Republics before Pagans, because of reasons?

[rav3n]

don't forget the Zoroastrians and the African Pagans, they could also be thinking about adding the possibility of making Celtic and Classic Pagans as while, despite what many think, Some people professed publicly at being Christian and privately continued to worship the old ways.(It should be stressed that this is rare, and little documented) A Prof. (Historian) and a Priest, told me that in reality Europe wasn't completely Christian(Catholic or Protestant, Orthodox) until well into the 17th-18th Centuries and in his opinion maybe even in the 19th century.)

 

[cybrxkhan]

Actually, taking the timeline back to around Charlemagne shouldn't be a problem as many characters and titles have histories going that back. Hell, i remember seeing a Byzantine emperor who was born on the year 2. TWO. Although he certainly is an exception.

But it would be a problem of historical research and balance, as I and others have mentioned in other threads. The former because histories only go so far back for every landed title - and remember that a decent chunk of the (especially non-Christian) landed characters are already made-up for CKII's early timeframe already; granted, that could be remedied if they spend a lot of time researching. The second issue, balance, is more serious. You thought the Fatimids were bad? Well you'll be begging for them to be back once you see the monster of an Abbasid caliphate that literally spans half the entire map and will decimate everything in its path, including the even more OP Byzantine and HRE. That's not to mention that the migration of the last migrating nomadic groups can't be properly simulated except by complex events, in my opinion.

I think at best taking the timeline to around the early 900s might be possible, though personally I think around 1000 is really the limit.

 

[Thure]

Actually, taking the timeline back to around Charlemagne shouldn't be a problem as many characters and titles have histories going that back. Hell, i remember seeing a Byzantine emperor who was born on the year 2. TWO. Although he certainly is an exception.

The miost histories of this time are wrong... They only put important characters into this time. The most are missing or have wrong dates. William of Septimania for examble is ingame the son of William of Gellone. The rest of the Wilhelmid family is missing or unconnect. The same in other parts of the world. I make the reasearch for my map mod... It's a hart work and not so easy how you think it is. And I can say it one more time... The time before 100 isn't really dynastic. In the Frankish Empire they Emperor put the Dukes AND Counts like he want it. That haven't to do anythink with dynasties mostly. Esspecialy the german Gaus are bad to simulate.

 

[Arko]

facepalm

Cumans don't count? Mongols don't even show up until 1200s?

Hell, there are a couple Norse dukes in Sweden who usually survive.

first pagan DLC will probably doesn't includes Cumans. I'd bet on norse group pagan 1st and it is not impossible it will be the only sale-able pagan DLC guy.
Mongols will hopefully never be playable. playing a horde will be boring as hell : conquer and what ? conquer again yay !

facepalm.

 

[cybrxkhan]

first pagan DLC will probably doesn't includes Cumans. I'd bet on norse group pagan 1st and it is not impossible it will be the only sale-able pagan DLC guy.
Mongols will hopefully never be playable. playing a horde will be boring as hell : conquer and what ? conquer again yay !

facepalm.

Then again people said that Muslims, Republics and Theocracies wouldn't really be playable either. Maybe they'll have something interesting for the steppe peoples (and most people play early starts, anyways, so you don't need to worry about having boring Mongols cause they won't exist yet)

 

[Arko]

Then again people said that Muslims, Republics and Theocracies wouldn't really be playable either. Maybe they'll have something interesting for the steppe peoples (and most people play early starts, anyways, so you don't need to worry about having boring Mongols cause they won't exist yet)

and that is a good enough for me to not make them playable. same for Aztecs^^

 

[cybrxkhan]

and that is a good enough for me to not make them playable. same for Aztecs^^

But the Cumans, Pechenegs, and Bulgars take up a good chunk of the map. Of course the steppe pagans don't have to be a big honking DLC like SoI or Republics - it could be a smaller DLC the size of LoR or SI (remember how the devs described SI as a mini-DLC? a steppe DLC (as well as a Zoroastrian and West African pagan one) could be a good mini-DLC)

 

[Arko]

But the Cumans, Pechenegs, and Bulgars take up a good chunk of the map. Of course the steppe pagans don't have to be a big honking DLC like SoI or Republics - it could be a smaller DLC the size of LoR or SI (remember how the devs described SI as a mini-DLC? a steppe DLC (as well as a Zoroastrian and West African pagan one) could be a good mini-DLC)

of course those are possibilities. not sure we will see them though.

 

[Lessing]

For all the George R.R. Martin fans:

A DLC that adds Mereen, where you are the Khaleesi, and all buttons are greyed out.

