• 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.
* CKII: Charlemagne Developer Diaries will be released weekly on Wednesdays from now on up to release! *

Welcome to the Charlemagne dev diaries - and above all, welcome to the 8th century!

I'm Tobias Bodlund, scripter on the Crusader Kings II team, and in this first installment of the dev diaries for CKII: Charlemagne I will be talking about the new 769 start date and how we've chosen to represent that historical period in the game.

We've added a bunch of new cultures to the game. A few of these could arguably have been present in The Old Gods already, but going back to 769 we felt we really needed to shake up the map to properly represent the changing cultural landscape of the Early Middle Ages.

sw_eur_cult.png

In Spain we have the Visigoths, and they are in the Iberian rather than the Germanic group, since the Gothic migrations are long since over and they have been living in the peninsula since the early 6th century. With time, Visigothic provinces are likely to eventually become Castilian, Catalan or Andalusian depending on location and which other religious and cultural influences they are subjected to. In northwestern Iberia we also still have the Suebi, an old Germanic people. They have their own culture shift events which may see the rise of Portuguese culture.

Looking north, we have the Franks. They are still Germanic but becoming more and more latinized. You will see them slowly turning into something we call "French"...

Other new cultures you will find are Saxons, Lombards, Picts and Somali. Also, there are no Russians yet, but instead various East Slavic peoples such as the Ilmenians, Severians and Volhynians.

We've revisited cultural dynamics in some other places as well. For example, the emergence of Norman culture is now somewhat more likely than before.

Regarding religion, the old Norse religion in the game is now referred to as Germanic. We decided to do this because with the earlier start date this religion exists well beyond Norse lands (specifically, the Saxons), and the old name also sometimes caused players to confuse it with Norse culture.

Moving further south, the Ibadi faith is now its own religion and no longer a Sunni heresy.

We've also added a new pagan religion, available only in the Charlemagne start. They are the followers of the sun-god Zun, which was historically the Zunbil dynasty in Afghanistan. They start out surrounded by Muslims and Buddhists, and this should provide an interesting and possibly quite difficult start, comparable to the Jewish starts.

And where are the Jews in 769, you ask now - you will find them in Semien in Ethiopia (sometimes referred to as Beta Israel).

religion_map_persia.png

Oh, speaking of the Norse, yes... with the new start date the Viking Age hasn't begun yet. This means that the Norse will initially not be able to launch Viking expeditions overseas. This will change the early game for them as they'll need to focus more on local affairs initially. Don't worry, though, a few decades in things will start happening for them and the continent will properly learn to fear the wrath of the Northmen.

Finally, let's look at some of the large empires in the 8th century:

In 769, the Byzantine Empire is embroiled in what historians call the "First Iconoclasm". This basically means that the emperor and patriarch (and most of the elite) follow the Iconoclast faith, where religious icons are condemned as idolatry much like in Islam. There is a choice for the emperor to either stick with Iconoclasm or renounce it (via a special decision).

Meanwhile, the Abbasids are the great blob of the 8th century. During this time, they historically ruled an area from the Indus in the east to the Maghreb in the west. Though "rule" is perhaps a misleading word in some cases. To reflect the fact that in reality they had limited control over many of their nominal vassals, we have made some of these areas independent in the game. But the Caliph still has plenty of de jure CBs and claims on those areas, so beware...

In Spain, Umayyad rule is fairly recently established, so you have an Arab Muslim dynasty ruling over mainly Visigothic Christian subjects.

europe_map.png

Then there is the Frankish Empire. After Pepin died, his sons Charlemagne and Carloman inherited a kind of joint kingship over the Franks, with each of them ruling directly over a portion of the kingdom. In the game, this means the two brothers each have a king title but also a claim on the other's title. With powerful neighbors such as the Lombards, the Umayyads and the pagan Saxons, things may get very interesting here.

As you can see, the world in 769 is quite different from later starts, with many period-defining events still to unfold. Things such as the Holy Roman Empire (yes, you can found it), Vikings, Normans and Russians are still unheard of. There aren't even that many Karlings yet (!).

The 8th century is a strange and wonderful place. We hope that you'll enjoy it.
 
While you're at it adding new random place holders, could you revisit the current ones? There is a number of broken dynasties, some don't need them because they would be assigned one upon pressing play, other place holders have cultures that are obvious leftovers from pre-TOG and so on... Mainly counts in k_volga_bulgaria, Scandinavia and most of the Pagan part of the world.
 
