It has a impact mainly on Muslim and eastern players and AI if you don't play in India. but it didn't phase my computer but then I have a traditional style computer that's 64 bit and not a laptop like some seem to have.
How do people feel about India?
- Thread starter soda7777777
- Start date
-
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.
I have seen the Rajputs very occasionally pushing into Persia but never all that far.
I think RoI, along with SoI, is one of the few real high quality DLCs they have made so far. I also like how it is implemented, and I also like how many opportunities you have as a Muslim. And of course I like the religions.
But I understand it can be uninteresting to some people who only learn about the European history. To me, it kind of got boring a while ago so when I started researching the Middle East and beyond, it's been a full new fascinating world for me. Really people, the best way to play Crusader Kings 2 is to roleplay after having read some really cool things.
But I understand it can be uninteresting to some people who only learn about the European history. To me, it kind of got boring a while ago so when I started researching the Middle East and beyond, it's been a full new fascinating world for me. Really people, the best way to play Crusader Kings 2 is to roleplay after having read some really cool things.
Last edited:
I bought RoI for specifically for the culture/religion conversion decisions. after a while of having it though, i convinced myself i was missing out on a big part of the game with a lot of new flavor. I started a character in India, and i really just couldn't get into it... i found myself constantly looking to see what was going on in europe... I have every last bit of dlc and still havent even utilized half of it, which sounds really stupid, i know. Every time i try to get into something new, it just doesnt satisfy me the way being a european or norse does. I've tried indian (i think it was jain), muslim turk, tengri turk, tengri khazar, muslim persian, zoroastrian persian, and one of the abyssinian starts. They all just felt so unnatural, like, forced? Not sure how to describe it. I still feel like i need to just buckle down and find out what im missing out on. But why try to force myself to enjoy something that im not sure of when i could just stick with what i know i like?
I enjoy it very much. It fixed the problem with the Persia being weirdly cut off in half, as well as central Asia. It gave the Muslim blobs a challenge in the east, where previously it was the corner and Muslims focused only on the west. Thirdly it gave a nice place to raid and conquer, and also three new religions and a lot of cultures and realms. And a corner of the world to try out a peaceful, inward-focused empire.
Besides, who wouldn't love to play as a realm in his own country of modern era? That's more of a reason for me to be excited about it. India of the timeframe had a lot of chances of reunification (sometimes really close, like in Pala Empire of 850s), and I just make sure that chance is not wasted.
It may not be appealing to some people, but that's natural. Some Eurocentric players even go on to cite the name of the game thinking that it justifies that only Europeans should be playable in CK2, but it is completely stupid and ridiculous because the game's name is a marketing thing for a bracket term for the era, not the original point for the development.
Besides, who wouldn't love to play as a realm in his own country of modern era? That's more of a reason for me to be excited about it. India of the timeframe had a lot of chances of reunification (sometimes really close, like in Pala Empire of 850s), and I just make sure that chance is not wasted.
It may not be appealing to some people, but that's natural. Some Eurocentric players even go on to cite the name of the game thinking that it justifies that only Europeans should be playable in CK2, but it is completely stupid and ridiculous because the game's name is a marketing thing for a bracket term for the era, not the original point for the development.
It's a meh from me, but I don't mind it. Good to have the Steppes, Persia and so on, but it damaged the performance too much for it to be praised. That and the fact that Medieval European history are much more entertaining than Medieval Indian history which we, generally speaking, know nothing about in the West.
I enjoy playing as Hindu raiders sailing over to Arabia and Persia to steal their daughters and loot with elephants. So RoI is a-okay in my opinion.
I don't have much interest in playing there tbh, but I appreciate the opportunity for Buddhism and Hinduism to spread into the Steppes/Persia and I think it is very valuable to have an eastern frontier in the Muslim world.
I've liked it so far.
I've nearly taken the whole continent and have started slowly burning away at the muslims. I've pestered them so much that for some reason the byzantine empire has completely destroyed western Europe and taken back the Kingdom of Jerusalem. I guess without muslims bugging them they just begin to takeover the world. They've nearly completely wiped out catholicism and they've already taken back italy. I'm not even anywhere near them either, it's all just indirect causes since the muslims are burning up all their forces trying to reinvade me.
There's no point playing anything other than Jain until you hit the muslims. The subjugation doesn't work on rulers not of your culture, which basically limits you to ~1-2 subjugations at the start, for an 867 start date you'll have used up all your available subjgations nearly immediately if you begin as a king since you'll already have vassalized all of your culture almost and then you're in the grind phase of just fabricating claims and doing weak claims for your vassals. The holy wars also do not work on indian religions, it only works on the other religions, so invading the muslims early on is pretty advantageous just to quench your boredom.
Things picked up when I had about 60% of the continent and my vassals were getting claims on entire duchy's and kingdoms and could take large blobs at a time.
