|
Publisher: Paradox Interactive
Developer: Paradox Development Studios
System requirements: Windows XP/Vista/Win 7/Mac OSX 6.8, 2.4 GHz Pentium IV/AMD 3500+ CPU (2.0 GHz Core Duo for Mac), 2 GB RAM, GeForce 8800/Radeon X1900 graphics card (GeForce 320/Radeon HD 6750 for Mac), DirectX-compatible sound device, 2 GB hard-drive space
Genre: RTS
ESRB rating: Teen
Release date: Available now
Crusader Kings II is easily one of my favorite strategy games so far this year, and part of its excellence involves its limited design. When it was released, you could only play Christian rulers because developer Paradox made it clear they didn’t want to make playable Islamic rulers who were just carbon copies of their medieval Christian counterparts. Paradox has made good on their promise to provide quality gameplay for Islam in the Middle Ages with the release of their expansion/DLC The Sword of Islam. It has completely different game mechanics for Islamic characters and provides a radically new gaming experience, one that even surprised me after reading pre-release press.
The biggest difference in gameplay for Islamic rulers is the new decadence mechanic. While Christian rulers need to just worry about the Church and need to mind their particular ruler, Muslims from powerful dynasties find that their entire dynasty can be viewed as decadent even if individual members are smart and capable rulers. Decadence increases when male citizens are sitting around at court with nothing to do, are not participating in wars, and are not meeting their religious obligations as good Muslims. At low values of decadence, troops are more loyal and vassals more satisfied, but if decadence gets too high, vassals become less loyal, troops become less willing to follow their leaders, and, at the extreme end, a mass uprising from the population can spontaneously occur as the people try to remove an entire dynasty they feel is a blight upon the land. This makes for very explosive politics when a dynasty has outlived its perceived usefulness, but dynasties that survive these problems can at least start fresh and try to avoid decadence from accruing again.
 On the other hand, dynastic succession is also very different. All Islamic realms have what is called Turkish Succession, in which the strongest male heir succeeds his father, not necessarily the oldest. Thus, Muslims can often pick their preferred heirs before they die by making sure one son is much more powerful than the others. However, at the same time, having unlanded sons hanging around court means decadence increases, so rulers are encouraged to give some territory to all of their male children. This means upon the death of their father, the less-favored sons are far more likely to spark a succession crisis to dispute ownership of their father’s land, since they all have some of their own territory. However, the game also models relationships between male relatives differently for Islamic rulers than it does for Christian ones. Islamic leaders can freely imprison or execute their siblings, uncles and cousins without incurring the same tyranny penalty that a Christian ruler might receive. As a result, most successions tend to result in substantial familial infighting, with half the dynasty’s males ending up in prison or killed. And since Muslims can have polygamous marriages, there are often a lot of male children in the family waiting to squabble about everything. Christians in Crusader Kings II might be concerned about having enough heirs; Muslims end up worrying about having way too many.
The map has also been changed since the original game was released. Now, parts of Mali and Timbuktu are represented, making Africa way more interesting. There are also a whole host of new traits for both Christians and Muslims. The combat system has been changed substantially as well. There are now special traits for characters skilled in warfare that make them better at certain types of combat. What is perhaps most interesting is how the game plays with these changes. The new mechanics impact Islamic states even when a human is not playing them. As a result, Christians who go on Crusade should also keep track of the decadence of their opponents, as a very decadent enemy might be on the brink of collapse even if they own half the map. And now that Crusades and Jihads are wars called by the religious heads of various faiths, and are now fought over kingdom-sized tracts of land, the complicated political situation in foreign lands is something to which everyone should pay close attention.
 I’m fairly impressed with the content in Sword of Islam. The decision to focus an entire DLC pack on Islamic rulers was a good choice, preventing a homogenization of game mechanics that would blindly apply to everyone and make the game too generic. There’s plenty of good content provided overall, and it really is a different experience to play a Muslim. However, there are some issues with the game’s design. Once you fully understand how decadence works, and once you figure out how to control your fertility so that you don’t end up with a horde of male heirs, it’s very easy to keep decadence to a minimum. You can’t imprison or execute your own children to exploit succession, but if you choose to marry multiple wives with low fertility, you’re far less likely to get bloody successions. Also, if you judiciously exercise imprisonment and execution against your own male relatives, you can prune your family tree until it’s entirely composed of only your immediate family. I felt the intention of the game design was to provide for far more volatile expansion and collapse of Islamic realms, but since decadence is easy to control, it’s actually easier to play a Muslim ruler than it should be.
