Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

PRAISE THE ZUN

[A Thing]

I'm not holding out hopes on the religions being accurate, or even close to it. I'll probably still enjoy the game, but haven't we been all but been confirmed of some goofy shit like different schools of Sunni/Shia Islam having their own religious heads that aren't the Sunni/Shia caliph since religions can't share a religion head? I mean, it seems like they just wikidived again, just a bit more deeply this time.

Edit: admittedly, I'm not a Muslim, nor an expert of medieval Islam so maybe this isn't as goofy as it seems. As far as I know, the different religious schools of Sunni/Shia Islam aren't really separate faiths per se, just different theological readings within those two faiths.

[hector13]

Always a risk with historical games, especially ones that are highly education in some ways. It's impossible without additional research to know what stuff the game is teaching you right and what it's got wrong.

Yeah, but at least the devs should be able to recognize that it the article on Wikipedia sucks (as most about religion do) then that shouldn't be their first and only source.

Mm, yeah. Their first goal should always be historical accuracy, and not attempting to make a fun game.

[Iceblaster]

Tbh the vibe I got from the religion dev diary was that they were appealing more to meme-y 'make your own religion with nudism and satan hahaha' than a sensible dynamic heresy system.

I am fully expecting within the first few weeks of the game's proper life, it'll be filled with the AI making nudist enatic religions that worship jesus but also make blood sacrifices

[Cruxador]

Always a risk with historical games, especially ones that are highly education in some ways. It's impossible without additional research to know what stuff the game is teaching you right and what it's got wrong.

Yeah, but at least the devs should be able to recognize that it the article on Wikipedia sucks (as most about religion do) then that shouldn't be their first and only source.

Mm, yeah. Their first goal should always be historical accuracy, and not attempting to make a fun game.

Where did you get that from? Don't be facetious. Religions are an important part of people's lives so going "you and your ancestors all love incest because that's fun" is ridiculous especially when it was only added because they'd coded the mechanic for the Game of Thrones mod and needed to justify the time so googled what religions had incest attributed to them by their detractors.

And turning interesting historical fact into banal memery isn't fun either. Let zany mechanics be reserved for player-created religions; adding your own ahistorical content is already supported by the game, so why should it be beneficial for the devs to insert their own inaccurate fiction into the base game? If you want things to be inaccurate for the sake of it in a historical game, mod it or use the randomized start mechanics.

Tbh the vibe I got from the religion dev diary was that they were appealing more to meme-y 'make your own religion with nudism and satan hahaha' than a sensible dynamic heresy system.

I am fully expecting within the first few weeks of the game's proper life, it'll be filled with the AI making nudist enatic religions that worship jesus but also make blood sacrifices

They kind of highlighted that, but if you look at the list of options, most of them are more reasonable. They also said in the past that the AI will only create predefined historical heresies, not make up dynamic heresies.

[hector13]

Precisely, religion is important to the time the game is set in, and allowing the players the choice to work within an existing framework or create their own is going to make the game more accessible and/or interesting

I also don’t rightly understand why you’re so offended about religions being “misrepresented” in a game which has its endpoint almost 570 years in the past. I don’t think any of the religions present in the game are anything close to how they’re practiced now.

[SOLDIER First]

I am holding out so hard for an eventual rebalanced nomad DLC.

[Lidku]

I am holding out so hard for an eventual rebalanced nomad DLC.

As far as I know Paradox removed Nomads entirely IIRC (though correct me if I'm wrong though). Really Nomads in CK2 were extremely well done in my unpopular opinion- it just had a bad caveat of being too OP (of course though Nomadic hordes were always devastating in real life before the advent of gunpowder firearms). It also was delightfully challenging at times because of the intrigue surrounding which Clan within your horde gets what land, trying to manage opinion, or stave off parceling land altogether with the risk of Clan aspirant uprisings. It made so that Nomads weren't actually a cake walk if with weren't experienced with CK2 mechanics well- leveling off the matter of Nomad retinues being extremely deadly along with the camp bonuses.

Though they probably removed Nomads because of how different the new overland map is going to be. In the end though I agree with you. I'm going to old out and see how much content the base game will actually have. If it shapes up to be a DLC money-sink then I'll opt out of buying it because the run with strangling all the DLC for CK2 and EU4 tired me out this precarious model. Base EU4 with no DLC is unplayable. CK2 with no DLC is only near-tolerable, but still unoptimal. 

