| Some further thoughts on CK3 and how it deals with Islam. Posted: 17 Jan 2022 12:01 PM PST I made a post on Islam in CK3 here a few days ago, titles "Some thoughts on CK3 and how it deals with Islam", and was told it wasn't the easiest to read, so here is my attempt at a take two on the topic, this time sectioned a bit better but also more detailed. A bit of background on me, I'm an amateour historian and am currently taking a bachelor in Religious Studies and hope to specialise in Islamic History as it's something that really fascinates me, I started playing Paradox games when Sword of Islam came out to CK2, which drew me to try it and have loved them ever since.
two disclaimers 1) I'll "propose" some gameplay changes but am not good at mechanics design and especially game balancing, so take them as more of a thought training experiment on the subject. I'd love feedback and criticism if anyone has any. 2) I have so far mainly focused on early Islam, and on Ismaili Shi'ism, which will become clear in these sections being more well fleshed out than the rest. I'd like to start out with a few Pro's and Con's with the current system of religion in CK3: Pros: 1) Centering the main branches of Islam around the Crisis around the Succession of the Prophet, this makes it less of a directly doctrinal disctincion but more of a religio-political one, which it simplified / generally was, and I believe it's the right decision to go with. 2) The modularity of the new religion system compared to the old in CK2 makes representing diversity within the main branches easier and this is done pretty well with the Muhakkima branch although I don't feel read well enough if the sub-branches are well represented, will get into this later. But this feature got me really hyped during the development process of the game, and i hope it will be built onto and expanded. Cons: 1) Achronological groups and sects, if we look at Sunni Islam, identifying the various groupings today seen as Sunni Islam as a coherent singular movement is a later development, however by the earliest starting date of CK3 in 867 C.E, most of the movements that today make up Sunni Islam didn't exist, and a shared "Sunni" identity didn't really exist in the same way, historically this shared identity develops through the 11th-13th, mainly as a reaction to the Fatimid Shia Caliphate (10th-12th century), and a crucial moment in what is today Sunni Islam, is the Mamluk Sultan Baibar (d 1277 C.) who restored the Abbasid Caliphate and forced the four Sunni Schools of Jura to work together by appointing one of each as a Chief Judge (Qadi). An example of this achronologi is how Sunni "Orthodoxy" is represented by Asharism, Ashari however is first born in 873 C.E i.e 6 years after the earliest start date, and will be a flegling movement by the time of the later start date of 1066 C.E. Also there are inconsistensies in Shia Islam, mainly with the existence of Twelver Shia, Qarmatian Shia and Nizari Shia, the last one of these bearing the name of Ismaili Imam Nizar who took the title of Imam after the Ismaili Mustaali / Nizari schism of 1094. 2) Instead of representing Religious, Theological, political and Spiritual differences, certain groupings are rather centered around cultural differences, and exist only as work around or placeholders to make certain mechanics work, generally this cheapens the diversity possible to represent. I am mainly thinking about Muwalladism here, but also to an extent Almohadism. 3) One of the Four main branches, namely Zanaqa is inconsistent with the others in not being related to the Prophets Succession at all, and rather hosts a variation of unrelated faith groups who all are supposed to be "heretical" or "extreme" in the views of the rest of Islam. 5 (Maybe 4 or even 3?) out of 6 of these being Shia, and the last one proto-Sunni. One of these the Druze doesn't even consider itself an Islamic or Muslim faith, and another is pretty internally split today if it has ever been a Muslim/Islamic Faith, namely the Alevi. So their inclusion seems to me to be like representing the Yazidis as Muslims. My thoughts as to fix this in an eventual Religion or Islam DLC / Update would entail centering all of Islam around the struggle for Religio-political authority, i.e claiming to be the Legitimate Successor to the Prophet. 1) The most central of these for the Ruler / Player would be Caliphate.
