Why not add NEW factions and new portions of the map rather than hand out Culture packs?

[RedGuard]

Basically as the title says. Why does CA think people want to pay for factions that are already in the game just so we can play with them? Why hasn't DLC ever actually added anything to the game like new lands, more factions (that don't already exist buy buying Attlia TW). I feel like the map could extend both south and definitely east, adding more factions and more unique cultures rather than giving people what they already should have paid for. ANd I'm not a Paradox fanboy, but I like how the Crusader kings 2 DLC add things to the game like new government types, more factions etc.

The White Huns/Hephatilites (don't know how to spell) should be added, we could have a indian faction. We need a Slavic faction, with its own culture and they could fully flesh out Axum and the territories it owned etc... Now those are DLCs that I would buy.

[Abendstern]

I'd rather they fix / flesh out already existing factions like the Sarmatians than adding new ones. Especially not those which neither had a significant connection to the Hunnic invasion nor any impact on the fall of Rome.

[Sir_Pee_Alot]

I'd rather they fix / flesh out already existing factions like the Sarmatians than adding new ones. Especially not those which neither had a significant connection to the Hunnic invasion nor any impact on the fall of Rome.

Well to finish the already existing factions they dont need to do it with DLCs but they can just do it with PATCHES, And for DLCs they sould add new mechanics , features , effects , and so on content that adds to the game and makes it more immersive and fun and not a few faction/unit DLCs there are only that mutch DLCs for a TW game so why work like this and add nothing more then different starting locations with nothing special waste of the DLC if you ask me!.

But if they really wanted to add to the game they would have done more with the DLCs but they just dont care looks like it, just look at there forum asking for what DLC we want next and what are the choices faction/unit/campaign bla bla bla oh and effects or something Well a GOOD DLC would have all of that and more... Faction DLCs are just onlocks for money they sould not even be named DLC,s.

[emperor77]

Because that would require actual work.

[Linke]

Co ops would be hard if one player had a part of the map another didn't. Also there would barely be enough factions on the map that ren't there that you could add (good thing actualy)

[veverčák]

I do not think compatibility would be issue. The reason why we have on disc dlc and our copies of Attila are holding all dlc although we do not buy it is to assure compatibility within multiplayer. It would probably be done in same way as dlc Rajas of India is for Crusaders Kings 2: You actually can interact with Indian rulers and you can see India, but you can not chose to play as them.

As far as the topic itself goes. I am not fan. I am against expanding borders as it is always better to come out with system design to capture region from start then this hot shot patching in. I would like dlc adding for example Court, which could work as current Social Ladder (you know - Companion - Judge - Tribal chief - Ruler of the Universe) but it would be limited by Imperium Level, open to everybody and having impact on diplomacy/behaviour of AI kingdoms with possibility to upgrade Courts seats for extra benefit (for example: Court Seat - Spymaster, Chief of Guards etc.). Or allowing to name Ambassadors to foreign kingdoms. Or allowing to recruit agent from our Family member/Court nobles.

[WelshDragon]

I'd settle for more settlements/provinces on the campaign map!

[AnonMilwaukean]

New portions of the map are unnecessary in my opinion, as the map has always been a strong point, even going back to the dark days of Rome 2's terrible release.

As for factions, I slightly agree. Attila, so far, has done way more with culture packs than R2 did... R2 basically added a few unique units and that was it, with maybe a new cultural type (like with the Balkans) on rare occasion. Attila, on the other hand, tends to add some unique buildings, adds unique units in larger numbers, and tends to throw a few more events in for flavor and gameplay. Attila has, surprisingly, turned out to be less objectionable with DLC than I thought, save for one considerable problem: 4 DLC in about a month and a half. That's a ton, and personally, I feel like the Blood and Gore DLC should have been a Free-LC that required an age-verification check and nothing more. Further, I feel like at least one of the Celt factions should have been free, given that anyone who bought at or near release ended up playing a game with filler units (Norse/Germanic) for the Celts they fought against back then.

All in all, they certainly still could stand to add a few factions in that aren't already available, but I think they learned from R2 that if you want to charge $8 for culture packs, then you need to add a bit more to them than a couple unique units.

[nameless]

Dunno about new factions but new portions would require a total rebalancing because there'd be new areas that could change the balance of power between the factions.

