The arduous duty great privilege of writing this week's Dev Diary has fallen to me, and in a desperate but vain attempt to fill Doomdark's shoes, I am here to talk a bit about the various options that are open to pagans when waging war.

View attachment CKII_ToG_DD_03_Prepared_Invasion.jpg

Prepared Invasions
Norse Pagans, or Vikings as they are known to the common man, have the unique ability to launch Prepared Invasions against non-pagans. This undertaking can only be done by small to middling Viking realms, and the target of your invasion can't be too small or too big (it needs to have between 9 and 40 holdings).

The way this works is that you declare your intention to invade a particular realm. This will cost you a lot of prestige (which can be gained through looting, as explained in the previous Dev Diary), and you'll have two years to prepare before going to war. During this time warriors from across the Norse lands will flock to your banner, hungry for loot and plunder. Needless to say, if you fail to declare war before these two years are up, you will lose face.

View attachment CKII_ToG_DD_03_King_Ambition.jpg

Subjugation
Pagans won't shy away from fighting each other, and all pagan rulers may make use of the new Subjugation casus belli. This lets them attack other pagans within a specified target kingdom, but it can only be used every ten years unless your ruler has the new ”Become King” ambition. If you are the victor of a Subjugation war, you will vassalize all lords within the target kingdom.

Pagan Conquest
Pagans can always declare war for control over a single neighboring county, and in addition to this, Norse Pagans may also go to war for any coastal county.

Tribal Invasion
This casus belli can only be used by independent Altaic (Turkish and Mongol) and Magyar pagan rulers, and it targets entire kingdoms in what amounts to massive horde invasions. You may have been on the receiving end of these before, but now you'll finally get a chance to unleash them yourself as you ride in from the steppes to carve out an empire.

View attachment CKII_ToG_DD_03_Peace_Too_Long.jpg


And finally, a few more items that have a significant impact on pagans and how they wage war:
Non-pagans suffer from a significantly smaller supply limit when in pagan territory, which limits their ability to march massive armies towards the heathen homelands at the start of the game. This penalty will eventually be removed as you progress through the Military Organization technologies.

As was touched upon in the last Dev Diary, Norse and Tengri pagans lose prestige if they have been at peace for too long. The Suomenusko, Romuva and Slavic pagans are less focused on offensive warfare and do not have this penalty. In addition, their warriors enjoy several defensive bonuses, especially when fighting in provinces with their own religion.

That's all for now!

 

[KonradRichtmark]

I am really hoping that the Khazars are represented, if not in the Old Gods, in a future DLC. At this start date, the rulers were very much Jewish and it was a very influential and important nation. I just think it would be a very interesting nation to play as, and I don't really understand what would be controversial about it. I understand that adding an entire new religion to the game is too much for this DLC, but I have hopes for a future one.

Well, in CK1 the Khazars were in. At the earliest start date, they were down to two provinces. Hardly significant any more, regardless of what significance they had had earlier. Though, now that there's an earlier 867 starting date, during that time the Khazar Khanate would have been a significant force to be contended with.

I guess the potential for controversy lies in that there's no historical consensus on how widespread conversion to Judaism was in Khazaria, i.e. whether it was widespread among the population or just a ruling class thing. What makes it controversial is that if it's the former, another question arises in to what extent Ashkenazi Jews descend from converted Khazars. The suggestion that they wholly or mostly do is one many Ashkenazi Jews find offensive, as it denies their descent from the ancient Israelites.

 

[Khanwulf]

I do agree about the marching thing though, moving across the world is far too easy. As most armies of those days were maintained by "foraging", aka pillaging, rulers would most likely strongly object to anyone simply marching trough their territory.

Indeed. My observation in the last DD was that the wealth bar now provides a means to simulate the depletion of territories as armies predate on them. I also recommended that loot be carry-able by armies, not just ships, and especially by mounted troops. This would enable modeling the impact of the Hungarians, until they settled down. And, note that capturing a supply train of a retreating army was a big deal until, oh--present day.

The reason the crusaders didn't just walk all the way to Jerusalem was because it would a) take longer than they wanted/politically could keep it together, b) some rulers didn't want them tromping through the grainfields, so to speak. If moving armies (especially foreign armies) reduced province wealth, I could see an event firing when lord X marches onto your land (assuming he's not working for your liege), giving you the opportunity to refuse entry or have a CB for war against him.

To the point of this DD: I'm quite concerned about the blobbing tendencies of the new CBs.

--Khanwulf

 

[Lord Xia]

Well, in CK1 the Khazars were in. At the earliest start date, they were down to two provinces. Hardly significant any more, regardless of what significance they had had earlier. Though, now that there's an earlier 867 starting date, during that time the Khazar Khanate would have been a significant force to be contended with.

I guess the potential for controversy lies in that there's no historical consensus on how widespread conversion to Judaism was in Khazaria, i.e. whether it was widespread among the population or just a ruling class thing. What makes it controversial is that if it's the former, another question arises in to what extent Ashkenazi Jews descend from converted Khazars. The suggestion that they wholly or mostly do is one many Ashkenazi Jews find offensive, as it denies their descent from the ancient Israelites.

They have done genetic testing to prove that Ashkenazi Jews don't descend from the Khazars...but either way, how would that impact the game in any way? I just don't see the connection from having historic Jewish Khazar rulers to having any controversy for this game.

 

[unmerged(281782)]

Gosh, they took unlimited coastal conquest from republics and gave it to Vikings. Expecting to see fugly Spain and North Africa full of Norse grabs.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

Well, they'd have to assign a religion to each province population too, and thus at least take a stance on the question of how widespread conversion to Judaism was in Khazaria.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

Gosh, they took unlimited coastal conquest from republics and gave it to Vikings. Expecting to see fugly Spain and North Africa full of Norse grabs.

