cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
Not necessarily, but don't expect them to be 100% perfect even if they are playable. Side-effect of transitioning to a new patch, unfortunately.
Crusader Kings 2
- Thread starter SouthernKing
- Start date
Not necessarily, but don't expect them to be 100% perfect even if they are playable. Side-effect of transitioning to a new patch, unfortunately.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
New DLC announced, and this one looks like their biggest one yet. "Old Gods", it is.
Link: http://www.paradoxplaza.com/games/crusader-kings-ii-the-old-gods
Text from link:
My main concerns are how the heck will they balance the 867 start date with the super-blob Abbasids, and how the heck will they fill in all the characters for the 867 start (I'm assuming there will be craploads of fake characters, which is a pity). Otherwise, it seems to be an all-pagan DLC, which is nice. I would have preferred a 1000 start date, which is still more appropriate to CKII's timeline, but oh well, good enough - can't complain about new stuff too much.
Link: http://www.paradoxplaza.com/games/crusader-kings-ii-the-old-gods
Text from link:
My main concerns are how the heck will they balance the 867 start date with the super-blob Abbasids, and how the heck will they fill in all the characters for the 867 start (I'm assuming there will be craploads of fake characters, which is a pity). Otherwise, it seems to be an all-pagan DLC, which is nice. I would have preferred a 1000 start date, which is still more appropriate to CKII's timeline, but oh well, good enough - can't complain about new stuff too much.
salty mud
Deity
867 to 1453 would be truly epic.
Us beta slaves are hard at work researching....
SouthernKing
crickety cricket
Yes! YES! 1169 year megacampaign, here I come!
AA: I don't believe so. The only place you'd find those would be Persia, and that was Tahirid/Saffarid/Ghaznavid and therefore Islamic. You'd have to go back another 200 years at least.
Now, I'm not sure about individual sheikhdoms (or whatever), there might have been Zoroastrian lords.
AA: I don't believe so. The only place you'd find those would be Persia, and that was Tahirid/Saffarid/Ghaznavid and therefore Islamic. You'd have to go back another 200 years at least.
Now, I'm not sure about individual sheikhdoms (or whatever), there might have been Zoroastrian lords.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
I took a class on Zoroastrianism last quarter, and apparently historically a large proportion - possibly even the majority of the commoners and possibly even the lower nobility - were Zoroastrian up to around 1000 CE. In fact according to my professor there was a very clear and sharp difference in terms of Persian names around 1000 CE - before then most Persian names still were old-school ones from the pre-Islamic era, such as names from Zoroastrian mythology or the Sassanid era, while after that the number of names we'd associate with Islam (Mohammed, etc.) increases a crapload.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
Gilgamesh isn't Persian.
But yes, like Xerxes - except the Persian form.
Basically if I remember correctly my professor was talking about how historians track down names of various family members (based I think on commercial transactions or the like), and you get stuff like this, in terms of each generation's successive names.
Dariush --> Kurush --> Peroz --> Mohammed --> Ahmed --> Said
Pretty obvious what happened there.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
Also I don't think it is pronounced like the English word "said". Also, not enough Mohammeds 
Oh really.
Bowsling
Deity
Similar threads