[PointOfViewGun]

Basically as the title says. Why does CA think people want to pay for factions that are already in the game just so we can play with them? Why hasn't DLC ever actually added anything to the game like new lands, more factions (that don't already exist buy buying Attlia TW). I feel like the map could extend both south and definitely east, adding more factions and more unique cultures rather than giving people what they already should have paid for. ANd I'm not a Paradox fanboy, but I like how the Crusader kings 2 DLC add things to the game like new government types, more factions etc.

The White Huns/Hephatilites (don't know how to spell) should be added, we could have a indian faction. We need a Slavic faction, with its own culture and they could fully flesh out Axum and the territories it owned etc... Now those are DLCs that I would buy.

Probably because this doesn't make much sense.

First of all, you're not paying for factions that are already in the game. Faction DLCs do add to the game in terms of new units, traits and missions. Moreover, when you bought the game you paid for 10 factions.

Second, adding pieces to the map of the main campaign makes no sense. That's for new campaign DLCs to do as they did before.

Third, a quick glance at Crusader Kings II's DLC page doesn't yield any faction DLCs that add new factions to the main game. It has campaign DLCs though which is similar to campaign DLCs that we had with Rome II.

Fourth, it's very ironic of you to mention Crusader Kings II as it even has DLC for portraits. Yes, just portraits.

[johnmck]

Probably because this doesn't make much sense.

First of all, you're not paying for factions that are already in the game. Faction DLCs do add to the game in terms of new units, traits and missions. Moreover, when you bought the game you paid for 10 factions.

Second, adding pieces to the map of the main campaign makes no sense. That's for new campaign DLCs to do as they did before.

Third, a quick glance at Crusader Kings II's DLC page doesn't yield any faction DLCs that add new factions to the main game. It has campaign DLCs though which is similar to campaign DLCs that we had with Rome II.

Fourth, it's very ironic of you to mention Crusader Kings II as it even has DLC for portraits. Yes, just portraits.

I think what redguard is trying to say is that it seems silly to pay for culture packs when those culture packs are updated into our game anyway. Ya they aren't available to us but they are supposed to be for the AI, even if you didn't buy the dlc. I agree with him that DLC should be new content, not fleshed out original content. Yes existing factions get "new" units when these culture packs are released, but the factions themselves were already there in the base game, with the new units, just locked away from us. Not that any of our opinions matter to CA but i'm of the opinion that if they're going to bring out a celtic culture dlc then they should release a Britain specific campaign mode along with it, same with the Viking and Longbeards Dlc's, as well as making these factions available in the grand campaign, otherwise its just milking us for money. Maybe my standards for dlc are too high but i don't really see that as being a bad thing.

[PointOfViewGun]

I think what redguard is trying to say is that it seems silly to pay for culture packs when those culture packs are updated into our game anyway. Ya they aren't available to us but they are supposed to be for the AI, even if you didn't buy the dlc. I agree with him that DLC should be new content, not fleshed out original content. Yes existing factions get "new" units when these culture packs are released, but the factions themselves were already there in the base game, with the new units, just locked away from us. Not that any of our opinions matter to CA but i'm of the opinion that if they're going to bring out a celtic culture dlc then they should release a Britain specific campaign mode along with it, same with the Viking and Longbeards Dlc's, as well as making these factions available in the grand campaign, otherwise its just milking us for money. Maybe my standards for dlc are too high but i don't really see that as being a bad thing.

That's an inherently wrong point of view. It's like just because you buy a plane ticket you expect to be flown to Boston as well. For all intents and purposes, the base game did not have any of those new factions for you to play with them. No one forces anyone to buy them anyway.

[johnmck]

That's an inherently wrong point of view. It's like just because you buy a plane ticket you expect to be flown to Boston as well. For all intents and purposes, the base game did not have any of those new factions for you to play with them. No one forces anyone to buy them anyway.

I don't think that's the analogy i'm going for. It's more like I'm flying to Boston, and the stewardess asks me if i want a meal onboard, i say yes and get a breadroll. Is that a meal? Technically but i would like a full course meal. Can i complain? not really cause its an airline and i should've known they would ****** me lol.

edit: Also man, i really don't think anyone's point of view is inherently wrong, we've all got different opinions, and no ones is really right or wrong, some might just be more popular than others. You come off as a bit insensitive when you start your comment that way. I fully respect that you have your own supportive point of view regarding CA's DLC practice, as shown by your many comments in their defense (which is fine) but you have to accept that there are a lot of people on this website that don't share your point of view.

[RedGuard]

Probably because this doesn't make much sense.

