Talq and DreadLindwyrm were right, pointed the fact that my questions needed be rewriten to be clear. They're right, so I write down from scratch.
They aren't linked to technology, but have been asked since a long time (I put links within, just to show it), without receiving any proper response from the devs team. This tend to create some forms of interrogation, of worry, and even--speaking frankly--of irritation on the forums these last weeks.
So, I think it's worth asking them once again, because they concern important subjects linked to
The Old Gods philosophy. So:
1)
(DreadLindwyrm did well a few post under about the 'Slavic Tribes Question', no need to repeat here).
2)
About the nomads mechanics: one major improvement with CK2 has been the introduction of 'slots' for baronies within each county, permitting much more realistic situations, a much more flexible map, and may permit nomads to be represented in a much more realistic way, like I explained in
this post or
this one, using Leviathan07 and Riadach suggestions.
So, my very simple question is: We know that there will be nomads in
TOG, but don't have any information on them.
How will all of this work? Will they become credible nomads (clans, tribes, ability to migrate...) or will they still be 'usual' title holders without any difference from the other sedentary nobles?
3)
I know the raid question has been the subject for the last dev diary by Goosecreature. However, for what I know, we still don't know if the
Hungarian and
Sarracen raids (a threat at least equal to that of Vikings in Europa of the time) will occur.
Will they have the possibility to raid farther than the neighboring kingdoms?
4)
Riadach--and others--has suggested for a long time to implement
High kings in Ireland, which would permit a real flavor in addition to historical accuracy in Ireland (and for nomads, by the way). Will this appear in
The Old Gods?
5)
When speaking about
Ireland, if there isn't a High king, it seems the Irish independant counts will be unable to defend themselves when facing Viking conquests, making them unplayable.
What are the results of the tests by the devs so far?
6)
We know from the start that Vikings are the first priority for the devs, and that they intended to work on other pagans later. However, we still have very scarse informations about Zoroastrians, and nearly nothing other than footnotes about the others. Is this intended?
7)
After having asked about this (that's an advantage of having a long public development for the DLC, thank you for that, Paradox!), the surprizing States of France/Burgundy/Holy Roman Empire were turned into West Francia, Lotharignia and East Francia for the 867 start date. So much more satisfying, thanks again!
However, we don't have a clue of what will happen after the 867 start date:
- Doomdark implied
after Dev diary #1 that there would be a chain of events to permit the creation of the Holy Roman Empire after 867.
It don't seems that much satisfying to see the East Francia king receive this king of messages ('Hey, guy! I know you're incapable, but you just founded a new State and are now the Holy Roman emperor!'), vs West Francia, Italia and Lotharingia versions ('Hey, dudes! Too late for you! You can't be emperors anymore!). [That's evidently a caricature]
- Another, much more interesting, possibility would be some triggers:
a) Some king is able to succeed the 'Carolingian' emperors? Then, no Holy Roman Empire.
b) Nobody able to succeed them? Let's the pope choose one new emperor, whatever his reasons (diplomacy, piety, military power...);
c) If this lucky guy is king of West Francia, Italy or Lotharingia, nothing happens, but...
d) if he's the king of East Francia, then is launched a new chain of events permitting to create the Holy Roman Empire.
So, we may summarize this question in this way--and that's relevant for the entire philosophy of this DLC: Speaking about the creation of the HRE, will the devs favour historical plausibility or historical accuracy?
(My hope is historical accuracy for the 867/1/1 files, and historical plausibility when the game is launched.)
8)
One last question: what's the extent of historical researches by the devs team for this 867 start date?
The example I will use is very marginal, but may be repeated all over the map. This guy,
Gauzfrid, was count of Maine in 867. He's not in the 1066 start date files because, to be honnest, he was of no use for that date.
But will he appear in the 867 start date? If that's the case, it must have been a long and hard work (thanks for this!), but will permit historical accuracy. If not... Well, what is there other than Vikings in 867?
