• 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:
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:



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!

Well I know Wikipedia can be wrong but let me quote this: (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_II_of_Italy)

"Louis II was the King of Italy and Roman Emperor from 844, co-ruling with his father Lothair I until 855, after which he ruled alone. Louis's usual title was imperator augustus ("august emperor"), but he used imperator Romanorum after his conquest of Bari in 871, which led to poor relations with Byzantium. He was called imperator Italiae ("emperor of Italy") in West Francia while the Byzantines called him Basileus Phrangias ("Emperor of the Franks").
He was the eldest son of the Emperor Lothair I and Ermengarde of Tours. He was designated King of Italy in 839 and took up his residence in that country and was crowned king at Rome by Pope Sergius II on 15 June 844. He at once claimed the rights of an emperor in the city, which claim was decisively rejected; but in 850 he was crowned joint emperor at Rome by Pope Leo IV"

In 867 He is still alive (he lived until 875) and was crowned by the pope 17 years prior, so once again I cant realize why he shouldnt posses an honorary title atleast.
 
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!

Unfortunately this strategy wouldn't work within the constraints of gameplay-since it's been confirmed that the de jure Empire map will feature a de jure HRE in its 1066 area (in order to "fill in the empires map blanks") so if the Pope crowned the King of Italy or France, then the King of Germany/Lotharingia (whoever was larger) would just usurp it back the next day.
 
Shouldn't Catholics be able to raid against Orthodox as well? It happened plenty of times with Hungary, Poland, and the crusader states. There isn't nearly enough conflict between them, when in reality they Catholics hated them almost as much as the Muslims. They should have to border an Orthodox nation though, otherwise silly things like German knights led by the kaiser raid Constantinople.
 
Consider game balance, and the fact that raiding may perhaps be best left as a perk (one of the few in the long run) of remaining pagan?
 
Would raiding allow taking slaves... like beautiful women, princess, kids?

Would raiding give a CB against the attackers ?

it would be interesting if raided rulers could have the option to consider such raids as a war declaration... the aim would be to defeat raiders. if raiders loose, they get a prestige drop and would have to pay a compensation...
 
Unfortunately this strategy wouldn't work within the constraints of gameplay-since it's been confirmed that the de jure Empire map will feature a de jure HRE in its 1066 area (in order to "fill in the empires map blanks") so if the Pope crowned the King of Italy or France, then the King of Germany/Lotharingia (whoever was larger) would just usurp it back the next day.

If they want to fill the blanks, they could just make the de jure area the empire of Germania or something, and make the HRE titular. It would be nice if the HRE wasn't always created in Germany but sometimes in France or Italy depending on some events.

I also really wish that the HRE was different from the other empires, with more importance given to the Pope in the coronation of Emperors and overall more flavour. It shouldn't be a title you can usurp without the Pope's backing. If Paradox announced a "LoR" DLC for the HRE I would be even more excited than I am for TOG.
 
That is not what I am talking about. You speak about conquest and I am speaking about raiding. Specifically about the "aceifas", the summer military expeditions dedicated to plunder everything of value. Here is a map of the most famous Alhandalusian Muslim raider: Al Mansur. He conducted 56 raids against Christian settlements.

View attachment 77362

At the start time of this scenario they were also mercilessly raiding Southern Italy.
 
West Francia and East Francia being kingdoms is the most accurate thing to do, however that also means that the Catholic title of Emperor of the Romans should go to the current king of Italy. You might use the HRE for this since they did use the same title and they did place themselves in the same tradition and role (with the Catholic Church). Others seem to want a make a distinction between the Carolingian Roman Empire and the Ottonian Roman Empire, which probably isn't completely false nor true. In a way the title created by Pope Leo and Charlemagne, also came to be connected with another kingdom than Italy, East Francia (later the German Kingdom), yet Italy too remained connected with ''the Catholic dignity'' of emperor of the Romans.

Actually Kljunas has a good idea in 867 make the Holy Roman Empire titular and instead, have de jure empires of Germania and Francia, for gameplay, which by event can establish the Holy Roman Empire de jure, instead of the placeholder de jure empires Francia, Germania and since they want to fill the blanks Italia...
In that way the king of Italy can be made titular 'Holy Roman Emperor', which though not completely accurate, IMHO probably is the best way to mimic the situation.

BTW naturally I'd very happy, if one day a HRE dlc is made! :)
 
Well I know Wikipedia can be wrong but let me quote this: (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_II_of_Italy)

"Louis II was the King of Italy and Roman Emperor from 844, co-ruling with his father Lothair I until 855, after which he ruled alone. Louis's usual title was imperator augustus ("august emperor"), but he used imperator Romanorum after his conquest of Bari in 871, which led to poor relations with Byzantium. He was called imperator Italiae ("emperor of Italy") in West Francia while the Byzantines called him Basileus Phrangias ("Emperor of the Franks").
He was the eldest son of the Emperor Lothair I and Ermengarde of Tours. He was designated King of Italy in 839 and took up his residence in that country and was crowned king at Rome by Pope Sergius II on 15 June 844. He at once claimed the rights of an emperor in the city, which claim was decisively rejected; but in 850 he was crowned joint emperor at Rome by Pope Leo IV"

In 867 He is still alive (he lived until 875) and was crowned by the pope 17 years prior, so once again I cant realize why he shouldnt posses an honorary title atleast.

