You are all wrong, you start as Iceland and conquer Europe. I only hope i don't have to edit the files to do them playable as in CK1.
-
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.
You are all wrong, you start as Iceland and conquer Europe. I only hope i don't have to edit the files to do them playable as in CK1.
well obviously it's titled crusader kings, so that means europe, parts of africa, and the middle east..... but when you think about, there are some similarities in asia that might be fun as an add-on. japan and china would be interesting to play. after all feudal japan was intense. And china, well it has many possibilities when it comes to being the head of the family and guiding your name to wealth and influence.
nice little expansion pack maybe. plus that adds the option of porting your crusader empire to eu3, instead of being so limited to europe. just a thought.
nice little expansion pack maybe. plus that adds the option of porting your crusader empire to eu3, instead of being so limited to europe. just a thought.
I was thinking eastern boundaries something closer to this. The light blue represents the rough extent of alaxander's conquest plus much of north where modern day russia forms. The dark blue line is basically to represent at the point where conquests would be relatively easy - ie no natural boundaries, just arbitrary PTI if paradox put it in for civilized areas.
Attachments
Last edited:
Well, Iceland is quote correctly branded a republic in CK1 (and should be in CK2), so you'd have to edit the files to play them if republics aren't playable.
I would like to (at least in an expansion) be able to select one of the mongolian tribes and conquer the world!!
Actually there's no need to limit the map to the east because all that nations had feudal systems or similars, only africa, america and oceania have true game-mechanic reason to not be included.
Actually there's no need to limit the map to the east because all that nations had feudal systems or similars, only africa, america and oceania have true game-mechanic reason to not be included.
Yet none of them were Christian. CK2 isn't about a feudal society it is about a Christian feudal society.
If the game is to be expanded in map size and i dont really see the need never when i played did i ever go you know what i want to invade india or ethiopia when all of europe lay before me, then expand to include abit more of persia or nubia(stop them getting rolled over by the fatimids everygame).
Let me repost this in it's entirety all over again , since I am reluctant to repeat the same arguments over and over again . Technically , the boundaries I'm proposing are considered part of Greater Iran .
Furthermore , to those warning of "Counts" of Samarkand , yet proposing to cut the map of at Baghdad , it will be almost a given that we will end up with Counts of Baghdad two centuries into the game , unless Islam is so overpowered , that it would take immense amounts of balancing to prevent Shiekdoms of Praha , while ensuring that the Crusaders will have a hard time expanding pass the levant.
Again , let me reiterate this . Unless you are on a world conquest , there wouldn't be a French count of Samarkand . If you are a Byzantine player , or (especially ) the Kingdom of Jerusalem , one aim would probably be to conquer the heartlands of the Islamic world , of which Transoxinia was an integral part of .
Finally , to those who are warning of 100+ provinces such an inclusion would add .... Unless the province density is assumed to be as great as HOI3 , I doubt such a situation is even possible.
But , this discussion may very well be moot - after all , Paradox has already determined both province density , and map boundaries by this point. Though this debate will unlikely be resolved after that, and may not change anything . Still , this is my personal opinion . Expanding the map a little into Persia and into the Tian Shan and Pamirs( ie - all Transoxinia )would make for a more sensible Eastern map boundary , then right smack in the Middle of Transoxinia.
And cutting off the map and not including Persia , I guarantee you , will firstly give the Muslim AI very little strategic depth against a determined human player . If Damascus , then Mosul is lost , Islam , in map is finished if there's no Persia.
To those who argue that this is a game about European feudal society , I would argue- not exactly . Yes , this one of the essence of the game , but the other integral component is the clash between the Islamic and Christian worlds. And though the Christian AI almost certainly will never reach to the eastern end of the map ( and if they do , the game is broken IMO), Islam would have a deep powerbase that ensures that you have a long fight ahead to secure Jerusalem for good. You can't simply blitz for Baghdad , and make it the end of the story.
