Yeah, we should have some sort of mosque buildings for musilms in the game, along with more fleshed out events and countries.
-
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
Yeah, we should have some sort of mosque buildings for musilms in the game, along with more fleshed out events and countries.
@Veld
Its not really weird considering some muslim provinces start off with churches already built in them. Add to that the fact that the muslims can take over christian provinces with churches already built too. Just because they can't build them doesn't mean they won't ever have them in their provinces.
I just couldn't see the saracens tolerating all these churches on muslim lands; they would be converted, although perhaps not in such places as andalucia where christians were indeed tolerated, but had to pay extra taxes.
I know that muslims cannot build said buildings, but what im saying is that they should be able build their own religious building series, and be able to convert the churches that they find on their lands.
On another thought, it would be cool if you could have both christian and muslim religious buildings in the same province for a tolerant realm. In the short term it could stop loyalty falling to low, but in the long term it could open the way for a series of religious strife events, whereby the ruling party would have to decide in favour of their chosen faith. i.e. you wouldn't immediately destroy/convert the opposite religions buildings, but over time you could eventually purge them from your lands.
Its not really weird considering some muslim provinces start off with churches already built in them. Add to that the fact that the muslims can take over christian provinces with churches already built too. Just because they can't build them doesn't mean they won't ever have them in their provinces.
I just couldn't see the saracens tolerating all these churches on muslim lands; they would be converted, although perhaps not in such places as andalucia where christians were indeed tolerated, but had to pay extra taxes.
I know that muslims cannot build said buildings, but what im saying is that they should be able build their own religious building series, and be able to convert the churches that they find on their lands.
On another thought, it would be cool if you could have both christian and muslim religious buildings in the same province for a tolerant realm. In the short term it could stop loyalty falling to low, but in the long term it could open the way for a series of religious strife events, whereby the ruling party would have to decide in favour of their chosen faith. i.e. you wouldn't immediately destroy/convert the opposite religions buildings, but over time you could eventually purge them from your lands.
good idea about having churches and mosques in the same province, that would make for some interesting gameplay.
Not having read this thread I don't know if it's been suggested already, but I'd really like a character tracking system. It could use something like the alert system, or the outliner, but you should be able to track anyone you desire. A tracked character would be listed on the main screen somewhere and important details could be checked via a tooltip, and a click would take you to the faimly tree/ledger. In addition you should be able to set it up to alert you to certain changes, like them becomeing of marriagible age, gaining/losing heir status, or dropping below a certain loyalty etc.
I have some more ideas based on my continued playing of this great game.
It is very nice that the progress of time in the game can be changed and paused. This makes it very useful to be able to study one's situation in a frankly more realistic manner: even at slowest speed, the game passes far more rapidly than the span of time that a leader would have had to respond to many of the situations that require decision-making in game. Combined with the message settings, particularly the pause-popup function, the user interface part of the real-time strategy flow of the game is quite sufficient.
The main crux of the suggestion I have is that the realism of some of the leader commands in game is unrealistically immediate, and inconsistent across some cases.
For example, when we send a marriage proposal, there is a delay. We get a message that " . . . we expect Count Jacque will respond by 14 May . . ."
To the extent that it could be done, this sort of delayed information input/output and response should be standard across all aspects of the game. I believe that this would make the game feel likes "gamey" and more historical. Linked the previous suggestion that I made that all characters (and units) should have a "location" (what place they are in, whether they are moving, how fast, and to what second, third, fourth location, etc.) in their data that cannot simply be updated at any time.
Let me explain. I am Philippe Valois of France. My court is in Ile de France. It is May 1 1070. The kingdom of France includes all the vassals included at 1066, and I directly possess Ile France, Orlean and Lyons.
If I click on the province development screen for Ile de France, the effects of my orders to build should be met with a message like "We have authorized the expenditure of 150 ducats with our Chancellor and sent a writ to our Sheriff in Ile De France to institute a training grounds in the county. We expect to hear back from our Sheriff in __ days." some such kinda flowery Medieval lingo. The icon on the screen should change at that point to show that an order to build has been sent. Once the building actually starts, then the standard workman with hammer-anvil should start.
