Grand Strategy Crusader Kings III

[Heroic Liberator]

What underlying motive do I have then? I'm pretty sure I've been pretty straightforward about things.

Seeing every design choice in terms of a political agenda akin to a reverse SJW.

I myself do not agree with Paradox's choice to include such historical inaccuracies, but it's mostly a byproduct of them following the 'rule of cool' and to read anything more than that into their choice is doing the exact same thing as some woke retard attributing malicious intent on the part of some dev due to a game's lack of representation.

 

[M. AQVILA]

Seeing every design choice in terms of a political agenda akin to a reverse SJW.

It's not "political agenda", it's ideology. Gender ideology, feminism, etc. Are you telling me that's not the case?

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Seeing every design choice in terms of a political agenda akin to a reverse SJW.

It's not "political agenda", it's ideology. Gender ideology, feminism, etc. Are you telling me that's not the case?

In this particular case? Most likely not.

 

[M. AQVILA]

In this particular case? Most likely not.

I would say it's most likely yes. Regardless of the reason, it doesn't matter. If you like the game then buy the game. I don't like it, I won't buy it. There's nothing else to be said about this.

 

[Harthwain]

3. Me calling it wokeness has nothing to do with "shieldmaidens are apparently too mythological";

You lost me there then.

4. You're either dumb, being disingenuous, or just trolling.

I am trolling a bit, but I am also trying to point out why I find your position to be objectively mistaken. At least in context of the game. It's either that or you have double standards. But maybe I am misunderstanding something (I doubt it though).

The way I see it you are just too eager to see SJWism everywhere. I can understand it, since there are situations you can see this happening, but I think it's important to have a more critical eye. Because if you try really hard you will see wokeness everywhere, even in stuff that's more than twenty years old. This is why I used Eowyn in my first post. I bet that today Tolkien would be called woke for pushing a woman with a sword type of character into the book. In Crusader Kings I don't find shieldmaidens to be woke, since they are part of the viking legends. I can agree with you that it's not hyper realistic (and I am arguing the game was never that realistic anyway), but woke? Nah.

Then again, I am the Enlightened Centrist so...

What do you mean "context matters"? Woke is woke. This is the Codex's way.

Where do you think you are? This is COOOODEX!

Spoiler

Yes, this is the trolling bit

What underlying motive do I have then? I'm pretty sure I've been pretty straightforward about things.

Well, you were. I used that button to say "I acknowledge what you're trying to say".

 

[M. AQVILA]

You lost me there then.

It's not because they're mythological, but because they're adding shieldmaidens in particular to an historical game. There's nothing ambiguous about it, and I'm assuming it's not optional either, therefore they're treating it as history. Correct?

The way I see it you are just too eager to see SJWism everywhere. I can understand it, since there are situations you can see this happening, but I think it's important to have a more critical eye. Because if you try really hard you will see wokeness everywhere, even in stuff that's more than twenty years old. This is why I used Eowyn in my first post. I bet that today Tolkien would be called woke for pushing a woman with a sword type of character into the book. In Crusader Kings I don't find shieldmaidens to be woke, since they are part of the viking legends. I can agree with you that it's not hyper realistic (and I am arguing the game was never that realistic anyway), but woke? Nah.

Then again, I am the Enlightened Centrist so...

I don't think that's the case. When I look at Pathfinder: Kingmaker, for example, I don't care about the warrior women and the like. Because it's fantasy. Same with Tolkien. But Crusader Kings 3 is an historical game, so seeing that stuff bothers me. Same with the other unhistorical stuff they added to CK2. But as long as I can turn it off then it doesn't matter.

Well, you were. I used that button to say "I acknowledge what you're trying to say".

I interpret that button as someone having an agenda to push, and that you're aware of it. No matter.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

But Crusader Kings 3 is an historical game, so seeing that stuff bothers me. Same with the other unhistorical stuff they added to CK2. But as long as I can turn it off then it doesn't matter.

On that note, I really wish that they'd go beyond their limited supernatural on/off setting and copy TW3K's distinction between a 'romance' and a 'classic' mode to account for these myths without spoiling the experience for those who want a more veridic historical setting.