Historically the Caliphate is a claim to represent all Muslims, not just ones own subjects, to simulate this I believe the best way would be for there to be a Central Head of Faith for all of Islam, and that the main difference between the Main Branches of Islam would be how they relate and interact with the Caliphate. 2) It should be Possible to declare Counter/Anti Caliphates, to simulate how there were at times rival Caliphates, each Sect relating to how to do this and what it entails uniquely. 3) Increasing the variety of congenital traits that "legitimate" ones claim to the Caliphate according to each Sub Branch, Including Sayyid, Hashimid, and Umayyad, maybe even Jafarid or Imamid, to mean one who is a decendant of the Shia Imam Jafar as Sadig (d. 765 C.E). I'd also divide Islam differently to be more accurate but also to allow for more variety and alternative playstyles: Sunni 1: What is Sunni Islam now in the Base Game I would split into two main Branches instead of one along historical lines:
First the Murji'ah, meaning those who didn't judge Uthman and Ali if they were righteous Caliphs or not, these would go on to form the basis of modern Sunni Islam as they recongized all the four early Caliphs, and came to prominence during the Abbasid Caliphate, the Murji'ah would consist of three main sects: 1a) Major Group The Ahl al-Hadith, meaning those who use the tradition, these were the predecessors of the Hanbali, Zahiri and partially the Shafi Schools of Jurisprudence as well as the Athari (Traditionalist) School of Theology. This group are the ones who believed the Hadith are revelation and next to only the Quran and interpreted the Sunna (Tradition) to exclusivly mean the tradition of the Prophet. 1b) Major Group The Ahl al-Ray, meaning those who use rational thinking, these were the predecessors of Hanifi and Maliki Schools of Jurisprudence (Figh) and some would say the Asharite and the Maturidi Schools of Theology (Kalam). They believed hadith weren't revelation but had some authority, but rather principles, practises could override it, the same would reasonable deductions of the common good / public interest). 1c) Minor Group The Ahl al-Kalam, meaning those who use theology, these were the predecessors of the Mutazilites, they believed that theological thinking often philosophical in nature was more authoritative than the hadiths, and there was a general scepticism of the Hadith, can be replaced fully by the Mutazilites for simplicity. And 2 secondary sects: 1d) Major Group The Mutazilites, often called the rationalistic School of Islam, their name both represents a School of Theology and of Jurisprudence, and probably is the earlies well established school to feature scholars that recognize the Four Sunni Caliphs, however with some Shi'ite influences as they recognized Ali as elevated among them, but no where close to the later Imami Shia views on Ali, later Imami Shia Jurisprudence named Jafari would be heavily influenced by Mutazilitism and will make a case for an altnerative placement for them as shia, but believe they make most sense here. Would argue that they are well established replacing most ahl al-Kalam (atleast for ingame simplicity) by 867 C.E as we have the Mihna incident of 833 C.E where the Abbasid Caliph al Ma'mun enforced it as a state religion and imprisoned Ahl al-Hadith scholars (including Hanbali, who would later be credited for creating Hanbali Jurisprudence and being the forerunner of Athari Theology). 1e) Minor Group Quranism, an alternative name would be the Ahl al-Quran if we want to keep the naming scheme, this is a fringe movement, and there is no emic (Self-identity) term from early Islam, as it's generally a small minority scholar opinion in the sources that have survived at least, but is present. What differentiates these from the other three Ahl-XXX groups would be the complete rejection of the Hadiths as authoriative, getting them away from Zanaqa and into more "normative" proto-Sunni Islam seems more historically appropriate. This would have the strenght of representing a spectrum of early proto-Sunni tendencies, that were present at the starting date of 867 C.E, I would however have a coded an emergence / transition / reformation of these various into their later Theological counterparts, Asharism, Maturidism, Atharism and Mutazilitism, maybe even the possibility of Almohadism. (Those five also serving as an alternative grouping if this one is a bit to complicated), this change / emergence being tied either to decisions and/or the Caliphate, the requirement for the Caliphate among these would be the Hashimite trait or the Sayyid trait, and a Caliph of these orientations would generally be a vassal not a direct title. I would also love a mechanic to include the 6 Schools of Jurisprudence mentioned, seperate from the Schools of Theologi, maybe as in CK2 as a decision, but could also be some sort "society" as it worked in CK2, not sure, allowing one to mix the two systems as one pleases would be very representative of how Muslim Dynasties worked, like Almohadism / the Almohad movement was based a mix of Ashari theologi and Zahiri Jurisprudence making an interesting cocktail. Sunni 2: the second grouping I would make to replace Sunni islam I'm not sure what to call them, they are