Once we hear back, perhaps the Sheriff tells us that he should be able to finish the project on time. Or maybe we get a message that he was too drunk to respond to our messenger. Or maybe he is just incompetent. Again, lots of room for flavor here, and potential "micro-kingdom" soap-operas here that I think the game has only started to tap into.
Virtually all aspects of the game could (I think) benefit from this sort of reworking. With respect to military units, I think the human has a little to much control over military units. If it woudl be possible the dynamics of communicating between armies in the field via messengers should also be modelled. If on May 10 1070 I send orders to my Marshal commanding the Orlean regt to proceed north into Chartres and from there east into Ile De France, then perhaps (if I am in Ile de France) it will take 3 or 4 days for the message to get there. Once it does, if after he starts his march, I send a second order for him to change course and move west into Normandy, perhaps my messenger doesn't even manage to rendezvous with him for a week? I suspect that this could be complex to code, but if done properly might make the AI a more serious opponent.
Obviously, the farther away you send a messenger, the longer it will take to get word back. Perhaps messengers could be shown on the map as a traveling icon. Messengers could be interdicted, allowing important, and confidential communiques to be intercepted, and providing an opportunity for increased tensions in the game. If I intercept a diplomatic envoy of the Duke of Toulouse as they are passing through Orleans on their way east (seemingly toward Kingdom of Germany to communicate with my arch-nemesis King Heinrich of Germany) perhaps I can send a black ops group of thugs to intercept and detain them or perhaps word leaks out that the thugs are really my hirelings. Maybe a fight ensues and someone gets wounded. Maybe they actually escape and flee. Who knows!?
This leads into a related theme of suggestions: we need more flavor in the interactions between characters, at least between the player and his courtiers and other characters in the game.
If I want to host a feast in July of 1070 and invite all of my vassals except the Duke of Flanders, I should be able to do that. While they are assembled, might be an excellent time to try to assassinate all of them, although doing so may well cause Civil War. Or maybe I want to use their gathering as a way to gauge who is loyal to me and who is not. Maybe I just want to flirt with 15-year old Agnes of Aquitaine whom I'm intending to betroth? For that matter it would be nice if there were at least a limited set of "types of communiques" I could send to any character in the game (Love Note; Patronizing Dismissal; Unreasonable Request for Subordination; etc., etc.).
There is tremendous room for development in these aspects of the game and the present system offers a firm foundation on which to build.
It is very nice that the progress of time in the game can be changed and paused. This makes it very useful to be able to study one's situation in a frankly more realistic manner: even at slowest speed, the game passes far more rapidly than the span of time that a leader would have had to respond to many of the situations that require decision-making in game. Combined with the message settings, particularly the pause-popup function, the user interface part of the real-time strategy flow of the game is quite sufficient.
The main crux of the suggestion I have is that the realism of some of the leader commands in game is unrealistically immediate, and inconsistent across some cases.
For example, when we send a marriage proposal, there is a delay. We get a message that " . . . we expect Count Jacque will respond by 14 May . . ."
To the extent that it could be done, this sort of delayed information input/output and response should be standard across all aspects of the game. I believe that this would make the game feel likes "gamey" and more historical. Linked the previous suggestion that I made that all characters (and units) should have a "location" (what place they are in, whether they are moving, how fast, and to what second, third, fourth location, etc.) in their data that cannot simply be updated at any time.
Let me explain. I am Philippe Valois of France. My court is in Ile de France. It is May 1 1070. The kingdom of France includes all the vassals included at 1066, and I directly possess Ile France, Orlean and Lyons.
If I click on the province development screen for Ile de France, the effects of my orders to build should be met with a message like "We have authorized the expenditure of 150 ducats with our Chancellor and sent a writ to our Sheriff in Ile De France to institute a training grounds in the county. We expect to hear back from our Sheriff in __ days." some such kinda flowery Medieval lingo. The icon on the screen should change at that point to show that an order to build has been sent. Once the building actually starts, then the standard workman with hammer-anvil should start.