 

[Harthwain]

It's not because they're mythological, but because they're adding shieldmaidens in particular to an historical game. There's nothing ambiguous about it, and I'm assuming it's not optional either, therefore they're treating it as history. Correct?

I don't know. I was wondering myself how modular the DLC will be (as in: if it will be all-or-nothing package or if there will be an option to turn off some of the stuff, like in the base game).

 

[Zero Credibility]

Those norse adventurers are implemented in a really lazy way. They always seem to have exactly 150% troops of their target, regardless of how big their target is. I can only imagine that when they go against a massive empire they'll be able to pull tens if not hundreds of thousands of vikings from a frozen wasteland, all eager to die on foreign shores. If so, that's really silly. These fuckers should target smaller and vulnerable realms, not someone with more soldiers than the entire population of medieval Scandinavia.

Also, this might just be my bad luck, but do they even target anyone besides the human player? I've played a 40 years game, old gods start on the British islands, and I've been a target four times already. Considering I've set adventurers to appear once every 10 years on average, I'm starting to wonder why they are focusing on me alone. There's plenty of better targets around me, both closer and weaker. Fortunately they are easy to beat, just wait until they start disembarking, raise army in that county and watch them melt thanks to disembarking penalty and not having any men at arms.

 

[Average Manatee]

But Crusader Kings 3 is an historical game, so seeing that stuff bothers me. Same with the other unhistorical stuff they added to CK2. But as long as I can turn it off then it doesn't matter.

On that note, I really wish that they'd go beyond their limited supernatural on/off setting and copy TW3K's distinction between a 'romance' and a 'classic' mode to account for these myths without spoiling the experience for those who want a more veridic historical setting.

It's a game where the average knight can wipe out thousands of troops per battle. Realism is not going to happen.

 

[Renfri]

Sometimes this game delivers by making things look rough and messy for while, until things turn out good in the end, if you just hang on. I had game where I had 3 male heirs and decided to disinherit 2 older ones, so my realm wouldn't split up, and when my King was near his death, I realized that heir I had chosen was fucking gay.

This freaked me out, I was like is this minor mistake going to cost my successful run so far going from small county to kingdom, just get fucked cos of one fag ruined all of it. Luckily despite being gay, he actually had 3 children with his wife like what the hell, and only 1 of them was male, so things suddenly looked bright again, until this heir started having intimate relationship with his mother, and it became public knowledge. And that and other reasons made his early reign pretty hectic.

Fortunately from these two disasters came my best ruler yet, and there haven't been better since. Extremely high stats on learning (which is what I really wanted), genius genes, great wife and lived very long. Loved by all vassals, and pope himself was sending checks nonstop. I had planned to little by little taking over area of France to make into Empire, but suddenly opportunity of conquering kingdom of Corsica became option out of nowhere, which I couldn't resist.

Then I was fairly close having Empire in Italy instead + those large territories in France. Unfortunately this perfect king couldn't be there to establish that Empire, cos I had to spend money helping allies in their wars, because of I was trying to be nice to allies. In the end, king Abraham II of Brittany couldn't finish what he started only, because of Byzantine and East Francia couldn't stop fighting other realms

The end.

Side note, when CK3 came out I was focusing on stewardship stat, cos I thought money and direct control of as many as possible counties was way to go. It was really good and amount of money made things little bit too easy sometimes. But this time, I decided to try Learning, which turned out to be really nice too. Celibate perk was excellent skill to manage how many possible heirs you have, turned out to be quite handy. Then you add fact that you can longer which is big plus too, and marrying someone really young (or postpone marrying completely) so that you can make male heir far into reign so they can also hold power for very long time is another win for Learning

 

[Norfleet]

A lot of things bothered me in CK2. Like the fact that they started to allow women to lead troops or join warrior lodges, for example.

Women in CK2 do not, by default, lead troops, unless they're exceptional cases like one which manages to become a ruler, or the user changes the gender rules (The AI will never do it). The norms remain firmly historical and exceptions are exceptional, just like in history, where they also occured, and people tend to then yammer on about them, ignoring that these were xceptional cases and not norms.

