol are you serious? First of all the notion of "Slovak" didn't even exist in this time period, second of all, Slavic names in all Slavic countries work like this, dithematic with an adjective or verb as the first component and a noun as the second.
 
Looking at the names of people and realms, I'm wondering if there's any policy PI follows when it comes to language, seeing English - Old Norse names written next to each other as well as using different orthographies for the latter. (Not that it matters, it just caught my attention.)
 
There were plenty of entities in history that styled themselves as empires. De facto, may be. De jure, the empires were not that common. Bulgaria can and will survive as a kingdom, unless we want to accomodate Serbian empire as well. The engine/map has its limitations.

EDIT: turnad, the point is, I agree :D
But Serbia never had the size of The First Bulgarian Empire because it was under rule of the Bulgarian Tsar.If we are talking about the second bulgarian empire i would have agreed but 9 century Bulgaria that competes against both HRE and ERE (byzanties) was indeed an empire comparing it to non-existent Serbia (at the time) is wrong.
 
I'd like to point out (for the sake of historical accuracy) that what I see in the screencap, the zoroastrian, doesn't look persian at all.
Persian were part of the northern eastern group, they were closer to caucasoid people rather than arabic people. Zoraster himself is always depicted as a caucasoid and not as an araboid.
It's not just nitpicking, it was a very important historical event, the arabization of the persian land, that went hand in hand with the islamization of the country. Even after hundred of years, even after the complete islamization of the country and the total adherence to the shi'a heresy, there can still be seen some actual persian (meaning non-araboid persian) examples.

Here you can see examples of sassanid elite cavalry. The Sassanid empire ruled from 200 to 600, circa. It seems to me rather impossible that a whole ethnicity (that still lives to these days in that area, I don't want to mention the Pashtun because it's so common I'm sure you already know about it) just disappeared.
Even in the Al-Abbasid you can see clear examples of non-araboid features: Harun Al-Rashid (763-809) was the fifth caliph of the Abbasid Sultanate. He doesn't look araboid at all to me.

What you have to take in consideration (or, to phrase it better, what I'd like you take in better consideration) are migratory patterns: even the north african berbers began as more similar to iberic or italian and then got "darker" with sub-saharian africans moving north. A stupid example, Hannibales looks nothing like a today's inhabitant of Tunis.
Or the red-haired lybians, or the greek looking egyptians.

I don't mean to sound patronizing or like an autism king, but playing just Europe because I'm bothered by the historical inaccuracies in one of my favourite parts of the world in one of my favourite time periods really bothers me.
So since you're doing stuff, you know. :}
 
In the 9th century, the northwestern part of the iberian peninsula was ruled by many different lords, each joining one-two or even more factions that longed for power. The "royal" power itself was very weak at that time and kings never had de facto jurisdiction over their vassals. If you take a look at the mostly chaotic and intrigue-based successions, you will see that galician and leonese factions decided who would rule, the county of Castille becoming much more influential in the 11th and 12th century, siding with Navarra and even muslim taifas.

If I were not so lazy, I could check the bibliography to anecdotes such as the Kingdom of Asturias being mentioned only once or twice by uninfluenced and not manipulated chronics, or the muslim chronologists always referring to the christian part of spain as "Yaliquiyya", "Galisiyya"/"Chaliquiya"... I remember some though, Barrau-Dihigo, french, Anselmo Lopez Carreira, galician, Al-Bakri, a muslim historian, from Andalusia I think...

Castille would be just wrong though. Many say it´s Kingdom of Leon because of the capital´s location, but according to Carreira, situating the capital away from centers of powers was a common tactic to avoid diplomatic confrontations. And if I´m not mistaken, Lugo and Tui were also once capitals and the are situated in modern galician territory.

The whole controversy about the beginnings of modern Spain was and still is important for spanish chronology because of the legendary visigothic-asturian dynastic link. If anyone´s interested, just compare the spanish "Kingdom of Asturia" wiki-article with the galician article, it perfectly shows how different opinions can be in this matter.
 
no Slavic paganism? And what about those "states" perhaps rather than "tribes" such as Great Moravia or the Bulgarian empire? Their rulers embraced Christianity no long before the Old Gods starting date but the countries were still pretty much pagan.
 
Shouldn't Burgundy be named Lotharingia instead ? At least that was the name at that time and it does fit the geographical area better then "burgundy"...

Christopher Lee approves this request.

[video=youtube;t5ZsKMBskDE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5ZsKMBskDE&playnext=1&list=PL6F1402CE3FD27A2C&feature=results_video[/video]
 
Nice stuff, love lootable Christian towns and navigable rivers.

Regarding the remnants of the Frankish empire; will you prevent the Karlings from moving towards Seniority and flesh out their succession lines a bit? Because I tried a 867 game in the current version (where little makes sense but the Karling realms are more or less accurate) and its trivial to recreate the Western Empire.
 
Why is it Burgundy instead of Lotharingia? :blink:
 
I'd like to point out (for the sake of historical accuracy) that what I see in the screencap, the zoroastrian, doesn't look persian at all.
Persian were part of the northern eastern group, they were closer to caucasoid people rather than arabic people. Zoraster himself is always depicted as a caucasoid and not as an araboid.
It's not just nitpicking, it was a very important historical event, the arabization of the persian land, that went hand in hand with the islamization of the country. Even after hundred of years, even after the complete islamization of the country and the total adherence to the shi'a heresy, there can still be seen some actual persian (meaning non-araboid persian) examples.

Here you can see examples of sassanid elite cavalry. The Sassanid empire ruled from 200 to 600, circa. It seems to me rather impossible that a whole ethnicity (that still lives to these days in that area, I don't want to mention the Pashtun because it's so common I'm sure you already know about it) just disappeared.
Even in the Al-Abbasid you can see clear examples of non-araboid features: Harun Al-Rashid (763-809) was the fifth caliph of the Abbasid Sultanate. He doesn't look araboid at all to me.

What you have to take in consideration (or, to phrase it better, what I'd like you take in better consideration) are migratory patterns: even the north african berbers began as more similar to iberic or italian and then got "darker" with sub-saharian africans moving north. A stupid example, Hannibales looks nothing like a today's inhabitant of Tunis.
Or the red-haired lybians, or the greek looking egyptians.

I don't mean to sound patronizing or like an autism king, but playing just Europe because I'm bothered by the historical inaccuracies in one of my favourite parts of the world in one of my favourite time periods really bothers me.
So since you're doing stuff, you know. :}

um... Arabs are Cacuasian