Developer Diary 19 – Crusades
- Thread starter King
- 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.
While Darkrenown may have jumped the gun a little, I do see his point and largely agree. I hope there's some improvements to Crusade mechanics later on in a patch or DLC, but by no means did I ever expect the game to be a simulation of the Crusades - the original wasn't like this and not once have the devs ever hinted that it was. It's not even thoroughly suggested; most of the selling points that they list are about controlling a character, his dynasty and shaping European history. The crusades are naturally included, but it barely at all suggests that the crusades are the focus.
To be honest, I think a game that was more focused on crusading as opposed to managing a dynasty and complex medieval politics would be very uninteresting. I'd certainly have no intention of buying CK2 if it headed into that direction.
Regards,
The non Crusader
To be honest, I think a game that was more focused on crusading as opposed to managing a dynasty and complex medieval politics would be very uninteresting. I'd certainly have no intention of buying CK2 if it headed into that direction.
Regards,
The non Crusader
Another stawman. Who is saying that the main focus of CK2 should be on Crusades?
There just doesnt seem to have been any evidence of impovement over CK1's fairly lackluster crusade mechanics. A decent crusade system is NOT mutually exclusive to "mangaing a dynasty and complex medieval politics", indeed I would have thought they were complimentary.
I imagine development recources are limited and some things take precedent (I just hope 7 "humorous" live action videos was not one of them).
I haven't seen any suggestions for actual crusade improvements, only people complaining that it's not as accurate as they want and suggestions for a new interface. What exactly does this even truly add? A screen to tell you who's actively in a crusade? The ability to help finance it? All of these things can be covered without introducing a new interface screen, which could introduce new bugs and problems and thus push the release date further back, just for something as simple as a screen to give you information.
You can find out all of these things without this screen as far as I'm aware, you can mod events/decisions in to give gold to crusaders (this may even be an event/decision already for all we know). So my only question is, what is actually being suggested aside from nifty but ultimately useless quick access information screens?
Btw, the poster who suggested the screen indeed did remark he doesn't understand why the game isn't focused on the Crusades. I know hes not alone as I've seen other posters dismayed about the lack of focus on Crusades, again, words distinctly different from "we dont think the game represents the Crusades well enough". That may be your opinion, but there are certainly people upset that the games focus isn't on the crusades.
I've seen many people ask to emulate Medieval II: Total War's mechanics in other threads, which would be a terrible idea, given how awful that game was in many ways, least of which in historical accuracy. Such a system would be clunky for a Paradox game even if it was historically accurate, so we'd be introducing possible performance issues, bugs, etc for a useless feature that adds nothing but novelty.
Well you must not have read the suggestion I made earlier in this thread to implement something along the lines of the Crusade mechanics in MTW1 where it is a unified army made up of troops and commanders form different Catholic realms. What I see as the main problem with the current crusade mechanic is a lack of any co-operative enterprise, its been confirmed by a Dev as being individual wars in CK2. This was a huge problem in CK1 because it meant the muslim target could be then sail up to invade their enemy Scotland and Sweden. Apparently this wont be so much of an issue in CK2. However I think the Devs have missed a very good oppurtunity to flesh out the "medieval politics" of the crusades. e.g. Richard the Lionheart feuding with fellow Austrian crusader who imprions him and demands a huge ransom.
Another suggestion: couldnt there be some way a Crusade mechanic could be implemented as a modified plot, which other rulers can join?
Like you John, I am hoping CK2 will be awesome, praising the impovements is fine, but setting up strawmen and shooting down any valid criticisms wont necessarily improve the game.
Another suggestion: couldnt there be some way a Crusade mechanic could be implemented as a modified plot, which other rulers can join?
Like you John, I am hoping CK2 will be awesome, praising the impovements is fine, but setting up strawmen and shooting down any valid criticisms wont necessarily improve the game.
