Jump to content

Talk:Crusader Kings II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop reverting my correction. You don't know what you're talking about.

[edit]

The player can convert to Islam as well as to paganism, even without the Sword of Islam expansion. The article is wrong. I will now correct it for the forth time

Not with the official patch, you are the only one who thinks this (it isn't true, you can go and test it if you own the game) JasonnF (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hate to say it, but you can in fact convert your ruler to islam and paganism, simply by educating your heir by a pagan or muslim. He then is likely to take on his guardian's traits, and will be a pagan or muslim. However, in the case of the muslim, gameplay is not at all like with the Sword of Islam expansion. 62.195.72.200 (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Mods' section

[edit]

I fail to see the need to mention third party mods in this article, as they are not affiliated in any way with the actual game and only serve as blatant advertising for said mods(or mod, in this case. --IdanElh (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The game was designed by paradox Interactive to be easily moddable, and this modding community is supported by the developers. Whilst I agree that that a list of every little mod out there is unnecessary, a section detailing the major mods (i.e. AGOT, CK2) should be included. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Jasca in that a couple very popular mods made for games would be appropriate. Especially if the mods are covered by third party sources like the AGOT mod has been.  daintalk   16:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect Dainomite, I have been playing Crusader Kings 2 since it came out(and its predecessor years before) and I have never heard of the AGOT mod for CK2 until I saw it was being covered here.I realize you're a Game of Thrones fan and solely by that you may have been exposed to the mod from various GOT sources that non-GOT fans do not share, I ask you to re-examine the popularity of the mod before you overstate it. IdanElh (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm not bashing that you've never heard about it, I'm sorry if I gave off that impression. It's just that I think that very popular mods could be mentioned if they are supported by articles stating their popularity with the game or something, not just listing a ton of mods or something crazy like that. I heard about the mod because Steam featured an article written about about the mod back in July. To put it into scope there's only 4 mods that Paradox has "stickied" in the CK2 mods subforum on the Paradox Interactive forums. The Game of Thrones mod has the second highest views of any mod (365,000 views and 4,500 replies atm). To gather some more consensus from other folks I posted about this discussion on the video games wikiproject to see what they think about this as well just to get some more opinions. daintalk   15:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen sections on mods in other articles, and it could be appropriate here as long as it's supported by reliable sources. And I do mean reliable sources, so that rules out forums, download pages, or anything tied to the mod developer, the game publisher (Paradox), the game distributor (Steam and GamersGate), etc. I think that sets a good standard as it avoids popularity for popularity's sake and focuses on mods that independent game journalists think are notable in some way. Just my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) *Typically, I believe it's handled depending on if the mods receive third party coverage or not. For example, if someone at a reliable source like IGN write an article about how they loved this "Zombie Mod" or whatever, it may be worth including. If all there is out there is the mod's dev team promoting/describing it, or of there's only messageboard/forum posts on it, then it's usually not worth mentioning. This seems consistent with how a lot of other things are handled... Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here was the existing 'Mods' section before it was removed:
==Mods==
A fan-made total conversion mod based on George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire fantasy novels was released in May 2012. The Game of Thrones mod has been lauded by popular video game-focused blogs Kotaku and Rock, Paper, Shotgun.[1][2][3]
Here were the references: a kotaku.com article, a rockpapershotgun.com article (both of which were featured articles on Steam) and a link to the mod itself on the paradox interactive site, which does make sense why we would omit it. Sorry I didn't add this for reference earlier.—  dain- talk   01:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're both reliable sources, so I think including a quick mention couldn't hurt. Personally, I'd limit the mention to "A total conversion mod based on George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire fantasy novels was released in May 2012." I wouldn't include the "lauded" part because one can read the references for their opinion, and I believe that we should keep text not about the subject as limited as possible. Of course, if more mods deserve attention, we could expand the section into a few sentences, but I'd argue that it shouldn't stray beyond that unless it becomes a huge feature of this game. Just more of my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for your opinion Woodroar.—  dain- talk   01:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. Both of those sources have consensus considering them reliable (WP:VG/RS). We don't want any direct download links, and we don't want to word it like it's promotion, but I see no problem with including the straight facts with the reliable sources backing it up. Sergecross73 msg me 02:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious but a quick search yielded a few more other than the first two, would there be anything wrong with having 5 references for the one sentence? thesimplegamers.com article, gamefront.com article, nohighscores.com article, moddb.com article. For expanding the bit about the GOT mod would it be appropriate to write the number of scenarios it has or a couple main characters that are playable? Or maybe how it differs from the main game? Just trying to think of ideas so the section wouldn't be just one sentence.—  dain- talk   03:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of those additional sources appear overly stellar, and they're not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources which is our go-to reference for sources. Per WP:UNDUE, I'd suggest keeping the discussion of mods to a minimum, unless it becomes a major aspect of the game. It could eventually grow and spinoff into its own separate article—a la ARMA 2 and DayZ—but at this point it seems to be rather minor. Woodroar (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, agreed, on all grounds. Sergecross73 msg me 17:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for both of your opinions, I greatly appreciate it.—  dain- talk   04:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Plunkett, Luke (28 May 2012). "There is an Awesome Game of Thrones Video Game. You Can Play it Right Now". Kotaku. Retrieved 31 May 2012.
  2. ^ "[Mod] A Game of Thrones". Retrieved 2012-06-12.
  3. ^ Adam Smith (May 28, 2012). "A Mod Of A Game Of Thrones: Crusader Kings II". Rock, Paper, Shotgun. Retrieved 2012-10-21.

