Recommended Posts

Ah, well I still feel like I have a good couple dozen games with all the DLC now before I start feeling the TC itch, so that's fine with me. I was just worried it would end up like Civ 5, which I still can only get to notice about 2/3's of the stuff I have subscribed, and not even a consistent 2/3's either. I just want some of the more obvious UI options and maybe more attention paid to fleshing out the non-catholic (or god-damned Nordic, which I find the presentation of astonishingly... don't have an adjective. Masturbatory?) parts of the world, and if paradox isn't interested, hopefully other history nerds are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, well I still feel like I have a good couple dozen games with all the DLC now before I start feeling the TC itch, so that's fine with me. I was just worried it would end up like Civ 5, which I still can only get to notice about 2/3's of the stuff I have subscribed, and not even a consistent 2/3's either. I just want some of the more obvious UI options and maybe more attention paid to fleshing out the non-catholic (or god-damned Nordic, which I find the presentation of astonishingly... don't have an adjective. Masturbatory?) parts of the world, and if paradox isn't interested, hopefully other history nerds are.

 

Is Civilization 5's workshop a mess? I just bought the game and probably will mod it in a month, but I'm not up on the scene at all.

 

Also, speak ye no bad about Paradox, but I do find a game about a given country's forefathers in which the current state of said country is depicted as the worst-case scenario of said forefathers' accomplishments is... suspicious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civ 5's mod scene is not very inspiring. It is almost exclusively new civilizations which is not something I get very excited about especially since I feel like the game has more than enough civilizations as is. I haven't seen any mods that really change up how the game is played. It is quite underwhelming considering all the amazing mods that exist for Civ 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paradox has said outright that they won't do China because it involves almost doubling the map and the engine can barely handle it as is, but then again those were the exact reasons they gave for not including India two years ago. I think they'll go with whatever makes the most high-profile DLC, in the end. People lose their mind when offered new start dates, new areas, and new religions to play. In contrast, for all the good Sons of Abraham did to the base Catholic game, it didn't get a quarter the press of The Old Gods or Rajas of India.

 

My hope continues to be that they do a realm-management/event-pack DLC, maybe with fixes for factions, succession laws, and the Holy Roman Empire, but I'm pretty sure that won't happen, despite two years of fan petitions and Paradox's statements right around patch 2.0 that all future DLCs would focus on the "internal" game. I plan to buy Rajas of India because playing the game makes my geography of a given region rock solid, but otherwise...

 

It's interesting how fleshed out some of the religions feel (Norse, Catholic, and the two Muslim ones) but then how shallow others (Jewish, other Pagans, Orthodox) feel. I'm hoping that I just didn't get in deep enough to see some of the additional options with the three new ones in India. It also might be because I'm playing the least popular of the three (Jain.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, getting all 'Hooray for YOOOOOUU, BIG BAD TOUGH MAN!' for Viking raids destroying entire provinces for loot seems suspect. It's really just tone, it's not like things are any better for the Catholic or Muslim lords, but there the horrible (and historical) things you do are presented in a more self aware way, a little more obfuscated under 'The Rights of Lords' or 'The Will of the LORD', and the terrible things you do are presented in a less openly violent way. I guess maybe I'm just more put off by descriptions of violence than I am by engaging in it in a game, and maybe they're just not for me, I dunno.  

Oh, and I'm not trying to accuse anyone of anything with that, I just live in northern MN, where there are a lot of guys who are very very into their Norwegian Viking ancestors, and the heritage they latch onto the hardest is a really idealist 'Noble Viking Warrior' idea of what that time was, and its just sad to see their other accomplishments in trade or settlement get buried under all the petty infighting that didn't really define their practical legacy, even in a game.
 

