https://www.paradoxplaza.com/news/New-Expansions-Announced-Crusader-Kings-II-Europa-Universalis/
Quote
COLOGNE, GERMANY — 15 August 2014 — Paradox Interactive today revealed two new game expansions for their award-winning grand strategy titles Europa Universalis IV and Crusader Kings II. The expansions, entitled "Art of War" and "Charlemagne," coming respectively to Europa Universalis IV and Crusader Kings II, will add new events, new mechanics, new in-game abilities, and plenty of new ways to change the course of history for strategy fans everywhere. Both expansions will be available for their respective games on Windows, Mac, and Linux PCs in the near future.
Charlemagne will introduce Crusader Kings II players to the man who became the "Father of Europe," uniting much of the continent for the first time since the since the fall of Rome and founding the Holy Roman Empire. Now starting in 769 AD – another century to play! – the expansion will include a series of story events that follows his rise to power, and will come with new game options to allow players to chart their own places in history – such as a new in-game "Chronicle" that highlights a dynasty's conquests, marriages, and labors for the faith. Kingdoms are also more customizable in Charlemagne with the option to create your own with custom names and banners. Join the revolution and watch the trailer for Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne here:
In Art of War, players of Europa Universalis IV will add new possibilities to explore what Clausewitz called the "continuation of politics by other means." Changes to battle mechanics will allow wily warlords to launch sorties from sieges, sell obsolete ships and transfer occupied lands to allies. A revamped Reformation system will let you relive the Thirty Years' War in a series of unique in-game events to see how they fare in Europe's greatest conflict prior to the 20th century. Once the fighting has settled down, rulers will be able to try a new set of diplomatic options inspired by the Napoleonic Era, including the creation of client states to support – or resist – revolutions. And this is just the beginning.
View the trailer for Europa Universalis IV: Art of War here:
Both CK2 and EUIV are two of my most played games the last few years so both will be day one buys for me.
Both sound like excellent additions!!
Love the idea of a Charlemagne add-on to CKII -- awesome. (EUIV still has never clicked for me, but anything to enhance the combat aspect of the game is welcome --)
I'm excited by the Charlemagne expansion for CK2 as well. I'm also very curious as to how Christianity will be represented during that time (will there still be the schism between East and West?).
The schism had started being a serious problem by then, so I should think yes. I can't imagine why it wouldn't be included simply from a political perspective.
Even more importantly: another step back into the Dark Ages! Squeeeee!
Fantastic! I was just wondering if we had seen the last of the expansions for CK2. This one is a Day 1 buy for me.
The one for EU also sounds worthwhile, albeit, I haven't spend nearly as much time in that game. I just love the medieval setting too much to tear myself away from CK. :) Poor EU: if CK2 didn't exist, that would be my most played strategy game.
Speaking of CK2: the other day I had an interesting event (when don't you ever have an interesting story to tell in CK2?). I am playing a Norse warlord who became the duke of Northumbria when his father died at the age of 41 after being maimed in a hunting accident (shame, the original duke was on track to being quite the ruler). Shortly after taking power, his son converted to Catholicism, but maintained a "rainbow coalition" duchy where pagans, Jews, and Christians all serve together in harmony. It has worked surprisingly well. Anyway, a decade or so into his rule one of his bishops is implicated in a successful assassination against his niece who then was part of the King of East Frankia's court. I immediately sent out my marshals to arrest him even if my vassals disapproved of the move. This bishop stupidly raised some of the troops of his bishopric in rebellion - which we crushed easily. Now, my initial plan was to immediately execute the bishop as a warning to others but after checking out some of my other options I realized that I could banish the bishop, strip him of his titles and grab over 200 gold that the bishop had squirreled away, all without getting my hands bloody. So that is what I did. Now I needed to appoint a new bishop of Carlisle. I needed someone who was 100% loyal for the extra revenue - the banished bishop never favored me over the pope so I never saw a dime form him. After checking out my options I realized that my perfect candidate was my third son who loved me. But he was six years old. No problem! How would you like to be a bishop even before your first communion, son? ;D
I can only imagine the reaction amongst the parishioners of Carlisle when their new bishop shows up at Mass. LOL!
Quote from: JasonPratt on August 15, 2014, 01:23:53 PM
Even more importantly: another step back into the Dark Ages! Squeeeee!
Totally agree! The Dark Ages are really underrepresented in gaming. The only game that I know of using that period is Great Invasions.
Awesome news!
Quote from: WallysWorld on August 15, 2014, 03:42:13 PM
Quote from: JasonPratt on August 15, 2014, 01:23:53 PM
Even more importantly: another step back into the Dark Ages! Squeeeee!
Totally agree! The Dark Ages are really underrepresented in gaming. The only game that I know of using that period is Great Invasions.
GI is definitely the only game I know that allows you to game the whole Dark Ages from the mid 300s schism of the Western and Eastern Empire -- so going waaaaay back to the very roots of the DAs up to, basically, Crusader King 1 (or about the time of the Norman invasion of Britain). Too bad its UI is wonkier than the original Europa Universalis 1.
