Please, don't shoot the messenger - China confirmed?

[harvesarmy]

The Eurocentrism that goes into these threads is mindblowing. Especially vis a vis the complete lack of knowledge of history outside of Europe with strawmen like "you need America" - no. No one is saying that. the interactions with Asia were measureable, and a big part of the age. China had more effect on the mind of the Dark and Middle Ages than America did, except maybe a few Vikings and others here and there. America was not a vital part of the trade routes. Was not interacting with many of the same powers that most of the rest were. Eurasia and Northern Africa were interconnected. Period. This is not debateable, historical documents and trends prove it. America was not yet keyed into the global network. Without the whole of Eurasia, we don't have a correct simulation, and that's why all us "Pro China" sorts don't want a separate game, because we want the entirety! Not just a part.

This is all very true, and I would like to see China as well, but trade is not really modelled in the game?

 

[sreckom92]

Point out what I've ignored then and I'll respond.

I asked you this many times.
Why does it matter if China didn't directly affect Europe?
It affected the eastern part of the CK2 map.
Why would it be bad if we got content that doesn't relate to Europe?

 

[HREmperor]

Pope asks for military alliance then. Military alliances aren't limited to players. Pope calls in Ilkhanate, but Yuan calls in Ilkhanate to their war. Ilkhanate rejects Pope's call and accepts Yuan's call.

Except there are no non-marriage alliances, Catholics won't marry other religions and the Papacy's a theocracy.

 

[HREmperor]

I asked you this many times.
Why does it matter if China didn't directly affect Europe?
It affected the eastern part of the CK2 map.
Why would it be bad if we got content that doesn't relate to Europe?

I answered the first time and my answer has been misquoted so many times since. Go back and find it.

 

[dulahan]

Alright. The game can't do it without railroading. The stuff you mentioned with a non-Cathoilc Il-Khanate joining a Crusade can't happen in game. The civil war stuff would need either railroaded events or a huge overhaul of game mechanics to happen. The Hun example another guy gave can't really happen either unless we give unlanded adventures huge mega-stacks.

No it wouldn't. Civil wars happen ALL THE TIME in the game. Civil War happens, alliance not honored. BOOM! It's represented. (As for Adventurers, I'm worried about just that... the magical mega stacks with armies larger than the areas that spawned them... But that's a digression)

And your little cycle thing of me saying the history doesn't matter and then asking for history isn't true. Could you please stop making stuff up? Thanks.

"China didn't affect the Crusades or the Crusader Kings. You don't need China to have the Silk Road, which is the only thing got to do with China that affected Europe. They already added Mongolia which did affect Europe."

That is your full post. Arguing about China not being needed because "it's the only thing to do with China that affected Europe." I rebutted it to point out that yes, China and events there did have an effect on the Crusades and the Crusader Kings (You did not at all say THE GAME in that statement. You said the nouns). There is no misquoting here. THAT was what I responded to.

Your response to me, quoted in entirety, then is "And it didn't. The Mongols from Mongolia affected them in a way that can't be modelled in the game. And we're talking about a DLC for CK2 here. "

I made nothing up. That is exactly what was said, you can go back to your OP and see it, I didn't even change spelling (or if I did, it was a typo). And shows you now arguing game stuff as a response to history.

I was always only talking about the actual history, the game CAN be twisted to represent things like the above. It already does in other places. The appearence of Crusades. Hordes. Etc. the game can be changed a LOT if the Developers want. this isn't even close to the same game it was at release. Hell, it's had more changes that it is basically a brand new game entirely by this point.

 

[BFKelleher]

This will make the game so slow and horrible, I can't wait.

This is why if China does get added, I'll make an AAR of me playing as a Mongol in the 769 start, become Genghis Khan, and destroy literally every holding on the map.

THE KHAN MUST OPTIMIZE. MORE RULERS MEANS MORE LAG. OPTIMIZE. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. YOU WILL BE OPTIMIZED.

 

[BFKelleher]

Alliance with Ilkhanate for a war against Mamluks interrupted by goings on in China: Well the last bit can happen if Ilkhanate is a tributary to Yuan China, but the first bit is difficult since alliances right now are only by marriage. There could, in theory, be an "offer military alliance" diplomacy option like in EU4 for states on the same/similar level as each other, but it'd be difficult to do it right and under what circumstances the AI would accept. Of course, this likely SHOULD be added as the Franks had an alliance with the Abbasids around the time of Charlemagne as they had common enemies (Umayyads and Byzantium).