Once we hear back, perhaps the Sheriff tells us that he should be able to finish the project on time. Or maybe we get a message that he was too drunk to respond to our messenger. Or maybe he is just incompetent. Again, lots of room for flavor here, and potential "micro-kingdom" soap-operas here that I think the game has only started to tap into.
Virtually all aspects of the game could (I think) benefit from this sort of reworking. With respect to military units, I think the human has a little to much control over military units. If it woudl be possible the dynamics of communicating between armies in the field via messengers should also be modelled. If on May 10 1070 I send orders to my Marshal commanding the Orlean regt to proceed north into Chartres and from there east into Ile De France, then perhaps (if I am in Ile de France) it will take 3 or 4 days for the message to get there. Once it does, if after he starts his march, I send a second order for him to change course and move west into Normandy, perhaps my messenger doesn't even manage to rendezvous with him for a week? I suspect that this could be complex to code, but if done properly might make the AI a more serious opponent.
Obviously, the farther away you send a messenger, the longer it will take to get word back. Perhaps messengers could be shown on the map as a traveling icon. Messengers could be interdicted, allowing important, and confidential communiques to be intercepted, and providing an opportunity for increased tensions in the game. If I intercept a diplomatic envoy of the Duke of Toulouse as they are passing through Orleans on their way east (seemingly toward Kingdom of Germany to communicate with my arch-nemesis King Heinrich of Germany) perhaps I can send a black ops group of thugs to intercept and detain them or perhaps word leaks out that the thugs are really my hirelings. Maybe a fight ensues and someone gets wounded. Maybe they actually escape and flee. Who knows!?
This leads into a related theme of suggestions: we need more flavor in the interactions between characters, at least between the player and his courtiers and other characters in the game.
If I want to host a feast in July of 1070 and invite all of my vassals except the Duke of Flanders, I should be able to do that. While they are assembled, might be an excellent time to try to assassinate all of them, although doing so may well cause Civil War. Or maybe I want to use their gathering as a way to gauge who is loyal to me and who is not. Maybe I just want to flirt with 15-year old Agnes of Aquitaine whom I'm intending to betroth? For that matter it would be nice if there were at least a limited set of "types of communiques" I could send to any character in the game (Love Note; Patronizing Dismissal; Unreasonable Request for Subordination; etc., etc.).
There is tremendous room for development in these aspects of the game and the present system offers a firm foundation on which to build.
If we really want to go into details;
a) New marriage system;
Courtiers that are not part of your dynasty can marry. The count/ duke/ king can only approve or disapprove of the marriage, the lovers might flee if the king disapprove. The marriages of dynasty members should perhaps also be revamped somehow, relatives that are far from the current line should probably handle their affairs themselves. Marriages between ruling dynasties should also create some kind of temporary truce where the realms can't attack each other for some time.
b) Fleets;
You know you want it.
c) Trade
This could be trade routes like in EU: Rome.
d) Female inheritance
Well, it did occassionally happen. The vassals might be a little bit unpleased with a female liege though.
e) Muslims and pagans playable;
Absolutely, with their own unique style and rules.
f) Perhaps another class;
There were miserble people that were outside the peasant or burger classes. This kind of poor bastards (stableboys, day- labourers etc.) could be in the game. Don't know what function they'd have though.
e) rebels with a cause;
from EU 3. There should mostly be peasant revolts, but the barons could also launch a revolt, or the muslims if you've taken their lands. Those revolts should be tough to beat.
a) New marriage system;
Courtiers that are not part of your dynasty can marry. The count/ duke/ king can only approve or disapprove of the marriage, the lovers might flee if the king disapprove. The marriages of dynasty members should perhaps also be revamped somehow, relatives that are far from the current line should probably handle their affairs themselves. Marriages between ruling dynasties should also create some kind of temporary truce where the realms can't attack each other for some time.
b) Fleets;
You know you want it.
