Oh man, I've sunk countless hours into CK2. Such a rich game and I highly recommend it.
This post pretty much lays out a facet of what I love and alludes to the bigger picture: start with a historical setting and run with it, often diverging.
One game I became the king of Ireland and then somehow the king of Britanny. I then only had female child heirs. They got overthrown and ended up cast out of Ireland.
I was intrigued by that so I started a game as a count in Britanny. Worked my way up to the petty king of Britanny. Somehow engineered inheritance of another duchy - became a proper king of Britanny and then somehow became king of Aquitaine (so the king of half of modern day France).
EU4 is another fantastic game based on the same engine. Less focused on dynasties and more geopolitics/colonisation, this also throws you into historical settings. As Portugal, I became holy Roman emperor - they got into a fluff where no one liked each other so I was the only choice even though I wasn't in the HRE.
I'd love for Paradox to officially "link up" all the games so you can go from ancient Rome all the way to say the modern world. That would mean EU: Rome and Victoria on the new engine and also a new cold war era game they definitely need to make (focusing on modern geopolitics).
Paradox games like CK2 are great because they have enough complexity in them to create decent variety from game to game, so it's your own personal story that's unfolding. CK2 in particular, because of the human drama element, is very good at this.
The point about historical divergence is spot-on; a lot of the fun is in having some familiarity with the way things actually turned out, and comparing it with whatever ended up happening. During lulls in activity in my own kingdoms, for example, it's enjoyable just to look around the map and see what the heck is going on elsewhere.
Speaking of alternate history, I recently started getting into Hearts of Iron IV (which takes place during WW2), but actually have been getting a lot more enjoyment out of the mod "Kaiserreich" instead of the base game. Kaiserreich is an alt-history mod where Germany wins the First World War, and so by the time the game starts in 1936, the world is already quite different-yet-familiar (the US on the brink of a second civil war, France and Britain taken over by syndicalist revolutions, the British royal family exiled to Canada and attempting to retake the Home Islands, etc). Definitely recommend looking into it, if for no other reason than to read the lore on their project wiki ( http://kaiserreich.wikia.com/ ).
I've also thought about how interesting it would be to link up the Paradox games, and there are importing tools that kind of do the job, but having everything in a single game would be hard to achieve and still have the deep complexity that we enjoy. Modelling the feudal world of medieval Europe is fundamentally different than the nation-state-focused world in EU4 a few centuries later. I fear that any attempt to merge the two would end up like the Civilization games, which achieves a start-to-finish continuity but at the expense of losing a lot of interesting detail.
I've been meaning to play HOI for a while. I was put off by the short time frame it's set in - feels like I need to understand how they handle that compared to multi-hundred year timeframes in EU4/CK2. Mind Vicky is roughly 100 years but still great replay value but still 100 years is longer than a decade or two? The mod might be the push I need to check it out :)
By "link up", I didn't mean the same game. I meant something like a save converter that takes your CK2 save and you can use it to seed the world in EU4. Then it's just a case of doing that up the chain and filling in gaps with new games (I believe timeframes of CK, EU and V sit back to back).
They do have an official save converter[1]. Not sure if it works with the latest versions of CKII and EU4 but it's definitely worked in the past.
Hell, you used to be able to do the "Grand Campaign" where you play CKII->EU4->Vicky->HOI to cover about a millennium of history. Once again though, not sure if the save file converters have been updated enough to do that now.
Paradox is doing most things right, not like some of their competitors. No pay-to-win or other ingame buys, but optional DLCs, that actually enhance the game, and constant development and care over years for their games, and excellent multiplatform support. Also, they are successfully producing some of the games with the highest (hours of gameplay)/(price) ratio, second only to some indie games and the unbeatable Dwarf Fortress.
These games are not for everyone. Also, not entirely unlike Dwarf Fortress, they might seem a bit off-putting due to their complexity. But they have a much better GUI, and learning the basics is faster. It still takes time, though.
I like that they are doing, but I think their DLC strategy is starting to cause some concern in various online gaming circles.
People loved it with CK2 because it expands the game so much, and it was unlike what they were doing before. This helped people forgive the fact that the base game was just okay at launch. Contrast that to HoI4 where the base game was not fantastic at launch (but probably not much worse than CK2 at launch in terms of stability and systems) and then the DLC train started and I saw a lot more negative comments online. There were similar conversations around the Stellaris launch "Oh they are going to make us pay or features that should have been in the game in post launch DLC".
That could just mirror changes in players being hyper-sensitive to DLC/Monetization strategies these days, and probably don't bother the people who are really into Paradox games and put hundreds if not thousands of hours into them.
I am very interested to see what they do next with Crusader Kings, since they have mentioned a few times they plan on ending the DLC soon. Transitioning to a CK3 seems incredibly difficult given how barebones it will feel.
