DLC idea - Qabila - Desert tribes, Slaves, Cadet branches and enhanced islam

[Thure]

Yeah, "second" DLCs are actually pretty common. I remember being pissed when Charlemagne launched with the features that should have been in Legacy of Rome (that is, Imperial Administration). So, if you wanted a proper Byzantine experience, you paid twice.

Likewise with Tribal governments, as someone noted above. You got a glimpse at it with The Old Gods, but proper implementation didn't come until Charlemagne.

I wouldn't mind paying for a "Clans of the Sands" or "Voodoo Chiefs" DLCs to finally get proper Muslims and West Africans.

I don't really see how West Africa can work with the game, though. I usually defend map extensions, but West Africa generally doesn't hook up in a way that's realistic. It doesn't even fit in the EU4 timeline. I would hope that any expansion that helped flesh out West Africa would also at least attempt to represent the fact that Whites and jungles don't get along, so that you don't have Spaniards rampaging through the Sahel.

But, you also have the Chinese Question if you make the West Africa historically powerful/secure... in that it may end up blobbing all outside of its home territories. I think having Nomadic-province bridges pretty well solves that issue, in that there are diplomatic connections, but no real "invasion routes." Which is how it should historically be. Maybe an African king could end up transitioning into a horde, and you'd have a Black invasion of Sicily, settling down when they get there. THAT would be fascinating to make an AAR out of.

The Problem is... they CAN'T make this DLC. You can't use this DLC without Sword of Islam. This DLC would requiere you to own another DLC. This is something Paradox wouldn't do.This is not comparable to Chaarlemagne and LoR.

As part of a free patch... yes. But it's not possible as own DLC. Sadly.

 

[NakedBeast]

More like another game. That time period... even parts of what CK2 currently represents... needs a more demographics-focused game to properly represent it.

Agreed.
I'd also like CK2 to be more demographic. Could be represented by provinces having population stat. Things like province being constantly pillaged or levies raised and lost all the time should reduce population. Basically nearly every existing mechanic can be used to affect population, technology, events, taxes, being capitol of empire etc. What for? For example, taxes and levies having population multiplier and certain buildings unlocked and working only with enough population.
This could, for example, represent decline of Constantinople. Currently in game it doesnt become much poorer and it doesnt give less levies even if Byzantine is reduced to single county. Also would make growth of county prosperity more realistic and better represent armies growing over centuries then current system.

 

[elvain]

The Problem is... they CAN'T make this DLC. You can't use this DLC without Sword of Islam. This DLC would requiere you to own another DLC. This is something Paradox wouldn't do.This is not comparable to Chaarlemagne and LoR.

As part of a free patch... yes. But it's not possible as own DLC. Sadly.

Can you use HL without ToG? Can you play as nomadic pagan withou the DLC which unlocks pagans? Yes, you can.
Thus you don't need SoI for this. Period

Edit: There is enough other content exclusive for this DLC, the new bookmark, I could expand it into mechanics exclusive for West Africans (the same way like Nomads in HL) and the rest (the mulk government, the map fix and the slave soldiers) can come in the free patch... or not even that.

if you buy the DLC it would unlock the Qabila government (desert nomads, mainly muslim) and the Mulk government and the use of slave soldiers for muslims who are not tribal (Qabilas) even if you don't own SoI, just like HL unlocks Nomadic government and Horde mechanics for pagans, who are otherwise tied to ToG. There will still be the Iqta government system, which will be reformed in a free patch. You won't need decadence, because Asabiya can work without it, though the 2 combined would of course make the game better. The decadence reform would be also content of the free patch.

If you don't want to make it working, as you obviously don't, you can find billion reasons why you can't, If you want make it work, you will find the way to make it (just like if PDS want China, they will find their way to add it no matter the cost).

 

[elvain]

Agreed.
I'd also like CK2 to be more demographic. Could be represented by provinces having population stat. Things like province being constantly pillaged or levies raised and lost all the time should reduce population. Basically nearly every existing mechanic can be used to affect population, technology, events, taxes, being capitol of empire etc. What for? For example, taxes and levies having population multiplier and certain buildings unlocked and working only with enough population.
This could, for example, represent decline of Constantinople. Currently in game it doesnt become much poorer and it doesnt give less levies even if Byzantine is reduced to single county. Also would make growth of county prosperity more realistic and better represent armies growing over centuries then current system.

