But if Paradox do make it, and some disturbed Mohammedans do get their knickers in a twist and inhume them: that may be the end of grand strategy, my friend. Are you willing to take that risk?
Last edited:
-
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.
But if Paradox do make it, and some disturbed Mohammedans do get their knickers in a twist and inhume them: that may be the end of grand strategy, my friend. Are you willing to take that risk?
Your timespan is bad, would better be something like 500-900.
But the political diversity at this time is quite crazy so it's bad for a game. (Would be a kind of ck2 bithout feodality, vassalism, what's the point ?)
And then, "marketingly" speaking : Too unknown, wouldn't appeal to a large enough audience.
A Dark Ages game MUST focus on people, on building civilization. The focus shouldn't be on managing a state or even a dynasty, but on controlling the evolution of an entire tribe. I don't see why it can't necessarily include the ancient era, too.
Paradox also avoids the depiction of the swazika in the Hearts of Iron franchise, because of German legislation. Would you consider this "letting extremists determine what you can and can't enjoy in life" as well? PDS produces games - it's not the bastion of free speech, nor is it supposed to be. Depicting Muhammad probably wouldn't have any violent repercussions, but it would certainly alienate a fairly large demographic, and so avoiding the entire debate is the most sensible solution. If images of Muhammad is required in a game, there are other options - such as an image of his name written in Arabic etc.
Last edited:
Frankly, I think an even better solution may be to avoid Mohammad's stomping grounds of Mecca and Medina altogether and let the events there unfold off-screen. One does not need to simulate the entire peninsula.
They would make a heck of a lot more money off of a Dark Ages game than they would lose from whatever Muslim fans they might have that might be pissed. As for the swastika, that is a case of letting extremists control things, but in this case, it's beyond Paradox's control. They're bound by the law, stupid of a law as it may be. They have no such obligation to not produce a game simulating the life of Muhammad.
Problem is what kind of game will be?An CK2 or even EU: Rome will do a hard headache in representing Mohammad life without the Muslim fans, the an EU4 or Victoria will representing Mohammad life through events will be an easy work. I hope that a Dark Age game will have it's own mechanics more like EU:Rome and Victoria. The Christianity will be another issue, because of synods and Pope and the rest of the Patriarchs representation without the unhistorical splitting from the beginning like CK2 Charlemagne
Also Entire Eurasia and most of Africa should be in the game from the start in order to don't have the problems of CK2 about China and Mongolia. Migration should be a fluid game mechanic not and triggered event.
Also Entire Eurasia and most of Africa should be in the game from the start in order to don't have the problems of CK2 about China and Mongolia. Migration should be a fluid game mechanic not and triggered event.
- 1
400-700 just isn't a long enough time period in my humble opinion when you have CK2 lasting 700 years.
If anything, I'd really like to see them do another Roman era grand strategy that starts around 600 BC with the rise of the Greek City states and lasts until the death of Justinian, where CK2 could pick it up from.
If anything, I'd really like to see them do another Roman era grand strategy that starts around 600 BC with the rise of the Greek City states and lasts until the death of Justinian, where CK2 could pick it up from.
CK2 has become abnormally long, though - the previous top was EU3 with In Nomine, 1399 to 1821, with 423 years; and that has been reduced to 378 years with EU4. Really, expecting every game to have the timeframe of CK2 plus every DLC is ridiculous.
By this logic, HOI4 should be extended into the distant future. The only thing that matters is how the game is paced. I've never played a CKII-game from CM-start (or TOG-start for that matter) until the end date, and only once an EUIII game from 1399 to 1821. The extensive time frame is there to provide players with the option of playing interesting games, not to enforce the player to sit through a 700 year game that becomes boring at half time. If a well-paced game provides the player with enough stuff to do, 300 years should be more than enough.
Total War Atilla.
And it looks like an huge evolution compared to Rome 2.
Although still no unit collision
And it looks like an huge evolution compared to Rome 2.
Although still no unit collision
CK2 - ~700 years
EU4 - ~400 years
V2 - ~100 years
HOI4 - ~20 years
See the trend? Why would Paradox buck the trend and make what would become the oldest-era game (excluding EU Rome) shorter than EU4?
The reason games for older era have longer time periods is because history happened at a slower pace in more ancient times due to man being less advanced. It would make no sense to all the sudden change that trend present throughout all paradox games so someone can have a dark ages games that would be extremely similar to CK's time period anyways.
Uh.
Technology wasn't being developed as rapidly and as visibly as it is now, but technological progress and history are not synonymous. There were some incredibly dramatic shifts in the world over, say, the 400-year span from 400 to 800 AD, going from the fragmentation of the Roman world to the building of Arabian and Frankish empires and even the shift of the ERE away from the old Roman ways into a much more Greek sort of realm.
