New DLC for CK2 and EUIV Announced

[Staggerwing]

"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified."

I've heard that the way out of the Filioque Schism is to translate the Latin back into the Greek as "Who proceeds from the Father and through the Son. After that it's just Poe-Tay-toe/Poe-Tah-toe.

[JasonPratt]

SoM, that's all true, too, as contributing factors. It certainly wasn't a point-source break.


Stagger, yes that has been proposed by various authorities on either side -- I'm not sure if it started with the Russian Orthodox Bulgakov, but I know (from reading his works) he was a major proponent of it. I think Balthasar on the RC side may have been, too, but I'm much less sure. (Both, incidentally, hugely influential in their respective communions, and both got as close to Christian universalism as they thought was allowable, though Bulgakov did go farther.)

For obscure technical reasons I wouldn't want to only say "through the Son", but I would also affirm it and not deny it, and I understand the historical argument for the proposed reconciliation along that line -- also it allows theologians on either side to take it a bit further either way (like "from the Son not only through the Son", or "only through the Son not from the Son"), while still acknowledging the common belief for purposes of fellowship and teamwork.

I do think "from the Son" can be argued and presented in such a way that it avoids the legitimate concerns the EOx have about the proposition -- I also think it's unexpectedly important in affirming the idea that foundational reality is actively self-generating instead of statically existent (or blindly unpurposefully reactive and counterreactive perhaps). Which turns out to be closely connected to the affirmation of our own responsible ability to personally act and thus to make any argument at all.

But man, some hardcore philosophy there, don't worry about it!  :D

I vote for Universal Salvation!  (a general view point that was called Pelagasian in the old days and Armininian in the early modern days and just plain "a Good Idea" currently).  Save everyone.  Let God sort them out.

Eh, not quite; Pelagius did affirm God acted toward saving all sinners from sin (as did all orthodox theologians generally up to his point -- a position they strenuously took over-against the Gnostic groups generally speaking), but he expressly denied God would succeed at it. Augustine, after starting out affirming both doctrines (total scope and totally victorious persistence in salvation), eventually went hard denying the first against Pelagius and strongly affirming the second which Pelagius denied.

They weren't the first theologians to deny one or the other gospel assurance, but their duel fractured the issues hard in their day. A lot of key trinitarian authorities explicitly affirmed both, however, before and during their day (and for a little while after), and sometimes took it to the logical conclusion that God would eventually save everyone (even devils) through Christ.

Basically one or the other assurance has to be denied for some kind of hopeless punishment or fate for some sinners to be true, however, so the concept came up again in early Protestantism when Calvin took a hard line on God not even intending to save some sinners (and so logically even choosing that they would not be saved and could never do any righteousness at all); and Arminius taking the line that God acts to save everyone but for one or another reason stops short of victory at some point (though avoiding the idea attributed, possibly wrongly, to Pelagius that people earn their salvation by good works). Roman Catholics have tended in recent centuries to go with the total scope and not total assurance, but naturally there have been strong pushes in RC history the other way, too. The Eastern Orthodox, so far as I've ever read from their history, have never denied the total scope, only (eventually) the total assurance of salvific victory.

I've heard there are similar disputes among Muslims on the topic, but I haven't read nearly as much about that.

Calvs and Arms (and the catholic predecessors and parallels) do agree generally on evangelizing everyone, though. :) They just don't agree with each other on whether God seriously evangelizes everyone (Calvs say no) or whether God will evangelize everyone to salvific victory (Arms say no, with a number of sub-theories on where and why the quitting happens).


I say yes, God acts to save everyone from sin and keeps at it until it gets done, however long that may take. :) All cats get herded home, even the 100th cat (to paraphrase a parable) -- but cats being cats, and not mere puppets of cats, that can take a while!

(And also results in a number of bloody scratches meanwhile.  )


Uber,

Well, trying to explain the philosophical equivalent of quantum physics to shepherds isn't likely to result in anything that looks much like a textbook on quantum physics (or the philosophical equivalent thereof). ;)

Still, it wasn't like we (I mean we Christians) weren't expressly warned, numerous times in various ways, not to advocate hopeless punishment or an unmerciful and non-salvific justice (lest we taste the judgment we insist on for other people)! But there you go, we did it anyway, like a passel of cats. Sorry.  :-\   

The baby goats interpret the parable of the judgment of the baby-goats the way baby-goats would (starting with obscuring that the judgment is about baby-goats, the least of the flock right there on the scene); the mature flock, who insist on saving even the least of the flock (such as for example the baby-goats), are accepted by God and avoid the discipline of the eonian fire even though they had no idea they were serving God at all.

So obviously it isn't about having the right doctrinal ideas about God. (That's important, where it can get done, but not that important.) God knows which atheists or other non-Christians are actually on His side already -- and which Christians actually aren't yet.


Meanwhile: I wonder if this EU4 update means they're prepping to synch better (or at all) with Vicky 2? I noticed they're already working on HOI4, but when will the break in the middle be reconciled? Or have fans done that already?!