Interesting.... This would mean that Great Moravia would replace dejure Bohemia in earlier startdates, just like Asturias replaces Leon in ToG. Speaking of Spain, I hope their dejure would be tweaked, since its odd to see Castille but no Leon in ToG, both should be dejure Asturias.
Also, dejure Finland in later dates could be divided between Sweden and Rus, since Finland was considered integral part of Swedish Crown. After 1110s, Pomerania would be divided between Poland and Germany, since Stetting and Danzig were considered dejure Poland, just as Mecklenburg was Germany

I disagree on the Finland part. The year 1362 is concidered as the year when Finland really was truly part of Sweden as thats the first year that finnish representatives could take part in the election of Swedish king. Before that Finland didn't have much influence in anything that happened in Sweden. So claiming that Finland somehow would be de jure sweden just because they ruled the area doesn't make it so. The title of Duke of Finland that is mentioned in history many times refers it as Grand Dukedom making quite valid point it to be its own de jure kingdom not to mention the finnish culture staying in the most of Finland during the whole game time period. One of the main reasons why Finland became Grand Principality when russians took it in 1809 because of the old swedish title being Grand Dukedom.
 
Are there any plans to further divide the extremely anachronistic "German" culture?

With the current setup, it wouldn't be too hard. The kingdom of Bavaria is big enough to support its own Bavarian culture, and the duchy of Alemannia is big enough to support its own Swabian culture. Of course, it would be fine if you simply called them "Suebi" as well. They were one and the same once, after all, and if anything, the Swabians in Swabia/Alemannia are more accurately portrayed as Germanic Suebi than the arguably Iberian Suebi in Galicia.

It was a bit amusing when our most esteemed narrator in the Dev's play stream mused how Allemania was so big in the beginning - that's simply because it was a kingdom once, before it was subjugated by the Franks.

To me, it seems fairly simple to seperate the German culture to Bavarian and Swabian/Suebi, and it would be an extreme improvement to accurately portray the cultural situation in Germany at this time.
 
Last edited:
I think 100 years after Second Swedish Crusade could be latest date when Finland becomes dejure Sweden, possibly earlier. Last startdate, 1337, could have dejure Finland already partitioned, since over 80 years after conquest, Swedes were obviously here to stay for next half of millenium.
However, just because Finland had no influence on Sweden, doesn't mean it wasn't considered integral part of it. By that reasoning, every kingdom in game that didn't have elective monarchy, wouldn't have dejure territory, since nobody voted for king. Better way to determine, if Duchy of Finland would be part of Sweden, would be if it had separate laws from rest of Kingdom, or some autonomy. Keep in mind, that Swedish kings never used title "King of Finland"
from wikipedia: "From 1249 onwards, sources generally regard Finland as a part of Sweden. Diocese of Finland is first listed among the Swedish dioceses in 1253."
Admittingly, another article considers 1362 "That year is often held to signify the incorporation of Finland into the kingdom of Sweden.", but "signify" means it was "made clear" at this time, not that it "happened" at this time.
 
Last edited:
"Kebab" is now considered a racial slur. ;_;
Well, at least it tells you how much the "Message of removal" has spread. xD

Message got deleted. Apparently it was racist, though I was personally just parodying usual forum messages.

Oh well, apologies.

Never make comments about a moderator decision on the public forum. You must use the pm system for that.
 
The Middle East should still be mostly Christian in this time period, it was about 10% Muslim in 750. Iran, slightly more so. We can't see the Maghreb, but it should definitely still be Christian and Pagan. It wasn't fully Islamized until the 15th/16th Century.
 
Western North Africa will probably have more Christian provinces at release.

:)

My personal preference would be for the coastal regions from Tangier to Carthage to tend towards being Christian, as well as some of the more isolated interior regions, with Islam filling in the gap. The coastal regions because they're the more urbanized Christians that maintained close contact with the rest of Christendom, and the isolated interior because those areas were, well, isolated.

By the way, besides just positioning several areas as independent, do you have any other methods in place to check the Abbasids?
 
It is more than multi-vassality that determines if England (and their "Angevin" lands) is independent of France in-game. Just as more than nominal acknowledgement of the Caliphate determines the status of realms of the de jure Arabian empire in-game. Raymond of Toulouse paid homage to Henry II and Henry II paid homage to the King of France as vassal, so how you claim Louis had more authority in England than Toulouse baffles me. That is an aside though.

I meant in Normandy not in England. Of course the english crown wasn't vassal to the french crown. The Dukedom of Normandy was however. And in Normandy the french king had a say about the action of his vassals. a privilege he didn't have in the south when his autorithy was limited to be an arbitrator in vassasl feud... when those vassals called for his judgement... let's just say it didn't happen that often... .