That's actually a good idea, but... well what for? The impact would IMHO need to be little bigger. I could imagine it with mechanics like colonizations being introduced, together with some kind of economy. Maybe in a more in-depth trade mechanics connected to inland trade?
Could be a completely new DLC focused on economical and population aspects of the game, which I would really appreciate. Not sure how many others, though.

 

[yezhanquan]

Can you use HL without ToG? Can you play as nomadic pagan withou the DLC which unlocks pagans? Yes, you can.
Thus you don't need SoI for this. Period

Edit: There is enough other content exclusive for this DLC, the new bookmark, I could expand it into mechanics exclusive for West Africans (the same way like Nomads in HL) and the rest (the mulk government, the map fix and the slave soldiers) can come in the free patch... or not even that.

if you buy the DLC it would unlock the Qabila government (desert nomads, mainly muslim) and the Mulk government and the use of slave soldiers for muslims who are not tribal (Qabilas) even if you don't own SoI, just like HL unlocks Nomadic government and Horde mechanics for pagans, who are otherwise tied to ToG. There will still be the Iqta government system, which will be reformed in a free patch. You won't need decadence, because Asabiya can work without it, though the 2 combined would of course make the game better. The decadence reform would be also content of the free patch.

If you don't want to make it working, as you obviously don't, you can find billion reasons why you can't, If you want make it work, you will find the way to make it (just like if PDS want China, they will find their way to add it no matter the cost).

Are you sure? You needed the religion DLC to play.

Edit: I've tried, and it works. But, I do not know if it's intended. Tribal pagans are unplayable. Thus, the moment you cease to be a nomad, you get a "game over".

 

[Thure]

Are you sure? You needed the religion DLC to play.

Edit: I've tried, and it works. But, I do not know if it's intended. Tribal pagans are unplayable. Thus, the moment you cease to be a nomad, you get a "game over".

It's intended. Because Paradox don't wanted you to require another DLC to play another DLC. But it's still would be harder with such a system which would effect nearly all Muslims.

 

[elvain]

Are you sure? You need the religion DLC to play.

Yes, I am sure. Do you need screenshot?

You can play tengri pagan nomad even without "the pagan DLC" - TheOldGods . Wanna see screenshots?

There already is precedence for a government DLC overriding a religious DLC. Anyone else wants to claim that this government based DLC is not possibe without previous religious DLC?

 

[yezhanquan]

Yes, I am sure. Do you need screenshot?

You can play tengri pagan nomad even without "the pagan DLC" - TheOldGods . Wanna see screenshots?


There already is precedence for a government DLC overriding a religious DLC. Anyone else wants to claim that this government based DLC is not possibe without previous religious DLC?

Be that as it may, you're restricted to staying nomadic as a pagan if you don't want to get a "game over". I thought that they'll restrict you to the Nestorian nomads.

 

[elvain]

It's intended. Because Paradox don't wanted you to require another DLC to play another DLC. But it's still would be harder with such a system which would effect nearly all Muslims.

Be that as it may, you're restricted to staying nomadic if you don't want to get a "game over".

if you convert to another government in this DLC, the mulk, you can still play.

The question is not whether they CAN or not, but whether they WANT or not. As Thure himself said. We won't solve it here, it's matter of PDS will.
So instead of discussing what they can or not, when we know they can whatever they want, we can talk about how things could work, heh?

 

[yezhanquan]

if you convert to another government in this DLC, the mulk, you can still play.

The question is not whether they CAN or not, but whether they WANT or not. As Thure himself said. We won't solve it here, it's matter of PDS will.
So instead of discussing what they can or not, when we know they can whatever they want, we can talk about how things could work, heh?

Well, if you make it clear that you cannot convert to iqta (or convert with a "game over"), I guess it'll be an equivalent.

Another thing: If they take your ideas, they'll mod it in such a way so that the final product is inferior. Take the new tax-levy focus laws and HIP's system as an example.

 

[elvain]

Well, if you make it clear that you cannot convert to iqta (or convert with a "game over"), I guess it'll be an equivalent.

Well, why should I?