c) Trade
This could be trade routes like in EU: Rome.
d) Female inheritance
Well, it did occassionally happen. The vassals might be a little bit unpleased with a female liege though.
e) Muslims and pagans playable;
Absolutely, with their own unique style and rules.
f) Perhaps another class;
There were miserble people that were outside the peasant or burger classes. This kind of poor bastards (stableboys, day- labourers etc.) could be in the game. Don't know what function they'd have though.
e) rebels with a cause;
from EU 3. There should mostly be peasant revolts, but the barons could also launch a revolt, or the muslims if you've taken their lands. Those revolts should be tough to beat.
What about forced vassalization, especially of nobles who have revolted from a realm.
At present I have to take all their provinces and titles then grant them out to someone else. An option to force them back into vassal status would be good.
Actually forced vassalization would be good in other circumstances too (though it should be expensive in warscore).
EDIT: Perhaps I have not installed my DV properly, because the DV description say I should be able to do this. It seems to show DV when I run though.
At present I have to take all their provinces and titles then grant them out to someone else. An option to force them back into vassal status would be good.
Actually forced vassalization would be good in other circumstances too (though it should be expensive in warscore).
EDIT: Perhaps I have not installed my DV properly, because the DV description say I should be able to do this. It seems to show DV when I run though.
Last edited:
Both those previous ones sound good.
Since this is a 'wishlist' I'll shoot for the moon. Maybe this is just unrealistic, and would never happen. But if you don't suggest it definitely won't happen!
_Relationships_ Not sure how this would work, but . . . there should be a ledger page of sorts where all relationship in the game can be assessed. Say for example you type in Phil . . . and the thing automatically pops to the Philippe de Valois. You can then set him as the "Ego" in a dyad comparison.
Then you set the "Alter" in a dyad "Heinrich of Germany" for example. It would be nice to get some basic info on the relationship between these two characters.
If they are not even aware of each other, maybe that too should somehow be included? The idea that you as the Monarch have effectively perfect knowledge about every royal house in all of the Euro area is perhaps in and of itself worthy of some reworking. Maybe there is a certain 'fog of war' effect that clouds the actual composition of the more distant houses, or maybe you are not sure if Ida is still in Heinrichs court or not?
In any event, the dyads: would be nice to be able to see the nature of a relationship between any two characters. There is a rich "social networks" scientific literature that has a good set of terminologies that could be used and ways to model relationships based on starting historical values and then how to model their shifting in-game. "Relation +100" is just a little bit simplified.
We could have: Time known; Trust Level; Respect; Dominance (Authority-Subordinance); Valence (affection-antipathy); Arousal (Lust-Revulsion).
With a relatively limited set of "actions" that can be performed between characters (Flirt; Chastise; Flatter; Humiliate; etc.) and some sort of attribute-modified rate of "actions" (maybe you get 0.8 correspondence actions per point of Intrigue [meaning you can send a letter or courier] and 1.0 "Court" actions [actions toward whomever is in the court where "you" are located"] per Intrigue).
It should be possible to travel to different counties in your demesne and even to those of your vassals and other monarchs too.
Maybe I'm trying to dream up a more "role-playing" oriented sort of Crusader Kings. However, I think that what the game has only scratched the surface on are the social dynamics and I cannot think of a better way that this could be played out. Anyway just ideas!
Since this is a 'wishlist' I'll shoot for the moon. Maybe this is just unrealistic, and would never happen. But if you don't suggest it definitely won't happen!
_Relationships_ Not sure how this would work, but . . . there should be a ledger page of sorts where all relationship in the game can be assessed. Say for example you type in Phil . . . and the thing automatically pops to the Philippe de Valois. You can then set him as the "Ego" in a dyad comparison.
Then you set the "Alter" in a dyad "Heinrich of Germany" for example. It would be nice to get some basic info on the relationship between these two characters.
