• 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.
Well, it's been two weeks, so it's time for another bi-weekly entry in the saga of The Old Gods expansion for Crusader Kings II (we will ramp up the pace to weekly dev diaries from May 1). Today, I'll talk about what is, perhaps, the core feature of the expansion: raiding. All pagans have the option to raid, but it is especially important for Norse and Tengri rulers, who will start losing Prestige if they have been at peace for too long. Rather than declare a regular war, they can opt for some good old fashioned raiding.

CKII_ToG_DD_02_Heathen_Raid.png

So how does it work? It's easy; you simply raise an army, toggle it to raiding and move it to a suitable county. You cannot raid counties within the same realm as you, nor can you raid brothers of the faith, but everyone else is fair game. All counties now have a wealth bar that shows how much gold you can loot from the province. As long as your raiding army is standing in the province, it will drain the wealth bar. The loot is not taken from the treasury of the local ruler, but rather represents the possessions of the local clergy, burghers, farmers and lesser nobility. However, the top liege of the looted county will lose Prestige and all Holdings in a looted county will have a lower tax income until the bar has (slowly) replenished. Incidentally, all sieges (not just raiding) in a county will damage the wealth, but only raiders will get money from it.

CKII_ToG_DD_02_Loot_Bar.png

Loot from counties neighboring your own realm goes directly into your treasury, so looting farther afield is normally relatively pointless. However, Norse pagans have the option of raiding all coastal areas, no matter how distant. The problem is that such loot must be carried on ships and when the ships fill up, the raiders must return home and deposit the gold in the treasury. Initially, Norse fleets are also able to navigate many major rivers, like the Volga and the Seine, but when fort levels get too high in the adjacent counties, the rivers will become blocked off, representing fortified bridges and other key fortifications. Using the great eastern rivers and portages, the vikings are able to reach even the Caspian Sea.

The fort level in Holdings has another effect on raiding; it can protect a part of the wealth bar. Unfortunately for the defenders, this protection is of course lost if the raiders actually manage to occupy the local castles, cities and temples. Even worse, when raiders successfully siege down a Holding, there is a chance that some of its buildings are destroyed. In fact, the entire Holding can be razed to the ground, although this is a rare event. The raiders will get much loot from cracking open such golden eggs in addition to draining the wealth bar dry.

CKII_ToG_DD_02_Raid_on_Paris.png

The dynamic we have set up basically forces aggressive pagans (especially lower rank ones, like counts) to raid unless they want to live with negative Prestige. On the other hand, the gold and Prestige they get from raiding can be used to declare special wars, which I will talk about in the next developer diary (on April 17)!

Bonus:
A Paradox Development Studio Feature - Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods Highlights from the livestream:

Part 1
[video=youtube;eIX3zOChdgE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIX3zOChdgE[/video]

Part 2
[video=youtube;rysyfLfcpbw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rysyfLfcpbw[/video]
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure vikings raided other Norse pagans. You might want to change it to just being not allowed to raid lands in the same realm. In fact, Christians would often raid farmlands and such if carrying out prolonged sieges was too risky. I think raiding should just be a general option for any army against hostile lands, and also be allowed in special circumstances, such as viking raids.

Raiding of farmlands for supplies is already represented by the fact that armies are supplied by a province even in enemy territory. You know how each province has a supply limit, and how armies get a supply limit penalty in hostile provinces? This represents what they can raid from the province, so this is already a representation of Christian raiding during normal wars. You also get a small amount of money for winning sieges, which represents looting and pillaging that Christian soldiers sometimes took part in.
Besides this, Christian nations simply didn't go to war to raid money and supplies. It's just not what they did. Soldiers of Christian nations took part in looting, but that's already represented and simply wasn't the main motivation for Christian nations to go to war.
 
Forgot this, I add it for convenience:

Aside from loot, can you capture people also? Like, new concubines, or male courtiers to steal technology? (by Mithfir)


It's been said elsewhere--can't remember where--that now sieges permit to make prisonner.
Will be very funny, if the game doesn't suddenly decide you have to leave your army facing a major invasion to be projected as the chief defensor of a minor barony, just because rebels decide to uprise at the wrong moment (I saw it myself!).

I just hope that you'll have the choice to defend or not your holdings. However, you shouldn't be permitted to don't defend your capital, if you're ruling in your court when the ennemies arrive around your walls.

I don't believe balloons existed in Middle Ages, and Léon Gambetta was surely not born yet!


