Please expand game to 600 AD and to 1600 AD.

[cybrxkhan]

No problem with people saying that it would be great although unlikely. My issue was with people simply dismissing it. Maybe 600AD is too early, but as I mentioned earlier, much of the characters are already implemented (in ancestry in 1066). There is just the case of filling in the gaps and defining borders.

It's not just "filling in the gaps and defining borders". It's quite a lot of work, even making up fictional people and places, to ensure entire dynasties have all the characters in the right place in all the 900+ counties, duchies, kingdoms, and empires without any bugs, to make sure that all borders make sense without any bugs, to ensure that this, along with all the new mechanics, actually work as they intend to, without any bugs, and furthermore, and most importantly, to make sure that it's all balanced without any bugs (you thought the Fatimids were bad? What about an Abbasid Caliphate that's 5 times larger and covers half the map?). This is stuff that isn't for a DLC, even a large one - this is something more appropriate for a whole new game, or a standalone expansion at best. If these concerns are "dismissive", then, well, I'm more than happy to be dismissive and suggest this might be better suited to a different game.

 

[Tempestra]

No problem with people saying that it would be great although unlikely. My issue was with people simply dismissing it..

So the only reasonable position is to say your idea is great, got it.

 

[Swxpert]

This is so it can cover the early Dark Ages as well as the Warring States period in Japan. For instance Charlemagne and the Frankish Empire, the pyrrhic victory by Brian Boru over the Dublin Irish at Clontarf (which ended all dreams of unifying Ireland too) Not to mention the Italian Wars and the Renaissance.

Thanks !

While this would be excellent it would be in the area of a $20 DLC just to warrant researching all the history from 600-1066 for every province. There would be centuries with large portions of the maps engaging in endless savage county on county warfare. I would much prefer Paradox spend there time making normal DLCs (Pagans, Religion, Republics/Merchants, General Baltic Area) And also I would really really like to see a completely separate game. Styled using the Crusader kings style but dealing with Asia. It would be fun to actually Play with the Mongolians or the previously mentioned warring japanese states. To play with China as it becomes a unified kingdom and the Indian subcontinent, there are so many untold stories that Paradox could do with just the rest of the Asia map. Or Charge a full 30 for that game or 50 dollars and merge the two games into one giant huge mega game with both working together.

 

[Westernesse]

I'd like to be able to start later than 1337 if nothing else. I don't really care if I can only play a generation or 3 until 1453, 1300s have some interesting starting countries not to mention is necessary if you want to play italian Renn. republics outside of Venice and a few others. I'd really like to play Henry the 5th for example (crowned in 1413). You could push end date back to like 1480 or maybe 1491/2 though (up to Columbus), with almost no work, maybe you'd need a new tier 6 of research.

 

[Cuthuthulu]

i think it should end at end of ww2 when america defetead hitler, since he was the last feudal king of europe its a natural end point.

Actually the very last European feudal state was the Island of Sark. This was abolished in 2006. Therefore we should extend the end date to 2006!

 

[ziamatt]

Actually the very last European feudal state was the Island of Sark. This was abolished in 2006. Therefore we should extend the end date to 2006!

Certain modern industries have been compared to the feudal system though. Clearly Paradox needs a Corporations of the 21st Century expansion for CK2.

 

[Spartanlemur]

So the only reasonable position is to say your idea is great, got it.

Not that it's a great idea (as it's quite an obvious one anyway), but just that they'd like to see it but don't think it would be likely to happen. Alternatively it would again be more constructive to (as many have said), suggest a later start date, such as around 900AD.

While this would be excellent it would be in the area of a $20 DLC just to warrant researching all the history from 600-1066 for every province. There would be centuries with large portions of the maps engaging in endless savage county on county warfare. I would much prefer Paradox spend there time making normal DLCs (Pagans, Religion, Republics/Merchants, General Baltic Area) And also I would really really like to see a completely separate game. Styled using the Crusader kings style but dealing with Asia. It would be fun to actually Play with the Mongolians or the previously mentioned warring japanese states. To play with China as it becomes a unified kingdom and the Indian subcontinent, there are so many untold stories that Paradox could do with just the rest of the Asia map. Or Charge a full 30 for that game or 50 dollars and merge the two games into one giant huge mega game with both working together.

The question is: would people be willing to pay $20/£15 for an extra 466 years of history? I know I certainly would be. But I do also like the idea of CK2 mechanics for an India game. Hopefully CK3 will include an expanded world map, so we can expand feudalism outside of Europe somewhat.
I agree that we need to do Pagans, Republics, Zoroastrians etc. first, but once these are done, it will both make rolling the date back easier and create an opportunity for one final big DLC to round off CK2.
Tbh I'd be happy with either a large roll back or an extended timeline (discovery of the Americas - we already have Aztec faces!) to encompass the New World (as in Medieval Total War 2), either in map or through events/a window. I don't think the EU3 excuse can be used, as CK2 is a very different game, the former being about countries, the latter being about people and dynasties.

 

[Swxpert]

Not that it's a great idea (as it's quite an obvious one anyway), but just that they'd like to see it but don't think it would be likely to happen. Alternatively it would again be more constructive to (as many have said), suggest a later start date, such as around 900AD.



