Good article on the Old Gods expansion over at Strategy Informer:
http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/crusaderkingsiitheoldgods/453/interview.html
This continues to sound like a great mechanic:
QuoteStrategy Informer: What's happening with the landless adventurers, and how will they factor into the overall gameplay?
Henrik Fåhraeus: It's kind of a two-part thing. We were never happy with the rebel system as it was in Crusader Kings II - it was reminiscent of the old Europa Universalis I and II rebels - so we've replaced them with more advanced rebels with a cause system. So you can have peasant revolters but they're led by a peasant leader, a specific character who gets a temporary title. If they succeed, that province will secede. And you have other kinds of rebels, such as heretics or claimants.
Adventurers are a version of this, where an existing claimant in the game can go off on an adventure and seize territory wherever he feels it is possible, or even seize his claim. Even a younger son without a claim can go off and seize any kind of province, such as the Normans going to Naples and Southern Italy and taking that area.
It's a more dynamic system where characters can have a temporary title, an A.I. and do stuff on their own, even without having land.
And even better news:
QuoteStrategy Informer: What lies beyond The Old Gods? Is this still a continuing process, is there still a lot you want to do with Crusader Kings II?
Henrik Fåhraeus: Yes. The Old Gods is the last major DLC that we planned and had ideas for early on. We still have a lot of loose ideas kicking around, and there is a new plan that we are working on, but I can't really say much about it! There will definitely be more major DLC for Crusader Kings II.
8)
This article also mentions that The Old Gods is feature complete and down to balancing, so...an April release maybe? :-\
Thanks for the link. This DLC looks like it will add so much and be alot of fun.
Can't wait to get my hands on this.
Quote from: Martok on March 26, 2013, 03:14:32 AM
Can't wait to get my hands on this.
Just like bewbs!
:P
It's remarkable just how many threads in this place come back to that. ;)
That's what she said........ ;)
But yea, day one buy.
PE
Quote from: Martok on March 27, 2013, 01:04:08 PM
It's remarkable just how many threads in this place come back to that. ;)
Hey! You're the "official bewbxpert" hereabouts. It probably pops out all the time when you're around!
Quote from: Nefaro on March 27, 2013, 08:54:56 PM
It probably pops out all the time when you're around!
...
Nah. Too easy. :P
A release date was announced, May 28th.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/04/25/crusader-kings-2-the-old-gods-release-date-and-new-details-from-mondays-livestream/ (http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/04/25/crusader-kings-2-the-old-gods-release-date-and-new-details-from-mondays-livestream/)
New gameplay trailer is out as well.
Quote from: Martok on March 26, 2013, 03:14:32 AM
Can't wait to get my hands on this.
Looks great! Look at all that Loot! And 867 AD!
Vikings! Zoroastrians!!!!
Yep. I'm going to get this one, I think.
Looking forward to the Vikings.
Are there actual Zoroastrians in this? And can I conceivably recreate the wars between Byzantium and Islam here?
Quote from: Gusington on April 25, 2013, 07:09:17 PM
Are there actual Zoroastrians in this? And can I conceivably recreate the wars between Byzantium and Islam here?
I thought they said they were in. But then again, there was some strange discussion about this. Also, having the "Dark Ages" (we don't call them that anymore, professionally) in the game will be loads of fun! I look forward to recreating the creation of Normandy!
Quote from: son_of_montfort on April 26, 2013, 01:15:02 AM
Quote from: Gusington on April 25, 2013, 07:09:17 PM
Are there actual Zoroastrians in this? And can I conceivably recreate the wars between Byzantium and Islam here?
I thought they said they were in. But then again, there was some strange discussion about this. Also, having the "Dark Ages" (we don't call them that anymore, professionally) in the game will be loads of fun! I look forward to recreating the creation of Normandy!
SoM, what
is the professional term for this period of "turning away from science" now?
AFA Europe goes, the period from the 'Fall of Rome' to the crowning of Charlemagne is usually referred to as the Age of Migration or Migration Period, roughly 300-400 AD to about 800 AD. Another Term oft used is Early Middle Ages.
I like to call that era 'Bill.' Not the Era of Bill, because that is something else entirely.
Quote from: Gusington on April 25, 2013, 07:09:17 PM
Are there actual Zoroastrians in this? And can I conceivably recreate the wars between Byzantium and Islam here?
I've got all the mods except Republic and Aztecs. At the moment the Byzantines are functional and there are Zoroastrians out there
at least in 1066. Zoroastrian in game terms might cover a lot of mystical millenarians and gnostics like Mandeans or whoever it was
that (Nestorians, maybe) who (oh that who) made the Book of the Giants the most widely translated book of the 8th century.
The Old Gods DLC should make it somewhat easier to be a Zoroastrian, though of course they aren't any more "pagan" (indeed, perhaps technically less so) than say A Christian in 9th century Fance.
Quote from: Staggerwing on April 26, 2013, 06:13:41 AM
AFA Europe goes, the period from the 'Fall of Rome' to the crowning of Charlemagne is usually referred to as the Age of Migration or Migration Period, roughly 300-400 AD to about 800 AD. Another Term oft used is Early Middle Ages.
What's wrong with 'Dark Age'....works just fine for me, and from what I have read it was, indeed, a pretty dark time for most people living in Europe. Giving something a new name doesn't change it....like when they said Pluto wasn't a planet anymore, it didn't change a thing at all about Pluto.
