CK2 Dev Diary #46: Surveying the Survey

[Werther]

I've got more of an issue with the overtly-supernatural events in MnM because unlike Sunset Invasion they're not part of some optional silly openly-ahistorical expansion pack, but instead they're a big chunk of a 'proper' dlc. It's a kind of direction change that I don't like. I've got no problem with ambiguously-supernatural content at all, in fact I think it's great as they vastly improve immersion. People in the middle ages actually believed in magic and miracles, they were a perfectly normal and accepted part of the world. Having that ambiguity about whether you've been chosen by Jesus or possessed by the devil or maybe just suffer from some affliction is probably a unique experience in the gaming world. But I am a lot less fond of having any unambiguous magic system in the game, and it's not a direction I want to see Crusader Kings travelling in the future.

That's exactly what i think. I'm for ambiguous stuff where you can experience medieval mentality about supernatural events, but unambiguous supernatural events must be very optional and not the core of DLCs. It will break immersion for people who wants to experience the medieval period and not some kind of Hollywood Middle Ages. There are so many games about that and so few games who wants to recreate the "real" Middle Ages. I don't know why dev want to add these kinds of stuff in a Medieval period game, people would be upset if you can create nazi werewolfs in HOI4 or "real" witches in EU4 instead of improving historical immersion.

 

[Fishman786]

After having seen the EU4 telemetry data showing that most people started with the Grand Campaign Johan stated that EU5 would not have dynamic dates--given that CKII too has a huge lopside towards the early dates I'd expect things to be similar there. And I agree that it's a really really sad thing, since being able to pick any date you like always has been unique indeed, and it can also be really fun. Find some obscure war and then start on the day it started and play it out to either recreate it or try to change the outcome.

My guess is that most people simply aren't aware that you can choose dates outside the bookmarks---which would correspond with how I've often seen people ask for startdates which already are playable through the custom dates, but aren't bookmarks. Strange how they can miss the arrows for choosing custom dates, but when people can miss signs hanging on doors they just passed through I guess they can miss anything.

It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy really. People don't play later dates, problems are left unreported, Paradox doesn't support or fix them, so people are even less likely to want to start outside the beginning.

CK3 would probably be fine with just five start dates in my opinion. One at the beginning, one maybe a bit later, one core date at or around 1000 AD (like 1066), a high medieval start and a 1337 start. Maybe more could be added by DLC.

 

[MichaelStakely]

They could just troll us even further by giving us another Sunset Invasion, but instead of the Aztecs invading Europe, the Chinese will invade India. How about that?

They could go the full fantasy route and have Prester John and an army of knights invade a random location that borders the Indian Ocean. Just imagine what an attrition-proof horde sized Holy Order could pull off.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Actually being able to impregnate people or regrow missing limbs opens the veil of ambiguity up a bit too much for my liking.

Haven't tried the new expansion yet; that's actually possible?

Also some things can be explained pretty easily through physics or chemistry. Can't remember what it was, but there was some kind of curse or something where you did some physical contact (think it was pressing the mark's hand) and he later died. That could easily be explained through having radiation poisoning. You came across some "cursed earth" which when ingested made people die. In actuality it was say very uranium rich dirt, but since you didn't know what actually happened you called it "cursed earth". Having some on your hand when pressing hands would make sure it got transfered and then ingested when the mark eats---you yourself then takes a very thorough cleaning of your hands afterwards.
And that's only one way of doing these things ambiguously. (Again can't remember exactly what this example pertained too---can dig it up if needed. Anyway it's just an example of how something seemingly unambiguously magical can become ambiguous if you write it in the proper way.)

 

[Wagonlitz]

That's exactly what i think. I'm for ambiguous stuff where you can experience medieval mentality about supernatural events, but unambiguous supernatural events must be very optional and not the core of DLCs. It will break immersion for people who wants to experience the medieval period and not some kind of Hollywood Middle Ages. There are so many games about that and so few games who wants to recreate the "real" Middle Ages. I don't know why dev want to add these kinds of stuff in a Medieval period game, people would be upset if you can create nazi werewolfs in HOI4 or "real" witches in EU4 instead of improving historical immersion.

