.png){kind=avatar}
I've tested this a little bit, and from what I can see in the tests the saves are still mostly fine. Map updates are always a little bit wonky in old saves though, so I wouldn't recommend it.
-
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.
I've tested this a little bit, and from what I can see in the tests the saves are still mostly fine. Map updates are always a little bit wonky in old saves though, so I wouldn't recommend it.
I would not be too worried about the future of CK2. Holy Fury sold well from what i understand and their whole business strategy is more DLC sales = more DLC.
If you want more reassurance look at their language in the Iron Century announcement post last week, here is an interesting line used by Tuscany 'and our first in the 10th century'. Firstly i don't think this means they are planing another 10th Century start any time soon but the open language does not sound like the language of a game planning to stop development any time soon.
We should probably do both.
If we don't put it in a code tag, any formatting we use in it will break.
Considering you guys with this update has created a precedent for special decisions like this and the Cairo one, it could potentially be expanded to a series of other, similar historical occurences. Important dynasties were certainly established, like the various Capetian cadets or the Ottomans.
The Cairo decision could be adapted to make Palermo the capital of Norman Sicily, London the capital of Norman England as they gradually leave Normandy behind, eventually make Oslo the Norwegian capital, etcetera (of course, supposing that the de jure capital of a kingdom would change, so that the AI won't just default it back to Bergenhus). As it is, the de jure capital system can be rather unflexible. It is for example not a given that a newly esablished Italy would want Pavia as its capital.
Cultural decisions, similar to the new Russian one, could be used for the Bolghars when settling in Bulgaria or other historical conquerors who settled. It is of course a lot to ask for, I'm just saying that you've clearly proven capable of adding such historical events, which would in many cases be really well welcomed by the fanbase.
I am not saying you are wrong, I just don't want to get people's hopes up and then end up disappointing them if it never happens.
No Princess-Abbesses in the game?! 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_princess-abbesses_of_Quedlinburg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_princess-abbesses_of_Quedlinburg
Yeah, fully understand that. I was perhaps thinking out loud of the possibilites with this rather than requesting anything. Regardless, you've all done a heck of a job with this. Thanks for all your hard work!
Really great-looking update! Between these last three updates, you guys are on a roll really enriching the game. I don't know a huge amount about this period of history beyond what was going on in and around England, but it looks like there's a lot of interesting starts around.
Maybe a solution could be to add a 'generic' system/decision that a realm meeting certain requirements can take when moving their capital or changing primary title or something, 'establishing a new centre of power'. That way it would still allow for things like following history by establishing Norman London, but wouldn't railroad you towards actual historical decisions in case the direction of things in your game ended up vastly different, letting you make similar but parallel decisions elsewhere. Plus it wouldn't show accidental favouritism towards whichever specific ones happened to get implemented because this or that person has heard of them.
...though I realise this might be a lot more work than just adding a few specific decisions for added flavour to a few realms. I don't really know how the workload breaks down in this regard. I'm not going to demand anything hot on the heels of such a major free update, in any case.
Maybe a solution could be to add a 'generic' system/decision that a realm meeting certain requirements can take when moving their capital or changing primary title or something, 'establishing a new centre of power'. That way it would still allow for things like following history by establishing Norman London, but wouldn't railroad you towards actual historical decisions in case the direction of things in your game ended up vastly different, letting you make similar but parallel decisions elsewhere. Plus it wouldn't show accidental favouritism towards whichever specific ones happened to get implemented because this or that person has heard of them.
...though I realise this might be a lot more work than just adding a few specific decisions for added flavour to a few realms. I don't really know how the workload breaks down in this regard. I'm not going to demand anything hot on the heels of such a major free update, in any case.
Pretty please with sugar on top. We need bloodlines for Umayyads and Abbasids. And a special negative relations modifier between the bloodlines to represent the dynastic vendetta.
Personally when playtesting I first holy warred Sallarids and put out some kids for NAPs/alliances with various surrounding powers. Then I became zoro, holy warred Gilan/Azerbaijan and swapped to better succession law before creating Daylam.
After that I took Jibal/Fars and let my allies do the heavy lifting
Yeah, that sounds like it could work. Like you I have no idea whether this would be hard to do or not though. But such a decision could perhaps be tied to founding a kingdom or changing your primary one. Say you are the duke of Kent in 867 and found England - in that case the decision could allow you to either make Kent a proper capital (allowing a special building?) or move to Middlesex, which is England's de jure capital. Either option would increase the chosen capital's prosperity level and give a minor temporary county modifier. Similarly, as William in 1066 you could choose to move seat to Middlesex or stay in Rouen. The AI could be weighted towards changing capitals.
We're straying off topic now though, so sorry for that. I just got a little excited at the thought.
Not even a "Play a game all the way through from 936 to 1453"?
That sounds like a good plan, I sometime like to bruteforce things however.Personally when playtesting I first holy warred Sallarids and put out some kids for NAPs/alliances with various surrounding powers. Then I became zoro, holy warred Gilan/Azerbaijan and swapped to better succession law before creating Daylam.
After that I took Jibal/Fars and let my allies do the heavy lifting
What does this mean, exactly? If I started in 1066 or later, would these bloodlines already be extinct, or be disabled?
Glad to see the addition of this new bookmark, could be my new favourite. Any chance of adding the possibility to continue your campaign after the 1453 end date? it could make the common excuse that playing only the earliest start dates is a must to prevent short campaigns irrelevant, even though many players already end their campaigns after playing for only 200 or 300 years.
Please fix the title history for the hre so hre rulers get historically accurate regnal numbers.
It has been five years since we last played a new bookmark. Can't wait for it!
In the earlier bookmarks? Won't that decision be active after 1066? There was a Second Bulgarian Empire after all!
And I second the request to make Serbia part of De Jure Bulgarian Empire. By 936 both regions were strongly intertwined in culture, faith and trade, far more than either were with the ERE.
And most importantly, Serbia in the De Jure Byzantine Empire will most likely have atrocious borders.
In the earlier bookmarks? Won't that decision be active after 1066? There was a Second Bulgarian Empire after all!
And I second the request to make Serbia part of De Jure Bulgarian Empire. By 936 both regions were strongly intertwined in culture, faith and trade, far more than either were with the ERE.
And most importantly, Serbia in the De Jure Byzantine Empire will most likely have atrocious borders.
This is looking pretty great and the release date is even earlier than I expected. I'm looking forward to using Bloodaxe to get the Legacy of the Indo-Norse achievement.
One suggestion, perhaps you can make it so that the decision to form the new Bulgarian empire would also include Serbia, but only if you hold it when you take the decision. Basically use the same system that includes Pomerania in the Slavic Union if you hold it when you take the decision.
And speaking of landed titles, one thing that's been bugging me for a while now is that k_hungary can only be created by Hungarians and Avars, even when it's called Panonia. Meanwhile players of any culture can create k_magyar. My suggestion is that you add ai = no as a third possible condition that allows creating k_hungary.
One suggestion, perhaps you can make it so that the decision to form the new Bulgarian empire would also include Serbia, but only if you hold it when you take the decision. Basically use the same system that includes Pomerania in the Slavic Union if you hold it when you take the decision.
And speaking of landed titles, one thing that's been bugging me for a while now is that k_hungary can only be created by Hungarians and Avars, even when it's called Panonia. Meanwhile players of any culture can create k_magyar. My suggestion is that you add ai = no as a third possible condition that allows creating k_hungary.
Last edited: