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.

 

[toroltao]

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

Too late. It's been ahistorical since TOG.

 

[icedt729]

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?

I'm saying this as somebody who is a pretty serious China enthusiast- I don't think it can be done well. You're talking about an area with as many holdings as Europe, that is extremely isolated geographically, fits very poorly into the game's religious and political mechanics, and requires a ton of unique features and cosmetic additions in order to not be lousy but which will have even less interaction with the rest of the map than India currently does. There was only one time in their history that "China" expanded into what is currently the playable map, and that was under Genghis Khan (upon his death, China became part of Kublai's Yuan Dynasty and was broken off from the Golden Horde, Chagatai and Ilkhanate). Even in that case we're talking about a Mongol horde pacifying northern China and then moving on to central Asia, not a Chinese army entering onto the map.

Regarding the fracturing and stagnation- the only time China really 'fractured' during CK2's timeframe was for about 50 years in between the 867 and 1066 starts, and the stagnation didn't set in until at least the late Ming (17th century). The only really persistent division in Chinese history is North-South along the Yangzi, between the indefensible northern plains and the south, with its mountains and rivers. A situation like this lasted for over 150 years under the Song dynasty (they lost the north first to the Jurchens, then to Genghis). I personally wouldn't put the 'stagnation' into effect until around the mid-19th century, so that mechanic is pretty out of place in a medieval game.

Also, keep in mind that adding China isn't just adding China. You need Manchuria, because the Mongols conquered the Manchurian Jin dynasty. You also need Korea and Japan because their relationships with China were important and interesting, and because the Mongols conquered one to invade the other. And you need Vietnam, because of its intermittent status as a Chinese vassal. And if you have Bengal and Vietnam it would be weird not to have Burma and Thailand. And you can't forget Tibet. So the area's not only as large and dense as Europe but at least as diverse. It's a lot to pull off in one DLC.

 

[anomanderus]

Too late. It's been ahistorical since TOG.

"It's been ahistorical to a certain extent, so let's crap it up with a region that doesn't actually interact with the rest of the world that's horribly represented"

China needs to be it's own game, that is the scale China is on.

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?

China didn't have a role in the Crusades at all because the Mongols themselves never managed to Crusade alongside the Europeans and the Chinese armies as a whole never invaded Russia or Iran alongside the Mongol Horde in any appreciable numbers (there were probably Chinese siege experts traveling with the Mongols but that's probably the extent of Chinese involvement). The Mongols were able to get as far as they did because their army was a mobile horde on cavalry- living in the stirrup. The Chinese used infantry armies numbering in the hundreds of thousands that were no match for tens of thousands of cavalry warriors and that had no "medieval force projection" because supplying such massive armies of infantry across the Taklimakan desert would be downright impossible for medieval China.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5G8Qrqrc7w

 

[Hades66]

Romance of the Three Kingdoms was a good game about China. Although it is a quite old it is a great game.

 

[GCRust]

As much as I'd like to see China, in all honesty Asia in general is better left for its own game all together.

 

[Mike Louis]

In order for an Oriental Kings DLC to be done properly, it needs to be the final major expansion for CK2. Meanwhile the devs should after fixing the bugs associated with CM, focus on a steppes/nomadic DLC which would have stuff like tribute payments and the Silk Road as its selling point, with inland republics, provincial trade goods, and centers of trade as part of the accompanying patch. After the steppes/nomads are improved, the devs should look at improving the internal governance mechanics of kingdoms and empires with stuff like elector titles, cadet lines, appointed governors for counties, and ruler-controlled gavelkind as part of its associated patch. Once these next two proposed expansions are done and the engine optimization is improved as each patch comes out, it would only then makes sense to properly add in that final piece that is China and East Asia.

 

[KaiserRichter]

Not interested. If you want an oriental setting in Crusader Kings II, you should be playing Sengoku. This is Crusader Kings II.
I'm not down to have an EUIV tier map just because a handful of people want to live out their three kingdoms fantasies. Game's slowed down enough as it is with including India. We don't need China and the Orient. I'm pretty tired of people with these ideas that continually bring the game further and further away from it's intended theme. The theme is the feudal ages. Specifically in Europe. We stretch it out abit by going back into the dark ages, or making mods that have similar settings. Notice how no mod excluding that one, long dead mod adding the whole, horribly distorted world to the game no longer exists. Let's keep in that way.
I'd also rather real problems, and real issues be fixed instead of adding a bunch of new crap that doesn't fit the theme.

If there is to be a next expansion, it should focus on the dark ages, improving current heathen religions from function to flavour, or the classical era. No more Aztecs, and no more Orient.
This is Crusader Kings. Not Ming Kings. Not Sun Tzu Kings. Not Republics of the Silk Road. Not Shoguns of Japan, Not Weaboo Kings, Not Maori Kings. Crusader Kings. :angry:

 

[Grubnessul]

I'd say there already has been too much expansion in width (both map expansions and timeline), not enough in depth. I prefer actually good working crusades over China any day. Then again, I've never really cared for history east of India so, meh.

 

[Baalshazar]

I'd say there already has been too much expansion in width (both map expansions and timeline), not enough in depth. I prefer actually good working crusades over China any day. Then again, I've never really cared for history east of India so, meh.

If your talking about distributing they did that once and the states didn't last, so they changed it.

Also, this thread.

 

[Ooohu]

They won't be adding a China DLC or expansion for CK2. They'll make a stand alone game mirroring the whole of Asian politics perhaps going as far as Persia & a bit of Eastern Russia. CK2 will be used as the beta test for the types of systems needed to mirror those political things and of course a variety of other stuff. Just like in EU3 Divine Wind created the whole systems of Celestial Government set in EU4. They'll refine it for that new game and add some other things of course but to add it to this one wouldn't be wise. It'll slow down the game, and close the window for a fully fledged product which means less money.