The fact is that there will hardly be a single player interested in desert, mainly muslim tribes and ghulams, who wasn't previously interested in buying Sword of Islam,

And even if that would be some of them, for this particular case, Paradox can, and possibly should lock Iqta government, so if these hypothetical playera convert to iqta, it should be game over.

OTOH we do have other precedents that Paradox can move previously DLC content elswhere if the devs want. When they realized that retinues are a necessity for other DLC, they moved them into the base game. Why couldn't they do the similar thing here and unlock the Iqta government for that hypothetical customer who would buy The Qabila, but not SoI? They can do that if they want. We all know that.

Still it doesn't mean this concept would be paying for fixing old stuff, because this is a completely new stuff.
EDIT: So please, instead of talking about what Paradox can/want or not (things we can't know nor decide), couldn't we rather talk more constructively about how we could convince Paradox that this would be worth making it or not? Or give me complains about inconsistencies, holes and other problems of these suggestions, but unless you're Paradox stuff, please don't speak for what Paradox wants or not.

 

[yezhanquan]

Well, why should I?

The fact is that there will hardly be a single player interested in desert, mainly muslim tribes and ghulams, who wasn't previously interested in buying Sword of Islam,

And even if that would be some of them, for this particular case, Paradox can, and possibly should lock Iqta government, so if these hypothetical playera convert to iqta, it should be game over.

OTOH we do have other precedents that Paradox can move previously DLC content elswhere if the devs want. When they realized that retinues are a necessity for other DLC, they moved them into the base game. Why couldn't they do the similar thing here and unlock the Iqta government for that hypothetical customer who would buy The Qabila, but not SoI? They can do that if they want. We all know that.

Still it doesn't mean this concept would be paying for fixing old stuff, because this is a completely new stuff.
EDIT: So please, instead of talking about what Paradox can/want or not (things we can't know nor decide), couldn't we rather talk more constructively about how we could convince Paradox that this would be worth making it or not? Or give me complains about inconsistencies, holes and other problems of these suggestions, but unless you're Paradox stuff, please don't speak for what Paradox wants or not.

I so disagree with this statement. Interest can be sparked. Personally, when RoI first came out, I bought it without giving much thought about India. Then, HL changed the rules on raiding. You know what? I now have an interest in India because of the new rules on raiding.

Also, retinues moved to base game? Only nomads can have "retinues" without Legacy of Rome activated.

 

[elvain]

I so disagree with this statement. Interest can be sparked. Personally, when RoI first came out, I bought it without giving much thought about India. Then, HL changed the rules on raiding. You know what? I now have an interest in India because of the new rules on raiding.

But you bought it, right?
The potential possible problem would be people, who are interested in something, yet they don't buy DLC which covers it (medieval islamic world), not people who buy something they are not interested. And if there is a player who buys a new DLC just because he buys DLCs for this game no matter his interest, how big is a chance he wouldn't buy the previous ones too? Seriously, I find this discussion to be trolling, because it really has nothing to do with the content of this thread, but speculations about something what hardly exists.

Also, retinues moved to base game? Only nomads can have "retinues" without Legacy of Rome activated.

Frankly, I don't know and care.. because either way means that Paradox can unlock any content they want from previous DLCs for anything else if they wish so. That means there is no point in us discussing whether they can do it or not. They can and they already did it when it was found useful. So, really, what is the point about discussing if they can do it and if they want to do it in future? We have the answers already.

Really, I do find this entire discussion as trolling, and as such it will be reported. It is so pointless and it has completely hijacked the thread to something what neither of us can resolve.

 

[Korbah]

The OP has requested that users keep the discussion on the original topic rather than on the mechanics of how conflicting DLCs would work. If you wish to discuss X working without Y DLC, whether or not Paradox are adept enough at getting it to work, please do so in another thread.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

NP, I think this is actually something quite a few people see as downfall of this DLC idea - that it is a "fix" or expansion of something we already have in game and paid for. Anyone who have red more than the title and first sentence of OP knows it's rather the oposite.

The point with all those DLCs I mentioned was that they actually do expand something what was somehow already content of some previous DLC, but they take another directions, which I do regard positively. ToG introduced Pagans, CM (or its patch) gave them tribal mechanics, the HL gave them nomadic mechanics. It could have been regarder as expanding something we already paid for, or introduction of more depth. I believe it's the latter.

