Crusader Kings II: The Republic - "Post Mortem" Thoughts

[Me_]

I am very much enjoying The Republic DLC. Many thanks. I would like to again plug for my own self-interest in a Papacy expansion--maybe making theocracies playable, but mostly expanding on the influential role the Pope played amongst Catholic states.

Yup. An expansion to the Catholic faith would be very much appreciated. I'd like to see monasteries being included in it as well.

 

[Tempestra]

Another feature we agonized over was naval combat. This is a huge deal, and we've basically argued the matter to death. There were some significant naval battles in the rough period, but the only engagements of strategic importance during the entire era seems to have been the Battle of Meloria between Genoa and Pisa and the Battle of Sluys. On the other hand, many efforts to intercept raids and invasions failed miserably. Thus, naval combat in CKII, if ever added, would not be an all or nothing affair, but more akin to skirmishes with very limited casualties. It would still require a great deal of work to implement. End verdict: not worth it.

It has been ZERO DAYS since our last "Plz can we have naval combat!!!!!11!one" thread.

 

[fanoI]

IMHO this imminent DLC should have not be limited to Northern Pagans but to all Pagans, simply they use a Viking (or maybe is a Dwarf, so we get a Dwarf invasion, maybe) as they're the better to symbolize all the pagan world.
(Yeah they could use a Zulu with painted face and a bone in his nose but, admittedly, he would not have the same effect).

So I hope to see Tengrism (this could implicate playable hordes maybe?), Baltic Pagans, Zoroastrianism and optionally African paganism too... maybe adding something in those "no character" areas in North Africa.

In the end the basic mechanic is the same... more that one goodness, sacrifices, tribes and so on... ahh yes and Catholics/Islamic that Holy war you all times!

Do you want to pay to have Asuratsu Religion, then to pay to add Tengri and so on? Really?
I will not...

P.S. I'm unsure if is correct to use the term "pagan" referring to Zoroastrianism in the end is a monotheistic religion in some way (oh well in some way Ahriman was a goodness, too) and the "secret" father of Judaism, Catholicism and Islam... Zoroastrianism and Persia are so huge and different to generic "pagans" that it deserves a dedicated DLC perhaps...

 

[laijka]

Do you want to pay to have Asuratsu Religion, then to pay to add Tengri and so on? Really?
I will not...

If it means a deeper more unique experiences between them, yes.

And going by previous DLCs I wouldn't have to pay for all of them to enjoy that, only if I wanted to play as them would I be required to pay.

 

[Raph]

Initially, we discussed completely waiving the importance of your dynasty, allowing you to play a succession of Doges regardless of their origins. This would entail gameplay more along the lines of Europa Universalis, where you play a country. The main concern with this approach was that it would eliminate one of the most fun and unique aspects of CKII; the building of a Dynasty. Thus, we decided on the "five families" concept and the virtual "Family Palace" holding. I am very pleased with this design choice since it preserves the dynasty based gameplay while still providing something new and different.

I loved this part with The Republic, in some ways it felt even more like playing a dynasty and not just a series of heirs when you play a republican family. I also loved the family feud effects and event series and I'd love to see more long-term interaction between dynasties rather than just characters, not just in republics but in feudal realms as well.

 

[RhoDaZZ]

I'm intrigued to hear you considered adding trade goods to the game - it could really need more economic depth (yes yes I know that's not the focus of the game and the name of the game, but surely after DLC #IDon'tknowwhich there's a chance?). Something to also make landlocked or mostly land-based city-states playable perhaps...

Also very happy to see naval combat out of potential features, again. Naval transport could be more hazardous and flavourful, though.

 

[Theophotos]

Just wanted to say good job, Paradox. I've been playing your games for years and you are still one of my favorite, it not my favorite, game producer.

 

[The Turk2]

Wait why has the trading post system of EUIV been rejected?? Its perfect! And that way you don't have the ugly conquering of all of Africa and Asia in 1500, but rather you can build tradeposts in these places, to simulate economic control, which is all the Europeans were interested in, until much later (post-Napoleonic Wars).

