I am very much against further abstracting anything in the map. Mongols appeared as random spawns in the first game and it worked, more or less. Turning Muslims into this kind of rebel spawn would be annoying, unrealistic, and pointless.
-
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.
Dunno about using medieval map flavor... I really don't want to have to look at Jerusalem right smack in the middle of my screen all the time. ^^; You know, that place being 'the center of the universe' or some such nonsense.
The original one is fine, if they add maybe a few more provinces and...MORE heraldry, I didn't like to see that "generic heraldry" in the Byzantium area and eastwards. I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for that...but...It was quite lame to see it that way.
The original one is fine, if they add maybe a few more provinces and...MORE heraldry, I didn't like to see that "generic heraldry" in the Byzantium area and eastwards. I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for that...but...It was quite lame to see it that way.
I don't see why people equate "abstracting" and "spawn by a random event" like ck1 mongols suddenly appearing on the map with no warning nor way to interact with them before.
An abstracted system for me is the use of meta provinces or boxes to represent large regions that may have an influence but christians and western muslims shouldn't be able to conquer, while they may have informations about and specific interactions with these areas. It's being able to know which foreign power is dominant in an area bordering the map, and even eventually have an influence on this through diplomacy with other foreign powers, it's knowing which kind of personnality its leader has, it's being able to have diplomatic contacts with him, it's being able to see if this neighbour is preparing an army to help an ally or start an invasion on the map and eventually try to bribe him not to do so, it may even be being able to send expeditionnary forces to plunder some cities and slow army building in the meta region, the only differences with the normal provinces being 1/ you can't reastically plan to take power and stay there and 2/ one meta region / box represents some dozen of counties without slowing the game with the simulation of each province population and economic developpment, and the education, ambitions and relations of the hundreds of secondary muslims characters living there most player would never have interactions with.
An abstracted system for me is the use of meta provinces or boxes to represent large regions that may have an influence but christians and western muslims shouldn't be able to conquer, while they may have informations about and specific interactions with these areas. It's being able to know which foreign power is dominant in an area bordering the map, and even eventually have an influence on this through diplomacy with other foreign powers, it's knowing which kind of personnality its leader has, it's being able to have diplomatic contacts with him, it's being able to see if this neighbour is preparing an army to help an ally or start an invasion on the map and eventually try to bribe him not to do so, it may even be being able to send expeditionnary forces to plunder some cities and slow army building in the meta region, the only differences with the normal provinces being 1/ you can't reastically plan to take power and stay there and 2/ one meta region / box represents some dozen of counties without slowing the game with the simulation of each province population and economic developpment, and the education, ambitions and relations of the hundreds of secondary muslims characters living there most player would never have interactions with.
Last edited:
I have a question to you.
Would the Seljuks invade Persia (and later Anatolia) if Persia wasn't under shiite rule or if they weren't freshly converted sunni muslims?
Would the Mongols destroy that much of Persia so heavily if their merchants and messengers weren't beheaded by Khwarezmian shah? Or would they be so dreadfull if they were already islamized by the Seljuks f.i.? Or would they even invade the "west" if Central Asia was poor animist region rather than prosperous region under muslim rule?
So please, don't tell me about unimportance of Central Asia for European history or no influences of western monotheisms on steppes of central Asia and Mongolia.
No abstracted system can simulate all the variations possibl ein history. It can always only set few basic variables. Could you imagine how would the world look if the pagan Seljuks turned eastwards to China or to Khazar empire instead of shiite Persia?
Personally i always disliked maps with PTI... I understand why christian realms would concentrate on Europe and North Africa, but maps that just "cut" to a vast whiteness, are unrealistic and plain irritating 
Countries on the corners of those maps would enjoy a tremendous advantage, having their flanks and rear constantly secured. If, on the other hand, scripted out of the map invasions where to occur (like in the now classic Annals of Rome strategy game), those border countries would be at a tremendously disadvantaged position. I would suggest an open map...Ahistorical expansion could be checked by posing stability or other difficulties, while future CK2 expansions could easily be implemented by making other non-christian nations playable.
