• 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.
Hello again folks! Stay a while, and listen. The highlights of today's third and last Sword of Islam developer diary are Muslim Casus Bellis, revised combat mechanics and cultural buildings. You know the drill by now; I'll talk about both some unique Sword of Islam features and some free stuff that comes with patch 1.06.

THE SWORD OF ISLAM

Our direction with the Sword of Islam expansion is that Muslims should have an easier time expanding, but have an additional layer of internal strife in the form of the Open Succession Law and the Decadence system.

Muslim Casus Bellis

Muslim rulers have three new options for conquest:
  • They can declare Holy Wars on anyone not of their own exact brand of Islam
  • They can use a form of the Invasion CB for the cost of 500 Piety
  • They can conquer any province bordering one of their own for 50 Piety (vassalizing the current count if possible)

Pious Muslim rulers can thus easily expand, although they lose 2 Piety per month while attacking a brother of the faith (same exact religion.) The councillor job to fabricate a claim is thus less useful for Muslims, but can still be handy versus islands or juicy coastal counties.

SoI_InvasionCB.jpg

Revokation of Duchies

Duchies (emirates) are not considered to be intrinsically hereditary, so Muslims are allowed to revoke duchy titles at no opinion penalty from other vassals. This is also a good way of properly landing your sons to avoid gaining Decadence. (Incidentally, the Byzantine Empire is now allowed to do the same thing, though it does not have the Decadence mechanics.)

Dynastic Imprisonment and Execution

Another Muslim exception to the normal rules is that they are allowed to freely imprison and execute men of their own dynasty, except for their own sons. Brothers and uncles are the usual targets for these Decadence reducing purges...

Temple Holdings

In the Muslim world, there is no proper equivalent to Bishoprics, so Temple Holdings are treated exactly like Castles, except for their different set of buildings. You gain Piety for having a Temple Holding in your demesne, but they are slightly poorer and provide smaller levies than their Catholic equivalents (in order to balance them against the investiture mechanics.)

Passing Laws

Muslims do not need to bother with a voting process when passing laws; they just spend an amount of Piety. However, there is still a cooldown and Crown Laws can only be changed once per ruler. The vassals will also still get upset in the same way as Christians.

Jizya Tax

To represent the Jizya tax (a special tax that should, according to Sharia law, be levied on infidels), Muslims gain a 25% tax bonus from infidel counties and a 10% tax penalty in Muslim counties. This creates an interesting dynamic where it's not always obvious that you would want to convert an infidel province to Islam. However, there is a special event where this happens anyway, even if you don't send in your Court Imam to convert the populace.

SoI_Jizya.jpg

That's pretty much it for the Sword of Islam expansion, although I'm sure to have forgotten about many minor little changes and tweaks.

THE 1.06 PATCH

Alright, so here are a few more freebies coming your way soon with the 1.06 patch...

Expanded Combat Tactics

We have added a bunch of more (and more decisive) combat tactics, to make combat less predictable and to tie in with the new Commander traits...

Commander Traits

We have added a special type of trait called Commander traits. These are only available to characters with a Martial education, and give more specific bonuses to the character's ability to lead various troop types, and the choice of combat tactics. Characters gain one or two Commander traits when they finish their education. The effects of the Commander traits directly scale with the Martial skill of the character.

SoI_Commander.jpg

More Culture Specific Buildings

One thing that many people have requested is a broader range of culture specific buildings, and who are we to argue? We have added loads of these to give more variety and flavor.

Destruction of Titles

You are now allowed to destroy ducal tier titles and above, at a hefty Prestige cost. This will greatly upset (-50 opinion) all vassals who are de jure part of the destroyed title. You cannot destroy your current primary title.

SoI_TitleDestruction.jpg

AI Improvements

Apart from some minor improvements, the AI is now better at jumping on rulers who are already embroiled in dangerous wars (though it's still not excessively aggressive about this.) I've also spent a bit of time on attrition avoidance for AI armies, and the AI will now assault besieged holdings when appropriate.

That's it for dev diaries for now. Next week, we'll post a short AAR by a member of the dev team!
 
its mainly that a lower ranked, unknown, house of nobles comes to defeat you. wether they decided to sail a few thousand miles for ireland to depose you or are just a bunch of rabble from ireland isnt really relevant.

Yeah, basically a metaphor, a figure, rock-paper-scissors mechanic depicting a challenger that arises if you can't keep your decadence low.
 