Quote from: Rayfer on April 26, 2013, 09:46:36 AM
Quote from: Staggerwing on April 26, 2013, 06:13:41 AM
AFA Europe goes, the period from the 'Fall of Rome' to the crowning of Charlemagne is usually referred to as the Age of Migration or Migration Period, roughly 300-400 AD to about 800 AD. Another Term oft used is Early Middle Ages.
What's wrong with 'Dark Age'....works just fine for me, and from what I have read it was, indeed, a pretty dark time for most people living in Europe. Giving something a new name doesn't change it....like when they said Pluto wasn't a planet anymore, it didn't change a thing at all about Pluto.
Four things seem to characterize periods labled as "Dark Ages":
1) a drop in specialized production (eg. elite goods for long-range trade, mass-produced pottery, metals in transport configurations)
2) a drop in whatever records we can currently read
3) a drop in identifably elite activities such as tombs, elite burials, palaces, stelle, temples, sacrifices, votive offerings, inscriptions
4) a drop in chronological controls of the more traditional kind from our point of view
There is a general supposition of drops in population, but that usually turns out to be a function of how the 4 other markers are interpreted.
It is at least a strong possibility that Dark Ages were less stressful for the average person than periods of Imperial Expansion or the High Classic Maya or whatever is picked as being non-Dark.
On the other hand, I really love the term "Dark Age" as long as people keep their problematic nature in mind.
In terms of CKII, 867 AD is well out of what is classically considered "Dark Age"...I guess because it comes after the Carolingian Renaissance -- which banished barbarous thoughts to the edge of Christendom or something.
Quote from: Barthheart on April 26, 2013, 05:16:12 AM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on April 26, 2013, 01:15:02 AM
Quote from: Gusington on April 25, 2013, 07:09:17 PM
Are there actual Zoroastrians in this? And can I conceivably recreate the wars between Byzantium and Islam here?
I thought they said they were in. But then again, there was some strange discussion about this. Also, having the "Dark Ages" (we don't call them that anymore, professionally) in the game will be loads of fun! I look forward to recreating the creation of Normandy!
SoM, what is the professional term for this period of "turning away from science" now?
It wasn't really "turning away from science" either. Pretty much just the western Roman empire dissolving into mostly small feuding warlords being the reason for the term 'Dark Ages'.
I believe "the Middle Ages" is the commonly used term?
Quote from: Nefaro on April 26, 2013, 01:54:49 PM
Quote from: Barthheart on April 26, 2013, 05:16:12 AM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on April 26, 2013, 01:15:02 AM
Quote from: Gusington on April 25, 2013, 07:09:17 PM
Are there actual Zoroastrians in this? And can I conceivably recreate the wars between Byzantium and Islam here?
I thought they said they were in. But then again, there was some strange discussion about this. Also, having the "Dark Ages" (we don't call them that anymore, professionally) in the game will be loads of fun! I look forward to recreating the creation of Normandy!
SoM, what is the professional term for this period of "turning away from science" now?
It wasn't really "turning away from science" either. Pretty much just the western Roman empire dissolving into mostly small feuding warlords being the reason for the term 'Dark Ages'.
I believe "the Middle Ages" is the commonly used term?
For western Europe, at some point "Late Antiquity" shades into the "Early Middle Ages" (AKA "Dark Age"). There's a definite drop in source material somewhere in that time between about 500 AD and 800 AD and it seems people could not secure good manuscript collections in the 650-750 period (Isadore of Seville to Venerable Bede), and the compilation of universal histories stopped from about 650 to 850 (Isadore to Rabannus Marus). But for actual fragmentation of authority, that peaked a bit after 1000 AD and triggered "Peace" movements, Communes and so on. But by say 1050, everybody had pulled themselves together to some degree. England and the HRE formed large bureaucratic states and things began to look like the political world we still have. Note that the worst political fragmentation doesn't happen in the Dark Ages, but within the period that the Old Gods mod will cover (ie after 867 and before 1066).
Of course in the Levant, there is no Dark Age -- the Eastern Empire trundles on, the Persian Empire mostly turns to Islam and the Book of the Giants (for example) is propagated across all the routes that esoteric religions (everybody from Zoroastrians to Nestorians to Buddhists) took -- plenty of manuscripts and universal histories out there (all the way to China).
Quote from: Gusington on April 26, 2013, 07:33:59 AM
I like to call that era 'Bill.' Not the Era of Bill, because that is something else entirely.
Ah, bill. For me my latest run of CKII has been the Age of Daughters. 6 or 8 mastermind theologian daughters in a row and my
boy is wroth and I don't blame him.
Sorry I missed this conversation. From 200-500AD is Late Antiquity and from 500-~800 is Early Middle Ages. This is pretty much the universal designation although the year ranges are debated. From around 900-1100 is the High Middle Ages and 1200-1400 is the Later Middle Ages, although from ~1320-1500 is also called the Renaissance.
Can we please just return to calling it the Dark Ages. Late Antiquity should be between the height of Greek cities states and their being crushed by Rome.
It wasn't any darker than before or after, sunlight per square foot anyways.
It was warmer though....
Especially if some Carolingian thugs set your Saxon village on fire.
Man those were the days.
Quote from: Bison on May 23, 2013, 08:21:14 PM
Can we please just return to calling it the Dark Ages. Late Antiquity should be between the height of Greek cities states and their being crushed by Rome.
Totally agree with that. And I always thought it was ironic that the Greeks taught the Romans everything they knew before hand.