If they are not even aware of each other, maybe that too should somehow be included? The idea that you as the Monarch have effectively perfect knowledge about every royal house in all of the Euro area is perhaps in and of itself worthy of some reworking. Maybe there is a certain 'fog of war' effect that clouds the actual composition of the more distant houses, or maybe you are not sure if Ida is still in Heinrichs court or not?
In any event, the dyads: would be nice to be able to see the nature of a relationship between any two characters. There is a rich "social networks" scientific literature that has a good set of terminologies that could be used and ways to model relationships based on starting historical values and then how to model their shifting in-game. "Relation +100" is just a little bit simplified.
We could have: Time known; Trust Level; Respect; Dominance (Authority-Subordinance); Valence (affection-antipathy); Arousal (Lust-Revulsion).
With a relatively limited set of "actions" that can be performed between characters (Flirt; Chastise; Flatter; Humiliate; etc.) and some sort of attribute-modified rate of "actions" (maybe you get 0.8 correspondence actions per point of Intrigue [meaning you can send a letter or courier] and 1.0 "Court" actions [actions toward whomever is in the court where "you" are located"] per Intrigue).
It should be possible to travel to different counties in your demesne and even to those of your vassals and other monarchs too.
Maybe I'm trying to dream up a more "role-playing" oriented sort of Crusader Kings. However, I think that what the game has only scratched the surface on are the social dynamics and I cannot think of a better way that this could be played out. Anyway just ideas!
Force-vassalization is part of DV already, so yeah you haven't installed it correctly
Once the game is loaded, check the version in the corner .. if it says 2.0 or 2.1 beta then you have DV installed, if not, you arestill playing CK (which load-screen does say Deus Vult, but that has nothing to do with the expansion).
You should also after a time and when your province is rich enough, have the ability create yourself King of that area. So for example the Duke ofCornwall could make himself Kingdom of Cornwall instead of sticking to simply a Duke.
Last edited:
CK2 Timeline
It is only a matter of time before PI announces the sequel to the world-conquering hit Crusader Kings (lets hope that it is announced after V2 )
But my question here is: what timeline do you think teh sequel should have? Do you think that 1066 is a fine start?
I personally would like to start around year 900 (like TDY mod for EU3). The Europe there is a bit more interesting to me then the 1066 start.
It is only a matter of time before PI announces the sequel to the world-conquering hit Crusader Kings (lets hope that it is announced after V2
)But my question here is: what timeline do you think teh sequel should have? Do you think that 1066 is a fine start?
I personally would like to start around year 900 (like TDY mod for EU3). The Europe there is a bit more interesting to me then the 1066 start.
In my opinion, anything much before 1066 and there is too much of Europe where the vassal relationship is not appropriate.
Even in Western Europe, feudalisation was only really as complete as the CK model in France (and England after the Norman Conquest).
So going earlier might be interesting, but not really appropriate.
Similarly, CK can't go past the development of effective siege guns, with the consequent massive increase in cost of armies (and hence effective elimination of the private feudal army is most parts of Europe).
So 1066 to 1453 is a plausible period ofr their model.
Even in Western Europe, feudalisation was only really as complete as the CK model in France (and England after the Norman Conquest).
So going earlier might be interesting, but not really appropriate.
Similarly, CK can't go past the development of effective siege guns, with the consequent massive increase in cost of armies (and hence effective elimination of the private feudal army is most parts of Europe).
So 1066 to 1453 is a plausible period ofr their model.
If... I mean when, CKII finally comes out, it is likely to have a timeline system a kin to EUIII, i.e. can pick your own specific date to start on, as opposed to the scenario system of CK (1066, 3rd crusade etc). This means that there will be many opportunities to play as new dynasties, so extending the timeline probably won't be such a big deal.
I would like to play from the effective collapse of the Roman empire (western) onwards, but it would really require a separate game instead of expanding CK timeframe. Why mess with a tried and tested formula; I think 1066-1452 is fine.
I would like to play from the effective collapse of the Roman empire (western) onwards, but it would really require a separate game instead of expanding CK timeframe. Why mess with a tried and tested formula; I think 1066-1452 is fine.