those who fought Ali in the first civil war (Fitna, 656-661 C.E) as well as fought between themselves in the second civil war (680-692 C.E), but naming them is hard as they are not really present that much later in History, but it would be those who didn't recognize Ali as Caliph only up til Uthman and then diverged, so I'll call them Uthmani, or a term for Revengers of Uthman might exist. As these would not be counted as Murji'ah cause they offered judgement on Ali. This was the affiliation of the early Umayyad Caliphate, exactly how long they would maintain their rejection of Ali I am uncertain of, as late Umayyad dynasty and especially their ressurrection in Cordoba isn't my strenght, but I would maintain this over the current Muwalladism, the Umayyad line should be probably split along Dynastic lines, but this does also include other groupings. 2a) Major Group Partisans of Mu'awiya, those who refused to swear allegiance to Ali and sided with Mu'awiya against Ali, believing that with Uthman dead his tribe the Ummayads was the next in succession. (Possible to be split into two different branches of the Umayyad Family, one major and one minor). 2b) Minor Group" The Partisans of Aisha, those who refused to swear allegiance to Ali and sided with Aisha against Ali, cause they supported the claims of a Quraishite named Talha ibn Ubayd Allah to be elected Caliph, instead of Ali. Would be the faith of the Caliphate of Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr (d. 692 C.E). 2c) Possible Group if we want a regional variant to be where Muwalladism is now there could be a Cordobi offshot to represent a "reform" of 2a done by abd al-Rahman in 929 C.E when he restored the Caliphate. 2d) Possible Group Could also be really interesting to have an extinct branch as a homage to modern Source-Critical Islam studies representing itself as a the Original "Islam" dating back to the Reform of "Paleo-Islam" done by Umayyad Caliph Abd Al-Malik. But that would be more of an easter egg, than representing anything representative of the period of the game. These exist mainly to make the Umayyad Caliphate in Iberia an alternative playstyle, but also adds more historical accurate diversity, allowing one to pick up the cause of Aisha in the first civil war if one wishes so, this section can be fleshed out a bit better.
But generally in this side the Caliphate would be a direct Ruler title, and the trait/s important would be Quraishite or Umayyad trait, and a disdain for Sayyid and Hashimite. The Partisans of Aisha might even have something about Female Champions to reflect Aisha's role as a Military Commander at the battle of the Camel (656 C.E), to make them a little unique. Moving onto Shi'a Islam, my thoughts off the top of my head is to reorganize the main branches just as with Sunni Islam, and that I'd love more historical groups, that are extinct today, but also there needs to be a better way to handle groups that border on self-identifying as Islam or outright reject such a claim.
Shia Muslims are a broad movement with in Islam, that believed Muhammad had declared Ali his cousin as his successor, and that legtitimate rule needs to be traced through the Prophets daughter who was married to Ali, leading to a schism between them and the rest of Islam.
I believe the best way to organise Shia Islam will be with 3 (or 4) branches: Shia 1: the first Shia branch, would represent non-Imami Shi'a Islam, so roughly those that cut of before Imam Jafar as Sadig, or groups who more politically were Shia than dedicatedly pro Imamate Theologi Shia. I'd call them Shiat Ali: 1a) Major Group The Zaidi Shia, The Zaidi are those who recognize that Ali was the chosen successor to Muhammad, and that leadership must be through blood relation through his sons Hasan and Hussain, however they didn't recognize this title to be inheritable, but something one earns by claiming ones right to rule and fighting for it, taking their name from Zaid ibn Ali who claimed the Caliphate against the Umayyads. 1b) Major Group The Kaysanites, am not super familiar with them but they were a large Shia movement during Umayyad times and played a role in the eventual Abbasid revolution after which they slowly fizzled out, meaning they would still be partially around by the time of the early start 867 C-E, they recognized Ali and three of his sons as Imams, including Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah who was declared Caliph by the revolt lead by Al-Mukhtar al-Thaqafi (685 C.E). 1c) Local Group The Idrisidi, an Alid (Decendant of Ali, specificly through his son Hasan) family, ruling most of modern day Morocco (788-974 C.E), their exact religious identity is disputed ranging from Imami Shia to Zaidi to Sunni, but what is generally known is that their claim to be decendants of Ali gathered them support from Shia-adjacent groups and would politically thus be labeled early Shia, even if their theologi is closer to the Sunnis than other Shias, as we see a similar tendency among the Zaidi. This is a more local tradition but it ended up taking over the Cordoban Caliphate briefly after the Umayyads, through an offbranch dynasty the Hammudid's (1016-1056 C.E). 