The question is: would people be willing to pay $20/£15 for an extra 466 years of history? I know I certainly would be. But I do also like the idea of CK2 mechanics for an India game. Hopefully CK3 will include an expanded world map, so we can expand feudalism outside of Europe somewhat.
I agree that we need to do Pagans, Republics, Zoroastrians etc. first, but once these are done, it will both make rolling the date back easier and create an opportunity for one final big DLC to round off CK2.
Tbh I'd be happy with either a large roll back or an extended timeline (discovery of the Americas - we already have Aztec faces!) to encompass the New World (as in Medieval Total War 2), either in map or through events/a window. I don't think the EU3 excuse can be used, as CK2 is a very different game, the former being about countries, the latter being about people and dynasties.

Oh I agree I would love the Idea of actually having the americas on the map. Imagine it Aztecs vs a strong Inca Empire...there are possibilities, But for the moment I would be satisfied with just having the rest of Asia on the map. Realistically if there is a CK3 it won't be in production for at least 4 years, if not 8 like the gap between CK1 and 2.

 

[stars2heaven]

Oh I agree I would love the Idea of actually having the americas on the map. Imagine it Aztecs vs a strong Inca Empire...there are possibilities, But for the moment I would be satisfied with just having the rest of Asia on the map. Realistically if there is a CK3 it won't be in production for at least 4 years, if not 8 like the gap between CK1 and 2.

There is a mod that expands all the way out to australia and japan and as far south as southern africa. Umbra Spherae. It's very impressive, though not for a slow computer I'd imagine.

 

[Barsoom]

I can see the sense in using CK2 mechanics for different countries (India, Japan), even at different dates. There's also a decent case to be made for expanding the game a bit on either side, 1492 would be just as reasonable as 1453, and feudal dynasties did often start in Carolingian times. Honestly, though, I prefer switching to EU3 ca. 1400-1450, it's just better at representing economics and exploration, things that really matter during that timeframe. I would also prefer a new game for the Dark Ages. I wouldn't want it to be a copy of CK2 either. I like that Rome is a different game from CK2, which is again different from EU3, which again from Vicky2, etc. More variety and better suited to capture the changing dynamics of history during the various periods.

Populations don't really move during CK2's timeframe. Provinces may adopt a new culture, religions change, sure, but it lacks the scope of the Völkerwanderung and (apart perhaps from the scripted emergence of English culture) it doesn't capture ethnogenesis. A game set in the period between the fall of Rome and the emergence of feudalism should represent peoples moving and peoples forming, it should capture people trying to hold on to the achievements of the past (not innovating but clinging on). It should have civilized communities (cities, really) trying to deal with a great influx of militarily powerful newcomers who don't have the requisite knowledge to maintain plumbing. It should have barbarians moving towards the riches and comforts of settled areas, while trying to keep together disparate groups of fighters and attempting to form them into coherent "nations." It should have mechanics to do justice to these factors. As it is, no Paradox game is focused on them. Considering what Paradox has done to represent other periods, I'm sure it isn't beyond their power. It would just be a new game.

 

[Tempestra]

Not that it's a great idea (as it's quite an obvious one anyway), but just that they'd like to see it but don't think it would be likely to happen. Alternatively it would again be more constructive to (as many have said), suggest a later start date, such as around 900AD..

That's what I mean, you are saying that people who don't want to see this are unreasonable. Is it really unreasonable not to share your idea of what would be cool? Personally I'm not at all interested in extending the time period back and I don't think this is any more or less reasonable than your preference, it's just a matter of personal taste. Don't equate differences in taste with being unreasonable, please. That's quite obnoxious.

 

[Justin Pace]

Populations don't really move during CK2's timeframe. Provinces may adopt a new culture, religions change, sure, but it lacks the scope of the Völkerwanderung and (apart perhaps from the scripted emergence of English culture) it doesn't capture ethnogenesis. A game set in the period between the fall of Rome and the emergence of feudalism should represent peoples moving and peoples forming, it should capture people trying to hold on to the achievements of the past (not innovating but clinging on). It should have civilized communities (cities, really) trying to deal with a great influx of militarily powerful newcomers who don't have the requisite knowledge to maintain plumbing. It should have barbarians moving towards the riches and comforts of settled areas, while trying to keep together disparate groups of fighters and attempting to form them into coherent "nations." It should have mechanics to do justice to these factors. As it is, no Paradox game is focused on them. Considering what Paradox has done to represent other periods, I'm sure it isn't beyond their power. It would just be a new game.

Word up. I imagine it could start, for instance, after the Lombards had settled in Italy, and after Bulgars had settled, like how every medieval game before CK2 started on Christmas day 1066 (I imagine to keep away from the stickiness of the Norman Invasion of England), but to me the movements of people and changes of cultures, making the modern world, is the most important aspect of this time period, and to not include it, just kinda seems like the same game, but with Charlemagne, which would be lovely, but not really a big improvement.

But then again, it's paradox. I'm sure they could do it.

 

[Thure]

The time beetween 600 and 1000 work in another way then from 1000 to 1452. They don't work well together in the same game. This is my opionion.

And the most histories for before 1000 are wrong. I have see this as I work on the histories for my own mod.

William of Septimania was never the son of William of Gellone. It was his grandchild. And many historical characters are missing.