Grand Strategy Crusader Kings III

[Kem0sabe]

It's pop history based on apocryphal stories but PDX treats it as fact because WOMYN STRONK. This is the same company that released a "Women of History" DLC after all.
The Jomsvikings didn't even allow women inside their fortress, how likely do you think it is that a woman would become their leader? And THAT isn't even due to PDX's globohomo agenda, that's simply because they never bothered to implement a proper gender segregation for various political roles.

You had actuall Aztecs invading europe in crusader kings. What the fuck are you going on about this being an historical series?

 

[Heroic Liberator]

It's pop history based on apocryphal stories but PDX treats it as fact because WOMYN STRONK. This is the same company that released a "Women of History" DLC after all.
The Jomsvikings didn't even allow women inside their fortress, how likely do you think it is that a woman would become their leader? And THAT isn't even due to PDX's globohomo agenda, that's simply because they never bothered to implement a proper gender segregation for various political roles.

You had actuall Aztecs invading europe in crusader kings. What the fuck are you going on about this being an historical series?

The overwhelming majority of people turn off the Aztec invasion in CK2.

 

[Harthwain]

The overwhelming majority of people turn off the Aztec invasion in CK2.

By the way, is it known how modular the DLC is going to be? You can really tweak game's conditions in the base game, which is very nice, because you can decide - for example - how historical you want your run to be.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

The overwhelming majority of people turn off the Aztec invasion in CK2.

By the way, is it known how modular the DLC is going to be? You can really tweak game's conditions in the base game, which is really nice.

Hard to say until we get the first proper expansion.

 

[Theodora]

Hard to say until we get the first proper expansion.

At least it might not be as far off as we previously thought from the general radio silence.

Still hoping it's something to flesh out the byzies and their imperial succession shiz.

edit:
Idk who's responsible for 'the little things' but I'm glad they're getting attention continuously, and not solely when it's the focus of a patch/DLC.

• Replaced Tengriism's 'Sky Burials' tenet with 'Warmonger' which is more accurate for the time-period
• Added a decision for independent Norse rulers to have their realm embrace local traditions
• Norse name lists now use standardised Old Norse spellings & contains significantly fewer late period Christian names, Norwegian name lists updated to the same plus various older Christian names

 

[M. AQVILA]

They are obviously going for the "warrior-woman" vibe. I wouldn't classify it as wokeness though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield-maiden

It's most definitely wokeness.

The dialogue between Aragorn and Eowyn (from The Lord of the Rings) has the following:

'Too often have I heard of duty,' she cried. 'But am I not of the House of Eorl, a shieldmaiden and not a dry-nurse? I have waited on faltering feet long enough. Since they falter no longer, it seems, may I not now spend my life as I will?'

Is this an historical game or a fantasy game?

 

[Harthwain]

It's most definitely wokeness.

Spoiler

I will watch the video later, but if you consider this to be wokeness (whatever that term means to you. I personally don't care much about the whole debate between wokeists and anti-wokeists), then I have to point out that this wokeness goes as far back as the sagas and legends from other cultures (and there are some anegdotical historical accounts dating more than a thousand of years ago). Uncommon? Sure. But there is enough material to warrant padding the DLC with.

Then again, you could say the same about swords - they are the most popular medieval weapon in the eyes of the mainstream, while it's axes, maces and spears (the latter in particular) that ought to be the most common weapons instead. But video gaming and movies aren't about historical accuracy as much as they are about entertainment and the rule of cool. I mean, we had some really crazy stuff going on in Crusader Kings series already. To name but a few examples: Gates to Hell and Spawn of Satan. All of this was pure fiction (or a take on the legends, such as Robert the Devil), but fitted well with the religious theme of the game.

 

[Fedora Master]

They could simply have a Shieldmaiden event akin to the Joan of Arc event in CK2, not make it a fucking title.

 

[M. AQVILA]

I will watch the video later, but if you consider this to be wokeness (whatever that term means to you. I personally don't care much about the whole debate between wokeists and anti-wokeists), then I have to point out that this wokeness goes as far back as the sagas and legends from other cultures (and there are some anegdotical historical accounts dating more than a thousand of years ago). Uncommon? Sure. But there is enough material to warrant padding the DLC with.

Then again, you could say the same about swords - they are the most popular medieval weapon in the eyes of the mainstream, while it's axes, maces and spears (the latter in particular) that ought to be the most common weapons instead. But video gaming and movies aren't about historical accuracy as much as they are about entertainment and the rule of cool. I mean, we had some really crazy stuff going on in Crusader Kings series already. To name but a few examples: Gates to Hell and Spawn of Satan. All of this was pure fiction (or a take on the legends, such as Robert the Devil), but fitted well with the religious theme of the game.

Is this an historical game or a fantasy game? Shieldmaidens belong to the realm of mythology. Are you saying that they should add Amazons to their Rome game?

Obviously t's wokeness, pure and simple. The gender nonsense is enough to clue people in. If you don't care about it then fine, but don't try to frame it as acceptable in a supposedly historical game.

 

[Harthwain]

Is this an historical game or a fantasy game?

I believe I answered this question already:

[...] But video gaming and movies aren't about historical accuracy as much as they are about entertainment and the rule of cool. I mean, we had some really crazy stuff going on in Crusader Kings series already. To name but a few examples: Gates to Hell and Spawn of Satan. All of this was pure fiction (or a take on the legends, such as Robert the Devil), but fitted well with the religious theme of the game.

