The Dark Ages

[Alqamar]

I know it's outside CK's timeline, but this seemed the best place to ask.

1) Would you like to see a game bridging the gap between the fall of the Western Roman Empire (476 Common Age) and the battle of Hasting (1066 Common Age)?

2) Do you think it would be an interesting game to play? Is it a too complex period to picture accurately?

I have recently been reading a book on the history of the Papacy, and this period sent me spinning on my toes. So, please, what do you think?

 

[the_hdk]

there is already a game called Great Invasions that took place in that time...

look for a guy called Alexander Seil. HE made a few AARs of that game in the OT.
to find him look at any random relationship thread...your're bound to find him post there

 

[unmerged(46500)]

That game isn't all that good, though, and certainly not of the quality of a CK. I'd rather play RTW: Barbarian Invasion than Great Invasions if you want a taste of the Migration Period.

 

[Alqamar]

Oh, that's cool... but I meant a Paradox title... something of a prequel or expansion to Crusader Kings.

 

[unmerged(84239)]

Oh, that's cool... but I meant a Paradox title... something of a prequel or expansion to Crusader Kings.

With paradox game engines (and without forcing events, which are annnoying) I think it is very hard to represent the spread of arabs in northern africa, the arrival of hungarians in the carpathian basin, etc.

 

[wobbit]

With paradox game engines (and without forcing events, which are annnoying) I think it is very hard to represent the spread of arabs in northern africa, the arrival of hungarians in the carpathian basin, etc.

This. I could be entirely wrong, but unless something from Rome could do it I don't think the engines from paradox games would portray the migration period at all well. (I prefer "migration period" to "dark age" as a lot of it wasn't very dark: Ireland had something of a cultural boom, there was a resurgence of the Eastern Roman empire and the Carolingian Renaisance. Not to mention all the cultural and scientific achievements of the Arab world.) Paradox games don't really deal with massive movements of peoples so you may need an entirely engine, or at least a heavily modified one.

To the OP's questions:

1) I'd love to see a game set in this period along the lines of the paradox series. Great Invasions was interesting, but had many issues.

2) It could (and should) be an interesting game to play and should be very different to a lot of historical grand strategy. It's not too complicated a period to portray acurately (the peiod was complicated, but then, so is all of history), but there are a couple of problems related to doing so:

Firstly, there is limited information for a lot of Europe for a lot of the period in question. Lots of important civilisations left little literature (the Sassinids and the Visigoths spring to mind) so it's hard to create a detailed account of them, let alone base a game on them.

Secondly, a major theme of the period is the rise and FALL of empires. The only empire to last the whole period was the Byzantines and that was a close run thing (and the empire in 1066 was very different to the empire in 476). The problem here is that people tend to like to play games they can win. Few people want to play games where they are almost certain to die eventually (of course, some people love them). To be successful, a game set in this period would need to either make survival and expansion over the long term achievable and risk accusations of historical inaccuracy, or define other goals for the playable nations- probably just survival for a lot of them.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

Great Invasions was so complex and so hard (especially with a bugged tutorial and no manual anywhere) that I still don't know how to play it, although it looked like very detailed.

It could (and should) be an interesting game to play and should be very different to a lot of historical grand strategy. It's not too complicated a period to portray acurately (the peiod was complicated, but then, so is all of history), but there are a couple of problems related to doing so:

It would be definitely interesting, but note this: like Crusader Kings' engine being and game system being different than that of EUIII, this "Paradox Great Invasions" would have to use a different game system, a system that allowed to represent several different kind of States: empires (Rome, Carlolingian), federal monarchies (the first Frankish kingdrom), military monarchies at the Germanic way (Visigoths, Vandals, etc), and, most important, migrating hordes (Burgundians, Goths, Franks, Vandals, Suabians, Alans, Huns...).

Great Invasions had something like it, but Paradox can surely do better. There should also be a process, in which an invading nation would start behaving like a horde. This could give them some characteristics, like the ability to confederate with an empire (the Roman foederati) taking some of his frontier land, but being able to rape this empire when it became weak... just like the Visigoths did with Rome. This could also have happened with the Sassanids, for example, or with the Carlongians, had they used the same tactics with the Magyars, instead od sucessfuly fighting them.

There should be some kind of indicative marker, because this game would be enterely about the authority of a monarch. Total decentralization would mean a confederate tribe in the Germanic or Hunnic way, and yet it would not be totally bad, because it would enable decisions for hordes and migrating peoples. When a country had a low authority marker (let's say, from 10 to 0), nobles would become more and more independent, taxes would lower a lot, ability to recruit armies would decrease... and there would be several uprisings, death and succession of a monarch could tear the country apart... and if this country was delcared war upon, it would most certainly fall fastly thanks to some events like "the nobles of this province are pacting with the invaders!". That's the situation in the Visigoth Kingdom of Toledo when the Arabians declared war.