 

Oh, and my problems with the Civ 5 workshop are less to do with the content (although it is mostly new civs and maps, it is A LOT of new civs and maps, if you're willing to dig through the crap.) and more with the syncing between subscribed mods and what the in game mod browser detects/shows. It's super early obviously, but I'm having the same problems with CK2. 
Were there any games made with workshop support in mind from the start? It feels like it's not really workable to have a super general mod organizer for a bunch of different games all kludged together after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on this DLC is that it isn't as thin as Sons Of Abraham, but it still seems a bit light for the price tag. Maybe I'm missing out based on the starts that I've chosen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, in my extremely brief searching, could not find a list of good Indian starts, (or even interesting ones). It's getting aggravating, the lack of new bookmarks to coincide with interesting periods in time for non-catholic/norse starting characters. Even the Muslim lords are only ever marked as notable because they are particularly big at the time, at least to me. This particular DLC, plus the lacklusterness of the Son's of Abraham/West Africa, and the fact that I still always find any Indian character (And I hope that this is just a moderate amount of inebriation talking, but still), even AI, makes literally the worst strategic decision in any position, is making it hard for me to not feel weird feeling towards the folks at Paradox. Focusing on a limited part of the world (totally reasonable, geopolitics, especially then, are insane, and it's not like anybody could have comprehended any of it without the benefit of hindsight, which we can only have due to history and hindsight) still doesn't explain the fact that everyone but Christians are dumbass savages, irrespective of reality or logic, and the only real answer to Christianity is goddamn stereotypical Jihads, which (to me, of course) feel less like a response to an invasion of historical lands and more like an excuse to murder Christians, which contrasts with the very (gamewise) righteousness of crusades, which are always a GREAT THING. and even the normal sarcasiticness of the notifications doesn't apply always.

I'm not trying to make any statements about anyone there, of course, but the more I play it and try to explain it to others, the harder some of the themeing and mechanics become to defend from people who would otherwise love the concept and mechanics of the game, and it just makes me uncomfortable. I don't really have a point, just some thoughts I've had for a while. Anyone thought about this in away that can talk me down?

Edit: Basically, it feels like any expansion is just "more lands to conquer as a Christian" instead of focusing on who actually lived there at the time, and it's just getting boring to me in a way that feels too one sided on the part of the developers in terms of balance and ethnicity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, in my extremely brief searching, could not find a list of good Indian starts, (or even interesting ones). It's getting aggravating, the lack of new bookmarks to coincide with interesting periods in time for non-catholic/norse starting characters. Even the Muslim lords are only ever marked as notable because they are particularly big at the time, at least to me. This particular DLC, plus the lacklusterness of the Son's of Abraham/West Africa, and the fact that I still always find any Indian character (And I hope that this is just a moderate amount of inebriation talking, but still), even AI, makes literally the worst strategic decision in any position, is making it hard for me to not feel weird feeling towards the folks at Paradox. Focusing on a limited part of the world (totally reasonable, geopolitics, especially then, are insane, and it's not like anybody could have comprehended any of it without the benefit of hindsight, which we can only have due to history and hindsight) still doesn't explain the fact that everyone but Christians are dumbass savages, irrespective of reality or logic, and the only real answer to Christianity is goddamn stereotypical Jihads, which (to me, of course) feel less like a response to an invasion of historical lands and more like an excuse to murder Christians, which contrasts with the very (gamewise) righteousness of crusades, which are always a GREAT THING. and even the normal sarcasiticness of the notifications doesn't apply always.

I'm not trying to make any statements about anyone there, of course, but the more I play it and try to explain it to others, the harder some of the themeing and mechanics become to defend from people who would otherwise love the concept and mechanics of the game, and it just makes me uncomfortable. I don't really have a point, just some thoughts I've had for a while. Anyone thought about this in away that can talk me down?

Edit: Basically, it feels like any expansion is just "more lands to conquer as a Christian" instead of focusing on who actually lived there at the time, and it's just getting boring to me in a way that feels too one sided on the part of the developers in terms of balance and ethnicity. 

 

Sadly, I don't really think you're wrong about any of it. In a thread on the Europa Universalis 4 forum, when a fan asked the devs what they used to inform the history of their games, the lead dev for mod support responded "Wikipedia & Google". When the reaction proved to be total incredulity from everyone, especially that they didn't have any historians as team members or even part-time consultants, he did add that "a number of developers are interested in and fairly well-read in history".