Playing as a Jain makes your empire ridiculously stable, you'll nearly never have a succession crisis. The worst I had was a premature death and my 1 year old child taking over and I had to quell a ton of rebellions.
Despite what the ck2 wiki says you do get a negative modifier for short rein, only buddhists don't get that, hindu's and jain still have that though.
Another thing the ck2 wiki has wrong is the negative modifier for women, only buddhists are okay with females, the other religions aren't. Historically Jains were actually the most anti-female of all the indian religions from my understanding of it, in-game it's the same as other religions with the -10 modifier.
Once you hit the muslims I've found switching to buddhism has helped, I still need to grab the bengal region of india so I'm not ready to switch to Hindu, plus the caste system is kind of annoying.... I'm not sure if it's even worth it to switch really.
Also I'm not 100% sure of this but I have a feeling as a hindu you'll get double the negative modifier for having a merchant vassal since you'd get the regular wrong government type plus another wrong caste type, so if you have a merchant vassal don't be surprised if his opinion is very low. It's probably nearly impossible to have one as a hindu unfortunately.
Overall if you're looking to make a gigantic blob and be able to wipe out the muslims quite easily it seems to be the way to go. The ghaznavids are your main enemy early on but they only takeover counties as far as their historical limit it seems, They'll take over 4-5 counties in the northeast corner of India and then stop pretty much. They'll stop right before delhi which is where historically they ended. Over the next 50-60 years their 80k levy will slowly dwindle to about 5-10k as they proceed to expand into the other muslim nations and they'll very rarely attack indian kingdoms it seems.
I've nearly taken the whole continent and have started slowly burning away at the muslims. I've pestered them so much that for some reason the byzantine empire has completely destroyed western Europe and taken back the Kingdom of Jerusalem. I guess without muslims bugging them they just begin to takeover the world. They've nearly completely wiped out catholicism and they've already taken back italy. I'm not even anywhere near them either, it's all just indirect causes since the muslims are burning up all their forces trying to reinvade me.
There's no point playing anything other than Jain until you hit the muslims. The subjugation doesn't work on rulers not of your culture, which basically limits you to ~1-2 subjugations at the start, for an 867 start date you'll have used up all your available subjgations nearly immediately if you begin as a king since you'll already have vassalized all of your culture almost and then you're in the grind phase of just fabricating claims and doing weak claims for your vassals. The holy wars also do not work on indian religions, it only works on the other religions, so invading the muslims early on is pretty advantageous just to quench your boredom.
Things picked up when I had about 60% of the continent and my vassals were getting claims on entire duchy's and kingdoms and could take large blobs at a time.
Playing as a Jain makes your empire ridiculously stable, you'll nearly never have a succession crisis. The worst I had was a premature death and my 1 year old child taking over and I had to quell a ton of rebellions.
Despite what the ck2 wiki says you do get a negative modifier for short rein, only buddhists don't get that, hindu's and jain still have that though.
Another thing the ck2 wiki has wrong is the negative modifier for women, only buddhists are okay with females, the other religions aren't. Historically Jains were actually the most anti-female of all the indian religions from my understanding of it, in-game it's the same as other religions with the -10 modifier.
Once you hit the muslims I've found switching to buddhism has helped, I still need to grab the bengal region of india so I'm not ready to switch to Hindu, plus the caste system is kind of annoying.... I'm not sure if it's even worth it to switch really.
Also I'm not 100% sure of this but I have a feeling as a hindu you'll get double the negative modifier for having a merchant vassal since you'd get the regular wrong government type plus another wrong caste type, so if you have a merchant vassal don't be surprised if his opinion is very low. It's probably nearly impossible to have one as a hindu unfortunately.
Overall if you're looking to make a gigantic blob and be able to wipe out the muslims quite easily it seems to be the way to go. The ghaznavids are your main enemy early on but they only takeover counties as far as their historical limit it seems, They'll take over 4-5 counties in the northeast corner of India and then stop pretty much. They'll stop right before delhi which is where historically they ended. Over the next 50-60 years their 80k levy will slowly dwindle to about 5-10k as they proceed to expand into the other muslim nations and they'll very rarely attack indian kingdoms it seems.
I've never played there, played in Afghanistan though. Which wouldn't be there if it weren't for RoI.
In all honesty, I find it difficult to look at India with anything but indifference. I hardly ever look over there, but when I do, I can't help but feel...I don't know, like it doesn't belong here. It just seems too idyllic and unchanging compared to the rest of the map. It looks like a dull place to play, really.
