Well , if we could maneuver armies around provinces per day , and if the province is not one homogeneous "mountain" or plain terrain , but instead separated into Mountain Pixels , River Pixels , plain Pixels , ie , that would make for quite an interesting game , since we can chose our own battlefields. However, I foresee two problems : One - Processor Capability . Two - AI Idiocy.
On another note , there are three ways Paradox can tackle Persian problem . The first is that they simply fully include the rest of Transoxinia. The second is that they abstractize Transoxinia. The third solution is to abstractize Persia .
Now , I personally prefer the first solution - I can't see how adding ten to twenty plus provinces will make the game that much slower. It makes for a far more accurate depiction of the Seljuks , the Mongols and the Timurids , and probably will be the reason why , even if you conquer Baghdad, you are going to have to deal with the next Empire emerging from this region . It also will help in getting the Seljuks to properly collapse with one incompetent leader - else we might very well end up with the Shiekdom of Praha lunacy all over again. Plus, it would make an interesting end game goal for a Crusader state . You have Jerusalem . Can you drive Islam into the howling waste of Siberia and Khazakstan within three centuries?
The downside of course , is that some people might feel that the focus of the game would be shifted slightly further away from Europe. However , this is Crusader Kings - the focus here is not only just on European Medieval Dynastic and court politics , but also on the Christian Islam conflict in this time period . The first CK map shows quite a good chunk of the Islamic world , covering it's heartlands in the Magherb , Egypt , Iraq, the Levant , Arabia and Persia . But it did not go far enough to include Transoxinia . And while your European Crusader might not initally care who controls the edges of the Central Asian steepes , one day , three decades from that time , that Empire from Samarkand may be knocking at the door of Crusader Smyrna.....
The Second solution would probably require some additional game mechanics . Theoretically , we could take advantage of the wasteland feature from EU3 and make Bactria/Transoxinia a kind of "wasteland" where Crusaders can't cross . Problem is , we may end up with invincible Persias and Mongols . If I could secure Persia , there is no reason why I can't go one extra step and eliminate the last significant bastion of Islam, economically and Population wise .
I actually like the idea of abstracting the edge of the map with "horde" threats ( such as the Almovarids from Western Africa appearing and overrunning Morocco , and threatening to halt your reconquista) with Super Provinces , but this provinces should be historically ( and even in any alternate history ) be quite low in popuolation wise , or representing major geographical barriers. ( Siberia , Khazak Steeps , Taklamakan Desert, Sahara Desert , perhaps the Ethiopian Highlands etc ) , and where the inability to send an army through is highly justified .
The third solution is quite similar to the second , but Persia was quite a complex region at this time , and abstracting Persia creates HUGE problems in simulating the Seljuks . Without ugly triggered events , in a Sandbox game , a rather small Seljuk Empire centered on Mesopotamia is unlikely to collapse. Worse , depending on how wealthly Mesopotamia is , and how much manpower , I can forsee two possibilities :
1: The Seljuks get rather badly mauled by the Byzantines . Hello theme of Baghdad.
2: The Seljuks are too overpowered , in an attempt to make them stand a chance of conquering the regions they managed to . Plus , because there's no Persia and Transoxina , the Seljuk collapse becomes the exception in most games , instead of the rule , as it should be. Hello Shiekdom of Praha .
At minimum , the Crusaders are a non starter . You'll get badly mauled by either the Fatamids or the Seljuks , instead of facing a hodgepoddle of disunited states that resulted from the weakening of the Fatamids thanks to the Seljuks , and the subsequent Seljuk disintegration.
At the minimum , in most CK2 games , the Fatamids ought to be in almost no position to prevent the conquest of Jersualem when 1100 rows around , while the Seljuks should collapse around that time . The games where this does not happen should be considered noteworthly enough to appear in the Strange Screenshots threads . Then , the real ahistory can begin with regards to the crusades . Failure to accomplish this most of the time would make the Crusades broken in simulation in my opinion .
I don't think we would like a repeat of what happen when EU3 was first released( BBB , and a Crazy Ming Empire) , or when HOI3 was first released ( the Swiss joining the allies in 1941 , and the US in the allies even before WWII begins , or Japan landing troops in Finland) .
.
.PNG)