EDIT: wouldn't it be kind for this petty king to say him he won't manage to capture Charles the Bald? :laugh:
 
Last edited:
I just hope this was a wrong way to expose the whole thing. How could this be even enjoyable to see raids all over the map, only really allowed to Vikings? The creation of the Holy Roman Empire is linked to the battle of Lechfeld, in 955, near Augsburg: Otto I wins the battle over the Magyars, is hailed as an Emperor by his troops, and access the rank of Emperor, accorded by the pope as a recognition of his role as a defensor of Christianity (among a lot of other political worries for him).

You are wrong. Charlemagne created the title "Holy Roman Emperor" on the 25th of December 800 when he was crowned by the pope and his descendents also used that title. I would guess that in 867 they will arrange so that king Louis II of Italy has the Holy Roman Emperor as a honorary title.
 
Is the Caspian sea itself navigable? Does this mean the Indian Ocean might be navigable eventually?
Nobody has ever successfully crossed the Caspian, and I've yet to see evidence to suggest otherwise. It is a deceptively vast body of water (maps don't do it justice, nor satellites, nor the human eye) and in many ways more treacherous than the Atlantic during Titanic season.
 
I heard something about modifications to the rebel system, something vague along the lines of rebels no longer being a faceless menace, but rather an enemy with a clear agenda. Any news on that?
 
You are wrong. Charlemagne created the title "Holy Roman Emperor" on the 25th of December 800 when he was crowned by the pope and his descendents also used that title. I would guess that in 867 they will arrange so that king Louis II of Italy has the Holy Roman Emperor as a honorary title.

Yes? You sure, me wrong?

You seem to be quite a peremptory guy. Way too much affirmative on the subject, at least.

Just check where you want. You may also look all the debates from the past weeks: here and here, for example.

Debate ended quite a long time ago on the forum... But you may coontinue to argue if you want. Not in this thread, that's all I ask.
 
Yes? You sure, me wrong?

You seem to be quite a peremptory guy. Way too much affirmative on the subject, at least.

Just check where you want. You may also look all the debates from the past weeks: here and here, for example.

Debate ended quite a long time ago on the forum... But you may coontinue to argue if you want. Not in this thread, that's all I ask.

Ok, so I am wrong you say?
Is Wikipedia wrong as well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Emperor
Many historians refute the idea that the Holy Roman Empire, atleast as a title, did not exist until 962.
 
Perhaps one of the easiest ways to reflect the long-distance raiding that took place could be:

a) Non-pagan sieges have an impact on the wealth bar of baronies/counties affected. This, in addition to chances to burn upgrades and (by event, with some prestige/piety impact) whole holdings.
b) Marching armies across provinces (and thus using their support rating) has an affect on the wealth bar, albeit it minor. This should extend to friendly provinces as well. Marshaling and maintaining a force was expensive.
c) Let armies carry loot, based largely around the amount of horse-troops in it, but also other troops. Have it slow army travel times somewhat in proportion to the max carry capacity of the army. And, like with ships, have the loot return to your treasury if the army is disbanded in your territory--otherwise it is captured in battle if the loot exceeds what can be carried by a reduced force, or is left to the province owner.

So, more dynamic, more realistic, more interesting. Thoughts?

--Khanwulf
 
How big is the prestige penalty for not raiding? Other prestige penalties have never really persuaded me to do anything - I've certainly not split my realm just because I'm getting an unlanded son penalty, or cared about being in debt for a while. Aside from seeing a lower number on the screen, is there really anything that compels a pagan player to raid?
 
Not sure what that is in relation to NY, but I just thought of the Led Zeppelin song, which Paradox should totally add to the soundtrack. Spare no expense for the song!
Sometimes my sense of humor goes over peoples' heads, and sometimes it's just woefully misplaced. It may, in fact, just be terrible.

Apologies either way, but feel free to Google Valhalla, NY.
 
Not taking any sides in this, but I find it ironic that you claim wikipedia can't be wrong....

I know Wikipedia can be wrong sometimes but I am yet to experience it and until then it has my complete trust (when Im too lazy to check other sources atleast).
On topic though, I fail to realize why "Holy Roman Emperor" should not exist in the game atleast as an honorary title.
 
So the new importance of rivers mean we can have a republic of Novgorod at last?

I know the current republic system is not a perfect representation of novgorod, but at least its closer than Duchy
 
Ok, so I am wrong you say?
Is Wikipedia wrong as well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Emperor
Many historians refute the idea that the Holy Roman Empire did not exist until 962.

