Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon Announced

[Thure]

Again why do region specific games if you can fit it into crusader kings? Especially when there is some limited interactions. Also think I saw a quote a while back where paradox said they wouldn't do games like that any more.

Because they don't fit into CK? Who should they add two nearly seperated regions (completelly seperated after 1100 and impossible to contact each other) with completelly different gameplay? And yes, Pre-Columbian America would need completelly seperate mechanics. So it would be basically be two games in one. Completelly seperated, completelly different in the mechanics. The only thing which connects them was some Norse settlers in the time from 1000 to 1100 (somebody tried it from Greenland in 1121 but never came back and we never heard from that guy again). So around 100 years of circa 700.

And the greenland has norse colonies until after Columbus "discovers" america.

I said 'colonies in modern sense'... The Norse don't had colonies like the British Empire, Spanish Empire or Portugal. It were some Norse groups which settled in North America on their own. They just settled their and did some trade with thew natives and back home. That's it. Using 'colonies' implies it would be more like how the Spanish or Portugues colonised America.

 

[TheDungen]

Because they don't fit into CK? Who should they add two nearly seperated regions (completelly seperated after 1100 and impossible to contact each other) with completelly different gameplay? And yes, Pre-Columbian America would need completelly seperate mechanics. So it would be basically be two games in one. Completelly seperated, completelly different in the mechanics. The only thing which connects them was some Norse settlers in the time from 1000 to 1100 (somebody tried it from Greenland in 1121 but never came back and we never heard from that guy again). So around 100 years of circa 700.


I said 'colonies in modern sense'... The Norse don't had colonies like the British Empire, Spanish Empire or Portugal. It were some Norse groups which settled in North America on their own. They just settled their and did some trade with thew natives and back home. That's it. Using 'colonies' implies it would be more like how the Spanish or Portugues colonised America.

Colonialism is settling. The whole conquering huge swathes of territory is imperialism.
We also speak of the viking colonisation of England, it was done in exactly the same way as the north american and greenland ones.
And because it is in the same timeframe and the game already has to be 5 or 6 games in one to represent the old world. Separating a part of the world break the export chain. Alos having the americas might mean we could push the end date a bit further into the future. Which would be great since there are some people in the century after the game ends who'd make great ck characters.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

We also speak of the viking colonisation of England, it was done in exactly the same way as the north american and greenland ones.

What? The Vikings mostly went to England for the loot, the permanent settlement was an afterthought in the wake of the extraordinary successful conquest of much of northern England, as they originally just intended to install an Anglo-Saxon client king in Northumbria.

 

[Fire and Ash]

Guys as the person who kicked off this running debate, I would like to get us back on track here. My original post was not about whether the Americas and the Old World had contact, it was whether Paradox evolution of the game, would make it more likely for their inclusion. It may not be in CK2, but I do believe now that the scope has been expanded to China, and to a more alt-history degree, the Americas, there is more an argument to be made that CK3 could include more regions.

I mean the argument about historical accuracy has always been important, but as with any Paradox Earth setting, the moment you start playing ahistorical things are going to take place. These games are alt-history and while a degree of realism is needed, I see no real issue to the Americas inclusion in the game. It would have to be the implementation that is important. If for example you enable the Sunset Invasion option, you could play the native Americans from that time line. Or alternatively you could play just as a native tribe deal with other tribes.

 

[TheDungen]

What? The Vikings mostly went to England for the loot, the permanent settlement was an afterthought in the wake of the extraordinary successful conquest of much of northern England, as they originally just intended to install an Anglo-Saxon client king in Northumbria.

Source on that? Because the fact that they settled there with their families (as shown by genetic evidence) seems to suggest if was settling not invasion and not raiding.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Source on that? Because the fact that they settled there with their families (as shown by genetic evidence) seems to suggest if was settling not invasion and not raiding.

The Great Heathen Army took York in 866 and left to continue raiding other parts of England, leaving an Anglo-Saxon puppet king called Ecgberht behind. It's not until this puppet king was disposed by Ricsige did they permanently took over Northumbria in 876 for themselves and settle there.

 

[TheDungen]

The Great Heathen Army took York in 866 and left to continue raiding other parts of England, leaving an Anglo-Saxon puppet king called Ecgberht behind. It's not until this puppet king was disposed by Ricsige did they permanently took over Northumbria in 876 for themselves and settle there.

Except neither of those wikipedia pages actually says what you claim. They just speak of a single king deposed and replaced nothing of the leaps of logic you do about the reasons and the effects.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Except neither of those wikipedia pages actually says what you claim. They just speak of a single king deposed and replaced nothing of the leaps of logic you do about the reasons and the effects.

