I am looking forward to playing Saladin and ridding the middle east of the infidel. Runcimen says the caliphate of baghdad was weakened by the crusades so that when the Mongols came it quickly fell.
-
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 can't play Saladin. Only Christian feudal dynasties are playable. Sorry.
Drakken
Drakken
If the game is as editable as the last ones perhaps something could be done however. But I wouldn´t bet on it.
Runciman must have been on something when he wrote that! The Baghdad Caliphate had been in increasingly poor shape after the death of Harun al-Rashid in 809, and for all intents the Caliph was relieved of his temporal power by both the Buyids (from 945 - 1055) and the Seljuks (after 1055). So the Caliphate had been weakened long before the Crusades were even thought of. Oddly enough, after the Seljuk Sultanate was split in 1118, the Caliphate, under a line of strong Caliphs, regained their temporal power in Iraq, and were much stronger in the years following the Crusades than in the years before. One of the reasons Hulegu found it necessary to destroy the Caliphate in 1256 is because the Caliph was strong enough to interfere with Mongol plans for the area, not because the Caliphate was so weak that there was nothing left to do but put it out of its misery. Runciman seems to have gotten it completely backwards
Besides, why should we absolutely play everyone? Can we not be contented with the present offer? I am so tired of this constant obsession of playing evey little entity - even those who haven't survive a year after the start of the game...
Drakken
Hehe..
..like Liechtenstein in HoI you mean?..Well, this game is not EUII, the designers have already made up their minds about who is playable or not and personally I have made up all sorts of theories why the Merchant Republics and the "Infidels" are left out..
I believe there are important reasons for this, one you play dynasts rather than nations, two, I believe the merchant republics have some important built-in capacity. My guess is that they will function as "banks" or loangivers..I also believe that the mongol hordes will act as the equivalent of BB wars in EUII, once you upset the world too much they could come and get you..
These are just a few of my own theories, why not share some of yours?..
..like Liechtenstein in HoI you mean?..Well, this game is not EUII, the designers have already made up their minds about who is playable or not and personally I have made up all sorts of theories why the Merchant Republics and the "Infidels" are left out..I believe there are important reasons for this, one you play dynasts rather than nations, two, I believe the merchant republics have some important built-in capacity. My guess is that they will function as "banks" or loangivers..I also believe that the mongol hordes will act as the equivalent of BB wars in EUII, once you upset the world too much they could come and get you..
These are just a few of my own theories, why not share some of yours?..
I didn´t say I wanted it. So back off will ya. I merely said that if it is very editable it might be so that somebody with a lot of time on their hands make it so. IGC comes to mind.
Hurray!! Another voice. I too tire of those few folks who no matter what you give them want more more more. Game designers set a game length and scope of a game and there are always that vocal minority who want to change it. I'm sure game designers make their games the way they think best (some of their decisions are based of course on time and $$$ and resources etc.). Can't you just picture it?
Designer: We have developed this new game we call chess. It is a wonderful strategy game.
Player: Why don't you add some more pieces to it I would really like to have an Archbishop and a Cathedral. And could you make it so that after checkmate the game could go on longer? Only two people can play at a time? If you make the board bigger you could have two more playable sides. Black and white is not enough, it would be very nice to play the red guys or the blue side.
I understand what Drakken's saying, and I don't mind the limitation to only Christian dynasties.
But, the more countries you can play, the more re-playable the game is. I doubt very much I would play EU2 as much as I do if I were limited to only 7 majors to play.
But, the more countries you can play, the more re-playable the game is. I doubt very much I would play EU2 as much as I do if I were limited to only 7 majors to play.
You have to have in mind that CK is an entirely different game..We wont be playing majors or minors..rather dynasties.
Originally posted by Sonny
Hurray!! Another voice. I too tire of those few folks who no matter what you give them want more more more. Game designers set a game length and scope of a game and there are always that vocal minority who want to change it. I'm sure game designers make their games the way they think best (some of their decisions are based of course on time and $$$ and resources etc.). Can't you just picture it?
