• 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:
Nor Lithuanians nor old Prussians were slavs.

*Slavs


Mmmmh. One question that popped up: will the West Slavic kingdoms (Pomerania, Poland, Lithuania) be localized differently depending on their "tribe"? Prutenians should form Prutenia or Prussia, not Poland.

Not sure why Prussia wouldn't be Prussia or Lithuania - Lithuania, but "Poland" indeed is only legit if it's the tribe of Polanians that conquer the area. So instead of "Poland", Great Kujawia, Silesia, Mazovia, or Vistulia could ideally be formed. But it's doubtful that the devs would bother with such technicalities, quite frankly.
 
Actually Denmark as a unified kingdom is highly uncertain at this time. For instance king Gorm the Old's wife was Thyra Danebod, this name is a bit odd if she comes from the same kingdom as Gorm himself. Essentially her nickname marks her a part of a peace settlement, but as good one. And we know from archaeology that Denmark was fragmented into several kingdom earlier, one being the islands one Jutland and one sometimes combined with the islands sometimes alone as Scania, Halland and Blekinge (Halland being the ancestral home of the tribe of the Danes), and these petty kingdoms fought each other. Given the Danes came from Halland and took over the islands quickly, it isn't much of a surprise that they warred with the Jutes (as in the Jutes who stayed home from the attacks on Kent).

About the capability of building Dannevirke it should be noted that the islanders of Samsø managed to dig and maintain Kanhavekalen, a not insignificant job for such a small island. And it should be noted that both of these works were done significantly before Denmark was formed, even if we assume the earliest formation. So yes, a petty king was certainly able to build Dannevirke, but it appears the fortification was initially not as extensive as we know it today, most likely no more than covering the much smaller area around Hedeby which wasn't marshy, and thus the only area that was easily traversed by armies.

It sohuld also be noted that when Otto I attacked Denmark with his army he went for Limfjorden, rather than Funen. If the Danish kings had held lands east of Funen then the occupation of Jutland would be terrible, but hardly enough to make them bow their knee to Otto. The effect of his invasion appears to have been the utter destruction of the kingdom's power. It is possible however that the kings held the remaining parts of the later Denmark in a sort of tribute payment system (Danish kings were mentioned as having campaigned relatively often around parts of the later kingdom), and thus regaining the power was imperative in order to keep the tributaries in the fold, which in the case of southern Norway appears to have failed.

Until Canute the Great there is little evidence that Denmark was completely unified.

Source? That seems pretty interesting, and I'd like to know more.
 
I'm guessing this as been discussed already (Paradox forums being like they are), but why is Asturias wrongly labelled as Castilla? Probably it's an issue of the "culture name" for the title, since Lotharingia is Burgundy.
 
Could somebody confirm that the first screenshot is work in progress ?
The Altmark isn't east of the Elbe river, but west of it. It was the frontier to the Slavs east of the Elbe. Any other were the Ost(east)mark and the Nord(north)mark, both east to the Elbe contrary to the Altmark.
As Tivish remarked here already and in the german subforum.

310px-Altmark.png


Especially surprising as it isnt east (only partially) on the current map. There were expansions from the count ruling the Altmark across the river eastwards but thats it.
 
I'm guessing this as been discussed already (Paradox forums being like they are), but why is Asturias wrongly labelled as Castilla? Probably it's an issue of the "culture name" for the title, since Lotharingia is Burgundy.

Yes, this has been discussed a lot: from post #163 (p. 9) to post #362 (p. 19). Rather strangely, Burgundy, Lotharingia and other imperial titles got discussed in new threads, but not Spain.
I like a lot your expression 'Paradox forums being like they are'. But in fact minds got boiling this Wednesday! :rolleyes:
 
Euphrates and Tigris should be traversible too.

Even if the Indian Ocean, Red Sea and others were now accessible to boats, I don't think that would be a good idea:
- the lower courses were in fact marshes;
- the middle courses were above the plain, contained by dikes and regular breakings of these natural dikes made their course change;
- the upper courses contained lot of sandbanks (at least for Euphrates).
There is to had that their flows were very irregular.

So, great boats couldn't really use these rivers.
One more element, when checking on Wikipedia: Basra seems to have been a port for Bagdad, but it's on the Shatt al-Arab, the river formed from both Euphrates and Tigris, very close to the sea.

I just hope this will not be the case for Nile, however. Yeah, just checked, not on the screenshots so far...
 