[Kanil]

It made so that Nomads weren't actually a cake walk if with weren't experienced with CK2 mechanics well

However nomads were incredibly boring cake walks if you were experienced with CK2 mechanics.

Furthermore, I don't actually think they were well designed. Pretty much most of the game mechanics were stripped away by nomads, leaving you with a super simplified version of the game. No vassals, no revolts, no... anything, really. Just conquer, burn, repeat.

Edit: I don't mind Paradox charging more for their DLCs, so long as they're higher quality... but Horse Lords is exactly the kind of thing I'd be deeply disappointed spending $30 on.

[SOLDIER First]

They said they were axed for launch, and the possibility of some DLC or an update reintroducing them hasn't been explicitly deconfirmed, so I'm hoping.

And I agree with both of you, actually. Their gameplay was fun, but very unstable; either you steamrolled everything or got dropped by a rival khan or destroyed by revolts, and if you wanted to have even the slightest semblance of assured power you had to game the fuck out of the land system in your own clan. I'm happy they aren't still going to be in with that horrific sense of balance but I'll miss them the same.

[Cruxador]

Precisely, religion is important to the time the game is set in, and allowing the players the choice to work within an existing framework or create their own is going to make the game more accessible and/or interesting

That's what I said. Making existing religions wrong doesn't have anything to do with that.

I also don’t rightly understand why you’re so offended about religions being “misrepresented” in a game which has its endpoint almost 570 years in the past. I don’t think any of the religions present in the game are anything close to how they’re practiced now.

And what? Whether the practice is changed, it's still people's history. Messalians may be extinct but there's still Zoroastrians in India. And whether the people are dead or not, doesn't make slandering them fine. Again, goofy fake things aren't suitable for the base game. Ahistorical is one thing, but they're doing no magic/supernatural in the base game so other categories of pure fiction without historical credibility should be treated the same way even if they weren't offensive.

As for offense, speak properly and don't be rude. I see the parallel of misrepresenting someone's statements in a disrespectful way and misrepresenting someone's history in slanderous way, but that doesn't make it cute to do in what was previously a civil discussion.

They said they were axed for launch, and the possibility of some DLC or an update reintroducing them hasn't been explicitly deconfirmed, so I'm hoping.

They've said that they won't be doing CK2 DLC over again. That means nomads (and the republic) probably won't be soon in the game's lifespan since they would imply a reorientation of DLC policy from what they're currently working with, and since it's a reorientation away from something that can be considered a promise to fans that they can expect people to be upset with, they won't do it lightly. That means probably not for a few years, and it's more likely to come as a minor or free feature, with less depth (or at least, less unique mechanics), associated with a DLC pertaining largely to other areas of the game.

[scriver]

Things wrong with nomads:

1. Always empires. Not only does this make it so conquering the steppe is less noteworthy, it also made each nomad realm it's own island. I'm not sure if nomad emperor titles are as prestigious as normal ones, but I'm assuming they are. Which makes no sense. I think they did this to make sure nomads couldn't be conquered, which in itself makes little sense, and it's a lazy solution.

2. No inter-clan-itude. Goal of a Nomad realm: Seek and Destroy all other nomads, apparently. Nomad clans should have been able to move between realms. Sure, you shouldn't receive every single clan whose territory you conquer. But you should at least end up absorbing some clans along the way. Genghis didn't become Genghis by fighting every single Mongol and Turk on the steppe. He became Genghis by uniting his allies under hims own banner.

Related to this (and to #1) is that there's also no way for clans to come under the away of feudal lords. I don't know if there's any good record of that happening during this time period, historically, but it's something that seems like it should be possible.

4. Theres no fluid conquering of urban (any settled) counties. The mechanic of how once you have a nomad capital holding in a county you cannot turn it back into an urban-ruled county. Want to conquer Persia and keep Persia around? Nope, sorry. Every county you occupied has a nomad holding in them now.

And that brings us to as how the mechanics are now, you can't settle your own relatives as landed lords of the urban areas you conquer. I'm sure many of you have played at least one game as Genghis at the "Genghis rolls into Persia" start date. If so, you know what a ridiculously humongously sized family he has. Start after he conquers Persia, and you see his sons and grandsons as lords all over the place. But if you conquer Persia yourself, you can't do that. The game doesn't let you put people in charge counties. You can't make your useless second-to-twelfth sons landed dukes and kings. And this is a game about building your dynasty. But Nomads can't do that. Your dynasty only ever has one ruler, and that's you. And that just sucks.