MediTW 1 went back a little ways in its Viking Invasion campaign for the British Isles; that was nice.
The Barbarian expansion for the first RomeTW covered the earliest part of the DAs from a late antiquity starting date.
Quote from: Martok on August 15, 2014, 12:29:53 PM
I'm excited by the Charlemagne expansion for CK2 as well. I'm also very curious as to how Christianity will be represented during that time (will there still be the schism between East and West?).
Perhaps not officially, but the Franks had already added the more or less deviant "filoque" clause to the Nicene creed. as in "whom with the father and the son are worshipped together" (kind of a weird crack in the operation of the Trinity, but it has stayed in the western liturgy for 12 hundred years so who's complaining?).
I'll have to get my CKII back on the road -- obviously -- and work this all out.
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified."
The filioque is the bolded part which says the Spirit proceeds "from the Son" as well as from the Father. The worship of all three Persons (the underlined part) was always part of the Nicean Creed.
Also, the filioque isn't a crack -- even those who reject the filioque think it's going too far in making the Son like the Father, not schisming the Son from the Father (or the Spirit from the Son for that matter).
Also, while the introduction of the filioque officially into the Nicean Creed sure didn't help matters, and certainly became a rallying point in East/West division, the main point of contention was over just how far the authority of the Roman bishop (the Pope) was supposed to go; and that was an issue which had been brewing for a while. The filioque imposition was an example of that problem, since it hadn't been resolved by a proper ecumenical council.
(Another point of contention for a while was that, despite the anathemas of Justinian 2, a significant number of EOx bishops continued to believe in Christ's eventual salvation of all people, inherited from major trinitarian theologians from the 2nd into the 5th centuries, though it started to fall out of favor around the time the barbarians started knocking on the gates of Rome. Not long after open schism, the Pope was requiring Eastern bishops requesting terms of recommunion to affirm three points: papal supremacy in deciding matters of faith and practice; the filioque; and rejection of universal salvation. Eventually most of the EOx leaders rejected universal salvation, too, but the first two points remained sticklers, though in recent decades a lot of work has been done reconciling the filioque question -- and the RC leadership is much more open to the possibility universal salvation than they've been for over a thousand years, as are EOx leaders.)
Anyway. The filioque is a pretty subtle dispute among trinitarians. I don't blame the EOx who don't accept it, even though I do (for obscure technical reasons); and I sure wouldn't expect non-Christians to care the slightest either way. :)
Quote from: JasonPratt on August 18, 2014, 01:05:46 PM
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified."
Thank you, Jason.
You see! You see how incredibly educational CKII can be!
I have to get back into this Dark Age business.
Quote from: JasonPratt on August 18, 2014, 01:05:46 PM
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified."
The filioque is the bolded part which says the Spirit proceeds "from the Son" as well as from the Father. The worship of all three Persons (the underlined part) was always part of the Nicean Creed.
Also, the filioque isn't a crack -- even those who reject the filioque think it's going too far in making the Son like the Father, not schisming the Son from the Father (or the Spirit from the Son for that matter).
Also, while the introduction of the filioque officially into the Nicean Creed sure didn't help matters, and certainly became a rallying point in East/West division, the main point of contention was over just how far the authority of the Roman bishop (the Pope) was supposed to go; and that was an issue which had been brewing for a while. The filioque imposition was an example of that problem, since it hadn't been resolved by a proper ecumenical council.
(Another point of contention for a while was that, despite the anathemas of Justinian 2, a significant number of EOx bishops continued to believe in Christ's eventual salvation of all people, inherited from major trinitarian theologians from the 2nd into the 5th centuries, though it started to fall out of favor around the time the barbarians started knocking on the gates of Rome. Not long after open schism, the Pope was requiring Eastern bishops requesting terms of recommunion to affirm three points: papal supremacy in deciding matters of faith and practice; the filioque; and rejection of universal salvation. Eventually most of the EOx leaders rejected universal salvation, too, but the first two points remained sticklers, though in recent decades a lot of work has been done reconciling the filioque question -- and the RC leadership is much more open to the possibility universal salvation than they've been for over a thousand years, as are EOx leaders.)
Anyway. The filioque is a pretty subtle dispute among trinitarians. I don't blame the EOx who don't accept it, even though I do (for obscure technical reasons); and I sure wouldn't expect non-Christians to care the slightest either way. :)
If only God had made things a bit clearer in the Bible, people wouldn't have had to invent all the Trinity stuff to try to make sense out of the confusion. It sure would have saved a lot of lives (and souls too, of course. ::)).
Quote from: Ubercat on August 18, 2014, 01:51:35 PM
Quote from: JasonPratt on August 18, 2014, 01:05:46 PM
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified."
The filioque is the bolded part which says the Spirit proceeds "from the Son" as well as from the Father. The worship of all three Persons (the underlined part) was always part of the Nicean Creed.