Despite that, the DLC is a good value. At $9.99, it really is the kind of thing that makes expansion packs look good. I can’t imagine that anyone who enjoys Crusader Kings II would not enjoy The Sword of Islam. While I could take or leave the music and sprite-pack DLCs that have been released for the base game, this one is definitely worth the money.
Our Score: 
Our Recommendation: 
|
Its difficult to make a game that forces the player to make the same mistakes that many historical figures made without putting you on rail. Thats the death knell for a strategy title so when implementing things like the decadence mechanic the designers will probably err on the side of caution. Perhaps with some good feedback they’ll find creative ways to make it more of a challenge without simply cranking up the rate at which you gain decadence, but that would probably work as a quick fix. Frankly, my biggest worry is the ACLU nutjobs coming after the studio for daring to use a title like “Sword of Islam”.
The Crusades and jihad are in no substantive way morally-equivalent.
Though some Crusaders committed crimes against Muslims, Jews, and other Christians, they did so in violation of Christ’s command and example. On the other hand, Muslims raping, pillaging, and butchering did so — and do so now — in obedience to Allah and in emulation of Muhammad.
The casus belli are vastly different also: Muslims wage jihad against non-Muslims (and other Muslims) because Muhammad called for the slavery or slaughter of all who refuse the “invitation” to convert (or, in the case of “apostate” Muslims, aren’t Muslim enough). The first Crusade was called, however, by Pope Urban II in defense of Christians under attack from — you guessed it! — Muslims obeying their religion.
amillennialist.blogspot.com
Amillennialist, both the Crusades and Jihads were called because of one thing-power.
Real religion had nothing to with it.
If Crusades were called because of religion, why did the Crusaders sack Constantinople?
In fact, while Catholics sacked, ruined and pillaged Constantinople(they used Hagia Sophia, which was at the time a Christian church! as a stable), Muslims admired it after conquering it.
Also, while Christians killed Muslims when they took Jerusalem, Salladin let Christians go when he reclaimed it for Muslims.
I’m a Serb. We’re not on good terms with Muslims(I think Serbs, in fact, have the worst relations with Muslims, of all peoples of Europe), but saying that the Crusades were oh-so-better than Jihads is plain wrong.
Tekelija,
The fact that Christians committed crimes against other Christians, Jews, and (some perhaps innocent) Muslims does not negate the fact that the first Crusade was called in defense against Islam.
Stop defending jihad.
It’s clear that you didn’t read my comments:
Though some Crusaders committed crimes against Muslims, Jews, and other Christians, they did so in violation of Christ’s command and example. On the other hand, Muslims raping, pillaging, and butchering did so — and do so now — in obedience to Allah and in emulation of Muhammad.
The casus belli are vastly different also: Muslims wage jihad against non-Muslims (and other Muslims) because Muhammad called for the slavery or slaughter of all who refuse the “invitation” to convert (or, in the case of “apostate” Muslims, aren’t Muslim enough). The first Crusade was called, however, by Pope Urban II in defense of Christians under attack from — you guessed it! — Muslims obeying their religion.
Regards,
A.
Actually, no. While there is some evidence that the Eastern half of the former Roman Empire (what was referred to as the last remaining part of the Holy Roman empire) called on Pope Innocent II for help, it is pretty definitively proven that they way-way overstepped what they were asked, and long overstayed their welcome (though it may not have helped to have Peter the Hermit come first). It sounds like you have an idealistic view of the crusades, as opposed to an in-depth study. If you can find a copy, Keith Setton’s series “The Crusades” is still one of the most detailed versions out there (vol 1-2 would be pertinent to this).
Also, pretty much all of what you wrote about jihad is wrong. Not slightly, but totally. You are taking fundamental views and applying them to all of a religion. Please let me know if you want to continue the historical or theological debate.
I would like to see how close this can come to replicating some of the more interesting points in that time though.
Hello, Sean,
This can’t be much of a debate if you address neither what I’ve written nor basic historical fact:
Pope Innocent II wasn’t pope until 1130. Pope Urban II called for the first Crusade in 1095 in response to Emperor Alexios I Komnenos’ plea for help against the Muslims murdering his people and destroying his lands.
As for jihad . . .
“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him . . .” (Muslim Book 41, Number 6985).
I’m happy to discuss these matters with you, but please, be honest.
Regards,
A.
