We're all set for a China DLC

[Me_]

With the introduction of the new Viceroys system for king and duke level titles in C, it would seem that centralized states can now (well, a week from now) be represented sensibly in CK2.

It would therefore appear to me that the last hurdle on the way for the China DLC has been removed.

What do you think? Is there anything left, that we're still missing? The new tribal system will make it possible to populate the steppe more sensibly, so that's out of the way as well.

 

[SacredDatura]

My point was that China should not be it's own game it's should be represented a long side the rest of Eurasia.

Ah, I see. In that case... well, there wasn't a magical dividing point in 1453 that says 'today, Middle Ages', 'tomorrow, Early Modern' either. And the Roman Empire of antiquity had a massive influence on the current timeline but people don't seriously suggest pushing the start date back to 14AD, because CK2's current mechanics don't model the earlier periods very well. That's essentially my objection to a China DLC. There isn't an invisible wall dividing Eurasia but the Tibetan Plateau and the Eurasian steppe is a pretty convenient cut-off point for a game primarily about feudal Europe and the clash between Christianity and Islam.

I've also pointed out in that post you originally quoted that, with the exception of the Mongols (and they were an extraordinary exception), there's not much coming out of the Far East that will influence CK2 in any meaningful way, given that CK2 doesn't simulate overland trade at all and the way it simulates religious spread (by conquest more or less) had nothing to do with how Buddhism was actually spread in real life.

 

[DominusNovus]

Because frankly, I haven't seen many people advocate it. And those opposed to it have better arguments.

I'm looking at page 11 of one of the countless threads on this very subject. But hey, why not back up your statement with some numbers? We won't even touch your clearly subjective statement that the arguments that you agree with are better (by your clearly unbiased judgement).

 

[Scotty the Scot]

Incorrect. Until Paradox adopted its recent model of DLC/patches with this very game (and extended to EU4), if you wanted to keep your game patched up to date, you had to buy the expansions. Go check out HoI3, Vicky2, or EU3. Each one of those games, the base game stopped being patched after an expansion came out. You wanted your bugfixes? You bought the expansion.

Just. Like. Every. Other. Game. Company.

I was talking about CK2 when I was referring to "the game". And what's your point? I (and many others) should forego my right to the patches and bugfixes for a game I paid for just so you can get an unnecessary expansion?

And note: I have never seen nor played a game where you had to buy a new computer just for an expansion.

 

[s13469986133]

China has basically little direct connection with the world of ck2, maybe further eastern middle Asia should be considered, but before that China is surely out of the wanting list.

 

[DominusNovus]

I was talking about CK2 when I was referring to "the game". And what's your point? I (and many others) should forego my right to the patches and bugfixes for a game I paid for just so you can get an unnecessary expansion?

And note: I have never seen nor played a game where you had to buy a new computer just for an expansion.

Explain to me this right to patches and bugfixes. I'm intrigued by it.

Whether or not you need to buy a new computer for an expansion is irrelevant. Unless the expansion were free, there is still a cost, and players that chose not to purchase that expansion were left just in the same situation that players that would choose not to update to the hypothetical version number in which a China DLC might be included.

If you played EU3, and wanted the latest patches and bugfixes, you had to buy the latest expansion pack, simple as that.

 

[nijis]

It occurs to me that if people are still making the "It's called Crusader Kings" argument, China actually had a direct role in the Crusades, as a part of the Mongol Empire. This is more than can be said for many smaller western European principalities.

We don't need China, but - if it can be done, and is balanced, and historically fractures and runs out of steam eventually, and doesn't wreck anyone's computers, - how is a full unabridged Black Sea-Pacific khanate not a pretty effing cool thing to have in a game?

 

[Scotty the Scot]

Explain to me this right to patches and bugfixes. I'm intrigued by it.

Whether or not you need to buy a new computer for an expansion is irrelevant. Unless the expansion were free, there is still a cost, and players that chose not to purchase that expansion were left just in the same situation that players that would choose not to update to the hypothetical version number in which a China DLC might be included.

If you played EU3, and wanted the latest patches and bugfixes, you had to buy the latest expansion pack, simple as that.

I pay for a product, I have a right to all that said product provides. It's pretty simple, and a common idea, surprised you haven't heard of it.