Really well said.
Also it's really sad seeing how the only reply from PI, and many other forumites, is to just turn off the fantasy content; because that's not a solution since that turns off way way more than just the unambiguously supernatural. All (or at least most of) the ambiguous stuff goes away too if you do that.

It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy really. People don't play later dates, problems are left unreported, Paradox doesn't support or fix them, so people are even less likely to want to start outside the beginning.

Indeed.

CK3 would probably be fine with just five start dates in my opinion

I think that'd be way too few. Though I think that it's likely to be in the ballpark of what we get---which is sad.

 

[StarSword]

It would be nice to start at 476 (or hell even 410 if we are going by loose definitions of the fall of Rome), but I'm not sure that the devs want to touch the founding of Islam and Mohammed with a ten foot pole. It's very much a landmine.

I disagree: it's historical and it can be done reasonably accurately. And as far as depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, if you look at the succession for any of the caliphates (e.g. click the Arabic text duchy for the Abbablob next time you're in-game), you'll see that Muhammad is listed, but instead of a portrait he just has Arabic calligraphy which I think is his name. Just reuse that.

 

[Fishman786]

I disagree: it's historical and it can be done reasonably accurately. And as far as depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, if you look at the succession for any of the caliphates (e.g. click the Arabic text duchy for the Abbablob next time you're in-game), you'll see that Muhammad is listed, but instead of a portrait he just has Arabic calligraphy which I think is his name. Just reuse that.

Being able to imprison, execute, assassinate, force-convert, defeat or otherwise destroy the Prophet would be very contentious.

 

[DàbiànLājīdàrén]

Is that Indians conquering all the way to Russia and Jerusalem, or local rulers converting to Hinduism due to events or Nomadic adventurers? I've recently seen more border adjustments near the Indus than I used to but a strong Muslim realm subduing India or a Indian realm moving successfully into Persia and beyond is still very, very rare in my campaigns. I'm hoping the adjustments to Holy Orders in the next patch will create some more dynamism between the Muslims and Indians.

Ya I've seen Indian kingdoms owning all of Persia, or Byzantium and an Indian kingdom reaching each other by carving up Persia. I am actually not sure how Jerusalem became Hindu. That one's a mystery.

 

[plussocram]

It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy really. People don't play later dates, problems are left unreported, Paradox doesn't support or fix them, so people are even less likely to want to start outside the beginning.

I agree. I like the idea of the new EU 4 feature and how throughout time certain mecantics change. I think it would work especially well in ck2 where there is so much time in the game that it would give you a reason to continue till the end.

It would be nice to start at 476 (or hell even 410 if we are going by loose definitions of the fall of Rome), but I'm not sure that the devs want to touch the founding of Islam and Mohammed with a ten foot pole. It's very much a landmine.

They would be pushing it if they were to try that 565 and the fall of the gupta empire marks the end of the classical era and the start of the postclassical era and that I think is where I could only see them going as far back within reason anything else would just be shilling for fans who want to play Rome. I would honestly like for the game to go more in depth then back because even now I have problems finnishing a game because of how large the time frame is and how little the game changes once you reach empire tier.

 

[Caspoi]

Being able to imprison, execute, assassinate, force-convert, defeat or otherwise destroy the Prophet would be very contentious.

One could make him immune to conversions but while I am very skeptical to start dates so early that is not a reason and if all other historical figures in Paradox games might do better or worse than in reality why should he be immune?

 

[Faarenough]

Hopefully we won't see anymore sunset invasions. Still never understood why you guys made it, no one even asked for it.

I will finally take responsibility for my actions in asking for a Native American Invasion. In my original post I outline the game play for a 4 sided invasion series. (This was very early game when it was only war basically) We always have mongols from the east, my suggestion was. Why not one from the west as well? Then we could make a north and south.

I like the concept, its just too samey. If there had been an option for Aztec, Mayan or BOTH then it would have made things a little cooler. More strat, as in have Aztecs and Mayans have different abilities and events. Oh well that ship sailed long ago lol. Plus I would say CK2 no longer NEEDS such mechanics as the base game is so well fleshed out now with non war time business to attend to. Thumbs up

P.S. It seems I didn't merge or something new forums? Anyway my old games are gone and it wont let me register them, apparently my games dont have enough numbers in the serial code. Games like CK1, Crown of North and EU2. They are the old physical disc versions if that helps.

