China's confirmed. I made a hype train for it and everything.
http://i.imgur.com/1Gh7k2C.png
http://i.imgur.com/1Gh7k2C.png
- 5
- 2
Please, don't shoot the messenger - China confirmed?
- Thread starter Me_
- 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.
- Status
I thought the same thing when I heard France was in the game. Because you know if they have France, next thing you know they'll add Germany. Then Italy. And then it gets completely absurd with the Byzantine Empire, which wasn't even feudal! It's almost as though people think gameplay improves when you add major nations that border each other and have an enormous impact on each other's activities!
- 16
- 7
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 This is not debateable, historical documents and trends prove it.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.
- 26
- 6
What mindblowing is people who instead of arguing calmly as adults call some abstract semi-insults. You know history of China better than the vis a vis and how China influenced Europe of the time and why it makes sense to have in game? Why don't you tell us.
And by the way, there are people who already requested Indochina, Japan, Philippines and Indonesia.
And by the way, there are people who already requested Indochina, Japan, Philippines and Indonesia.
- 9
- 11
- 3
Why does everything have to be connected to Europe in the game for it to be included? Isn't that like the exact definition of Eurocentrism?
- 5
- 5
Got them there. So it's either they have to drop that argument or they have to support adding the Americas and Papa New Guinea.
- 3
- 1
Why would they add Americas and Papua New Guinea when they're not even connected to the Eurasian continent? That makes zero gameplay sense.
- 8
- 1
That, my friend, is Eurasiacentric.
I was just pointing out that they can't call us Eurcentric while not supporting adding the Americas because it wasn't connected/didn't interact with Europe.
- 5
I won't mind playing a game in Asia at all. But in a separate game, where Asia is the main focus, with worked through start dates, events, interactions and mechanisms. I don't want it to just be here as a side-product, not being as good as it could be itself, just hanging on its side of the continent and draining resources from the Europe play.
- 5
- 4
But how would you make a game about America when there aren't even any real written records for us to know what it was like back then?
- 1
- 1
I was pointing out their blatant hypocrisy, not making a serious suggestion to add America.
- 3
What hypocrisy are you talking about? Equating adding China to adding an entire continent is just a strawmen argument. There are actual written records of China for the entire period that CK2 covers. It's less than half the landmass of Europe, and connected to the Eurasian continent, as well as crucial for its influence on the Mongols as well as the diffusion of old technologies like gunpowder and paper to the rest of Eurasia. We don't even know what was happening in the Americas during this time. It makes zero sense to add the Americas in the context of a character driven game. What would be the point of adding the Americas when the entire North American continent would essentially be a landmass of nameless tribals? Including China in the current game WILL affect the entire map through micro chain reactions plus offering players wider options and choices in terms of regions and characters to play with.
Last edited:
- 15
- 2
Oh holy shit. They called people against adding China Eurocentric. They said that adding China isn't the same as adding America because China had an impact on Europe and is on the same continent. You said that that, by definition, is Eurocentric. So calling people anti-China Eurocentric while being Eurocentric themselves is hypocritical. Do you get it now?
- 11
- 4
No. Eurocentrism is the people who don't believe anything outside Europe mattered. The ones who try to say hypoerbolic stuff like if we have China, we need the Americas, or like those who have (in other threads) said adding China is as ahistorical as the Sunset Invasion! Seriously, that was said about ROI as well! The ones who don't care about anything outside of Europe to the point of denigrating any contributions. THAT is what Eurocentrism is.
Eurasiacentric (There's a mouthful...)? Yes, maybe. But in this era its true. IT was an interconnected world. We want to represent that. All variables that had an effect. Thus why America isn't needed. But China, Siam, etc are. They were all part of the 'then' network of the world. The Americas were separate, despite a few tiny colonies in Greenland and Canada that were fringe at best. They had no economic effect. Not military effect. Nothing but some adventure for a few people.
This isn't Sinocentric, this is arguing against anyone saying "But China didn't matter to Europe!" just as we always argue against "Europe didn't matter to China!" anytime someone tries to say it should be a different game.
- 18
- Status