Literally one click away:

the leaps of logic you do about the reasons and the effects.

Such as

We also speak of the viking colonisation of England, it was done in exactly the same way as the north american and greenland ones.

Vikings went to England to loot and extort tribute from the local populace. Vikings didn't went to Greenland to loot and extort tribute from the local populace.

You want more proof? The same thing happened in Ireland. The Vikings first went there to loot, later established encampments (longphort), and these eventually became permanent settlements.

 

[TheDungen]

Literally one click away:

Such as

Vikings went to England to loot and extort tribute from the local populace. Vikings didn't went to Greenland to loot and extort tribute from the local populace.

You want more proof? The same thing happened in Ireland. The Vikings first went there to loot, later established encampments (longphort), and these eventually became permanent settlements.

That's just account of one military campaign I'm talking in much greater scope. Also both those articles mention the settlement so this invasion/raid narrative that you have going on kind of falls on it's face.

I can't find it now but I had this article about how there were a fair bit of mitochondrial DNA of viking origin in the english population showing that there were women among the "invaders", suggesting that entire families may have moved.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

That's just account of one military campaign I'm talking in much greater scope.

"Settlement of 876"

 

[TheDungen]

"Settlement of 876"

Also both those articles mention the settlement

The vikings settled England much like they settled Iceland, Greenland, Russia, and the Baltic coast. It's a form of early colonialism.

 

[Keizer Harm]

Could you guys take your discussion somewhere else please? This has nothing to do with the original thread.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

The vikings settled England much like they settled Iceland, Greenland, Russia, and the Baltic coast. It's a form of early colonialism.

Nope. In England, Russia, and the Baltics they established their settlements in already settled land and remained the minority. In Iceland and Greenland they ventured into wilderness and established settlements in unclaimed lands. They are by no way

done in exactly the same way

or

much like

You seems to be missing the point. I've never claimed that Vikings didn't settle. I'm saying that the settlements are nothing alike.
-----
Edit:

Could you guys take your discussion somewhere else please? This has nothing to do with the original thread.

Oops, sorry.

 

[TheDungen]

Nope. In England, Russia, and the Baltics they established their settlements in already settled land and remained the minority. In Iceland and Greenland they ventured into wilderness and established settlements in unclaimed lands. They are by no way

or

You seems to be missing the point. I've never claimed that Vikings didn't settle. I'm saying that the settlements are nothing alike.
-----
Edit:

Oops, sorry.

Iceland and Greenland were inhabited, if sparesely. North america certainly was.

Ok done

 

[ed75]

Anyone else stoked about all the new CBs in this DLC? I think I'll buy it for this reason alone. Not sure how interested I am about the China stuff but we'll see.

 

[Jaang]

Anyone else stoked about all the new CBs in this DLC? I think I'll buy it for this reason alone. Not sure how interested I am about the China stuff but we'll see.

I'm excited about everything in this DLC, including the CBs.


Some of the new CBs will make breaking out of India a lot easier for Buddhist realms, as single-county holy wars and forged claims get tedious when trying to take all of the Middle East.


Also, the Silk Road revamp looks really cool too, and being able to send off for Chinese engineers or Chinese princesses with attached honor guards is just icing on the cake.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

Anyone else stoked about all the new CBs in this DLC? I think I'll buy it for this reason alone. Not sure how interested I am about the China stuff but we'll see.

I am not. These are Christian centric CBs as other feudals outside Indians do not really need any of these CBs (and even then Indians get Subjugation and in exchange have limited succession laws.) Jews and Zorastrians will rarely ever have co-religionists to interact with in this manner.

Any buff to expansion should also be paired with a nerf to stability, as seen with decadence/Nomad splitting, and Elective Gavelkind. Here we see none of that, and I see that as a real problem we already have with large (most notably Christian) realms.

 

[Stichen]

Could at least make the dlc worth by adding the rest of mainland asia (and japan).

 

[TheDungen]

Could at least make the dlc worth by adding the rest of mainland asia (and japan).

I something beyond mainland would be added it should be the islands in indonesia not japan. Japan was not important in this era.

 

[liredarion]

I something beyond mainland would be added it should be the islands in indonesia not japan. Japan was not important in this era.

I don't want to create another debate like a few lines above, but Japan from the Nara and Heian period to the sengoku jidai has an extremely rich history and decisive relationships with East Asia. The trade of metals, and the flow of Chinese products, make it a decisive place of trade in the East. And then the period treated in ck2 is the period of the genpei war and the invasion attempt of Kubilai. So even if i personnaly don't think it could be a good idea to represent it as an off-Map entity in game , it's not true that it was not important in this era .