Countries on the corners of those maps would enjoy a tremendous advantage, having their flanks and rear constantly secured. If, on the other hand, scripted out of the map invasions where to occur (like in the now classic Annals of Rome strategy game), those border countries would be at a tremendously disadvantaged position. I would suggest an open map...Ahistorical expansion could be checked by posing stability or other difficulties, while future CK2 expansions could easily be implemented by making other non-christian nations playable.
@elvain : If this was an arguement for detailed simulation of everything up to India, it seems China, Japan and Tibet would need to be simulated the same, as mongols may just never have came so far if they were defeated in the east, annexed by Tibet or too busy invading Japan.
I think about everything happening out of the map judged plausible enough to be simulated, that may have an importance for the detailed play area (= the map) can be abstracted anyway, without having to slow the game calculating the ambitions of Muhammad the afghan courtier of the pasha of Kandawar, the unhappiness of peasants in each province of eastern Persia, or the infidelities of the third wife of the mongol governor of Samarkhand.
I think about everything happening out of the map judged plausible enough to be simulated, that may have an importance for the detailed play area (= the map) can be abstracted anyway, without having to slow the game calculating the ambitions of Muhammad the afghan courtier of the pasha of Kandawar, the unhappiness of peasants in each province of eastern Persia, or the infidelities of the third wife of the mongol governor of Samarkhand.
Last edited:
It depends on what you mean as Meta Provinces ? Should Central Asia , in the first release of CK2 receive the same coverage as any point in western Europe in terms of provinces ? No , I personally don't think so . But should it be in the game ? Yes , perhaps not detailed to the point of lets say Aquitaine or the Rhineland , or the Po Plain , but it should be there , a point where Islamic Empires bordering crusader states or the Byzantines would stretch all the way too . It's a point where the Mongols will first strike , where the Il Khantate would have their power base in . It might not be as detailed , I rememebred someone remarking that Bukhara was five times larger , area wise compared to Mosul in CK1 , let alone , say any other point in Western Europe .
Let it stay that way . Before the Mongols , Islamic Empires may rise due to the wealth of these provinces , but are likely to collapse due to their size the moment they have an idiot in power , in the same manner as the Seljuks . After the Mongols arrive , they will give the Mongols a seizable on map presence , and alot of strategic depth . Once the Mongols entrench themselves in Persia , it's going to be hard to kick them out of the map . You have to wait for them to collapse onto themselves first. And while they are a united entity , they will continually represent a threat , compared to say Random Mongol hordes rampaging around Mesopotamia.
Plus , at the end game , as a Crusader State , assuming you've beaten the tar out of everything beyond the Tigris , be prepared for the end game challenge of a Timurid Esque empire descending from Persia- assuming you've not moved into the larger Persian provinces first.
There are still plenty of unknowns to be resolved though . For example , what are the mechanics of province conquest ? Will large size provinces be harder to secure , and take much longer to move through than smaller provinces ? If province conquest mechanics are sufficiently sophisticated enough , it should be possible to make a sufficient simulation of the Political situation of Greater Iran with large provinces .
Let it stay that way . Before the Mongols , Islamic Empires may rise due to the wealth of these provinces , but are likely to collapse due to their size the moment they have an idiot in power , in the same manner as the Seljuks . After the Mongols arrive , they will give the Mongols a seizable on map presence , and alot of strategic depth . Once the Mongols entrench themselves in Persia , it's going to be hard to kick them out of the map . You have to wait for them to collapse onto themselves first. And while they are a united entity , they will continually represent a threat , compared to say Random Mongol hordes rampaging around Mesopotamia.
Plus , at the end game , as a Crusader State , assuming you've beaten the tar out of everything beyond the Tigris , be prepared for the end game challenge of a Timurid Esque empire descending from Persia- assuming you've not moved into the larger Persian provinces first.
There are still plenty of unknowns to be resolved though . For example , what are the mechanics of province conquest ? Will large size provinces be harder to secure , and take much longer to move through than smaller provinces ? If province conquest mechanics are sufficiently sophisticated enough , it should be possible to make a sufficient simulation of the Political situation of Greater Iran with large provinces .