Quote from: Staggerwing on May 23, 2013, 08:38:10 PM
Especially if some Carolingian thugs set your Saxon village on fire.
Ahh yes.
Convert to christianity or get decapitated.
Fun times.
All this time and I'm still bitter about it.
Bison, if you're interested in the Late Antiquity period, there is a very readable, very well organized book covering Greece, Rome, and Macedon. Macedon and Greece by Philip Matyszak.
The Romans started to get involved in Greece because the Illyrian tribes were raiding allies and putting out pirates. In between wars, settling some kind of peace was a good way for ambitious Roman politicians to move up.
Once there, the constant feuding between the city states and confederations drew the Romans in further. Their allies wanted the Romans to put their enemies under their heel. All the Romans wanted was a stop to piracy, a safe place for their merchants, and then to get out.
Well, going into Greece was a threat to the hegemony of Macedon over Greece, so they had to get involved. And the Greeks never stopped bickering and plotting. The seperate confederacies were never that strong, so they needed a strong outside power to make them superior to their own enemies. (Which would then be polite enough to leave.) A total snake pit. Reminds me a lot of Italy during the Renaissance.
It's really a good read.
Quote from: Bison on May 23, 2013, 08:21:14 PM
Can we please just return to calling it the Dark Ages. Late Antiquity should be between the height of Greek cities states and their being crushed by Rome.
No. Because both are incorrect. The "Dark Ages" were called so by Francesco Petrarch in the 1300s, who believed that everything before his time was a period of stagnation, ignorance, and brutality. While there certainly was some stagnation, ignorance, and brutality in the period from 700-900, there was also a lot of intellectual growth (the same Charlemagne who massacred the Saxons also set up scriptorium with a uniform script to preserve knowledge). "Dark Ages" is too loaded and not accurate, particularly given that some Roman culture did survive.
Also, Late Antiquity being the Pre-Hellenistic Greek era? That doesn't even make sense (unless you believe the world is only 6000 years old, I guess). We just call that era the "Greek-City States" era - and remember that Alexander ended that age before the Romans did.
Besilarius, Macedon and Greece is about the Hellenistic/Early Roman Republican era, not Late Antiquity. But you are quite right that the time period is fascinating in its complexity. The Romans were invited in by some of the post-Alexander Hellenistic/Macedonian kingdoms - a move that I always assume they regretted in the long run.
For a good book on Late Antiquity, I suggest anything by Peter Brown. He has an excellent new book called, Through the Eye of a Needle: The Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD (http://www.amazon.com/Through-Eye-Needle-Christianity-350-550/dp/069115290X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369609789&sr=1-1&keywords=through+the+eye+of+a+needle). That would make a great introduction to playing Old Gods, actually!
For this period, I suggest the Icelandic sagas. There are several collections, many done by Penguin (so they are cheap). You really get a sense of Viking life and culture by reading them!
I say Dark Ages.
Quote from: Bison on May 26, 2013, 06:41:03 PM
I say Dark Ages.
It
does have a wonderfully ominous sound to it.
Quote from: Bison on May 26, 2013, 06:41:03 PM
I say Dark Ages.
You can call it the Age of Furry Pink Bunnies. But you would be wrong either way.
Bah. You probably deny that Pluto is a planet too. :P
Quote from: Bison on May 26, 2013, 10:19:45 PM
Bah. You probably deny that Pluto is a planet too. :P
Oooo! I see what you did there.
Nice parallel. ;D
Quote from: Nefaro on May 27, 2013, 12:59:09 AM
Quote from: Bison on May 26, 2013, 10:19:45 PM
Bah. You probably deny that Pluto is a planet too. :P
Oooo! I see what you did there.
Nice parallel. ;D
The Dark Ages are now a dwarf age? ???..................;D
Quote from: Bison on May 26, 2013, 10:19:45 PM
Bah. You probably deny that Pluto is a planet too. :P
Oh course I do! Everyone knows Pluto is a dog!
This did make me laugh though, when Googling "Pluto."
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvintagespace.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F11%2Fpoor-pluto.jpg&hash=eeea563b96f069ae781883720c3bb0321ac59631)
Quote from: MetalDog on May 23, 2013, 10:21:33 PM
Quote from: Bison on May 23, 2013, 08:21:14 PM
Can we please just return to calling it the Dark Ages. Late Antiquity should be between the height of Greek cities states and their being crushed by Rome.
Totally agree with that. And I always thought it was ironic that the Greeks taught the Romans everything they knew before hand.
The bit about learning from Greeks is Roman propaganda and it makes a weird kind of ideological sense once you crush the Hellenistic Kingdoms and you are facing the Persians and such along a shifting buffer zone from Egypt to the Black Sea.
Here's how it works: The original world of the Greek City States was utterly crushed by 300 BC BUT Hellenistic regimes supported an antiquarian reconstruction of a Classical Age of Greek Goodness (with all the goodies that people have cooked up for that very idealized
world). Rome had as good a claim to this classical tradition as any Hellenistic Regime and they happily assumed its aura and accumulated the marble copies of its bronze art as fast as they could. Of course this classical aura was as much a fake when the Hellenistic Regimes assumed it as it was when the Romans assumed it and there is not much sign that either the Hellenistic Regimes or the Romans actually learned much from their assumption of a classical aura. It did however offer an ideological basis for uniting the Levant and opposing the Persians.
IMHO, Rome may have pilfered Greek culture as its base, but it took that base to a level far surpassing the Greeks. By the end of the Republic and especially by the end of the Empire, Roman culture, political thought, literature, and art was a totally new thing.
