• 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:
What the hell happend to the Altmark? Its a bit on the wrong side of the River Elbe ... :rolleyes: Why such stupid mistakes again and again and again???
 
Why is it Burgundy instead of Lotharingia? :blink:

I'm not sure but I reckon it's because the (inactive) 867 start date was built into CK2 before the title Lotharingia was created, since it was patched in later if I remember correctly. In this original 867 map the Carolingian Kingdoms were already divided in this manner. Once the DLC is released the title will probably be Lotharingia or Middle Francia.
 
Wow, navigable rivers?

Say, did you guys here about the vikings that pillaged Baton Rouge in the American Civil war? You guys should totally add rivers to Victoria 2... Because of the vikings.
 
um... Arabs are Cacuasian

They most certainly are not. The Arabs are Semitic and have a more recent common origin with the Israelis, Phoenicians ect, while the Persians are Indo-European in origin having moved south from the Steppes into Iran, which effectively makes them "Caucasian" in American English parlance.
 
Yes, I am also very interested in this. I originally created a mod for this but it was too much work to keep it up to date with the patches.

This is the relevant part from the culture file of the mod:

Code:
ugricbaltic = {
	graphical_culture = ugricgfx
		
	color = { 0.3 0.7 0.7 }

	male_names = {
		Aare Aas Agu Ahas Ainus Ait Ald Alk Allik Alo Amb Ambur Are Aro Astel Atko Edu Hain Heatõiv Hein Helm Helmetõiv Hommik Humal 
		Hõimulemb Hüüp Ilmar Ilme Ilo Järv Kaal Kaaren Kahr Kahru Kahrulemb Kail Kalev Kali Kalju Kange Kare Karu Kaur Kiire Kiur Kivi Kobras Koit Kuld 
		Kuus Kõu Kärmas Kärme Lehis Lemb Lembit Lemm Lemmik Lemming Loit Lõõm Malev Mart Maru Mehine Meri Mõte Mägi Oda Oja Org Ots Ott Piho 
		Pikne Päev Rahu Rahulik Raju Saar Sepp Sirge Sulev Susi Tabaja Tarvas Tasuja Teras Terav Toom Tore Tugev Tugi Tuglas Tuhat Tuju Tuli Tume Tunne 
		Tõeleid Tõivulemb Tõll Tõmmu Tõnn Tõrges Tõsine Uhke Uku Usk Usklik Vagur Vahe Valev Vapper Varmas Vasar Veli Vend Vesse Võim Võtteli Vägi Väin Väits 
		Väle Välk Õige Õigemeel Õlut Öö Ülev Ülg
	}
	female_names = {
		Aas Ahke Aim And Annik Aotõiv Arm Armas Aru Arukas Aul Aulemb Ebe Eha Ehe Ehm Elo Ere Haab Heameel Hele Helemeel Heli Helin 
		Hius Hurmas Hõbe Häbelik Häitse Hämar Hüvalemb Hüvameel Idu Igapäiv Iher Ihes Ilm Ilmalemb Ilp Ilu Ilus Juus Kaal Kaja Kallis Kaunis Kiil Kirgas Kuma 
		Kõiv Lagle Lahke Laine Lauge Laul Lee Leebe Leek Leelo Lible Liblik Liiv Lill Luule Lääs Maasikas Malbe Mari Mesi Niin Niit Nisu Nurm Nõmm 
		Paju Pihel Puna Pune Päike Päivi Pärg Pärl Pääsu Rõõmus Rääk Sale Salm Salme Siig Suvi Sõsar Sõõr Säde Sära Talv Tee Tera Terane Tume 
		Täht Udu Valge Verev Viis Vili Virb Virge Virmaline Virve Õde Õis Õnn Öö Ülane
	}
	from_dynasty_suffix = "lane" # I hope suffixing still works. It was undocumented at the time I created the mod.

	modifier = default_culture_modifier
}

I also changed localization from "Ugric-Baltic" to "Estonian" and "Finno-Ugric" to "Finnic".

This looks very good! I hope they implement something like this.
 
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. :}

I've really said this, but admittedly you've said better.

I really hope the portrait of the "real" Persians (no offense to the actual Iranians, but the legacy of Ciro is not yours) weren't ready when the shot was taken, there's a chanche?

The photo of Zoroaster that you showed seems the same of a generic Norman guy, right?
 
They most certainly are not. The Arabs are Semitic and have a more recent common origin with the Israelis, Phoenicians ect, while the Persians are Indo-European in origin having moved south from the Steppes into Iran, which effectively makes them "Caucasian" in American English parlance.