1d) Alternative Placement the Mutazilites could possible be positioned here instead because of their semi-Alid tendencies, and effect on future Shia development. There are more early Shia groups one could position here but these would probably be the main ones that would give some fun and interesting playstyles and possibilities. Generally these would see the Imamate-Caliphate as requiring the Sayyid trait, and the Caliphate would be a direct title. Shia 2: The second group of Shia would be the Imami Shia, those who believe the Imamate goes in a direct line of succession from Ali and then from father to son, generally a development among those who recognized the Imamate of Jafar as Sadiq (d. 765 C.E), these would often be characterized also by a belief in the Infallibility of the Imam, these would seperate the Imamate and the Caliphate as titles, and only recognize the holder of the Imamate as the legitimate Caliphate, and the Imamte needs a feature to represent "hidden or Dissapeared" Imams, i.e when the Imamate is vacant, mainly though a Representative of the Imam. 2a) Major Group The Imamiyya or Ithna Asariya, also called the Twelvers, these are the biggest group of Shia today, and recognize a direct line of twelve Imams through Jafar as Saqiq, his son Musa al-Kadhim (d. 799) up til Muhammad ibn al Hasan (b. 870 – Dissapeared 874). Their hidden Imam was represented by a line of Emissaries (Sufara) between 873-941 C.E, after which there has been no contact with the Twelvth Imam who is "hidden". A relevant dynasty in this tradition is the Buyid Dynasty (934-1062), who were a Zaidi group, who converted to Twelver Shi'ism, and took over the Abbasid Caliphate and vassalised the Sunni Caliphate. 2b) Major Group The Ismaili Shia, the name is a reference to them recognizing a different son of Jafar as Sadig than the Twelvers, namely Ismail ibn Jafar, what makes them unique compared to the Twelvers is that most of their group they will go on to recognize living Imams (Or representatives of hidden Imams), up til today. Imams from this line will go on to establish the Fatimid Caliphate (909-1171 C.E). How to split up the Ismailis in a way that feels good gameplay and is Representative is a bit tricky if one doesn't want to flood the section with too many sub-branches, or create a whole Shia Branch just for them. In the game at the moment the "Ismaili" faith is contrasted by naming other Ismaili groups differently i.e the Qarmatians and the Nizari, which means it represents Fatimid Ismailism either pre Nizari / Musta'ali Schism, and/or the Musta'ali tradition. I don't think it adds so much to the gameplay and replacing it with the Nizari and Musta'ali groups might be better, but that would be a little less representative, and I'll say in the later starting date of 1066 this should be a Minor Group, mainly replaced by the Musta'ali in the Fatimid Caliphate, although it's a bit too early for that. Seperating Ismaili'ism from the rest of Imami Shia as a seperate branch will be explored in the end of this section. 2c) Minor Group The Qarmatians, alternative name Sevener Ismailis a group of Ismailis who only recognized the Imamate up til Muhammad ibn Jafar the son of Ismail ibn Jafar, (Other seveners recognized Ismail as the Seventh and Muhammad ibn Ismail as the Mahdi), the Qarmatians represented the major group of the so called "Seveners" or those Ismailis who only recognized Seven Imams, and their schism with the Fatimid Ismailis and hostility to the Fatimid Dynasty marks them the best gameplay wise to represent of the Sevener Groups. The Qarmatians founded a Religious Republic in Eastern Arabia (899-1077 C.E), and extorted tribute from both the Abbasid and the Fatimid Caliphate. The Qarmatians are most well known for their attack on Mecca, where they are said to have murdered the Pilgrims and desecrated holy sites, including stealing the black stone from the Ka'aba. 2d) Minor Group The Nizari Ismaili, in 1094 C.E there was a dispute over the succession of the Fatimid Caliphate and the Nizari Ismaili supported the Imamate of Nizar who didn't inherit the throne, they are today the largest group of Ismailis, in 1090 an Ismaili state had been established Iran around the Alamut Castle and this state would be loyal to the Nizari Imams, ruled initially by their representatives called Da'i's (Preachers) and then by the Imams themselves (1090-1273), they would become known here as the Assasins or Hashashins (A whole can of worms I'll not go into here). This Alamut period featured a period where the Ismailis favoured esoteric practises instead of legalistic rituals, influenced heavily by Neo-platonic philosophy marking their main difference between the Musta'ali as a broad generalization. 2e) Minor Group The Musta'ali were the line of Fatimid Caliphs ruling after the schism of 1094, they would split internally again in 1132 (Between Tayyibi and Hafizi), but don't think this schism is needed to be represented if we don't split Imami and Ismaili Shi'ism into different branches, today the Musta'ali are known as the various Bohra Ismaili, all of them are Tayyibi. The Musta'ali if not split into two, could be represented by the Fatimid Caliphate (1094-1171), but also by the Dai'i al Mutlaq (The Absolute Missionary), who was appointed by the Musta'ali Queen of Yemen as the representative of the Imam in hiding in 1126, an institution that exists til today.