Anyway you still have to explain to me how those vassals are in any way less independent than the Caliphate ones. I see no gameplay reason to not make them independent either.

Your original point for the independent realm in 867 was the weakness of the caliphate in that date but you convienently forgets the weakness of the French kings in the XIth century. So weak that they had no autorithy beyond the loire.

If for christendom not having de jure vassals is considered a satisfying nerf why not for the caliphate ? Give them a titular empire done. Nerfed
 
We're aware of some issues with the South Slavic religion setup as shown in the screenshots and improvements will be made to it before release (yes, this means more Pagans).

I don't want to repeat what others already said or what I already said in another thread, I just want to ask one thing.

You said you'll will revise religion map (at least, in regards of the South Slavics), will you revise the cultural map as well?
There are a lot of complaints about the Spanish and Italian region from various users, so I'd like to know if you plan at least to do something about it ^^
 
I don't want to repeat what others already said or what I already said in another thread, I just want to ask one thing.

You said you'll will revise religion map (at least, in regards of the South Slavics), will you revise the cultural map as well?
There are a lot of complaints about the Spanish and Italian region from various users, so I'd like to know if you plan at least to do something about it ^^

Visigoths are Romance Iberians. So no problem to make them in whole spain. Lombards NEED to be in south italy... Otherwise the Lombard rulers untill 1066 would replaced to early... BU the Lombards should use italised names and should be in the latin group, yes.
 
In the same way that "Dutch" and "Deutsch" come from the same word and are synonymous?

And yes, one might be derived from the other, although probably both are derived from a latin description. Would you say "America" is synonymous with "American"? Or "England" with "English"? What about "China" with "Chinese", or "Korea" with "Korean"? Those last two certainly aren't non-ambiguous as to which China or Korea you're talking about.

Then again, "Germanic" is used as a description of more than just "german" culture - it covers an entire language group (including English, Dutch, and possibly even the Scandinavian, but not Finnish, languages); similarly you could have "germanic" religion covering a wider area than (the Kingdom of) Germany, as it would include areas that worship a broadly similar grouping of gods.
Similarly Turkish vs Turkic.
 
A number of simple database changes which take less than 5 minutes are not a feature, they're work a modder can do with no effort.


>religion of half of a large peninsula
>niche

Yeah, I am 140% sure that you would find it inappropriate if 769 Scandinavia was half-Christian.

A few database changes in a world filled with needed database changes. Yep, they definitely are after you.:rofl:
 
Will there be ways to prevent a culture shift?
I.E In the same way as how you can keep Norse if you form Scandinavia.

Also, Hellenic courtier?
 
Last edited:
The mechanics and systems as they are implemented are not able to replicate the reality of the Abbasids without compromise. The difference is that in theory, the French autonomous vassals acknowledged the king's authority. Norman independence in the 1066 start is a prime example of where the autonomous vassal model breaks down.

Re: Normandy, the simultaneous de facto English and de iure French vassalage, together with the get-full-duchy-and-wait-100-years tension is a pretty good representation. Normandy is quite basic, though. More complex situations involved Barcelona and the rights of the kings of Aragon in Occitan lands. Or the position of Pomeranian rulers between Polish over- and HRE over-overlordship with an occasional touch of Denmark and eventual subjection of Pomeranian dukes to the margrave ((yup) of Brandenburg.

The usurpers of the Caliphate's authority were just like Normandy in this start. In game terms they were de facto independent and it is best that they are portrayed this way.

De iure is more complicated, especially if you want to take account of multiple centuries of Roman and Byzantine rule preceding the relatively brief rule of a strong caliphate before those local de facto independent Muslim dynasties emerged.

Edit: Another way of thinking of this issue - In both the Norman/French 1066 situation and the Abbasid 769 and 867 situation, the local dynasties were progressing from autonomous dynasties to separatist dynasties. In the 769 start your original position is more valid (as already acknowledged) but by 867 these various dynasties should be independent without a doubt. In fact, I believe that the 867 Abbasid realm should be fractured even more than it is.

The double allegiance of Normandy is more complicated than that. The importance of England as a kingdom and the rise of Norman dukes to kingly status is just too significant a factor to make Normandy a good example for comparison with the Abbassid situation. The status of the counts of Barcelona as independents despite nominally being French vassals (until Louis IX gave that up in 13th century) is more similar to what you guys are talking about. As for an eastern counterpart of the Normandy situation, Armenia would be a better example, the way it was sometimes even ruled by an offshot of the Persian dynasty under the overlordship of the Roman Emperor.

