Map size - then and now

[ComradeOm]

I think that CK should not be centred in cristian europa, EU isn't eurocentric, victoria isn't eurocentric and hoi isn't eurocentric.
The only reason why PI didn't make the CK 1 map worldwide is because they didn't want to.

I think that P'dox themselves would admit that all three of those games are, to varying degrees, Eurocentric. King explicitly says that this is the case for EU in this interview

Its also been pretty clear that CK2 is, like the original, going to focus almost exclusively on the Christian rulers in Europe. What with the latter being the only playable nations/factions and all. Really, what's the point of using a global map (or even one that stretches out to India and beyond) when all the playable factions are to be found in one small corner?

 

[Shackel]

Because the game is called 'Crusader Kings'. Not 'Reclaim Alexander's Empire'. Honestly I don't understand why Alexander (and his march to the Indus) is being mentioned in this thread

You believe that Latin or Greek expansion into India during the game's timeframe is "plausible history"?

You know, it's times like these when I feel like examples are useless. Alright, let me explain this.

History is not written in stone. In a game called Crusader Kings, even if it is about Christians, implies Crusades, and even THAT is a minor little tidbit in the game anyway.

If the Crusades are more successful, then you should be able to keep going into more lands that the Muslims have. Because this is Crusader Kings, which means you should be slapped around by a foreigner(to Europe) until they die naturally or have all of Europe unite to beat them?

Why can't we play as Muslims? Because this is Crusader Kings and not Jihad Emirs?

"Crusader Kings" is a title. Your objective should not be scoffed at because it didn't happen in OTL.

 

[Novea]

Well , I do buy the argument that making Muslims playable would require quite alot of work , both in events and game mechanics to truly do the Medieval Muslim world justice , so that's probably better left off for interested Modders , and another expansion.

And yes , I know that realistically , a Crusader Baghdad or Cairo borders is improbable . Does it cross into ASB territory ? I hesitate to say so , because by that standards, the Rise of Islam would be ASB too. But supposed everything went right for the Crusaders , and everything goes wrong for the Muslims - represented by a skillful and Experienced CK2 player . Under these circumstances , a conquest of Mesopotamia before the Mongols hit would be conceivable , IMO.

Irregardless though , this is a topic that undoubtably is buried in some dead thread on the AH.com board Pre 1900 forum.

Hey , if you object , don't WC in CK2 then. It's ASB and requires the world to be infected with the Draka stupidity Virus:rofl:..... wait a moment - isn't AI idiocy basically the Draka Stupidity Virus of Paradox games..... ?

 

[Shackel]

Well , I do buy the argument that making Muslims playable would require quite alot of work , both in events and game mechanics to truly do the Medieval Muslim world justice , so that's probably better left off for interested Modders , and another expansion.

And yes , I know that realistically , a Crusader Baghdad or Cairo borders is improbable . Does it cross into ASB territory ? I hesitate to say so , because by that standards, the Rise of Islam would be ASB too. But supposed everything went right for the Crusaders , and everything goes wrong for the Muslims - represented by a skillful and Experienced CK2 player . Under these circumstances , a conquest of Mesopotamia before the Mongols hit would be conceivable , IMO.

Irregardless though , this is a topic that undoubtably is buried in some dead thread on the AH.com board Pre 1900 forum.

Hey , if you object , don't WC in CK2 then. It's ASB and requires the world to be infected with the Draka stupidity Virus:rofl:..... wait a moment - isn't AI idiocy basically the Draka Stupidity Virus of Paradox games..... ?

No, they don't have Draka Syndrome. Draka had around 100BB coming in per year, so they would have gotten curbstomped.

I think Muslims should be officially playable in an expansion pack.

 

[Caranorn]

You know, it's times like these when I feel like examples are useless. Alright, let me explain this.

History is not written in stone. In a game called Crusader Kings, even if it is about Christians, implies Crusades, and even THAT is a minor little tidbit in the game anyway.

If the Crusades are more successful, then you should be able to keep going into more lands that the Muslims have. Because this is Crusader Kings, which means you should be slapped around by a foreigner(to Europe) until they die naturally or have all of Europe unite to beat them?

Why can't we play as Muslims? Because this is Crusader Kings and not Jihad Emirs?

"Crusader Kings" is a title. Your objective should not be scoffed at because it didn't happen in OTL.