This is meant in similar way. We have Islamic DLC, we have nomads, but the desert (islamic) nomads aren't there and are poorly represented. You also wouldn't need neither SoI nor HL to get these mechanics. You won't need decadence for this to work as intended, the Asabiya concept should work better and - in fact - replace it, but if you have SoI and decadence, it will be expanded and fixed for you when used in combination with Asabiya.

I also see that I somehow overlooked part of your previous post...

There were and are suggestions for West Africa. You know, it isn't the jungle part of West Africa which is in game, but the Sahel and that's just fine.

They did have their clans and partialy an edited Mountaineer Qabilas could be applied to some of West African cultures (the Mandé, but that would require introduction of Soninke, who were little different). There could (should) be trade route running to West Africa with events and tools for gradual islamization of the region without military interventions (there weren't any, actually, even the Almoravid conquest of Ghana seems to be a misinterpretation), but at the same time the nomads did live on the southern fringes of the Sahara and did interact with West Africans. They would indeed be a very hard obstacle to overcome, so their expansion beyond Sahara should be hard. OTOH, the game should enable it to some extent and also should offer you something to play with there for those 150 years before you manage to become strong enough to cross the Sahara*. And still the Qabila mechanics should prevent you from rooting out the Sahara and make it the land of Sedentaries, perhaps via new special settlements (oases) which would have locked government system for their direct ruler, which would cause problems to anyone who subjugates them.

* the nomads should then work as is the intention of the Qabila system - they will be subordinated, but still fairly independent and should be able to make holding Trans-Saharan empire so hard that After Crossing the Sahara, one should be forced to split his empire in 2 on each side of the Sahara, unless he's Saharan nomad (Almoravids), or make his northern dependencies virtualy independent (Fezzan under Kanem in 14th century).

So there wouldn't have been an obstacle to White expansion into that part of Africa? No malaria to worry about?

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Folks arguing, here, that a second Muslim DLC wouldn't work or be desirable are forgetting that it doesn't matter where you play... it's in your interests for the AI realms to function realistically. That's why I bought The Republic, even though I find the experience of playing as a republic boring.

 

[victimizer]

I hate the idea that these thing have to be attached to religion. The middle east was unique because of its mixture of narrow and highly fertile lands and vast deserts and steppes, where nomads roamed. When sedentary groups grew corrupt and stagnant, they became vulnerable to the militarily superior nomads, while the farmers were unlikely to ever fully pacify the nomads. The Middle East would look exactly the same even if it had remained Christian or Zoroastrian or whatever.

The Middle East really needs special provinces and a special, "desert nomadic" lords. The desert provinces would be virtually unconquerable by ordinary feudals/iqta lords due to massive attrition, while the desert nomads could more or less freely travel along these provinces. If a desert nomadic warlord conquers a sizable sedentary realm, he would eventually lose his nomadic government and his nomadic provinces.

The decadence system should really apply to all middle eastern countries, including the Byzantines.

 

[yezhanquan]

Folks arguing, here, that a second Muslim DLC wouldn't work or be desirable are forgetting that it doesn't matter where you play... it's in your interests for the AI realms to function realistically. That's why I bought The Republic, even though I find the experience of playing as a republic boring.

Er no. The AI will use the government mechanics even if you don't have the DLC. That has always been the deal. Only Horse Lords is needed for nomads to stay nomadic, and I heard that in Conclave, they will remain nomadic even without the Horse Lords DLC.

Edit: As of now, nomadic realms will still be tribal without the Horse Lords DLC.

I hate the idea that these thing have to be attached to religion. The middle east was unique because of its mixture of narrow and highly fertile lands and vast deserts and steppes, where nomads roamed. When sedentary groups grew corrupt and stagnant, they became vulnerable to the militarily superior nomads, while the farmers were unlikely to ever fully pacify the nomads. The Middle East would look exactly the same even if it had remained Christian or Zoroastrian or whatever.

The Middle East really needs special provinces and a special, "desert nomadic" lords. The desert provinces would be virtually unconquerable by ordinary feudals/iqta lords due to massive attrition, while the desert nomads could more or less freely travel along these provinces. If a desert nomadic warlord conquers a sizable sedentary realm, he would eventually lose his nomadic government and his nomadic provinces.