After this invasion, there would be a chance for the invaded kingdom to "implode" into several successor states (in the case of the Visigothic Kingdom, that would be Asturias, Septimania, and some other pyrenaic domains).

To make it in-game, the Visigothic Kingdom had an authority marker of 3 or 4 at the moment of the Arab invasion. After the defeat of king Roderick in Guadalete, several provinces began to surrender (a choice of the Gothic lords to keep their sovereignity and convert to Islam, like the famous Romano-Gothic lord Cassius did, becoming the later bereber dominion of Banu Qasi, the Sons of Cassius, and the Visigothic Kingdom, invaded, with no army and collapsed, imploded, and the successor states made peace with the Muslims.

Secondly, a major theme of the period is the rise and FALL of empires. The only empire to last the whole period was the Byzantines and that was a close run thing

Well, yes but not accurately speaking: the Carlongian empire survived, devided, but survived. It was divided between West Francia and East Francia, later France and Germany (and Italy and Burgundy, which became testimonial, but could have become important had their kings managed the situation better).

(and the empire in 1066 was very different to the empire in 476). The problem here is that people tend to like to play games they can win. Few people want to play games where they are almost certain to die eventually (of course, some people love them). To be successful, a game set in this period would need to either make survival and expansion over the long term achievable and risk accusations of historical inaccuracy, or define other goals for the playable nations- probably just survival for a lot of them.

There should be a way to show those political and social changes. In the beginning, IVth Century, there are two very different ways of government: the imperial one, represented by Rome and the Sassanids, and the Germanic one, based on a military assembly ruled by a rather weak king, who had only powers in war times and most of the times was elected. In the end, 1066, Feudalism is already formed, so we still have two types of government, evolutions of the former ones: The imperial one evolved into the autocracy, to say a name, which is the Byzantine and the Muslim form, based on civil government. Different decisions, such as the creation of the Thematic system, or the Abbassid version of it, called Iqtá, consisting of Turkish warlords being established in the frontiers (we've seen it before, it's like Roman foederati), are repeating the same process before. Turks would arrive at early XIth Century as a migratin tribe, like Khazars, Pechenegs, Alans...

The Viking invasions would be somehow tricky to represent, and considering the sandbox nature of the game, every invading people would be able to represent those Normand invasions when they arrive to a Feudal country.

To keep it more or less historical, there should be some restriction to evolve into an empire. For example, the Franks did it because they used the former Roman administration, they had resources and the structural cohesional power of the Church. The Goths did not have this, they kept their aristochratic system of elective monarchy and didn't take advantadge of the former Roman administration or political system. They kept Roman law for Romans and Gothic law for Goths, as the Longobards did in Italy, or the Ostrogoths before them. The Franks changed this by creatuing a more or less cohesionate empire.

Maybe it should work like this: when a migrating people reached the top authoirty, becoming a cohesionate settled kingdom (Frankish kingdom under the Merovingians), it should enter the way that would lead it into either an empire (in the Byzantine sense) or a feudal monarchy. And this should only be done like the westernizing in EUIII, by a lot of factors, because the most likely would be to end like a Feudal monarchy. Which is not bad at all, Feudal countries were made from the war and to wage war. Feudalism was the key of Christian kingdoms in Spain to win the Reconquista against the civil society of the successive Muslim caliphates and kingdoms...

Some ideas I had while I rest of my studying. Take care!

 

[Alqamar]

Wow! Wonderful ideas in just a couple of posts... if something like this is ever done in a mod, count me in for the rise and fall of the Umayyads, the Abbassids, etc...

It is great to see people talking about these topics. More ideas, anyone?

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

Wow! Wonderful ideas in just a couple of posts... if something like this is ever done in a mod, count me in for the rise and fall of the Umayyads, the Abbassids, etc...

It is great to see people talking about these topics. More ideas, anyone?

It's vital for the game to show those differences in the government ways, and they have to be completely and radically different, in taxation, recruit of armies, society, events, missions, decisions, successions, diplomacy...

For tribes, for example, we could think that small tribes would join into a greater confederation. Example; the Franks, formed by those tribes: Salii, Sicambri, Chamavi, Bructeri, Chatti, Chattuarii, Ampsivarii, Tencteri, Ubii and Batavi. In a due moment, they joined and recieved the ethnonym Franci, the Franks we know, those who will be ruled by the Merovingians and later by the Carolingians.

