Its not because the game is called Crusader Kings that it is focused on that. That has just been the intent from the start and was the intent of the original game. Its not about the era, its about the European societies. Its not like EU3 with pretty generic mechanics for all countries, just different tech groups and religions. There would have to be some pretty fundamental differences to play as muslims and mongols.
Well I think the real reason is so they could charge $10 for playable Muslims (and then another $10 for playable pagans later), but otherwise agreed.Once again, you could say the same thing about the non-hereditary, non-feudal Byzantine Empire. And yet it does indeed have the exact same "pretty generic mechanics". Arguably the mechanics of the game don't really apply anywhere outside of France and the HRE, and there's lot of things you could point out that are simplified and genericised there, too. It is no more historically inaccurate to have Muslims using that generic feudal system (or indeed any generic system, as it wasn't as if all Muslim-led states were run the same way) than it is to have the Byzantines (who had two co-reigning empresses less than 25 years before game start) under that system.
CK has never been, or intended to be, an accurate political simulator. It is a game of dynastic family politics and infighting, that uses a abstract feudal system based loosely on the French/German one of the time period. Arguing the real reasons Muslims aren't playable is that their governments didn't work that way is silly; absolute nobody's government worked like the CK one does. The system doesn't represent Scottish clans, Rus political structure, Norse/Icelandic assemblies or any number of other major features of government of places that are actually playable.
Now, you can argue the amount of work to make Muslims playable would take away from other features of the game, or the marketing focus of the game (which is the real reason, IMO, but of course I could be wrong), but it's certainly not because it would have required some enormous overhaul of the system to play them. They could have been playable with only minor cosmetic tweaks to the system everyone else uses, just like everyone else who is playable.
Well I think the real reason is so they could charge $10 for playable Muslims (and then another $10 for playable pagans later), but otherwise agreed.
My main concern is how this affects modding. I hope the ability to add new playable religions is either part of the DLC or added in a patch.To be clear, I at least am fine with that, since if playable Muslims/Pagans are DLCs, they'll get more attention than they would have as part of the base game.
My main concern is the possibility that that will not be made, since it was never made for Ck1, and Johan is on record as not seeing the need for such a DLC. As I said before, hopefully the fact there's a new thread about this every other day will show that there is indeed a need in terms of customer demand.
I can see where this ends up. The Muslim players then want to attack the Hindus and the Mongols. Then someone says why cant we play the Mongols? The Mongol players want to attack China and Japan, and Japan at least if not China as well, had a feudal system so why not have an adapted CK2 original mechanism for Japan? Then someone complains they want to play the Maya......
Because pagan religions are nifty, and a multireligious Europe is more interesting?
Hell, I won't be happy until I've had a game that reconverts Persia to Zoroastrianism (which isn't in the pagan group, and kudos to Paradox for that).
I really don't mind that you designed the game with only Christians in mind and restricted playability accordingly, it made sense, it was what was planned from the start and it was what we all expected. I really do object to making it completely unmoddable, especially given the high moddability of pretty much every other Paradox game and the high quality communities that generally spring up as a result.We fixed a bug that let you play as religions we didn't design to be playable? How terrible of us!
Design decisions were made, and the devs made the best game possible under those early decisions. I don't think that it's fair to blame them for not creating the game that you wanted them to. A lot of work has been put in to make the features that have been implemented work as beautifully as possible, and the first release of a new Paradox game is just establishing a beachhead. If it does well, then more territory can be covered.
CK has never been, or intended to be, an accurate political simulator.
I don't think that it's fair to blame them for not creating the game that you wanted them to.
And what is wrong with that then?I can see where this ends up. The Muslim players then want to attack the Hindus and the Mongols. Then someone says why cant we play the Mongols? The Mongol players want to attack China and Japan, and Japan at least if not China as well, had a feudal system so why not have an adapted CK2 original mechanism for Japan? Then someone complains they want to play the Maya......
And what is wrong with that then?
That would be awesome.. Why should we not always strive for more? Without ambition and progress of ideas, games would have come nowhere.
Yes, wanting to play states and characters that are already in the game inevitably leads to demands that the map be expanded.
I agree with this ^ wholeheartedly also. All too many times I see it after every release the whiners and complainers appear whining and complaining the game isn't the way THEY wanted it. Forgetting there are thousands upon thousands of others who bought the same game an are enjoying it.
Are you seriously arguing that because many people are happy with the game as is, those who want a particular feature/bugfix/expansion should not agitate for it?
But I won't be impressed if Johan gets his way and we never get playable Muslims.