I would REALLY like the option to, if a Germanic culture or similar ruler conquers Iberia, to be able to form the old Kingdom of the Visigoths. After all, it only fell about 200 years before and their descendants are still not blended in totally.

If Paradox did this I would love it so much! :D

Sorry for this third post--had to comment a few things, but no relation between them.

I have to say I wouldn't like that at all.

The truth is that the kindgom of the Wisigoths (like the kingdom of the Franks, for another example) didn't refered to a geographical territory, but to a political territory. These names have to been understood as 'the territory recognising the king of the Wisigoths/Franks'.

Let's take a clear example:
- When Clovis was crowned king of the Franks, the 'kingdom of the Franks' was a tiny region in Benelux.
- After his conquests, this 'kingdom of the Franks' rougly covered the territories called 'Gaul'.
- With Charlemagne conquests, this 'kingdom of the Franks' covered a very huge extent, and his name is now even changed to 'the Carolingian empire' because of one political and religious event, not linked to any conquest: the possession of an Imperial title.

This is the reason why, until the 1190's, there was only a 'kingdom of the Franks', and not a territory called France (only a tiny region called Île-de-France, the royal demesne of the Capetians).
This change is due to Philippe II of France, who thanks to the growing power of the Capetians prefered be considered as the king of France (so, 'owner of the territory where live the Franks'), more than 'king of the Franks' (= ruler of the people called Franks, each free man being the owner of his own lands'). So much more wealthes involved, and so much more political power by this change!

The case is the same with kingdom of the Wisigoths and Spain: this kingdom is in fact only ONE of the political entitied which covered the geographical territories called 'Spain', from the former Latin name 'Hispania'.

And this is still true todaytoday: the territories are called 'Spain'/'France', but the States rulling these territories are 'Kingdom of Spain'/'French Republic'.
Still more clear: 'United Kingdom' vs 'England, Scotland, Wales, Northen Ireland, ...'.

And above all: USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics): no mention of Russia or other geographical territories, because this communist State was conceived to cover the whole World. A painting map game, in fact.
 
Last edited:
I can't understand why Wessex, Anglia, Northumbria and Mercia are all duchies instead of kingdoms in their own right. Before anyone say that it's because they are unimportant, please do remember that there were a good number of one-county kingdoms/sultanates in Anatolia in the 1337 starting date.
 
I would love to see a Pagan Europe overthrow the Pope and steam roll over the middle east after that but.. probably not easy to do.
A human player can probably do it pretty consistently in the 600 years at his disposal :)
 
Any chance of navigable areas close to arabias? Or even a primitive Suez Channel?

Do people really want German and French colonization of Yemen and Somalia 800 years too early? That's what will happen if they add a (ahistorical, I might add, no more than a theoretical pipe dream) Suez Canal. I'd like to see a navigable Nile, though, just in case Vikings sail down that far. What might be more realistic is an expansion of territories in West Africa, I'd love to see more down there.

How will the conversion of Mongol Hordes work? And will the Hordes be able to convert to Zoroastrianism?

I hope so too, maybe just the Ilkhanate though, but it should definitely be a possibility like Nestorianism.

I can't understand why Wessex, Anglia, Northumbria and Mercia are all duchies instead of kingdoms in their own right. Before anyone say that it's because they are unimportant, please do remember that there were a good number of one-county kingdoms/sultanates in Anatolia in the 1337 starting date.

They will have the title of "King" because of the new petty king system, they're not full "King tier" because a) they weren't nearly as powerful as the proper kingdoms of Continental Europe or elsewhere, thus "petty" and b) is prevents a glut of titular titles held by one person. They'd get collected up like trinkets in no time in addition to the de jure England. The reason it makes more sense for Muslims to have Sultanates like that is because there is no way for them to usurp each other's titles, because as Muslims they can't get claims through females. They will never unite, thus one Sultanate will remain rather than collecting all the titles like a Christian would. This is the reason, people.
 
What's happening to the map Paradox??? looks like it's being turned into the EU:Rome map...

The new rivers are massive, it must be possible to make them thinner than that... The most dissapointing thing is the obvious decision to save time by not adjusting the province borders to fit the new rivers, and instead change the flow of the rivers to fit the old province borders... that is NOT where the rivers are in real life, look it up on ANY map of europe. :(

That being said, the new features are amazing, keep up the good work on that front :D
 
Maybe it is too ealry but can I assume that the price will still be the common sum of 9.99?

Does it make a difference whether it's $10 or $15 or $20? If you like it, you'll buy it.