My point on bugs/weird outcomes and the like still stands. I have a feeling it'd be pretty pressing on the engine, not to mention sometimes abstraction is better. For example, under the current system whomever arrives first in the province is the considered the leader of the siege. This can be abstracted as meaning the two forces are working together as opposed to you the player just seeing it as a race. I don't truly see anything lost here that can't be explained through some abstraction, but I can easily see many issues arising and either delaying the release or removing focus on other things.
I do like this. It sounds perfectly workable within the current system without too many "game breaking" risks being taken. Given the level of moddability the developers have remarked on, even to the extent of adding new councilor positions, I think this is more than possible to put in. But I'm not a programmer, so I don't know.
Just in another thread, a dev thought I was attacking (or joining an attack) on a concept/feature/improvement so I really can't win it seems. Perhaps my traits make me a figure of ridicule and contempt, but I think it's quite apt given my username (I'm out of character now, oops).
At any rate, I'm not setting up strawmen. I perfectly understand the Crusading aspects may seem lackluster to those of us that want everything explained in detail so we know exactly how these things are working, but there's enough abstraction here for you to piece together the details if you really look at what the devs have given you.
That being said, I of course would love them to improve the Crusading mechanics. Lets face it, if they do end up doing a Muslim/Pagan themed expansion, Crusading improvements are destined to be in the expansion.
Regards,
The Great
Clearly you have problems understanding my posts. I will be as simple as possible:
I have not commented on crusade mechanics, most comments were covered earlier in the thread.
I have commented on the flawed argument of "name = focus" and poor logic in general.
No one has said crusades won't be part of the game. Crusades are in there and work fine. Some people have said, after reading this DD, that they don't think our crusade mechanics are "good enough" and have specifically pointed at the title of the game as a reason they must be "better".
Finally, you are taking a quote out of context just as earlier posters did, and again if we take it literally we should only allow you to play as King level characters, which is clearly not the case. You cannot use part of a quote as a literal absolute rule while ignoring the rest in a reasonable debate, which was the entire point of my last post. But nevermind, being reasonable is hard, let's just declare everyone's argument a strawman and be done with it.
A moments thought should tell you promotional trailers would come out of the marketing budget and not affect developers at all.
And with the "fun level" of the liveaction videos, you could just as well had put that money in the garbage or sent it for me at christmas.
The title is Crusader Kings, and yes it's not actually a reference to the crusades, but to the kings/rulers at the time of the crusades. But still a title set in 1066-1453 naming itself Crusader Kings, clearly use the "crusader" as marketing, and therefore has a responsibility to cover it well.
I'm still positive overall. The game looks promising. But please, handle criticism better or as well as it's given, instead of the childish level of answering potential customers.
If this is our market analysis of the trailer I'd advice you not to quit your day job...
@Filip De Norre
Just because you don't find it funny, dosn't mean it is not fun... I liked it, as I've stated earlier, it reminded me of Monthy Pythons, granted nowhere near it, but still fun...
Just because you don't find it funny, dosn't mean it is not fun... I liked it, as I've stated earlier, it reminded me of Monthy Pythons, granted nowhere near it, but still fun...
Comparing it to Monty Python (Holy Grail, I suppose) is an insult to the entire British Commonwealth. It's not fun, and I'm shocked anyone finds it just a little bit funny.
EDIT: Actually no, Just gonna do what i do in any social media, where i encounter stuff like this.
I said, it reminded me of Monthy Pythons. Nothing will ever equal it. If you don't consider it funny, fine, but don't act like you're the only one who knows what "fun" is.
now that will be the last of this from me, as I've probably already gone too far, so I'll go on to ignore you instead, but I find your statement borderline offensive.
I said, it reminded me of Monthy Pythons. Nothing will ever equal it. If you don't consider it funny, fine, but don't act like you're the only one who knows what "fun" is.
now that will be the last of this from me, as I've probably already gone too far, so I'll go on to ignore you instead, but I find your statement borderline offensive.