Remember, Roman engineering and architecture still exists to this day, both as a technological basis and literally as still-present Roman buildings.
Looks like its out/available on Gamersgate (http://www.gamersgate.com/DLC-CK2OG/crusader-kings-ii-the-old-gods), Steam (http://store.steampowered.com/app/210908/?snr=1_7_15__13) and elsewhere. As I already have a plethora of games, I think I'll hold off on this one until a sale...
I'm waiting for sale.... and just to be honest, I am a little put off with the Music, Unit, Portait dlc cash cow again.... that should just be included with the full DLC and for $14.99 I would expect it to be..... I am a Paradox fan and all, but that cow has sore nips.
PE
Quote from: MengJiao on May 28, 2013, 10:54:36 AM
Quote from: MetalDog on May 23, 2013, 10:21:33 PM
Quote from: Bison on May 23, 2013, 08:21:14 PM
Can we please just return to calling it the Dark Ages. Late Antiquity should be between the height of Greek cities states and their being crushed by Rome.
Totally agree with that. And I always thought it was ironic that the Greeks taught the Romans everything they knew before hand.
The bit about learning from Greeks is Roman propaganda and it makes a weird kind of ideological sense once you crush the Hellenistic Kingdoms and you are facing the Persians and such along a shifting buffer zone from Egypt to the Black Sea.
Here's how it works: The original world of the Greek City States was utterly crushed by 300 BC BUT Hellenistic regimes supported an antiquarian reconstruction of a Classical Age of Greek Goodness (with all the goodies that people have cooked up for that very idealized
world). Rome had as good a claim to this classical tradition as any Hellenistic Regime and they happily assumed its aura and accumulated the marble copies of its bronze art as fast as they could. Of course this classical aura was as much a fake when the Hellenistic Regimes assumed it as it was when the Romans assumed it and there is not much sign that either the Hellenistic Regimes or the Romans actually learned much from their assumption of a classical aura. It did however offer an ideological basis for uniting the Levant and opposing the Persians.
I will admit that I don't understand this at all. BUT, I do know that Rome made its living by taking the best part of conquered people's and improving on it. Architectural ideas from Eutrusceans, helmets from the Gauls, gladius sword from the Spanish, scutum shield from the Samnites, etc. Throughout its life, Rome took what they liked, improved it and made it Rome's own. So "stealing" from Greece would not be unique to Greece at all...Rome took from everyone
As an old prof mentioned, Rome was the only state in the world that conquered the world in self defense.
Blood for the blood god! The game is out!
Heading on over to GG to get my copy now. :)
Quote from: MengJiao on May 28, 2013, 10:54:36 AM
Quote from: MetalDog on May 23, 2013, 10:21:33 PM
Quote from: Bison on May 23, 2013, 08:21:14 PM
Can we please just return to calling it the Dark Ages. Late Antiquity should be between the height of Greek cities states and their being crushed by Rome.
Totally agree with that. And I always thought it was ironic that the Greeks taught the Romans everything they knew before hand.
The bit about learning from Greeks is Roman propaganda and it makes a weird kind of ideological sense once you crush the Hellenistic Kingdoms and you are facing the Persians and such along a shifting buffer zone from Egypt to the Black Sea.
Here's how it works: The original world of the Greek City States was utterly crushed by 300 BC BUT Hellenistic regimes supported an antiquarian reconstruction of a Classical Age of Greek Goodness (with all the goodies that people have cooked up for that very idealized
world). Rome had as good a claim to this classical tradition as any Hellenistic Regime and they happily assumed its aura and accumulated the marble copies of its bronze art as fast as they could. Of course this classical aura was as much a fake when the Hellenistic Regimes assumed it as it was when the Romans assumed it and there is not much sign that either the Hellenistic Regimes or the Romans actually learned much from their assumption of a classical aura. It did however offer an ideological basis for uniting the Levant and opposing the Persians.
There were Greek colonies all over Sicily before there were Romans. Some on the boot, too. While I can't say that the conquerors/assimilators learned anything from the conquered/assimilated, you would have to expect that SOMEthing rubbed off, eh?
Quote from: PanzersEast on May 28, 2013, 03:54:43 PM
I'm waiting for sale.... and just to be honest, I am a little put off with the Music, Unit, Portait dlc cash cow again.... that should just be included with the full DLC and for $14.99 I would expect it to be..... I am a Paradox fan and all, but that cow has sore nips.
PE
Agreed.... selling the unit & portrait packs separately from the DLC, with the same release date, is rather disappointing.
Is that the price we pay for Pdox' regular sale sprees?
Still.. the Pagan expansion is one I wanted to see from the beginning. I need to wipe my 'To Play' list clean before long and pick it up.
Quote from: MetalDog on May 28, 2013, 08:07:29 PM
There were Greek colonies all over Sicily before there were Romans. Some on the boot, too. While I can't say that the conquerors/assimilators learned anything from the conquered/assimilated, you would have to expect that SOMEthing rubbed off, eh?
No doubt. Fun fact, it was at the siege of Syracuse by the Romans where the famous inventor Archimedes was killed. They say he had a giant ship-crushing crane arm and a "death ray" of polished mirrors that focused the sun. Both are probably apocryphal, as is the story where the Roman centurion told him to get out of the street after the siege, but Archimedes was too busy scribbling math in the dirt, so the Roman soldier stabbed him to death (and was, in turn, executed for killing the inventor).
