-
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.
No they shouldn't do that. CK was never about that. You want games like that, they're a completely different category.Llywelyn said:
I think they could broaden the games appeal, thus sales, if they allowed cognatic and male preference primogeniture ( thus female rulership), more dymanic mechanism between rulers, families and diplomacy, allowing to play pagan and Muslim, allow for "stewardship" winning stat. Amongst others.
I don't see how female rulership would widen its appeal, its not like the CK box says "Only Males can rule!" and that turns people away. And I never see many people pushing for it.
English Patriot said:
Not many people push for it, but the one person that does is very persistent. In 4 out of his 5 posts he pushes for it.
:rofl:
He is already disappointed that in EUIII a female monarch can't be turned into a general
I don't know about widening the appeal, but I'll be very happy if the inheritance laws are flexible enough you can mod it in.English Patriot said:
Not only would this shut Drachenfire up, it would also allow you to take truely desperate measures if you only have daughters, and your heir is a heretical, kinslaying, heretical, lunatic with realm duress.
Nick
English Patriot said:
I can vouch that it would widen the appeal. I know several girls (you may have heard of them?) that are strategy gamers, but not one of them will play CK because of this. And I cant really blame them.
It's not just Drachen. The rest of us just know he's on the case for us.
For my part, I think pretty much everyone would appreciate it - even if it's not a make or break issue - just to have the honest historical options of the time. It'd be nice to have Muslim courts with four wives or a good republican minigame or the Russian prince system, but even ignoring all that, it's godawful the game simply doesn't trace the historically accurate lines of succession or practice escheat (cf "country cousins"). Female inheritance falls under those problems.
Besides boosting sales by slightly less than half the market, it's just historically accurate, as Drachen has documented to excess.
j.
For my part, I think pretty much everyone would appreciate it - even if it's not a make or break issue - just to have the honest historical options of the time. It'd be nice to have Muslim courts with four wives or a good republican minigame or the Russian prince system, but even ignoring all that, it's godawful the game simply doesn't trace the historically accurate lines of succession or practice escheat (cf "country cousins"). Female inheritance falls under those problems.
Besides boosting sales by slightly less than half the market, it's just historically accurate, as Drachen has documented to excess.
j.
Arkerless said:
I think so... aren't they for making heirs and manufacturing claims to their fathers Kingdom?
Implementing the potential for female rule could be done in an accurate way for the time period, if you carry over concepts from other Paradox games. Suffice to say that a strong king could probably get his nobles to accept that his daughter would succeed him after his death.
Of course, once he's died then its a whole new story. If this was the fifth daughter to succeed to the throne, it might be a different story (take the British monarchy, for example) - if its the first, you can bet that the primary male heir will be challenging the throne with a significant amount of popular support, with the queen's supporters likely hoping to rule with her as a puppet monarch.
That would make introducing female rule a drawn-out, difficult process - or force it to be resorted to only in cases of emergency...and with results like the realm-duress style Anarchy between Stephen and Mathilda in England being a likely outcome.
Of course, once he's died then its a whole new story. If this was the fifth daughter to succeed to the throne, it might be a different story (take the British monarchy, for example) - if its the first, you can bet that the primary male heir will be challenging the throne with a significant amount of popular support, with the queen's supporters likely hoping to rule with her as a puppet monarch.
That would make introducing female rule a drawn-out, difficult process - or force it to be resorted to only in cases of emergency...and with results like the realm-duress style Anarchy between Stephen and Mathilda in England being a likely outcome.
I honestly don't mean to be a bore about female succession, but female inheritance did happen historically. I have even discovered evidence as to why and how women inherited land and title in the Aquitaine region and in Northern Spain, amongst other locals.
After Divine Shadow had actually coded female sucession, I was most excited. And he did this as a hobby! It would add so much to allow for male preference primogeniture and cognatic primogeniture. And Nick is right, it would shut me up
After Divine Shadow had actually coded female sucession, I was most excited. And he did this as a hobby! It would add so much to allow for male preference primogeniture and cognatic primogeniture. And Nick is right, it would shut me up
You are rather obsessed with this Drachenfire... and have been for at least a year.