 

Yeah, if I haven't said somewhere on here, Wikipedia is at best fifty-year-old scholarship and more often hundred-year-old scholarship, so most of what we know Paradox to be using to construct their games was written when colonialism and imperialism were still going concerns. The worst parts of Crusader Kings 2 and pretty much all of Europa Universalis 4 are chock-full of "rise of the West" bullshit, although usually seasoned with Guns, Germs, and Steel or Collapse or whatever other Jared Diamond-style environmental determinism makes it sound more up-to-date. That's why Europe is given tech bonuses, unit bonuses, and MP bonuses in EU4 and that's why Muslims in CK2 are stuck with fratricidal succession, which only applied to one Muslim polity for two hundred and fifty years entirely outside the game's timeline, without the governmental sophistication that is now known to be much more characteristic of medieval Islamic society. Everyone was rightly concerned when Paradox announced the India DLC, because India's been a mess in every other Paradox game in which it's appeared and it's not like the history is better known and better understood in the medieval than early modern era. I was hoping that they'd at least open their pocketbooks for the New Cambridge History of India series, but no dice, just big empty counties ruled by indistinguishable brown people following goofy caricatured religions. The "big empty counties" part is all that matters in the end, because map-expanding DLC sells like nothing else. New lands to conquer, like you said, neonrev.

 

I'm really sorry that I wasn't able to argue against you. I've more or less accepted that the moments of actual historical authenticity in Paradox's games are accidental, a result of good game design moderating or altering the received opinion of popular history enough to approximate something more subtle and more interesting. For the most part, Crusader Kings 2 is about satisfying what the average Paradox fan believes to be true about history, which is why we have homicidal Game of Thrones intrigue factions and a thousand percent more incest than ever happened. What you gonna do, make something better?

 

 

 

EDIT: On the other hand, speaking of "balance", the patch did remove the possibility of gaining positive traits during feasts, fairs, and hunts, because one of the devs evidently watched a video Arumba's YouTube channel about how power-gamers abuse it and got their undies all twisted up. Yeah, Paradox and I are having a bit of a spat right now. Victoria 2 is four years old, but it knows what it wants to be so much better than either CK2 or EU4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I guess I had unfair expectations (although I was sold a game I thought was pretty into history, it's understandable that they don't want to/can't go to the effort to make stuff actually realistic or balanced, in light of how hard that task would really be) going into it, it just bothers me that if I'm not a catholic, I'm either a brutal norse, murderous Muslims (at least they get the slightest beginning of the game tech boost, right? Totally fair), or, as far as I can tell, psychopathic indians. I wish I could argue anything here either, I just got really into CK2 right as it seems to have started getting bogged down in power gamer shit, which is just disappointing I guess.

Also, jesus, I'm a big fan of Arumba's actually (He taught me most of what I know about CK2 and EU4), and I remember his channel teaching me that trick. Is it literally just over a slight gaming chance of the ruler designer? Because that is fucking silly, even for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I guess I had unfair expectations (although I was sold a game I thought was pretty into history, it's understandable that they don't want to/can't go to the effort to make stuff actually realistic or balanced, in light of how hard that task would really be) going into it, it just bothers me that if I'm not a catholic, I'm either a brutal norse, murderous Muslims (at least they get the slightest beginning of the game tech boost, right? Totally fair), or, as far as I can tell, psychopathic indians. I wish I could argue anything here either, I just got really into CK2 right as it seems to have started getting bogged down in power gamer shit, which is just disappointing I guess.

 

It just takes a lot of work to capture such a huge number of fundamentally different societies properly in a single game. Honestly, I think Paradox tries, but since they know in advance and from long experience that they can never please everyone, they tend to stop at what works for them, which is often stopping a bit too short, since none of them are historians or political scientists with an awareness of how far off they can really be. Many of the fans on the Paradox forums are surprisingly anti-intellectual for the games they play and will back Paradox up against actual experts with professional training, even when they get things wrong, so there's not much incentive for Paradox to change.