(Well I had to get back to the thread topic eventually. ;) )

[Bison]

Real problems between East and West started to boil during Leo and the Byzantine Iconoclasm, which is contemporary with Charlemagne. However, it is about 200 years later that the whole Filoque debate created major divides (Filo = Son and que is a Latin ending meaning "and" - like SPQR, Senatus Populusque Romanus - the Senate and the People of Rome). A lot of that has to do with eleventh century social changes throughout the medieval world and the schism gets brushed aside with the coming of the First Crusade some decades later. The first three Crusades damaged East-West relations heavily, and were probably just as influential on a breaking apart of the Church as theological debates. Much of it all has to do with property seizures and the question over Sicily (not to mention bad blood with the Norman decedents of Robert Guiscard).

I'm all for Charlemagne, but I find the early middle ages far less dynamic than the later middle ages. Which is why I specialize in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries!

This is all fine and good, but no correction on the use of dark ages?  You're slipping!   :))

I much more looking forward to this expansion than I was India expansion or /shutter/ the Aztec invasion.  Charlemagne is just one of those iconic figures.  The odd thing with Charlemagne is just how under represented he and his empire are in gaming.  I honestly cannot think of another game featuring him.

[MengJiao]

(Well I had to get back to the thread topic eventually. ;) )

I feel the detour was very enlightening, though I also feel a bit like Charlemagne secretly trying to learn to read.  I assume that is the best front his biographers could put on his illiteracy.

So, yep.  Back to the Carolingian Enlightenment in the near future.

[JasonPratt]

This is all fine and good, but no correction on the use of dark ages?  You're slipping!   :))

I guess we qualified it enough upthread.  ;)

I actually like the designation, despite it being originally negative propaganda. The period between the fall of the Western Empire and the recovery of Europe by the heirs of the Empire, has a distinct character all its own, and even a logical transition-out point: the Norman invasion of Britain, the first of the major wars between Christian powers.

[Boggit]

Real problems between East and West started to boil during Leo and the Byzantine Iconoclasm, which is contemporary with Charlemagne. However, it is about 200 years later that the whole Filoque debate created major divides (Filo = Son and que is a Latin ending meaning "and" - like SPQR, Senatus Populusque Romanus - the Senate and the People of Rome). A lot of that has to do with eleventh century social changes throughout the medieval world and the schism gets brushed aside with the coming of the First Crusade some decades later. The first three Crusades damaged East-West relations heavily, and were probably just as influential on a breaking apart of the Church as theological debates. Much of it all has to do with property seizures and the question over Sicily (not to mention bad blood with the Norman decedents of Robert Guiscard).

I'm all for Charlemagne, but I find the early middle ages far less dynamic than the later middle ages. Which is why I specialize in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries!

This is all fine and good, but no correction on the use of dark ages?  You're slipping!   :))

I much more looking forward to this expansion than I was India expansion or /shutter/ the Aztec invasion.  Charlemagne is just one of those iconic figures.  The odd thing with Charlemagne is just how under represented he and his empire are in gaming.  I honestly cannot think of another game featuring him.

I agree with you, and I will make sure I get this expansion for my CK2 game too - not that I get enough time to play it that much... :(

As far as Charlemagne is concerned AGEOD is planning to take their Alea Jacta Est game to cover the campaigns of Charlemagne, so you should see some more in the future. That's not gossip either - both Pocus and Philippe Thibaut told me that. 8)

[son_of_montfort]

This is all fine and good, but no correction on the use of dark ages?  You're slipping!   :))

Quite right! LOL!

As far as Charlemagne is concerned AGEOD is planning to take their Alea Jacta Est game to cover the campaigns of Charlemagne, so you should see some more in the future. That's not gossip either - both Pocus and Philippe Thibaut told me that. 8)

Now THAT is a game I would love to play! I look forward to that coming out!

[Boggit]

As far as Charlemagne is concerned AGEOD is planning to take their Alea Jacta Est game to cover the campaigns of Charlemagne, so you should see some more in the future. That's not gossip either - both Pocus and Philippe Thibaut told me that. 8)

Now THAT is a game I would love to play! I look forward to that coming out!

Sadly, it's not going to be this year, nor perhaps next. I'm aware they are working on 2 new DLC at the moment - both still in the Roman era. The intention though is to take the game at least as far as Charlemagne, and perhaps beyond depending on how the DLC is received.

[JasonPratt]

 :o

THEY'RE GOING TO PROPERLY GAME THE DAs!

squee

uh, I mean SQUEEEEONK!!



Because I did not just squee.

[Kushan]

First developer diary for EUIV - The Art of War is out.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?796940-Eu4-Art-of-War-Development-Diary-1-Fleets-Autonomy-amp-India

I really like the changes they are making to fleet management, especially being able to mothball (reduce maintenance) for individual fleets. The fleet upgrade button is a nice addition as well.

I'm a little weary of them expanding the number of provinces after the CK2 Rajas of India debacle. If they can expand the total number of provinces without a huge performance hit I'm OK with it, but if not I'd much rather the map stay as it is.

