I think they'll bundle them together either way. Otherwise it would be too much work.
GRTV: Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion & something secret...
- Thread starter Regina
- 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.
I think they'll bundle them together either way. Otherwise it would be too much work.
I'm thinking Pagans, but maybe also Republics. Would suspect that they would make all Pagans playable. would be nice if they also allowed us to use Celtic, and Classical pantheons as well. who doesn't want to restore the worship of Jupiter Capitilonus and Mars Ultor!!! in Rome. Republics would also be good,and I don't think that hard, the medieval republics were far closer to Rome then the US and France. Nobles and merchants only voted( if that) and usually they were controlled by noble families, so were in effect hereditary. We all ready have the option of elective succession, so I don't think it would be to much of a jump to a republican form. should also be able to turn monarchies into republics(though that could be a separate DLC)
I think Pagans ar most likely, as Republics and Theocracies would require a lot of work to make playable - Pagans already work with current succession mechanics and the like, so it'd be much easier to make interesting mechanics for them. As others have said, I suspect a nomad/steppe pagan DLC is more likely simply because there's much many more playable, landed characters available. What I think and hope will happen is that all pagans become playable, but the focus is mainly on the nomads - perhaps with new mechanics for raiding, inheritance, and the like, but also with many other slightly less major features for all the pagan groups s.
Would love to have a Pagan DLC and it does sound most like it will be as the other choices are not really on the same level as SOI unless they bring a lot of interesting gameplay variation, but then again Johan did say that it had never been done before so, and for some reason pagans just don't scream "NEVER DONE EVER" but if it's really the pagans, I can't wait to see what they bring to the table.
Of course, I am just hoping they wont focus too much on the Norse pagans when there are other pagan groups which actually control a large portion of the map.
The provinces which ought to be majority Ásatrú in 1066 reach 19 (Småland obviously should be. Both almost entirely pagan and barely under any royal control). They're also in quite a good position to take control of a Kingdom almost right away rather than being independent counties. There are 15 provinces that should be Romuva, but lumped with Slavic-paganism of the Wends that's 9 additional ones. The Northern March should really also be Slavic-pagan under the Lutici etc. until Albert the Bear and the German expansionism. There isn't really that sizable of a difference between the two regions aside from one being pre-established and the other relying on luck-of-the-draw. With the Tengri being the more serious power. You equating Ásatrú in Scandinavia, where it was clearly still the majority religion, with 3 Subsaharan and subjugated provinces is just blatantly absurd.
Honestly I'd prefer an evenly attentive Norse-Baltic-Finnish DLC for the Baltic Sea region pagans (which had cultural overlap) and a Steppe Horde DLC for Nomad mechanics also including their Tengri faith.
Last edited:
Fair enough you are right about 1066, but due to bad luck pagans in Sweden lost power while the Baltic Pagans kept their power until the Teutonic knights.Aand I definitely agree more provinces should be pagan, especially Småland.
To those that think they might push the start year back 100 years. They would need more time than just one month to do that as they would have to add tons of characters and edit almost all the history files the game has. If they would do anything like that the development time would be a lot more than just month or two.
Cheers! Yeah, and honestly if the pagans had won the very close call in Sweden during the various succession crises they were claimants in then the Baltic pagans probably would've been much more able to resist conquest as well, as all sides of the Baltic Sea would've been Crusader-hostile pagans not keen on their plans as opposed to the passage and assistance they got historically.
Indeed. As someone who is pushing it back 66 years it's quite bit of stuff. Especially considering the scarcity of resources. Praised be Ahura Mazda, as I'm currently working through the Buyids and Ghaznavids in the east and it just feels spoiled with historical records compared to the west.
My thought exactly. People aren't very rational on this forum for some obscure reason...
If Norse are implemented as a playable faction....what's going to be the content? What's the point? Vikings are a thing of the past in 1066, and there are still 400 years of gameplay.
Turkic pagans from the steppes, on the other hand, are huge, dynamic and provide obvious ways to improve gameplay (from start to finish) without relying on fantasy scenarios like restoring the Old Gods in Sweden. The Cumans have arrived in Europe just before the game start, and they should be properly raping and pillaging everything in sight, instead of sitting on their laurels.