Civilization solved this by including most of the content in Civ5 DLCs to the base game in Civ6. They did start the DLC train immediately with highly priced extra civilizations though, and got major flak for doing that.
I read about that actually. They use a 3rds model: retain a 3rd of existing systems, improve on a 3rd of existing systems and bring in a 3rd of totally new gameplay systems.
I don't bother with non-gameplay DLC. I don't get these story packs. I'd prefer DLC that overhauls some aspect and provides deeper gameplay.
Yes. The first time I played a paradox game, I closed it due to the overwhelming UI. Takes a bit of perseverance if you want a rich, fully featured strategy experience.
After a Paradox game, although fun, Civ just doesn't cut it.
Indeed. After Paradox games Civ definitely has a "casual strategy" feeling to it. Plus there are simply no emergent storylines forming in Civ games. I do still enjoy both, though.
Rome would be a difficult thing to model (IIRC some Paradox folks have talked about this) given the way their games usually work. The biggest problem with Rome itself is the amount of internecine warfare and plotting that doesn't map to the CK2-style feudal mode. And that doesn't map to a lot of other powers in Europe and the Near East at the time. In CK2 and EU4, most players operate under very similar rules (like, Islam in CK2 is basically a slightly tweaked European feudalism)--a Rome game would have to come out of the box with a number of compatible-but-divergent systems in the ballpark of what CK2 was 2-3 years after release to seem like it fit with the rest of the games they do.
Which is not to say I wouldn't love to see it happen, but it's a hard problem.
They released a Rome game on their older engine that's now quite dated. It was pretty fun and I'd recommend it.
Because they're so moddable, a total conversion would be possible. I know the mechanics are similar but the game of thrones mod is breathtaking (I recommend this too)!
A good place to start would be the time when Rome was merely a small kingdom and take it from there. Lots of Mediterranean based conflict with other civilisations like the Greeks, Egyptians, Estruscans, Carthage, etc. The end result might not even be a Roman Empire but, however unlikely, a Gaulish empire or a Carthaginian empire. That sounds like a lot of fun.
Yeah, I recall the old one (though TBH I thought it was not particularly great). I think it'd be fun to have a modern spin on it for sure, I just don't know how you put together the actual game and make it work. I tried to spec one out not that long ago and getting bogged down by trying to adequately represent, if not everything, then a reasonable subset thereof. The winnowing down of models of government and religious aspects into a more manageable few after the Western Roman Empire "fell" helps a lot from a design point of view.
In my most recent playthrough, I've found that some of the mechanics don't make a lot of sense from an ontological perspective:
"Friends, countrymen. The rampaging horsemen of Kirghiz have long plundered the world and burned down cities and used the bones of our fellow Christians to fertilize their fields. We have heard from our friends in Gotland that Kirghiz intends to do the same to their houses, and we shall prevent this. Sound the alarms, muster the levies!" Two months later: "Er, never mind, Gotland surrenders." And a month later, "Friends, countrymen…"
Beyond that, it can be fun to watch just how screwed up the game can get sometimes. I had one playthrough where the Kingdom of Andalusia was located in Hungary, the Kingdom of Africa in Italy and the Kingdom of Italy in Africa.
Do you similarly feel creeped-the-fuck-out when hearing the Muslim call to prayer from a mosque, just because the first line "Allahu akbar" has a relation to the catchphrase uttered by radical Islamists? Gut reactions are completely normal but they should be the beginning of understanding and conversation rather than being a rhetorical stop sign.
Strategy games always have a bit of player indulgence in role-playing. Part of the fun is putting yourself into the role and play-acting -- and having some ironic amusement at how out-of-place it sounds. There's even an entire subreddit about the crazy things people say when playing CK2 ( https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitCrusaderKingsSay/ ). Example: https://i.imgur.com/qI4s0hJ.jpg
It's a shame that modern commentary on video games tends to point out a link between something in a game and something unsavory or "problematic" and think that's the end of the discussion. I thought we had left behind that sort of thing with Jack Thompson.
The world doesn't revolve around the moral whims of the American middle class. Deus Vult is a thematic headline for a historical wargame. People shouldn't stop using it because of meme culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult 4chan loves to prey on these concerns by hijacking harmless symbols e.g. green frogs, OK sign, rainbow flags.
Deus Vult is an expansion to the original Crusader Kings and predates the stupid meme by well over a decade. Any relation is one foisted upon later on.
Deus Vult ("god wills it") is also the expression in Latin used during the actual crusades, the historical event that predates the game by over 900 years.