[RooksBailey]

CK2 Charlemagne dev video out:

Snow!   :D

But now that I watched the whole thing I think the best part for me is the chronicle of your family.  I always enjoyed the chronicle in EU4 (even if it wasn't perfect), so I am glad to see it come to CK2.  The rest...eh.  I do understand the removal of the assassination button.  To me, it was redundant seeing the plot mechanics, so I don't mind seeing that go.

Overall, though, nothing I was really pining away for.  Still, I will be getting it.

[RooksBailey]

Update from Paradox:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...1#post18098905

Highlights:

In Crusader Kings 2: Charlemagne, rulers will no longer be restricted to the predefined de jure kingdoms and empires on the map when they wish to take a step up in rank. Any duke that has a large enough realm and enough prestige can now declare himself a king. The new kingdom will initially have no de jure lands, but it will gain them with time (if it survives). In the same way, a powerful king can declare a new empire. The new title will inherit its name and coat of arms from the primary duchy or kingdom title that the ruler had before.

Another new feature is something we've wanted to add to Crusader Kings II for a long time. As you play through a long campaign, you are effectively creating the epic story of your dynasty, and we've always felt that it would be nice to create some kind of record of this, something that enables you to look back on your history and that you can also keep as a record after the game. This is why we've now added the Dynasty Chronicle. The Chronicle will register any important events that happen to the characters you play, such as births, marriages, wars, deaths, important decisions etc. It will also mention major world events such as the arrival of the Mongols, the Crusades and the start of the Viking Age. You will be able to review your family chronicle at any time through the in-game interface, and you will also be able to export it to a text file so that you can keep it and share it with your friends. Maybe you'll even want to format it in a fancy font, print it in color and show it off properly.

The first change is that the assassination diplomacy action has been removed. Since we introduced plots in Crusader Kings II, we've really had two different and wholly separated systems for assassinations. No longer. The click-to-assassinate mechanic was, to be honest, somewhat obsolete considering how the game has evolved over the past few years. From now you'll have to run a proper plot in order to kill someone, which also makes for much more interesting gameplay. The second change to assassinations is that we've added a way for you to defend yourself from those who would plot your untimely death. There is now a new decision called "Go Into Hiding", which allows you to remove yourself from the public eye for as long as you desire and thus greatly decrease the chance of any murder plots against you succeeding. The decision is available at any time that there is a known or suspected murder plot against you (you might be wrong of course, but being paranoid doesn't mean that they're not actually out to get you). This new mechanic will have a number of new events associated with it.

The worst part with these expansions is waiting for them.  Whenever I hear about the new coming features, I suddenly lose interest in the current game.   :)

[RooksBailey]

Don't know how I got a double post.  Please delete.  :-\

[Nefaro]

Wow.  The new Kingdom system is something I had hoped for, but didn't expect to see in CK2.  Those rigid pre-fab'd Kingdoms were nice goals to aim for but at the same time there were many potential Kingdoms still missing from the game.  This should resolve that problem.   Excellent.  O0

[MengJiao]

Update from Paradox:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...1#post18098905

Highlights:

In Crusader Kings 2: Charlemagne, rulers will no longer be restricted to the predefined de jure kingdoms and empires on the map when they wish to take a step up in rank. Any duke that has a large enough realm and enough prestige can now declare himself a king. The new kingdom will initially have no de jure lands, but it will gain them with time (if it survives). In the same way, a powerful king can declare a new empire. The new title will inherit its name and coat of arms from the primary duchy or kingdom title that the ruler had before.

Another new feature is something we've wanted to add to Crusader Kings II for a long time. As you play through a long campaign, you are effectively creating the epic story of your dynasty, and we've always felt that it would be nice to create some kind of record of this, something that enables you to look back on your history and that you can also keep as a record after the game. This is why we've now added the Dynasty Chronicle. The Chronicle will register any important events that happen to the characters you play, such as births, marriages, wars, deaths, important decisions etc. It will also mention major world events such as the arrival of the Mongols, the Crusades and the start of the Viking Age. You will be able to review your family chronicle at any time through the in-game interface, and you will also be able to export it to a text file so that you can keep it and share it with your friends. Maybe you'll even want to format it in a fancy font, print it in color and show it off properly.

The first change is that the assassination diplomacy action has been removed. Since we introduced plots in Crusader Kings II, we've really had two different and wholly separated systems for assassinations. No longer. The click-to-assassinate mechanic was, to be honest, somewhat obsolete considering how the game has evolved over the past few years. From now you'll have to run a proper plot in order to kill someone, which also makes for much more interesting gameplay. The second change to assassinations is that we've added a way for you to defend yourself from those who would plot your untimely death. There is now a new decision called "Go Into Hiding", which allows you to remove yourself from the public eye for as long as you desire and thus greatly decrease the chance of any murder plots against you succeeding. The decision is available at any time that there is a known or suspected murder plot against you (you might be wrong of course, but being paranoid doesn't mean that they're not actually out to get you). This new mechanic will have a number of new events associated with it.

The worst part with these expansions is waiting for them.  Whenever I hear about the new coming features, I suddenly lose interest in the current game.   :)

  Same here.  It allows me to pretend to role-play going into hiding.