• 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.

Harith

Recruit
May 28, 2012
3
0
hiya everyone :)

in my middle eastern campaign as the count of Najaf, later the caliph of spain, arabia, anatolia and persia I decided to trace back the title of the caliph.

And boy was I shocked

First of all, Uthman (peace be upon him) is misspelled..... can u fix that please?

Secondly, Ali's religion is set as shia... what the?? shiasm existed after the death of his two sons the Hassan and Hussein. Ali was a devoted Muslim and followed the practices of the prophet that is sunnism

Thirdly, have u look at the traits. It is quite offending to find that some of the greatest men in history are labeled as slothful, greedy and naive appeasers. It is offending because they were never that, how could they be when the single handily defeated two of the greatest empires the world saw that is the Sassanian and the Romans??

Fourthly, the title of the caliph is electory. Yes, it was changed to dynastic inheritance after the death of Ali, however it can be contested and such occasions happened whether it was with the ummayeds who started it, or the Abbasid, the Fatimid or the ottomans. As a powerful ruler, u can usurp the title or atleast claim it urself. Only in Shia the title is believed to be only rightful to the decedents of the prophet.

My last comment on the game is the decadence system. I dont know where the CKII exactly got that because it's not historically very significant. Surely if your dynastic members are lustful or imbecile it will hurt the dynasties reputation. But being awarded land to decreases the chance of ur dynastry being run over is wrong. people who tend to give family members favoritism are negatively viewed and it decreases their right to rule.

And how is killing ur dynasty members won't upset anyone? and how changing laws can be done without voting?? are you seriously modeling the islamic nations after Saudia Arabia? lol

You know, we had viezers for a reason as well as emirs who will, like christian equivalents, rebel against their liege or prevent him from passing any law they disapprove. Shura, was like a modern day parliament that consists of the elites of the community. They are a collection of emirs and viezerswho advice their liege. So do consider election for passing laws please.

These are my notes on the game. Please do correct them as they give incorrect images about the times and really kills the game for many (atleast myself :).
 
First of all, Uthman (peace be upon him) is misspelled..... can u fix that please?

Noticed that myself, surely it's something they can address in the next patch.

Secondly, Ali's religion is set as shia... what the?? shiasm existed after the death of his two sons the Hassan and Hussein. Ali was a devoted Muslim and followed the practices of the prophet that is sunnism
It would be an unnecessary effort for Paradox to code in a new "Islam" religion which does not distinguish between Sunni and Shi'i, given how it would never be used in the actual gameplay. It's for the best that this be kept the way it is, so that Paradox would not get complaints from Shi'as about the exact same thing in reverse.

I'm surprised you didn't bring up Muhammad (SAWS) being listed as the first Caliph, leading to the very bizarre occurance of some character in the game gaining the Caliphal title of Muhammad II. :wacko:

Thirdly, have u look at the traits. It is quite offending to find that some of the greatest men in history are labeled as slothful, greedy and naive appeasers. It is offending because they were never that, how could they be when the single handily defeated two of the greatest empires the world saw that is the Sassanian and the Romans??

I don't know how much effort Paradox put into researching all of these historical figures, but I would imagine that because they lived centuries before the playable section of the game that any traits they have are not meant to represent historical reality in any way. You should take it with a grain of salt.

As for everything else, Paradox's representation is not perfect but it is satisfactory for gameplay's sake. Much of it seems to be based on Ottoman history, namely landing family members to lower decadence, or killing/imprisoning branches of your family. I agree that there are a great many flaws, for instance the Mamluk Sultanate is entirely impossible to represent in any way at all using the current system.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the Prophets, maybe the ideal solution would simply be no traits, to avoid the debate "He was a just man" "NO HE WAS THE PROPHET DIE INFIDEL!!!" or something.
 
please dont over critise paradox for mistakes . i cant think of another game maker who has tried so hard to give muslims equal status and respect in a game . the game is not a historical sim though it trys to represent historical accuracies best it can up to a point that it would be detrimental to an enjoyable game if it was fully historical .

just have fun guys i think its awesome all faiths can get there teeth into a fun game
 
