The Second Hint

[Kolonel]

Rabble, rabble, rabble

I have readied my pitchfork, just in case...

[CatalanNation]

On that note, it'll be great if a new version of Crusader Kings is developed that incorporates not only the high and late middle ages of the current game but the early middle ages from fall of Rome.

Sure. And CKII wouldn't need to reach 1453 as it predecessor since EU3:HTTT starts at 1399, so pushing the date backwards may be a good choice.

But judging by the wikipedia links in the CK Facebook page, if there's ever a CKII it will probably start with the First Crusade in 1096 instead of the original 1066. Anyway, 1096-1399 seems a pretty good timeframe for it.

[Jolt]

Yea if the game was modeled more toward dynasty/personnal gameplay than province rule.

There never was such a thing in Three Kingdoms (The dynasty part). Rulers were extremely conditioned by the officers, and picking anything but the eldest child (Like Yuan Shao did) basically meant civil war. That's why Cao Cao innevitably picked Cao Pi, and that's why Liu Bei and Zhuge Liang decided to get rid of Liu Feng sooner rather than later and innevitably picked Liu Shan, and that's why Sun Quan never gave Sun Ce's posthumous son Sun Shao any relevant office. When Sun Quan made his successor his youngest son, Sun Liang, he encountered heavy opposition by his own officers, and had to go on a executing spree which didn't even spare his own clan members to make sure his decision would be accepted. Then Sun Quan dies and his heir is 9 years old, and has to be submitted under a regent, and that spelt his own dynasty's downfall right there.

[JRHINDO]

There never was such a thing in Three Kingdoms (The dynasty part). Rulers were extremely conditioned by the officers, and picking anything but the eldest child (Like Yuan Shao did) basically meant civil war. That's why Cao Cao innevitably picked Cao Pi, and that's why Liu Bei and Zhuge Liang decided to get rid of Liu Feng sooner rather than later and innevitably picked Liu Shan, and that's why Sun Quan never gave Sun Ce's posthumous son Sun Shao any relevant office. When Sun Quan made his successor his youngest son, Sun Liang, he encountered heavy opposition by his own officers, and had to go on a executing spree which didn't even spare his own clan members to make sure his decision would be accepted. Then Sun Quan dies and his heir is 9 years old, and has to be submitted under a regent, and that spelt his own dynasty's downfall right there.

Thats right except my post was unrelated to RoTK

[Sam L]

Sure. And CKII wouldn't need to reach 1453 as it predecessor since EU3:HTTT starts at 1399, so pushing the date backwards may be a good choice.

But judging by the wikipedia links in the CK Facebook page, if there's ever a CKII it will probably start with the First Crusade in 1096 instead of the original 1066. Anyway, 1096-1399 seems a pretty good timeframe for it.

Why? This game is and should be more than about the Crusades. It should be about the Middle Ages. And 1453 is the notional end of the Middle Ages.

The real question is why EU starts at 1399 when it should really be starting at 1453 at the earliest.

[Pioniere]

originally the serpent was a symbol of fertility so my thoughts maybe something for Rome second Eu3. But Eu3 has surly been fertile for paradox. CK2..well why not.

[ssj18vegeta]

Well fertility was actually a (hidden) character stat in CK so...

[Johan]

This was "Stewardship"

[Oorlog]

nvm

[backman]

Ancient Egypt