Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
I guess they came down the coast from Alaska.
I figured this game created a perfect think tank to discuss the Question.
A lot of you have better educations than I do. Please research let me know your thoughts.
Just wait until After the End releases.
It wasn't "forgotten", the game is called CRUSADER KINGS, not Lakota Chieftains. The focus is medieval Europe not pre-Columbian Americas.
Africa and Western Asia has to be included because the Muslim lands were such a big component of the age.
India however is just a waste of processing power, has been since CK2.
The game's name speaks to itself.
But the characters and named county, countrys and kingdoms are crap...
Looking at his work and I wouldn't take his word as gospel. Definitely look into his book's sources when reading them.
Because Americas would be completely detached from the rest of the CK3 game world, I dont see why it should be included. Kolumbus was in late 1400s. It would seem very artificial addition that I wouldnt want to play. Ive been disappointed in the viking and Iberia DLCs as well because they are so heavily area-specific.
ps. Crossing the frozen sea from tip of Asia to Alaska seems possible.
pps. Dont forget Vikings. Theres been more evidence uncovered lately about them traveling further inland than originally thought.