Also, the filioque isn't a crack -- even those who reject the filioque think it's going too far in making the Son like the Father, not schisming the Son from the Father (or the Spirit from the Son for that matter).
Also, while the introduction of the filioque officially into the Nicean Creed sure didn't help matters, and certainly became a rallying point in East/West division, the main point of contention was over just how far the authority of the Roman bishop (the Pope) was supposed to go; and that was an issue which had been brewing for a while. The filioque imposition was an example of that problem, since it hadn't been resolved by a proper ecumenical council.
(Another point of contention for a while was that, despite the anathemas of Justinian 2, a significant number of EOx bishops continued to believe in Christ's eventual salvation of all people, inherited from major trinitarian theologians from the 2nd into the 5th centuries, though it started to fall out of favor around the time the barbarians started knocking on the gates of Rome. Not long after open schism, the Pope was requiring Eastern bishops requesting terms of recommunion to affirm three points: papal supremacy in deciding matters of faith and practice; the filioque; and rejection of universal salvation. Eventually most of the EOx leaders rejected universal salvation, too, but the first two points remained sticklers, though in recent decades a lot of work has been done reconciling the filioque question -- and the RC leadership is much more open to the possibility universal salvation than they've been for over a thousand years, as are EOx leaders.)
Anyway. The filioque is a pretty subtle dispute among trinitarians. I don't blame the EOx who don't accept it, even though I do (for obscure technical reasons); and I sure wouldn't expect non-Christians to care the slightest either way. :)
If only God had made things a bit clearer in the Bible, people wouldn't have had to invent all the Trinity stuff to try to make sense out of the confusion. It sure would have saved a lot of lives (and souls too, of course. ::)).
I vote for Universal Salvation! (a general view point that was called Pelagasian in the old days and Armininian in the early modern days and just plain "a Good Idea" currently). Save everyone. Let God sort them out.
Real problems between East and West started to boil during Leo and the Byzantine Iconoclasm, which is contemporary with Charlemagne. However, it is about 200 years later that the whole Filoque debate created major divides (Filo = Son and que is a Latin ending meaning "and" - like SPQR, Senatus Populusque Romanus - the Senate and the People of Rome). A lot of that has to do with eleventh century social changes throughout the medieval world and the schism gets brushed aside with the coming of the First Crusade some decades later. The first three Crusades damaged East-West relations heavily, and were probably just as influential on a breaking apart of the Church as theological debates. Much of it all has to do with property seizures and the question over Sicily (not to mention bad blood with the Norman decedents of Robert Guiscard).
I'm all for Charlemagne, but I find the early middle ages far less dynamic than the later middle ages. Which is why I specialize in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries!
Quote from: JasonPratt on August 18, 2014, 01:05:46 PM
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified."
I've heard that the way out of the Filioque Schism is to translate the Latin back into the Greek as "Who proceeds from the Father
and through the Son. After that it's just Poe-
Tay-toe/Poe-
Tah-toe.
SoM, that's all true, too, as contributing factors. It certainly wasn't a point-source break.
Stagger, yes that has been proposed by various authorities on either side -- I'm not sure if it started with the Russian Orthodox Bulgakov, but I know (from reading his works) he was a major proponent of it. I
think Balthasar on the RC side may have been, too, but I'm much less sure. (Both, incidentally, hugely influential in their respective communions, and both got as close to Christian universalism as they thought was allowable, though Bulgakov did go farther.)
For obscure technical reasons I wouldn't want to
only say "through the Son", but I would also affirm it and not deny it, and I understand the historical argument for the proposed reconciliation along that line -- also it allows theologians on either side to take it a bit further either way (like "from the Son not only through the Son", or "only through the Son not from the Son"), while still acknowledging the common belief for purposes of fellowship and teamwork.
I do think "from the Son" can be argued and presented in such a way that it avoids the legitimate concerns the EOx have about the proposition -- I also think it's unexpectedly important in affirming the idea that foundational reality is actively self-generating instead of statically existent (or blindly unpurposefully reactive and counterreactive perhaps). Which turns out to be closely connected to the affirmation of our own responsible ability to personally act and thus to make any argument at all.
But man, some hardcore philosophy there, don't worry about it! :D
Quote from: MengJiao on August 18, 2014, 02:10:51 PMI vote for Universal Salvation! (a general view point that was called Pelagasian in the old days and Armininian in the early modern days and just plain "a Good Idea" currently). Save everyone. Let God sort them out.
Eh, not quite; Pelagius did affirm God acted toward saving all sinners from sin (as did all orthodox theologians generally up to his point -- a position they strenuously took over-against the Gnostic groups generally speaking), but he expressly denied God would succeed at it. Augustine, after starting out affirming both doctrines (total scope and totally victorious persistence in salvation), eventually went hard denying the first against Pelagius and strongly affirming the second which Pelagius denied.
They weren't the first theologians to deny one or the other gospel assurance, but their duel fractured the issues hard in their day. A lot of key trinitarian authorities explicitly affirmed both, however, before and during their day (and for a little while after), and sometimes took it to the logical conclusion that God would eventually save everyone (even devils) through Christ.
