.png){kind=avatar}
My take on this is that no one ever complains about the historicity of berserkers despite even less evidence for them. It's a nonissue *shrug*
- 21
- 2
CK3 - What's Next?
- Thread starter PDX_Pariah
- 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'm always impressed, but not surprised, at the amount of salt in threads like this. The expansion looks cool, and I'm happy with my preorder. I understand that a lot of people are annoyed that their pet area didn't get the first DLC, but that was going to be true no matter where the flavor pack was set. Personally, Byzantium doesn't interest me, just like the Norse areas don't interest a lot of you.
As far as I'm concerned if the developers want to work on their own favorite historical areas before branching out they absolutely have that right. I know that I'm personally looking forward to starting up a Norse campaign later this week.
As far as I'm concerned if the developers want to work on their own favorite historical areas before branching out they absolutely have that right. I know that I'm personally looking forward to starting up a Norse campaign later this week.
- 36
- 9
- 7
Well you've brought up one that actually does bother me. The AI actually does do that one. I don't understand why it isn't just a localization. Or not even that. It's literally just a replacement for England that makes doing some things in the game impossible and you can never bring England back.
Very badly implemented I agree. I also agree that should be optional. I agree all things that annoy some people and not others like that should be optional. I also think the decision should be reworked or removed in general.
I wouldn't put it in the same category as North Sea Empire though as North Sea Empire isn't a direct replacement for anything, the AI will never form it in a trillion years, and it won't break anything as there being no England does.
Yeah we agree there.
- 9
- 4
- 1
What? Are there really live people. who think that berserkers were a bands of drug-users with bear-hats? I thought that it's just a pop-culture image like two-horned helmets.
I got very directly confronted with the Birka grave controversy during my earlier studies, so I just try to avoid this stuff altogether.
Gameplay-wise it doesn't seem to have that big of an impact anyways, and I generally prefer to play as Christians or the pagan Slavs-Balts anyways ;-)
- 3
Well, it is my 'pet area'. I'm a massive fan of Norse-related stuff and Viking Age history (I wrote my dissertation on Viking Age York and Dublin). I like Viking Age-related media, when it's done right. I don't particularly like ahistorical caricatures that have been flogged to death. Yeah, it's a game, but it's a game that prides itself on historical roleplaying and immersion.
- 4
- 3
- 2
The biggest positive surprise is the quick release date. It means that they are (probably) already working on the major expansion. Price to content ratio also seems decent (depending on how many events are in the pack).
I wonder what will happen to DDs. Will they stop after literally 2-3 DDs? Or do they already have new things to show?
I wonder what will happen to DDs. Will they stop after literally 2-3 DDs? Or do they already have new things to show?
- 10
- 1
Has there ever been a piece of viking age media done right?
- 10
I'm glad we agree on that. I do find it frustrating that when people voice their grievances about poorly-implemented aspects of the game that could easily be fixed with a simple rule option so people can play to their own tastes get shot down for being 'salty' lmao.
I mean, it's fine if people want to form the Kingdom of Danelaw in their own play-throughs. I have zero problem with that. I just want the option to turn it off for my own role-play purposes. Not everyone plays CK3 the same way. I hate map-painting. It gets a bit boring for me after a while. The best thing CK3 could introduce in the short-term is more rule options so each player can play in their own particular way.
- 8
- 2
This is also a concern for me. I've seen people misrepresent the vikings for everything from stereotypes, to cultural appeal, to the political debate on both sides. I really wish they would be portrayed atleast somewhat correctly sometime outside of just mods :'-)
I consider Vicky the Viking to be a historically accurate portrayal of vikings ;-)
- 3
- 2
Yeah, I definitely understand peoples' desire to have only 3 Empires represented in-game etc. (or 4 depending on what you're doing with the Khan).
Absolutely. There'd be so much less fighting if the devs were much more liberal with their game rules. I personally hate blobbing as well and despise how quickly culture conversion and religion conversion happen. I don't think manual culture conversion even makes sense at all in any context during this period outside of settling areas with low population (and even then the result should often be melting pot). I wish the culture and religion conversion rates were semi-random and much more slow like in CK2.
Last edited:
- 5
- 4
- 3
Not exactly to my tastes. There's always some misguided trope somewhere. The best ones, in my opinion, tend to be older Icelandic films from the 1970s/80s, at least in terms of historically-accurate aesthetics and depiction of Norse culture.
- 1
That stuff is relative. At heart, CK has always been a simplified, sensationalized, caricaturesque depiction of the Middle Ages. Same goes for a lot of popular media that claims to evoke the period e.g. ASoIaF/Game of Thrones. Look, I love Norse mythology and the Icelandic sagas—Njal's Saga was so awesome it inspired me to write my own—and hate pop culture Vikings with their hipster haircuts and bondage gear as much as anyone, but it's a game. I feel a lot of the negativity around these forums stems from folks' unrealistic expectations of a pedantically accurate simulation where there's only an abstracted entertainment product.
The Long Ships was pretty good. When did that come out again? Right, the forties. But I recently read this Elizabeth Bear short story in the Fantasy & Science Fiction magazine that made me wish she'd made a whole novel out of it.
- 18
- 3
- 1
Vinland Saga tones down some of the ridiculous clothing and hair if you don't mind half the characters having superhuman strength.
- 2
- 2
I was always turn Culture Conversion to Slowest and Religious Conversion to Slower for my play-throughs. It's the closest vanilla gets for logical cultural and religious conversion within the existing mechanics. I like rules like that, as it adds more choice for people who want a more realistic experience, even if it makes the game intentionally more difficult.
PDX need to realise not everyone plays their games the same way. Some players like to become an overpowered incestuous emperor who is also the head of his own wacky nudist religion. Others like to role-play a bit more. I just wish they took this on board and gave us more flexibility and options to do this.
- 12
- 1
I actually have this issue with Lotharingia, as I brought up in my nagging thread a week ago. Maybe they will add something like that in the future
I personally turn culture conversion to the slowest option possible and religion to slower, to atleast represent the usual timeframe a duchy can realistically "convert" culture and religion.
I believe the Norwegians had a revival of interest in the Viking Age around 1900, and some of their art of that time (used in a lot of those Norwegian folk song videos on YouTube) looks pretty accurate, but I'm very far from an expert in Norwegian dress from the 8th to 12th centuries.
EDIT: Seems like I'm not the only one that fiddles with the conversion settings...
- 2
- 1
- 1
Here's hoping that the first expansion gets announced very earlier than PDXCon...
- 3