While it may be slightly more realistic, it wouldn't provide a particularly large sales boost imo... although it would have the bonus of you not boring us about it anymore! :rofl:
While it may be slightly more realistic, it wouldn't provide a particularly large sales boost imo... although it would have the bonus of you not boring us about it anymore! :rofl:
I've been playing "The Guild 1400 Gold" recently and my gawd if we could have something like this incorporated with a wargame behind it I'd go bananna's and probably wouldn't be heard from again. lol This has more dynasty building an intrigue than Crusader Kings does. But, alas no real wargame, just robbers and thieves vs the town guards or your escorts.
It was the dynasty building of CK that I liked most about it anyways. The wargame is pretty neat as well, but, in my later years in life I am getting more and more into simulation city building or games like this dynasty building than into wargaming. I've wargamed for 35+ years now haha, it's been time for a change. (but, Victoria wasn't it, I dunno know why but the Victorian age just never appealed to me...females in power in all yah know? haha yeah I'm an old chauvanistic pig haha).
On the other hand, if Paradox would take those Mad Minute guys and have them program a "real time Total War lookalike but with Mad Minutes AI and combat engine" they could turn a CK 2 into the best Medieval game out there. It would blow the Total War games out of the market. Because their AI's suk to high heaven and back. Paradox has some sort of association with Mad Minute, why don't they use them to do their AI for something like a Total War lookalike but doesn't play alike? We'd have a strategic CK with all the dynasty trimmings of the origional and the combat engine of Mad Minute...what could be better?
It was the dynasty building of CK that I liked most about it anyways. The wargame is pretty neat as well, but, in my later years in life I am getting more and more into simulation city building or games like this dynasty building than into wargaming. I've wargamed for 35+ years now haha, it's been time for a change. (but, Victoria wasn't it, I dunno know why but the Victorian age just never appealed to me...females in power in all yah know? haha yeah I'm an old chauvanistic pig haha).
On the other hand, if Paradox would take those Mad Minute guys and have them program a "real time Total War lookalike but with Mad Minutes AI and combat engine" they could turn a CK 2 into the best Medieval game out there. It would blow the Total War games out of the market. Because their AI's suk to high heaven and back. Paradox has some sort of association with Mad Minute, why don't they use them to do their AI for something like a Total War lookalike but doesn't play alike? We'd have a strategic CK with all the dynasty trimmings of the origional and the combat engine of Mad Minute...what could be better?
Kellysheroes said:
I prefer traditionalist myself
Although It would be incredbly cool to have a CK with Total war style battles (Without the bad AI and silly voice acting) Imagine how long a game would take to complete, I imagine that may put a few people off.
Perhaps.
I don't think you need a battle simulation as such, being able to prepare armies and take them through campaigns might be worth doing though. Implementing supply lines, generating campaign strategy with your vassals and allies etc. That would do me. The campaigns in CK are a bit hap-hazard - there's no sense of stategy especially when you have vassals acting independently and allies.
It would make crusading a bit more interesting too.
It would make crusading a bit more interesting too.
True, I like to see that, if only a screen on which you give your allies a route to take and cities to siege or somesuch.
English Patriot said:I prefer traditionalist myself
Although It would be incredbly cool to have a CK with Total war style battles (Without the bad AI and silly voice acting) Imagine how long a game would take to complete, I imagine that may put a few people off.
Perhaps.
So what people are put off by something everyday all the time about something. Why worry about the complainers when you can make something for those that would enjoy it?
Many people play these games for months anyways so why not make one that's fun to play for a LIFETIME? I can only imagine the fun battles with the CK strategic engine and MM's combat engine. I'd just be living the rest of my life in medieval times is all.
While I'll agree it would be enjoyable, I have to say that maybe half the fun of CK is knowing that I'm going to be playing the same dynasty up until HOI2