Not to distract your guys side conversation but anyone have any first impressions of the DLC? As much as raiding as a viking sounds appealing, I think I'm going to wait to purchase this. Too many new releases and not enough free time.
Playing as my pillaging... I mean, adventuring ancestors, the Hungarians, I had a great time!
The single most dramatic change I have encountered so far (beside all the new pagan mechanics) is the change to Gavelkind (to which you are stuck to as a pagan).
Instead of throwing around your title between your sons at seemingly random, it tries to hand them out following de jure borders. So lets say you have two Duke titles with assorted de jure count titles of them, and two sons. The second son will get one of the duke titles with all the de jure count titles under it.
It means you can still engineer your legacy, but it is much harder now. Especially since you cannot hand your titles to your direct heir, so no abusing of the system anymore.
Add that, and worse "short reign" penalties (for pagans at least), and I ended up having more challenge than I had since I managed to figure out the game, ie. more than a year.
I not only invaded de jure Hungary, but Wallachia as well, and half of Croatia and Bohemia, and was like "boy, it is easy to conquer with pagans". It is, the trick is keeping it!
I basically conquered southern Bohemia (Duchy of Moravia) so that I could hand out a unified realm to my younger son, as otherwise my actual heir would had ended up being too weak in his own country.
That worked out reasonably well. My heir only faced one faction-war which tried to put his uncle on the throne, and it seemed entirely managable.
My only problem was that his son was Possessed, so I started scheming to put his sane twin brother on the throne after their father.
Didn't have time for that :P The father died in battle, Possessed insane son took over, with a chunk of his father's land going to his twin brother, the war against his great-uncle remained....
No worries! With my memories from 1.08 I focused on one single thing: the one-province count who led great-uncle's rebellion, knowing that if I take him out, its over. I conquered his tiny fiefdom and... the warscore barely moved, since there were two Dukes supporting the war as well! Not enough to conquer the faction leader in a war anymore.
Things went south from there. The King's twin brother rebelled, his uncle rebelled, so there were 3 pretenders going at it, plus a peasant rebellion started rampaging on the eastern frontier (rebels with a cause if you buy the DLC!)
I fought valiantly, but nobles kept siding away from me. Meanwhile, Poland formed and became catholic (not sure in which order). And needless to say, started Holy Warring my precious border provinces away from me.
Possessed Guy died, but his little child could not turn the tide of pretenders of course. In desperation I let in an Italian bishop and converted at the earliest opportunity, hunting for a betrothal with the mighty King of Italy, which I gained, but apparently I couldn't trigger the alliance for the existing wars.
So ended up inprisoned as a single-province Christian count within a near-collapsed pagan Hungary, and when the kid came of age the King of Italy refused to marry his daughter to him.
it was sad to see my realm go, but on the other hand, I was so used to the game mechanics that everything was a cakewalk, so getting my behind handed to me on a plate by the game was very refreshing.
I restarted an other Hungary 867 game, now being much more methodical about the whole thing, keeping my conquest reasonable. Should be ok, altough the single Bohemian vassal I had left in the northern Duchy managed to wrestle the title from the Hungarian Duke I put over him, and now the entire Duchy is made of Bohemian nobles, so they are sure to be a major pain in the arse in the future (different culture AND religion), but right now I am concentrating on fabricating claims on my Croatian vassals' land so I would have my 4th son put somewhere (seems like if you give your non-direct heir a Duchy, he will not get from your remaining turf when you croak).
TLDR: in my opinion a very good refreshing of the game, made me almost as enthusiastic about it as when it first came out. Much of the reason for that is in the free patch, but I still recommend the DLC.
Quote from: MetalDog on May 28, 2013, 08:07:29 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on May 28, 2013, 10:54:36 AM
Quote from: MetalDog on May 23, 2013, 10:21:33 PM
Quote from: Bison on May 23, 2013, 08:21:14 PM
Can we please just return to calling it the Dark Ages. Late Antiquity should be between the height of Greek cities states and their being crushed by Rome.
Totally agree with that. And I always thought it was ironic that the Greeks taught the Romans everything they knew before hand.
The bit about learning from Greeks is Roman propaganda and it makes a weird kind of ideological sense once you crush the Hellenistic Kingdoms and you are facing the Persians and such along a shifting buffer zone from Egypt to the Black Sea.
Here's how it works: The original world of the Greek City States was utterly crushed by 300 BC BUT Hellenistic regimes supported an antiquarian reconstruction of a Classical Age of Greek Goodness (with all the goodies that people have cooked up for that very idealized
world). Rome had as good a claim to this classical tradition as any Hellenistic Regime and they happily assumed its aura and accumulated the marble copies of its bronze art as fast as they could. Of course this classical aura was as much a fake when the Hellenistic Regimes assumed it as it was when the Romans assumed it and there is not much sign that either the Hellenistic Regimes or the Romans actually learned much from their assumption of a classical aura. It did however offer an ideological basis for uniting the Levant and opposing the Persians.
There were Greek colonies all over Sicily before there were Romans. Some on the boot, too. While I can't say that the conquerors/assimilators learned anything from the conquered/assimilated, you would have to expect that SOMEthing rubbed off, eh?
