Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Crusader Kings II

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
sauron_33 said:
In my opinion, and if there are any other medieval history buffs out there besides me, they might agree, one of the most interesting events of the period is the Wars of the Roses. In fact, the current dynamics of CK are almost tailor made for the Wars, but for the fact that the game ends in 1453 and the Wars didn't really begin to kick off until just after that.

I would humbly suggest that if CKII were to be produced, that it be extended until ~1490 or so, and allow for a scenario beginning in about 1450 that would reflect the dispute between the Houses of York and Lancaster.
Click to expand...

I've often thought that the 1453 cut-off point is very strange, considering that the dynamics of Crusader Kings continue to work well in simulating the European political situation well past that point. 1453 seems way too early to pass over to the Europa Universalis model of competing nation-states.

The Wars of the Roses are a good example and i think it can be taken further, into the 1500s. The events of Henry VIII's reign don't make sense without personality politics and the knowledge that the king is lustful, indulgent, stubborn etc. The Crusader Kings system is also the best way of simulating the Hapsburg expansion through marriage. In fact, a Crusader Kings-type game can effectively run until such time as national identities and economic policy become the important factors in Europe... in my view this means up until the dutch revolt and english civil war, so a Crusader Kings II could run up until about 1640... any advance on 1640? :)
 
I suddenly got this odd idea; one could name ones children as one wants when they are born or just accept the name which the computer suggests. :p
Just like you could name colonies in Eu Na, but naming it after the birth is no more possible.
 
Ill agree with that last post, indeed ill agree with it so much that it was mentioned on the last page.
But my reason for posting would be the post above this, the CK system become inaccurate for certain places as time went on, by virginia's time its no longer a valid notion for england. Possibly just add another fifty years onto the time frame more would be pushing it.
Of course if history doesn't follow its course which is rather the point of CK then an end date need not occur.
 
gja102 said:
I've often thought that the 1453 cut-off point is very strange, considering that the dynamics of Crusader Kings continue to work well in simulating the European political situation well past that point. 1453 seems way too early to pass over to the Europa Universalis model of competing nation-states.

The Wars of the Roses are a good example and i think it can be taken further, into the 1500s. The events of Henry VIII's reign don't make sense without personality politics and the knowledge that the king is lustful, indulgent, stubborn etc. The Crusader Kings system is also the best way of simulating the Hapsburg expansion through marriage. In fact, a Crusader Kings-type game can effectively run until such time as national identities and economic policy become the important factors in Europe... in my view this means up until the dutch revolt and english civil war, so a Crusader Kings II could run up until about 1640... any advance on 1640? :)
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%. If I had the time to devote to modding in a later scenario I certainly would. I couldn't do anything relating to graphics though even if I did have time :(.
 
Orinsul said:
the CK system become inaccurate for certain places as time went on, by virginia's time its no longer a valid notion for england. Possibly just add another fifty years onto the time frame more would be pushing it.
Of course if history doesn't follow its course which is rather the point of CK then an end date need not occur.
Click to expand...

I agree that the CK system should not be used for a colonial game. However, if you want to simulate the 1500s, colonies were only a minor part of European politics, and so its not too inaccurate to omit them. In fact, i reckon you'd only need three events to represent all overseas happenings in the 1500s:
1) You've discovered, and murdered all, the Aztecs
2) You've discovered, and murdered all, the Incas
3) You've established a sea route to India

And that's pretty much all of it. (Well, maybe not all, but you get my point)
 
I didnt mean colonial, but more importantly the centralisation, rise of absolutism and the the middle classes would make the model wildly incompatible with the C16th.
It would be nice to see the game start with Caunte, or even Alfred. Although the amount of events or mechanics needed to replicate the shift out of the dark ages and the birth of a hereditary aristocracy would weigh down the game a bit.
 
Veldmaarschalk said:
If there is an extended time-line, then IMHO, it would be much more logical to start about 50 to 60 years earlier.

The 16th century is already well covered by EUIII.
Click to expand...

But I don't want to play as a nation, I want to play as a dynasty, and I think EU3's time frame would be better suited to a dynasty than the medieval era, not to mention more exciting.
 
Personally I would much rather have the timeline extend backwards. I think a start date of 3 July 987 with the rise of Hugh Capet to the throne of France might be a good start date.
 
814 - The death of Charlemagne? It is, after all, largely the date that shaped the future of western Europe.

Course, that takes us a different way. This game is about the crusades, not the shaping of Europe.
 
Orinsul said:
I didnt mean colonial, but more importantly the centralisation, rise of absolutism and the the middle classes would make the model wildly incompatible with the C16th.
Click to expand...