Who cares what happened in EU3? That's not how things work now, and whatever point you're trying to make is irrelevant.

 

[Scotty the Scot]

It occurs to me that if people are still making the "It's called Crusader Kings" argument, China actually had a direct role in the Crusades, as a part of the Mongol Empire. This is more than can be said for many smaller western European principalities.

Mongols are already well represented in the game, outside of an inevitable DLC that will flesh out the Nomads.

 

[toroltao]

China DLC would have been a better option than Charlemagne.

At least then PI would have had to actually put some work into it instead of just recoloring the map with some different cultures and call it a day.

All the features that come with Charlemagne could just as easily be bundled into some other DLC.

 

[Ivashanko]

People can keep arguing on this, but it really comes down to this:

Can Paradox optimize the game to the point where China can be added?

If so, there is a decent chance it will be added.

If not, wait for CK3.

 

[Texas_Jack]

It occurs to me that if people are still making the "It's called Crusader Kings" argument, China actually had a direct role in the Crusades, as a part of the Mongol Empire. This is more than can be said for many smaller western European principalities.

Well, you certainly do more than crusade in this game. What the term 'Crusader' does is set the tone for a feudal, medieval world gsg in a single word. Plus, Crusader Kings has such a nice ring to it.

 

[nijis]

Well, you certainly do more than crusade in this game.

I agree, but if you look earlier in the posts, people were arguing that the name "Crusader" suggests the focus should remain on western Europe. But if the focus were really Crusades, you could probably get rid of most of western Europe outside of France, Iberia, Italy, and the Empire.

 

[toroltao]

Well, you certainly do more than crusade in this game. What the term 'Crusader' does is set the tone for a feudal, medieval world gsg in a single word. Plus, Crusader Kings has such a nice ring to it.

The crusades were a very small part of the Medieval world and weren't nearly as historically significant as they're made out to be.



The only reason it's the name of the game is because it rings on a cultural level with western gamers which are the largest demographic of PI gamers.

 

[Ivashanko]

I agree, but if you look earlier in the posts, people were arguing that the name "Crusader" suggests the focus should remain on western Europe. But if the focus were really Crusades, you could probably get rid of most of western Europe outside of France, Iberia, Italy, and the Empire.

The average buyer is (almost certainly) from Western Europe or America. They're much more likely to be interested in the history of Europe than China or India, which means it makes financial sense to pander to them by improving the European aspects of the game rather than, say, Islamic aspects.

I do think they'll get to including China in CK3, but to say that the game doesn't revolve around Europe is incorrect both in terms of where the designers spent their time (which is overwhelmingly in Europe) and the area most of the fan base is probably most interested in.

 

[Jokolytic]

Scotty the Scot, your going on my ignore list.

I'm laughing, it's hilarious when people can't handle different opinions.

THE VERDICT IS THIS: it is illegal to raise the minimum specs for a game already sold, and China would most surely raise the requirements. China DLC will never happen.

 

[toroltao]

I'm laughing, it's hilarious when people can't handle different opinions.

THE VERDICT IS THIS: it is illegal to raise the minimum specs for a game already sold, and China would most surely raise the requirements. China DLC will never happen.

EU4 runs worse than CK2 and yet you have it on your games list. Wtf are you complaining about?

 

[Jokolytic]

EU4 runs worse than CK2 and yet you have it on your games list. Wtf are you complaining about?

Speak for yourself.

 

[TKFS]

EU4 runs worse than CK2 and yet you have it on your games list. Wtf are you complaining about?

Pretty sure you're missing the point here man...

 

[toroltao]

Speak for yourself.

LOL

So you complain about a problem that doesn't affect you?

Or did you just buy a game you couldn't play?

So smart man.

 

[That one guy]

To say Crusader Kings isn't about "crusades" is sort of silly I mean one of the major features of the game is religion if you look at other Threads it's like you have a 90% chance it's about religion (and making it better) so what I'm getting at is there are three major pillars in Crusader Kings all three are represented in the title one religion two title three dynasty

But honestly my two cents on the matter is I do rather have one good/great game about Western Europe as Crusader Kings is and another game that's great about Asia then have one really bland game full of historical mistakes and in accurate borde