I think what ComradeOm tried to say was that given all we know about the crusading states there was really no way anything beyond Bagdad could have been conquered and held. Not to mention that the crusading states never had the manpower for much more conquest than they'd already achieved, they might have made it briefly to areas like Baghdad or Cairo, but than their eventual defeat would even have been hastened...

Add to that the fact that there was little interest in areas beyond that at the time. The crusades were officially about securing the routes to the (Christian) holy places and the places themselves. That means Jerusalem and the Levant. Beyond that there were crusades against states that were either directly bordering those areas (Cairo) or that were directly (including via sea) bordering on Europe (Aljazair). Bagdad in my opinion would also have been a plausible target due to it's partial greek population and direct vicinity to Jerusalem. But Persia and beyond held little religious interest (the crusades were not about wiping out Islam)...

Now back to the map. If the CK-II engine can handle a Europe with 3-4 times more provinces (necessary to represent all historic counties and therefore important dynasties, correct vassalage and important travel routes) and at the same time an expansion east. Why not? But if the engine can't do that I'd be strongly in favour of cutting away as much territory east as possible and abstracting Islam as much as possible...

P.S.: If the map is indeed vector graphics than we are one step closer to a larger map, though of course the graphic file size is not the only issue that could come up limiting map expansion...

 

[Novea]

Ok , this may be drifting a little OT , but let's suppose two things : 1 , no Mongol invasion . 2 : Everything goes right for the Crusaders . By 1200, a unified Crusader state stretching from the Tigris to Cyrenica has emerged , centered on Jerusalem . In game terms , in the hands of a seasoned player , this should be reasonably achievable. In real life , the Crusaders would have to be absurdly Lucky. Let's say that Mecca is also in the hands of Christians .

In such a circumstance , I can forsee that Iranian Muslims states would continually attempt to reclaim Islam holiest places . Are you telling me that a Crusader Empire , where everything is going right , will simply sit on the Tigris and not progress into Persia for 200 + years and simply soak up those raids ? Odds are , an Empire in such a position , by 1300 , if not earlier would be in an excellent position to expand into Persia , assuming no significant threats on the Western frontier. Not to mention that there's plenty of motivation to do so.

Of course , such a scenario would require so many things to be right that I don't think it's quite likely - but seriously , unless the CK2 AI becomes infinitely better than the rest of the Paradox titles , the mere presence of a human player not restraining himself would be akin to a string of lucky coincidences for the hypothetical Crusader state.

Finally , axing Iran will make simulating the Southern thrust of the Mongol Invasion quite difficult to balance . At least the Il Khantate horde tearing through Persia should be whittled down quite a bit before reaching Baghdad , let alone Jerusalem .

 

[Count of Reval]

Ok , this may be drifting a little OT , but let's suppose two things : 1 , no Mongol invasion . 2 : Everything goes right for the Crusaders . By 1200, a unified Crusader state stretching from the Tigris to Cyrenica has emerged , centered on Jerusalem . In game terms , in the hands of a seasoned player , this should be reasonably achievable. In real life , the Crusaders would have to be absurdly Lucky. Let's say that Mecca is also in the hands of Christians .

Why should and how would Christians conquer Mecca when in reality they had serious difficulties even to "liberate" and hold their own, Christian Holy Places? What that Luck necessary for described scenario would be comprised of? (Maybe some DNA-sensitive "Islam-plague" killing selectively only certain ethnic groups, or cultural/religious corruption of Islamic ideology destroying totally the unity of ummah. What are the odds?)

 

[ComradeOm]

If the Crusades are more successful, then you should be able to keep going into more lands that the Muslims have

Again, no. Nations do not expand unceasingly and crusader states do not expand unceasingly. That is the sole preserve of P'dox players on a WC. I'm going to put this as baldly as possible: there is not one scenario in which the medieval Latins conquer Persia (or beyond!) that is not completely implausible. In fact, its not so much implausible as impossible

There are arguments for an expanded map but you'll get nowhere by playing the alt-history card

Why can't we play as Muslims? Because this is Crusader Kings and not Jihad Emirs?

In a word, yes. The focus of this game is on medieval Europe. The Muslims are simply there as a foil

And yes , I know that realistically , a Crusader Baghdad or Cairo borders is improbable . Does it cross into ASB territory ?

Baghdad and Cairo? They're close but not entirely ASB... but then both cities are present on the original map

Go beyond this, into a realm that the Crusaders knew little and cared less about, and you're into complete fantasy. Not least because, as Caranorn picks up on, the Crusades were not simply about expanding into Muslim lands. They were specific campaigns with concrete religious/territorial aims. What possible reason or motivation, besides a WC, is there for a crusade into Persia?