I wouldn't worry. A far-flung coastal province is not particularly easy to defend. The only potential for problems I see is if the Norse AI declares war without considering the defensibility of its conquests.

 

[Grubnessul]

Will these assembled invasion forces rebel against you if you wait to long with invading? After all, they desire gold, no matter whose cold, dead fingers they have to pull it from

 

[nalivayko]

They have done genetic testing to prove that Ashkenazi Jews don't descend from the Khazars...but either way, how would that impact the game in any way? I just don't see the connection from having historic Jewish Khazar rulers to having any controversy for this game.

The controversy is not about the Jews per se, but about the historical facts. The theory about Jewish Khazaria states that the Khazar elite accepted Jewish missionaries... which is nonsense, since the essential part of Jewish religion is exclusivity.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

Well, it's been more a case of there being huge requirements one needs to fulfil to convert to Judaism, but once you're in, you're as much a Jew as any other.

That the Khazar elite converted to Judaism is hardly disputed. The minimalist position is essentially that only a specific ruler and his clique of supporters did.

 

[Alerias]

I was about to post the same thing. He also has rather remarkable stats. Something to make genius look second-rate?

Old God trait?

 

[nalivayko]

I wouldn't worry. A far-flung coastal province is not particularly easy to defend. The only potential for problems I see is if the Norse AI declares war without considering the defensibility of its conquests.

I believe, you meant, far-away. Far-flung empire, yes, far-flung province, unless we talking about some Norwegian or N. African province here, is a stretch (pun intended).

 

[3inar]

View attachment 78613

I do like the way they changed the Småland/Östergötland region into 4 provinces instead of 2 as before. And the provinces seemes to make more sence now than before, I think I can speek for anyone who is actualy swedish in here.

Now I only have to mod in 1 change and I am happy! Province of tveta!

 

[grisamentum]

They stopped existing during the Roman period of history.

No, no they did not.

 

[grisamentum]

Well, in CK1 the Khazars were in. At the earliest start date, they were down to two provinces. Hardly significant any more, regardless of what significance they had had earlier. Though, now that there's an earlier 867 starting date, during that time the Khazar Khanate would have been a significant force to be contended with.

I guess the potential for controversy lies in that there's no historical consensus on how widespread conversion to Judaism was in Khazaria, i.e. whether it was widespread among the population or just a ruling class thing. What makes it controversial is that if it's the former, another question arises in to what extent Ashkenazi Jews descend from converted Khazars. The suggestion that they wholly or mostly do is one many Ashkenazi Jews find offensive, as it denies their descent from the ancient Israelites.

Here's a potential for controversy: Jewish Khazars have been wholesale relabeled as Tengri.

 

[nalivayko]

Here's a potential for controversy: Jewish Khazars have been wholesale relabeled as Tengri.

So, damned if you do, damned if you don't [include Jews in CK2]

Seriously though, I'd like to have a Jewish adviser or two. And, if we are to follow the official history here, as my namesake, Vladimir the Great, I'd like to have four options (Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim and Jewish) to choose from, not just three.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

Old God trait?

Honestly, it could be a trait showing that the character has converted from Paganism to his current religion.

 

[nalivayko]

Honestly, it could be a trait showing that the character has converted from Paganism to his current religion.

What religion would that be for Rurik? Slavic paganism?

 

[Sieda]

To be fair I've heard that the crusades being about landless nobles wanting land is mostly a leftist rewrite of history as early European imperialism. A large part of the crusading force were simple peasants and townpeople who took the individual choice to join, and many kings contributed greatly.

I do agree about the marching thing though, moving across the world is far too easy. As most armies of those days were maintained by "foraging", aka pillaging, rulers would most likely strongly object to anyone simply marching trough their territory.

Leftist rewrite? While it's true that some more modern interpretations have sought to downplay the religious aspects of the Crusades, instead arguing much the same as the previous post you quoted - that they were spurred by landless nobility - these arguments are weakened considerably when you look a little more in depth and realize that many different people from many different backgrounds went on Crusade (even many women). Also important to remember is that each Crusade was unique in its circumstances and leadership... they didn't all have the same motivations. I would hardly consider this argument a "leftist" attempt to rewrite history however, more of a demonstration of how we as people tend to project our modern cynicism towards organized religion and the power of faith on the rest history. (Cynicism towards religion is hardly unique to leftist political ideology) As for the imperialism bit... imperialism in Europe stretches back to ancient times so I don't even understand what that's getting at.

 

[Jorlem]

Rurik has previously unseen trait on that pic: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=78614&d=1366198033
Any thoughts, what is that?

Given the lightbulb, my bet is for the trait to be named 'Brilliant'.

Non-pagans suffer from a significantly smaller supply limit when in pagan territory, which limits their ability to march massive armies towards the heathen homelands at the start of the game. This penalty will eventually be removed as you progress through the Military Organization technologies.

Who does the 'you' in the second sentence refer to? That is, do the penalties go away as the pagans' tech increases, or as the non-pagans' tech goes up? I'm assuming the latter, but I could be wrong.


Also, will the events regarding adventurers that occur when you prepare an invasion be similar to, or possibly supplanting that AI only event that gives a rebelling vassal annoyingly large numbers of troops? Being on the other side of that event would be nice for once.

 

[Meneth]

Given the lightbulb, my bet is for the trait to be named 'Brilliant'.

I think "bright" would be more fitting.

Who does the 'you' in the second sentence refer to? That is, do the penalties go away as the pagans' tech increases, or as the non-pagans' tech goes up? I'm assuming the latter, but I could be wrong.

I'd assume the latter, seeing as pagans are referred to as "they".