That's not what I'm suggesting . But the loyalty of the Mongol Governor of Samarkand might play an extremely important role in determining when and whether those blasted Mongols sitting on your Eastern Border will collapse , and you can resume your expansion further East, or at least safely ignore it for Western concerns , if you so chose.
Muhammad the courtier of the Pasha of Khandahar might not need to be simulated in great depth , other than his existence , and his stats , but Hassan , pasha of Khandahar might very well lead that rebellion that starts a death spiral for whoever is the topdog on your Eastern Border as the Byzantines or the Kingdom of Jerusalem. If half of Persia has exploded in open warfare against each other , you can rejoice as the Byzantines , since it gives you a free hand into the Levant , or the West, and takes massive pressure off your always volatile Eastern frontier.
If anyone proposes to axe Persia ( which there are not too many hopefully , though I think someone needs to set a poll about this) , we might as well make the Byzantines unplayable. Given the uproar that EU3 initially suffered from when news came out that the Byzantines could not be played , I don't think that Paradox would ever dare take such a step , unless of course , they promise that the Byzantines would be made playable in some future expansion .
But the fact of the matter is , how challenging and enjoyable your Byzantine or KOJ game would be will strongly depend on the general political events further East. We do not need to go into the same depth as Italain families at each other throats , but the general situations should be there , as represented by Islamic states that are forming out of the ruins of the Seljuks , occupying the South Eastern half of the map and ending in some natural frontier , instead of the Arbitrary insanity of ending the map in the Middle of Trans-oxinia.
I do not need to explore the infidelities of the third consort of the Amir of Herat or Isfahan for that , but who exactly is ruling Herat or Isfahan , and which Sultan he is a vassal to will be important in determining whether I can safely march West . Or must I hold back in fear of the Eastern mega blob that's sitting on my border , which , due to the depth of the Eastern Map , will be impossible to kick out of the map? In 1066 , that means the Seljuks . After they collapse , I can breath easier and focus on the West, or progress down the Levant without having to worry too much about what's going to hit Vaspurakan in Armenia , until the Mongols arrive 150 years in game , or some Persian megablob emerges out of the Seljuk Empire.
Make the map too small , and I can guarantee you that it'll be hard for the Seljuks , or any large Islamic state to collapse, without making it a walkover for you to simply stroll over all Muslims on the map , picking of those Sheiks and Emirs one by one before they reunite together. Give the map enough depth , and any Islamic state that unites the South Eastern corner of the depth would be a powerful threat as long as they stay together , but the moment they collapse under the weight of their size , you might have a Seizable successor Sultanate on your Eastern Border , which is not easily conquered , but at the same time , is not a massive threat to your Eastern front.
I was going to make a big long post, but this pretty much says it all. Fewer provinces, fewer elements, more abstraction, and a game which runs more smoothly and is more polished/functional. Make what is already there better, don't just make more of it.
As far as the play area I think CK1 was perhaps a bit too much. I think you could have a smaller swath of the east and just have some un-invadable mega provinces for Egypt, Persia and the Steppes.
Including anything west of Iceland seems like lunacy to me, heck Iceland is nearly lunacy, what is that adding? Did Iceland effect anything during this time?
Including anything west of Iceland seems like lunacy to me, heck Iceland is nearly lunacy, what is that adding? Did Iceland effect anything during this time?
qft, With this engine even current computers a barely up to the task.
Removing provinces and making huge provinces in many of those areas makes as much sense as doing it in the middle of Germany. Steppe provinces, if they are added, could be bigger than others because of the less dense population, but "mega provinces" should not be. Remember that also affects gameplay in that by creating massively sized provinces you can create shortcuts for invasions to other areas by bypassing 4-5 provinces just by going through 1.
If the arab lands were all but removed it would not be a fun and definatly not believable experience. There were enough problems with the Mongol horde which was abstracted like that and it was a huge problem as either they were so powerful they would race across all of Europe or they'd be a pansy force. They couldn't ever get them to act historically because the lands they came from weren't represented on the map. The Sejuks were also cut down because of this.