Damn, I'm dying to play this game!

 

[wobbit]

@Cèsar de Quart

I like a lot of your ideas. I suppose one of the fundamental issues of game mechanics would be whether you play as a country (as EU3) or a family (as in CK).

The Vikings could be represented simply by having them start "off map". Like the steday stream of invaders coming in from the eastern edge of the board, the Vikings could just appear in the relevent oceans at the relevant time. Alternatively, the territories they occupy at the start could be made undesirable- low income, low population, high attrition etc.- and the various Scandinavian nations could simply get various boni in the mid 9th century boosting their numbers, military capacity and ability to sail all over the map. Both methods are a bit act of God-ish. But then, so is having the mongols appear in CK.

I'm inclined not to put too many restrictions on who can form different types of government. By all means it should be difficult for some nations to form some governments but it should be possible given the right circumstances. Maybe any Germanic tribe could form a "Carolingian Empire" if they controlled enough territory, had the backing of the pope and had enough culture and authority.

Couple of things I would like to point out: "Authority" is not the same as "centralisation". A realm can be decentralised and it's king can still hold great authority. A period example of this would be the Carolingian Empire under Charlemagne. His territory was vast and incorporated lands held by a large number of powerful and largely autonomous lords. He had a capital, but it was small and he spent most of his time travelling around the empire. This is the definition of a very decentralised system. Yet, clearly he was a very successful king and held a lot of authority. As I've said in other threads, "decentralisation" was not a "bad thing". I think the authority scale could work very well but shouldn't be confused with centralisation.

Although I agree that the Carolingian empire was different from the other successor kingdoms in the west, I'd also argue that it was not an Empire in the Roman or even Byzantine sense of the word. Yes, they did make use of the administrative and governmental institutes of the Roman empire and the church BUT the manner in which they ruled was itinerent and vastly different to the methods used by the Romans (they also didn't implement Roman law throughout their territory). Furthermore, although their territories were vast, the Carolingians treated their lands like a family estate to be divided up amongst the rulers children on his death. The only reason the empire survived intact after Charlemagne was that he only had one son who outlived him. Certainly, connections across the borders within the Carolingian world existed and were often very strong, but it was a very different organisation to that of Rome. I suppose there would be a need for any game about this period to find a way of illustrating these differences.

Must not spend rest of day planning game I will never make...

 

[unmerged(94161)]

The problem here is that people tend to like to play games they can win. Few people want to play games where they are almost certain to die eventually (of course, some people love them).

I seem to remember a Civ 4 mod where if you're playing as a country and it gets wipe out, you get to pick up as another country. Not sure HOW to implement this into a Paradox-style game. In particular, I think a dynastic model like in CK would work, because... well, as long as your dynasty carried on, your game could carry on, though in a different sense.

Maybe do something like that with cultures? Like, you're not controlling a *country* so much, but a culture, and so your geographical holdings/placement are somewhat detached from the culture you're controlling? So if your land holdings got wiped out, you'd still have control on some level to try and assure the existence of your culture carries on, with the eventual goal being the reclamation of lands?

 

[Swezeru]

I seem to remember a Civ 4 mod where if you're playing as a country and it gets wipe out, you get to pick up as another country. Not sure HOW to implement this into a Paradox-style game. In particular, I think a dynastic model like in CK would work, because... well, as long as your dynasty carried on, your game could carry on, though in a different sense.
QUOTE]

Rhyes and fall of civilization i suppose
And a dark ages game would be a perfect bridge from Eu Rome toCk

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

I'm inclined not to put too many restrictions on who can form different types of government. By all means it should be difficult for some nations to form some governments but it should be possible given the right circumstances. Maybe any Germanic tribe could form a "Carolingian Empire" if they controlled enough territory, had the backing of the pope and had enough culture and authority.

I agree with all that you said, especially with those words above. Any Germanic tribe would be able to re-form the Western Roman Empire (had it really fallen, because it's up to you to change it!), but it would have to recreate the conditions that made the Frankish Empire the most successful of all Germanic Kingdoms. It's not a restriction, it's a condition. Charlemagne could have been a Visigoth, or a Burgundian, or an Ostrogoth.

 

[Arko]

And a dark ages game would be a perfect bridge from Eu Rome toCk

maybe a new game announced at PIC2010 next week ?

 

[Snaake]

Maybe do something like that with cultures? Like, you're not controlling a *country* so much, but a culture, and so your geographical holdings/placement are somewhat detached from the culture you're controlling? So if your land holdings got wiped out, you'd still have control on some level to try and assure the existence of your culture carries on, with the eventual goal being the reclamation of lands?

