What you DO want to see in 1.08 and what you DON'T want to see in 1.08!

[Gingerninja]

Massive pagan holy orders with an insane upkeep cost to counter the rapid expansion eastwards by the catholics.
More diverse mercenary groups that reflect the time periods better. Would've been cool to see merc groups rise and fall due to being created and going bankrupt due to a lack of jobs. And if I was the one who'd made the retinue system, I would've made it like a vassal merc group. Like the Varangian guard

 

[Ruwaard]

Mending the Schism from the catholic side seems wrong to me. The deal now is that you use your imperial power to restore the original Pentarchy, which the pope was part of. The pope suddenly sitting on the top seems wrong.

Wrong? For Catholics that's the only right way.

 

[Gingerninja]

Wrong? For Catholics that's the only right way.

Well, it is of my opinion that rather than mending the schism, they would try to just wipe out everything else, and in a way, that function is already in the game

 

[Ruwaard]

Well, it is of my opinion that rather than mending the schism, they would try to just wipe out everything else, and in a way, that function is already in the game

Wiping? They'd still be patriarchs, yet the pentarchy is restored under the primacy of Rome. The only patriarch, which would be worse off would be the patriarch of Constantinople (which more or less claims the Orthodox primacy (primus inter pares)). IMHO that would still be mending the schism.
But I guess we could argue about that for a while; the Great Schism dates back from 1054 and still isn't fully resolved (but steps are taken towards an understanding).

 

[NewbieOne]

@ NewbieOne: I agree that Catholics should be able to mend the Schism too. However Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne emperor and Pope Leo III happened to be not a supporter of filioque, but eventually it was adopted in by the Catholic Church though.

Ooops! I'm sorry. Yes, Leo III crowned Charlemagne. Zacharias replaced the Merovingians with the Carolingians. Leo III wasn't Greek.

Mending the Schism from the catholic side seems wrong to me. The deal now is that you use your imperial power to restore the original Pentarchy, which the pope was part of. The pope suddenly sitting on the top seems wrong.

Well, there were controversies about the nature or extent of the Pope's leadership but the notion was always there, not to mention how many early Popes were Greek. There were actually brief periods of union throghout the middle ages. In fact, even Michael VIII came onboard at some point. I guess a permanent diplomatic reunion was not totally out of the realm of possibility.

 

[ASPGolan]

Sorry for incoming rant: Yeah, I'm know I'm probably alone in this, but I don't understand the fixation with Paganism in this community. It is really frustrating, because it seems that playing Pagans is some sort of Holy Grail for most members. I don't understand how people see the title "Crusader Kings" and think "Wow, this is a great opportunity to play Pagan tribal leaders". Why don't these people play EU:Rome, ........... I don't know if the weird ahistorical and anti-medieval crowd are only a vocal minority, which would only be somewhat annoying, or if it is really the large majority, which would make me even sadder. I guess I would have to look elsewhere to play a intensive medieval crusade game (maybe a mod focused on Feudalism, but I have to take a look) or unfortunately just stay reading medieval books and imagining that life.

Again, sorry for the rant and to try to save this post I would ask for a Church DLC and a dinasties disputes DLC (but I guess that may not be popular enough in face of OMGPAGANS and Game of Thrones fans ).

IMO - 1) you're right about the semantics, it does seem weird to insist on pagans and 2) Pdox was right to invest some time in muslims/byzantines because of the time period 1066-1450 they had a big word to say and so did the mongols and they should be made playable.

And otherwise you already got what you wanted. The catholic western aristocrats were playable from day 1. However, there are a lot more people in this world, a lot more than in Western Europe & US anyway, people who also bought a game which represents very poorly the contending powers of the time in the eastern part of the map (i.e. muslims with only 1 wife). In the end I see that A LOT of people played the BE, even before LoR... (and most probably they did after they got bored with the western nuances of the game - and the byzantines do not reflect the same in-depth story as the western parts; speaking of semantics they did a lot more crusading than westerners, for them it was a continuous struggle - and it permitted the west to develop safe from the influence of the ottomans, thank them very much - which is crucial for why today's map is the way it is). All in all, playing BE or the mongols is just as important to reflect the time period!!

So why would I play Rome? what does it has to do with this?

IMO, the updates give more of a challenge and flavour to those starting in the west / catholics regions too. You finally feel that you meet in battles the actual orthodox and muslim rulers.