Not all historical characters have that many traits assigned to them in the history files. The game randomly creates traits to all starting characters until they have certain ammount of them. I don't remember if its four or five. Thats why some historical characters would have traits that aren't really historically correct.
 
please dont over critise paradox for mistakes . i cant think of another game maker who has tried so hard to give muslims equal status and respect in a game . the game is not a historical sim though it trys to represent historical accuracies best it can up to a point that it would be detrimental to an enjoyable game if it was fully historical .

just have fun guys i think its awesome all faiths can get there teeth into a fun game
Yeah true, but it is just annoying when your favourite characters are misnamed and mislabelled. Charles I of the Holy Roman Empire? God really? The HRE never existed in his days, it was the carolingian empire, and that name is more than a bit off if it refers to charlemagne.
 
I think all nations has inaccuracies and some of the stuff in the game appears to have been done for game balance, rather than historical facts.

In Europe the King/Noble seemed capable of nominating their heir or disinherit some of their children, if they somehow seemed unworthy. In a way this seems elective, but there were no electors.
 
I really don't think Crusader Kings is striving for historical accuracy, so I doubt the gross inaccuracies will ever be fixed. They could probably fix the misspellings if you submit those according to the standard bug reporting rules.

I'd hope they fix the Christian countries (and there is much to fix!) before the Muslim ones anyway, since not all of us bought the Sword of Islam DLC.

Not all historical characters have that many traits assigned to them in the history files. The game randomly creates traits to all starting characters until they have certain ammount of them. I don't remember if its four or five. Thats why some historical characters would have traits that aren't really historically correct.

Correct. It is four and can be modded.
 
In some cases, there is a perception.
The HRE emperors belive to be heirs of Charlemeagne also if he was not Holy Roman Emperor.
The same way Byzantines belive to be continuation of Rome.

About Islam, i think that is a pretty good work; and yes it is a game and not a history book.
Grammar should be corrected if wrong.
 
Yeah true, but it is just annoying when your favourite characters are misnamed and mislabelled. Charles I of the Holy Roman Empire? God really? The HRE never existed in his days, it was the carolingian empire, and that name is more than a bit off if it refers to charlemagne.

Charlamagne isn't Emperor because he literally ruled the HRE, he's Emperor because the numbering system of Charles in the HRE included him. Same with France really. Cut out the Carolingians and you get Charles I of the House of Luxembourg in 1316 and the famous Charles V of the HRE and I of Spain would be Charles II. Same with Henry the Fowler, who wasn't Emperor, but if you don't give him the title in the history files then Henry VI in 1066 in only Henry III.
 
Actually you're the one who got his history wrong there buddy, Ali was never a Sunni, Sunnism actually originated in the 4th century of the Muslim calendar.
 
I like threads like these and hope Paradox dev team likes them too. This is a huge game and naturally there will be errors. That's why there are players, to correct them. My homeplace was inaccurate at 1.0 too but got corrected later. I think as long as you provide proof that something is historically inaccurate and it's not gamebreaking to fix it, they'll do it.
 
Actually you're the one who got his history wrong there buddy, Ali was never a Sunni, Sunnism actually originated in the 4th century of the Muslim calendar.

One integral statement of Shia, is that Ali was supposed to be the first Caliph. Therefore the people who accepted Abu Bakr as the rightful Caliph can be considered the first Sunnis. Ali too swore an oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr and accepted him as the Caliph. So if you had to classify it, he would be more Sunni than Shia.
 
Yeah true, but it is just annoying when your favourite characters are misnamed and mislabelled. Charles I of the Holy Roman Empire? God really? The HRE never existed in his days, it was the carolingian empire, and that name is more than a bit off if it refers to charlemagne.

1. Chalemagne = Carolus Magnus = Charles le Grand. Charlemagne is Charles I the Great.
2. HRE did not existed neither before the XIIIth century, and the Carolingian Empire never existed. The split between the Carolingian Empire and the HRE is only a concept from Historians to divide eras, just like they divided the ERE with Byzantium. This empire did not had name, it was the restoration of the western part of the Empire, created in 395.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.