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Ok , this may be drifting a little OT , but let's suppose two things : 1 , no Mongol invasion . 2 : Everything goes right for the Crusaders . By 1200, a unified Crusader state stretching from the Tigris to Cyrenica has emerged , centered on Jerusalem . In game terms , in the hands of a seasoned player , this should be reasonably achievable. In real life , the Crusaders would have to be absurdly Lucky. Let's say that Mecca is also in the hands of Christians .

In such a circumstance , I can forsee that Iranian Muslims states would continually attempt to reclaim Islam holiest places . Are you telling me that a Crusader Empire , where everything is going right , will simply sit on the Tigris and not progress into Persia for 200 + years and simply soak up those raids ? Odds are , an Empire in such a position , by 1300 , if not earlier would be in an excellent position to expand into Persia , assuming no significant threats on the Western frontier. Not to mention that there's plenty of motivation to do so.

Of course , such a scenario would require so many things to be right that I don't think it's quite likely - but seriously , unless the CK2 AI becomes infinitely better than the rest of the Paradox titles , the mere presence of a human player not restraining himself would be akin to a string of lucky coincidences for the hypothetical Crusader state.

Finally , axing Iran will make simulating the Southern thrust of the Mongol Invasion quite difficult to balance . At least the Il Khantate horde tearing through Persia should be whittled down quite a bit before reaching Baghdad , let alone Jerusalem .

Building a such Christian Empire in the Middle East should be very hard to impossible. There are several ways to prevent that from happening. Adding provinces isn't the solution to that problem, it just gives the human player some more provinces to conquer.

f.e. now if you take over a province you get the whole manpower of that province, it doesn't matter what religion or culture it has. In CK2 it could that a Muslim ruler of Baghdad could field an army of 10,000 men from it and a Christian player should hardly be able to get 100 men from the same province.

 

[Novea]

Anyone playing as a Crusader state would have an epically hard time then.:rofl:I guess the Kingdom of Jerusalem in game with such a system would be quite similar to playing Epirus or Ruyuku in EU3 - nearly impossible. Does Paradox intend to implement a Religion Percentage system , like in Victoria?

 

[pirt]

Umberto Eco has a nice novel "Baudolino" which nicely portraits (and exaggerates) some popular fantasies in medieval Europe about the Orient, including the legendary kingdom of Prester John. I don't know what it proves in terms of the discussion in this thread, but at least shows there was some popular interest in the orient beyond the holy lands, though very fantastic. (IIRC, in the novel Barbarossa's death is somehow related to his -fictional- obsession with claiming those fantasy lands).

 

[Arko]

Building a such Christian Empire in the Middle East should be very hard to impossible. There are several ways to prevent that from happening. Adding provinces isn't the solution to that problem, it just gives the human player some more provinces to conquer.

f.e. now if you take over a province you get the whole manpower of that province, it doesn't matter what religion or culture it has. In CK2 it could that a Muslim ruler of Baghdad could field an army of 10,000 men from it and a Christian player should hardly be able to get 100 men from the same province.

the real aim about expanding or not the map is all about balancing the game.
-manpower may be one way to achieve this.
-problems for maintaining a big empire and even more difficult to rule different religion and culture people is another way.
-abstracting mongols and partially muslims is also a great
rampart against World Conquest as WC that isn't the point of CK

 

[Arko]

Ok , this may be drifting a little OT , but let's suppose two things : 1 , no Mongol invasion . 2 : Everything goes right for the Crusaders . By 1200, a unified Crusader state stretching from the Tigris to Cyrenica has emerged , centered on Jerusalem . In game terms , in the hands of a seasoned player , this should be reasonably achievable. In real life , the Crusaders would have to be absurdly Lucky. Let's say that Mecca is also in the hands of Christians .

