Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Next DLC title leaked?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69866 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10587 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6361 After Action Reports
Status
Not open for further replies.
Show only dev responses
Prime624 said:
Great suggestion, but as the base title suggests, the game is supposed to be based around the Crusaders (Catholics) and this system is fairly well developed. If they did improve upon this, I would hope it would be in the form of a patch, not a DLC.
Click to expand...
I imagine the Papacy being overhauled would effect to everyone (i.e muslim decadence may not be a part of christian nation play, but it still impacts the muslim nations regardless). Could be making Theocracies playable or something though.

Time will tell, can't wait.
 
I hope it's for Orthodox in general. Moscow wasn't called Third Rome until after Constantinople fall but whatever, we need true christian religion to get more love. Vityazs, Mongol Overlords, special inheritance rules.

Also, Lithuania. That's a big state with a habit of changing religion between True Orthodox One, (obviously heretical) Papism and Paganism. Maybe pagans will be enabled as well, don't think they require as much work as Muslims.
 
XRW said:
Please don't let it be "disable X rulers, implement unnecessary mechanic, require DLC to play X" like Sword of Islam was.
Click to expand...

Except Muslim rulers weren't playable from the start of CK2 anyways. Yes, you could happen to convert to Muslim, and it's disappointing that you can no longer do so, but PI made a choice and probably figured that the majority of players who weren't going to get the DLC were not interested in playing Muslims at all, not even by conversion. So your whining is unnecessary and factually erroneous to begin with.
 
sounds like a Byzantine DLC to me, although I would hope for something for the Papacy. Right now one of the most important factors in the (Catholic) Christian world and a major driving force for the Crusades (and their Crusader Kings ;)) is badly underrepresented gameplay wise.
 
Andretoo said:
That's it I'm never sleeping again.
liuhan4.jpg
liuhan4.jpg
Click to expand...
Except that Paradox has said the pope will never be playable.
 
XRW said:
Please don't let it be "disable X rulers, implement unnecessary mechanic, require DLC to play X" like Sword of Islam was.
Click to expand...

Hum, SoI wasn't like that... it didn't disable X rulers, you can still play muslim characters with a little bit more modding, but you still can.
 
SaintDaveUK said:
Keyword here being the 'legacy'. HRE was undoubtedly a remnant (even if slightly removed) of the Roman Empire.
Click to expand...
If it's a Byzantium/Orthodox overhaul, I'd be tremendously happy with it. I am sure the devs will figure out a sensible way to implement it; for instance by extending the timeline backwards when to play the ERE would be most interesting and make pay for it. This would also pave the way for a proper eventual Pagan DLC, as mostly everybody when thinks 'Pagan' thinks at the Norse.

It would be good as well if it were a set of special mechanics just for the ERE and the HRE, so that the two titles would get a special treatment and were placed above the other set of Empires, with a Translatio Imperii mechanics and such. This would definitely make put an end to the hot debate we've been experiencing between factions pro and against the newly added empires in 1.06.

If a Translatio Imperii mechanics were to be made, I'd suggest that the de jure HRE is renamed 'Empire of Germania', Greece and Anatolia (together with Armenia, Bulgaria, Serbia and Croatia) become the 'Empire of Romania', Italy and Sicily become the new 'Empire of Italia' and the HRE and ERE become 'supertitular' titles that are 'superimposed' on whatever Western or Eastern empire that is at that moment considered to be the most legitimate heir of either half of the Roman Empire.
 
I hope it is Byzantines and Orthodox DLC. Maybe there will be possibility to make Pope in Rome vassal as Byzantine Emperor, making him one of the Patriarchs (of course it should give free CB to every catholic so they can free Papacy again). :)
 
Ciccillo Rre said:
...mostly everybody when thinks 'Pagan' thinks at the Norse.
Click to expand...

And we really need to kill that fact...

This is CRUSADER KINGS 2 not Northern Conquests / Axe of Thor / Eye of Odin / Viking Chronicles / Warriors of Valhalla.

Backing the timeline means going from the main theme of this game. Crusades. There are a number of pagans which is considerably more important during CK2 timeline and the cause of many crusades themselves. E.g. the Wendish, the Livonians and the Lithuanian Kingdom, not to mention the Golden Horde or the Cumans.

EDIT: Let's not make this into a debate.
 
Last edited:
Voy said:
Backing the timeline means going from the main theme of this game. Crusades.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with this. The crusades (while being the game's namesake) to me are not a main theme, it is much more like a side quest, a bonus level. A way to have a slight change from intrigue and inter-realm wars.
 
Voy said:
And we really need to kill that fact...

This is CRUSADER KINGS 2 not Northern Conquests / Axe of Thor / Eye of Odin / Viking Chronicles / Warriors of Valhalla.

Backing the timeline means going from the main theme of this game. Crusades. There are a number of pagans which is considerably more important during CK2 timeline and the cause of many crusades themselves. E.g. the Wendish, the Livonians and the Lithuanian Kingdom, not to mention the Golden Horde or the Cumans.

EDIT: Let's not make this a debate.
Click to expand...
I think you are right. And playing with Baltic Pagans would be fun as hell.

But DLCs are supposed to extend the game, right? I see no harm in extending the game 100 years backwards, starting in say 966 with the HRE just (re-)born and Basilios II nominally on the Byzantine throne, it would make no harm. It's just about extending a little more the preparation period before the Crusades, and the 1066 start would still be available for others. In addition, there would be the last songs of the Norse bards up there in the north for us to play.

More than that, my issue is that 100 years before 1066 the Muslim states are larger and more powerful, one would need a balancing solution otherwise. That's also why 100 years and no more than that, no Charlemagne or even Dark Ages as the Muslims would be too powerful in comparison, the focus on Crusades would be lost and the main campaign would be too long.

P.S. I don't see why you don't want a debate on this. You started the issue, it would be like wanting to have the last word on it at all costs.
 
I'm personally hoping for some Orthodox (ERE) love. Playing as an Orthodox is kinda bland, since you lack anything special to your religion. Catholics got all the same features as Orthodoxy, oh and of course popes, anti-popes, holy orders and crusades. Also ERE might need an overhaul, since it is getting ripped to pieces by the Muslims before 1100 in half the games I am in.
 
Maybe we are getting both HRE and ERE expansion in one DLC? That would be pretty nice. If not, I am leaning towards ERE being the ones in most need of a fix, and most likely to get it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back