The Romans (like everyone else) picked up stuff from all their neighbors: naval stuff from the Cartheganians and Etruscans, ritual priesthoods from the Etruscans, specialized games and language from the Etruscans, early architecture from the Etruscans. And then the Romans (like the Gauls and the Etruscans) picked up a certain type of quasi-ceremonial drinking upper class party complex from the Greeks. And then the Romans adopted the classical aura (Atticisizing to the max) that the Hellenistic Kingdoms had used ideologically. So Greek and Hellenistic stuff came in at many levels and in many ways directly and indirectly. For example, the Romans and Greeks and Etruscans all picked up the Phoenician alphabet by around 700 BC. The Romans, Greeks and Etruscans all picked up the Orientalizing style around the same time. Everybody started going hopilite (arms, armor and formations) around 600 BC. And so it goes. To say that the Romans must have learned something from the Greeks is quite true, all-too-true even since to start with they probably got as much of what looks Greek to us from the Etruscans. The final clincher --and the most misleading -- is the assumption of a classical aura.
Quote from: Kushan on May 29, 2013, 12:21:05 AM
Not to distract your guys side conversation but anyone have any first impressions of the DLC? As much as raiding as a viking sounds appealing, I think I'm going to wait to purchase this. Too many new releases and not enough free time.
I took the East Roman Empire in 867 since I figured the new barbarians would be giving everyone a lot of trouble plus I would get the Varangian Guard. Naturally my own family (and some old guy called Barbus or something) almost wrecked the Empire. Fortunately, the Byzantines are very good at intrigue and I managed to stop most of the factional crap (including the Empresses little plan of killing her step-son) with a few serious conversations before I was seriously disfigured in testing a primitive aircraft (after I kicked out the test dog).
Now everybody hates me and I have a dungeon full of rebels.
'Twill get
The Old Gods soon, just not this week. My wallet's a little thin right now, and I'm (as usual) swamped with the games I'm already trying to get to (especially
Fallen Enchantress: Legendary Heroes and
Distant Worlds: Shadows).
Quote from: RooksBailey on May 28, 2013, 07:19:01 PM
Blood for the blood god! The game is out!
Heading on over to GG to get my copy now. :)
I laughed at "
BEARD".
Quote from: MengJiao on May 29, 2013, 09:09:48 AM
Quote from: Kushan on May 29, 2013, 12:21:05 AM
Not to distract your guys side conversation but anyone have any first impressions of the DLC? As much as raiding as a viking sounds appealing, I think I'm going to wait to purchase this. Too many new releases and not enough free time.
I took the East Roman Empire in 867 since I figured the new barbarians would be giving everyone a lot of trouble plus I would get the Varangian Guard. Naturally my own family (and some old guy called Barbus or something) almost wrecked the Empire. Fortunately, the Byzantines are very good at intrigue and I managed to stop most of the factional crap (including the Empresses little plan of killing her step-son) with a few serious conversations before I was seriously disfigured in testing a primitive aircraft (after I kicked out the test dog).
Now everybody hates me and I have a dungeon full of rebels.
Somehow I got through all that. The nasty old wife died and the guy she wanted to kill -- well I gave the boy the Kingdom of Greece and he went and took Crete from the local emirs and set up a Duchy and then he started a war with some of Bulgaria's allies and I got called in and in the end I got fed up with the squabble and took my retinue and captured the King of Bulgaria and executed him. That seemed to end the war since Bulgaria fragmented and got real peaceful for a while. Maybe the Hungarians have them worried. I think I've only survived because I have yet another genius spy guy -- a Sicilian muslim. Look out.
I chose this unpronouncable tribe that was given as a decent start for Vikings. It is in the Kievan Rus area and my ambition was to form the Kingdom of Rus. One thing that makes the Pagans a little different is their ability to basically declare war at the drop of a hat. Want to form a kingdom? Easy, subjugate nearby tribes. Want to have that county? Easy, simply declare war for it with no justification. Now this has a price, your vassal loyalty is a little hard to keep good (since you are calling their troops so frequently), other nearby kingdoms can DOW on you at any moment, and your conquered lands are disloyal and tend to revolt.
Not only CAN you declare war at the drop of the hat, you MUST declare war. If you don't and have been at peace for too long, your prestige begins to drop (nice way of simulating the drive for loot).
The Pagans are a dynamic game experience. So far, I like it (I found it particularly interesting that I emptied my dungeons by sacrificing enemies at the Blot - not only did I get rid of them, I raised my piety!). I'm wondering how the "assimilation" works in the game, around the mid-900s the Vikings should start to act more like Christian kingdoms. That means there should be a potential for forming Normandy as Rollo and "settling down" once it has formed.
I'm a little miffed that you have to spend around $3 extra to get the Viking faces and unit packs. I don't like this use of DLC.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on May 30, 2013, 12:21:41 PM
I chose this unpronouncable tribe that was given as a decent start for Vikings. It is in the Kievan Rus area and my ambition was to form the Kingdom of Rus. One thing that makes the Pagans a little different is their ability to basically declare war at the drop of a hat. Want to form a kingdom? Easy, subjugate nearby tribes. Want to have that county? Easy, simply declare war for it with no justification. Now this has a price, your vassal loyalty is a little hard to keep good (since you are calling their troops so frequently), other nearby kingdoms can DOW on you at any moment, and your conquered lands are disloyal and tend to revolt.
Not only CAN you declare war at the drop of the hat, you MUST declare war. If you don't and have been at peace for too long, your prestige begins to drop (nice way of simulating the drive for loot).