I belive that is the best representative way to deal with Imami Shia, however it leaves out a lot of the schism done with in the Twelver branch and focuses more on the Ismaili branch, if we were to split them into their own respective branch then they could be organised with these inclusions: Alternative Ismaili Groups I would keep the ismaili Shia to represent pre 1094 Ismailism, as well as any counter "Imamtes" to the later Fatimids. And I would add the Hafizi Ismaili, who ruled the Fatimid Dynasty until it's fall, they would represent a more legalistic Ismailism with a Living Imam, in comparason to the Musta'ali who would be Legalistic as well but mainly have Da'i al Mutlaq's instead of a Caliph / Imam, and they would be distinct from the Nizari who would be more esoteric than legalistic while also have a Living Imam. Alternative Imami Groups The Fathite Shia, named after a third son of Jafar as Sadiq, named Abdullah al-Aftah ibn Jafar, they were the third major group after the death of Jafar as Sadiq to claim the Imamate, but didn't last very long historically. The Tawussite or Jafaridi Shia, this was a group of Imami Shia who believed the Imam Jafar as Sadiq was the final Imam, and become hidden. Am not the most familiar with this group so would have to go further into them to be able to say much more. And the Waqifite Shia, was a group of Imami Shia who who believed the Imam Musa ibn Jafar al-Kadhim (d 799), was the final Imam, and had become hidden. Am not the most familiar with this group so would have to go further into them to be able to say much more. Main problem with these Shia Categories is that Twelver Shi'ism and Ismailism as we know them both take shape after both the starting dates, especially most of the Ismaili sects I have proposed, something I was much stricter on Sunni Islam with, and we'll see this same problem with the last Shia branch as well, but am unsure how to fix it properly. Gameplay wise generally I think these Shia's would emphasise high learning / Devotion in their Imams or Representatives to represent their belief in their "infallibility", where I believe the rest of the Muslim branches would rather emphasise high Prestige for the Caliphate, the Imamate would like with the rest of the Shi'ite be a requirement for a legitimate Caliph, but I believe these would require an even stricter trait than Sayyid, preferably a denoting direct decendance to Jafar as Sadiq, making available claimants sparse, forcing them to use Representatives more frequently as they have no trait requirement. Shia 3: As for the last group of Shia, these are the ones ingame called Zanaqa or "Heretical" excluding Quranism which I have moved into Murji'ah and Qarmatianism which wasn't viewed as that heretical except the Mekka incident, I am not exactly sure what to actually call this group as they contain unique Shia sects that have had internal and external debates about if they are Muslim or not, both historically and into the present day, while others are just Shia groups who are disliked by the others. I think this will best be represented and gameplay wise by seperating the first group of these into atleast a pro-Islam group and an pro-independant faith group, but how to do this I am not sure, I believe seperating the Pro-Islam ones together with the other fringe Shia's, while making a seperate non-Islamic Faith group for their counter-part, and I am considering if mixing this Non-Islamic Faith group with the Yazidis to represent a shared history of claiming Muslimness while maintaining seperate traditions, but am not sold on this as it's a compromise on accuracy and representation, infavour of gameplay. This is however a touchy subject and a bit, one could also add the pro-Islam groups here under the Twelvers instead of seperating them. 3a) Major Group The Alawite Shia, this name is a modern term they have adopted to present themselves as more Shia than non-Muslim, I believe using this name for their Pro-Islam group is fitting, but maybe a more historical accurate term exists, while I'd use their historical name Nusayriah to refer to the Independant faith group, the name Nusayriah refers to the acclaimed founder of the group Muhammad ibn Nusayr, a follower of the tenth and eleventh Twelver Shia Imams, who claimed to be the representative (Bab) of the Twelvth Imam after he went into Hidding, thus contesting the position held by the Sufara or Emissaries accepted by the other Twelvers. They played a role in the Twelver Hamidanid Dynasty in Syria (890-1004), a region they inhabit till today. The previousy mentioned Sunni Mamluk Sultan Baibars is known for forcing them to build Mosques in the 14 century. 3b) Minor Group Alevi Shia, are another Twelver group originating with a decendant of the seventh twelver Imam Musa ibn Jafar al-Kadhim, named Haji Bektash Veli (1209-1271), so it's a rather late movement compared to all the others, and should probably start extinct, but they are like the Alawites internally split if they are an Independant faith and a Shia Group, with many modern organisations claiming to be a pre-Islamic faith, they are most often known as the Ishik Alevis. They are lead by a Dede, am not so familiar with them to say what are unique features. 