Europe itself was a very diverse place, France had thousands of castles and lords, and Italy had 200 republics.
What purpose does West Africa, East Africa, India, the Steppes serve? Everything feels the same.
They could have made Europe more detailed instead of making bland large world.
I don't even see the point of including Iceland, the map could have been limited to pic related and been tidy
it needs to have the stuff on the borders of that too so that the areas within but near the borders of that range are still interesting to play. mostly that just means for the sake of Muslim or Zoroastrian playthroughs, but it would be stupid to not have all of Arabia in a game where Islam is important
I do think that including West Africa is extremely stupid (and probably is the least-played region by a huge margin) and the eastern border could be closer Mongolia and Tibet are kind of pointless and not all of India is needed. But it needs the Muslim, Christian, and European Pagan world as well as everything relevant in their periphery. I assume that your proposal looks fine to you because you wouldn't even think about playing in Persia or Egypt
I think India could be represented with Jade Dragon type mechanics. Maybe you could send missionaries there, and occasionally dynasty in charge could invade the west.
India was never united by a single dynasty and sending missionaries there for shit and giggles in unheard of before colonial times
yes with India I meant Rajastan, you even represented shattered Rajastan similar to Jade Dragon
Paradox doesn't know how to add flavour, just provinces.
You probably don't even need north Africa outside of Morocco and Egypt.
Arguably the steppes are such a wasteland you might as well not bother outside of event armies, same goes for Finland.
The Baltic past the coast seems meaningless. You can't even play as an order so you have no historic reason to go there.
>But in this game, you can just conquer Ireland as England in one generation, historically they couldn't do it because there was nothing to hold on to.
Didn't England have a hegemony over the Irish at various points during the Angevins? Not that I expect the game to portray relationships like that when it struggles to simulate generic feudalism.
Why try to limit it even further. If you have Egypt and Morroco you may as well include the rest of North Africa, especially cause Tunis was pretty important
Almost but I'd leave Abyssinia playable simply because they have their own interesting Christianity bullshit going on and that is interesting.
Doesn't matter. Focus on depth, not width. Having a muslim/oriental DLC is actually not a bad idea. However, it should include an actual government reform, a unique faith system (I don't mean just tacking on a decadence mechanic) and an expansion to the map, perhaps like the way IL-2 does it, where there is no base game, and instead all the DLC or modules are completely modular.
>Larping this hard
Yes, I do like to roleplay my games, so I want quality, focused content.
I mean, its useless if you want to play in Europe, but some people want to make an African empire, or unite India, or conquer as a steppe horde.
Also Genghis has to come from somewhere, so the steppes are kind of important so he's not an unstoppable off map empire.
Because I wanted to play as a Soghdian city state.
I already have Soghdia, now time for city-states to dominate the Silk Road
City states? Dominate the silk road? It's laughable you think theres more to do than map paint.
>Game for larping incest and devil worshipping
>Taks about map-painting
YWNBARW
People who get angry about not being able to mapaint and think mapainting is the only way to play 4x games are just getting IQ filtered tbqhwydf
I just think these games could be a lot more. The more I read about this period the more lost potential I find.
Take the tribals for instance, they were not conquered but essentially colonized, naturally you can't colonize because this hit game doesn't have pops. But in this game, you can just conquer Ireland as England in one generation, historically they couldn't do it because there was nothing to hold on to.
put both P's in it you goddamn barbarian
>Why extend map beyond Roman borders?
So I can make Dyre the Stranger Dyre the Shogun
Because the devs are unironically pozzed. This goes beyond simply wanting to sell even more DLC, they could easily bundle in interesting regions as their own beefed up dlcs with a regional focus. No, by downplaying europe and empowering everybody else they're unironically re-writing history to diminish white accomplishments, deliberately, this is their goal.
Because I don't care about your gorssromaniums memes and boring christians vs muslims and play in pagan eastern europe.
Now take this with a grain of salt, because in function it is a failure due to the paradox barely bothering to have a functional AI.
Things like India and the Steppe should be important, even if you aren’t interacting with them because you aren’t necessarily the center of the world and while they may not be your neighbor, they can be your neighbors’ neighbor which can impact their situation and focus. Historically for example the Crusades weren’t seen as that important to Muslims since they had been dealing with Christian Roman battles in the area before and after, considering it to be just more of that. They were much more distracted by things going on in Persia and India. Everything is connected. Important as an Irish petty king? Maybe not, but it can be important during a crusade which could distract your neighbors even then.
Again, this doesn’t work that well in practice because the game doesn’t handle it well. And it still doesn’t factor in sub-saharan Eastern Africa being of importance.
