If I read "DLC" one more time...

[Domina Siobhan]

Hehe I actually check these forums every day (sometimes every few hours!) for information about new DLCs. I think this might be the only game I've ever got where I've been as excited about new DLCs as I have been about just playing the game itself.

I bought SSI for example (which I was excited about), yet have never actually seen the content as I've never got to the 1200s in a game before haha.

Still, bring on the new DLC! I'm way excited for sure.

 

[Stauffenberg13]

Stauffenberg, what the peasants thought or expected doesn't matter; all that matters is what could have been.

I was talking about the lords, and others who made decisions and had power and responsibility. What could be in the future when you're in 1066 in a particular place in the world (and know very little about the rest of the world and nothing about the future), and what we know in retrospect was or could have been - are two totally different things.

In 1066, there could be something very advanced across the Atlantic that will suddenly invade. in 2012, we know that wasn't the case back then. We also know exactly when and where the Mongol invasions will happen in the game and can spend some 150 years of game time preparing for them, which is historically accurate but incredibly unrealistic.

 

[1zarathustra1]

I don't understand why people are mocking the idea of a horse-dlc, it clearly makes sense from an alternate timeline where horses became the dominant species, stop being so close-minded.

 

[Anthropoid]

Sword of the Stars: Medieval Revolutions Deux!!

YEAH BABY!

 

[tuareg109]

In 1066, there could be something very advanced across the Atlantic that will suddenly invade. in 2012, we know that wasn't the case back then. We also know exactly when and where the Mongol invasions will happen in the game and can spend some 150 years of game time preparing for them, which is historically accurate but incredibly unrealistic.

No, in 1066 there wasn't anything advanced across the Atlantic that could invade.
People could think that and prepare for it as much as they wanted, but it wasn't going to happen because it couldn't.
If the world starts as in was on September 15th, 1066, then only a miracle or aliens or supernatural event could allow Native Americans to sail across the Atlantic and invade Europe; an Islamic takeover of Europe or a Roman resurgence are completely within the realms of the real for the world as it was back then.

Hey now, why are we still arguing about SI and whether it's worthy of CKII?

 

[Bertouch]

I don't understand why people are mocking the idea of a horse-dlc, it clearly makes sense from an alternate timeline where horses became the dominant species, stop being so close-minded.

Ah, the Dean Swift School of Evolution.

 

[Stauffenberg13]

No, in 1066 there wasn't anything advanced across the Atlantic that could invade.
People could think that and prepare for it as much as they wanted, but it wasn't going to happen because it couldn't.
If the world starts as in was on September 15th, 1066, then only a miracle or aliens or supernatural event could allow Native Americans to sail across the Atlantic and invade Europe; an Islamic takeover of Europe or a Roman resurgence are completely within the realms of the real for the world as it was back then.

You're completely missing the point of everything I wrote. We know it couldn't have happened. It's not historically accurate for it to happen in a game like this (as in, it is not a close retelling of actual history). I'm not in any way disputing that.

But if you want to simulate the flow of history, and what it is like being a leader and the challenges and risks involved in it, then it's just as historically realistic to have the Aztec invasion as it is to have the Mongol invasions. Or rather (with the way they are done in the game right now) it's just as historically unrealistic, because both are known beforehand. In real history, you couldn't possibly have known they were going to happen (and sit and prepare for them for 150 years) regardless of whether they happened or not and whether we know now in retrospect that they could have happened or not.

If they had many more possible invasions, and it was completely random when/where and if invasions would happen in any given game, then it would be historically realistic.

 

[Jeltz]

A Mongol invasion must have been more plausible to medival nobility than an invasion form across the sea. Europe had been the victim of several nomadic invasions from the east. Huns, Alans and Magyars comes to mind.

 

[1zarathustra1]

Ah, the Dean Swift School of Evolution.

If with Dean Swift you mean Jonathan Swift, yes, that is what I was shooting for, it might not be historically accurate, but as Stauffenberg has explained to all of us, it is entirely historically realistic, so bring on that damn horse-dlc, we could even add some ponies for the MLP crowd, Paradox could make millions!

 

[Stauffenberg13]

A Mongol invasion must have been more plausible to medival nobility than an invasion form across the sea. Europe had been the victim of several nomadic invasions from the east. Huns, Alans and Magyars comes to mind.

The only thing anywhere near them in size and danger, were the Huns under Attila. It was around 800 years back in time, and even they never took over any civilized areas. All three that you mention only set up on the outskirts of civilization and made raids for plunder. Nothing like the Mongol invasions had ever happened before to Europe.

 

[Anthropoid]

Furry Fury: Dawn of Medieval Terror

?