Basically one or the other assurance has to be denied for some kind of hopeless punishment or fate for some sinners to be true, however, so the concept came up again in early Protestantism when Calvin took a hard line on God not even intending to save some sinners (and so logically even choosing that they would not be saved and could never do any righteousness at all); and Arminius taking the line that God acts to save everyone but for one or another reason stops short of victory at some point (though avoiding the idea attributed, possibly wrongly, to Pelagius that people earn their salvation by good works). Roman Catholics have tended in recent centuries to go with the total scope and not total assurance, but naturally there have been strong pushes in RC history the other way, too. The Eastern Orthodox, so far as I've ever read from their history, have never denied the total scope, only (eventually) the total assurance of salvific victory.
I've heard there are similar disputes among Muslims on the topic, but I haven't read nearly as much about that.
Calvs and Arms (and the catholic predecessors and parallels)
do agree generally on evangelizing everyone, though. :) They just don't agree with each other on whether God seriously evangelizes everyone (Calvs say no) or whether God will evangelize everyone to salvific victory (Arms say no, with a number of sub-theories on where and why the quitting happens).
I say yes, God acts to save everyone from sin and keeps at it until it gets done, however long that may take. :) All cats get herded home, even the 100th cat (to paraphrase a parable) -- but cats being cats, and not mere puppets of cats, that can take a while!
(And also results in a number of bloody scratches meanwhile. :buck2: )
Uber,
Well, trying to explain the philosophical equivalent of quantum physics to shepherds isn't likely to result in anything that looks much like a textbook on quantum physics (or the philosophical equivalent thereof). ;)
Still, it wasn't like we (I mean we Christians)
weren't expressly warned, numerous times in various ways,
not to advocate hopeless punishment or an unmerciful and non-salvific justice (lest we taste the judgment we insist on for other people)! But there you go, we did it anyway, like a passel of cats. Sorry. :-\ :buck2:
The baby goats interpret the parable of the judgment of the baby-goats the way baby-goats would (starting with obscuring that the judgment is about
baby-goats, the least of the flock right there on the scene); the mature flock, who insist on saving even the least of the flock (such as for example the baby-goats), are accepted by God and avoid the discipline of the eonian fire even though they had no idea they were serving God at all.
So obviously it isn't about having the right doctrinal ideas about God. (That's important, where it can get done, but not
that important.) God knows which atheists or other non-Christians are actually on His side already -- and which Christians actually aren't yet.
Meanwhile: I wonder if this EU4 update means they're prepping to synch better (or at all) with Vicky 2? I noticed they're already working on HOI4, but when will the break in the middle be reconciled? Or have fans done that already?!
(Well I had to get back to the thread topic eventually. ;) )
Quote from: son_of_montfort on August 18, 2014, 06:51:11 PM
Real problems between East and West started to boil during Leo and the Byzantine Iconoclasm, which is contemporary with Charlemagne. However, it is about 200 years later that the whole Filoque debate created major divides (Filo = Son and que is a Latin ending meaning "and" - like SPQR, Senatus Populusque Romanus - the Senate and the People of Rome). A lot of that has to do with eleventh century social changes throughout the medieval world and the schism gets brushed aside with the coming of the First Crusade some decades later. The first three Crusades damaged East-West relations heavily, and were probably just as influential on a breaking apart of the Church as theological debates. Much of it all has to do with property seizures and the question over Sicily (not to mention bad blood with the Norman decedents of Robert Guiscard).
I'm all for Charlemagne, but I find the early middle ages far less dynamic than the later middle ages. Which is why I specialize in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries!
This is all fine and good, but no correction on the use of dark ages? You're slipping! :))
I much more looking forward to this expansion than I was India expansion or /shutter/ the Aztec invasion. Charlemagne is just one of those iconic figures. The odd thing with Charlemagne is just how under represented he and his empire are in gaming. I honestly cannot think of another game featuring him.
Quote from: JasonPratt on August 18, 2014, 08:50:30 PM
(Well I had to get back to the thread topic eventually. ;) )
I feel the detour was very enlightening, though I also feel a bit like Charlemagne secretly trying to learn to read. I assume that is the best front his biographers could put on his illiteracy.
So, yep. Back to the Carolingian Enlightenment in the near future.
Quote from: Bison on August 18, 2014, 10:08:25 PM
This is all fine and good, but no correction on the use of dark ages? You're slipping! :))
I guess we qualified it enough upthread. ;)
I actually like the designation, despite it being originally negative propaganda. The period between the fall of the Western Empire and the recovery of Europe by the heirs of the Empire, has a distinct character all its own, and even a logical transition-out point: the Norman invasion of Britain, the first of the major wars between Christian powers.
