• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I will wait for a mod-dlc-expansion that will make muslims playable and then buy CKII. For now, I will stick with MTW2 Stainless Steel.

Your loss. CKII is a great game.

The thing is that the Islamic world really didn't work like the Western Christian one.

The Iqta, whilst comparable to the Western Fief, is too dissimilar. It's not hereditary, meaning the Sultan can appoint and revoke as he pleases and more importantly, your son isn't necessarily going to get it after you die. There was no "subinfeudation" - You couldn't pass bits of the Iqta off to your friends and allies. Finally it didn't necessarily involve the administration of the land - it was principally just the tax revenues so perhaps more like a "money fief".

This is why I wait in hope for a Muslim Expansion sometime in the near future.
 
So, this is now, like, the 6th or 7th thread, at least, about not being able to play muslims and pagans. Do people never think of, y'know, searching for an answer before asking? There may be a slight chance that your question is already answered.

I bet people will ask even after the game is out for months...

But honestly, what do you think the search button is for? Just to look nice? Have you even bothered to read anything about the game? Because, if so, you'd knew you can't play muslims, as it was said countless of times.
LOL. FYI, Paradox's search function has an extremely poor history. Yes, they just hobble it a bit now, rather than disabling it completely, so it is usable. But it's laughable to knock people for a failure to rely on a feature that many still assume is not even there. Plus you have to be logged in, for it to work at all, and you have to wait between searches.

As for not "reading anything about the game", that is presumably the reason the OP asked the question, and is on the forum trying to find out about the game and gauge the quality/features. Your response was helpful only to the extent that knee-jerk reactions to reasonable questions suggest a defensiveness that may or may not be justified.

If people aren't interested in sharing information about the game quality/features with prospective buyers, they'd do Paradox more of a favor by remaining silent, rather than criticizing posters who may not have had the time/energy/inclination to follow the development history. If there have been 6 or 7 other posts on this topic, don't you think this might be a feature many would like to see in the game? And, don't you think people who desire such a feature are better served if they inquire when/if/whether such a feature might become available, and/or actively lobby for such a feature? For better or for worse, post-release, there will be many posts by potentially interested people, who are completely ignorant of the development history. Many will be Paradox fans, but many will also be suspicious about game quality, and skeptical regarding design decisions you accept and take for granted.

FYI, this is the first thread I've read on the subject; I find it bizarre that you think I should have read more. No, I don't think anyone should assume such a feature is present, nor do I see much to indicate that anyone did. But I do share a certain disappointment.

I'm not even sure what the DLC concept is all about (and yes, a search turned up very little useful information). But the way it's being talked about here suggests to me that the game isn't really "done", yet, and that some relevant functionality is not included in this version, but might, perhaps, maybe, someday, be included in something that isn't really a patch, but which you have to pay for, and isn't really required, unless you want that functionality. (Do I have that right?)
 
I'm not even sure what the DLC concept is all about (and yes, a search turned up very little useful information). But the way it's being talked about here suggests to me that the game isn't really "done", yet, and that some relevant functionality is not included in this version, but might, perhaps, maybe, someday, be included in something that isn't really a patch, but which you have to pay for, and isn't really required, unless you want that functionality. (Do I have that right?)
I'd say the game is, indeed, "done" and the DLCs add additional elements, not "relevant functionality", as you put it, but that's, of course, a matter of interpretation.
 
I'm stunned at this decision. It frankly makes no sense to me and I'm quite angry about it.

Its called Crusader Kings. think about that for a secound.

The main focus of the game is to play a European (christian) ruler and thus the reason they didint add pagans and muslims playable, however you can actually pick them if you want too, the gameplay and decisions would not make sense however.


So are you just meant to never play them than ??? no... most likely you will see either/a dlc/expansion/mods for playing muslims and pagans with problem decisions etc. This way you are sure about getting an optimiced expierence when playing them. so well you will have to wait.
 
Its called Crusader Kings. think about that for a secound.

The main focus of the game is to play a European (christian) ruler and thus the reason they didint add pagans and muslims playable, however you can actually pick them if you want too, the gameplay and decisions would not make sense however.

The exact same could be said about EU.
 
The exact same could be said about EU.