Pope asks for military alliance then. Military alliances aren't limited to players. Pope calls in Ilkhanate, but Yuan calls in Ilkhanate to their war. Ilkhanate rejects Pope's call and accepts Yuan's call.

Except there are no non-marriage alliances, Catholics won't marry other religions and the Papacy's a theocracy.

Did you read? "Offer Military Alliance" diplomacy option?? Not limited to players?? How about not limited to playable rulers?

 

[HREmperor]

No it wouldn't. Civil wars happen ALL THE TIME in the game. Civil War happens, alliance not honored. BOOM! It's represented. (As for Adventurers, I'm worried about just that... the magical mega stacks with armies larger than the areas that spawned them... But that's a digression)


"China didn't affect the Crusades or the Crusader Kings. You don't need China to have the Silk Road, which is the only thing got to do with China that affected Europe. They already added Mongolia which did affect Europe."

That is your full post. Arguing about China not being needed because "it's the only thing to do with China that affected Europe." I rebutted it to point out that yes, China and events there did have an effect on the Crusades and the Crusader Kings (You did not at all say THE GAME in that statement. You said the nouns). There is no misquoting here. THAT was what I responded to.

Your response to me, quoted in entirety, then is "And it didn't. The Mongols from Mongolia affected them in a way that can't be modelled in the game. And we're talking about a DLC for CK2 here. "

I made nothing up. That is exactly what was said, you can go back to your OP and see it, I didn't even change spelling (or if I did, it was a typo). And shows you now arguing game stuff as a response to history.

I was always only talking about the actual history, the game CAN be twisted to represent things like the above. It already does in other places. The appearence of Crusades. Hordes. Etc. the game can be changed a LOT if the Developers want. this isn't even close to the same game it was at release. Hell, it's had more changes that it is basically a brand new game entirely by this point.

The reason why I said Crusader Kings is because that was the game's focus at launch. That was what was advertised to us when we bought it. I was always talking about the game? I said "You don't need China to have the Silk Road". By that I meant the Silk Road mechanics which are being implemented in Horse Lords without China. Why would I have said you don't need China for the Silk Road if I was talking about real history, rather than how it is represented in game mechanics?

 

[klopkr]

Except there are no non-marriage alliances, Catholics won't marry other religions and the Papacy's a theocracy.

Technically there's also familial alliances. I can't remember if the pope gets them but holy orders do. Friends and lovers can also be allies I believe.

I don't know if it's relevant to what your arguing but it's also possible to join a Jihad as the wrong religion if at some point you were the right religion and made a marriage alliance with the caliph. I did this in my Zunist campaign and as a Zunist I participated in the Jihad for Anatolia because the Caliph was married to my sister.

 

[HREmperor]

Did you read? "Offer Military Alliance" diplomacy option?? Not limited to players?? How about not limited to playable rulers?

We're talking about CK2 here not EU4. Non-marriage alliances aren't in the game and the Devs are more concerned about adding things like China.

 

[HREmperor]

Technically there's also familial alliances. I can't remember if the pope gets them but holy orders do. Friends and lovers can also be allies I believe.

I don't know if it's relevant to what your arguing but it's also possible to join a Jihad as the wrong religion if at some point you were the right religion and made a marriage alliance with the caliph. I did this in my Zunist campaign and as a Zunist I participated in the Jihad for Anatolia because the Caliph was married to my sister.

The Pope's hypothetical sister still couldn't marry the Il-Khanate's ruler because she's Christian and he's not.

 

[BFKelleher]

There could, in theory, be an "offer military alliance" diplomacy option like in EU4 for states on the same/similar level as each other, but it'd be difficult to do it right and under what circumstances the AI would accept. Of course, this likely SHOULD be added as the Franks had an alliance with the Abbasids around the time of Charlemagne as they had common enemies (Umayyads and Byzantium).

We're talking about CK2 here not EU4. Non-marriage alliances aren't in the game and the Devs are more concerned about adding things like China.

Oh OK fine. I guess you just have selective vision.

 

[klopkr]

The Pope's hypothetical sister still couldn't marry the Il-Khanate's ruler because she's Christian and he's not.

But if you or he convert to the same religion temporarily you can marry and get that alliance. I'm not clear on it but if I'm right about the friendship alliance (I haven't really been friends with rulers) than you could also become friends though the trade route event and call him in. Anyways I was mostly just pointing out it's doable with Muslims and probably the reformed Norse. The pope's weird mechanics adds a whole other layer of complication.