3c) Minor Group The Ikhtilafites or the Ghulat Shia. These are hostile terms meaning Religious Dissagrement and Extremist respectivlely, the former is probably the better of the two, these terms encompass a myriad of different Shia groups who according to their opponents believed the Imams had divine or semi-divine statuses. It's a catch all grouping, but seperate they would be too small to make it representative to include them indepently, so combining them is probably the best way. 3d) Possible Group The Khattabiyya Shia, is claimed to be one of the early Ghulat movements, named after Abu l-Khattab, who is known in Twelver and Ismaili Shi'ism as an arch-heretic, he was supposedly a close companion and disciple of Jafar as Sadiq, this is most likely the one group who makes sence to seperate from the rest of the Ikhtilafites, or possible replace it. 3e) Possible Group The Adawiyya, now this group is a bit of a stretch in order to include an Islamic Alternate to Yazidism, and are out of place here as they are not Shia, rather if anything esoteric Sunni's, they are named after Sheikh Adi ibn Musafir (1072-1162), a decendant of an Umayyad Caliph, he's a central figure in Yazidism today, this is reportedly a Sufi Order he created among the Yazidis to convert them to Islam. These groups exist on the fringes of what in the time is seen as Islam and will be met with hostilities, by other muslims and the Caliphate, they will contest their place in the muslim world, but believe the best way to make them work gameplay wise would mean each of them working with their unique features to find unlikely allies, be it the Islamic Syncretic Faiths, or maybe Christians for the Alawites, Turkic Pagans for the Alevis, and Zoroastrians for the Adawiyya, same can go for their respective alternatives among the Syncretic Faiths. Generally these will have unique HoF's to rival / represent the Imamate of the other Shia's, and generally no living Imam, only representatives. Alternative Faith group, and in lack for a better name here and now: The Islamic Syncretic Faiths: Minor Group Nusayriah, look at the Alawites. Minor Group Ishik Alevi, look at the Alevites, could maybe start by existing, in contrast to the mainstream Alevites, but this is controversial and outside my knowledge. Major Group The Druze, Alternative Name Al-Muwahhidun is a faith group that developed out of Ismailism, believing the Fatimid Caliph Imam Al-Hakim bi-amr Allah (b. 985 – Dissapeared 1021), who plays a central role, and after his dissapearance they split with the rest of Ismailism and stopped allowing converts. Major Group Yazidi, look at Adawiyya. The yazidis and their Subbranches exist already in the game, am very unfamiliar with them to say much else than that they are a pre-islamic religious tradition with a long and complicated history of relationship with Islam, but what mainly differentiates them from the Adawiyya is they see Sheikh Adi as a religious reformer of Yazidism, not the founder of a Sunni Order, it's a bit complicated and I am not so well read on them. Muhakkima Now at the end it's time for the Muhakkima, also knowns as the Khawarij, I prefer the first of these names, it means those who cast judgement, and is the opposite of the Murji'ah who refrained from Judgement, this is a broad group of early Muslim groups who recogniced the first two Caliphs but saw the third and fourth Caliphs Uthman and Ali as acting unrighteous and thus loosing the right to rule, and are famous for rebelling against them as well as killing them. I believe the structure of the branch in the game is actually pretty good, so won't go into details with them, and finding knowledge on them without reading Arabic is pretty hard. However Gameplay wise, the Muhakkima would not require any familial / congenital trait for the Caliphate, but would demand high devotion and fame from the Caliph, making them very unreliable as allies for non Muhakkima Caliphates, and favour an elective Caliphate not inheritable. The End
Thank you for reading! I'm sorry this became so long, but hope it was an interesting read, and that this was a bit better set up. submitted by /u/Hangan1 [link] [comments] |
| My Extremely Pedantic Rant About the Historical Things in CK3 that I Think are Lacking/Take Issue With Posted: 17 Jan 2022 09:42 AM PST All in good fun (mostly) Historiographic VS Historical: Historiography is the study of how we make historical narratives, aka modeling history and the study of the study of history. When you make a game like CK, you make historiographical claims. If you want to represent crime in a city simulator, for example, you have to say why it happens, how it works, it's effects, etc. The inaccuracies with CK 3 here are meant to be about the underlying systems, not the events. I don't want the game to be railroaded into the course of actual history, and I bring this up because the defense "this is a sandbox game and I want to replace Catholicism with Adamism or whatever" is sometimes thrown around, and is irrelevant to the points here. I'm also only looking at the things I think would be interesting to implement in a game, not things that basically can't be represented in a fun or approachable way. Secular Kings: - Your standing with the Church has no bearing on your legitimacy, unless excommunicated there's no real problem in terms of your relationship with your subjects for conflict with the church/pious posturing. (contrast with needing coronation in CKII, not saying we need that mechanic, or even that that was the best way to do it, just an example of how to think about things)
- Tenets of the various faiths do not fully represent their differences/structure/impact on society. Before, expecting CKII levels of bespoke mechanics for a modular new system was perhaps too much, but in light of the new Culture system, where even the most droll Traditions still do so much and bespoke mechanics are represented, this sticks out.