Exactly! Flanders being a de jure part of the HRE influences the ai to expand in that direction.

And that's not cool, because the HRE shouldn't be dismembering the Flemish miniblob with de iure claims for Gent, Bruges etc.

If we were to make Italy de jure of the HRE (Which, strictly speaking it should be) then we'd see the HRE conquering the entire Italian peninsula. So making it a separate de jure is indeed a huge nerf.

Nerf the HRE in Italy, buff it in Flanders, meh. Granted, the Kingdom of Italy was separate, but it was still pretty well subjected to the HRE; in fact, even to Otto I as King of Germany from already back in 952.

Right now, the game is encouraging a bunch of de facto independent duchies in Northern Italy, which isn't all that wrong but anyway, it's still an exaggeration.

The game should reflect certain types of ties and their intensities more consistently. (And actually without encouraging 'historical' directions of expansion. That can be done via AI behaviour scripts — if it should be done at all, of which I'm not so sure.)

Mostly random ones, but a few legendary ones, mainly in Scandinavia.

Speaking of random and legendary rulers, is there a chance that early Poland will be fixed? Right now, in the 867 start, in Poland, early legendary rulers of the historical Piast dynasty (who are period-appropriate) are made contemporary with early members of the preceding Lechite dynasty, where there should be a window of 100-150 years, something like that. Those guys (sons of Lech) would actually be somewhat time-appropriate for 769. Any chance of getting this fixed?

Also, Poland still has random/fictional rulers even in 1066 and later. There was never a Duchy of Greater Poland (very strong, stronger than the king's demesne) held by a vassal duke from outside the royal dynasty. There were actually never any non-Piast dukes in Poland in the middle ages other than Pomeranian dynasties when they counted as vassals. The Poraj 'dynasty' (of Dukes of Greater Poland) was in reality a local knightly family. There is more fantasy stuff like that in Poland, unlike in any other European kingdom. (In addition to the fact that random dynasty names are largely Lithuanian or Ruthenian names from after the CK2 timeframe.)

It is more than multi-vassality that determines if England (and their "Angevin" lands) is independent of France in-game.

Naah. Earlier practically independent dukes in Aquitaine and elsewhere did recognize the authority of the French king, just not the power to meddle. Normandy is obviously not reason enough to put England as a kingdom under French vassalage. The game doesn't support double vassalage but supports different de iure and de facto lieges, hence Normandy remains a de iure vassal of France (e.g. capable of getting elected to an elective k_France, France ending up elective more often than not, which is not actually ahistorical) while being a de facto vassal of England. Except the de facto English vassalage is a representation of the personal rights of the King of England as the original Duke of Normandy, even if he gives the title to someone else. So it's not exactly all right if, let's say, William the Conqueror is replaced with Eadgar or a son of Harold's as King of England and loses all English land but somehow remains a vassal of k_England (at which point, he should revert to exclusive French vassalage).

Besides, in the Stamford bridge start Normandy is not independent. If your argument were true, then Normandy should be an independent under Duke William before Hastings/Christmas 1066.

The Plantagenets, the Samanids, the Shia Hamdanids in Northern Syria, and the succeeding Tahirid and Saffarid dynasties of Iran all exercised independent authority in their respective lands. The exercise of this independent authority should be the main determinant in-game whether a realm should be independent or not.

Ever from like 1148 every duke in Poland exercised independent authority from the dude in Cracow — a top prince/duke, actually, not even a formal king. And yet Cracow is a king and the rest are depicted as normal vassals. ;)

The point is: Detaching the Italia de jure from the HRE de jure is a nerf to the power and reach of the HRE. If Italia de jure was subsumed by the HRE, the "grey blob" would be that much more powerful and we would be seeing an HRE rivaling Charlemagne's empire every game we played. By detaching the Italian de jure away from the HRE historical de jure, gameplay ensures a more reasonable HRE development.

The concept that any of: Italy, Spain, Gaul, Germania, Britannia can form the core territory of the HRE and the basis for claiming the Roman thing is very sensible and clever and all (as much as I'm definitely not a fan of referring to those regions as de iure empires). But that tiny de iure empire (e_Italia) is quite a joke.

Hallelujah! Perhaps SS. Cyril and Methodius can make an appearance?

You'd need a different, more complex/dedicated mechanic for state-sponsored missions than the current model in which independents can put their chaplain on a mission in a pagan capital.