I suppose it could be down to my ignorance of medieval India; but I suspect it's more due to how terribly represented it is in-game. I find it difficult to take an interest in because it's nothing like the rest of Eurasia in CKII - after all, it is an entire subcontinent divided between all of two culture groups, and three heresy-less religions (Islamic invaders notwithstanding). It screams homogeneity. As it stands, there are no states, religions or cultures in India that truly stand out to me, or even strike me as vaguely different from any of the others. They all play more or less the same. They don't even look any different from eachother - they all have the same portraits, same CoAs, same UI, same music. Even having such a superficial degree of diversity would probably make me a bit more interested in India.
Contrast this with the rest of the map, which is only a few times larger than India, but has many times more distinct cultures and religions. That's why I prefer it, there's so much more choice, even if I think it's still a bit lacking. The rest of the map just has what India doesn't - loads of dynasties with pretty unique CoAs (you'd be surprised how easily even something as superficial as that could sway me into playing as people I otherwise wouldn't), loads of religions with waaay more events and features than those in India.
And let's not forget the hordes, and stuff like that. I daresay the Ghaznavids are the only interesting thing to happen in India unless there's a player there, or unless a player intervenes.
In all honesty, I find it difficult to look at India with anything but indifference. I hardly ever look over there, but when I do, I can't help but feel...I don't know, like it doesn't belong here. It just seems too idyllic and unchanging compared to the rest of the map. It looks like a dull place to play, really.
I suppose it could be down to my ignorance of medieval India; but I suspect it's more due to how terribly represented it is in-game. I find it difficult to take an interest in because it's nothing like the rest of Eurasia in CKII - after all, it is an entire subcontinent divided between all of two culture groups, and three heresy-less religions (Islamic invaders notwithstanding). It screams homogeneity. As it stands, there are no states, religions or cultures in India that truly stand out to me, or even strike me as vaguely different from any of the others. They all play more or less the same. They don't even look any different from eachother - they all have the same portraits, same CoAs, same UI, same music. Even having such a superficial degree of diversity would probably make me a bit more interested in India.
Contrast this with the rest of the map, which is only a few times larger than India, but has many times more distinct cultures and religions. That's why I prefer it, there's so much more choice, even if I think it's still a bit lacking. The rest of the map just has what India doesn't - loads of dynasties with pretty unique CoAs (you'd be surprised how easily even something as superficial as that could sway me into playing as people I otherwise wouldn't), loads of religions with waaay more events and features than those in India.
And let's not forget the hordes, and stuff like that. I daresay the Ghaznavids are the only interesting thing to happen in India unless there's a player there, or unless a player intervenes.
Playing in India feels like a different game all together, largely because you don't really pay any attention to europe (something you usually always do). Getting claims is annoying and it's a bit uncomfortable to have to deal with "wrong" religion characters after having europe and everywhere else teach you that homogeneity is always under all circumstances desirable.
Honestly I wasn't sure why India never grabbed my attention but this really hits the nail on the head. Even the geography is bland, with it mostly being a giant triangle aside from the major river basins up north. Beyond having all the same portaits, those portraits honestly make everybody look like a clone of each other. The whole ahistorical jain blob is also a huge turnoff because it ruins what little immersion there is left. I suspect that might actually be whats behind the whole norse india obsession, people are intetested in the region but want to inject some life into it.
Wasn't Jain was the predominant religion of India around that time though? It was only on a slow decline post-600 but wasn't really eliminated until islamic invasions post-1000 if you go by Wikipedia history lol
Plus historically buddhism was nearly eliminated except for the northeast corner and sri lanka, which is also pretty accurately shown in the game.
Last edited:
All of Europe has the same portraits too without the facepack DLCs... And the geography... Yeah. Geographically India isn't that interesting like Europe. But that's not Paradox fault.
This exactly. Somewhere paradox posted a map as source. Or at least I heard it and can't found the map.
It's provided me with four quite enjoyable full-length playthroughs and some interesting lesser try-outs, so I'm happy with my purchase. Additionally, the expansion of Persia and Central Asia it brought with it are in my opinion nearly crucial - the dynamics in the Persian macro-area would still be entirely stunted without it, as many others have pointed out above. No performance issues either, though my laptop is hardly optimally geared for gaming.
As for the portraits, I would dearly love to see more variation between the north and the south, but I'm not holding my breath in waiting for it, unlikely as such a facepack would be.
As for the portraits, I would dearly love to see more variation between the north and the south, but I'm not holding my breath in waiting for it, unlikely as such a facepack would be.
Not true. The Subjugation CB is limited to the same cultural group, not subgroup. There are only 2 different culture groups, "North" (Indo-Aryan) and "South " (Dravidian). You can hover over the Name of a person's culture, or a county's, and you'll see the main culture group come up.
As ignorant as that may sound, I find it hard to play as an Indian ruler, simply because I cannot relate to or memorize the names around that area. As a consequence, I don't really relate to my characters as I would in central Europe. It's a pity though, since I really like the mechanics and different religious sects.
Exactly, although I do intend to try and set up a Durga Vanihi state eventually.
