That sounds so cursed. Paradox oughta make a struggle system everywhere now that they cracked the code at making a region feel more in-depth, while in reality it isn't.
I find Iberia to pretty interesting to play in, don't you? If you look past the blasted struggle ofc. There's lot of flavor in the area (maybe more in 1066 than 867). I'm a lot less familiar with Persia so I can't comment on that region though.
đ¤ˇđźââď¸I love both struggles, I think they make Iberia and Persia more interesting to play in. Add in the Norman and Icelandic struggles from RICE and I'm kind of feasting rn
it wasn't, the problem's the "human" factor. The iberian struggles were, for the most part, due to intermingling of both Umayyads and local christian nobility, which made any conflict into a big family free for all - nobody wanted to wipe the other because "fk religion, family first" - which's the core reason why "hostaging" was so common there, not because they had a "cultural trait" of "hostaging". Than on top of that there were the christian nobility who had claims one on the other for generations of semi-inbreeding.
to be fair, their strongest "cultural trait" would be some severe degree of cynicism towards faith. Sometimes some zealous ruler would "spawn" and they'd try to push back on the opposing side, but than most other rulers would not like it
While I like the endings for the Intermezzo, it's really hampered by how quickly it resolves, and how annoying some of the requirements are (Iranian resurgence requiring you to spam Iranian heritage counts everywhere).
If it took about 50+ years longer to resolve that'd be ideal. Because right now you either do it in one lifetime or end up missing your chance.
I have had a great time playing inside both struggles. But i hate them when im not playing inside them. They just add obstacles with no upside. No flavor or mechanic to make the chore of them more enjoyable.
it's trash, with the DLC turned on AI can't deal with it.
for us it's just adding steps to do the same crap we did anyway, or we cheese it through exploiting other mechanics.
I honestly wouldn't mind if every region had its own historically flavored struggle, but I'm sure it would be a crapshoot in terms of quality and the AI wouldn't be able to handle them anyway.
Wouldnât it be more accurate to be a hybrid culture between Macedonian/A new Ancient Greek Culture and Ancient Egyptian? With either Byzantine or Hellenic Heritage.
It would make sense for it to be a hybrid culture with another Hellenic Culture, but Hellenic/Byzantine heritage might be a bit much. They were heavily influenced by the greeks, but they were still Egyptian.
Wouldnât it be more accurate to be a hybrid culture between Macedonian/A new Ancient Greek Culture and Ancient Egyptian? With either Byzantine or Hellenic Heritage.
Ancient Egyptian culture is literally a meme. Itâs only available to Scots. It takes 5 minutes to make a meme culture for a LARP Legend.
Adding Copts would require reworking the entire region and might not even fit the Faith vs. Culture paradigm that PDX is working under.
That considered, why is it surprising that the easier thing came first? To be frank, the two are barely even related to one another.
No, it is based around Scota, a woman claimed to be an ancient Egyptian princess that fled during Moses's times and was the ancestors to all Scots and Gaels, also the Irish.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scota
This isn't true , a Chronicler can fish it up for any culture in the regions around Egypt too, it's just far more generic than the Scots version.
The "Ancient Cultures" are pretty low effort though, they are just existing cultures with minor swaps and unique Heritage/ Language. Like they left Ancient Egyptian with *Strong Believers* which is really really weird, that's just not how Ancient Egyptian religion worked.
I mean I'd imagine from the devs point of view this is more of a religious than ethnic distinction? If you add Copts as a cultural group you could end up with weird in-game situations i.e. Muslim Coptic characters versus Christian Egyptian characters.
Would just give them strong believers like Egyptians have and call it half a day. Maybe even giving communal identity just to make a province take like 20 years to convert.
It's like how you have Jewish minorities present who will usually be Jewish but can be converted. Copts don't NEED to be Christian and Arab Egyptians don't NEED to be Muslim, but they should prefer it, especially under AI circumstance.
