Sign!
I want to see the rising christian faith and fight it with my Norse pagan Power!
I want to see the rising christian faith and fight it with my Norse pagan Power!
Petition for a 395AD Early Middle Ages expansion
- Thread starter Spartanlemur
- 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.
No.
Asking for a 1789 end date would make more sense than asking for a 395 start date.
Asking for a 1789 end date would make more sense than asking for a 395 start date.
Paradox could just do what they do with the nomads in CK2 and not model them at all.
But yes, I agree, a real Dark Ages game would hinge on some kind of migration mechanic. That's not something you can just jam into a game like CK2, which is about a completely different time period.
would be trully awesome. But i wonder the ammount of work it would involve to keep things sticked with history. Makes me wonder if things could be showed in a nice way, like the islamic expansion on north africa till europe then their fall later on. Maybe this earlier medieval period would be nicer on another game. CK3 maybe.
I think it'd be more sensitive to keep Prophet Muhammad out of any game as a potentially playable or interactive character. If Muslims appear in such a game, I think Arabia should be under some kind of fog of war or be unreachable at least until his death. Have the Rashidun Caliphate emerge like CK2 Mongols out of the peninsula, and err towards being as sensitive and considerate as possible in portraying them so they don't offend the already very sensitive views Muslims have on them (seeing as it is one of the main reasons for the Shia/Sunni divide.)
A dark ages game would requiere some migrations mechanichs, that ckii desn't allow. A separate game would be preferable.
You also need to have ''empty'' land where there are some people but they aren't organized in centralized tribes, each group/family go by themselves. This tribes are diferent form others like Franks or Gots
You also need to have ''empty'' land where there are some people but they aren't organized in centralized tribes, each group/family go by themselves. This tribes are diferent form others like Franks or Gots
Which would mean we'd get a new colonization system to figure out, because Paradox seems to change that every new game colonization is implemented in.
An Early Middle Ages Expansion for CK2. Should start Dec. 25, 800AD.That is the original founding of the HRE.Any earlier and the in game mechanics just don't really work for the Era.
A entirely NEW game would have to be created and I would prefer a Rome2, before a Dark ages game.The Dark Ages game could come after.
A entirely NEW game would have to be created and I would prefer a Rome2, before a Dark ages game.The Dark Ages game could come after.
I agree with what others have said, it wouldn't work with CK2's game mechanics. But it would be awesome to have a Paradox game focussing on the period from the end of the Roman Empire to CK2's timeframe. Having said that, I think CK2's timeframe could be rolled back a little, maybe to before Otto I's Imperial Coronation so that you get to form the HRE yourself (though one would then have to ask whether the HRE should be De Jure to begin with).
Something particularly interesting about a Dark Ages game is that it would presumably focus on ethnic and cultural groups rather than dynasties (as with CK2) or nation-states (as with EUIII), with the Roman Empire being among the few state-like entities at the beginning of the game's timeframe, and even then at risk of collapse or usurpation by the wandering tribes. The period would provide Paradox with a unique opportunity to create new, innovative, niche game mechanics, which might also be applied/adapted for a range of other time periods and region. It shouldn't be squandered on an existent game.
Something particularly interesting about a Dark Ages game is that it would presumably focus on ethnic and cultural groups rather than dynasties (as with CK2) or nation-states (as with EUIII), with the Roman Empire being among the few state-like entities at the beginning of the game's timeframe, and even then at risk of collapse or usurpation by the wandering tribes. The period would provide Paradox with a unique opportunity to create new, innovative, niche game mechanics, which might also be applied/adapted for a range of other time periods and region. It shouldn't be squandered on an existent game.
Both would be cool though. I want to play Rome -> Dark Ages -> CK2 -> EU3/4 -> Vic2 -> HOI3. I'd also like to see a strategy game exploring the world post-WW2 into the modern era.
I would also support a expansion to late / fall of Rome but would also support it if it was a seperate game. CK2 needs to go back to at least September 911. Its when a lot of our modern (Euro) problems come from... and long live Rollo...
and as said earlier...
and as said earlier...
Last edited:
*to someone who knows more about the history of the period in question than I do*
How much would a dark ages/post fall of rome new game differentiate from what CKII already is, in terms of game mechanics? From what I understand we're only dealing with feudalism not being completely implemented in the era, with preety much everything else playing the same, also blobbing would be insuferable with the caliphates and Charlemagne's empire, but still I dont see paradox just tweaking the land ownership a bit and basically releasing the same game with a different name and a new start, most of the player base (specially the more casual ones, and the ones not on the forums) would call ripoff, ence IMO, a few more differences on the ground would be needed to warrant a full new game
How much would a dark ages/post fall of rome new game differentiate from what CKII already is, in terms of game mechanics? From what I understand we're only dealing with feudalism not being completely implemented in the era, with preety much everything else playing the same, also blobbing would be insuferable with the caliphates and Charlemagne's empire, but still I dont see paradox just tweaking the land ownership a bit and basically releasing the same game with a different name and a new start, most of the player base (specially the more casual ones, and the ones not on the forums) would call ripoff, ence IMO, a few more differences on the ground would be needed to warrant a full new game
This is entirely unrealistic and will not happen. I am dearly hoping that paradox sees fit to extend the timeline back a little bit, but at most I can't see it being before the formation of the HRE.
+1!
and if that isnt possible, a startdate around the time of charlemange would be epic as well.
and if that isnt possible, a startdate around the time of charlemange would be epic as well.
My suggestion: Make a decent mod with clever usage of the mechanics avaliable and a mod by paradox for that time frame will be far more likely. There's been very few games decently covering the 200ad to 800ad era (nor 800 to 999ad) and I'm sure if you make a fun total conversion for it both you'll get lots of nice people thanking you and it'll be far more likely to be made by paradox in the future.
That sounds like every version of mount and blade, and a bad knockoff (in terms of raw mechanics) at that. It adds interesting gameplay that isn't/wasn't available in any other game for years after it's release (mounted combat and some fun medieval multiplayer first person combat) but I wouldn't put to much faith in it beyond that. That's a bit of a thread derail, but seriously though that sounds exactly like mount and blade normally.
Crusader kings 2...
Crusader.
An early middle ages timeframe make more sense as a new game because CK2 is based around the time of crusades.
Crusader.
An early middle ages timeframe make more sense as a new game because CK2 is based around the time of crusades.