Let me summarize my opinions:
1: Cutting out Persia is a very bad idea. Islam would be kicked out of the map before 1400, at the very latest.
2: Ideally , the map should extend out to Natural Boundaries in the East . I have no problems of it ending in Hormuz to the South , but at the very least make the boundaries of the map extend up to the edge of the Hindu Kush , Parmis and Tian Shan.
3: If not , cut out all of Transoxinia , and do not let the map roll past Khorasan , and terminating half way into Transoxinia.
I'm personally hoping that they extend it far south enough to make West African Muslim states playable, eventually. It was an interesting place at the time, a center of Islam under Mali, and very dynamic. Ethiopia should be included as well. Personally, I'd like to see the map stretch from Greenland to the Ganges river.
People already mentioned Iceland, and this bears repeating. I once had the misfortune of going to war with Iceland with the crusades in progress. Most frustrating experience ever.
You know, if I am the Byz. Empire, and I want to take over India and restore Alexander's Empire, I think I should be. Why?
Because of a little thing called "alternate history". You see, the Byzantines collapsed in OTL, yet, if I succeed, yet I do not want to fight the West, what exactly prevents me from going East if I FOCUS on it?
Now, about those Mongols. Maybe a Permanent TI that ONLY an Asian power or a sufficiently powerful European power(As in, "I have recreated the Roman Empire. Now what?") can pass through. This would allow for butterflies to fly into Asia and cause something like Super Yuan attacking Europe, or a Germania-encompassing Rus to go stomping through Mongols.
All and all, the point of the game is to have fun and have a plausible history. Just because a power collapsed and never got extremely large in Europe doesn't mean that one absolutely could not ever do such a thing.
Because of a little thing called "alternate history". You see, the Byzantines collapsed in OTL, yet, if I succeed, yet I do not want to fight the West, what exactly prevents me from going East if I FOCUS on it?
Now, about those Mongols. Maybe a Permanent TI that ONLY an Asian power or a sufficiently powerful European power(As in, "I have recreated the Roman Empire. Now what?") can pass through. This would allow for butterflies to fly into Asia and cause something like Super Yuan attacking Europe, or a Germania-encompassing Rus to go stomping through Mongols.
All and all, the point of the game is to have fun and have a plausible history. Just because a power collapsed and never got extremely large in Europe doesn't mean that one absolutely could not ever do such a thing.
.png){kind=avatar}
IMHO CK isn't a game about conquest.
recreating an empire like roman empire should be impossible to achieve or too difficult to maintain in feudal era if the game is well balanced.
about expanding the map why not... depends on what PI will do with muslims.
but i hope they make the game just excellent for christian kingdoms first and focus on muslim world on future expansion as i doubt muslim kingdoms have to operate exactly as christian's ones.
nevertheless I think PI will keep quite the same map size
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"?
"Crusaders" - implying that the Christian-Muslim Conflict is integral to the game - hence this game is not just about European Medieval Dynastic Politics , but also about Conflict and War. If the Muslim world isn't deep enough , are you sure you want to spent the last 250 years of the game staring at some magical barrier preventing you from pursuing your Crusading into Persia?
The way I see it , a good player with a Crusading outlook ( playing as one of the Crusader States) would definitely easily overrun the Islamic world by 1200 up to Mesopotamia at least , if not further . If you can beat back the Mongol invasion , odds are by 1250 , much of Persia is yours - indeed , if the Mongols are not stopped at the initial bridgehead , there's probably much incentive for you to throw them back beyond the edge of the map at earliest possible.
The map currently ends at Bukhara , in the East , right smack in the middle of Transoxinia . Let's put yourself in the shoe of a highly successful Crusading game , where everything goes right for you . You have just taken Bukhara . The Mongols still hold Samarkand , and a foothold beyond the Taklamakan Desert. Bukhara is NOT a very defensible frontier . What's there stopping you from carrying on the momentum , and pushing on to the Pamirs and Tian Shan , highly defensible natural boundaries? By this time , it should be 1300 + , or 1350 , of course , near the game end.