The Pagans are a dynamic game experience. So far, I like it (I found it particularly interesting that I emptied my dungeons by sacrificing enemies at the Blot - not only did I get rid of them, I raised my piety!). I'm wondering how the "assimilation" works in the game, around the mid-900s the Vikings should start to act more like Christian kingdoms. That means there should be a potential for forming Normandy as Rollo and "settling down" once it has formed.
I'm a little miffed that you have to spend around $3 extra to get the Viking faces and unit packs. I don't like this use of DLC.
It's about 883 in my ERE game and I haven't seen any Vikings yet except in the Varangian Guard. A fine body of men -- if somewhat inclined to take heavy casualties -- Anway, from reports on the Paradox forums, the Vikings spend a lot of time sacking the Levant. That's parallel worlds for you. Where I live, the Vikings seem to be pretty well-behaved. So far it looks like the world of TOG works better for players in the middle of the world since there are new forces on the edges to occupy the intermediate powers (ie the neighbors of the ERE that have those Zoroastricans and Hungarians and Penchegs and Blots and Finns and Svelts behind them).
"Viking" (or at least Norman) sacks of the Levant would be alright for the late 1000s or early 1100s, but a bit odd for the 9th century!
Quote from: son_of_montfort on May 30, 2013, 02:22:00 PM
"Viking" (or at least Norman) sacks of the Levant would be alright for the late 1000s or early 1100s, but a bit odd for the 9th century!
Somebody with a North Germanic style name (Snerthorreggor or something, I suppose I'm lucky his name wasn't Knarg or Cnut) raided my neighbors on Sicily so I attacked them too (the neighbors) and took the place (I now have 2/5 of Sicily) so maybe the Vikings are being helpful.
In other news of the ERE, I'm getting old. Everybody hates me. The dungeon is full. I can't get reliable help. People keep revolting. It's 891 or so.
Quote from: MengJiao on May 31, 2013, 08:19:54 AM
In other news of the ERE, I'm getting old. Everybody hates me. The dungeon is full. I can't get reliable help. People keep revolting. It's 891 or so.
Sounds about right for them. ;)
Quote from: MengJiao on May 31, 2013, 08:19:54 AM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on May 30, 2013, 02:22:00 PM
"Viking" (or at least Norman) sacks of the Levant would be alright for the late 1000s or early 1100s, but a bit odd for the 9th century!
Somebody with a North Germanic style name (Snerthorreggor or something, I suppose I'm lucky his name wasn't Knarg or Cnut) raided my neighbors on Sicily so I attacked them too (the neighbors) and took the place (I now have 2/5 of Sicily) so maybe the Vikings are being helpful.
In other news of the ERE, I'm getting old. Everybody hates me. The dungeon is full. I can't get reliable help. People keep revolting. It's 891 or so.
Strangely enough, the Vikings did get as fair as Sicily and parts of North Africa. I wouldn't say this should be a common occurrence, but it is possible. They shouldn't be setting up lands there, however. Also, they should probably be originating from the Black Sea are and not Sweden/Norway.
Archaeologists DID find Byzantine gold in Viking burial mounds, so there is that.
Map of actual Viking voyages:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fa%2Fa7%2FVikings-Voyages.png&hash=053797bd607f04caaed3a5f74e465637469001df)
Quote from: son_of_montfort on May 31, 2013, 12:33:06 PM
[Archaeologists DID find Byzantine gold in Viking burial mounds, so there is that.
So THAT's where it went. I tried being a Viking. I picked Snorki Snake-eyes who turned out to be craven. It didn't seem to matter since his
perky wife from Wessex perked him up. Franky, I found his whole wholesome craven attitude depressing, though he did the usual raiding and conquering, I thought he was faking the whole thing and when a lot of his men went off to Constantinople for some adventure, I did too.
I mean if the Vikings go to the ERE for adventure, why not just BE the ERE? So I went back to a saved ERE game. It was depressing, but I was brave and my heart was in it. As Basil the Great, I surrendered the Empire to my revolting son Athanios the Accursed -- who may be a scarred freak like his old dad, but at least he's no craven Viking longing for adventure in the Varangian Guard.
PS, it's 926 AD.
After reading some reviews and watching a Let's Play I am tempted to pick this up.... a lot of value.
On the other hand, I have been playing the Sword of Islam and thus far I am disappointed. I am really glad I purchased this on sale as I find it really not very interesting.
PE
Quote from: PanzersEast on June 04, 2013, 07:33:35 AM
After reading some reviews and watching a Let's Play I am tempted to pick this up.... a lot of value.
On the other hand, I have been playing the Sword of Islam and thus far I am disappointed. I am really glad I purchased this on sale as I find it really not very interesting.
PE
I didn't get much out of the Sword of Islam except a desire to be Byzantine or Alan. The ERE in the 867 start is pretty swell from my point of view, but the charm of the game can be spotty. I just don't get the fun of being a Viking if their idea of fun is being in the Varangian Guard, for example.
Quote from: PanzersEast on June 04, 2013, 07:33:35 AM
After reading some reviews and watching a Let's Play I am tempted to pick this up.... a lot of value.
On the other hand, I have been playing the Sword of Islam and thus far I am disappointed. I am really glad I purchased this on sale as I find it really not very interesting.
PE
I also thought Sword Of Islam could've used more content for flavor, although it's obviously essential for playing an Islamic family.
I'm also a bit disappointed about reports that the Pagan expansion pretty much focuses on the Vikings. Sure, that's where a lot of pagans were at the earlier start time but it sounds like the East got the short end. Still.. gotta get this when I make time for more CK2. :D
Quote from: Martok on May 31, 2013, 10:40:47 AM
Quote from: MengJiao on May 31, 2013, 08:19:54 AM
In other news of the ERE, I'm getting old. Everybody hates me. The dungeon is full. I can't get reliable help. People keep revolting. It's 891 or so.