 

Also, jesus, I'm a big fan of Arumba's actually (He taught me most of what I know about CK2 and EU4), and I remember his channel teaching me that trick. Is it literally just over a slight gaming chance of the ruler designer? Because that is fucking silly, even for them.

 

Ever since the launch of EU4, the leads at Paradox (Johan Andersson and Henrik Fåhreus) have been really into intra-office multiplayer as a means for testing the game's balance. Viewed from a multiplayer perspective, gaming the Ruler Designer is a pretty huge exploit. Of course, maybe 0.001% of CK2 players would view it from a multiplayer perspective, but Paradox really wants to change that. That's why they ditched GamersGate support with this latest patch, after all, to allow full Steamworks integration and matchmaking.

 

Honestly, "balance" is becoming an ugly word thrown around on the Paradox forums. So many fans support restricting or even removing large sections of the game in the name of a chimera called "balance". I believe in balance insofar as it means making every religion and government type fun, interesting, and authentic to play. There's no shortage of ideas for gameplay mechanics in the pages of a good social or institutional history. However, I definitely do not support balance that punishes or otherwise coerces the player for not playing the game the (incredibly narrow) way that Paradox wants their game to be played, which is where changes like fixing the Grand Hunt "exploit" show it to be headed. I will be the saddest person in the world if CK2 becomes anything like EU4, where there's nothing to do besides wait for timers to tick down between wars. It might make for better multiplayer, but who the hell is going to play CK2 competitively with strangers who don't understand house rules and fair play?

 

Whine, whine, whine. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, going to the Paradox forums for the first time was a rude shock. I got into it through 3MA and the twitch streams, and I assumed the people who made it were as into simulating societies as well.
I feel like I had heard that it was mostly intraoffice testing that was resulting in weird new balance decisions based on multiplayer. I can't even imagine being so absorbed in this game as to get into balance fights over a multiplayer game. I don't even know how you'd be able to tell how the other people are doing, or what they're doing, or anything. It seems like a fair play agreement is necessary anyway.

The hunts are a good example I think. For a casual player like me, it was a good way to risk some health to get rid of some negative traits (like craven and slothful, I think), maybe pick up bravery or something, and get a little prestige. I've also hunted my entire life, and none of that struck me as unrealistic. I really liked that you could do a slightly dangerous thing in universe that fits into both a personal narrative of your character (I was a craven until I got separated from the group, and had to take down that boar myself!) and the narrative of the world (A weak king tries to prove himself by hunting a lot, looking to kill a grand stag, and is wounded in the hunt and dies later.)

It's not a lot, but from what I can tell, now hunts just trade gold for a tiny bit of prestige, and maybe the chance to make your marshal like you more. Less gamey, would probably never do it anymore.

Anyway, I definitely feel you on the wanting it to remain a very different game than EU4, just because there really isn't anything like what it was or could be, and I've never gotten into and back out of a game as EU4, precisely for your reason. Nothing to do but war, and wait until more war is possible. A fair reason to whine, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: On the other hand, speaking of "balance", the patch did remove the possibility of gaining positive traits during feasts, fairs, and hunts, because one of the devs evidently watched a video Arumba's YouTube channel about how power-gamers abuse it and got their undies all twisted up. Yeah, Paradox and I are having a bit of a spat right now. Victoria 2 is four years old, but it knows what it wants to be so much better than either CK2 or EU4.

 

I hadn't heard that. That explains why nothing ever happens at feasts for me anymore. That sounds like the same process they used to ruin EU4 (at least from your descriptions, I never played until recently)

 

On the actual subject of RoI, I managed to find a decent start as a Jain duke in kingdom that takes up the majority of the west coast of India. I managed to take over two other dutchies, subjugate a piece of the kingdom at the souther tip, and eventually call for independence and make my own kingdom. The major problem I'm running into now is low moral authority. Apparently, low moral authority causes county penalties like death cults and "religious upheaval" that increase revolt risk as much as 50%. As Jain I can't call holy wars, all my holy sites besides the one I already own are way far away. I don't know if there's anything I can really do. I guess grabbing the small religion has it's problems.