 

[Fishman786]

One could make him immune to conversions but while I am very skeptical to start dates so early that is not a reason and if all other historical figures in Paradox games might do better or worse than in reality why should he be immune?

Because, unlike say Genghis Khan, Charlemagne or Ragnar Lodbrok, a lot of super-strong religious sentiments would be hurt by allowing Muhammad to get harmed. Or even by allowing early Islam to develop in some other way. It would really make a lot of people very upset in the same way as HoI depicting war-crimes would.

Also, don't forget that in the eyes of the public this is 'just a game'. Games are not considered 'worthy' yet and have a long way to go. It might be acceptable for alternate history novels to explore topics like the Holocaust, or Muhammad becoming a Christian, or the flaws of modern democracy, but very few games have even reached that status of respect yet. It might not be fair, but that's the way it is at the moment.

 

[Caspoi]

Because, unlike say Genghis Khan, Charlemagne or Ragnar Lodbrok, a lot of super-strong religious sentiments would be hurt by allowing Muhammad to get harmed. Or even by allowing early Islam to develop in some other way. It would really make a lot of people very upset in the same way as HoI depicting war-crimes would.

Also, don't forget that in the eyes of the public this is 'just a game'. Games are not considered 'worthy' yet and have a long way to go. It might be acceptable for alternate history novels to explore topics like the Holocaust, or Muhammad becoming a Christian, or the flaws of modern democracy, but very few games have even reached that status of respect yet. It might not be fair, but that's the way it is at the moment.

On the other hand how many of those super strong religious people would take note of this? I do understand where you are coming from and I do not feel a great need to depict that time era, espeically in CK but should those people's opinion really determine the course of Paradox when I doubt that they are a very large part of the market?

 

[Faarenough]

New Start Dates!!! This is needed above all else! There are so many awesome start dates BETWEEN the dates we already have.

911 - King Charles III (the Simple) and Rollo sign Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte, King Louis IV (the Child), the last ruler of the Carolingian Dynasty, dies. Princess Æthelflæd, as Lady of the Mercians (Read Anglo Saxon England)! The Fatimids begin the conquest of Sicily. Saeculum obscurum. Basically lots of cool stuff, I would play this start the most.

Something around the year 1000, like 1002
1002 - Henry II succeeds Otto III, as King of Germany, St. Brice's Day massacre, Brian Boru, King of Leinster and Munster, becomes High King of Ireland, Byzzie vs Bulgar wars etc

Basicly anything from the years 900 to 1025 should be considered for new start dates

 

[Fishman786]

On the other hand how many of those super strong religious people would take note of this? I do understand where you are coming from and I do not feel a great need to depict that time era, espeically in CK but should those people's opinion really determine the course of Paradox when I doubt that they are a very large part of the market?

It's not really a question of whether they're part of the market, it's more about the massive media backlash/PR hit that would happen, and of course extremist threats to the company's safety.

 

[StarSword]

Being able to imprison, execute, assassinate, force-convert, defeat or otherwise destroy the Prophet would be very contentious.

If it's that important, don't let it most of those happen. Here's how I would do it:

1. Assuming a start date in the late 500s or early 600s before the Prophet Muhammad began his ministry. Preexisting playable religions in the area are Zoros (the Sassanids are in charge at this time), various Christian sects (mainly Nestorians and Miaphysites), and Arabic pagans. (I think but am not entirely sure that the Jewish diaspora had happened a long time before and therefore there would be no Jewish rulers. EDIT: I stand corrected, thank you, @Spear12.)
2. Depict Muhammad by scripted event only, using his existing non-portrait. He is not allowed to be an actual interactable character in the official release (modders are on their own).
3. The rise of Islam is a host outbreak in Arabia, a la Widukind or a Shi'a Caliphate rising, scaled to the nation it appears in. It's possible but not easy to defeat them militarily (if possible, make it big enough the AI can't beat him but a smart PC can), but Muhammad himself is not affected: his ministry simply fails if the host is entirely destroyed and he is written to have escaped and eventually died of natural causes.