First of all, you're not paying for factions that are already in the game. Faction DLCs do add to the game in terms of new units, traits and missions.They are in the game, they're just not playable by default Moreover, when you bought the game you paid for 10 factions. True

Second, adding pieces to the map of the main campaign makes no sense. That's for new campaign DLCs to do as they did before. How does this make no sense?

Third, a quick glance at Crusader Kings II's DLC page doesn't yield any faction DLCs that add new factions to the main game. It has campaign DLCs though which is similar to campaign DLCs that we had with Rome II. Actually meant EU 4, not CK2; I get those two confused because I bought them at the same time but I have seldom played them . But CK2 Dlc does add new ways to play the game

Fourth, it's very ironic of you to mention Crusader Kings II as it even has DLC for portraits. Yes, just portraits. and Total war has a DlC for blood. your point?

If CA were to essentially remake the Britannia campaign from Medieval 2 Kingdoms but with a (historical) Arthurian theme, with a super detailed campaign map, maybe a new Romano-British faction with some unique units that could also be played as on the grand campaign map, I'd buy that in an instant because it adds new content.

I was hoping they would, I even made a thread about it. I was reserving judgement for there being no celts in game for this very reason. I'm sure they have plans for something like it to come however.

Also to be fair that the DLC gets loaded into the game for the AI without us paying squat is actually pretty nice for us players, as we can encounter and fight the cultures anyway.

this isnt actually a point anyone is making. not sure why its even here.

[PointOfViewGun]

I don't think that's the analogy i'm going for. It's more like I'm flying to Boston, and the stewardess asks me if i want a meal onboard, i say yes and get a breadroll. Is that a meal? Technically but i would like a full course meal. Can i complain? not really cause its an airline and i should've known they would ****** me lol.

edit: Also man, i really don't think anyone's point of view is inherently wrong, we've all got different opinions, and no ones is really right or wrong, some might just be more popular than others. You come off as a bit insensitive when you start your comment that way. I fully respect that you have your own supportive point of view regarding CA's DLC practice, as shown by your many comments in their defense (which is fine) but you have to accept that there are a lot of people on this website that don't share your point of view.

That's a really bad analogy. It's really not like asking for a meal and getting a breadroll. That would have more of a connection to the quality you'd expect. It has no connection to extra content. You need to get what you're discussing right first. You know what you're getting with the main game, and the DLCs that come after it. They're not secret packages that you learn what's inside them after you buy them.

I know there are many people that don't share what I say. That doesn't mean that what they say has automatic validity. If I see lack of logic or sense in your point of view I don't really have any reason not to point it out.

As I said, just because you bought a ticket to Boston, and that your plane is capable of flying to Washington DC as well, doesn't mean you're entitled to fly to Washington DC with that ticket and plane.

They are in the game, they're just not playable by default

For all intents and purposes, they are not, because you can't play with them. When you bought the game you didn't pay to play with them. You bought a game with 10 factions.

How does this make no sense?

Why does it make sense? You have to first establish that. Why should they add a new section to the map? The current map covers the theme and era pretty nicely already.

Actually meant EU 4, not CK2; I get those two confused because I bought them at the same time but I have seldom played them . But CK2 Dlc does add new ways to play the game

I can't find a single DLC for Europa Universalis IV that adds new regions to the main game.

and Total war has a DlC for blood. your point?

Having a Blood and Gore DLC is a rating issue. It's not comparable at all. Crusader Kings II AND Europa Universalis IV asks you to pay for more pictures. If selling units or factions was abomination then I expected more against selling pictures.

[RedGuard]

That's a really bad analogy. It's really not like asking for a meal and getting a breadroll. That would have more of a connection to the quality you'd expect. It has no connection to extra content. You need to get what you're discussing right first. You know what you're getting with the main game, and the DLCs that come after it. They're not secret packages that you learn what's inside them after you buy them.

I know there are many people that don't share what I say. That doesn't mean that what they say has automatic validity. If I see lack of logic or sense in your point of view I don't really have any reason not to point it out.

As I said, just because you bought a ticket to Boston, and that your plane is capable of flying to Washington DC as well, doesn't mean you're entitled to fly to Washington DC with that ticket and plane.

actually you have a inherently terrible opinion on nearly every thread you post in. Your very contrarian to anything that makes any sense, even things that others see as noteworthy. I agree with Johnmck here.

For all intents and purposes, they are not, because you can't play with them. When you bought the game you didn't pay to play with them. You bought a game with 10 factions. uh huh. sure. we'll go with that bro. whatever floats your boat.




