Paradox optimised CK2 for 34bit systems... But it slow down 64bit systems. So the few 34 bit users are fault that CK2 is so slow for 64 bit users.
Is there really no way to get rid of India in the latest version of the game?
- Thread starter Kryndude
- 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 had wondered, I use a AMD FX-6100 six-core 3.30 GHz desktop running windows 7 64-bit version with 10gb of RAM using a Geforce GT 620 with a 1.34 TB hard drive myself and I've hadn't had any noticeable issues.
Did everyone in 1066 (or the other start dates) know about India? I know it doesn't exist in CK2, but maybe cover the Indian subcontinent in terra incognita until you come into contact with it. That might help a little?
Yeah. CK3 should be 64bit only. Not many people did use 32bit anymore. But CK2 supported 32 bit and they couldn't remove this requierement afterwards...
I guess you've never played in Persia or the eastern Steppes? Heck, even the rest of the Middle East or East Africa, they're likely to have some influence on your game. By that rationale a person could argue that there should be an option to toggle off Scandinavia because it won't effect them when they're playing in Khiva. They shouldn't make that argument, because it's stupid, but they could make it.
And personally? I love the introduction of India. Even before the introduction of Zoroastrianism as a proper, playable faith, I always enjoyed starting up a game anywhere across Greater Persia. That area has only become more interesting to play in now that they actually have a threat from the east beyond the predictable Mongol hordes. And given Islam's profound influence on this time period and the great importance India has played in the history of Islam during this time period, it only makes sense to include it.
Dang, those dastardly customers! They throw money at Paradox to buy a game marketed as working on their machine, and then they even demand that it works as advertised! The nerves!
- 1
Yeah, it would be rather crippling for Crusader Kings III to continue to jump through hoops to support 32bit computers, particularly when the inclusion of China in Crusader Kings III, either the base-game or an expansion, is almost certain at this point.
Maybe not some Peasant in England. But the educated definitely did on a basic level (or more), I mean... tales of Alexander alone! And Merchants. Islam definitely knew because it was warring there and trading with it quite extensively.
Because they had the maps of Ptolemy and the stories of Alexander... I would say yes. The educated people did know about India.
Not sure how (since this mod doesn't affect events), but if you begin in Ireland you cannot go feudal when the mod is active. Under conditions, it says "Stone Hillfort in ---"
It should specifically name my capital there, instead I get dashed bars.
I started fresh games with only this mod and the situation duplicates easily.
I say stop support 34bit machines after this patch and continue on with the vast majority of their community. They'll stop complaining after a while, like the GG players have.
GG players got the game on Steam - going on getting support or not was completely their choice, one that required no further investment. Would the 32-bit users get a 64-bit machine? As NewbieOne pointed out in one post on the topic, removing support for a part of the userbase, given the same contract, is...dodgy, at best.
So it's better that everyone have slowdowns than not supporting a small procent of the user base? It's not pragmatic. Better they take the hit once and then have fewer problems on their hands.
Then that someone is a person typing with a toaster. Shame on him. I'd gladly give him my microwave so that he can continue playing, and maybe someday he'll get an actual computer.
You losers would be laughed out of court, those laws are for commercial and industrial software not video games! Funny how you act your whole life is CK2.
..."you"? I have a 64-bit machine. I'm probably in the section that was hurt the most by the attempts to save 32-bit machines, too. Still don't care - it wouldn't be right, and that's it.
Theoretically, would it be legal to have support til a certain patch? Say after the house cleaning 2.4 they'd drop it and anyone with a 34bit would have to be content with 2.4 ? Would it be legal?