New DLC for CK2 and EUIV Announced

[Kushan]

https://www.paradoxplaza.com/news/New-Expansions-Announced-Crusader-Kings-II-Europa-Universalis/

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.

[TacticalWargames]

Both sound like excellent additions!!

[sandman2575]

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 --)

[Martok]

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?). 

[JasonPratt]

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!

[RooksBailey]

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! 

[WallysWorld]

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.

[TheCommandTent]

Awesome news!

[JasonPratt]

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.

[MengJiao]

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.

[JasonPratt]

"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. :)

[MengJiao]

"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.

[Ubercat]

"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.  ::)).

[MengJiao]

"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.

[son_of_montfort]

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!