Playing the rise of Islam might be fun but I just can't see how a PI game would handle most of Europe during this time...
EU3- Dark and Early Middle Ages
- Thread starter robb1993
- 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.
- Status
Playing the rise of Islam might be fun but I just can't see how a PI game would handle most of Europe during this time...
I too would be very interested in a strategy game on that period. I think the focus of a campaign would have to be much more localised than in EU3, possibly with smaller & more numerous provinces. Exactly what the core mechanic of the game would have to be is unclear to me though, I've not played Crusader Kings but a greater character, clan/tribe or family focus might be the way to go. I suspect that again this would be a game where the game world only really covers Europe, the Mediteranean and Asia -in a truly playable sense.
Er, well, yes, none of the current series are particularly suited to it. But when P'dox decided to do the Industrial Revolution, they didn't try to shoehorn it into HOI or EU, they sat down and designed a different sort of game. Or are you arguing that the period is essentially unadaptable?
They have the Horde mechanic.
EVERYONE IS HORDES!
Seconded!
A focus on Islam (they are unplayable in Crusader Kings!), the development of post-Roman Europe, etc., would be an amazing game. I don't know when EU:Rome ends, but I'd think the best time for this game would be July 632, up to 1066 (or otherwise, if CK2 has a diferent start date). At this time 'Islam' or 'the Caliphate' (Paradox sure would enjoy coming up with names and flags for this period!
) control only parts of the Arabian peninsula. Mechanics to represent their rapid expansion would be interesting, the weak situation of the Eastern Roman Empire would still have a chance of resisting them in North Africa in the hands of a human player, etc.
I'd love to see Charlemagne, Barbarossa, Vikings, Saxons and Normans in Britain.
Manizkurt and the Seljuk Turks. The spread of Christianity into Scandanavia and Eastern Europe.
The formation of Spain. Moors in France. That entire period is a fantastic yet sadly uncovered section of history.
As for time pheriod: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Middle_Ages
from 410- 1099 would be really interesting i think
Manizkurt and the Seljuk Turks. The spread of Christianity into Scandanavia and Eastern Europe.
The formation of Spain. Moors in France. That entire period is a fantastic yet sadly uncovered section of history.
As for time pheriod: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Middle_Ages
from 410- 1099 would be really interesting i think
just looking through here that list i'm already thinking of ideas, where the game done in an EU3 style then 'The Groans of the Britians' could be a really good event chain or whatever.
Definitely alt history to say the least. The empire accepting and staying in Britain yet risking over-extension and the like or leaving and watching the place collapse into anarchy
Definitely alt history to say the least. The empire accepting and staying in Britain yet risking over-extension and the like or leaving and watching the place collapse into anarchy
I'll see your DV and raise you Doomsday, or possible IN!
CK is a good fun game. They gave it away for free a couple of months ago which has breathed a bit of life back into the community.
Ah - was IN really such a big leap? I never played EU III without it (first bought Complete). I love CK - first Paradox game I got - still don't think you can beat a good Jiminez game.
Essentially Unplayable. I think it is almost more suited to TW and Barbarian Invasions than a Grand Strategy style. There is no tech development, no slow build up of your nation, no diplomacy. It would be an almost complete 180 from the style of game they generally make. Also there would be the ballance problem, that some states are just absolutely freaking huge compared to others.
Basically I think they couldn't make it because...
EVERYONE IS HORDES!
Great Invasions - http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/greatinvasions/review.html - created by Philippe Thibaut. The game simulates rising (barbarian -> kingdom -> empire) and fragmentation of states between 350 and 1066. The game seriously needs a sequel (without bugs, which unfortunately are numerous in the GI).
lol for real. wow if only this forum did reputation points i'd give you one.
Agree with above 100%. We are missing the period from the fall of the WRE to the beginning of CKII which is from 470ad to 1066ad. This Era has a tremendous amount of potential and history not covered in the other games.
Because this is a PI game being released in 2012 means playable in 2013 after 3 or 4 patches.
The problem with this time period is that it is not conducive to building a nation. The dark ages are dark because it was the fall of cilvilization and empires. Famine, plague etc. Didn't Europe lose around half of its population? Today in EU3 we complain when our one province country can't dominate. Yet this timeperiod if historically accurate would keep us at just a couple of provinces max.
Here would be a typical game. You either play a horde country like the Vikings or a small kingdom of 1-2 provinces that end up fighting the barbarians or paying them off. This would continue for 400 years or so. CK took the small kingdoms of less than one province and made them into EU3 countries of 4 or 5 provinces. EU3 takes those 4-5 provinces and turns them into nations of 100+ provinces. The dark ages takes a one province and tries to keep it at one province. Or maybe you take a country of 15 provinces and watch it fragment till only one province is left. I think the reason no one has made a dark ages game is because it just woulnd't be all that much fun to play.
Well the Bubonic Plague happened during the CK period (1300's).
The Dark Ages has Charlemagne and his Empire.
The Vikings Invasions
The Arab expansion
The ERE at its peak.
and Great Invasions was so bugged that even I would not play it.
The Dark Ages has Charlemagne and his Empire.
The Vikings Invasions
The Arab expansion
The ERE at its peak.
and Great Invasions was so bugged that even I would not play it.
The bubonic plague hit twice for over 100 million dead. The black death was in the 1300's but the first round hit the Byzantine Empire around 540.
The thing is these 'empires' were sort of in name only. They had to accept some laws and most of the time a change in religion but it was more like Charlemagne took the current king and had him killed or sent to a monestary. Then he put in place a new local ruler that reported to him. It was more like a bunch of vassels but the vassels could have rebels to rise up and then break away.
Again it sort of comes down to doing nothing and paying off hordes till you get a super duper ruler to gain some vassels. After his death everything starts to fall into ruins. Point is if the game is going to be historical then it has to have major mechanics that prohibit the forming of a big nation. If you do form a decent sized country the game mechanics have to devaste you with horde raiding (you are now rich), natural disasters or the loss of a ruler that through his personal strenghts caused the nation to be formed. And it's just my personal opinion but playing a game to basically have my creation destroyed is not that much fun.
To be fair, some Germanic groups made a sincere effort at maintaining Roman ways of life and governing structure, not that they always succeeded. The Ostrogoths in particular should be commended for their efforts in Italy.
I think the biggest focus of any 'Dark Ages'-centric game should be culture, rather than EU3's diplomacy & warfare or Victoria's economics & internal politics. The thing would be for barbarian kingdoms to accomodate the 'native' populations of whatever region they settle, deciding on whether or not to separate their own people from the Romanized natives (like the Vandals) or let them freely associate and gradually melt into the local Romantic populations, or choosing sides in debates about Arianism and Adoptionism.
Best part would be if this could be reflected in names over time, with Frankish names gradually turning into French names and so on.
But would the game be fun? If not fun who would play it? To be fun it would have to be a challenge yet still allow you to win.
- Status