It's the same for non-relatives, of course. But I think that since it's a dynasty game, relatives are bit higher on the priority list to most players. But I can say that long ago, when the Horse Lords was first released, it did let you turn people into feudal lords. Back then I used give out duchies and kingdoms to courtiers I felt had done me great services. Like Subutai.

And that's all I can rant about off the top of my head. I'm sure if I started playing as Nomads again more things would come to my memory. I don't feel their mechanics was satisfying at all. Basically the only things I feel were good about them was the feeling of their armies facing the levies of the feudals.

[hector13]

Precisely, religion is important to the time the game is set in, and allowing the players the choice to work within an existing framework or create their own is going to make the game more accessible and/or interesting

That's what I said. Making existing religions wrong doesn't have anything to do with that.

I also don’t rightly understand why you’re so offended about religions being “misrepresented” in a game which has its endpoint almost 570 years in the past. I don’t think any of the religions present in the game are anything close to how they’re practiced now.

And what? Whether the practice is changed, it's still people's history. Messalians may be extinct but there's still Zoroastrians in India. And whether the people are dead or not, doesn't make slandering them fine. Again, goofy fake things aren't suitable for the base game. Ahistorical is one thing, but they're doing no magic/supernatural in the base game so other categories of pure fiction without historical credibility should be treated the same way even if they weren't offensive.

In what capacity am I being rude? Because I disagree with you?

Incest has been a thing for centuries, man. Charles II of Spain is the go to example. You can marry within your family with Christian religions in the game too, and it’s not as if the game demands you marry a closer relative as a Zoroastrian or your empire falls to pieces. It gives you a small opinion bonus among Zoroastrians, like allowing the Pope to appoint your bishops does.

[SOLDIER First]

Things wrong with nomads:

1. Always empires. Not only does this make it so conquering the steppe is less noteworthy, it also made each nomad realm it's own island. I'm not sure if nomad emperor titles are as prestigious as normal ones, but I'm assuming they are. Which makes no sense. I think they did this to make sure nomads couldn't be conquered, which in itself makes little sense, and it's a lazy solution.

Mechanically speaking, independent Nomads and regular Emperors are considered to be on the same level as one another, yeah. Means you can be the most powerful nation in all of Europe and any steppegoer with their own land and enough gumption is going to ask you to marry off your children for them. Most likely due to existing limitations on the title tier system that they didn't (or couldn't, we never know) iron out before the DLC released, and yes, it is super dumb.

[scriver]

Precisely, religion is important to the time the game is set in, and allowing the players the choice to work within an existing framework or create their own is going to make the game more accessible and/or interesting

That's what I said. Making existing religions wrong doesn't have anything to do with that.

I also don’t rightly understand why you’re so offended about religions being “misrepresented” in a game which has its endpoint almost 570 years in the past. I don’t think any of the religions present in the game are anything close to how they’re practiced now.

And what? Whether the practice is changed, it's still people's history. Messalians may be extinct but there's still Zoroastrians in India. And whether the people are dead or not, doesn't make slandering them fine. Again, goofy fake things aren't suitable for the base game. Ahistorical is one thing, but they're doing no magic/supernatural in the base game so other categories of pure fiction without historical credibility should be treated the same way even if they weren't offensive.

In what capacity am I being rude? Because I disagree with you?

Incest has been a thing for centuries, man. Charles II of Spain is the go to example. You can marry within your family with Christian religions in the game too, and it’s not as if the game demands you marry a closer relative as a Zoroastrian or your empire falls to pieces. It gives you a small opinion bonus among Zoroastrians, like allowing the Pope to appoint your bishops does.

I mean, iirc the whole "they fuck them parents bro" thing is pretty much just old Roman/Hellenic/Muslim (can't remember which one) anti-Zorro propaganda. And it doesn't sit quite all right to make the main mechanical attribute of a oppressed (and genocided nearly into oblivion) minority something from the lies told about them by their oppressors.

It's not a huge deal to me personally though. But I understand where Crux is coming from.

Thankfully we know that one ahistorical religion thingy will be in: Zun still shines his bright light on Afghanistan. Of course with the new religious system there's a chance it will be less ahistorical in its depiction. As long as I can still praise the Zun I am pleased.