EU5 is set to have far more Catholic depth than CK3 has after years of development, despite the religion being less important in that time period

[klopkr]

In Spanish controlled land in North America, Catholicism influence was strong. But French claimed lands, it was pretty weak. And the British colonies were primarily Protestant.

The power I am talking about is hard power. Political power which the church had throughout the medieval world. That power is not limited to how powerful the pope is politically, but how much direct political authority it had. The Protestant reformation took that power away in Scandinavia, Britain, Switzerland, Northern Germany, and the Netherlands. Absolutism had Catholic monarchs claw some of that power away from the church. The enlightenment had people start questioning the current power structure of absolutism and the role of the church within government. In Catholic countries, the soft power of the church could be considered not to have diminished if any Protestants were forced to leave (revocation of tolerance and forced expulsion of Protestants in France, suppression of Protestantism and deportation of Protestants in Hapsburg lands).

I don't disagree and in the context of hard power your argument makes enough sense.

Though I would say that catholicism did have a much stronger influence in new france than people give it credit for. Though it definitely became much more connected to the francophone societies of the new world after the british took over the now Canadian parts of new france, which does happen to be during the EU5 time frame even though we don't think about the late game that much.

I would say then that catholicism had more influence but maybe not power in the EU4 era.

Again I think this is a lot of interpretation leg work of what matters in terms of power for a religion. I put less stock int he power of a religion to crown kings and emperors or send armies off to distant lands to to control specific land or to even choose their high level priests in various lands compared to their power through sheer number of believers and influence on the cultures and beliefs of those believers.

 

[IngvarBS]

I don't think there will ever be playable theocracies/holy orders. Most of those entities were elective non-dynastic organizations where the rulers were forbidden from having children. Landless adventurers let you marry and have children (or adopt). Either way, they become part of your dynasty. It wouldn't work in a dynasty game like CK3. In EU5 (a tag-based game), the govs are all abstracted to have the same core mechanics.

In a future papacy dlc, they will only add the cardinals + the investiture shenanigans. Maybe mixed with HRE content (guelphs vs ghibellines) or with an orthodox rework (autocephaly).

To be honest, I find the papacy/orthodox mechanics that were present in CK2 to be boring. I would rather they add flavor for a different region like India or add the successor mechanic to societies before adding those mechanics in chapter 5 (together with the trade/republics major dlc). But I know my opinion is unpopular.

 

[AchedTeacher]

I don't think there will ever be playable theocracies/holy orders. Most of those entities were elective non-dynastic organizations where the rulers were forbidden from having children. Landless adventurers let you marry and have children (or adopt). Either way, they become part of your dynasty. It wouldn't work in a dynasty game like CK3. In EU5 (a tag-based game), the govs are all abstracted to have the same core mechanics.

In a future papacy dlc, they will only add the cardinals + the investiture shenanigans. Maybe mixed with HRE content (guelphs vs ghibellines) or with an orthodox rework (autocephaly).

To be honest, I find the papacy/orthodox mechanics that were present in CK2 to be boring. I would rather they add flavor for a different region like India or add the successor mechanic to societies before adding those mechanics in chapter 5 (together with the trade/republics major dlc). But I know my opinion is unpopular.

Are you aware that ever since landless gameplay was added, you can end up as a different dynasty than you started as altogether?

 

[apollo1989vieten]

I don't disagree and in the context of hard power your argument makes enough sense.

Though I would say that catholicism did have a much stronger influence in new france than people give it credit for. Though it definitely became much more connected to the francophone societies of the new world after the british took over the now Canadian parts of new france, which does happen to be during the EU5 time frame even though we don't think about the late game that much.

I would say then that catholicism had more influence but maybe not power in the EU4 era.

Again I think this is a lot of interpretation leg work of what matters in terms of power for a religion. I put less stock int he power of a religion to crown kings and emperors or send armies off to distant lands to to control specific land or to even choose their high level priests in various lands compared to their power through sheer number of believers and influence on the cultures and beliefs of those believers.

New France was less colonized than other European possessions, and I don’t think there was much effort by the French at converting the locals.

 

[IngvarBS]

Are you aware that ever since landless gameplay was added, you can end up as a different dynasty than you started as altogether?

I though you could only pseudo change dynasty with adoption. Does the game choose a random person from the adventurer's band? Does that person retain his/her previous dynasty or does that person gets added as a cadet branch of the previous ruler dynasty?

 

[Azgabeth]

I though you could only pseudo change dynasty with adoption. Does the game choose a random person from the adventurer's band? Does that person retain his/her previous dynasty or does that person gets added as a cadet branch of the previous ruler dynasty?

Whenever you die you can choose a new destiny and become an entirely new character from a random dynasty.

 

[Pendables]

It is ridiculous that the pope (along with every other theocratic ruler) is still chosen basically at complete random.

 

[frostbiyt]

Whenever you die you can choose a new destiny and become an entirely new character from a random dynasty.

I've only ever seen dynasty members in choose new destiny.

 

[Troyen]

I just generally find it odd how eu5 seems to be shaping to to be a better more indepth medieval simulator than crusader kings three is even after nearly five years of it's release. I'm really looking forward to the Timeline mods for eu5 that push the date further back to 1066 and earlier though I will admit that 1337 is already a pretty great for medieval gameplay.