Quote from: Bison on August 18, 2014, 10:08:25 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on August 18, 2014, 06:51:11 PM
Real problems between East and West started to boil during Leo and the Byzantine Iconoclasm, which is contemporary with Charlemagne. However, it is about 200 years later that the whole Filoque debate created major divides (Filo = Son and que is a Latin ending meaning "and" - like SPQR, Senatus Populusque Romanus - the Senate and the People of Rome). A lot of that has to do with eleventh century social changes throughout the medieval world and the schism gets brushed aside with the coming of the First Crusade some decades later. The first three Crusades damaged East-West relations heavily, and were probably just as influential on a breaking apart of the Church as theological debates. Much of it all has to do with property seizures and the question over Sicily (not to mention bad blood with the Norman decedents of Robert Guiscard).
I'm all for Charlemagne, but I find the early middle ages far less dynamic than the later middle ages. Which is why I specialize in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries!
This is all fine and good, but no correction on the use of dark ages? You're slipping! :))
I much more looking forward to this expansion than I was India expansion or /shutter/ the Aztec invasion. Charlemagne is just one of those iconic figures. The odd thing with Charlemagne is just how under represented he and his empire are in gaming. I honestly cannot think of another game featuring him.
I agree with you, and I will make sure I get this expansion for my CK2 game too - not that I get enough time to play it that much... :(
As far as Charlemagne is concerned AGEOD is planning to take their
Alea Jacta Est game to cover the campaigns of Charlemagne, so you should see some more in the future. That's not gossip either - both Pocus and Philippe Thibaut told me that. 8)
Quote from: Bison on August 18, 2014, 10:08:25 PM
This is all fine and good, but no correction on the use of dark ages? You're slipping! :))
Quite right! LOL!
Quote from: Boggit on August 19, 2014, 04:28:18 PM
As far as Charlemagne is concerned AGEOD is planning to take their Alea Jacta Est game to cover the campaigns of Charlemagne, so you should see some more in the future. That's not gossip either - both Pocus and Philippe Thibaut told me that. 8)
Now THAT is a game I would love to play! I look forward to that coming out!
Quote from: son_of_montfort on August 19, 2014, 07:40:09 PM
Quote from: Boggit on August 19, 2014, 04:28:18 PM
As far as Charlemagne is concerned AGEOD is planning to take their Alea Jacta Est game to cover the campaigns of Charlemagne, so you should see some more in the future. That's not gossip either - both Pocus and Philippe Thibaut told me that. 8)
Now THAT is a game I would love to play! I look forward to that coming out!
Sadly, it's not going to be this year, nor perhaps next. I'm aware they are working on 2 new DLC at the moment - both still in the Roman era. The intention though is to take the game at least as far as Charlemagne, and perhaps beyond depending on how the DLC is received.
:o
THEY'RE GOING TO PROPERLY GAME THE DAs!
squee
uh, I mean SQUEEEEONK!!
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.moviepilot-cdn.com%2Fgodzilla-2014-review-spoileriffic-b0d6f9d3-c003-4191-82c4-65e101be7ca5.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D800%26amp%3Bheight%3D502&hash=fe2926b3ee317a5eea582105117176da4739a745)
Because I did not just squee.
First developer diary for EUIV - The Art of War is out.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?796940-Eu4-Art-of-War-Development-Diary-1-Fleets-Autonomy-amp-India (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?796940-Eu4-Art-of-War-Development-Diary-1-Fleets-Autonomy-amp-India)
I really like the changes they are making to fleet management, especially being able to mothball (reduce maintenance) for individual fleets. The fleet upgrade button is a nice addition as well.
I'm a little weary of them expanding the number of provinces after the CK2 Rajas of India debacle. If they can expand the total number of provinces without a huge performance hit I'm OK with it, but if not I'd much rather the map stay as it is.
CK2 Charlemagne dev video out:
Snow! :D
But now that I watched the whole thing I think the best part for me is the chronicle of your family. I always enjoyed the chronicle in EU4 (even if it wasn't perfect), so I am glad to see it come to CK2. The rest...eh. I do understand the removal of the assassination button. To me, it was redundant seeing the plot mechanics, so I don't mind seeing that go.
Overall, though, nothing I was really pining away for. Still, I will be getting it.
Update from Paradox:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...1#post18098905
Highlights:
QuoteIn Crusader Kings 2: Charlemagne, rulers will no longer be restricted to the predefined de jure kingdoms and empires on the map when they wish to take a step up in rank. Any duke that has a large enough realm and enough prestige can now declare himself a king. The new kingdom will initially have no de jure lands, but it will gain them with time (if it survives). In the same way, a powerful king can declare a new empire. The new title will inherit its name and coat of arms from the primary duchy or kingdom title that the ruler had before.
Another new feature is something we've wanted to add to Crusader Kings II for a long time. As you play through a long campaign, you are effectively creating the epic story of your dynasty, and we've always felt that it would be nice to create some kind of record of this, something that enables you to look back on your history and that you can also keep as a record after the game. This is why we've now added the Dynasty Chronicle. The Chronicle will register any important events that happen to the characters you play, such as births, marriages, wars, deaths, important decisions etc. It will also mention major world events such as the arrival of the Mongols, the Crusades and the start of the Viking Age. You will be able to review your family chronicle at any time through the in-game interface, and you will also be able to export it to a text file so that you can keep it and share it with your friends. Maybe you'll even want to format it in a fancy font, print it in color and show it off properly.