See, the difference between what I'm doing here and the kind of shit Charlie Hebdo did, they were deliberately trying to piss people off. I dislike deliberate insults based on religious belief (insults based on actions unsupported by the actual scripture are an exception, and I reserve the right to insult Christians specifically and Protestants especially since I am one by inclination myself), but respectfully writing alternate history is something else entirely.

 

[Spear12]

(mainly Nestorians and Miaphysites), and Arabic pagans. (I think but am not entirely sure that the Jewish diaspora had happened a long time before and therefore there would be no Jewish rulers.)

You'd be incorrect [1] [2] [3] [4] (Sassanids installed a puppet state)

There were also several revolts in the 6th to 7th centuries including the aforementioned: [1] [2]

 

[Spear12]

Also there was Mazoha, Banu Harith, Banu Nadir and Abu Isa's revolt.

Really, if anything, there were a considerable number of Jewish realms at this time, especially when you consider the lands were Jews were predominant under other rulers and tribes.

 

[General Karthos]

So let's have the last big DLC for CK2 be a huge event expansion.

 

[TheDungen]

To those that vehemently hate the idea of a start date pre 769 for inaccuracy reasons. Are you as upset by M&M adding a bunch of fantasy stuff to the game?

Yes. And not only for accuracy reasons, the feudal structure of CK doesn't make sense that early heck it barely makes sense in 1066, I would really say that 1081 is where crusaders kings comes into it's own.

I see that in the comments, everybody seems to love SI and disagree with people who don't like it. Sorry, but i hate it, it's the only CK2 (or of any Paradox Game) DLC that i don't have. I can understand it's "fun" for some people, but i just don't want Paradox to waste time on silly stuff. I say nothing about the growing number of fantasy stuff in the DLC that i never use, but SI was too much and broke my "suspension of disbelief". I am maybe a minority here, but i discovered Para games and love them for the historical context and plausibility. As a person who studied medieval history in university, i am still amazed by a game which want to recreate the medieval period, that's why i still love CK2. But I hate fantasy stuff, because we come back to some movies and video games clichés about the period, because i can find 2 billions other games with demons in Middle Age, because there are so maaaany historical features/mechanics that can still be added to the game, and choosing to spend their time on crazy stuff is sad.

No we don't love it we just disagree because it's not quite as bad as made out to be. In hindsight I would of course have prefered them using their time otherwise but it's done so what is the point in complaining. I actually often use it if I am playing empire tier games from the early start dates other than the HRE.

It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy really. People don't play later dates, problems are left unreported, Paradox doesn't support or fix them, so people are even less likely to want to start outside the beginning.

CK3 would probably be fine with just five start dates in my opinion. One at the beginning, one maybe a bit later, one core date at or around 1000 AD (like 1066), a high medieval start and a 1337 start. Maybe more could be added by DLC.

Or they could add a continue button which would probably make people more inclined to play the later start dates knowing the game won't cut them of.

Because, unlike say Genghis Khan, Charlemagne or Ragnar Lodbrok, a lot of super-strong religious sentiments would be hurt by allowing Muhammad to get harmed. Or even by allowing early Islam to develop in some other way. It would really make a lot of people very upset in the same way as HoI depicting war-crimes would.

You underestimate the muslim community, the vast majority of them will have no problem with a western company treating mohammed as a historical figure as long as they do it in a respectful manner. Mohammed is not a good reason no to have earlier start dates, the fact that the game was designed for the high middle ages and already span a very very long time is the reason not to do it.
If they make a migration era game one day he should obviously be in there.

Also, don't forget that in the eyes of the public this is 'just a game'. Games are not considered 'worthy' yet and have a long way to go. It might be acceptable for alternate history novels to explore topics like the Holocaust, or Muhammad becoming a Christian, or the flaws of modern democracy, but very few games have even reached that status of respect yet. It might not be fair, but that's the way it is at the moment.

Not pushing is accepting their perspective on these things. Show that a game can deal with these issues in a respectful manner and they'll have to back of. I'm more concerned that there will be players who will consistently go after the character, that there will be mods who ridicule and that there will be AARs which misrepresents how he is portrayed in the game for similiar reasons.