how you feel?
It really grinds my gears that China isn't fully included in Crusader Kings 3
Which brings me to the point in the other comment, which is that the game's mechanics are tailored to representing a specific political system, which isn't really applicable outside of Western Europe. It's already inaccurately representing the Middle East, North Africa, India, Central Asia, Southeastern Europe, and even not all that accurately representing Western and Central Europe.
What would be the point of adding all these things to the game, only to have them be represented in an incredibly shallow manner, as just feudalism with different words for the titles?
We could argue that there's an issue of eurocentrism about how few games are made with specificaly non-european history in mind, and I'd agree. But just putting the entire world in a single game wouldn't solve it.
Okay, how feasible would it be to have a game with 30 entirely different gameplay systems, all somehow interacting with one another?
That's why I made the point about a single game - if we had Mesoamerican Kings, Indian Kings, Steppe Kings and a bunch of other ones as separate series, with mechanics tailored to each region and period, it'd be one thing, but having a game which just has the entire world would inevitably end with very shallow, boring mechanics, that don't really facilitate anything beyond mindless blobbing.
And if they do, it's going to be a shallow representation of China, which will function nothing like any Chinese Empire, but just be the rest of the game's feudalism with a new paintjob and some tacked on mechanics, just like how when they made muslims playable in CK2, they were just feudalism but with Ottoman succession for some reason, and the Byzantines were just feudalism but with no penalties for repealing titles.
Just having a region of the world on the map doesn't mean it's actually "represented". Your original comment seemed to be about eurocentrism, about how the non-white parts of the world are ignored - well, if they're added in, but are just functionally identical to Feudal Europe, and have no actual representation of their culture and history, what makes this any better than the first scenario?
it’s already not representing shit properly so it might as well represent everything improperly
I mean... fair enough. I'd just prefer a game that represented just a little bit of the world semi-properly - we have more than enough improper representations of everything. But I guess we have different priorities. And pirating Paradox games has always been the optimal approach.
The problem is CK's core mechanics are based around feudalism (or at least an imaginary idea of feudalism) and playing as a landed aristocrat, and mostly fail to represent anything other than that (republics and nomads kind of work, I guess). A massive imperial bureaucracy of scholar-officials isn't something the game can really deal with it.
It already has this problem with the Eastern Roman Empire, which has barely anything to do with the historical one, and a lot of the Middle East, which ingame just operates under slightly different feudalism. Adding China would make it even worse - like 3/4 of the game world would essentially be fantasy with historical names.
Yeah but the Shoshone pathfinder upgrades automatically to composite bowman and gets to pick ruins bonuses to maximise aincient era tech. Coupled with the vast expanse resource nabbing city ability you can have a formidable power base before your opponents even get round to building their 3rd city.
I don't know enough about China. That needs to change. If I had any free time I'd really try and learn Mandarin.
Pretty good, boutta go to sleep and I’ve got a warm blanket so that’s nice
I think any leftist with anti China sentiments should examine how much Reddit CIA propaganda they read.
