Crusader K+ngs II

[brkl]

I don't think I will ever install something that makes this more complicated than it is.

[Orv]

I don't think I will ever install something that makes this more complicated than it is.

EU3 isn't particularly complex, but avoid Vicky like the plague.

[Gormongous]

Hmm, and now Paradox is announcing an AAR competition to drum up interest in the new Sword of Islam DLC.

I have to say, it really rubs me the wrong way the few times Paradox has offered to put your name in a historical game as a prize in a contest. I know they're combing charters and prosopography databases for character names and still probably don't have enough, but at least leave me the illusion that this isn't all just make-believe...

[Orv]

Hmm, and now Paradox is announcing an AAR competition to drum up interest in the new Sword of Islam DLC.

I have to say, it really rubs me the wrong way the few times Paradox has offered to put your name in a historical game as a prize in a contest. I know they're combing charters and prosopography databases for character names and still probably don't have enough, but at least leave me the illusion that this isn't all just make-believe...

Well, for 5 bucks you have the ability to create the lineage of Charles Von Hapsbutts, ruler of Austria with 40 intrigue and 10 in every other stat and just stab Europe to death.

[brkl]

I love this game. I've bought several Paradox games but they are too much for me. This one is just golden. Worrying about actual(ish) personalities and titles and such is so very different from just economy + conquest. That that I'm not doing conquest when I feel like I have the chops for it. Right now I'm Hugh the Kind, King of Scotland and now Denmark as well.

[Irishjohn]

I find the game... impenetrable.

I have a few Paradox games now, and mostly I do something goofy like take control of Texas in Victoria II or Ireland in Hearts of Iron III. Neither of these options are a good way for a beginner to play the game, but I am a history nerd and that's how I've been having fun so far, before actually, you know, playing the games. Truth be told, I'm rubbish at strategy games, but still enjoy them.

I should go and figure out how to play this game.

[brkl]

I've honestly had Victoria II for some time and I never realized it was Paradox because I haven't installed it.

[Orv]

Kersch has you covered again.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3487258

[Gormongous]

So hey, I snatched up all the miscellaneous DLC since the Steam sale gave 75% off that too and found some time to play a game as the Kalbid dynasty of Palermo in Sicily. Holy hell, Orvidos, that quote you posted was right. Everything happens a thousand miles an hour and you have a million kids and one of them inherits but it doesn't matter who unless he doesn't have piety in which case you observe Ramadan and go on hajj and argh. On the one hand, the religious events for the Muslims are amazing and I would happily drop ten bucks to get the same experience for Christians, with pilgrimages to various holy sites, intrigue with the local bishop, and papal elections. On the other hand, playing as a Muslim just lays bare how important the finer points of the base game, like succession laws and inheritance, are to enjoyment. I'm not sure I'll play another Muslim after this one.

I find the game... impenetrable.

I have a few Paradox games now, and mostly I do something goofy like take control of Texas in Victoria II or Ireland in Hearts of Iron III. Neither of these options are a good way for a beginner to play the game, but I am a history nerd and that's how I've been having fun so far, before actually, you know, playing the games. Truth be told, I'm rubbish at strategy games, but still enjoy them.

I should go and figure out how to play this game.

I've played exactly three full-length games of Victoria II: first as the Empire of Brazil, then as Bavaria in a failed German unification, and finally as Sardinia-Piedmont in a successful Italian unification. I had enormous fun with all of them, but I hit a wall after the last one and have exactly no desire to go back to the game. For a beginner who enjoys being the historical oddball, I'd definitely recommend Brazil. It's an economic powerhouse with tons of desirable goods and the potential to be a major world power under a smart player, unless you played it during version 1.1 like me, where there was a game-breaking bug with the PoP AI that perceived it as more cost-effective to hire no one than to obey minimum wage laws and to starve on minimal welfare than get a job. A conservative's nightmare, really.

[Irishjohn]

Kersch has you covered again.

http://forums.someth...hreadid=3487258

Cheers man, having a look now.

I've played exactly three full-length games of Victoria II: first as the Empire of Brazil, then as Bavaria in a failed German unification, and finally as Sardinia-Piedmont in a successful Italian unification. I had enormous fun with all of them, but I hit a wall after the last one and have exactly no desire to go back to the game. For a beginner who enjoys being the historical oddball, I'd definitely recommend Brazil. It's an economic powerhouse with tons of desirable goods and the potential to be a major world power under a smart player, unless you played it during version 1.1 like me, where there was a game-breaking bug with the PoP AI that perceived it as more cost-effective to hire no one than to obey minimum wage laws and to starve on minimal welfare than get a job. A conservative's nightmare, really.

Cool, thanks for the tip. I'll definitely have a look.

[toblix]

I bought this because it was cheap and I really like how the maps look. I'm terrible at strategy games, especially ones I have to spend a lot of time in to get a grip on, so I came into this expecting to find it terrible. I jumped right into the tutorials, and my gosh if these aren't the most terrible, pathetic, useless, tacked-on-at-the-last-minute excuses for tutorials I've ever come across. It starts out pretty good, telling you where to click and what things are, but it quickly becomes just one or two text boxes telling you sort of how things are, maybe referring to buttons that aren't there, and then if you're really lucky, it does that thing that tacked-on-at-the-last-minute tutorials always do because they realise their GUI doesn't support it, which is break spectacularly. If I ever develop a strategy video game, one of the key features will be that the GUI and game engine is fully scriptable, and supports tutorial stuff like locking down functions, pausing everything, indicating stuff, whatever.