Personally I think there should be cross faith alliances and the pope should be one sided allies with the whole christian world (So people come to his defense) but that's a moot point.

 

[HREmperor]

Oh OK fine. I guess you just have selective vision.

I don't have selective vision. I'm just talking about CK2 and not EU4 or any other game.

 

[sreckom92]

I answered the first time and my answer has been misquoted so many times since. Go back and find it.

What was your answer?
That CK2 should only focus on Europe? Because it is about conflict between Christians and Muslims in the Middle East?
First answer is your personal opinion. Second answer is a wrong answer.
You fail to acknowledge why your second answer is a wrong one.
And your opinion is just that: -an opinion.
An opinion that not even Paradox devs share. After all, they made so many expansions that focus on non-Christians and non-Europeans.
You don't care about opinions of other people. You want only Europe, because of reasons, and you believe that your opinion is somehow the right opinion, which everyone should share. Again, because of some reasons...

 

[HREmperor]

But if you or he convert to the same religion temporarily you can marry and get that alliance. I'm not clear on it but if I'm right about the friendship alliance (I haven't really been friends with rulers) than you could also become friends though the trade route event and call him in. Anyways I was mostly just pointing out it's doable with Muslims and probably the reformed Norse. The pope's weird mechanics adds a whole other layer of complication.

Personally I think there should be cross faith alliances and the pope should be one sided allies with the whole christian world (So people come to his defense) but that's a moot point.

Alright so in this scenario the Pope has a sister who converts to Tengri/Islam(can't remember when they converted), marries the ruler of the Il-Khanate, the Pope calls a Crusade and then the Il-Khanate join in and help in the fight for the Holy Land. We now have something that barely even resembles the historical events only made possible by things that never happened.

 

[klopkr]

Alright so in this scenario the Pope has a sister who converts to Tengri/Islam(can't remember when they converted), marries the ruler of the Il-Khanate, the Pope calls a Crusade and then the Il-Khanate join in and help in the fight for the Holy Land. We now have something that barely even resembles the historical events only made possible by things that never happened.

Sorry I'm not arguing about making it historical just that the game mechanics do allow it thanks to loopholes.

 

[BFKelleher]

I don't have selective vision. I'm just talking about CK2 and not EU4 or any other game.

I literally said that an "offer alliance" button could be added to CK2 like there is one in EU4. It could be as part of a patch or DLC (likely patch) in order to allow for 'unrealistic' historical alliances like the Franco-Abbasid alliance or the Franco-Mongol alliance. Just because right now all allies are based only on marriages and being kin of the same level. It doesn't HAVE to be like this. Alliances can be formed between rulers without a marriage to create them if PDS wanted to do it. They just haven't. They SHOULD, but they haven't.

Other things that happened in history but can't happen in game:

• Pope giving English king claims on Ireland due to minor differences in the Catholic doctrine there.
• Kalmar union forming with Denmark, Sweden, and Norway staying separate states.
• Latin Empire forming while Byzantium exists

I guess we should probably remove Europe since quite a few of the historical things in Europe that had an effect on Europe can't happen in game.

 

[HREmperor]

Sorry I'm not arguing about making it historical just that the game mechanics do allow it thanks to loopholes.

Uhhh...what? Don't try to change what this is about. This entire argument was started because I said that the game couldn't represent what happened with the Il-Khanate. And it can't. Even when you go through all the loopholes, the Il-Khanate will just fight for the Holy Land with the Christians instead of invading and conquering other areas at the same time.

 

[HREmperor]

I literally said that an "offer alliance" button could be added to CK2 like there is one in EU4. It could be as part of a patch or DLC (likely patch) in order to allow for 'unrealistic' historical alliances like the Franco-Abbasid alliance or the Franco-Mongol alliance. Just because right now all allies are based only on marriages and being kin of the same level. It doesn't HAVE to be like this. Alliances can be formed between rulers without a marriage to create them if PDS wanted to do it. They just haven't. They SHOULD, but they haven't.

Other things that happened in history but can't happen in game:

• Pope giving English king claims on Ireland due to minor differences in the Catholic doctrine there.
• Kalmar union forming with Denmark, Sweden, and Norway staying separate states.
• Latin Empire forming while Byzantium exists

I guess we should probably remove Europe since quite a few of the historical things in Europe that had an effect on Europe can't happen in game.

Again we're talking about what can and can't be represented in CK2. Not what could be represented if the Devs added x, y and z which AFAIK they've shown no interest in adding.