Will the Wallachian-Bulgarian Empire (also known as the Second Bulgarian Empire) be a playable "nation"?
-
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.
Didn't this nation form after the start of the game? If so, then probably not, since it looks like the gameplay in CK will significantly differ from history. Of course, if later scenarios are included in teh game/modded by people here on the forum, I would assume you could play it . . .
No. Take a look at the map of 1066-67. The nations in there minus nonchristians minus merchantrepublics are playable.
Any later scenario starting between 1185 and 1396 should have Bulgaria as playable
They won't be in the grand campaign though (other as a possible revolter?), as that starts in 1066.
Re: Re: Wallachian-Bulgarian Empire
Yes..they should be a possible revolter in the 1066 GC..
Originally posted by Havard
Any later scenario starting between 1185 and 1396 should have Bulgaria as playable
Yes..they should be a possible revolter in the 1066 GC..
Incidentally, you don't play nations. You play dynasties.Only dynasties are playable? Goody gum drops!!! I wanna play the Kennedys.
being uneducated regarding the issue i see on the map a huge bulgarian empire, and on the next bulgarians as part of byzantium.. so what happened?
Was it war or "we want to be protected"?
Was it war or "we want to be protected"?
It was war. In 1014, after about 50 years of on-off warfare, the entire Bulgarian army of abt. 15000 was captured and blinded (IIRC one for every hundred was allowed to keep one eye to lead the others home) by the Emperor Basil II (later known as "Basil the Bulgar slayer"). In 1018 they were annexed after the fall of their last Tsar, Ivan Vladislav, at Dyrrachium.
Well, the Easteners are fond of removing unwanted human parts... ick... noses, ears, legs, vlad the impaler...bathory...a real freak show... the nose thing, especially, is quite famous, every unlucky pretender at the throne received automatically this cruel punishment...Basil just took this a little too far...eye soup everyone?
Alexandru...In present-day Iran, women are lapidated for adultery...hey, beats blinding someone for rebellion
Queen and Country
Queen and Country
Well, it did win the Eastern Empire rule over the Bulgarians for about 150 years or so . . . seems like a fair trade for a ruler to make!
I would like to play the dinasty controlling this empire (Asan), yet I can't help feeling a little uneasy...dinastical problems in the East were far more different than in the West. Hope to see a good compromise...
I have to say, I share your concerns on this. I wonder how exactly it will work imposing a system of feudalism on the Eastern Roman Empire . . .
Marx thought that all human societies follow the same path and pattern, which is pretty inacurate (my own opinion). China, for example, can be considered a pseudo-feudalism from the 3th century BC till 1949, while the 13 colonies are modern societies from the start. Russia is in the 19th century more "feudalistic" then it was 5 centuries before.
So, yes, I have some problems. Well, to be honest, this was also an issue in EU2, but that was a different situation...with nations, it's easily to work with and the time span was suited for an integrated system of countries...yet, CK seems to lack the historical feeling (reference: MTW, in which only battles seemed suited to that period)...
A noble in Bulgaria, Serbia, Byzantium, Wallachia, Moldavia, Arberia was either an independent ruler, or just a simple boyar, rich yet totally under the rule of the monarch...exceptions existed, but it will not make the game more interesting if we accept them as trends...However, I am aware of the hardships of recreating such a period and wait impacient for the release...
So, yes, I have some problems. Well, to be honest, this was also an issue in EU2, but that was a different situation...with nations, it's easily to work with and the time span was suited for an integrated system of countries...yet, CK seems to lack the historical feeling (reference: MTW, in which only battles seemed suited to that period)...
A noble in Bulgaria, Serbia, Byzantium, Wallachia, Moldavia, Arberia was either an independent ruler, or just a simple boyar, rich yet totally under the rule of the monarch...exceptions existed, but it will not make the game more interesting if we accept them as trends...However, I am aware of the hardships of recreating such a period and wait impacient for the release...
Last edited:
I suspect that it'll be tied to culture, with the cultures of southern Europe supporting far larger royal lands than those of northern Europe. Thus, Byzantium and Iberia can have fairly strong, fairly centralized states as in real life, while they are debared from marrying their way into huge northern empires by the threat of assimilating into the culture of their new provinces, and having to undo the centralization of their existing ones.
That's only a guess, though.
Alexandre
What maps do people keep talking about. Are these Ck Screens, or actually just maps people own.