CK interview on Wargamer

[unmerged(345)]

Re: a la 3ª va la vencida

Originally posted by Gorion
Remenber that it is Extremadura

and i will commit ritual suicide if such a thing as "Cantabria" supplants "Biscay" (Señorío de)

 

[unmerged(3440)]

Hopefully, the Euskadia/Cantabria behemont from the EU series will be splitted up in several provinces. I just hope they use La Montaña or even Santander, and not Cantabria

BTW, is there any possibilities that you ask the names of the provinces to the natives before the map is completed?

 

[celedhring]

If they divide Catalonia into the Countships of Empúries, Girona, Urgell, Barcelona, Cerdanya and Rosselló I'll be a very very happy man... . With 900 provinces they could go with such a level of detail and it would give a very historic feel to it.

 

[Styrbiorn]

Well, I'll make a note about the map too. First a little map, you'll have to copy the link as brinkster refuse direct linking:

www10.brinkster.com/styrbiorns/sverige.gif

Description: gray lines are modern Län border, red are the old ones (as of 1200). The lines are drawn after maps and descriptions (ie the border went through that hill to that mountain etc).

J is for Jamtaland, R for Ravund (after the 1600s known as Ragunda) and H for Herjeaadalen. I used the old and correct spellings, if you didn't notice
Note that the borders of Härjedalen is late Medievel ones (before that the name only refered to a part of it).

Härjedalen was a part of Norway, sent a representant to the elections of the king etc, while Jämtland was an independent republic up to 1178, when it became an autonomous vassal within the Norwegian realm. Ragunda was a part of the Swedish colonized Hälsingland.

And of course, the seal of Jämtland from 1274:

And lastly, whatever you do, don't spell Jamtland with an 'ä'

 

[magicpiper97]

Originally posted by Crook


Why would you lose the game though? There would definitely be brothers and sisters of the ruler and their children can fight it out, I surely hope you'll be able to support one of them

ohhh, that brings up a good question... If you have a brother who supports you, perhaps the dynasty can live on through him. But if your brother is your rival, and he manages to take the inheritance on your death, does that mean you've lost?

 

[celedhring]

Originally posted by magicpiper97



ohhh, that brings up a good question... If you have a brother who supports you, perhaps the dynasty can live on through him. But if your brother is your rival, and he manages to take the inheritance on your death, does that mean you've lost?

I suppose that you can only have "PC" characters as heirs. I.e.: a brother who controls another nation could overthrow you, and you would lose. However, brothers that you "control" could not. Just wildguessing here

 

[unmerged(8642)]

thats not true at all. Anyone in your court could decide to try and overthrow you or at least rebel and take their lands to another ruler and switch vassalages (or whatever its called). And you continue the game as long as your heir is in control. So even if you have no children or only have a cousin or uncle, so long as you name him heir and he can maintain power you keep playing.

 

[celedhring]

Originally posted by roachclip76
thats not true at all. Anyone in your court could decide to try and overthrow you or at least rebel and take their lands to another ruler and switch vassalages (or whatever its called). And you continue the game as long as your heir is in control. So even if you have no children or only have a cousin or uncle, so long as you name him heir and he can maintain power you keep playing.

Yes, we need to draw a line on while would make you lose control of the dinasty and what would not. I think it's okay as long as you name a heir and he is not overthrown. However, what stops you of naming one of your enemies "heir"? I mean a rebelling brother, for example.

 

[unmerged(8642)]

I'm not sure about the whole rebelling brother thing. I know you can't name a random person heir cause they have to have some claim to the throne. But maybe a rebellious brother you'd have to name as heir otherwise your dynasty might not survive.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by celedhring
If they divide Catalonia into the Countships of Empúries, Girona, Urgell, Barcelona, Cerdanya and Rosselló I'll be a very very happy man... . With 900 provinces they could go with such a level of detail and it would give a very historic feel to it.

If they divided all EU provinces into six counties like that they will need 2000 provinces instead of 900.

 

[celedhring]

Originally posted by Sonny


If they divided all EU provinces into six counties like that they will need 2000 provinces instead of 900.

Actually, they were 3 provinces in EU: Barcelona, Gerona and Rousillon

 

[Winkelried]

Originally posted by Sonny


If they divided all EU provinces into six counties like that they will need 2000 provinces instead of 900.

Who said they had to split up all the EU provinces? Only those in Spain need to be so accurate.

Originally posted by roachclip76


These are what i found most interesting:
"The player will see in some form what happens during the battle."

-I'm curious how indepth it will be, obviously not a full fledged battle on screen but it would be cool to get a little more detail than eu2.

Since this is a grand strategy game, I think we wont be able to command the forces in battle. Hence whether we get a nice animation or only a dry event description it wont change much where outcome of the battle is concerned. IMO under these conditions a EU2 like "show" is quite enough.

 

[unmerged(5790)]

Originally posted by Sonny

With one of the Snowball guys working in cartography, the maps ought to be pretty accurate.

Great, maybe the map of the balkans will make some sence now

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Winkelried


Who said they had to split up all the EU provinces? ..............

Quite right. It might not be necessary. But I don't know of any provinces (maybe Iceland) which would not need splitting.

Anyone have a suggestion of which EU province(s) would not need to be divided into smaller chunks of land?

 

[Styrbiorn]

Well, as you said, there is no need of splitting Iceland. Further, Lappland was populated by Sami people and never came under any state and could be PTI in CK.

 

[unmerged(5790)]

Originally posted by Sonny


Quite right. It might not be necessary. But I don't know of any provinces (maybe Iceland) which would not need splitting.

Anyone have a suggestion of which EU province(s) would not need to be divided into smaller chunks of land?

Ile de France, Kosovo, Calais, all those small ones in central north europe. I'm sure i can think of others

 

[Syt]

Holstein should be split in two, maybe three provinces.

 

[Styrbiorn]

Has "Location: Holstein" something to do with that?

Seriously I agree. Gottorp, Schleswig & Holstein perhaps?

 

[unmerged(6838)]

A goodly number of the Russian ones could stay intact, but even more of them would have to be bifurcated (even trifurcated).

 

[Syt]

Nah, Schleswig would be part of current Jylland. I was thinking of Gottorf and Dithmarschen at least (those Dithmarschians were a very unruly people then, even fighting off the Danish for some decades after a victory in the early 1500s) - north of the Dithmarschians were the Nordfriesen, but I am not quite sure of their status at that time.