Of course it will cause de jure drift, that's the point of "destroying" a king title. In 100 years that France will become titular.

What if the de iure drift is complete but K. of France has no holder when that happens? Will France become a titular title that can't be created and therefore can never be used again or will it stick to its former capital as the scripted capital for creation or what else happens?

EDIT: Sorry for double-post.
 
It will be titular kingdom stick with capital (Paris).

Thanks.

A fantasy state option could work. It would be more like creating history rather than playing it out. It'd also settle 3/4ths of the forum arguments.

Well, creating history is one thing (and certainly the purpose of an alternative history game) but you're supposed to be starting from a historical point when you pick a date and hit the Play button. If you have a bunch of empire-size and rank fictional states that supposedly exist by law or custom but don't have a current incumbent monarch, then you're already in an alternative world. I wasn't a fan of the Ruler Designer DLC but it was optional, so good for it (I actually bought it to show Paradox some minimal support with a couple of euros on top of the game price I paid). Fictional de iure empires are forcing the same kind of thing on everybody without an option.
 
Last edited:
as mentioned before ... going from that argument theres allready issues in Vanilla with the Kingdoms of Portugal and Finland (first mention of a crown of finland was the Swedish king donning it for a few years in the early 1600s).
 
as mentioned before ... going from that argument theres allready issues in Vanilla with the Kingdoms of Portugal and Finland (first mention of a crown of finland was the Swedish king donning it for a few years in the early 1600s).

There is also K. of Jerusalem existing as a de iure kingdom before a successful crusade, K. of Frisia that goes to a very old tribal federation and K. of Bavaria with similar background but even more of a stretch. But those are minor problems compared to a whole map's worth of fictional empires. No problem with them being creatable one way or the other. It's a different thing when your "legal" map of the world is full of entities that never existed lumped together with ancient but currently broken up or unclaimed kingdoms. There was a huge discussion in the first Dev Diary thread here.
 
Yeah I never liked Jerusalem as a de jure kingdom either -- I made it titular (so it can still be formed by a powerful crusader duke in the region) and gave its de jure territory to Syria.
 
just some questions since i like the idea of a DLC focusing on muslims...

1. are persian culture counties counted as arabic or r they a diffrent culture as they rly r in real life?
2. if they r diffrent will they get unique buildings too? examples r welcomed!
3. will the execute and imprisonment for other ppl other than kinsmen work the same as christians and cost same piety?
4. does caliphs have excommunication power too, like pope?
5. is there a possibility to rise against a caliph to become caliph? something like anti-pope or something? (or become a new caliph of ur own?)

tnx... i will get this game plus DLC if its as cool as it seems :)

any answers my dear dev ppl? :p still w8ing! tnx
 
Persian culture is in its own group (Iranian) which so far has no other cultures in it. The Arab cultures are Bedouin, Levantine, Egyptian, Maghreb and Andalusian.
 
Fictional de iure empires are forcing the same kind of thing on everybody without an option.
You don't have to form them though, and the chances of the AI doing it are minimal at best, so for those that don't like them, they probably wont ever see them. Assuming of course they are as difficult to form as indicated.
 
You don't have to form them though, and the chances of the AI doing it are minimal at best, so for those that don't like them, they probably wont ever see them. Assuming of course they are as difficult to form as indicated.

The problem is, you do see them as they show up on de the de jure empire mode.
While I'm not really against these nonsense empires, I am against my de jure mapmode filled with empires which are never going to get formed.
 
The problem is, you do see them as they show up on de the de jure empire mode.
While I'm not really against these nonsense empires, I am against my de jure mapmode filled with empires which are never going to get formed.

You should be able to mod them out in a minute, bro. Just go to landed_titles, find the entries of all of the empires you don't like, and then empty them so they don't have any de jure territory. It should literally be as simple as highlight and backspace.
 
The problem is, you do see them as they show up on de the de jure empire mode.
While I'm not really against these nonsense empires, I am against my de jure mapmode filled with empires which are never going to get formed.

And you spend how much time in the de jure empire map mode?
 
Persian culture is in its own group (Iranian) which so far has no other cultures in it. The Arab cultures are Bedouin, Levantine, Egyptian, Maghreb and Andalusian.

It would be cool for mixed groups to form eventually as a result of political events. For example, that specific Frankish/Arabic Levantine mix from the crusader states.

