Republics before Pagans, because of reasons?

[unmerged(358109)]

While am a pagan fan, i certainly look forthward to this DLC, i just hope they keep adding events, and mechanism to it, and look to games like Patriach series for inspirations. looking fortwhard to see how this will affect MP; i imagine player rulers, making deals with merchant players in order to boost their common interests.... interesting indeed. I hope they can make City mayors playable too through the mechanism thou, with the goal of turning the city/county into a republic, in order to make enchant the possibilities in MP.

 

[Theddude]

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

Yeah, sure, they're the enemy. That logic applies just as well to Muslims and yet we got them, because they were part of the Crusades too. But you know what, maybe you're right. We shouldn't have Muslims or Pagans or Republics because it's a game about the Crusades and Feudal rulers. In fact, with that we shouldn't have the Byzantine Empire either, because they weren't feudal or crusaders. Russia wasn't feudal either, so we can cut them out too, because it's just stupid to have them in there. The Saxons had a totally different structure than Western Europe, as did the Irish; and besides, the game starts in 1066 with William the Conqueror's conquest, and they're the enemy right? Maybe they shouldn't be playable either.

Why don't we make it so that just Catholic feudal rulers in France, the HRE, and Spain are playable. That would make the game so much better. I mean that's what the games supposed to represent and everything else is just "crazy shit", right?

 

[TheLionHeart]

Pagans are relatively too large to cover in one flavor DLC.
There should at the least be two, one for baltic and African pagans, and another for Tengriists and the hordes since they are far more significant and powerful at the time, and Tengriism has slightly more sources to research from.

 

[Negru Voda]

[This is not [...] flame thread]

seriously, I was just curious to see if you guys thought it was a smart move to develop republics before Pagans, nothing else

 

[Talq]

Venice & Genoa (& later the Hansa) were actually quite a big deal in this period, and their absence (barring strange blob the coasts behaviour) is notable. Also the DLC promises substantially different goals & playstyles (a lot less emphasis on holding land), which the pagans weren't going to promise.

I'm also more interested in playing Venice than even the mongols.

 

[Swxpert]

Well, they already DO worship mammon...

But the real question is: will I ever be able to make my Venician merchant Pope of the orthodox Romuva religion.

 

[Jeltz]

Venice & Genoa (& later the Hansa) were actually quite a big deal in this period, and their absence (barring strange blob the coasts behaviour) is notable. Also the DLC promises substantially different goals & playstyles (a lot less emphasis on holding land), which the pagans weren't going to promise.

I'm also more interested in playing Venice than even the mongols.

Yeah, the way the trade posts work change the reasons republics wage wars which will affect all feudal rulers with costal provinces. On the other hand the current weak non-tengri pagans screw up gameplay in eastern europe and around the baltic. The extreme expansionism from christian rulers we see there really makes the game boring.

So both DLCs change things for christian rulers. One fix things around the mediterrainian plus the around the Baltic while other fix things around the Baltic, in Eastern Europe and in West Africa. So it is mostly a matter of what areas need to be improved.