Visigoths are Romance Iberians. So no problem to make them in whole spain. Lombards NEED to be in south italy... Otherwise the Lombard rulers untill 1066 would replaced to early... BU the Lombards should use italised names and should be in the latin group, yes.

I'm not sold on Visigoths turning Romance. Besides, I'm not sold on a really culturally Visigothic Spain — well, unless we define the Visigothic culture as a hybrid between the old, Germanic Visigothic culture and the encountered Roman culture, then yeah, of course. But that basically means Visigothic culture is a melting pot culture.

If for christendom not having de jure vassals is considered a satisfying nerf why not for the caliphate ? Give them a titular empire done. Nerfed

Titular empire to enable them to theoretically vassalize kings, plus those caliphal CBs to help actually do it in practice. But de iure is a pretty strong statement about the formal authority of the Caliph. (Especially vs Byzzies and their claims.)

:)

My personal preference would be for the coastal regions from Tangier to Carthage to tend towards being Christian, as well as some of the more isolated interior regions, with Islam filling in the gap. The coastal regions because they're the more urbanized Christians that maintained close contact with the rest of Christendom, and the isolated interior because those areas were, well, isolated.

Sounds reasonable. Regarding Tangier, Byzantine and Visigothic influence had been the strongest there, so I guess it'd make sense to keep that province Christian in the absence of convincing arguments otherwise — if some provinces have to be Christian.

By the way, besides just positioning several areas as independent, do you have any other methods in place to check the Abbasids?

Decadence and vassal limit will take care of them. If they delegate the authority, they'll need to deal with rebel kings on their far ends. I don't think that's going to end well for the Abbasids. Besides, Byzzies and Karling blobs (via Italy/close sea distance) are still a threat. Egypt could go Coptic and find allies in the Miaphysite kings in Nubia and Abyssinia. Then, there are always the Zoroastrians. And some mess on the Indian border. And there are always still adventurers. None of these threats is critical on its own, but they are eventually going to start popping up in pairs and larger combinations.

While you're at it adding new random place holders, could you revisit the current ones? There is a number of broken dynasties, some don't need them because they would be assigned one upon pressing play, other place holders have cultures that are obvious leftovers from pre-TOG and so on... Mainly counts in k_volga_bulgaria, Scandinavia and most of the Pagan part of the world.

Like I said, even post-1066 Poland, a somewhat important European kingdom right on the HRE's border, needs serious attention.

Yes, no more auto-destroying tribal titles.

There will still be titular titles. And some previously tribal titles will get de jure land, while some will be merged with other local de jure-titles. Also, the de jure map may not always be the same for different start dates.

Any significant chance of the Mongols going doppelkaiser with e_Russia or e_Persia?

Great Moravia - as an example - will not be Bohemia, but it will also not exist de jure in every start date.

What about Hungary, as in de iure Kingdom of Hungary before the Magyars? (Pannonia?)

Western North Africa will probably have more Christian provinces at release.

That could be interesting.

"Tribal titles" of the old kind won't exist anymore. This means all those titles will now be connected to the de jure mechanics. Of course, not all titles will exist at all start dates - so for example, the de jure Empire of Germania is only available in 769 (replaced by the HRE in later starts).

Is there any continued need for not exactly historical de iure empires now that the player can create custom empires via decision? For example, if a combined king of Sweden, Denmark and Norway with enough land can create an empire, does a de iure empire of Scandinavia need to exist? Or something like 'Carpathia'?

(Historically, Hungary generally held the 80% of e_Carpathia plus a king title on the outside, i.e. Croatia. And yet, Hungarian kings didn't claim the imperial dignity. And the short-lived Kalmar Union was not an empire. Removing the de iure empires while retaining the ability to create empires there if desired, seems to be a good solution.)
 
Is there any continued need for not exactly historical de iure empires now that the player can create custom empires via decision?
I guess one of the reason would be that 'custom empire' is a DLC feature which means people without the DLC still need de jure empire to create a not yet existing empire...
 
My first aim with this expansion will be to propagate the Karling line; one does not simply play CK2 without the Karlings being everywhere.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Out of curiosity, is the top holding in the county of Jerusalem still Mirabel? I had posted a bug report on the subject, with suggestions for alternate names drawn from older fortifications that Mirabel was built on top of, but I have no idea if it was seen (I think it was during the vacation).

Anyway, long story short, the castle of Mirabel was established in 1152, by Crusaders. Come Charlemagne, I'm really hoping that this holding doesn't have that name, almost 400 years early.