You don't have to form them though, and the chances of the AI doing it are minimal at best, so for those that don't like them, they probably wont ever see them. Assuming of course they are as difficult to form as indicated.

I don't actually have a problem with them being formed (I wouldn't mind them being titular or creatable via events or decisions or plots, I mind their existence on the de iure map in a historical start). I've seen or heard about various things in the EU and CK series, those are okay as long as they aren't flagrantly implausible in light of what happened in that particular game (without any nonsense comparisons to real history where different rulers ruled, with different skills, different accidents took place, different mistakes or brilliant decisions were made etc.). This is alternative history after all. But the problem with the fantasy de iure empires is that when you look at the de iure map on day one, before unpausing the game, when things should still be historical, you will see a bunch of fantasy states on the de iure map. 'De iure', in diplomacy, history, politics and law means a legal or customary state of things as opposed to the 'de facto' reality. As in a de iure territory of some country being occupied de facto by some other. Or a de iure government (exiled but active on the diplomatic arena) vs a de facto one (usurpers who wield the actual power). So when you load that map in 1066, you're being told that, de iure, there exists an Empire of Scandinavia or Francia or whatever, that only waits for a successful person to restore it to de facto existence.

I was just thinking: should the kingdom of Brittany be part of Francia or Britannia?

'Should' does not apply to Francia because it's a fictional empire. Francia is the Latin name for the land of the Franks, which could either be the duchy around Paris or the entire kingdom of the Franks or their tribal area in which multiple small, splinter kings ruled (which is not a reason to call their boss emperor, same as in Ireland or Scotland, none of which was one kingdom in early middle ages). Brittannia should not be an empire. Britons, like any Celts, had multiple layers of kings (ri), the ultimate layer of whom our historians or even their own contemporary chroniclers would refer to as the 'high king'.

Anyway, culturally, the short-lived Kingdom of Brittany (I previously got my facts wrong, it was indeed a united kingdom at some point between the three kingdoms and the later duchy) would be closer to the Britons. The only real claims of the Franks would be based on some form conquest or temporarily recognised suzerainty, too, so I guess that Brittany would be, 'de iure' closer to the Britons or the other Celts of the British isles than to France (although you could claim that the geographical area of Brittany was a part of old Gaul). But the Britons, by 1066, were confined to Wales, Cornwall and a small remnant in south Scotland (Alt Clud), so it's not clear that a de iure empire of Britain/Brittannia would refer to them and not to the Saxons and later Normans.

And you spend how much time in the de jure empire map mode?

Not little, and definitely not insignificant a time, which is intended by the devs to be this way. Part of the rationale we got for making those empires de iure and not titular was the ease and learning curve value of putting them there, visible, easily accessible, clearly waiting for formation and giving the player ideas of what to do.

The problem is, you do see them as they show up on de the de jure empire mode.
While I'm not really against these nonsense empires, I am against my de jure mapmode filled with empires which are never going to get formed.

I think some difficult, supposedly near-nonformable (by the AI) empires shouldn't be sitting there on the map with normal de iure empires like the HRE or ERE. I believe it would be better to make them titular or even de iure from start but creatable via events/intrigues rather than confusing the de iure category by having two types of de iure empires.
 
Last edited:
Incidentally I've long-since replaced the kingdom of Brittany with the kingdom of Dumnonia (Brittany and Cornwall) in my mod -- not exactly accurate as Dumnonia was a realm in and around Cornwall but I like the name and as it can only be formed by Breton-culture characters I think it works. I prefer it to Cornwall being part of Wales anyway.

I was only asking about Brittany because I know in 1.06 we're getting a load of new de jure empires and I was curious whether Brittany would end up in Francia or Britannia. Personally I imagine they'll end up as part of Francia but I use my own de jure setup anyway.
 
I was only asking about Brittany because I know in 1.06 we're getting a load of new de jure empires and I was curious whether Brittany would end up in Francia or Britannia. Personally I imagine they'll end up as part of Francia but I use my own de jure setup anyway.

to Francia.
 
De jure in the context of the game =/= de jure in the context of law or tradition.
They should probably just rename de jure to something else. What? I don't know, but people sure seem upset by them adding in empires to shoot for.

It seems important to me to note that it would not work very well for these new empires to be titular, they are based on specific geographic locations with difficult criteria for creation. That is a lot harder than the requirements for most of the titular titles I have seen.