- Court Priests are wholly passive, they don't try to represent the desires of the church (or exploit their positions). As a result, though they are meant to remove diplomacy with tons of Baron level characters, they instead remove diplomacy and management of religious characters in general.
- There are no religious "end-goals", so to speak, outside of reforming a faith. Unless you want to replace your religion it is only a means to gain levies, gold, and potentially claims. Things like getting religious relics to make your city into a minor pilgrimage site, patronizing monastic orders and religious scholars, etc. are not represented, despite being actual motivators for medieval rulers. (more on that at the end)
States and Clans: - Obviously Byzantium is not meant to be Feudal, they've talked about representing it better in DLC, which is fine, they couldn't feasibly get a full-on simulator of a bureaucratic state on launch in a game about feudal nobility, still deserves to be on the list for now.
- There are some places (Scotland, parts of Africa, etc.) that are non-Muslim that could be Clan. The fact that Clan is Muslim only is especially odd given:
- Many Muslim states were, like the Byzantine Empire, organized, bureaucratic states. The Clan government only makes sense for some smaller Muslim polities, the Caliphs should absolutely not use it, and I am paranoid that the plan is that it's intended that they will be Clan even after proper state mechanics are implemented.
Innovations: - The Innovations in the game only represent Latin European advancements, when the technological and cultural changes happening in other places were different. Different cultures, having different means of production, resources, political organization, etc. effectively have different "tech trees", this is true for the Medieval Era as it is for most eras. Different large groups of Cultures ought to have different Innovation "trees", so that India isn't stuck with Frankish Succession Laws and such.
- The concept of a single cultural head (or at least the way they're selected) is very silly.
Interfaith Diplomacy: - The game makes a common mistake in assuming that because there was a lot of religious violence in the medieval period, only violent relations existed between people of different religions. Political marriages and alliances between Christians and Muslims were rare, but did happen. Relatively frequently, in some areas. The game has a penalty to diplomatic acceptance which scales with hostility, "evil" religions have an insurmountable -1000, when really it should just be another penalty that can be "beat". The game railroads everyone into a (false, in the sense of being egregiously exaggerated) narrative of endless conflict between Christians and Muslims, and extends it to all major religious differences, which is silly. (cries for Iberia)
Limited Alliances and Diplomacy: - Dynastic politics were important, and diplomacy was interpersonal, but not all alliances were done through marriages. While there are good gameplay reasons to restrict it to specific relations so that you need more than just good opinions to form them, other types of relationships, many that are already in the game, could also lay such a foundation. Having your child be another's ward, the friendship status, etc. While some tributary relations were exploitative (Like the ones in CKII), others were basically alliances with a lesser partner paying the other. And unlike marriages these wouldn't easily be renegotiable after death, so it wouldn't disrupt the game much.
- Building on tributaries, I can extort with blackmail, but not with swords. This makes me sad.
- Things like hooks ought to be useful for things like one time call to war or the like, since shorter term military arrangements did occur.
- There's a lack of political sabotage, like political or religious slander, which would be useful in-game, fits fully into the intrigue system, and would be period-appropriate.
Internal Politicking: - Your politics are largely unconstrained by your subjects. Actual kings had to spend a lot of time justifying actions to and negotiating with their subjects, from nobility to city parliaments to religious institutions, to introduce legal changes or launch large-scale war. In practice, this sort of thing would be too much micromanagement for the game to be implemented accurately, but something like CKII's Conclave Council would represent it well enough, especially given CK 3's Hook system and feudal contracts.
- There aren't many laws or legal reforms in the game that can happen in realms. This is more visible outside of Feudal rulers, since they at least have vassal contracts, which is strange given how many Muslim polities were more legalistic than Latin Feudal rulers.
Trade and the Medieval Economy: - Trade was more common than what older scholarship implied. There shouldn't be some kind of Imperator Rome system, since you didn't have planned trade from the nobility, but there are reasons to have trade routes or something between some cities in the game:
- It is historically one of the easiest things for nobles to tax/get income from.
- It could allow for guests/diplomacy from outside the Diplomatic Range along the routes; very few people traveled, but they were people like merchants, pilgrims, emissaries etc. that could travel far (like the pilgrims from Beijing that toured European holy sites) and be of interest to rulers.