Designer: We have developed this new game we call chess. It is a wonderful strategy game.
Player: Why don't you add some more pieces to it I would really like to have an Archbishop and a Cathedral. And could you make it so that after checkmate the game could go on longer? Only two people can play at a time? If you make the board bigger you could have two more playable sides. Black and white is not enough, it would be very nice to play the red guys or the blue side.
I hope they don't get rid of the advanced feudal aspects, because some people want to play as every little minor on earth. Why not make it so you can play the Mayas and Aztecs, and crusade against the infedal Incas!!!!
I'm aware of that. All I was getting at is there's a lot more replayability if you can play one of 100s of different dynasties, as opposed to only playing 1 of 7.
I just want to play as the King of Denmark and conquer that lot of heathens over on the other side of the Baltic. That's all I want! Honestly! (Ok, so maybe other nations would be nice too.. Let's see... England, France, Normandy, Naples, Armenia Minor, Kiev Rus, Sweden..........)
Edit: BB, I thought it was already determined you could play any christian dynasty, just not the muslims, pagans, or merchants!
Edit: BB, I thought it was already determined you could play any christian dynasty, just not the muslims, pagans, or merchants!
It has - I was just making a more general comment to drakken's comment re: Why do you want to play every possible country.
There will be tons of replayability even if you are limited to just Christian dynasties. In EU things go along somewhat according to history because events generally push things in an historic direction. These events are based for the most part on the actions of historical people. Without these historic people upon which events are based there will be fewer guidelines to direct play. And RMs will play a significant part in the game. Have you, in EU II, as England, ever inherited Denmark? Didn't think so. But I can see this as a definite possibility in CK. So the variations won't be necessarily as much in who you can play but how you can play what is available. And if you read the "Christian Dynasties" thread you will see that there are still going to be quite a few to select from.
Of course we're all thrilled that Paradox is making this game at all...though I couldn't care less for Salahaddin, it's a bummer that I won't get to play as Selcuk Turks. Think of it this way, I'm sure you'd be feel a little let down had Paradox decided Scandinavia (excluding Denmark) was out of CK's scope
Besides, everyone interested in this era have their 'favorite' dynasties and it's not like there's a medieval grand strategy game released every other season. Most of the talk here isn't about chastising Paradox but rather "wish it's at least possible to play with X county." Hence the thread on an expansion pack already
Not getting to play muslim principalities seems to make the game strictly against AI. Whom will most crusades be directed against? I know they ended up against anyone the Pope disliked, but lets focus on Urban II intent. Not to mention that Baghdad was a center of learning and culture far above anything in the west.
Originally posted by tuna
Of course we're all thrilled that Paradox is making this game at all...though I couldn't care less for Salahaddin, it's a bummer that I won't get to play as Selcuk Turks. Think of it this way, I'm sure you'd be feel a little let down had Paradox decided Scandinavia (excluding Denmark) was out of CK's scope
Besides, everyone interested in this era have their 'favorite' dynasties and it's not like there's a medieval grand strategy game released every other season. Most of the talk here isn't about chastising Paradox but rather "wish it's at least possible to play with X county." Hence the thread on an expansion pack already
I see the thread about the expansion pack as just the add-on of scenarios not originally released with the game (which is why my rant was in this thread and not that one). To me it is a legitimate concern that only a campaign game will be in the original release - not that I'm complaining but it is a legitimate concern.
Had Paradox announced Jihad Sultans instead of CK there would be those who would complain because they could not play the Christian dynasties - and why does it not contain China? - and it sure would be nice if Japan was included etc.
Do we all want a better game? Do we all want more? Sure. It is natural. However our ideas of a game do not always (seldom if ever) coincide with the ideas of the folks creating the game. Paradox does a fine job of doing what they can to please their game buying public. Wishing for something more is different than complaining about not having enough.