Sorry, got the two II’s mixed up there. Urban called for the Crusade as a measure of gaining more land, as the population increases had already begun to swell both Germany and France, to the point where the land was getting so subdivided among smaller kinsman that it was almost untenable financially. There was also the thought that the Spanish invasion during the previous century had been a great proving ground for providing a war scenario with vastly extended supply lines. Given that no copy of Urban’s speech remained, various messages were propogated. Along the lower classes, it was seen as a religious undertaking (such as the rumors that even going to Jerusalem and stepping foot in its walls would bring redemption from all sins), but among the nobility and church, it was also primarily seen in a financial, property, and “bringing those Eastern sons back under the fold”, again for nominally religious reasons. When the Crusade gained Jerusalem in 1099, they killed both the Muslims and the Jews that were defending it, until “rivers of blood ran through the streets, up to the fetlocks of horses”. There had been an extended period of peace between the Muslims, Jews and other religions occupying the region for some time before the end of the 11th century. Several historians argue that the Crusades sparked a swing to the right among Muslim leaders, giving them the traction they needed for Nur-al-din and others to gain power.
Sorry I am unable to give definative source material right now, my wife and I are out of the country for a few months on a federal grant, and my research library is at home.
Hello, Sean,
Undoubtedly, the various parties involved had their own motivations and goals, but those were not the points in question.
You misrepresented my statements regarding the Crusades, and you claim that I’ve got jihad “totally wrong.”
The Medieval Sourcebook has five accounts of Urban’s call, and I’ve provided one hadith relevant to jihad.
As for your library, I’m assuming that since you are able to post here, you’ve got Internet access.
Regards,
A.
By the way, Sean, the Byzantine Empire — what remained of the Roman Empire after its collapse in the West — was not the “last remaining part of the Holy Roman empire.”
That’s another basic historical fact on which you’ve erred.
Perhaps you should reevaluate your enthusiasm for debate and your eagerness to post authoritatively.
Regards,
A.
It is clear you are deeply imbedded in what you believe, and are unwilling to change, along with hear other arguements. Therefore I am choosing not to continue to participate. While you have been polite, you have not been scholarly in your arguements at all. Anyone who assumes that a full research library is replaceable by the Internet, has obviously not used one properly. There is very little “fact” in what you are posting.
Please know that I will not be responding to any more posts about this.
Hello, again, Sean.
You make factual error after major factual error, but instead of admitting that, you engage in clumsy ad hominems and straw man arguments, as if it’s my fault that you don’t know what you think you know.
Not that there’s a need to clarify for the honest reader, but just in case you’re genuinely confused and not just cravenly impugning my integrity or my intellect: I was not arguing that the Internet is a reference library; I was pointing out that you can’t get basic historical facts straight. If your memory is so faulty, and you can’t use a search engine, then how is a “reference library” going to help?
Don’t think that libeling me allows you to save face. It’s obvious: You’ve embarrassed yourself, and now you’re running away.
Aren’t you better than that, Sean?
Regards,
A.
LOL, Classic. Kudos Mr. A
How dare you stick to the facts and not accept revisionist history?
Back to the actual game…
Unfortunately all Paradox games require a burn-in period of atleast 2-3 years before they have been patched to the point of being playable. They’ve also developed a nasty habit of bundling major fixes and AI adjustments into DLC/Expansions with no other way of obtaining them.
It appears they are using the same basic visual enhancements to the clausewitz engine as Sengoku. I found this version be more clumsy and unresponsive than the other titles using previous versions of it.
CKII could be the best thing since sliced bread and the holy grail of CKI fans (like myself) but buyer beware. If you are a Paradox newbie, thoroughly read the forums over at paradoxplaza before commiting any cash to the equation.
It’s kind of surprising that AV allows their comment forums to become places for right-wing hate speech but here we are.
“Though some Crusaders committed crimes against Muslims, Jews, and other Christians, they did so in violation of Christ’s command and example. On the other hand, Muslims raping, pillaging, and butchering did so — and do so now — in obedience to Allah and in emulation of Muhammad.”
That’s a pretty convenient way to whitewash Christian atrocities. They still committed them, and they believed they were acting in Christ’s divine will. If it is so easy for you to pull “no true Scotsmen” then I assume that when moderate (read: normal) muslims tell you that jihadist terrorists act against the nature of Islam and the will of Allah, that you agree? I can already picture the distorted quotations you’ll use in response.
“The first Crusade was called, however, by Pope Urban II in defense of Christians under attack from — you guessed it! — Muslims obeying their religion.”
Have you ever heard of propaganda?
As far as a place of “right wing” hate speech, that is a bit of a stretch. As far as I have seen this is the only thread that has converged into religion and that is because of the subject matter. I would suggest that posting to a thread that is almost 2 months old in an effort to continue an argument is not only not appropriate but not wanted.
From here on out, please keep the conversation focused on the game. If you wish to discuss religious views, both past and present, then I suggest that there are other sites more attuned to that type of discussion.
Post a Comment