Yes, size of any particular province isn't just some purely geographical and map-technical matter that you can just arbitrarily choose, but it should reflect (as accurately as one abstract computer game can) besides the cultural and historical borders an administrative capability of one ruler to manage the respective area. If we don't account multiple province demesnes, then every province has its own different lowest-tier ruler in CK.
If the Muslims are going to be playable in CK2 expansion, it makes sense to add those approx 25-30 provinces to Transoxiana and Persia already in vanilla. But as mentioned by someone, those things are probably decided by now...
Yikes
Lol, yes, that's a good example. I don't mind angels blowing the winds and all other homunculus doing things like that on the map. I do know quite a few of you map lovers would simply love that. Sigh...that map looks like a drawing of bad pasta or lasagna.
Edit#1: That being said...it's interesting the way people thought back then. Wonder what kind of pressure the people had if they didn't "buy a piece of heaven" by going on a crusade or doing some paintings for the church. The message of the day was: "You are going to hell right now -- unless you do something nice for us(The Church)."
Lol, yes, that's a good example. I don't mind angels blowing the winds and all other homunculus doing things like that on the map. I do know quite a few of you map lovers would simply love that. Sigh...that map looks like a drawing of bad pasta or lasagna.
Edit#1: That being said...it's interesting the way people thought back then. Wonder what kind of pressure the people had if they didn't "buy a piece of heaven" by going on a crusade or doing some paintings for the church. The message of the day was: "You are going to hell right now -- unless you do something nice for us(The Church)."
Last edited:
There's plenty of games that do that better than any Paradox product, even for the same time period. Paradox products are good because they're capable of handling the expanded world. If you're not looking for a game that seeks to apply a generalised approach to a map anyone can edit but instead a game with tight goals, polished execution and clear rules, I humbly suggest you're not looking in the right place.
Of course, it could happen that Paradox does decide to go in the direction you propose. I would be very sad, because then it would have given up its niche and I would be abandoning it for someone who does games that are, expansions included, cheaper and have better graphics.
I'm with RGB.
The way Paradox makes games is perfect. They're generalised and great for simple gameplay fun. And thanks to the them being easily modable, you can have the limited scope, or a bigger scope.
It's better for the game to be in the middle than on the extremes.
The way Paradox makes games is perfect. They're generalised and great for simple gameplay fun. And thanks to the them being easily modable, you can have the limited scope, or a bigger scope.
It's better for the game to be in the middle than on the extremes.
I honestly don't understand people who want to make the map smaller. I mean, what possible benefit is that to us? Making the crusades absurdly easy? I suppose if you cut out more of the Muslim world, it would make capturing Jerusalem easier. Is that really what people want? It boggles the mind. I sincerely hope the people working on the map at Paradox aren't thinking along those lines. Keeping the same parameters as the original game's map should be the bare minimum starting line.
I mean, what possible benefit is that to us? Making the crusades absurdly easy? I suppose if you cut out more of the Muslim world, it would make capturing Jerusalem easier. Is that really what people want? It boggles the mind. I sincerely hope the people working on the map at Paradox aren't thinking along those lines. Keeping the same parameters as the original game's map should be the bare minimum starting line..png){kind=avatar}
it would be nice - it gives flavour to the map. as the map in the thing you see 90% of the time. but of course the pasta thing is ugly and unplayable. map style from late middle ages is better and more adaptable to the game.
a few examples of map styles
http://i789.photobucket.com/albums/yy174/ArKoG/Jansoni1656.jpg
http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/maps/ALW1287L.JPG
http://i789.photobucket.com/albums/yy174/ArKoG/Carta_Marina.jpg
Yey
I can play with a map like that! No problem. Makes managing France actually a delight. I never said that I didn't like maps, it just depends on what kind of maps.
I don't care that is late middle ages, it looks good, I'd play with that map, could have good playability. And you can see it's was handcrafted...that way it gives France a more "organic feeling".
Ah, well, one can only hope...
I can play with a map like that! No problem. Makes managing France actually a delight. I never said that I didn't like maps, it just depends on what kind of maps.
I don't care that is late middle ages, it looks good, I'd play with that map, could have good playability. And you can see it's was handcrafted...that way it gives France a more "organic feeling".
Ah, well, one can only hope...