A quick note on exactly what God willed, according to the Crusaders. A scene from the Siege of Antioch in 1098
> The calm night air was shattered as the Franks screamed out their battle cry "God wills it! God wills it!" With resistance crumbling, the Crusaders poured into Antioch. Amid the gloom of the approaching dawn the chaotic slaughter began. One Latin contemporary noted that 'they were sparing no Muslim on the grounds on the age or sex, the ground was covered with blood and corpses and some of these were Christians Greeks, Syrians and Armenians...'. Afterwards one Crusader described how 'all the streets of the city on every side were full of corpses, so that no one could endure to be there because of the stench, nor could anyone walk along the narrow paths of the city, except over the corpses of the dead'.
And this was just the capture of Antioch. The scenes at the capture of Jerusalem were far worse, with the Crusaders indulging in butchery that's nauseating to read about. In contrast, when Sultan Saladin recaptured Jerusalem 90 years later, it was done peacefully.
When we see people today brandishing swastikas, we know exactly what kind of people they are and what they aspire to be, based on our knowledge of the crimes of the Nazis. Similarly, when you see a far right nut arguing against Islam and using this catchphrase, you know what kind of cloth they're cut from.
Source
- The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land by Thomas Asbridge
You are talking of a time where theocracy was the rule of the land and literacy rate was below 1%. The scientific method wasn't even invented yet and whatever proto-science that existed would not take you very far.
During that time, insulting god was the worst possible thing someone can do, and following another god was a way of doing that.
The prize for participating in the crusades was a papal bull, which is document representing a guaranteed entry to heaven by cancelling all your sins. So if you went full ape and killed 1000 people you technically still went to heaven.
Thanks for the explanation, but the book I mentioned explains that in detail, over several hundred pages. I was trying to make 2 points
- By the standards of their time, the Crusaders were particularly barbaric. I'm not judging them by 21st century standards, I'm comparing them to their contemporaries in the 12th century, such as Saladin.
- 'Deus Vult' was their battle cry when they engaged in this barbaric slaughter in their successful bid to recapture the Holy Land. It is also used by members of the far right today. They do so because they advocate a similar stance towards Muslims.
Sadly, this has upset fans of Crusader Kings in this thread. I regret it, but I liken it to the Nazis' appropriation of the swastika, a Hindu religious symbol. It sucks that the far right has appropriated what's yours, but you just gotta accept it and move on.
>On July 4, 1187, the Muslim forces of Saladin (Salah al-Din) decisively defeated the crusader army south of the Horns of Hattin in Palestine, capturing Guy, king of Jerusalem; Reginald of Châtillon, Saladin’s enemy whom he personally killed; over two hundred Knights Hospitaller and Templar Knightly Orders whom he ordered to be killed; and many crusaders whom he ransomed. The remaining captured Christians were sold on the local slave markets. [1]
Such a friendly guy, that Saladin!
Your attempt to draw some great moral distinction between evil Christian and good Muslims is massively confused and, given its underlying intent to delegitimize certain religious/ethnic groups today, actually nauseating.
The reality is that pretty much everyone involved in the Muslim conquests, the Crusades, the Muslim re-conquests, and all conflicts of that era were absolutely brutal. Mohammed himself ordered and carried out countless torture sessions, battles, and massacres, of soldiers and civilians. So as did the Romans and the Franks and everyone else.
If they were ever merciful, on any occasion, it was not for moral reasons, but strategic/political ones.
The ancient world is brutal. Stop trying to manipulate stories from it to stir up hate towards peoples' identities today. We have enough things to fight about already.
I'm glad you did your 5 seconds of googling - but the distinction I was drawing was the difference in treatment meted out to combatants and non-combatants. Saladin sold soldiers into slavery. He spared civilians. The Crusaders made no such distinction. Yes, slavery sucked but between mass murder and selling into slavery, the latter was the lesser of the two evils in the 12th century. The alternative - allowing enemy combatants to go free was ruinous, you would face them in battle again within a few years.
I request that you judge Saladin by the standards of his time, just as I judge the First Crusaders by the standards of their time. At a time when it was common to demonize your enemy for anything they did, Latin sources had an extremely high opinion of Saladin. Archbishop William of Tyre, the primary source for this period, spoke of him in glowing terms, especially of the mercy shown during the siege of Jerusalem.
I completely agree that the Crusades were filled with atrocities committed by every single person involved, regardless of religion. I was merely pointing out that even by the standards of the 12th century, those who used the battle cry "Deus Vult" during the sieges of Antioch and Jersalem were far worse than their contemporaries. When people today echo this battle cry, it is exactly this kind of behaviour that they are implicitly endorsing.
>When people today echo this battle cry, it is exactly this kind of behaviour that they are implicitly endorsing.
No. It may be that you interpret it that way, but that's on you. The same way as if you get triggered by the Latvian fire cross or similar examples elsewhere.
No. William grew up at a time when the Kingdom of Jerusalem was strong and was Archbishop between 1127-1135. At no point was William ever in danger from Saladin. Saladin actually captured very little territory from the Crusader states until 1187, when a decisive battle was fought and he captured most of the Levant. William would have had reason to fear him then, but he had passed away the previous year.