The first change is that the assassination diplomacy action has been removed. Since we introduced plots in Crusader Kings II, we've really had two different and wholly separated systems for assassinations. No longer. The click-to-assassinate mechanic was, to be honest, somewhat obsolete considering how the game has evolved over the past few years. From now you'll have to run a proper plot in order to kill someone, which also makes for much more interesting gameplay. The second change to assassinations is that we've added a way for you to defend yourself from those who would plot your untimely death. There is now a new decision called "Go Into Hiding", which allows you to remove yourself from the public eye for as long as you desire and thus greatly decrease the chance of any murder plots against you succeeding. The decision is available at any time that there is a known or suspected murder plot against you (you might be wrong of course, but being paranoid doesn't mean that they're not actually out to get you). This new mechanic will have a number of new events associated with it.
The worst part with these expansions is waiting for them. Whenever I hear about the new coming features, I suddenly lose interest in the current game. :)
Don't know how I got a double post. Please delete. :-\
Wow. The new Kingdom system is something I had hoped for, but didn't expect to see in CK2. Those rigid pre-fab'd Kingdoms were nice goals to aim for but at the same time there were many potential Kingdoms still missing from the game. This should resolve that problem. Excellent. O0
Quote from: RooksBailey on September 24, 2014, 03:39:49 PM
Update from Paradox:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...1#post18098905
Highlights:
QuoteIn Crusader Kings 2: Charlemagne, rulers will no longer be restricted to the predefined de jure kingdoms and empires on the map when they wish to take a step up in rank. Any duke that has a large enough realm and enough prestige can now declare himself a king. The new kingdom will initially have no de jure lands, but it will gain them with time (if it survives). In the same way, a powerful king can declare a new empire. The new title will inherit its name and coat of arms from the primary duchy or kingdom title that the ruler had before.
Another new feature is something we've wanted to add to Crusader Kings II for a long time. As you play through a long campaign, you are effectively creating the epic story of your dynasty, and we've always felt that it would be nice to create some kind of record of this, something that enables you to look back on your history and that you can also keep as a record after the game. This is why we've now added the Dynasty Chronicle. The Chronicle will register any important events that happen to the characters you play, such as births, marriages, wars, deaths, important decisions etc. It will also mention major world events such as the arrival of the Mongols, the Crusades and the start of the Viking Age. You will be able to review your family chronicle at any time through the in-game interface, and you will also be able to export it to a text file so that you can keep it and share it with your friends. Maybe you'll even want to format it in a fancy font, print it in color and show it off properly.
The first change is that the assassination diplomacy action has been removed. Since we introduced plots in Crusader Kings II, we've really had two different and wholly separated systems for assassinations. No longer. The click-to-assassinate mechanic was, to be honest, somewhat obsolete considering how the game has evolved over the past few years. From now you'll have to run a proper plot in order to kill someone, which also makes for much more interesting gameplay. The second change to assassinations is that we've added a way for you to defend yourself from those who would plot your untimely death. There is now a new decision called "Go Into Hiding", which allows you to remove yourself from the public eye for as long as you desire and thus greatly decrease the chance of any murder plots against you succeeding. The decision is available at any time that there is a known or suspected murder plot against you (you might be wrong of course, but being paranoid doesn't mean that they're not actually out to get you). This new mechanic will have a number of new events associated with it.
The worst part with these expansions is waiting for them. Whenever I hear about the new coming features, I suddenly lose interest in the current game. :)
Same here. It allows me to pretend to role-play going into hiding.
I've been holding off starting a campaign PRECISELY FOR THE SAKE OF THIS EXPANSION!
Come. Come, expansion, come...
Charlamagne has a release date, October 14th. (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/content.php?2002-Relive-the-Glory-of-Charlemagne-on-October-14)
Wow, Jason's creepy, black magic chant worked!
Quote from: Kushan on October 04, 2014, 03:25:53 PM
Charlamagne has a release date, October 14th. (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/content.php?2002-Relive-the-Glory-of-Charlemagne-on-October-14)
Gonna be hard to resist that one when it's released. Even though I expect it to require at least one patch afterward.
Gotta admit, this was the way I had hoped the CK2 DLC would go. I wonder if they'll have a start date bookmark for after he dies and the splitting of the empire begins? *rubs hands together maniacally*
I think I'm going to go ahead and pick up EUIV complete for 25 clams tomorrow. I absolutely love CK2 and for 25 smakeroos EUIV should be a safe bet.
^^ At least as a direct sequel to which you can port your CK2 campaign! (If you bought that DLC for doing so.)
Holy Christ, my creepy dark magic summoning worked!
...
...........