 

Oh and everyone intermarries so much that most of India is allied to each other, and now because they all refuse to marry me I've ended up an inbred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't played a lot of Raja's of India yet, but I've noticed that trend towards low Jain moral authority, and huge revolts because of it in a couple of my games, one of them in what I think might be the same start? I guess pacifists won't go far in a world were war is the only way to gain legitimacy. I've actually been having a LOT more bugs after the DLC, including some really widespread display errors in tooltips and the character creator simply not working, and just depositing me in a seemingly random neighbor county, with the guy I just made in the proper spot. Going to reinstall, but darn. Disheartening dlc.

Edit: Holy crap, my CK2 is barely over 600mb? That's pretty cool, never noticed it was that small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the actual subject of RoI, I managed to find a decent start as a Jain duke in kingdom that takes up the majority of the west coast of India. I managed to take over two other dutchies, subjugate a piece of the kingdom at the souther tip, and eventually call for independence and make my own kingdom. The major problem I'm running into now is low moral authority. Apparently, low moral authority causes county penalties like death cults and "religious upheaval" that increase revolt risk as much as 50%. As Jain I can't call holy wars, all my holy sites besides the one I already own are way far away. I don't know if there's anything I can really do. I guess grabbing the small religion has it's problems.

I haven't played a lot of Raja's of India yet, but I've noticed that trend towards low Jain moral authority, and huge revolts because of it in a couple of my games, one of them in what I think might be the same start?

 

The "religious upheaval" modifier is confirmed as bugged. Most of the events that remove it are missing their triggers, so it never goes away unless your moral authority is high enough to get one of the few working events. The fact that moral authority is virtually impossible to sustain at high levels among Jainism is a balance issue has not been confirmed but is widely commented upon, as is the fact that the Hindu caste system as coded does not allow for merchant republics or handing out territory without creating every lower-level vassal first.

 

There's actually a really heartening thread going on the Paradox forums about how bad the QA has been for the past year or so, culminating in Rajas of India being generally unpolished and without basic testing (with the community manager actually commenting that yes, they're aware of standards slipping, but not what they're going to do about it). I find it a little funny that it's almost confirmation that the "new Paradox" of CK2 , which only published games when ready, has only really lasted a couple years before reverting back to the "old Paradox" of EU3 and before, with its publish-and-patch mentality. Anyway, hotfix by the weekend, maybe then I'll upgrade from 2.0.4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping that trend doesn't hold for Wealth Of Nations, but I'll be waiting before I purchase that one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last couple of patches seem to have had some major improvements, but apparently have completely broke multiplayer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I started up Crusader Kings after hearing about the patches that have supposedly fixed most of the problems introduced with RoI. First off, the Duke/Dutchy lines are still really messed up. I fought long and hard to win my dead brother's dutchy from my niece, just to find out that 75% of her holdings weren't actually in the dutchy, and the dutchy I claimed is actually mostly in another country. I now have a single county in my dutchy after my rule's last rearrangement, and am subject to three different sets of crown laws. Yay!

But the worst part was after declaring and winning that war, I apparenly became hostile to every other duke and count in my country. I first noticed this when I went to war against an external power and brought in a couple of dukes as allies. When I tried to join up with them, the blue armies attacked me. I could pull up the war summary from the icon at the bottom right, and see that they were listed as my allies, but if I clicked on their county, it showed that I was in a war against them.

Even after that war ended, all of their armies were showing up as hostile to me, so I eventually rage-quit. Game is still broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only gotten into Crusader Kings II after the most recent patch, so it's the only version I know (apart from the demo and what I saw in the streams, of course) and so far, about halfway through my first real game, I fortunately don't seem to have encountered any serious bugs yet. At one point, the game started referring to my King as Queen and some description text seems to be missing, but that's about it.