Why does it make sense? You have to first establish that. Why should they add a new section to the map? The current map covers the theme and era pretty nicely already. woah woah there bud. you're the one that says it doesn't make any sense to you. the burden of proof is on you. If you can't understand why someone would want a bigger sandbox to play in than I don't know what else to tell you. And there were huns farther east than what is currently displayed, so I think thats a pretty good reason.




I can't find a single DLC for Europa Universalis IV that adds new regions to the main game. there's actually quite a bit if you consider the fact that being able to go further in time means that there are new factions that become playable. And that is what I mentioned in the op. More factions, new government types.




Having a Blood and Gore DLC is a rating issue. It's not comparable at all. Crusader Kings II AND Europa Universalis IV asks you to pay for more pictures. If selling units or factions was abomination then I expected more against selling pictures. Arguably a simple cosmetic DLC that can either be bought or not based on what their preference is for blood. quite like the portraits in CK2. I'm not defending either, just sayin

[PointOfViewGun]

uh huh. sure. we'll go with that bro. whatever floats your boat.

This is not really open to debate. It's what it is. When you buy a plane ticket do you behave as if you own the plane?

woah woah there bud. you're the one that says it doesn't make any sense to you. the burden of proof is on you. If you can't understand why someone would want a bigger sandbox to play in than I don't know what else to tell you. And there were huns farther east than what is currently displayed, so I think thats a pretty good reason.

Not really. The burden is on you to establish it being a sensible thing to do. I can't prove the non-existence of sensibility in what you suggested unless you actually provide an argument in support of it.

The current map contains the Hunnic lands adequately. To cover all the lands to the East would require a complete re-do of the main game. A DLC can't really do that. What you're asking for is an expansion.

there's actually quite a bit if you consider the fact that being able to go further in time means that there are new factions that become playable. And that is what I mentioned in the op.

So, you're actually talking about expansion DLCs, something that Total War games similarly have. Why not name a few DLCs if there are indeed DLCs that add new regions to the main game?

Arguably a simple cosmetic DLC that can either be bought or not based on what their preference is for blood. quite like the portraits in CK2. I'm not defending either, just sayin

You're defending an ignorant point deliberately. You know very well that we have Blood and Gore DLCs to keep the game from having a higher rating. Portraits don't have the same issue. Now, where is the outcry for selling portraits?

[johnmck]

That's a really bad analogy. It's really not like asking for a meal and getting a breadroll. That would have more of a connection to the quality you'd expect. It has no connection to extra content. You need to get what you're discussing right first. You know what you're getting with the main game, and the DLCs that come after it. They're not secret packages that you learn what's inside them after you buy them.

That's what I'm discussing though, in my opinion, and I think my opinion is shared among others on this site, the quality of the extra content does not validate its price. We've received how many "new" factions, for over half of the original game's value? This has nothing to do with flying to DC, you can't keep changing the analogy to fit your argument, stick to mine xP We're simply discussing the value that these 4 DLC's, amounting to 30.00 canadian for me. You can't honestly say that through the DLC's we've received so far we've gained another 50%+ value for the game, at the most its probably more like 20%. No one is pointing a gun at me to buy the breadroll, so i can choose to go hungry on the plane (not buy any of these, IMO necessary to the base game DLCS), give in and shut up and eat my breadroll (buy the DLC) or find a different system of transportation (another game) which I will be more willing to give my money too because more value from my $$. At the end of the day it's exhausting to have to accept that companies must carry out these policies in order to compete with their competitors who are also guilty of it. We have two different opinions on this topic, we've both used logic and reasoning but based on our preferences and standards for DLC's we come to different conclusions given the evidence we are presented. This argument is getting tiresome though, so i'll let you have the final word.

[surg3on]

Having a Blood and Gore DLC is a rating issue. It's not comparable at all. Crusader Kings II AND Europa Universalis IV asks you to pay for more pictures. If selling units or factions was abomination then I expected more against selling pictures.

I've never understood the relative hate TW gets for DLC when you look at Europa Uni, StarCitizen, Battlefield, COD, anything 'free' to play etc...

[Yayattasa]

Third, a quick glance at Crusader Kings II's DLC page doesn't yield any faction DLCs that add new factions to the main game. It has campaign DLCs though which is similar to campaign DLCs that we had with Rome II.

If you ever played vanilla CK2 (current version, 2.3.2), you'd have noticed you can only play as western europeans. The whole world out there, unplayable.