 

[M. AQVILA]

Women in CK2 do not, by default, lead troops, unless they're exceptional cases like one which manages to become a ruler, or the user changes the gender rules (The AI will never do it). The norms remain firmly historical and exceptions are exceptional, just like in history, where they also occured, and people tend to then yammer on about them, ignoring that these were xceptional cases and not norms.

Yes they need to be rulers, but leading troops used to be linked to the marshal office, women could not lead troops. They changed that at some point.

And no, it's not historical, if that wasn't obvious already.

 

[Fedora Master]

Women very much joined Warrior Lodges after the awful last DLC they made. It just goes to show that they never bother with proper gender restrictions... or are doing it on purpose because MUH STRONK WAHMEN.

 

[Theodora]

Women very much joined Warrior Lodges after the awful last DLC they made. It just goes to show that they never bother with proper gender restrictions... or are doing it on purpose because MUH STRONK WAHMEN.

Simulation games inherently have to generalise; and shieldmaidens were definitely a thing, even if they might not have been as prevalent as they end up being in CK3.

 

[Fedora Master]

Stop making excuses for these idiots.

 

[Theodora]

Stop making excuses for these idiots.

Be more nuanced in your criticisms and I won't have a reason to myself every time you post. I don't get why someone who clearly, categorically loathes Paradox chooses to incessantly post in all their threads.

I think shieldmaidens should be a relative rarity, but removing them altogether wouldn't be just a biased decision, but actively ignorant.

 

[Fedora Master]

My original complaint with the Jomsvikings was not about shieldmaidens you retard, it was about the simple fact that Paradox can't - or more likely don't want to - restrict offices to only men. A female leader of the Jomsvikings is as realistic as a female pope. Paradox knows this, because its such Reddit tier history knowledge you can easily find it on Wikipedia. Which leaves me no choice but to conclude that they did that shit on purpose. The company has long since given up on historicity in favor of catering to their tranny-commie-weirdo fanbase.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Who cares, the most popular mods for the game are the ones that allow you to play as a vampire.

 

[Fedora Master]

Who cares, the most popular mods for the game are the ones that allow you to play as a vampire.

tranny-commie-weirdo fanbase.

 

[Theodora]

The company has long since given up on historicity in favor of catering to their tranny-commie-weirdo fanbase.

They're pretty aware the loudest people aren't automatically the core of their fanbase tbh.

Anyway, call me illiterate if you want or w/e, but you're painful to read because it's always droning on in the same banal tone. Can't imagine how insufferable that must be irl.

 

[M. AQVILA]

Julius Caesar wrote that German warriors would bring their women with them into battle to act as cheer leaders, that is the closest thing to shieldmaidens in history that I know of.

 

[mondblut]

Julius Caesar wrote that German warriors would bring their women with them into battle to act as cheer leaders, that is the closest thing to shieldmaidens in history that I know of.

In case of defeat, they can also leave them behind as a diversion, keeping enemy too preoccupied with rape to pursue them.

 

[gerey]

In case of defeat, they can also leave them behind as a diversion, keeping enemy too preoccupied with rape to pursue them.

Nah, the women were there for two reasons.

Firstly, to motivate the men to fight all the harder, because if they lost their families were gonna get raped and made into slaves.

Secondly, the women would usually gang up and kill any man that tried to flee from the fight.

As for actual shieldmaidens, if they were even an actual thing - they were called as such because their job was to hand over a new shield to a warrior if the one he had been using was too damaged to be useful anymore.

This idea that shieldmaidens actually fought in battle has been pushed for decades now, without any actual evidence to back it up. Recently they did find a burial site with a woman clutching a sword in her hands (IIRC), and this was interpreted by the usual suspects as proof that Viking women did participate in battle, when a far more simple and logical explanation is that she was a noble of some sort and the sword is a symbol of status.

 

[Theodora]

You don't give a warrior's burial to someone who wasn't a warrior.