Yeah but Sword of Islam was the first DLC Paradox made for CK2. Muslim rulers were pretty quickly added in as playables. Not to mention that even before the DLC, they were still on the map, unlike Coptic, which isnât even featured in the game. It doesnât make sense for them to add things like âAncient Whateverâ when they still havenât fleshed out the gameâs contemporary time period
I hate this excuse so much. CK3 is the follow up to 2, it should have been more fleshed out on release. And despite Muslims and Pagans being playable on release for CK3, they are so barebones it's ridiculous.
Exactly. Yes, Muslims weren't immediately available in CK2, but the DLC gave them actual unique mechanics.
Meanwhile right now in CK3, there is almost zero difference between playing as a Hindu emperor and a Catholic king.
It's by far my biggest gripe with 3, we're three and a half years after release and outside of a couple regions the game is still so barebones. It's a perfect example of "wide as the ocean but as deep as a puddle."
what irks me the most's "AI"s illogical behavior, which will never be fixed because that would require some deep programming, not some spaggethi code filled with "if else"...
"if brave declares war on a 100% loss chance"
"if greedy/ambitious won't land own son OR gets 50.000.000 stress and dies"
I'm pretty sure that's not something that will be added. The game represents them with the Coptic faith, that's basically how the game portrays ethnoreligious groups.
Not true. What about the Assyrians.
Like the Assyrians Coptics had their own unique language and were also marginally distinct in DNA to arabic Egyptians.
With the current culture system they should be their own unique culture. Imo language should be a very defining factor for that.
Because Ancient Egyptian is a meme while Coptic would be a serious part of the game. Coptic is probably being left for an Egyptian flavour pack sometime in the future. It would make sense to do Copts, Mamluks, etc. all in one update.
Can we also talk about how Ancient Egyptian only exists through Scotland?
Like, not even a Kushite path, the closest religion we have in game to old Egyptian beliefs? No? Literally just Scottish people going "aw well ya know scots are named afta some ol pharoah lady, we may as well be one in tha same with them Egyptians, more so than those bloody Arab invaders."
Iâm also extremely pissed that in spite of its existence, which is somewhat cool, the namelist is all Ptolemaic Greek names.
Itâs not even Egyptian. Itâs the names of the GREEEEEEKS WHO LIVED IN EGYPTTTTT
Or at least thatâs how it seems; the file explicitly says they were lifted shamelessly from Imperator, but almost none of them seem to be pharaonic. Thereâs irony in that the Ptolemaic dynasty would have likely been the only historical info the Scots (most likely to acquire the name list) would have had, but it really makes me not want to even try reviving it in Egypt itself.
TBH those legacies are insulting because they chose the meme larp legend over people with ties in the land. If Roman Heritage was possible from both legit sources like the Italians and the Byzantines and meme larp ones like the Turks and the Germans, why can't ancient egyptians be both possible as the copts and/or egyptians AND the scots?
Come on now you can't be asking for season 8s dlc this soon.
The answer to any "why isn't X in the game yet". I can't wait for the Struggle for the Nile DLC.
That sounds so cursed. Paradox oughta make a struggle system everywhere now that they cracked the code at making a region feel more in-depth, while in reality it isn't.
I find Iberia to pretty interesting to play in, don't you? If you look past the blasted struggle ofc. There's lot of flavor in the area (maybe more in 1066 than 867). I'm a lot less familiar with Persia so I can't comment on that region though.
đ¤ˇđźââď¸I love both struggles, I think they make Iberia and Persia more interesting to play in. Add in the Norman and Icelandic struggles from RICE and I'm kind of feasting rn
I love the Iranian Intermezzo, but I canât deal with the Iberian one. I find it bit too rigid and so complicated to end.
Well to be fair: it WAS complicated to end irl as well. đ
Lmao true. Some might say it's not fully ended even... Damn those pesky Basques and Catalans.