Quality assessment

[edit]

I assessed the article as C-class. It fails criteria 1, 2, and 6 for B-class, namely it is not suitably referenced, it does not have a Development section, and it's confusing in its use of jargon. Ideas for improvement (in order of importance):

  1. Add references where needed
  2. Add a development section
  3. Define jargon or rephrase
  4. Summarize the gameplay section

--Odie5533 (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assessment, I'll try to work on these to get it up to B class. Would you mind giving me some "jargon/rephrase" examples?—  dain- talk   18:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few rephrase examples:

  • "Game over happens when the player dies and doesn't have an heir from his dynasty to succeed him." → "The game ends when the player's character dies and does not have an heir from his dynasty to succeed him."
  • "with packs of extra features being released as DLC available through Steam" → "with extra features packs being released as downloadable content (DLC) through Steam"
  • "A total conversion mod based on" → "a downloadable patch which makes broad changes to the game based on"

The idea is to write the article such that a person with little knowledge of video games could read the article as a single unit and understand it. Abbreviations should be defined before they are used, and sentences should try to be phrased so that a reader doesn't need to click links to understand the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks again for the pointers.—  dain- talk   03:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation doesn't say what text says

[edit]

The citation for the Elder Scrolls mod doesn't say anything about it. It just links an article talking about the separate AGoT mod. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusader_Kings_II#cite_note-28 78.150.1.28 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected with the actual source. Ratel-DE (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnar Lodbrok is not necessarily a historical figure

[edit]

"The game contains numerous historical figures such as [...], Ragnar Lodbrok, [...]" The historicity of Ragnar Lodbrok is unclear. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar_Lodbrok#Historicity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.150.43 (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. The list could go on and on forever anyway. Don't be afraid to make changes or corrections yourself.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Orders

[edit]

The article says that there are three Catholic holy orders in the base game, but that all the others get one if you have the Sons of Abraham DLC. This is incorrect. I have the game myself, along with two expansions, Way of Life and The Old Gods. I don't have Sons of Abraham. However, I'm playing as Germanic Reformed Pagan and have a holy order, the Jomsvikings. Also, though I've never played as a Shi'a Mulsim, I've fought against the Hashashin in crusades before, and they appear to be a holy order as well. I don't think that statement is correct.

Also, does anybody here know whether or not the statement that you can't play as holy orders and mercenaries is correct? The Crusader Kings II wiki says here that you can gain control of holy orders and mercenaries. It explains that this happens if a vassal mercenary company or holy order gains a title such as a kingdom, and its succession law supercedes the mercenary company's or holy order's default succession law of open, then the company will be passed along dynastic lines. If you can kill all the members of the dynasty, you will become the heir, allowing you to gain control of the unit. This would be an extremely difficult process, but it would be possible.

Obviously this is a wiki, which doesn't meet verifiability standards. However, it's not likely to be known to exist by people who don't own the game. This means that it's unlikely to be vandalized, and will be mostly edited by those who actually have the game. Is there anybody here who knows whether or not this is true? -©2015 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 14:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Crusader Kings II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DLC list been moved.

[edit]

DLC list has been moved to Downloadable Content for Crusader Kings II, I made this decision as there was a massive table full of DLCs which for a user seems too much, they are unlikely to be interested in looking at all the DLC first and rather the page for the main game. As there are also so many DLC for the game which could actually make a game in itself, there is now a specific page for all the CKII DLC.BSOleader (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been three months and that page does still not exist. [unsigned comment]
BSOleader has quit Wikipedia, so I decided to add back in a table of the Expansion packs (incomplete as of yet). A whole new article for the DLC doesn't seem that necessary, as it wasn't done on the Europa Universalis IV page, which has roughly the same amount. PotentPotables (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of "see also"

[edit]

Shouldn’t the game Imperium Romanum (video game) removed from see also? It more fits with Imperator: Rome than Crusader Kings II. Bengalensis5923 (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of "cassus bellis"

[edit]

Changed to "cassus belli" since that is already the correct plural.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crusader_Kings_II&oldid=1219106564"