The decadence system should really apply to all middle eastern countries, including the Byzantines.

Not to mention that the fertility was always vulnerable, due to its reliance on irrigation. It's no coincidence that Baghdad is what it is now, after the Mongols destroyed the irrigation facilities during their rampage through the area.

 

[elvain]

So there wouldn't have been an obstacle to White expansion into that part of Africa? No malaria to worry about?

according to available sources, the Berber and Arab merchants were just fine on the southern edges of the desert where they had entire cities in the Sahel region which is semi-steppe or steppe, not jungle. The sources don't speak about any such diseases, but OTOH, there is not much evidence of Arab/Berber settlements deeper southwards. Usualy it is asociated with social, rather than environmental conditions. But I can't deny this issue.

Anyway, the limited connections and the desert nomadic mechanics should prevent long-lasting trans-Saharan empires of other than desert peoples.
IDK if I have mentioned in the chapters or not, but the desert provinces should require a desert clan lord (though he could temporarily be vasalized by other, even sedentary/sedentarized power).

I hate the idea that these thing have to be attached to religion. The middle east was unique because of its mixture of narrow and highly fertile lands and vast deserts and steppes, where nomads roamed. When sedentary groups grew corrupt and stagnant, they became vulnerable to the militarily superior nomads, while the farmers were unlikely to ever fully pacify the nomads. The Middle East would look exactly the same even if it had remained Christian or Zoroastrian or whatever.

With the first part I can't agree more.
The rest is basically the philosophy of Ibn Khaldun, which is based on Asabiya (tribal coherence and which, if weakened causes decadence). I wouldn't take it so literally. I think there actually were more (but perhaps smaller, at least in their pipular impact) collapses caused internally rather than from external invasion. There were more coups than external invasions, but the coups don't usually have that large popular/hisrotiographical impact as they only mean replacement of one dynasty by other both of which uses very similar system.+

The Middle East really needs special provinces and a special, "desert nomadic" lords. The desert provinces would be virtually unconquerable by ordinary feudals/iqta lords due to massive attrition, while the desert nomads could more or less freely travel along these provinces. If a desert nomadic warlord conquers a sizable sedentary realm, he would eventually lose his nomadic government and his nomadic provinces.

This kind of is the goal of this DLC, like described above.
The qabilas (the nomads) however should be somehow possible to get subordinated. We have historical examples - the Fatimids were overlords of various qabilas, the Kutama berbers, the Banu Sulaym and Banu Hillal.

as for the other part of your post:

Typicaly, when a Nomadic or Mountaineer Qabila conquers entire kingdom with higher civilization, it receives an event if the ruler wants to keep his nomadic ways or settle.
If the ruler decides to settle, he still remains a member of his original Qabila and can call its other members based on 'Asabiya, if that would be high enough and decadence low enough.
Settling also changes his government type from Qabila into Mulk (so there won't be Iqta in Egypt and North Africa where this system of islamic fiefs never was used).

I noticed that I have somehow left out many details about the workings of these things.
For instance I forgot to note that the event will appear for the conqueror as a choice, and it will appear repeatedly or will become a decision. I thought about making the settling inevitable for second or third generation, but then the ahistorical part of me stopped me.
Most of the originaly nomadic dynasties have settled, most of them within the first 3 generations, but I still keep in mind the Seljuks of Rum, who have managed to nomadize a previously agricultural region to settle themselves later. I think the conditions for this should depend on the terrain of conquered land somehow. Though I do admit this hasn't been thought out well on my side yet.

The decadence system should really apply to all middle eastern countries, including the Byzantines.

Amen

 

[Von Consul]

So getting back on track ... those enhanced Muslim mechanics.

I'll admit freely that more Muslim content sounds great. I found my game as a Muslim Lord the most interesting of all my play throughs, specifically because I landed my family back when they all caused decadence. The limits and challenge kept things interesting.

Your ideas around qabilas are interesting. The Muslim realms are already tightly tied together thanks to the ease of marriage. I'd say the fuzzy nature, as i understood it, of your qabilas organization and collapse /division could be hard to implement in ck2. It seems like a dynamic imperial title with old laws, as it were.

Could I ask for some clarification or expansion to your ideas on that?