But at least , it beats sweeping Islam out of Mesopotamia - and playing whack a Muslim spawn army in the East that some are suggesting, which in my view , is no better than playing whack a Rebel . And in the west , playing a game of dynastic politics .
If I wanted to focus solely on Europe , I would only send a token force on the Crusades , meant to stop my piety from falling through the roof. However , if my Game was a Crusading focus game , the Muslim world has to be represented in all it's heartlands , to make this a process that would take a sufficiently long game , to make this interesting .
Finally , this is alternate history . Though the Crusaders never reached beyond the Levant , the challenge is to do one better than them . For experience players , I don't think it would be that hard to conquer Egypt and Mesopotamia before the Mongols arrive , at the very least. Then what ? In this alternate timeline , it is possible for a conquering army to march from the Tigris to the Pamirs and Tian Shan , and Jaxatres by end date of the game . It's not like the game's going to end in 1250 .
The so called French Duchies of Samarkand , and Duke of York and Duke of Kashgar are strawmans. Calling them fantasy is strawmanning , since Alternate History , the very theme of the game is itself fantasy , albeit "Plausible" fantasy . Isn't this the aim of the Open Sandbox concept that Paradox has been attempting to deliver for this games ? By slicing the map of pass Mesopotamia , on the grounds that it's not historical is quite oxymornic to the concept of Open Sandbox . Now , if anyone can reasonably demonstrate that mounting an Invasion of Persia from a secured Mesopotamia is a geographical impossibility, or at least nearly virtually impossible , I dare say you have a case to argue .
For those who opinion that the map is fine as it is ( save for the Scandinavian issue - and I do agree that the map ought to be extended further up into Scandinavia. ), I ask you to look at Bukhara from the satellite. Now look at Samarkand and Tashkent from the Satellite . Tell me , is it as hard to get an army from Bukhara to Samarkand , as it is sending an army across the Sahara ? If the map ends in Khorasan , it's still understandable, geographically . If the map ends at Bukhara - well that artificial barrier makes a mockery out of the Open Sandbox concept .
The way I see it , a good player with a Crusading outlook ( playing as one of the Crusader States) would definitely easily overrun the Islamic world by 1200 up to Mesopotamia at least , if not further . If you can beat back the Mongol invasion , odds are by 1250 , much of Persia is yours - indeed , if the Mongols are not stopped at the initial bridgehead , there's probably much incentive for you to throw them back beyond the edge of the map at earliest possible.
The map currently ends at Bukhara , in the East , right smack in the middle of Transoxinia . Let's put yourself in the shoe of a highly successful Crusading game , where everything goes right for you . You have just taken Bukhara . The Mongols still hold Samarkand , and a foothold beyond the Taklamakan Desert. Bukhara is NOT a very defensible frontier . What's there stopping you from carrying on the momentum , and pushing on to the Pamirs and Tian Shan , highly defensible natural boundaries? By this time , it should be 1300 + , or 1350 , of course , near the game end.
But at least , it beats sweeping Islam out of Mesopotamia - and playing whack a Muslim spawn army in the East that some are suggesting, which in my view , is no better than playing whack a Rebel . And in the west , playing a game of dynastic politics .
If I wanted to focus solely on Europe , I would only send a token force on the Crusades , meant to stop my piety from falling through the roof. However , if my Game was a Crusading focus game , the Muslim world has to be represented in all it's heartlands , to make this a process that would take a sufficiently long game , to make this interesting .
Finally , this is alternate history . Though the Crusaders never reached beyond the Levant , the challenge is to do one better than them . For experience players , I don't think it would be that hard to conquer Egypt and Mesopotamia before the Mongols arrive , at the very least. Then what ? In this alternate timeline , it is possible for a conquering army to march from the Tigris to the Pamirs and Tian Shan , and Jaxatres by end date of the game . It's not like the game's going to end in 1250 .