Turkic pagans from the steppes, on the other hand, are huge, dynamic and provide obvious ways to improve gameplay (from start to finish) without relying on fantasy scenarios like restoring the Old Gods in Sweden. The Cumans have arrived in Europe just before the game start, and they should be properly raping and pillaging everything in sight, instead of sitting on their laurels.
They really aren't. The Viking Age of unchallenged domination was coming to an end - in hindsight - as they stopped trying to rule England following the Danes also failing, but if either of those attempts were successful then even that could've been prolonged. Pagan Norsemen were certainly not over and done with for quite some time, however. Don't conflate the two into one and the same. You might as well be saying "The Romuva weren't trying to conquer Russia, why even have them in the game!".
1) That would also require Nomad mechanics unrelated to the other pagans, hence why I feel it's rational to have a "Northern Pagans DLC" and a "Steppe Horde DLC" which includes Tengri, as they complement eachother.
2) You just make a fool of yourself calling something that very nearly was reality if not for one dishonourable Quickfire-murder a "Fantasy". It's far more plausible than most things in the game that aren't entirely deterministic. If he literally just woke up an hour earlier that day he'd probably have won the throne. Even without winning the throne that doesn't mean the equal-strength-to-the-King vassals, largely-independent Smålanders or the free chiefs in Norrland would convert either.
Yep I still think they will never change the start date of this game just because there is not much information of characters before that. Even many 1066 characters have their birth and death dates chosen by estimating and guess work as even historians don't know them. Not to mention when you go back even 100 years it starts to get hard to know what story to believe and what not.
It's not as bad as it seems. The game's database DOES contain a lot of data on the 100 years before game starts, because it tracks a lot of the ancestors and who owned what and when. They've already done bulk of the research.
I don't see why more powerful kings in Scandinavia, buttressed by possessions in England and therefore ever greater contact with other Europeans, would make the Viking age last any longer. Same for Norse religion.
And what I'm saying is that a Northern Pagans DLC makes no sense without a time extension.
Ok, I'm a fool, it's plausible. All praise Odin. Now what? What are the Norse pagans going to do for 400 years? Roll back Christianity? No, they'd last a 100 years and then convert back. Julian the Apostate couldn't pull it off, so historical precedent for de-Christianization in Europe is pretty thin on the ground (in Asia, Japan did it, but I don't know how much penetration Christianity had at the top there).
Actually, no, it's not absurd at all. The problem is that sub-Saharan Africa isn't set up historically at all. Ghana was Muslim by 1150, but its status in 1066 is unclear, and I think the better argument is that it should be pagan at that time. The traditional history, which may be legend, is that the Almoravids fought a war against pagan Ghana in 1066-1076 because the Ghanans had taken the Muslim town of Aoudagost. Regardless, all of the sub-Saharan provinces, except some trading towns on the southern edge of the Sahara like Timbuktu and Walata, should start pagan. Also, the reason there's 19 Asatru counties in Scandinavia and maybe a dozen counties in "Mali" is that the game is made by a Swedish company. There should be significantly more counties in "Mali" - places like Gurma and the Massina should be duchies, not counties (although good luck finding any documentation on Gurma
).
Mali was kind of an afterthought. I mean, it's *there* on the map so there's no reason not to put it in, but it would really only be meaningful if you had trade and caravans going back and forth. Otherwise it's just more semi-useless land for powergamers to lord over.
The reason 1066 is sometimes listed as the "End" of the Viking Age is because of the failure at Stamford Bridge. If you think the Viking Age was isolated rather than in great contact with the rest of the world that also says a lot. If anything Saxon England was far more sheltered than Scandinavia. The main point there was simply your erroneous conflation of the more far-reaching military capability of the "Viking Age" with the mere existence of relatively strong Norsemen as a whole.
He says, based on absolutely nothing. I don't want the DLC to be focused on a "New Viking Age". That wasn't the world they lived in. It'd be about remaining free from Christian oppression, having a reasonably strong situation in the North and having content for those faiths, whether on the decline or not (That's up to the player involvement and random divergences). I don't need Ásatrú to reign from Västerbotten to the Danevirke, from Iceland to the Danelaw. That simply isn't necessary for a well-modeled and fun DLC on the subject.