Sang-froid twooooo, ooooooooo, OOOOOOOOOO!
Quote from: Nefaro on October 04, 2014, 08:25:21 PM
Quote from: Kushan on October 04, 2014, 03:25:53 PM
Charlamagne has a release date, October 14th. (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/content.php?2002-Relive-the-Glory-of-Charlemagne-on-October-14)
Gonna be hard to resist that one when it's released. Even though I expect it to require at least one patch afterward.
I'm holding off learning the special CKish details of this Paradox engine, precisely so that after buying this expansion I'll give them time to stomp initial bugs before starting a campaign.
Quote from: JasonPratt on October 05, 2014, 12:42:47 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on October 04, 2014, 08:25:21 PM
Quote from: Kushan on October 04, 2014, 03:25:53 PM
Charlamagne has a release date, October 14th. (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/content.php?2002-Relive-the-Glory-of-Charlemagne-on-October-14)
Gonna be hard to resist that one when it's released. Even though I expect it to require at least one patch afterward.
I'm holding off learning the special CKish details of this Paradox engine, precisely so that after buying this expansion I'll give them time to stomp initial bugs before starting a campaign.
Dunno.. we could have new bugs even without owning the upcoming DLC since they've taken a modular approach to it (which is generally wonderful). The core game will also gets so that it's still compatible with the latest DLC even if we don't own it.
The really great thing about that is everyone gets some of the new base features, even without the DLC - and we don't have to worry about multi-player compatibility! But we also get any new bugs it may have. There is usually a slew of patches after each new big DLC for CK2, even if you don't own it. So I may wait a couple weeks until that has calmed down.
Ok, I just pimped out my CK2 game and also picked up the EUIV bundle. My CK2 is starting to be quite the expensive collection. I thought I already had most of the DLC but I just managed to buy an additional $20 worth of stuff...the game has to be getting close to an $80 or so investment by this point. It's worth it, but still.
I'm pretty stoked. Both games are a pretty safe bet from a cost/benefit perspective.
I always buy my DLC in sales. As really CK2 does benefit from all the major DLC and even the minor ones to be honest.
Interesting final dev diary for CKII Charlemagne today -- they've done some serious tweaking of how pagan tribes play --
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/content.php?2006-Crusader-Kings-II-Charlemagne-Dev-Diary-4-The-Tribes&s=d6738a70b9a576142e4bce4f7c3d7c61 (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/content.php?2006-Crusader-Kings-II-Charlemagne-Dev-Diary-4-The-Tribes&s=d6738a70b9a576142e4bce4f7c3d7c61)
The replayability of CKII is really impressive to me. I've put many hours into this game, and have yet to play a serious campaign as a Venetian/Mediterranean Doge, Muslim sultan, Germanic warlord, Mongol khan, Indian raja, etc. etc. (Maybe time to branch out?) Agree that these DLC sales are ideal time to load up. I have not been able to resist grabbing all the DLC for CKII and EUIV during these sales, with the exception of the music dlcs, or "Sunset Invasion," which just strikes me as dumb.
Quote from: sandman2575 on October 08, 2014, 10:22:53 AM
Interesting final dev diary for CKII Charlemagne today -- they've done some serious tweaking of how pagan tribes play --
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/content.php?2006-Crusader-Kings-II-Charlemagne-Dev-Diary-4-The-Tribes&s=d6738a70b9a576142e4bce4f7c3d7c61 (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/content.php?2006-Crusader-Kings-II-Charlemagne-Dev-Diary-4-The-Tribes&s=d6738a70b9a576142e4bce4f7c3d7c61)
O0
Yeah, I haven't gotten Sunset Invasion either, though once I play a few campaigns I may pick it up just to see how well it screws with the normal flow. Part of me wonders how compatible it is with all the "real" expansions that came afterward; and how compatible it is with the conversion code for taking a game into EU4; and now I'm developing an unhealthy desire to run it actively from the beginning just to see what happens. :D
Curious if anyone here has used the "CKII to EUIV" converter? For all the time I've put into CKII, I've never actually played a campaign to completion. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever played any Pdox game to its 'official' end-date?
Quote from: sandman2575 on October 08, 2014, 02:40:00 PM
Curious if anyone here has used the "CKII to EUIV" converter? For all the time I've put into CKII, I've never actually played a campaign to completion. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever played any Pdox game to its 'official' end-date?
You don't have to play a game to completion to use the converter. I've converted a Old Gods game right from the start. Was one of my more interesting EUIV games. I also converted my Kingdom of Italy save but didn't play that one for more the. a few years.
Quote from: sandman2575 on October 08, 2014, 02:40:00 PM
Curious if anyone here has used the "CKII to EUIV" converter? For all the time I've put into CKII, I've never actually played a campaign to completion. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever played any Pdox game to its 'official' end-date?
