-
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.
The game is called Crusader Kings and as we already know it is going to be focussed on playing a christian landed nobility in Europe. Adding China and India, places unknown to the people in Europe doesn't make any sense. It also would mean that a lot of time and money needs to be spent on researching and balancing things that would never have happened in real time medieval Europe.
Also we know that the you can still play counties, if you are going to make a map made out of counties which includes India and China you would have a map with even more provinces then HoI3.
And as HoI3 has shown, 'more of everything' doesn't automatically mean that it is better.
These are valid reasons.
I'd indeed not like to see the quality of the game diminished significantly due to the scope blobbing beyond its safe boundaries. Of course it would imply that "time and money needs to be spent on researching and balancing things that would never have happened in real time medieval Europe". It's stating the obvious that moving scope outside Europe would imply moving resources outside Europe.I'm not suggesting 'more of everything'. It merely concerns the inclusions of areas which during that time were both developed and interesting, and were connected indirectly to the focus of the game: Europe. Still, the implied extra work needed might indeed not be worth the payoff.
The focus of the game is surely medieval, feudal, christian western Europe. Expanding the map to encompass India, China, Africa, the Steppes and so on seems fine on the surface as these place obviously existed during the timeline, and well, moar is moar right?
But these are not areas which greatly impacted medieval, feudal, christian western Europe so at best theyre surplus, and at worst they could lead to jarring results that break immersion in the medieval, feudal, christian western European setting.
India and China and even the Arab world were vastly different places to medieval, feudal, christian western Europe - Is an Indian ruler truly going to be embroiled in a contest for authority with the Pope like a ruler of the HRE would be? He is going to have other concerns and other cultural strains that must either be modelled in as much detail as the games focus (unrealistic given time/budget constraints) or some souless cookie cutter events/decisions must be presented in such a way that the situation for a ruler in India is not much different than a King of England.
Id very much rather that PI concentrate on the games focus - medieval, feudal, christian western Europe - and the events and tensions of that era in great detail rather than try to make the "Game of Everything" and be unable to model any particular culture or historical era in any detail. Believe me, Western Europe is a pretty broad canvass in its own way so PI will be walking a tightrope between gameplay concerns and historical accuracy as it stands. All those "Bastard" event chains in CK1 made sense from a really high level overview of Europe - however they were meaningless in the point of view of peripheral European cultures who didnt have a concept of "Bastard".
I rather those complexities were better modelled than sacrificing them to try to reflect cultures that didnt significantly impact Western Europe until well after the timeline. Quality, not quantity.
But these are not areas which greatly impacted medieval, feudal, christian western Europe so at best theyre surplus, and at worst they could lead to jarring results that break immersion in the medieval, feudal, christian western European setting.
India and China and even the Arab world were vastly different places to medieval, feudal, christian western Europe - Is an Indian ruler truly going to be embroiled in a contest for authority with the Pope like a ruler of the HRE would be? He is going to have other concerns and other cultural strains that must either be modelled in as much detail as the games focus (unrealistic given time/budget constraints) or some souless cookie cutter events/decisions must be presented in such a way that the situation for a ruler in India is not much different than a King of England.
Id very much rather that PI concentrate on the games focus - medieval, feudal, christian western Europe - and the events and tensions of that era in great detail rather than try to make the "Game of Everything" and be unable to model any particular culture or historical era in any detail. Believe me, Western Europe is a pretty broad canvass in its own way so PI will be walking a tightrope between gameplay concerns and historical accuracy as it stands. All those "Bastard" event chains in CK1 made sense from a really high level overview of Europe - however they were meaningless in the point of view of peripheral European cultures who didnt have a concept of "Bastard".
I rather those complexities were better modelled than sacrificing them to try to reflect cultures that didnt significantly impact Western Europe until well after the timeline. Quality, not quantity.
I don't think we'll have to worry about the Iceland and Ethiopia problem, because all Clausewitz engine games have this nebulous black void beyond the borders of the map that you can scroll a ways into. EU:Rome is actually a great example of this, given how similar in scope its map is to CK.