This doesn’t matter because you have them be off map interactables which works fine with china in ck2
Because i like playing in Asia. I wish they'd add China and Japan aswell.
How is playing in asia different from playing anywhere else in this game? Apart from the dolls you look at, what changes?
With this reasoning. Why include western Europe on the map? The only difference is the dolls you have to look at.
Now you see it. There is nothing but the dolls. Frick Paradox [barely] Interactive and CK3 that was 5 years in development by the way.
That’s why you have to reject Ck3 and play ck2 HIP
Because Europe is one of the most boring regions in the entire world.
I'm sorry your irrelevant shitskin region never gets included in games.
My region is included in the game, and has Minsk as the biggest principality in the region 200 years before the city of Minsk was first mentioned, so I can't even say it's a good thing that it's included. But how are early English kingdoms or Magyars coming to Pannonia more historically interesting than the Ten Kingdoms, the Chola Empire, or the Srivijaya?
Most of what we know about those periods is simply made up. So it's far more fascinating to have actual states with grounding for what they're doing than random nonsense.
When the west finally made actual contact with India, Indo-china, China, and Japan they considered them poor subhumans who had barely managed to advance past their meagre beginnings.
Alexander didn't stop conquering India because of "muh epic elephants", he did so because his troops were tired and wanted to go home. If he had lived he would have went back home, gathered a new army, and conquered all the way to Burma.
It's why the bug people can only copy western architecture and concepts of thought, having no basis for their own. Japan is already stuck in the 90's for their tech and behavior. It's when they peaked at copying us. China will be stuck in this decade for the next century, because the only way to go for them is down.
The poos will probably never scrape out of the crapshoot they're in because the west is already getting tired of fake globohomo. Anyways, none of the rest of the world is the least bit interesting outside of making fun of the orientals.
The point is, Alexander's empire and the Roman Republic were more develepod than other countries at that time. Europe was also more developed than other countries by the 16-17th centuries. At the same time, medieval Europe was a shithole compared both to Rome and to the Persian/Indian/Chinese/Indonesian civilizations of that era. History is not linear, and games that are kinda focused on history should at least try to reflect that.
Who, who and literally who?
CK2 "Russian" culture makes me kek so fricking hard, Paradox absolutely CAN'T into East Slavs, see culture map in V2, the weird whitewashing of Belarusian and Ukrainian nationalism in GoY4 Poland and USSR focus trees, etc
What's wrong with the Vicky2 cultural map?
>t. russian
>how are early English kingdoms or Magyars coming to Pannonia more historically interesting than the Ten Kingdoms, the Chola Empire, or the Srivijaya?
only in every single conceivable way
>Anglostad, brother of Anglomad, fails to defeat the Vikings
>Normans charge up a hill
>Something something shield on a hill and fences are a human rights issue
Ah. Much better than Srivijaya. Gotcha.
shut up SEABlack person
Shut up, Anglomad.
How are things in
B
E
L
A
R
U
S
right now?
>Why extend map beyond Roman borders?
what mod is this? I haven't played Ck in years
Looks like Umbra Spherae
>Contemporary Indonesians, even those from the area of Palembang (around where the kingdom was based), had not heard of Srivijaya until the 1920s when the French scholar, George Cœdès, published his discoveries and interpretations in the Dutch and Indonesian language newspapers.
Wow must have been really relevant lol!
>People 600 years later didn't have enough of a historic education to understand the scope or importance of a highly-autonomous trade empire
>This is your argument
Well of course, trade empires are pussy shit, real men go along with their boys and CONQUER their way to the edge of the known world
>ck players
Rule 2
>implying
You will never be Alexander or a Caliph.
I would actually add Jade Dragon Mechanic to the Steppes as well because if devs can't be bothered to make nomad mechanics, why should they be playable? Who wants to play as nomads whose historicity is dubious at best and whose provinces are gigantic.
Adding China in any other form than what was in Jade Dragon in CK2 is just plain moronic. Especially since PDX is unwilling to make new government forms in CK3 than "generic idealised version of feudalism"
>Plays CK
>Talks about historical accuracy
I'd play nomads, if they would play as actual nomads. It was loads of fun in CK2.
>I'd play nomads, if they would play as actual nomads. It was loads of fun in CK2.
Don't hold your breath in getting anything like that in CK3. The lead designer said he regrets implementing republics and nomadic governments because they were "a pain in the ass to implement". So, their solution in CK3 is just have more modifiers.
The map covers every region of the world that Abrahamic religions have touched as of the game's time period
Nah, there were Nestorians in China, Radhanite merchants along the Silk Road and Muslim traders in Indonesia.
More the reason to spread it out further then.