Nobody would do that ever... but when they do make that game, I'll be down to get it in a second. In fact I have a feeling it'll be called "Sengoku II."

 

[anomanderus]

They won't be adding a China DLC or expansion for CK2. They'll make a stand alone game mirroring the whole of Asian politics perhaps going as far as Persia & a bit of Eastern Russia. CK2 will be used as the beta test for the types of systems needed to mirror those political things and of course a variety of other stuff. Just like in EU3 Divine Wind created the whole systems of Celestial Government set in EU4. They'll refine it for that new game and add some other things of course but to add it to this one wouldn't be wise. It'll slow down the game, and close the window for a fully fledged product which means less money.

Nobody would do that ever... but when they do make that game, I'll be down to get it in a second. In fact I have a feeling it'll be called "Sengoku II."

Why not a Romance of the Three Kingdoms game?

 

[smeggy]

lol thread. If only the basics where fixed I'd be as happy as a baby. So many noobs on the dev. steering wheel.

 

[Fishman786]

I'm not sure why we are asking 'was China relevant to Europe?'. The answer to that is clearly no, but CK2 is not Europe. China was highly relevant to other parts of the map, especially now that we're moving the start date back to 769. Everything from Korea to Khorasan was connected by extremely lucrative trade routes and a whole host of diverse and interesting civilisations vied for control over the region (the Chinese empires amongst them).

 

[chatnoir17]

Unless China is included, CK2 can't compete Koei's Ghengis Khan series in some points.

 

[killerbee256]

anomanderus the game is called crusader kings because it sounds cool. Not because the game is centered around the crusades.

 

[Sol717]

Unless China is included, CK2 can't compete Koei's Ghengis Khan series in some points.

PDS isn't trying to compete with anybody, and the majority of the fan base similarly doesn't care.

 

[anomanderus]

I'm not sure why we are asking 'was China relevant to Europe?'. The answer to that is clearly no, but CK2 is not Europe. China was highly relevant to other parts of the map, especially now that we're moving the start date back to 769. Everything from Korea to Khorasan was connected by extremely lucrative trade routes and a whole host of diverse and interesting civilisations vied for control over the region (the Chinese empires amongst them).

Literally no one is asking whether China is relevant to Europe

China is not relevant to the entire rest of the map which is what people are saying

Trade routes do not need China because China would have little to no interaction with the rest of the map regardless of the silk road or not

anomanderus the game is called crusader kings because it sounds cool. Not because the game is centered around the crusades.

And that wasn't what I said at all so clearly you need to stop arguing if you can't even read what I wrote

The post was replying to another post which claimed that China was involved in the Crusades because China happened to be ruled by a Mongol emperor at the time of the Crusades

And the game is called Crusader Kings because the first game was about Crusaders who were kings with this game having expanded to make the Muslims playable- it is still about dynastic kingships fighting holy wars against one another which is why India is relevant for Jihading Islamic dynastic kings

China does not fit into the theme of holy wars even if it has dynasties and as has been pointed out the Chinese emperor also didn't have vassals that could be represented with the game system even now that viceroys are a thing

China can only be modeled as a separate game with extensive research, not a cheap DLC pushed out after 2 months

 

[Thure]

Literally no one is asking whether China is relevant to Europe

China is not relevant to the entire rest of the map which is what people are saying

Yeah Mongols are absolutly unrelevant...

 

[killerbee256]

And that wasn't what I said at all so clearly you need to stop arguing if you can't even read what I wrote

No due I read what you wrote, you basic wrote the cliche and wrong "Ha it's called crusader kings, it's should only be about Christians and crusades bullshit"

 

[Fishman786]

Literally no one is asking whether China is relevant to Europe

China is not relevant to the entire rest of the map which is what people are saying

Trade routes do not need China because China would have little to no interaction with the rest of the map regardless of the silk road or not

Quite a few people are saying that China isn't relevant to Europe. Not you specifically, but other people are saying that because China's not relevant to the Crusades or Medieval Kings then it shouldn't be in the game. Now, there's a simple answer to the "It's called Crusader Kings/Europa Universalis/Victoria" argument, which is the potm-nominee one about Hearts of Iron not being about robot surgery, but that's been posted so many times already.

That said, China was relevant to the rest of the map, directly or indirectly. The Silk road for instance. Having the Silk Road kingdoms on the map without China is a bit like having the Mediterranean on the map without north Africa. The Tang Dynasty directly interacted with the states to the west of it and those interactions often took the form of armed conflict. True, the Tang collapse not long into the CK2 timeline. But they are followed by the Uyghur Khaganate, a central Asian power which is basically impossible to correctly represent without China. And they co-exist with the Tibetan Empire, another central Asian Empire that doesn't work without China. The Kyrgyz (who are already on-map, although slightly misplaced) destroy the Uighurs, creating a power vacuum that is filled by the Kara-Khanids, the Liao or Khitan empire, and finally the Kara-Khitai. All of which interacted with each other, with the much-reduced Chinese civilisation to the south, and with the rest of the CK2 map.

What I'm trying to say is that CK2 can't properly represent Europe without the middle east. CK2 can't properly represent the middle east without the steppes. And CK2 can't properly represent the steppes without China.

What are the options? A) spend a load of time, money and effort making a poor attempt at China (which most players won't play in) and force loads of people to upgrade their systems in the process. And B), leave the steppes as they are, divided in half with some of the most important parts missing. Not many players play in the steppes because the game mechanics don't quite work there and because of all the big, boring provinces. Not sure what a loss there would be from not including China.