It's not that odd at all. EU5 has the benefit of being able to review all the positive/negative feedback about CK3 (and other recently released games) and make adjustments. It's easier to make massive breaking design changes to your unreleased game than it is a released one, especially once other systems start being built on top of it.

 

[InsidiousMage]

Since these threads feel like they are going to become a semi-reoccurring thing, it should be pointed out that EU5 isn't actually out yet so we don't know how any of mechanics are actually going to work out. They could turn out amazing or they could turn out awful.

 

[klopkr]

New France was less colonized than other European possessions, and I don’t think there was much effort by the French at converting the locals.

Uh that's just not true? Maybe you're just thinking of like the frontiers?

 

[apollo1989vieten]

Uh that's just not true? Maybe you're just thinking of like the frontiers?

There is Quebec with Montreal, St. Louis, and New Orleans. Those are major settlements. There were some trading outposts and forts out there, but by and large, New France was populated mainly by natives. New France made its money by the fur trade with the natives.

I did a little digging. The Jesuits tried converting locals, and their results were mixed. Some tribes were hostile while others did like the Vikings did initial by just inserting Jesus into their existing belief system. That is not a strong Catholic presence in New France, partly because the French didn’t try to push conversions like the Spanish.

 

[X_FloW]

Are you aware that ever since landless gameplay was added, you can end up as a different dynasty than you started as altogether?

Not really, you still stay in the same dynasty

and you cannot truly play as a landless lowborn, you MUST have a dynasty

 

[MyLordFellington]

Hope there will be eu5 mods to turn it into CK

 

[Kvesir]

I just generally find it odd how eu5 seems to be shaping to to be a better more indepth medieval simulator than crusader kings three is even after nearly five years of it's release. I'm really looking forward to the Timeline mods for eu5 that push the date further back to 1066 and earlier though I will admit that 1337 is already a pretty great for medieval gameplay.

I would argue that it's not a coincidence. It is due to a conscious design choice by the CK3 devs to focus on character narratives instead of the grand strategy aspect. We got much more event packs and activities from the DLCs than mechanics that add more depth.

They don't want CK3 to be a medieval simulator, they want it to be a medieval sims game.

 

[Pups' Socks]

Noooo! We need more of Africa and China and even Japan to paint before anything that is even slightly relevant to Crusades, such as more Catholic content, is added to the game called CRUSADER Kings.

 

[tribnia]

Not really, you still stay in the same dynasty

and you cannot truly play as a landless lowborn, you MUST have a dynasty

IMO having a dynasty doesn't mean a wanderer is not a lowborn. Being lowborns in game just means we do not care about their dynasty, not that they do not have one in their local town.

 

[X_FloW]

Noooo! We need more of Africa and China and even Japan to paint before anything that is even slightly relevant to Crusades, such as more Catholic content, is added to the game called CRUSADER Kings.

I think it's been discussed to death that the game's name is more of a brand name to reflect the period rather than a specific geographic zone, I think this is the same reason why you can play as anyone else in the game called VICTORIA and not just Queen Victoria, or Europa Universalis.

They've also said why exactly they're adding the rest of the old world, it is because everything plays nicely together, you can't have trade without China, you can't have other nice things without trade, and so on

IMO having a dynasty doesn't mean a wanderer is not a lowborn. Being lowborns in game just means we do not care about their dynasty, not that they do not have one in their local town.

I know, but the game itself requires you to have a dynasty, regardless if you say in your head that this person is supposed to be lowborn.

 

[Pups' Socks]

I think it's been discussed to death that the game's name is more of a brand name to reflect the period rather than a specific geographic zone, I think this is the same reason why you can play as anyone else in the game called VICTORIA and not just Queen Victoria, or Europa Universalis.

They've also said why exactly they're adding the rest of the old world, it is because everything plays nicely together, you can't have trade without China, you can't have other nice things without trade, and so o

I think it has been discussed to death that EU and Victoria and CK’s situation being different? Remember CK2? You weren’t even able to play Muslims in that until expansion, so it was more than being a brand name.

Also “oooh we need China cuz trade and such” is horse radish. Firstly we have no trade mechanics near 5 years in and secondly CK2 had it without China. I really doubt once we get some trade it will be like EU with resources and stuff so having China or not will be irrelevant.

Edit: Oh I forgot “because everything plays nicely together” really gives the same feeling as Todd Howard saying “it just works” so I’ll just post it here

 

[X_FloW]

I think it has been discussed to death that EU and Victoria and CK’s situation being different? Remember CK2? You weren’t even able to play Muslims in that until expansion, so it was more than being a brand name.

Also “oooh we need China cuz trade and such” is horse radish. Firstly we have no trade mechanics near 5 years in and secondly CK2 had it without China. I really doubt once we get some trade it will be like EU with resources and stuff so having China or not will be irrelevant.

Edit: Oh I forgot “because everything plays nicely together” really gives the same feeling as Todd Howard saying “it just works” so I’ll just post it here

Nomadic content also plays well when China is in the map

People already did not like CK2's idea of China in Jade Dragon being offmap.

And when they added the ability to play as Muslim it was received well, the game needs less limitations not more of it.