You're probably right, and I would certainly agree that these dynamics are far better suited to a EU game. But, just as EU includes a watered-down inheritance model, I think CK could manage a simplistic solution to portraying these socio-political trends.
Technically, centralisation is already in CK. The English king starts out with a large demense and weak dukes, making him more powerful within his kingdom (i.e. more centralised) than his French counterpart who has a small demesne and strong dukes. And you become more centralised as time progresses, as you get a 'current century' bonus to the size of the royal demesne.
In CK you can be an absolute monarch: if your kingdom is all royal demesne and no vassals, then your word is law. (In fact I use this tactic when I want my king to be a sceptical heretic)

Regarding the middle classes, the merchant republics of Italy are already simulated (albeit badly); maybe you could give every realm a random set of 'leading merchants' in the same way you have a set of courtiers. Depending on your realm law, you could safely ignore them if they had no power. Or you could set it to a house-of-commons type arrangement, where the king's rule would be strengthened through parliament, provided he had kept these merchant guys loyal.

Sorry if I seem like I'm hammering a round peg into a square hole! But I agree with the idea that it would be fun to take dynasties into the 1500s, and i think CK would do a reasonable job of it (it would be no worse than EU starting in 1399!)
 
Here are my suggestions:
-I don't really care 2D or 3D just that the map is made that way, that I can see the whole world without zooming in (Iceland, Area down Egypt and a part of Russia).
-Second an AI which actually knows how to handle the CK economy. I don't want a game where a whole Cristian world has to unite (Although very very cool like LOTR), to beat a mameluk controlling whole middle east without any vassals, with an income of -2000 but money never decreasing below 0.
-Third CK is so bugged, that I would call it corrupted. And those exception errors make me sick.
-If I conquer land from a heretics it should be not considered a bad boy action (Or even the declaration of war on a heretic). If religion was at its highest importance at any time, then it was then. People, vassals and the pope should be rather grateful that i do spread the world of god.
-The flag which appears when a crusade is running has to go! Fully messes up screens.
-Time line till 1399 and a save converter.
-If a crusade is called, it would be cool if someone actually participated in it lol.
 
Well that would be all nice but look at that. I once annexed whole Jerusalem in a peace negotiations. Gave it all away + duke titles. After that my reputation was still that much tarnished, that I had to wait years to recover from it. Not to mention that half of the country revolted. People should hail me as a god damn crusader king, not as a selfish bastard, which gave everything away and his reputation still Sux.

Why did you delete the post?
 
Delex said:
Well that would be all nice but look at that. I once annexed whole Jerusalem in a peace negotiations. Gave it all away + duke titles. After that my reputation was still that much tarnished, that I had to wait years to recover from it. Not to mention that half of the country revolted. People should hail me as a god damn crusader king, not as a selfish bastard, which gave everything away and his reputation still Sux.

Why did you delete the post?
Click to expand...

When I go crusading (and conquer the crusade-target and some surrounding province, enough to create 2 duchies) I usually gain so much piety (+1000) that my BB is back to honourable within a year or 2.


Enewald said:
Yes, a crusade is a Holy War, not a way to get more badboy.
For the first time in my forum life I have to agree with Delex in something.
Click to expand...

Most noblemen, who went crusading did it to gain land, richness and fame. Only a minorty did it because of piety.

Also kings or dukes who went crusading didn't plan on keeping those lands to themselves or even to make those lands parts of their realm. Keeping such a farflung realm together was just impossible in those days.

And rulers who did go crusading, like f.e. Richard Lionheart or Frederick II Hohenstaufen, were faced with rebellions back home. Fellow noblemen certainly didn't see succesfull crusaders as Gods or Holy Men.
 
Enewald said:
Well, but doesn't it say that the Pope will forgive your sins if you join the crusade?
Isn't babdboy a sin too? :D
Click to expand...

The Pope forgives everything doesn't he? I thought forgiving people was sortof his whole bit...

The Crusader Kings who used the military might of their country and raised armies to march on Jerusalem saw huge upheaval at home. Also, remember that it's called reputation, not badboy.

In a contemporary example, if I leave my wife at home without any money to feed my kids to go find myself by helping build shanty towns in the poorest parts of Africa, some might consider me a nice, pious person. Heck, I might even end up blogged about, considerably raising my prestige. My neighbors however would still consider me selfish and pathetic for not tending to home and hearth.

On another note, what doesn't seem to be modelled in the game is the number of crusader knights who went to the holy land to fight without being under the flag of a King or even a count.
 
HOI 3 has a 2D map so if there is a CK2 i strongly hope they will use a 2d map for that as well.
 
CrowleyHammer said:
HOI 3 has a 2D map so if there is a CK2 i strongly hope they will use a 2d map for that as well.
Click to expand...

How many times will this be asked about? Demanded? Whined over? All grand strategy games from paradox since EUIII have had 3d maps. That's how its going to stay. Deal with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back