If you're talking about actual science then "Indo-European" is a linguistic/cultural term, which has nothing to do with genetics.
And if you go by "Raciology" then "Semitics" are "Caucasian".
Anyway I don't think such discussions belong into this forum.
 
Seconded. The skin colour discussions always get locked, always are tinged with unfortunate sentiments, and never have more than a passing association with science.
 
If you're talking about actual science then "Indo-European" is a linguistic/cultural term, which has nothing to do with genetics.
And if you go by "Raciology" then "Semitics" are "Caucasian".
Anyway I don't think such discussions belong into this forum.

It's not raciology. I'm not insinuating superiority or any eugenic nonsense. Arabs are, in a warped sense, part of the "tribes of Israel" Semitic grouping of peoples and would claim to be themselves. The people of the Levant, Arabia and Egypt had a line of ancestry distinct from the Persians (as well as many ancestors of Indians, and other Indo-Aryan nomads) who migrated south. The use of linguistic and cultural terms is a simplifying mechanism rather than citing a who load of genetic markers. Caucasian is a stupid term and should not be used since it implies that all people with white skin must have some strange solidarity with each other. Please don't accuse me of racism and create a self-fulfilling prophecy of inflaming this discussion when I'm simply trying to correct a poster who seems to believe contemporary racial characterisations over medieval ethnic groupings. Arabs are not "Caucasian". Persians were not the ethnic brothers of Arabs. The end.
 
Arabs are not "Caucasian".

Although genetically speaking they didn't really "push out" native peoples during their conquests (they didn't even remotely have the manpower for that) as much as they were culturally imperialist, so a lot of the people many in the west would classify as "Arabic" just speak an Arabic language, but for the most part aren't genetically Arabian apart from a few percent admixture.
 
I'm not sure but I reckon it's because the (inactive) 867 start date was built into CK2 before the title Lotharingia was created, since it was patched in later if I remember correctly. In this original 867 map the Carolingian Kingdoms were already divided in this manner. Once the DLC is released the title will probably be Lotharingia or Middle Francia.

Middle Francia was the term applied to the entire realm of Lothair I after the treaty of Verdun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Francia That would include what is Burgundy on this map and Italy. With the dvision of Lothair's realm after his death the term had no meaning. Lotharangia is probably more appropriate than Burgundy
 
Can someone explain the first picture to me? There is a united Italy in 867AD? :unsure:

So Italy is still fractured in Victoria 2, so did the fracture happen after a Kingdom of Italy was in existance? I looked on Wikipedia but apparently, according to them, Italian history goes from the Fall of Rome to all of a sudden Normans conquering Sicily... :/
 
Can someone explain the first picture to me? There is a united Italy in 867AD? :unsure:

So Italy is still fractured in Victoria 2, so did the fracture happen after a Kingdom of Italy was in existance? I looked on Wikipedia but apparently, according to them, Italian history goes from the Fall of Rome to all of a sudden Normans conquering Sicily... :/

Northern Italy (not the entire peninsula, mind you,) was part of the Carolingian Realm by the time of Charlemagne's death, so when his realm was divided amongst his sons, the result was an independent Kingdom of Italy based in the north and centered around the Lombardy region. That's why the Kings of Italy were crowned with the Iron Crown of Lombardia.
 
Although genetically speaking they didn't really "push out" native peoples during their conquests (they didn't even remotely have the manpower for that) as much as they were culturally imperialist, so a lot of the people many in the west would classify as "Arabic" just speak an Arabic language, but for the most part aren't genetically Arabian apart from a few percent admixture.

Yes, but as I said a large proportion of their cultural imperialism extended to areas inhabited by other Semites, such as the Aramaic speaking peoples and, to a lesser extent, the Afro-Asiatic Coptic speaking Egyptians. They did intermingle with populations without that origin, but a really large proportion of Arabs are still descendants of that ethnic grouping, and can trace their origins out of Africa and directly into the Levant rather than up onto the Steppes and back again. The everyday speaking of the Arabic language ends at the Levant, which seems consistent with the assumption that more different ethnic groups preferred to retain their identity rather than be absorbed into a pan-national sphere. The Maghrebis/Berbers are a key exception (though they still retain their customs and language, and possibly their ethnicity, to this day), but indeed Paradox has already made an effort starting with the Med face pack to differentiate at least some of the Arabic culture group ethnically by changing the Andalusians. In terms of the Persia/Mesopotamia divide, its probable that the collapse of Abassid authority in Persia only abotu 150 years after it began was insufficient to completely intermingle two radically different ethnic groups to the point that they'd look virtually indistinguishable.