It's a shame you don't like it, but it might shock you further to learn that a sense of humor is not universal.
Well, I picked out the subtle hidden message that you're evidently incapable of being polite to the people you want to buy your product, including when they're being polite to you.
Indeed. Instead, you've decided to attack people based on an argument few or none of them have actually made.
The very first post in this thread suggests that the Crusades are important because they're in the title...
Nobody said interpret everything literally and to extremes. That's the strawman.
Indeed, many of the people who said "It's in the title" were joking, or used it as one part of a long list of reasons why Crusade mechanics should work better. None of those points have been addressed. Only this one point, which you insist is the core of people's complaints.
So it looks like you're trying to avoid criticism by focusing on the one aspect of the argument you know you can defeat, and pretending the rest doesn't exist.
Crusading is not the most important factor of the game, but it is still a factor. We can't really judge until we see it in action, but this looks like exactly the same mechanic that didn't work very well in the first game.
So, as I understand it, we're STILL gonna see a rainbow of colors in the Holy Land after a successful Crusade?
I was kind of hoping for an event driven system that forces counts to band together to form the Kingdom of Jerusalem (or whatever kingdom) after a successful Crusade, forcing you to either give up your holdings in Jerusalem or Europe. You could have even thrown in a Byzantine Vassalage request (Kingdom) if you want to be fancy.
Currently, if I understand it correctly (someone prove me wrong, please!), it doesn't really make much sense for the Duke of Brittany to also be the Prince of Galilee, while being a vassal of the King of England while you are surrounded by hostile Muslim nations, and ten-fifteen Christian counts and dukes from Norway, France, Spain, Poland, and Italy.
Heck, even if you wanted to use the Crusader City-States as an example, they still didn't remain vassals of their previous realms. Even the Principality of Antioch (probably the largest Crusader State not attached the Kingdom of Jerusalem) became a vassal of the Byzantine Empire after a short war of Independence immediately following the close of the First Crusade. The Duchy of Apulia wasn't involved with that either.
I'm disappointed that Paradox let me down on this issue, as it was my biggest problem with the original game.
I was kind of hoping for an event driven system that forces counts to band together to form the Kingdom of Jerusalem (or whatever kingdom) after a successful Crusade, forcing you to either give up your holdings in Jerusalem or Europe. You could have even thrown in a Byzantine Vassalage request (Kingdom) if you want to be fancy.
Currently, if I understand it correctly (someone prove me wrong, please!), it doesn't really make much sense for the Duke of Brittany to also be the Prince of Galilee, while being a vassal of the King of England while you are surrounded by hostile Muslim nations, and ten-fifteen Christian counts and dukes from Norway, France, Spain, Poland, and Italy.
Heck, even if you wanted to use the Crusader City-States as an example, they still didn't remain vassals of their previous realms. Even the Principality of Antioch (probably the largest Crusader State not attached the Kingdom of Jerusalem) became a vassal of the Byzantine Empire after a short war of Independence immediately following the close of the First Crusade. The Duchy of Apulia wasn't involved with that either.
I'm disappointed that Paradox let me down on this issue, as it was my biggest problem with the original game.
Man skammer sig nærmest over også at være dansker med den opførsel.
The game looks brilliant, and I never claimed the crusades didn't work., as I haven't played the game. What made Paradox games good has often been the implementation and inspiration of comments from the users in this forum. Every single aspect (or development diary) looked amazing until the crusade diary. A lot of users have petioned for an improved and realistic crusades mechanism. I think it's fair to ignore it, and say, "we have this and we think it´'s great". But the aggressive and insulting defense put up immediately because someone is dissapointed is what's annoying. Like humor ain't universal, gameplay ain't either. Wake up Paradox, perhaps someone prefers something other than you, and it could be you who are wrong, instead of claiming what you do is the ultimate best always. At least give one or two reasons for doing what you do instead of "WE KNOW BEST".
Well, I'll stop now, because if Deus Vult works, the game will be superb no matter what