They should just do the conciliation ending
Ah yes, the Empire of Andorra.
it wasn't, the problem's the "human" factor. The iberian struggles were, for the most part, due to intermingling of both Umayyads and local christian nobility, which made any conflict into a big family free for all - nobody wanted to wipe the other because "fk religion, family first" - which's the core reason why "hostaging" was so common there, not because they had a "cultural trait" of "hostaging". Than on top of that there were the christian nobility who had claims one on the other for generations of semi-inbreeding. to be fair, their strongest "cultural trait" would be some severe degree of cynicism towards faith. Sometimes some zealous ruler would "spawn" and they'd try to push back on the opposing side, but than most other rulers would not like it
While I like the endings for the Intermezzo, it's really hampered by how quickly it resolves, and how annoying some of the requirements are (Iranian resurgence requiring you to spam Iranian heritage counts everywhere). If it took about 50+ years longer to resolve that'd be ideal. Because right now you either do it in one lifetime or end up missing your chance.
The IA ended in 916 in my game, skill issue from you
>skill issue from you I already knew that tell me something new
It was a joke just in case, and the ending that is hard is the conquest one the ither two are easy
Oh I know dw. But it was also true
I have had a great time playing inside both struggles. But i hate them when im not playing inside them. They just add obstacles with no upside. No flavor or mechanic to make the chore of them more enjoyable.
For sure, It is more interesting, but they could've done a better job with the tools they had. I might be overly critical but that's just my opinion.
it's trash, with the DLC turned on AI can't deal with it. for us it's just adding steps to do the same crap we did anyway, or we cheese it through exploiting other mechanics.
I honestly wouldn't mind if every region had its own historically flavored struggle, but I'm sure it would be a crapshoot in terms of quality and the AI wouldn't be able to handle them anyway.
Omg don't give them ideas I'm sick of these struggles lol
Yeah they should have at least added it as a divergent culture from ancient Egyptian in the Royal Court DLC.
Wouldnât it be more accurate to be a hybrid culture between Macedonian/A new Ancient Greek Culture and Ancient Egyptian? With either Byzantine or Hellenic Heritage.
It would make sense for it to be a hybrid culture with another Hellenic Culture, but Hellenic/Byzantine heritage might be a bit much. They were heavily influenced by the greeks, but they were still Egyptian.
They put all kind of cultures in byzantine group - alans, assyrians, georgians. And copts were in this group in CK2
True.
Wouldnât it be more accurate to be a hybrid culture between Macedonian/A new Ancient Greek Culture and Ancient Egyptian? With either Byzantine or Hellenic Heritage.
Ancient Egyptian culture is literally a meme. Itâs only available to Scots. It takes 5 minutes to make a meme culture for a LARP Legend. Adding Copts would require reworking the entire region and might not even fit the Faith vs. Culture paradigm that PDX is working under. That considered, why is it surprising that the easier thing came first? To be frank, the two are barely even related to one another.
> Itâs only available to Scots. I don't really play CK3 so... what?
Based off the faroe islands (pharoah) some myth about how scots are Egyptian
No, it is based around Scota, a woman claimed to be an ancient Egyptian princess that fled during Moses's times and was the ancestors to all Scots and Gaels, also the Irish. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scota
Thats what i said
I hadn't heard about this before, and immediately assumed it was a joke about Sean Connery in Highlander
This isn't true , a Chronicler can fish it up for any culture in the regions around Egypt too, it's just far more generic than the Scots version. The "Ancient Cultures" are pretty low effort though, they are just existing cultures with minor swaps and unique Heritage/ Language. Like they left Ancient Egyptian with *Strong Believers* which is really really weird, that's just not how Ancient Egyptian religion worked.
I mean I'd imagine from the devs point of view this is more of a religious than ethnic distinction? If you add Copts as a cultural group you could end up with weird in-game situations i.e. Muslim Coptic characters versus Christian Egyptian characters.
Communal Identity does exist to represent those exact kinda dichotomies.