They are nothing alike.. also I did not find it very enjoyable to play "lets say" an asian country in EU3 before we got proper mods/expansions, well not as enjoyable as a european one atleast. but its a whole other focus in EU3 and you are actually able to pick any country you want since the event systems etc. work as intended even if you play as a muslims IE. (we always had a mamluk guy in my mp sessions)

In CK2 its not fun playing a pagan or muslims when you don't get the proper decisions!!! etc. when they have a system thats intended for this they will make a dlc/expansion and then it will be super fun to pick a muslims ruler! untill then I think its fine they are not playable (you can still pick them remember)
 
Last edited:
LOL. FYI, Paradox's search function has an extremely poor history. Yes, they just hobble it a bit now, rather than disabling it completely, so it is usable. But it's laughable to knock people for a failure to rely on a feature that many still assume is not even there. Plus you have to be logged in, for it to work at all, and you have to wait between searches.

As for not "reading anything about the game", that is presumably the reason the OP asked the question, and is on the forum trying to find out about the game and gauge the quality/features. Your response was helpful only to the extent that knee-jerk reactions to reasonable questions suggest a defensiveness that may or may not be justified.

If people aren't interested in sharing information about the game quality/features with prospective buyers, they'd do Paradox more of a favor by remaining silent, rather than criticizing posters who may not have had the time/energy/inclination to follow the development history. If there have been 6 or 7 other posts on this topic, don't you think this might be a feature many would like to see in the game? And, don't you think people who desire such a feature are better served if they inquire when/if/whether such a feature might become available, and/or actively lobby for such a feature? For better or for worse, post-release, there will be many posts by potentially interested people, who are completely ignorant of the development history. Many will be Paradox fans, but many will also be suspicious about game quality, and skeptical regarding design decisions you accept and take for granted.

FYI, this is the first thread I've read on the subject; I find it bizarre that you think I should have read more. No, I don't think anyone should assume such a feature is present, nor do I see much to indicate that anyone did. But I do share a certain disappointment.

Well, only few post after mine Besuchov has written that he has merged several threads about it. My post you are quoting was from another thread. When I wrote it, there were 3 threads about it on the same page.

My problem isn't that they came here to ask questions, but to ask question that has been answered many times, and which you can read on the official description of the game, quote:

"Take on the role of a Christian noble and carry them through the ages from Count to Emperor via the line of succession"
"... and create the most powerful dynasty of medieval Europe. "
"Re-enact the Crusades, defend against the Mongol onslaught, and form feudal nation-states"

Now don't get me wrong, it was okay that someone asked the question, but if everyone with a question just opened a new thread without looking before whether it was already answered, the Forum would quickly become chaotic. A quick google search, and you'd get the answer.
 
Is it just me that find the whole concept of this and other threads like it absolutely hilarious?

It's called Crusader Kings, it says in the description that you take on the mantle of a feudal christian ruler, etc, etc. No where does it state you'll play pagans, Muslims, or republics.

But even funnier to me is the idea that you could easily have done this and DLCs all within the price of the product and time frame for development. It's just funny. It's like a person saying their car should have come with Air Con, power windows, sat nav, and a CD player all for the lowest price and shortest development turn-around. It's just classic consumer ignorance, but I still find it funny.
 
They are nothing alike.. also I did not find it very enjoyable to play "lets say" an asian country in EU3 before we got proper mods/expansions, well not as enjoyable as a european one atleast. but its a whole other focus in EU3 and you are actually able to pick any country you want since the event systems etc. work as intended even if you play as a muslims IE. (we always had a mamluk guy in my mp sessions)

They would still "work" if you were a Non-Christian, they just wouldn't make much sense. Just as how the EUIII religion system "works" for Asian nations, but doesn't make any sense.
 
They would still "work" if you were a Non-Christian, they just wouldn't make much sense. Just as how the EUIII religion system "works" for Asian nations, but doesn't make any sense.

.. Thats the whole reason why I tell people to wait for a mod/dlc/expansion. So it will be even more fun to play pagan/muslim!!

As I said earlier, you can just pick a muslim/pagan and play if you want to or even converte from a "christian" to a pagan/muslim.. but I rather (notice the I) wait for a dlc/mod/expansion and thats the advice I give out here.. and again.. there is a reason why the game is named Crusader Kings and that it says (play as a christian lord) in (europe).. I for one was not expecting to play as pagan/muslim from the get go.

So again. my advice is to wait for a proper mod/dlc/exp.
 
