Some sort of tribes would be an obvious first choice. I realise that it's easier said than done.
Republics before Pagans, because of reasons?
- Thread starter Negru Voda
- 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.
Some sort of tribes would be an obvious first choice. I realise that it's easier said than done.
Don't buy or enable the DLC if you don't like it and let other people enjoy the aspects of the game they like, maybe they find different aspects of the map or different styles of play interesting? Namely for me a harder game for either religion/culture and kingdom, and not stomping all over easymode countries, every single game like they weren't even there.
As to the OP nobody knows but paradox, both will be interesting to me so I don't really care either way. Been waiting to play as Venice for a long time
.
Facepalm? rofl. Mongols are already playable, as long as they aren't pagan. You can start a new game, set the date late enough that the Mongols are Muslim (1270s or so) and play as a Muslim Mongol. You can play as the Golden Horde or the Il-Khanate.
Seriously I don't know why people bother posting when they don't even know the basic facts of what they're talking about.
The idea of a DLC focused on Norse pagans is pretty ridiculous. There's only a couple Norse dukes left by 1066. The pagans that matter are the Tengri and the Romuva (and I guess Aztec now... sigh). Those are what really need to be expanded upon. Norse paganism is basically an afterthought at this point in the game.
Last edited:
Hm... I'm not really a "pagan DLC fan" myself (imho, pagans get a bit too much romanticized a la "heroic viking warriors") - but i see one big advantage with republics: They intermesh much, much more with all other aspects in the game. Not only are you able to play as a new group of countries including new graphics, events, etc. (this would be the same with pagans), but you even actively benefit from more dynamic and productive republics when playing regular feudal lords in all other areas of Europe.
It's the wrong birth date, and it's mostly a convenience so that the Byzantines have every roman emperor beforehand in their ruler list, mostly with ahistorical dynasties tacked on. For most of the rest of the area there are enormous holes between the 4th century and the period the game represents.
I'm kind of expecting a 'charismatic rule' type thing for the steppes; with prestige being used as the 'bribe' mechanic that they are introducing for republics (where you bribe with money). I'm just guessing that in the Baltic Sea areas there were probably similar leadership mechanisms; a sort of 'favoured son' situation like an elective monarchy with a bonus to opinion based on being the strongest son of the ruler (which fits nicely with the steppe nomads, for whom I originally imagined the mechanic).
Also, though the crusades showed Europe's dark side, with tons of bloodshed especially at home, it seems to me we're missing a mechanic for any sort of diplomatic interaction between the religions. There should be some in some cases. Introducing a more playable Lithuania (and a Lithuania which has the possibility, in the game, to do what it did historically) situation would expand this part of the game, which can only be a good thing.
Also, though the crusades showed Europe's dark side, with tons of bloodshed especially at home, it seems to me we're missing a mechanic for any sort of diplomatic interaction between the religions. There should be some in some cases. Introducing a more playable Lithuania (and a Lithuania which has the possibility, in the game, to do what it did historically) situation would expand this part of the game, which can only be a good thing.
Ha, I didn't expect someone to pull a "Max Weber" in this forum
(Yeah, I might have read too much of his work...)
Completely unintentional, though I am familiar with Weber (minored in Poli. Sci.). Just jumped out of the subconscious I suppose.
to answer questions put towards my post, i have nothing against historical crusades, etc etc, but it seems the bulk of people want stupid features to boost their homecountry, (vikings/ random unknown baltic pagans)
Well, this is almost unavoidable, and quite understandable (this is why I demand special beer brewing cultural buildings for Bavaria!
) - playing games is often some sort of escapism (not that there is anything wrong about it). But as I said above, I'm glad they chose republics, just because they affect all players, instead of just adding a distant corner of the map (like Mail, which I really could have lived without ).Ha, and I'm not even a Poli. Sci. major, but an actual geographer
You mean the random unknown baltic pagans who went on to form the Grand Duchy of Lithuania which at its hieght was one of the largest nations in Europe? Resisting constant attacks by the Teutonic and Livonian orders and Poland.
Not to mention that if Eirik the Pagan wins, Sweden can remain pagan for a good century or two more at least.
I wanted a pagan DLC more than the Republic, but after seeing what they're doing with the Republic, I'm happier that it's coming. This is a much more intense DLC than the Pagan one will be. I think the Republic is actually more complicated than Sword of Islam. Muslims and pagans are still largely feudal lords, and the patrician families use pretty radically different mechanics.
Pretty much this. I was expecting pagans, but republics adding a whole new level of play? Yes please.
Or, as in the case of my latest game, Erik converts to Catholicism perhaps a year or two after taking the throne (how, I have no idea, but some time into his reign I noticed he was Catholic).
I can't wait for a pagan republic
That's weird. He probably lost the war, got imprisoned, converted, revolted again and won the war this time.
That's weird. He probably lost the war, got imprisoned, converted, revolted again and won the war this time.
I can't wait for a pagan republic
Well, they already DO worship mammon...
Republic DLC adds a new form of government into the game which is something PI seems keen on doing in all their games. Pagans are basically 'feudal' societies with some 'flavour' added and would probably need alot of work to be able to survive even close to as long as they did historically.
In the case of my country of birth Sweden it was partly pagan well into the 13th century and even though most Kings where christians long before that they all had to tread carefully not to provoke religious turmoil. Quite a few kings failed to do so and where killed for it.
In the case of my country of birth Sweden it was partly pagan well into the 13th century and even though most Kings where christians long before that they all had to tread carefully not to provoke religious turmoil. Quite a few kings failed to do so and where killed for it.