That seems logical, but then just think of how many data you will have to research.
Lets assume the following:
- The number of provinces stays the same
- You can also play Muslim, Pagans, Republics and so on.
- That means that there will be about 600 'nations' to choose from.
For those 600 nations you will then have not only to find all the rulers over a 400 year time-period, but also the greatest part of their families (grandparents, parents, wife, children, brothers, sisters, uncle's, aunts, cousins) plus you need ot find the family-ties between all those rulers.
Doing that for just 3 scenarios, is already an immense task. Doing it for a period of 400 years will mean that the research alone will take up 2 years or so
.
Looking how Victoria 2 will have only one scenario (the Grand Campaign), I think the same will hold true for the future games: only one scenario since most people play from the earliest date availavable (tough it shall be lefzt possible for modders to add new scenarios).
That seems logical, but then just think of how many data you will have to research.
Lets assume the following:
- The number of provinces stays the same
- You can also play Muslim, Pagans, Republics and so on.
- That means that there will be about 600 'nations' to choose from.
For those 600 nations you will then have not only to find all the rulers over a 400 year time-period, but also the greatest part of their families (grandparents, parents, wife, children, brothers, sisters, uncle's, aunts, cousins) plus you need ot find the family-ties between all those rulers.
Doing that for just 3 scenarios, is already an immense task. Doing it for a period of 400 years will mean that the research alone will take up 2 years or so
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would've figured that they'd simply (for the most part save blatant errors) just use either CK: DV as a base for what the rulers in CK2 would be, or TASS/DVIP since both have rather accurate information.
I'd like to see them just eliminate an arbitrary ending date. The game of course stops making sense by the 1800's easily, but the point is I like the game also as a lineage simulator rather than a period specific simulator, and if there was no time limit I could easily just operate under a fantasy concept.
What use would those games/mods have ? Since those things only give the historical conditions on about 4 years (1066, 1187, 1204 and 1335).
While Juggernaut is talking about being able to start at any date between 1066 and 1453 (just like EUIII and EU:Rome). Neither CK DV, TASS or DVIP would be of much use there since they haven't researched all those years.
Paradox game will always have an ending date, but with all the new games. Editing the end-date is usually editing some text-file. And not like with CK now, where you have to edit the .exe.
It would be nice to start at any single date but I do not see how it would be practical, given the detail of what would be necessary, as Veld pointed out. I believe more or less 1066 for DVIP and TASS is the "gold standard" considering the amount of work that has already gone into that scenario, though there is clear work yet to be done. Especially once more tags of all kinds are added. However, I do think they should keep the other scenarios, incorporate Veld and Jord's DVIP and TASS into the final published release so that a Before the Conquest and 4th Crusade may be included as well- four popular and significant years spaning a great time frame.
At least PI could give us scenarios starting at mentioned years. Well, I wouldn't care much for 1335 scenario (it's too late to develop dissent family tree). Instead it would be nice 1094 or 5.
The only thing I would not really like if we get only 1066. That would be pity. Let us give 1187 at least, so many dynasty changed in the mean time. For my personal selfish reason I would like to be able to play both Serbian dynasty rulers Voisavljevic and Nemanjic as they switched on throne.
Perfect would be start at any year as mentioned, however that’s not going to happened so we should ask for more realistic options and that is minimum two and nicely 4 or 5 scenarios.
And I'm still against republic and muslim as playable but I will not complain as long as the rules for christian rulers would not change from CKDV, that is if playing muslim or pagan would be separate part of the game, meaning you can play eather as christian or as muslim, no switching after start.
I do not see any reason to continue after 1453, really.
It is only a matter of time before PI announces the sequel to the world-conquering hit Crusader Kings (lets hope that it is announced after V2
But my question here is: what timeline do you think teh sequel should have? Do you think that 1066 is a fine start?
I personally would like to start around year 900 (like TDY mod for EU3). The Europe there is a bit more interesting to me then the 1066 start.
I would not mind start in 900s as long as they include as a scenario eather 1066 or 1090something.
- Status