Faeelin said:
Crusader Kings, an attempt at a dynastic strategy game in the Medieval Era.
Comes with a Feudal Byzantium. Nuf said.
Heh... feudal Byzantium is definitely quite a bit of misnomer. IMO the issues with Crusader Kings are numerous, and besides the fact that the game is rather unstable and tends to crash at the moment you least expect it, it does not really portray some of the main issues of the time, namely:
1) Transition from feudal bandit lords to beginnings of nation states - more so pronounced in some areas than in the others. While it is fair to say it was not the case anywhere other than in Byzantium (and possibly the Arab states, which from what little I know were organizationally closer to Renaissanse European monarchies than to feudal warring states of Europe at the time) in 1066, by 1337 in parts of Europe nation-state identities were beginning to emerge, in particular places like Southern Italy, England, etc etc. There is simply no way to represent a centralized state in the game, and the Byzantine Emperor's demesne bonus is not nearly enough to showcase the large proper empire.
2) The Crusades happen regardless of how well (or poorly) 1066 Byzantium is doing. If there is no Manzikert, and the Big Purple Blob is steamrolling over the Middle East, why would the Pope call for Crusades against the Muslims?
3) No Manzikert, or chain of events that would leave it a high-probability outcome. If the first scenario started aroudn 1091 or 1092, it would have made more sense... otherwise early Byzantium is too strong.
4) The "three-tier" system (count-duke/prince-king/emperor) does not work too well. Historically, some titles had more significance than the others - Holy Roman and Byzantine Emperors being two, Grand Prince of Kiev being another one (albeit localized to Russia). If there was a fourth tier of "Emperor" (as in being superior to "King", and being able to take Kings as vassals), it could not only provide more historical accuracy, but also give an extra bonus or two with regards to demesne and such that would allow "Emperors" to start building true semi-centralized states, doing away with some of feudal trappings.
5) The Mongols are not only overpowered, the way they are built in is that the game pretty much becomes "who builds up the best before the Mongols show up" - it is rather easy to be close to complete European conquest by then, and it seems the Mongols are just thrown in to give some mid-late game challenge for early starters.
This said, it is still quite decent for dynastic simulator - although playing as the Byzantines is generally way too easy, even in 1337 campaign (as long as you don't make an early mistake of taking on the world, you can take out the Ottomans within a year or two, and retake most of Anatolia within 10 to 15 years - hardly a realistic outcome). Its best feature, the ability to convert save games to EU2, is quite nifty, albeit it is rather hard to play through the entire CK campaign due to numerous crashes/corrupt save games/etc. A good game for anyone wanting everything by Paradox, and fairly deep, but still a patch or two short from complete playability IMO.