Obviously t's wokeness, pure and simple. The gender nonsense is enough to clue people in. If you don't care about it then fine, but don't try to frame it as acceptable in a supposedly historical game.

Riddle me this then: if shieldmaidens in games are wokeness, then wouldn't it follow that the very people who put them into the sagas, which the game obviously draws inspiration from, are also woke and - worse - the original decline enablers?

Because while I don't care about arguing about the place of women as such, I do hate the lack of consistency these debates seem to show (and that they detract from focusing on the game. This is why the wokeists annoy me: they don't discuss games, they inject ideologies into them).

 

[Avarize]

They could simply have a Shieldmaiden event akin to the Joan of Arc event in CK2, not make it a fucking title.

It was a title you could give out in CK2 though. I never used it much because there were event flags where they'd get unavoidably maimed but it was definitely there.

 

[Hace El Oso]

This is the 'vibe' I get from CK3:

Whatever the dominant element may be. 'Wokeness', fantasy, historical illiteracy. All with a strong helping of now-classic Paradox laziness.

I mean, we had some really crazy stuff going on in Crusader Kings series already. To name but a few examples: Gates to Hell and Spawn of Satan. All of this was pure fiction (or a take on the legends, such as Robert the Devil), but fitted well with the religious theme of the game.

It could have actually been made to fit with the medieval setting of the game, but instead you were obviously expected to cultivate the antichrist as your ruler(teehee!) and a fourth of all members of court in Europe would reliably be actual satanists. It was very boring.

 

[M. AQVILA]

I believe I answered this question already:

[...] But video gaming and movies aren't about historical accuracy as much as they are about entertainment and the rule of cool. I mean, we had some really crazy stuff going on in Crusader Kings series already. To name but a few examples: Gates to Hell and Spawn of Satan. All of this was pure fiction (or a take on the legends, such as Robert the Devil), but fitted well with the religious theme of the game.

Aren't those supernatural events? I always have that turned off. And this isn't a matter of historical accuracy, not portraying things accurately, but of outright adding unambiguous mythological elements to the game.

Riddle me this then: if shieldmaidens in games are wokeness, then wouldn't it follow that the very people who put them into the sagas, which the game obviously draws inspiration from, are also woke and - worse - the original decline enablers?

Context matters. Why did those writers write about shieldmaidens? Why did the developers add shieldmaidens to a supposedly historical game?

Watch the video if you want, I'm not going into detail.

 

[M. AQVILA]

There is no agenda. I don't like modern faggotry in my games, therefore I will never buy CK3, it's as simple as that. You people can do whatever you want.

I don't really care about your sophistry.

 

[Harthwain]

Aren't those supernatural events? I always have that turned off. And this isn't a matter of historical accuracy, not portraying things accurately, but of outright adding unambiguous mythological elements to the game.

Turned off or not - unambiguous fictional supernatural elements were undeniably part of the game, so this alone should answer your question about "supposedly historical" side of things. I will also add that in Crusader Kings 3 you can invert sexual preferences of people for fun and giggles at the start of the game (and do other weird shit). If there ever was the sign of wokeness that should've been the one. So complaining about wokeness because shieldmaidens are apparently too mythological is a bit too tryharding to be taken seriously at this point.

Context matters. Why did those writers write about shieldmaidens? Why did the developers add shieldmaidens to a supposedly historical game?

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

There is no agenda. I don't like modern faggotry in my games, therefore I will never buy CK3, it's as simple as that.

Isn't that exactly what an agenda is? An underlying motive, the reason why you are saying or doing something?

I don't really care about your sophistry.

Geee... There is no reason to be butthurt.

 

[Norfleet]

Gates to Hell and Spawn of Satan. All of this was pure fiction (or a take on the legends, such as Robert the Devil), but fitted well with the religious theme of the game.

The Gates to Hell event is an older event that predates the more fantastic elements, and is actually a completely mundane event where some kind of sulfuric sinkhole opens up and your characters, being medieval people not acquainted with the finer points of geology, interpret this fire-and-brimstone-spewing fissure as some kind of portal to hell.

None of the actions you take in this event have any actual effect on it, as they all have the same chance of reaching a resolution to the event, which implies that it is a natural event that characters are reacting to with superstition.

 

[M. AQVILA]

Turned off or not - unambiguous fictional supernatural elements were undeniably part of the game, so this alone should answer your question about "supposedly historical" side of things. I will also add that in Crusader Kings 3 you can invert sexual preferences of people for fun and giggles at the start of the game (and do other weird shit). If there ever was the sign of wokeness that should've been the one. So complaining about wokeness because shieldmaidens are apparently too mythological is a bit too tryharding to be taken seriously at this point.

1. The fact that it is optional matters;
2. I never said that the wokeness is a new thing;
3. Me calling it wokeness has nothing to do with "shieldmaidens are apparently too mythological";
4. You're either dumb, being disingenuous, or just trolling.

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

Isn't that exactly what an agenda is? An underlying motive, the reason why you are saying or doing something?

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

 

[Xamenos]

I wonder, did the shieldmaidens in CK2 bother you as much as they appear to do in CK3?

 

[M. AQVILA]

I wonder, did the shieldmaidens in CK2 bother you as much as they appear to do in CK3?

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. This is not about shieldmaidens or CK3 in particular. Maybe people haven't read my earlier posts, or you should know about it.

The fact that I only play as Christian rulers shields me from stuff like that though. And a lot of the silliness is optional, so that helps too.

Good thing I never bought CK2. I would regret it otherwise.

 

[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.