Sounds about right for them. ;)
Patch!!! -- (some help for the ERE even):
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?693481-Steam-BETA-Patch-v1.101-now-live&s=407ccd874c1cd66928789284e4de0cb1
I had to give up on the ERE this time around. I'm craven and clubfooted and everybody hates me. the dungeons are full etc. etc.
Must try again.
It would be nice to be able to play a Norman mercenary band in ERE and carve out your own kingdom from a semi-autonomous vassal to independent ruler. I don't suppose that's likely to be an option... ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roussel_de_Bailleul
Bought. Can't wait to try out the franks in 867
Quote from: Boggit on June 05, 2013, 07:39:43 PM
It would be nice to be able to play a Norman mercenary band in ERE and carve out your own kingdom from a semi-autonomous vassal to independent ruler. I don't suppose that's likely to be an option... ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roussel_de_Bailleul
I started in Apulia as a Norman in 1066 once. I tried to avoid trouble with the ERE.
When I've played the ERE (mostly in the late 9th century), I've generally tried to avoid letting vassals go independent. I usually have such a
high level spy system that its enough to "obligate the vassal" or select "End Plot." When the "Righteous Imprisonment" thing comes up, there's a good chance of big trouble.
Quote from: MengJiao on June 06, 2013, 08:42:00 AM
Quote from: Boggit on June 05, 2013, 07:39:43 PM
It would be nice to be able to play a Norman mercenary band in ERE and carve out your own kingdom from a semi-autonomous vassal to independent ruler. I don't suppose that's likely to be an option... ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roussel_de_Bailleul
I started in Apulia as a Norman in 1066 once. I tried to avoid trouble with the ERE.
When I've played the ERE (mostly in the late 9th century), I've generally tried to avoid letting vassals go independent. I usually have such a
high level spy system that its enough to "obligate the vassal" or select "End Plot." When the "Righteous Imprisonment" thing comes up, there's a good chance of big trouble.
If the vassal I can attempt to imprison due to him attempting some plot (however silly and minor it is) hates my guts, I go for it, if I am in peace. ESPECIALLY if the guy is in a faction. Because there are two alternatives: one, I imprison him immediately -> profit. So much for his factioning and plotting against me. If I fail to imprison and he rebels... so what? It might be a bit risky if your position is fragile (your other enemies, outsider or in might pile up seeing the war), but otherwise you can roflstomp the poor bastard, imprison him, and then revoke a title if you feel like it, free of charge.
Prison is the liege's friend. ;D
Quote from: Tamas on June 06, 2013, 09:03:49 AM
Quote from: MengJiao on June 06, 2013, 08:42:00 AM
Quote from: Boggit on June 05, 2013, 07:39:43 PM
It would be nice to be able to play a Norman mercenary band in ERE and carve out your own kingdom from a semi-autonomous vassal to independent ruler. I don't suppose that's likely to be an option... ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roussel_de_Bailleul
I started in Apulia as a Norman in 1066 once. I tried to avoid trouble with the ERE.
When I've played the ERE (mostly in the late 9th century), I've generally tried to avoid letting vassals go independent. I usually have such a
high level spy system that its enough to "obligate the vassal" or select "End Plot." When the "Righteous Imprisonment" thing comes up, there's a good chance of big trouble.
If the vassal I can attempt to imprison due to him attempting some plot (however silly and minor it is) hates my guts, I go for it, if I am in peace. ESPECIALLY if the guy is in a faction. Because there are two alternatives: one, I imprison him immediately -> profit. So much for his factioning and plotting against me. If I fail to imprison and he rebels... so what? It might be a bit risky if your position is fragile (your other enemies, outsider or in might pile up seeing the war), but otherwise you can roflstomp the poor bastard, imprison him, and then revoke a title if you feel like it, free of charge.
Prison is the liege's friend. ;D
Yes, with a large dangerous faction, often it is best to just get the revolt locked up or out in the open. Still, I tend to try various ploys (two of which have never worked: plot to assassinate and join plot) maybe only for variety.
Ahhh well.... just picked it up and to the extras with blue coins. Looks like to much fun and I am a Viking at Heart...
PE
I picked this up tonight and had to quit two seperate games. There is something funky going on with the AI and using wars of excommunication as the DOW. I'd type more but I'm still pissed that I wasted 4 hours of my life on this game tonight.
Quote from: Bison on June 09, 2013, 03:38:31 AM
I picked this up tonight and had to quit two seperate games. There is something funky going on with the AI and using wars of excommunication as the DOW. I'd type more but I'm still pissed that I wasted 4 hours of my life on this game tonight.
So.. are the 'Holy War' claims (against anyone of a different religion) turning into widespread Eurasian war in the earlier start now, with more pagans?
It was bad enough before on the 1066 start, with just some of the Baltic & Eastern pagan groups starting next to some Christian ones. The devs hoped to slow down the DOWs by giving AI pagan armies a big boost in quantity at game start. I can only imagine how bad it is now that the earlier period has more varied religions in higher quantity.
This is one of the few potential issues I've been concerned about with the new DLC, when I get it. I've been hoping they'll patch up some things by the time I get to it, but I've found that some at Pdox don't always take AI suggestions well, so it would probably have to be a ruleset adjustment.