[toblix]

Hah! "Unfortunately you don't have enough money to do that now, but if you did, it would look like this" and then a tiny picture. Worst. Tutorial. Ever.

[Murdoc]

Yeah I played for twenty minutes and had to go refer to google. I found a really awesome tutorial link that I'll post back on Monday when I have access to it.

I really want to like this game, it seems cool but, damn, a bit overwhelming at first... Which was expected

[toblix]

Yeah, I finally started a new game, chose a guy and then... quit the game.

[brkl]

It's funny, at first I felt just as overwhelmed as with other Paradox games, but something just clicked surprisingly quickly. It's not all that complicated, at least not the way I play it. I've done almost nothing in regards to tech, for example, since it seems to develop so slowly and not play into things in a huge way.

[Cigol]

It's a shame because it's actually pretty straightforward in terms of what you can do it's just the same old problem of presenting the information and how to interact with it in obtuse and unsatisfying ways.

In one of the other threads on here someone (sorry, I forgot!) posted a link to this thread which seems pretty useful; How the Hell Do We Play Crusader Kings 2? - The Something Awful Forums

I wish there were more games like this though, I remember The Guild being similar but smaller scale.

[toblix]

I have to say, though, I'm a huge fan of this kind of user interface. Not necessarily for its usability, but for its high resolution, detail, use of tool-tips and general PC-only-ness.

[Adynod]

I picked this up cheap yesterday but haven't had a chance to check it out yet. I watched am interesting lets play of it not long ago and couldn't resist the sale. I don't know if I'll take to it or not but I really like the idea of it. I can see it taking me a while to adjust from my Total War mindset!

[brkl]

Man, don't go Seniority. You'll be in a heap of trouble. I've got it back to Gavelkind now, which isn't ideal but will do.

[Codicier]

I find the game... impenetrable.

I have a few Paradox games now, and mostly I do something goofy like take control of Texas in Victoria II or Ireland in Hearts of Iron III. Neither of these options are a good way for a beginner to play the game, but I am a history nerd and that's how I've been having fun so far, before actually, you know, playing the games. Truth be told, I'm rubbish at strategy games, but still enjoy them.

I should go and figure out how to play this game.

My experiences with CK so far have all been so disastrous that the populations of my blighted realms were probably left wishing for locusts.

So what I'm thinking is this: Misery loves company.

Would Irishjohn or anyone else be interested in the idea of everyone starting a game with the same monarch and then playing through a 5-20 year block of game time before stopping and reporting back here the choices we have made and the problems we have had, then continuing?

Think it would give us a chance to see what we have missed, and see out how differently things could play out. Perhaps one of the more experienced players like Orvidos or Gormongus could help out with suggesting a starting dynasty or perhaps playing along with us newbies. We could keep a pretty relaxed schedule about it, and we might get some interestingly divergent stories.

I love the idea of this game, It's just in reality it doesn't seem to love me back.

P.S thanks for that kersch link its helping things slowly fall a bit more into place.

[Irishjohn]

My experiences with CK so far have all been so disastrous that the populations of my blighted realms were probably left wishing for locusts.

So what I'm thinking is this: Misery loves company.

Would Irishjohn or anyone else be interested in the idea of everyone starting a game with the same monarch and then playing through a 5-20 year block of game time before stopping and reporting back here the choices we have made and the problems we have had, then continuing?

Think it would give us a chance to see what we have missed, and see out how differently things could play out. Perhaps one of the more experienced players like Orvidos or Gormongus could help out with suggesting a starting dynasty or perhaps playing along with us newbies. We could keep a pretty relaxed schedule about it, and we might get some interestingly divergent stories.

I love the idea of this game, It's just in reality it doesn't seem to love me back.

P.S thanks for that kersch link its helping things slowly fall a bit more into place.

That sounds like a fun idea, and I'd be down for giving it a go. I've been playing as the Lord of Munster, and by being extremely conservative (and utilising info from the first three parts of that fantastic LP/guide) I've actually gotten hold of Connaught and Ulster now. Just waiting for an excuse to take on Leinster and unify the island, but this could be the end of it all. They're pretty tough.

[brkl]

Why not just play multiplayer and use Skype for conversation and tips?

[Orv]

I'd prefer brkl's suggestion, since I could just go play an Emir and give you new Catholic players some tips. Of course that comes down to the ever troublesome arranging a multiplayer game between Thumbs.

[brkl]

For this one, though, even two players should be enough. I think.

[Codicier]

Why not just play multiplayer and use Skype for conversation and tips?

I'd prefer brkl's suggestion, since I could just go play an Emir and give you new Catholic players some tips. Of course that comes down to the ever troublesome arranging a multiplayer game between Thumbs.

It's not a bad idea certainly, and something id like to try when I feel less likely to embarrass myself . But time zones and life in general have a habit of getting in the way a lot when you have a group as diverse and dispersed as the Thumbs attempt to do multi-player games, which is why I suggested this 'parallel multi-player' format.

Think what I'll do tonight is try playing as Munster and report back progress, and brkl & orv can laugh, and irishjohn can nod his head in solemn and silent acknowledgement of common woes!