Well, not a lot to answer to this, save that I don't see the point of having an honorary title as emperor (not 'holy roman emperor', but 'roman emperor', like his father and grandfather). The best, as I said earlier, would be that whichever king in the former Carolingian empire matches the best the conditions would be 'emperor of the romans', giving him so real advantages, however without having: something like the Defensor of the Faith in EU3/EU4: preeminent position, pestige and so on.

And, evidently, that wouldn't be given only to German kings: in 867 the title of emperor of the roman was not landed with Germany, this idea would even have chocked lot of rulers of the time, I believe. Between the death of Louis the Pious (840) and the end of the 'Carolingian' Empire founded by Charlemagne, to the end of this empire, the title holder was king in Italy, France, Germany, Provence, and so on. This was based on relations with the pope, military power (and then I don't list everything again).

Then a hiatus: no Roman emperor in Occident after Berenger (in Italy: Friuli), dead 924.

The, there's another empire with Otto the 1st, after 955. And this time, this comes very rapidly to be linked to a territory: the Holy Roman Empire is born, whatever his name. This is in not the Carolingian Empire anymore, but Holy Roman (Germanic) Empire.

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"

Not such title, that's an evidence. But where I agreed in advance with you (here), for another subject: I suggested a designated heir that you could pick up in case you got mad or incapable when growing old.

In the case of HRE (so from the 1066 start date), our two ideas join for an honorary title. But they join in one condition only: this title wouldn't be for the emperor, but to have a designated heir, elected during the life of the emperor, like the despot in Byzantium of the designated heir for the patrician families within Republics.

I don't know if that would be historicaly accurate, however, but would match this title of rex romanicorum/King of the Romans, which refered:
1) to the 'emperor', elected but not yet sacred and crowned by the pope;
2) to his heir, when he was elected and his father was sacred and crowned.

As for the emperor, I still don't see what would be the interest for him to have an honorary title. 'Emperor' is a landed title, making him the liege of all dukes and counts, whether he was the 'holy' roman emperor or not.


Unfortunately this strategy wouldn't work within the constraints of gameplay-since it's been confirmed that the de jure Empire map will feature a de jure HRE in its 1066 area (in order to "fill in the empires map blanks") so if the Pope crowned the King of Italy or France, then the King of Germany/Lotharingia (whoever was larger) would just usurp it back the next day.

Any source on that subject? I agree that for 1066, for accuracy, there is to be a Holy Roman Empire.
But for 867, I really don't see why there would be a Holy Roman Empire. Explained why above, and much more satisfyed by the maps showed today by Doomdark: not Francia/Burgundy/Italy/HRE anymore, but now West Franci/Lotharingia/Italy/east Francia. Nearly totally satisfied with that.

However, I agree on the idea that there shoud be an event or another creating the HOR if conditions are met: not emperor anymore, relations with pope, military power... and the pope choose a king of East Francia as emperor, which manage to impose-by blood and sword or whatever reason--that the title of emperor (named 'holy roman emperor') is linked with East Francia/Germany.

I defended my point of view since Day-1 of DD1 for The Old Gods, and I believe I didn't read any argument till now that may change that. But you may try again...

* * * * * *

Suggestion: the topic mix very heavily with other ones more related to the DD-2. Sorry for the other guys!

I personnally have to go to sleep. Very late here, and have to wake up early.

But I send right now a PM to moderators so that they create a new thread, beginning with all the posts on this peculiar topic (namley #104, 107, 110, 113, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 127, 128, 129 and 130, this last one being this current one).

What would you think of a thread named: 'Empire (again) & Wikipedia (again)'

'Night!
 
Hopefully given the new 'captives from sieges' feature, they do also change ransoms so wives and children (or indeed any noble) have value and can be ransomed, despite being unlanded. One also does hope its not a 100% thing ("oh yes, despite there being a huge wonkng doomstack in the next province, it never occurred to me to send my family to a safer castle and/or my lieges court")

And yes, I do hope if somebody's wife or daughter is stolen to be a concubine, CBs and/or plots are available to get her back.
 
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.


This simply is not true. The Welsh and Scottish borders for England, the brutal chevauchées in the 100 years war etc. were very common. Kings may not have gone raiding but Barons were only too happy to raid neighbors particularly from different countries.
 
Well, not a lot to answer to this, save that I don't see the point of having an honorary title as emperor (not 'holy roman emperor', but 'roman emperor', like his father and grandfather). The best, as I said earlier, would be that whichever king in the former Carolingian empire matches the best the conditions would be 'emperor of the romans', giving him so real advantages, however without having: something like the Defensor of the Faith in EU3/EU4: preeminent position, pestige and so on.

Then a hiatus: no Roman emperor in Occident after Berenger (in Italy: Friuli), dead 924.

The, there's another empire with Otto the 1st, after 955. And this time, this comes very rapidly to be linked to a territory: the Holy Roman Empire is born, whatever his name. This is in not the Carolingian Empire anymore, but Holy Roman (Germanic) Empire.