Yes.. Cite a ruler who died young, from a battle, long before his time as an example why a ruler who died in a war before his time could never had worked out if he hadn't! You Galiléens sure are funny.
It was also a very different situation and involving entirely different religious circumstances. For a start he wasn't in a one-on-one fight. He was struggling to unite thousands of different cults from completely different cultures and traditions in an effort to fight one religion on the rise. Here there was the ethnic religion of the Norse with perhaps some rather similar influenced Balts/Finns/Slavs in the background purely as aid. Hardly radically different Greek/Persian/Gallic/African/Mystery-Cults/Etc. in disparate locations.
Also them converting back would necessitate the dynasty either falling out of power or from their descendants converting. Don't send your kids to Christian tutors. Christians usurped control of the Roman Empire when they were like 10% of the population, they just seemed bigger because urban areas (where rulers live) tend to be faster converts. Scandinavia wasn't as urban either.
Edit: I'd also like to point out that when, following the Battle of Svolder, Olaf I was deposed and replaced in Norway by the Hlaðir-Jarls there was a backlash against the Christians in the population. The Hlaðir-Jarls were Christian at this point, but merely by allowing religious freedom most of the work to convert Norway was undone and had to be undertaken again with brutal zeal by Olaf II (later Saint Olaf) to bring the country back in line. They didn't even need a strong pagan King to undo it, they just needed one which didn't actively protect and favour the Christians over them. They were not popular given how they generally treat heathens once they get a taste of power.
Actually, no, it's not absurd at all. The problem is that sub-Saharan Africa isn't set up historically at all. Ghana was Muslim by 1150, but its status in 1066 is unclear, and I think the better argument is that it should be pagan at that time. The traditional history, which may be legend, is that the Almoravids fought a war against pagan Ghana in 1066-1076 because the Ghanans had taken the Muslim town of Aoudagost. Regardless, all of the sub-Saharan provinces, except some trading towns on the southern edge of the Sahara like Timbuktu and Walata, should start pagan. Also, the reason there's 19 Asatru counties in Scandinavia and maybe a dozen counties in "Mali" is that the game is made by a Swedish company. There should be significantly more counties in "Mali" - places like Gurma and the Massina should be duchies, not counties (although good luck finding any documentation on Gurma
Yeah, I agree that it's odd and should be considered for revision if there's data on it. Was speaking in context with his point about relative power in the game, though. I certainly wouldn't mind more power to the pagans south of the Muslims. Though, again, rather distant from the Northern Pagans as far as DLC content is concerned.
Last edited:
The Viking age ended when the Norse started to convert and Viking raids became an anachronism with consolidation of royal power. Obviously, hugely stereotyped and incorrect in pedantic detail, but good enough given CK2's level of representation.
So, basically, you want a DLC where a key selling point is 400 years of boredom? The internal gameplay in CK2 is pretty deep...but it's not deep enough to make maintaining anachronistic religious systems a viable focus for a major DLC. Of course, if Paradox can figure out how to do it, I'm all ears (I certainly wouldn't mind a whole DLC devoted just to heresies, for example).
There are excellent reasons to believe that Julian the Apostate, despite grasping what was wrong with the official pagan cult, would've failed miserably even if he didn't die in Persia. For one, the level of penetration of Christianity in the upper classes of Roman society. And Roman religion wasn't just an a la carte collection of incompatible beliefs - there was, in a sense, a single paganism, with local flavor.
No, what I mean is that in real life they would convert in a 100 years. Not sure about your numbers, though it hardly matters, in the end if the landowners at the top converted, so did everyone else.
playing republics, theocracies and pagans would really be great.
But I think there wouldn't be another Invasion DLC cause they just did one.
BUT If they really do the Pagans with the Vikings focused on - they perhaps should extend the map so that some parts of north america is shown....
Just extending the map would be great.... maybe Asia? Surely that would be a mass of work - nearly impossible in this timeframe till new year.
But I think there wouldn't be another Invasion DLC cause they just did one.
BUT If they really do the Pagans with the Vikings focused on - they perhaps should extend the map so that some parts of north america is shown....
Just extending the map would be great.... maybe Asia?
Surely that would be a mass of work - nearly impossible in this timeframe till new year.