The so called French Duchies of Samarkand , and Duke of York and Duke of Kashgar are strawmans. Calling them fantasy is strawmanning , since Alternate History , the very theme of the game is itself fantasy , albeit "Plausible" fantasy . Isn't this the aim of the Open Sandbox concept that Paradox has been attempting to deliver for this games ? By slicing the map of pass Mesopotamia , on the grounds that it's not historical is quite oxymornic to the concept of Open Sandbox . Now , if anyone can reasonably demonstrate that mounting an Invasion of Persia from a secured Mesopotamia is a geographical impossibility, or at least nearly virtually impossible , I dare say you have a case to argue .
For those who opinion that the map is fine as it is ( save for the Scandinavian issue - and I do agree that the map ought to be extended further up into Scandinavia. ), I ask you to look at Bukhara from the satellite. Now look at Samarkand and Tashkent from the Satellite . Tell me , is it as hard to get an army from Bukhara to Samarkand , as it is sending an army across the Sahara ? If the map ends in Khorasan , it's still understandable, geographically . If the map ends at Bukhara - well that artificial barrier makes a mockery out of the Open Sandbox concept .
Adding some provinces will then just mean you need till 1275 to conquer the map. So it doesn't really solve your problem.
There are other ways to prevent a Crusader state or any Christian from doing that, but discussing that is not part of this thread
Also I don't see many people who are against adding some provinces east of Bhukkara, people are against adding parts of China or the Indian sub-continent to it.
Last edited:
And I am against adding China , Mongolia or the Indo Gangetic Plain . There's alot of reasons why these areas shouldn't be in the game , religiously , politically ,geographically , and definitely performance wise . There are many good arguments around here against it .None of the arguments I've presented here have argued for additions beyond the natural frontiers of the Hindu Kush and Pamirs.
It seems though , that those who are against expanding the South Eastern end of the map to a more natural frontier on par with the Urals at least and the Sahara , are also against adding anything further than Mesopotamia.
A good guide to what is geographically plausible would be to look at the Eastern boundaries of the Seleucid Empire at its' apex , after ceding away it's Indian Territories , which were basically next to impossible to hold on to even with a Capital in Mesopotamia.
That being said , I suspect that within a year of CK2 , someone will be doing a China mod with the CK2 Engine....
Last edited:
It's a complex, almost philosophical task to define 'alternate history' and to say what phenomenons would have been historically plausible, but I nevertheless doubt that the purpose of Crusades has ever been sweeping Islam out (as this massive and relentless conquering of Persia by Christians would suggest). And mobilizing armies that could have manage that would have been surely impossible even if the will to do so would have been there. As said, this is an issue of game balance (simulating resources, manpower, logistics, attrition etc properly) and not a problem of the size of a map.
By the way, your argumentation concerning natural geographical borders of the map makes sense. If Muslims will become playable, Eastern regions will require more attention.
Conflict in the Holy Land, yes. Conflict in Central Asia, no
And why stop there? Why not push on to Sumatra or wage war on the heathens of India? If the game is going to be of limited geographical scope then there must be a "magical barrier" somewhere
Why? Mesopotamia was never a Crusader target. It is there to represent one of the two primary Muslim powers that the Franks encountered (the other being Egypt). It also provides an alt-historical target that is not grossly implausible
Your position all this hinges on the belief that the Crusaders were either Alexander reborn or a Paradox player intent on WC. Neither was the case. There is absolutely no reason why Crusaders should be pushing into Persia and beyond. If the AI is doing so then something is wrong with the engine; if the player is doing so then its a bog standard WC, akin to conquering China as Serbia
Seeing as you bring up alt-history, are you perhaps familiar with the concept of 'alien space bats'?
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.
The only reason why PI didn't make the CK 1 map worldwide is because they didn't want to.
That or the fact that there weren't any crusades in the Americas/Asia...
And EU is euro centric, thus the name... (though admittedly Divine Winds should change that.)