- Options to get Grandeur/Prestige from luxuries could be provided, Indian spices were popular in England and an important way to show off status, for example.
- Is necessary for Merchant Republics, the reason there wasn't much playtime with them is because there was no larger economic system for them to "plug into" (as well as poor election mechanics), so once you gained control of the Republic internally there wasn't much else to do.
- Could give more representation of the urban upper class of commoners, which the game has started to do already with some Traditions like Republican Legacy and Parochialism.
- Representing the feudal economy in even a basic way can provide a route to represent commoners, from serfs to wealthy freemen and townsmen, and give you more "ruling" to do. Adding even a simple economy beyond holdings (at least as they are), giving the ability to do things like tax merchants, exploit commoners, invest resources in them, etc. would be great because you could tie it into things already in the game like commoner factions/rebellions, and the ability to hear some commoner petitions in the throne room. If the economy is a little more present in game, expanding commoner factions, giving more types with different motivations, tying their power to the local economy, etc. and giving the ability to try and oppress or appease them, could make your people more "visible" without needing a bunch of new characters or needing to keep track of population numbers or anything too ambitious or out of the scale of the game, as well as giving you more things to do as an actual ruler who is meant to be in charge of all these people.
Serf Soldiers: - Serfs were not raised as a part of armies, the images and subtext around levies should not imply that they were serfs, as they historically would have been minor nobles or "upper crust" commoners like yeomen, town militia, etc. who would know how to fight and be properly armed. The presentation is the main thing here, more than gameplay.
Low-Intensity Warfare: - Raiding was a common part of warfare. From a gameplay perspective, being able to raid when not at war works for pagans/tribal groups, but being able to raid people you're at war with should be available to everyone. If it weakened a garrison it would also make sense, small scale warfare revolved around raids to soften up defenses, and would help players who want to play as Counts and war other Counts.
The Spirit of the Game (somewhat of a summary): - Feudal lords were military aristocrats, and war was important to them. However, nation-states pursuing power for the sake of security didn't exist yet, these rulers were not machines seeking only military power. This is something that should be evident in CK 3, as the game systems are built to be extremely flexible for representing role-playing mechanics. However, the main "end goals" for the game are largely rooted in taking land. Almost everything else exists to feed into that. Different character personalities, paths for development, relationships, and intrigues exist mostly to get money and troops to get armies that can take land to repeat. Despite having the bones to be more, it is in practice a map painter, where the other aspects of rulership are minimized. There are only a few non-militaristic objectives, like reforming a faith, or just doing messed up stuff for personal amusement. Even many of the special decisions outside of the stuff you do on cooldown (like feasts) are things predicated on conquest, like refounding the Persian Empire or some such. Players will get frustrated when things happen like their lands getting divided amongst their heirs, even though actual rulers thought "this is fair and reasonable", and part of that is because it sets us back directly from the one objective that we are motivated to care about. Where are the options to become cultural or religious icons for reasons other than conquest, the building of things like Notre Dame, the bettering or worsening of general cultural and religious relations, the changing of laws within your realm or your liege's to better or exploit people's lives? And this is something that unfortunately seems evident in the design philosophy of the game, in interviews devs have describe the expenses on your court in RC as being an inefficient use of resources that could be devoted to armies or the like, which is not how rulers would have thought and is, in my opinion, not the right attitude for a huge RPG-Strategy-Sandbox-Simulator. Another big part of this is due to the fact that while a great deal of effort has been put into the systems that generate events, not as many actual events are present in comparison to CKII, meaning that only the foundation for a lot of these interactions is there in many places. And of course, many of the systems listed above in the document, which would be important for contextualizing these events and objectives, are lacking. The result is a very polished game that has the infrastructure for a character-driven ruler simulator, but which utilizes it primarily for the sake of map painting.
submitted by /u/Renarin21 [link] [comments] |
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/a8rudndk1dc81.png){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/18m04x1399c81.png){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/elutbij8obc81.png){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/n443in4ut9c81.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/8mgzdm3tlac81.png){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.imgur.com/91SMNAR.jpeg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/9cbd0pw6kdc81.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/fgg1g9ym1cc81.png){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/spzpan8p87c81.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/ai58a7840dc81.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/umyppkobadc81.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.imgur.com/2AKqTE8.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/ck7jrid0kec81.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/6wh5nvghkdc81.png){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/4k5cb4c725c81.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/g542btb6yec81.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/vnrohulj8fc81.jpg){kind=link}
No comments:
Post a Comment