In such a circumstance , I can forsee that Iranian Muslims states would continually attempt to reclaim Islam holiest places . Are you telling me that a Crusader Empire , where everything is going right , will simply sit on the Tigris and not progress into Persia for 200 + years and simply soak up those raids ? Odds are , an Empire in such a position , by 1300 , if not earlier would be in an excellent position to expand into Persia , assuming no significant threats on the Western frontier. Not to mention that there's plenty of motivation to do so.
.

mmmm and after that eradiquate mongols on their own lands to prevent their invasions ?... pretty unlikely

on the other side i like the idea of the reverse crusade if some christians aggress muslim lands or even muslim holy lands. but if the game is well balanced it wouldn't happen

 

[Novea]

mmmm and after that eradiquate mongols on their own lands to prevent their invasions ?... pretty unlikely

on the other side i like the idea of the reverse crusade if some christians aggress muslim lands or even muslim holy lands. but if the game is well balanced it wouldn't happen

Um not exactly . Eradicating their powerbase/toehold on this side of the Eurasian continent - yes . All the way to Mongolia ? That was never the point . But suffice to say , a Mongol invasion would probably never be considered truly over until either the Mongol Khantates disintegrate ,or are pushed back beyond to the Mongolian Steepes , beyond the Taklamakan Desert and Pamirs.

But then again , good luck to holding this .

By the way , WC in CK isn't literally the whole world . It's basically the Whole Map . By rights , a WC shouldn't be possible in CK . Brutal penalties for very distant provinces could be one way to go about it .

What do you have in mind when you propose "abstracting" the Muslims and Mongols ?

Finally , I do think that if the player trespasses on Mecca or Medina , there should be a huge backlash from the rest of the Islamic world. Expect DOWs from nearly every Islamic state in the map , and Badboy style wars with the Muslim world until you turn Mecca over to a Muslim ruler.

 

[Arko]

What do you have in mind when you propose "abstracting" the Muslims and Mongols ?

mongols are already abstracted as they pop from "nowhere".
If the entire muslim world isn't represented on map, the same system may be adopted for muslims if necesary in a balancing objective ; or to modelise a big retort in case of invasion of mecca f.e.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

mongols are already abstracted as they pop from "nowhere".
If the entire muslim world isn't represented on map, the same system may be adopted for muslims if necesary in a balancing objective ; or to modelise a big retort in case of invasion of mecca f.e.

The mongols are abstracted in CK1 and poorly so. In addition, the Muslim threat wasn't like the arrival of the horde - a great scourge from out of nowhere. The Muslim threat and its lands were fairly well known even beyond the coastline.

EU1 tried to do this with countries like China and it didn't work which was why EU2 modeled all of China.

 

[Checco]

Umberto Eco has a nice novel "Baudolino" which nicely portraits (and exaggerates) some popular fantasies in medieval Europe about the Orient, including the legendary kingdom of Prester John. I don't know what it proves in terms of the discussion in this thread, but at least shows there was some popular interest in the orient beyond the holy lands, though very fantastic. (IIRC, in the novel Barbarossa's death is somehow related to his -fictional- obsession with claiming those fantasy lands).

I read and enjoyed that book, I think that it emphatizes how Europe being far from Orient made possible for fantasy to take over reality when it came to Europeans trying to figure out anything east of Jerusalem.

Several (though minor) fantasies and inventions are told about Paris compared to Rome, Rome compared to Constatinople, etc.

The best help to CK2 for those who liked the book would be imo that it should be evident that controlling lands thousands of Kilometers away from your culture, religion and language would be impossible for more than 2-3 years (and ofc a lesser effect applied with just same religion OR language OR culture, and in this case it would be better to be very accurate when you represent them ).

 

[Brian Bóruma]

I don't remember who, but someone from Paradox (Johan? King? Fred?) hinted that playable Muslims would be included in an expansion pack.

 

[unmerged(76802)]

Are you telling me that a Crusader Empire , where everything is going right , will simply sit on the Tigris and not progress into Persia for 200 + years and simply soak up those raids ? Odds are , an Empire in such a position , by 1300 , if not earlier would be in an excellent position to expand into Persia , assuming no significant threats on the Western frontier. Not to mention that there's plenty of motivation to do so.

The whole of the mighty Roman Empire at its height never tried to conquer Persia, much less Central Asia...or hell, Germania after Teutonburg Forest. Expansion just to expand is the providence of the video game player.

 

[MataNiall]

I think it'd be a lot more fun if there were a lot more provinces in Europe and other areas rather than expanding the map and creating in my opinion useless provinces.


If CKII is made into what it should be then it would be virtually impossible to create an empire in the middle east let alone expanding into Persia. Also the obvious fact that you'd have so much to do in Europe that that going on a massive conquest would be unheard of and sort of game ruining.

I'd be happy with much more provinces in the already existing areas (lets say just doubling the amount of provinces in some countries .)