(...)

But for 867, I really don't see why there would be a Holy Roman Empire. Explained why above, and much more satisfyed by the maps showed today by Doomdark: not Francia/Burgundy/Italy/HRE anymore, but now West Franci/Lotharingia/Italy/east Francia. Nearly totally satisfied with that.

(...)

Having a titular emperor of the Romans or if need be Roman Emperor could work too.

You can't have a hiatus and a totally new empire. The Ottonians like the Carolingians restored the Roman Empire in the West. In fact distinguishing between the Carolingian Roman Empire and the Ottonian Roman Empire, so what most call Holy Roman Empire, in a way is like distinguishing between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire. The actions of the Ottonians certainly influenced the further development of the Empire. Besides both France and the German kingdom had their Carolingian heritage too.

Regarding the map West Francia, East Francia and Lotharingia are all better, but IMHO in 867 the king of Italy should also have the (titular) title of emperor of the Romans (or Roman Emperor). This could be mimicked by making the HRE tag titular (alternatively a WRE tag?) and instead have the Francia, Italia and Germania as de jure empires and give those three an event, that they can de jure switch from their current empire (so Francia, Italia and Germania) to form a HRE.

@ Elfryc:

Any further debate on this matter might be better off in an other thread, but reading back in this thread and the argument started over screenshots in this thread though.
 
Last edited:
.......


I agree that for 1066, for accuracy, there is to be a Holy Roman Empire.
But for 867, I really don't see why there would be a Holy Roman Empire. Explained why above, and much more satisfyed by the maps showed today by Doomdark: not Francia/Burgundy/Italy/HRE anymore, but now West Franci/Lotharingia/Italy/east Francia. Nearly totally satisfied with that.

Hmmm.. the picture shows parts of the Italy name, but how shall we know for sure that it's not empire tier still ? Just wondering about your certainty.

563563_577408785610967_882928258_n.jpg


..or was your point that germany is no more HRE in the new start date ? If so, ignore my post. :rolleyes:
 
@ Elfryc:
Any further debate on this matter might be better off in an other thread, but reading back in this thread and the argument started over screenshots in this thread though.

Yes, you're right. If the Holy Roman Moderators access to my demand, we'll ask Einh to add a link to my post #96 which started the debate in his first link (here #104).

One question: do you believe our last two post will be in the new thread or this one? :wacko:
I would like to bet for the new one, and however, the HRM may have humor... SO, I bet they leave them within the two thread!

One of the cliché about Normandy (my avatar) is the sentence P'têt' ben qu'oui, pt'êt' ben qu'non ('maybe yes, maybe no').
My last sentence is a perfect example is this not totally a cliché, I believe :)
 
Hmmm.. the picture shows parts of the Italy name, but how shall we know for sure that it's not empire tier still ? Just wondering about your certainty.

563563_577408785610967_882928258_n.jpg


..or was your point that germany is no more HRE in the new start date ? If so, ignore my post. :rolleyes:

Guys, you're killing me! Need to go to bed!

But you're right--like often, Aardvark.
I read somewhere, or watched in the livestream, that now there are a king in Francia occidentalis, and one in Francia orientalis, each having their next heir being kings of Aquitaine and Bavaria. This map confirms that.
But in 867, Louis II was king of Italy and emperor, so I believe the emperor is in Italy. Good to see there's only one emperor, much more better than 2 weeks ago.

Then after his death his title could be granted by the pope to any of the greatest kings, I believe. Or not. Pffwwwaaaa. Going to sleep.
 
I understand that it is needed to keep the game balanced. But all should have the option to raid/loot or should automatically do it. Soldiers went to war not only because of the meager salary but because of the chances of plunder, to get rich. And should also be able to raid people of the same religion but at a high opinion cost.
 
But you're right--like often, Aardvark.

Thanks for the flowers. :) ...................won't get overconfident. Promise.:cool:
 
I understand that it is needed to keep the game balanced. But all should have the option to raid/loot or should automatically do it. Soldiers went to war not only because of the meager salary but because of the chances of plunder, to get rich. And should also be able to raid people of the same religion but at a high opinion cost.

Or you could abstract the whole thing as part of your ongoing war. Note you already get/lose money from taking/losing holdings, and that as of old gods, income will be damaged by sieges (and raiding).

If you really, really want a popup saying your soldiers (no, not you, your soldiers) got 10g everytime you take a holding I'm sure somebody in the mod forum can help you. (I don't want it - its flatly irrelevant information)
 
It'd be nice if they would add more mechanics to the Catholic and Orthodox religions - and the way they interplay (especially Mending the Schism - I'd argue that should be something that any lord of both religions can do via some certain set of circumstances). They're quite vanilla as it is, without any real benefits as opposed to playing as any other religion. Muslims always have a CB as far as I know, and Pagans are getting this whole raiding bonus.

Also - am I the only one a bit brow raised that only the Byzantines can bring back the Roman Empire? That's certainly not accurate - pretty much everyone in the West wanted to be the new heir to the Western Empire and all that jazz about that. Imperial Reconquest is one of the funnest scenarios to get up to.