They could expand the map a little if they want but the main focus should be to expand the details of the Christian and Muslim countries.
Also since this will be using the EUIII engine it should be relatively easy to mod in asia if someone really desires.
Also since this will be using the EUIII engine it should be relatively easy to mod in asia if someone really desires.
If you ask me about a clausewitz map, the first thing that comes to my mind is not its scope, but country borders, and shores.
Please, Paradox, make them soft, nicely shaped, curved, appealing. Not a bunch of blocky lines and spikes.
EDIT: ...and please, Paradox, go back and use your mixed map projection to create the CK2 one. PLEASE do not use a Miller projection: it makes Scandinavia too big, and Iceland way too enlarged and stretched compared to the rest of the map.
Please, Paradox, make them soft, nicely shaped, curved, appealing. Not a bunch of blocky lines and spikes.
EDIT: ...and please, Paradox, go back and use your mixed map projection to create the CK2 one. PLEASE do not use a Miller projection: it makes Scandinavia too big, and Iceland way too enlarged and stretched compared to the rest of the map.
I do support the stretching of the map, I think going to China is just a little too far. Personally, I think it is important to at least stretch the map to include the important Christian centers of the east. As such, I think a good map size would be south to Ethiopia and East to Samarkand. If we are gonna base it off the understanding of a "Christian" game, then it would be imprudent to neglect the Christian Church of the East.
All it does is add more provinces where they aren't needed and takes them away from the focus of the game (Europe and the Middle East).
I could see extending it east a little bit, but China? So we can get more faraway allies/enemies who are near-impossible to reach but refuse white peace?
I could see extending it east a little bit, but China? So we can get more faraway allies/enemies who are near-impossible to reach but refuse white peace?
In my opinion central asia would be a nice addition, but I don't see any reason to include the entirety of eurasia. Lands like China were too far away and wouldn't work well with CK system.
The map could be improved only by including Ethiopia (a Christian country) and the entire Scandinavia in it. It was a bit dumb how Norway and Sweden were cut somewhere in the middle. The Kola peninsula should be seen at least. Iceland shouldn't be in the corner of the screen either.
Otherwise the map is perfect.
I agree with this. A little expansion to include Ethiopia and the northern tundra would completely include the Christian world.
Also, if Ethiopia is included, there should be a third race of people in the pictures for them and Nubia, rather than using the Arab faces.
Personally I would prefer the scope of the original CK map, but with a much much higher province count. Maybe not as much as HOI3 (for that area, not overall) but somewhere along those lines.
a CK "standalone sequel" would be very good for the warring states period in Japan though.
I think I agree with you. I would support some moderate expansion of the map to include some of these areas that are part of the Christian world, but I would not support all of Eurasia.
Simply put, the work it would take to research characters for all of Eurasia is not worth it to me. I would rather Paradox use that effort to improve other aspects of the game.
Majik said:
With some map editing, you could even make a mod based on Mount & Blade (Calradia) world.
I've always wondered when they would come out with that type of thing.
But, on another note I do believe that the original CK1 map boundaries would be fine for CK2.
Speaking of maps, Id love to see the 3d map from Rome being used in terms of terrain relief and the abilty to move the viewpoint around. Almost from a psychological point of view it was good to reverse the standard view to face towards the meddeterranean and put the grim, dark forests of Germania out of sight and out of mind. I was quite dissapointed when this wasnt in Vicky 2
Speaking of maps, Id love to see the 3d map from Rome being used in terms of terrain relief and the abilty to move the viewpoint around. Almost from a psychological point of view it was good to reverse the standard view to face towards the meddeterranean and put the grim, dark forests of Germania out of sight and out of mind. I was quite dissapointed when this wasnt in Vicky 2
Same here, I hope we can see 3D mountains, forests, and other 3D aspects. Although I wouldn't say it's absolutely necessary, it was a nice touch in Rome.