 

[Red_warning]

If they were to include ALL pagan religions in a single DLC then we will most likely get a very watered down experience that will feel like a mish mash of everything, which is why I don't think we will see any expanding on anything except asatru. If the DLC even touches religion, we don't even know that for sure.

 

[worst2first]

I would also like to see religion get some love (especially Catholicism and Orthodoxy). Catholicism needs the most work (College of Cardinals, religious orders, etc.) but I would also like to see monasticism play a much larger role in Orthodox lands. After all, some of the Byzantine Emperors passed laws to limit the monasteries because so many subjects were taking vows it was seriously weakening the military.

 

[Tempto]

Wait why has the trading post system of EUIV been rejected?? Its perfect! And that way you don't have the ugly conquering of all of Africa and Asia in 1500, but rather you can build tradeposts in these places, to simulate economic control, which is all the Europeans were interested in, until much later (post-Napoleonic Wars).

Doomdark meant that a similar but more advanced trading post system that we have now in CK2 was proposed to be used in EU4 but rejected, not the opposite

 

[oilers41]

I also loved the family feud effects and event series and I'd love to see more long-term interaction between dynasties rather than just characters, not just in republics but in feudal realms as well.

This is definitely my favorite part of the new dlc. It adds so much more to the immersion and I always find myself plotting and going to war with the family I'm feuding with regardless of whether it is strategically necessary or not. I mean seriously, how dare they not invite my great-great-great grandfather to their ball. Anyhow, its a great addition and I hope it is both added to feudal characters and also that even more events for these feuds are made!

 

[spinoza013]

We should have feudal dynasty feuds too.

 

[Blastaz]

Did the patch fix the bugs with it?

It was a great addition but it could have done with a bit more testing. The bug that annoyed me was losing your retinues to the new doge when you lost the election as doge but still having them count against your upkeep costs. Has that gone?

 

[MartinSWE]

I believe that 'Pagans' will be covered in two separate DLC:s, one 'northern' which includes baltic/finnish and norse pagans and one 'southern' which includes every other significant pagan group. Even though there probably where quite substantial differences between the 'northern pagans' having more then two expansions would look a bit 'greedy' and might put people of.

 

[GrapeApe]

Something that was not mentioned about this DLC (and the future Papal DLC ;P ) is that it helps to test the viability of these game features in EU:Rome 2.

No need to respond. I will take the silence as confirmation that a Rome 2 is already on the drawing board.

 

[bmullins0118]

If you need a beta tester, here I am.

 

[Raph]

This is definitely my favorite part of the new dlc. It adds so much more to the immersion and I always find myself plotting and going to war with the family I'm feuding with regardless of whether it is strategically necessary or not. I mean seriously, how dare they not invite my great-great-great grandfather to their ball. Anyhow, its a great addition and I hope it is both added to feudal characters and also that even more events for these feuds are made!

Right? And that's the stuff I love with CK2. In contrast to the other PDS games (though I do love them too), CK2 really succeeds in making me want to do non-strategically "correct" things because of how I feel about them, and losing is fun. Feuds is a good example on giving me non-"gameplay" motivations, something I think is nessecary in a sand-box game.

 

[Wallain]

Another feature we agonized over was naval combat. This is a huge deal, and we've basically argued the matter to death. There were some significant naval battles in the rough period, but the only engagements of strategic importance during the entire era seems to have been the Battle of Meloria between Genoa and Pisa and the Battle of Sluys. On the other hand, many efforts to intercept raids and invasions failed miserably. Thus, naval combat in CKII, if ever added, would not be an all or nothing affair, but more akin to skirmishes with very limited casualties. It would still require a great deal of work to implement. End verdict: not worth it.

I really hope you reconsider this along with letting ships sails on rivers. CK2 is already one of the best games you guys ever made, but this would just put it right up there on a pedestal.

 

[Hackworthy]

Another feature we agonized over was naval combat. It would still require a great deal of work to implement. End verdict: not worth it.

I am enormously glad to hear you say that.