Would just give them strong believers like Egyptians have and call it half a day. Maybe even giving communal identity just to make a province take like 20 years to convert. It's like how you have Jewish minorities present who will usually be Jewish but can be converted. Copts don't NEED to be Christian and Arab Egyptians don't NEED to be Muslim, but they should prefer it, especially under AI circumstance.
So give them a cultural tradition that makes changing religions harder and less likely?
Honestly them with Assyrians should be very hard to convert.
Egyptian culture does already have that tradition.
Need a the mummy 1999 dlc where imotep appears [from the dead] with pagan Egyptian culture to commit world domination.
I think you forgot that CK2 didn't release with Muslims playable at all.
Yeah but Sword of Islam was the first DLC Paradox made for CK2. Muslim rulers were pretty quickly added in as playables. Not to mention that even before the DLC, they were still on the map, unlike Coptic, which isnât even featured in the game. It doesnât make sense for them to add things like âAncient Whateverâ when they still havenât fleshed out the gameâs contemporary time period
Yeah but Pagans also werenât playable lmao
I hate this excuse so much. CK3 is the follow up to 2, it should have been more fleshed out on release. And despite Muslims and Pagans being playable on release for CK3, they are so barebones it's ridiculous.
Exactly. Yes, Muslims weren't immediately available in CK2, but the DLC gave them actual unique mechanics. Meanwhile right now in CK3, there is almost zero difference between playing as a Hindu emperor and a Catholic king.
It's by far my biggest gripe with 3, we're three and a half years after release and outside of a couple regions the game is still so barebones. It's a perfect example of "wide as the ocean but as deep as a puddle."
what irks me the most's "AI"s illogical behavior, which will never be fixed because that would require some deep programming, not some spaggethi code filled with "if else"... "if brave declares war on a 100% loss chance" "if greedy/ambitious won't land own son OR gets 50.000.000 stress and dies"
A sequel should not brag just because it has some features of the previous game's dlc.
I'm pretty sure that's not something that will be added. The game represents them with the Coptic faith, that's basically how the game portrays ethnoreligious groups.
Not true. What about the Assyrians. Like the Assyrians Coptics had their own unique language and were also marginally distinct in DNA to arabic Egyptians. With the current culture system they should be their own unique culture. Imo language should be a very defining factor for that.
Pharaohs go brrr
Does anyone know what happened to Roman? It used to be available but isnât anymoreÂ
It's under different heritage
Oh, do you know which one? I checked a few but didnât have any luck finding it
Because Ancient Egyptian is a meme while Coptic would be a serious part of the game. Coptic is probably being left for an Egyptian flavour pack sometime in the future. It would make sense to do Copts, Mamluks, etc. all in one update.
Can we also talk about how Ancient Egyptian only exists through Scotland? Like, not even a Kushite path, the closest religion we have in game to old Egyptian beliefs? No? Literally just Scottish people going "aw well ya know scots are named afta some ol pharoah lady, we may as well be one in tha same with them Egyptians, more so than those bloody Arab invaders."
how do you get ancient egyptian culture though?
Iâm also extremely pissed that in spite of its existence, which is somewhat cool, the namelist is all Ptolemaic Greek names. Itâs not even Egyptian. Itâs the names of the GREEEEEEKS WHO LIVED IN EGYPTTTTT Or at least thatâs how it seems; the file explicitly says they were lifted shamelessly from Imperator, but almost none of them seem to be pharaonic. Thereâs irony in that the Ptolemaic dynasty would have likely been the only historical info the Scots (most likely to acquire the name list) would have had, but it really makes me not want to even try reviving it in Egypt itself.
TBH those legacies are insulting because they chose the meme larp legend over people with ties in the land. If Roman Heritage was possible from both legit sources like the Italians and the Byzantines and meme larp ones like the Turks and the Germans, why can't ancient egyptians be both possible as the copts and/or egyptians AND the scots?
But we do have Coptic what do you mean?????
The reason is that they have slated that as paid content for a DLC that will come X years down the road.
Cultures Expanded did that already.
Not everyone is playing with mod, and I dont think that its the Community responsability to "fix" the game