Not yet, though I've been wanting to very much. Seems like when I start getting a campaign going in depth, they release a new update/DLC and I end up starting over so that I don't miss any of the improvements. And then I hop to other games when it's announced that more are on the way. :))
As for how Sunset Invasion affects the CK2-to-EU4 Converter, I've read that it does okay but sets it up a bit differently. Some of the new world tribes start off larger and more powerful, for obvious reasons, after converting to EU4. So for those of you who want stronger American tribes to start off with in EU4, you may want to go this route.
Quote from: Kushan on October 08, 2014, 03:27:36 PM
You don't have to play a game to completion to use the converter. I've converted a Old Gods game right from the start. Was one of my more interesting EUIV games. I also converted my Kingdom of Italy save but didn't play that one for more the. a few years.
Definitely did not know this! Thanks!
Well, Charlemagne is out today. Anyone playing?
Quote from: sandman2575 on October 14, 2014, 12:02:26 PM
Well, Charlemagne is out today. Anyone playing?
Yurp... got it from GMG with 25% off :D
PE
I will distract myself from the fact that I'm at work for another few hours by asking Nefaro how that worked: did the EU game consequently start back at in 867, or did the situations there start in an EU timeline? Including 867 tech levels?
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flinesofcommand.com%2Fimages%2Ffrankla.jpg&hash=5ca40fad82696408a1f3d2788d88afd629abc4ad)
Quote from: sandman2575 on October 14, 2014, 12:02:26 PM
Well, Charlemagne is out today. Anyone playing?
In another 4.5 hours I will be.
1.5 hours more or less, including dl time.
Assuming I don't collapse from the unexpected illness I seem to be picking up today which, now that I think of it, may prevent me from coming to work tomorrow... :buck2:
Quote from: JasonPratt on October 14, 2014, 01:22:13 PM
I will distract myself from the fact that I'm at work for another few hours by asking Nefaro how that worked: did the EU game consequently start back at in 867, or did the situations there start in an EU timeline? Including 867 tech levels?
I don't know. Like I said, I've not yet tried it myself.
I think it starts off at the beginning of the EU4 timeline.
Oh, sorry, I meant Kushan.
AND NOW IT IS MINE!! My pressscccciiiouuusssss....
Quote from: JasonPratt on October 14, 2014, 04:33:34 PM
Oh, sorry, I meant Kushan.
AND NOW IT IS MINE!! My pressscccciiiouuusssss....
Sooooo...
Any major issues with the Charlemagne DLC & update yet?
I planned on waiting until the first big post-release patch but I may slip.
Quote from: JasonPratt on October 14, 2014, 01:22:13 PM
I will distract myself from the fact that I'm at work for another few hours by asking Nefaro how that worked: did the EU game consequently start back at in 867, or did the situations there start in an EU timeline? Including 867 tech levels?
It starts the game off in 1444. Game jumps forward 600 years. Its a rather complex process. For instance if you converted a game where the viking paganism religion had been reformed then it will be a religion when converted, but if you just convert right from the start of the Old Gods, then paganism gets converted to something else.
Not having the usual EUIV player (England, France, etc) really made it a more unique experience.
Quote from: Nefaro on October 15, 2014, 12:12:00 AM
Any major issues with the Charlemagne DLC & update yet?
I played for a bit tonight, haven't noticed any major bugs. Performance wise the game is running perfect. I love the new snow effects. Had my army campaigning in winter and had attrition tear my army up.
I'm a little disappointed in the Charlemagne event chain. Seems like if you play Charlemagne the event chain will always happen, and after a few years you'll end up back in control of both halves of the Frankish empire without an input from you. I could be wrong, I started two games as Charlemagne and it happened both times. Not sure what happens if you start as his brother. Its a nice bit of historical storytelling I'd like to see more of but I hope there's a chance things wont work out, and you and Karlman will have to fight it out.
Noticed no issues last night, though they haven't made it any easier to load new games (and maybe a touch harder, since they've added an extra layer to the single player start process, so new players will have a better idea what's available at the various start dates.
The new update and/or DLC seems to break a lot of save games, especially on Ironman, so I kind of recommend waiting to update until finishing any current campaign. But if someone is running Steam autoupdate, you'll either be afflicted with this (and know about it) already, or you'll already know it isn't a problem for you.
I'm thinking about starting an advice-seeking AAR, as I haven't played much of CK2 (despite a shocking number of hours already logged, relative to the non-amount of game I've played).
Played a little late last night and so far so good. I did not start the Charlemagne campaign but did start in 1444 in Wessex and trying to build a New Empire. I can see a lot of time sink for me into this game, the best Paradox has ever produced.
PE
Quote from: Nefaro on October 15, 2014, 12:12:00 AM
Quote from: JasonPratt on October 14, 2014, 04:33:34 PM
Oh, sorry, I meant Kushan.
AND NOW IT IS MINE!! My pressscccciiiouuusssss....
Sooooo...
Any major issues with the Charlemagne DLC & update yet?
I planned on waiting until the first big post-release patch but I may slip.
I looked around the world of 759 a little. Maybe I'll be Burgundy.
Started a new EUIV Austria AAR
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=11840.0