 

[cybrxkhan]

of course those are possibilities. not sure we will see them though.

We can only hope. The good thing about SI, even if you hated it (and I know a good enough number of people on this forum feel that way), was that it meant the devs were capable of and interested in making mini-DLCs in between the bigger ones - let us hope that the next one is more historically-inspired and focuses on these more specific regions, be they the steppes, Zoroastrians, West African pagans, or whatever.

 

[Arko]

We can only hope. The good thing about SI, even if you hated it (and I know a good enough number of people on this forum feel that way), was that it meant the devs were capable of and interested in making mini-DLCs in between the bigger ones - let us hope that the next one is more historically-inspired and focuses on these more specific regions, be they the steppes, Zoroastrians, West African pagans, or whatever.

SI is quite fun indeed. hopefully I didn't seen yet someone claiming to make them playable^^

I'm concerned of solving core game mechanics (yes, patches can do this but not all) than expanding too everything playable and sometimes letting new stuff a bit unfinished.
SoI for is good but being limited to only one succession f.e. is quite limitative for a game focused on dynasty/succession. some differenciation between sunni vs chiite could be nice too.

 

[Jak9090]

pagans are the enemy, not meant to be playable also they're just not that interesting imo, cept for viking and such which already died out, the thing that annoys me is that people dont know when to stop, we'll get pagans, then zorostians ,then hindus, then all sorts of crazy shit that will turn ck2 from what it was into some joke of a game where every minor culture gets a semi fleshed out experience

 

[PrinceofSparta]

Finally gonna be able to play Genoa

 

[Battle bunny]

pagans are the enemy, not meant to be playable also they're just not that interesting imo, cept for viking and such which already died out, the thing that annoys me is that people dont know when to stop, we'll get pagans, then zorostians ,then hindus, then all sorts of crazy shit that will turn ck2 from what it was into some joke of a game where every minor culture gets a semi fleshed out experience

Which is a bad thing because?

 

[PureBeef]

pagans are the enemy, not meant to be playable also they're just not that interesting imo, cept for viking and such which already died out, the thing that annoys me is that people dont know when to stop, we'll get pagans, then zorostians ,then hindus, then all sorts of crazy shit that will turn ck2 from what it was into some joke of a game where every minor culture gets a semi fleshed out experience

The game is called Crusader Kings (2), some people want to be able to defend against the Northern Crusades.

 

[Jeltz]

pagans are the enemy, not meant to be playable also they're just not that interesting imo, cept for viking and such which already died out, the thing that annoys me is that people dont know when to stop, we'll get pagans, then zorostians ,then hindus, then all sorts of crazy shit that will turn ck2 from what it was into some joke of a game where every minor culture gets a semi fleshed out experience

Currently non-tengri pagans are not the enemy but rather free land up for grabs for the fastest christian king. For them to be an enemy there must be some challenge. And there were plenty of peaceful interaction between pagans and christians at the time of the game.

 

[Divi]

pagans are the enemy, not meant to be playable also they're just not that interesting imo, cept for viking and such which already died out, the thing that annoys me is that people dont know when to stop, we'll get pagans, then zorostians ,then hindus, then all sorts of crazy shit that will turn ck2 from what it was into some joke of a game where every minor culture gets a semi fleshed out experience

Allow me to summarize: you don't think a historical game should allow for the following

- Lithuania's expansion and eventual peaceful-ish conversion after centuries of intermarriage between the royal family and the christian polish aristocracy after holding out against the northern crusade.
- The possibility for a rebellion which could very well have succeeded in real life Sweden to be more than an angry fart in the wind by a pagan duke and his legless sidekick armed with a dull knife.
- The northern crusade should be a pushover, rather than the century long effort it was in reality.
- For a more nuanced view of the various steppe turkic and mongol tribes as anything but Heinlein's bugs or locusts.

 

[Arko]

The game is called Crusader Kings (2), some people want to be able to defend against the Northern Crusades.

it would be nice to have northern crusades first then

 

[Ithvan]

it would be nice to have northern crusades first then

I think crusades can only be called against pagans after 1187, by which time there aren't any pagans left.

According to me, the developers are trying to come up with a mechanic that presents an equal challenge to playing a pagan (besides playing a pagan), as decadence is for muslims.

 

[imperium3]

Personally I really don't care about pagans (though I felt the same about Republics before I saw the features they're putting into it). Hopefully they'll go for Catholicism next, giving us better fleshed out Crusades, a better system for bishops etc, college of cardinals, papal legates, and maybe those things will be playable... (Though I doubt it because clergy aren't dynastic at all...)