Also, Saladin did not sell anyone into slavery as long as they paid a ransom - a measly 10 dinars. Anyone who paid was allowed to leave Jerusalem with all of their possessions. When the Patriarch of Jerusalem tried to leave the city weighed down with treasures, Saladin was advised to keep most of it but he took nothing except the 10 dinars and let the Patriarch leave with the rest of his wealth. Saladin did not want to break the promise he had made - that anyone who paid the ransom was free.
As I mentioned, each side simply did the thing best for themselves based on their circumstances at the time.
Crusaders did not have any easily accessible slave markets to sell their captives to, since unlike Muslims they were not practicing mass open slavery at the time, they were far from home, and the captured people were very numerous. So they killed them. This was their most self interested choice possible.
The Muslims had access to liquid, nearby slave markets, and the captives were fewer, so they sold them. This was the most sold interested outcome possible. To do anything else would be to throw away war profits. To break a promise of clemency in exchange for surrender would be to make future battles more difficult.
To try to set this up as some fundamental moral difference is deeply disingenuous and indicates some deeper level of motivated reasoning intended to de-legitimize one group in particular.
You appear to be quite wedded to the idea that "there were no bad guys, only a bad situation". Well, even among the Crusaders there were men who kept their word and men who didn't. For example, following the fall of Jerusalem the Fatimid garrison of Ascalon was only too ready to surrender, but they requested to negotiate the terms of their surrender to Raymond of Toulouse, the one man who kept his promises during the sack of Jerusalem. Unfortunately the other noblemen, who had had no compunctions killing people they had promised safe passage to, interfered in the negotiations and so Ascalon remained in Fatimid hands.
This is exactly what you pointed out - not keeping your promises and engaging in wanton butchery made future battles more difficult and yet there were men who did it anyway. Godfrey didn't do this, and neither did Saladin, and that meant they were a cut above the other men of that time. And that's not my 21st century opinion either, William of Tyre writing in the 12th century thought so too. There was a fundamental moral difference between Godfrey and his most of his fellow First Crusaders. _That_ is the point I'm trying to make, so when you say there was no fundamental moral difference, you're incorrect.
I have no interest in de-legitimizing any group apart from the far right. I do so by pointing out that they in 21st century, knowing all that I've pointed out, chose a battle cry used by butchers in the 12th century. I'm not Christian, I'm not Muslim, I'm not even remotely religious. I'm sorry you think I have an agenda against Christians in general, but that's just not true.
I think it would help discourse if you didn't immediately assume the worst possible intent when you see a comment by someone. Please consider doing that.
Not to ignore the point being illustrated, nor the tongue-in-cheek nature of it, but a symbol on the flag of Nazi Germany and a Latin phrase from the middle ages that some undesirables on the internet use don't really seem comparable in scale, and scale is the important thing here.
MAGA, for instance, was memetic, so if you use/repurpose it, there's a relatively unambiguous origin. Deus Vult in this context, not so much; it lacks the spread and saturation necessary. If the Swastika was only present on a small subset of Nazi paraphernalia, it wouldn't be nearly as taboo - it's till so toxic today because it was on everything and so readily associated.
So I don't really think that argument applies here.
I get your point - if the swastika is used in a western country, its almost certainly a Neo-Nazi using it, not a middle-aged Indian woman, even though millions of Indians use the swastika in a religious context every day. However, by the same token, if someone says Deus Vult, its statistically far more likely to be a Neo-Nazi/far right nut rather than a fan of Crusader Kings.
I really don't like just letting scumbags claim every cultural item and symbol they want. The swastika is clearly lost to us, give the breadth and enormity of its use, but if we let them poison everything they ever touch we'll end up poorer for it.
This post pretty much lays out a facet of what I love and alludes to the bigger picture: start with a historical setting and run with it, often diverging.
One game I became the king of Ireland and then somehow the king of Britanny. I then only had female child heirs. They got overthrown and ended up cast out of Ireland.
I was intrigued by that so I started a game as a count in Britanny. Worked my way up to the petty king of Britanny. Somehow engineered inheritance of another duchy - became a proper king of Britanny and then somehow became king of Aquitaine (so the king of half of modern day France).
EU4 is another fantastic game based on the same engine. Less focused on dynasties and more geopolitics/colonisation, this also throws you into historical settings. As Portugal, I became holy Roman emperor - they got into a fluff where no one liked each other so I was the only choice even though I wasn't in the HRE.
I'd love for Paradox to officially "link up" all the games so you can go from ancient Rome all the way to say the modern world. That would mean EU: Rome and Victoria on the new engine and also a new cold war era game they definitely need to make (focusing on modern geopolitics).
Clearly a secret Paradox fanboy!