No, I like a lot this guy, in fact. He's so funny! I just quote his source:

The Holy Roman Emperor (Latin: Imperator Romanus Sacer, German: Römisch-deutscher Kaiser) is a term used by historians to denote a medieval ruler who had also received the title of "Emperor of the Romans" from the Pope.

The term "sacrum" (i.e. "holy") in connection with the medieval Roman Empire was first used in 1157 under Frederick I Barbarossa.

When Charlemagne was crowned in 800, his was styled as "most serene Augustus, crowned by God, great and pacific emperor, governing the Roman Empire," thus constituting the elements of "Holy" and "Roman" in the imperial title. The word Holy had never been used as part of that title in official documents.

Traditional historiography claimed a continuity between the Carolingian Empire and the Holy Roman Empire. This is rejected by some modern historians, who date the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire to 962.

The rulers who were crowned as Emperors in the West before 962 were as follows: [...]


* * * * * * *​

Not taking any sides in this, but I find it ironic that you claim wikipedia can't be wrong....

I have to say that I cn't criticize Wikipedia as much as we often read.

That's a very useful instrument for general culture (and arguying on a quite stable basis on these forums, by the way).
Most of the pages are quite well documented, and permit to access other sources thanks to the notes. Being very far from all university library since a few years, I have to thank it for verifying my sources and informations, and that's very convenient for that.

If I take the French page on the Shoah, it has been partly written by an historian specialized in this field of research, and I guess--from what I could see for the subjects I know the 'most', that's the case for quite a lot of them. However, people must understand that surveying and reading a page is not the same thing.

But I'm quite surprized to see so much grammatical faults in the English of this page. And if even me may see them, that's very very surprizing, even if I don't disagree with the content I chossed to pich up above.

This adress permit this verification (but the 'help' of Google translate may be necessary...), being well documented. There are also other sources--mostly in French for me: Michel Parisse, Régine Le Jan (a fascinating PhD on the genealogies as a political weapon in Merovingian and Carolingian times--and excellent teacher! Or Karl Ferdinand Werner, a German historian.
 
Last edited:
I know Wikipedia can be wrong sometimes but I am yet to experience it and until then it has my complete trust (when Im too lazy to check other sources atleast).

On this we clearly disagree, I'll just say that one day some of my pupils read on Wikipedia that the President of Russia was named Mickey Mouse. Some angry political opponent, I believe. Never could have show them more clearly how important it is to verify sources...

But, much more interesting:

On topic though, I fail to realize why "Holy Roman Emperor" should not exist in the game atleast as an honorary title.

After 1066 (in game), I don't think that's a good idea, because the emperor was the liege of all rulers within the Empire, dukes for the most part, at least in the beginning of the HRE. So, not honorary title, but landed title, clearly.

For 867 start date, it wouldn't be historicaly accurate, and don't give any real advantage to the holder.
I believe the most interesting, to simulate the creation of HRE, would be an event: the pope give the title to a king, ruling within the former Carolingian Empire (so the title has been destroyed somewhere after 867, so that would be an essential trigger).
The new emperor should meet these requirements:
1) high prestige;
2) huge military power (and having use it to defeat pagans of Muslims);
3) good relations with the pope (implying so high piety).

That's all the story of Otton 1st (in short, evidently!), but it could have been the case for any king having met these conditions in that time: Lechfeld 955 against the Magyars, good political relations because he could protect the Pope against his internal and external ennemies, important military power as king of Germany/regnum teutonicorum/Francia orientalis or whatever its name.

And, last of my arguments: yes, it would be surprizing to see the Holy Romand Empire in France or Italy. But it had been the case before!
 

No, I like a lot this guy, in fact. He's so funny! I just quote his source:

What is this supposed to proove? The term "Holy Roman Emperor" is used in the game at the 1066 start already. What they titled themselves when they lived is insignificant. We have to give them proper title names that fit in the style of the game. Today we call the emperors of that era "Holy" Roman Emperors even though they may have titled themselves something far fancier (like they usually did). Seriously are you proposing that we should have a title in the game similar to this one: "most serene X, crowned by God, great and pacific emperor, governing the Roman Empire"? Just because some modern historians oppose the idea that the Holy Roman Empire existed before 962, I can see absolutely nothing wrong with having a honorary title called "Holy Roman Emperor" at the 867 start date since the descendants of Charlemagne called themselves (and was also crowned by the pope) "Emperor of the Romans"