This. I think there was a similar discussion in another thread, and I thought of this. If the point is to have a game about the migration period, when different peoples moved around Europe, why not have the game be more about the peoples? Especially when you consider the fact mentioned earlier that people like to win in some way, and if the period would include both the rise and fall of empires, making it too easy to build and maintain an empire would be jarring.

Therefore, the scoring of the game could be based on how well your culture/tribe does in the game: how far they've spread, what's their population, but also including how much they actually rule. One could still actually form countries and wage war, but if you say, lost all your titles and became a subject of some other empire, you would still control your culture, and be able to influence things somehow so that later, you could rise again when the empire breaks apart, or maybe try to invade it from within by converting the empire to your culture and get one of your people to rule in it. In a republic, this would be done by voting (imagine if the romans had instituted universal suffrage for all free men and subject peoples), in a monarchy you might have to make a coup or marry a woman of your tribe/people/culture to the king and hope the crown prince gets his culture from his mother, etc.

Probably not really doable with the current Paradox engines, but with a bit of work, conversion should still be possible into CK even from another engine, as long as things such province improvements, province culture, etc. Depending on how you play Rome and this migration period game, you could end up with eg. most of western Europe controlled by a Visigoth-cultured Roman republic.

 

[Alqamar]

Depending on how you play Rome and this migration period game, you could end up with eg. most of western Europe controlled by a Visigoth-cultured Roman republic.

I agree. Additionally, I think that the Papal States should be playable. Not the Pope himself, but maybe something similar to what they did in EUIII... I'm not sure. Just think of the wonders and fun you could have debating and battling heresies such as Arrianism, and heretics such as Photios, Nestorius and Michael I Cerularius.

And the Antipopes. Oh, yes...

 

[unmerged(94161)]

You know, one thing I was thinking about. You don't really see the affect of language in a lot of Paradox games. Maybe you could set something up so that your culture's language could also spread, and how much of linguistic influence you have also affects your victory score.

 

[Snaake]

You know, one thing I was thinking about. You don't really see the affect of language in a lot of Paradox games. Maybe you could set something up so that your culture's language could also spread, and how much of linguistic influence you have also affects your victory score.

At least with a dark ages/migration period game, i'd at least just abstract this to be culture=language (and I assume this is pretty much the idea in other Paradox games too), in that each one has their own, and despite a far-reaching culture which would in reality have many dialects, they'd all be assumed to be mutually intelligible in the game. Of course, my previous thoughts included that besides the province culture, there would also be a ruling culture, that of the royal family or other ruling elite, and if the score was based on the spread of your culture, you could and should get victory points even if your culture has not actually spread to the province, but the ruling elite there is of your culture.

The establishment of the Papal States (as a ruler instead of the church being a private landowner, wikipedia offers the 6th century for this) and the Papacy, the spread of Christianity, towards the very end of the game the schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches (1054), as well as the emergence and spread of Islam (Muhammed died on 632) would all be major challenges to model in the game, as each should drastically alter the map and relations between the various nations and cultures in the game.

What's the end date for EU: Rome?

 

[wobbit]

"I seem to remember a Civ 4 mod where if you're playing as a country and it gets wipe out, you get to pick up as another country. Not sure HOW to implement this into a Paradox-style game."

Well, you can just pick another country to play from any save file with most paradox games. But you're right, an in game mechanism to pick another related country could be very useful.

@Cèsar de Quart:

Sorry, I misunderstood your earlier post, glad we're thinking the same way.

re playing as a culture:

This could be very interesting and different. It would also combat the problem of your kingdom being conquered. Playing as an oppressed people would be a pretty unique experience in a grand strategy game- but one that could be transferred to other periods as well.

re Papal states:

I'd actually like the chance to play as the pope. From what I can tell the papal controller system would be completely out of place in a game of this period (at least after the western empire fell). It certainly is for most of CK's time frame. Until Avingnon most popes were from Rome itself and were eleted with limited outside influence (of course, there were several notable exceptions).

re culture=language:

While not entirely accurate I think this is a perfectly acceptably abstraction.

 

[Alqamar]

re Papal states:

I'd actually like the chance to play as the pope. From what I can tell the papal controller system would be completely out of place in a game of this period (at least after the western empire fell). It certainly is for most of CK's time frame. Until Avingnon most popes were from Rome itself and were eleted with limited outside influence (of course, there were several notable exceptions).

I didn't mean having a Papal controller... I mean that in EUIII, when you play the Papal States, you are not playing the Pope, but some kind of string-puller in the shadows.