So I was sitting in my German class, and started thinking about how some of it "should" work with different religions. I've spent a lot of time reading up on Vikings in my spare time (and actually took a class on em' which counts towards my German minor), the Icelandic Sagas and all that goodness, so I had a handful of thoughts on them (though with Paradox being Scandinavian, I'd hope they'd be ahead of me on this!). Even so, felt like typing out a few of my random thoughts:

1. Norse societal structure isn't dramatically different from the rest of Feudal Europe. In fact, even as "pagans" there were instances of Vikings serving in courts or owning lands under a Christian lord. Much of their own structure is roughly comparable to Christian nobility positions, and is mostly already in game (Jarl similar to Duke, Chief similar to Count, ect). So... that's a plus, at least as far as Norse is concerned.

2. Marriage is slightly different. Pretty sure with what we have now, only the men decide who their kids marry. While the Norse also proposed marriages and betrothals between their kids to one another, it was also common-place that the daughter had the right to refuse a prospective husband. That, and suitors would more actively seek out the best ladies in the land... so the way marriage works for them should be slightly different than what we've got. Namely, male members of your dynasty should be pro-active about pursuing a potential wife (with the possible consequences that could come with them marrying someone not of their dynasty head's choosing), and when arranging a marriage the daughter should also have to approve of it.

3. In Christian society, mercy is viewed as a good thing. In Norse society, it can be seen by some as a sign of weakness. Right now when you release someone from prison, all your vassals approve due to your merciful actions. Norse folks shouldnt' work like that: with maybe a few exceptions of the less-violently inclined traited folks, you should gain respect for executing a defeated enemy, and lose respect if you allow them to survive. Hrafnkels saga is a solid example of this, as Samr chooses to banish Hranfnkel rather than executing him, and everyone views Samr as weak for doing so... and then don't help him out when Hrafnkel builds a new force to come and reclaim his home from Samr. Of course, afterwards Samr is given the option to either die like a man or survive, and he chooses life (despite it ruining any chance he had to be looked upon with honor again for the rest of his life). So all of that could make for fun game mechanics... choosing between killing someone to appease your fellow vassals/peers and risk the potential wrath of their relatives, or let them live in order to not piss off their family but be looked on by your vassals/peers.


Just a few random thoughts, like I said. Figure the Norse would (compared to some of the other Pagans and the Muslims) be easier to nudge into the right direction than the other non-Christians, since they have such a strong history and shared ancestry with the rest of Europe, thus their society isn't as dramatically different from Christian Europe (as the other non-Christians.)

Of course, they're also one of the smallest non-Christian groups and seem to have a potentially short shelf-life (especially because Erik The Heathen seems intent to convert to Christianity at his first opportunity, and he's just about the only Norse leader with any major pull). But hey, I can dream can't I? Maybe I'll figure out the character ID numbers for Erik The Heathen and Olaf Green and some others, just so I can have fun still if or when they became playable regularly.
 
Is it just me that find the whole concept of this and other threads like it absolutely hilarious?

It's called Crusader Kings, it says in the description that you take on the mantle of a feudal christian ruler, etc, etc. No where does it state you'll play pagans, Muslims, or republics.

But even funnier to me is the idea that you could easily have done this and DLCs all within the price of the product and time frame for development. It's just funny. It's like a person saying their car should have come with Air Con, power windows, sat nav, and a CD player all for the lowest price and shortest development turn-around. It's just classic consumer ignorance, but I still find it funny.
Not only is this a bad argument--should we only be allowed to play Rome in EU: Rome?--you've already been beaten to it by many posters in this thread.
 
I like the game and all, but this was a pretty clear decision in order to be able to sell a DLC down the road. In the Demo, the "exploit" allowed one to play Muslims and Pagans, however they have now hardcoded it so that it is impossible without cheats to load up as one at all. The fact that they didn't include it? Mildly irritating, but fair enough. The fact that they purposely hardcoded it in so that it was unmoddable? Indefensible.

They are nothing alike.. also I did not find it very enjoyable to play "lets say" an asian country in EU3 before we got proper mods/expansions, well not as enjoyable as a european one atleast. but its a whole other focus in EU3 and you are actually able to pick any country you want since the event systems etc. work as intended even if you play as a muslims IE. (we always had a mamluk guy in my mp sessions)

In CK2 its not fun playing a pagan or muslims when you don't get the proper decisions!!! etc. when they have a system thats intended for this they will make a dlc/expansion and then it will be super fun to pick a muslims ruler! untill then I think its fine they are not playable (you can still pick them remember)
This would have been fixed in maybe a month if they had allowed people to mod muslims and pagans. As it is it won't ever be, at least until they decide to release a DLC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.