 

Anyway, I'm writing now, because I've run into a situation, that I'm not quite sure how to handle. I'm currently the King of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Finland and Pomerania, but would really like to create an Imperial crown for myself, most likely the Empire of Britannia that I currently control 66% of, I guess. Unfortunately, my conquest of England was cut short when the Holy Roman Emperor inherited it (which was why I turned my eyes to Finland in the first place), who still had twice as many counties and thrice as many troops than me, so I never dared touch him.

 

Now, shortly after my succession, the Holy Roman Emperor declared war on me which to my surprise I actually managed to win (which I can only attribute to a combination of luck and AI stupidity, really) and even better shortly before the end of that war the independence faction in the Holy Roman Empire, including most of what used to be England, rose up in rebellion. And as I would very much like to have an independent England for me to conquer again, I'd like to support them as best as I can, however I'm unsure how to best go about that.

 

I can't seem to be able to offer to join their war and if I immediately declare war on the HRE again, the revolt troops seem to become hostile to me as well (unless that's actually one of the bugs mentioned above) and I'm not sure what else I could do. Is there a way to support independence revolts in other realms or should I just watch and wait and hope for the best? Should I send gifts to the revolt leader so that they can hopefully afford a mercenary company or two? Or go to war trying to carefully avoid all the revolt armies and only engaging the loyalists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't seem to be able to offer to join their war

 

I can't help you tactically, but if you go into the diplomacy menu and click the "Offer to Join War" choice, then hover over the section where you can send the request it should show you a list of conditions necessary for you to be able to send the offer, if that works maybe you can figure out what's blocking you from doing it.

 

 

 

On an annoyed tangent, why must everyone hate my son? As soon as their beloved Irish Empress of Britannia dies of old age, everyone just rails on her son and declares 5 different wars against him. The poor boy :( I'm so close to the end of the period as well, just more years and I can export the save to start in EU IV with a big Irish Empire and slowly start to take France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, what I meant was that there wasn't even an "Offer to Join War" button, presumably because it's a revolt war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, what I meant was that there wasn't even an "Offer to Join War" button, presumably because it's a revolt war.

 

Yeah, you can't join internal wars unless you're a kinsman and it's an independence or succession war.

 

It's WAD that both sides of the war are hostile to you, but it's still the best time to take the Holy Roman Emperor down a peg. As far as I remember, the rebel AI will be hostile toward you but will not actively seek you out, so if you can be careful and lift a couple claims while the HRE's manpower is depleted and tied up elsewhere, that'd be great. Best case scenario, you get your land, the rebels win their war, and the HRE is permanently weakened. I say, go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That went well. I really shouldn't have worried. The rebels would probably have won just fine even without me. I just sped it up a little by taking Lancaster from the HRE at the same time. One aspect I had missed was that the reparation payment for its war against me put the HRE more than 900 gold in debt, resulting in their mercenaries abandoning them and (presumably) joining the rebels almost immediately. Ultimately, I ended up with Lancaster while Bohemia, York, Mercia, Hwicce, Northumberland, Modena and Spoleta all became independent. Although some of the English duchies not for long as I soon turned my attention towards them and now I'm only one county away (I think) from finally forming the Empire my grandfather dreamed of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two more things:

During my wife's last pregnancy, "doubt beset me" as the game put it, and sure enough, she has not one, but two lovers listed on her "relations" tab. But when the child was born, he was listed as "my son" and I as his father. As he's also my heir, I'm wondering, does that mean that he really is my son, if the game lists me and my wife as the kid's parents, and also if it would matter if he weren't. If I die and he is a bastard, do I still get to play as him or would he gain my empire while I play on as some lowly count that actually is related to me by blood?

Also, there seems to be an Antipope in Hamar that I can't seem to get rid of. His liege is the countess of Hedmark, who's religous head he is, but who I can't declare war on as she isn't independent. Her liege, the duke of Bergslagen, however, follows the Pope in Rome as does his liege, the King of Sweden, so I don't have a "Depose Antipope" casus belli againt them either. Assasinating the Antipope also doesn't help, as a new one will immediately succeed him.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will most likely be an event chain later in your child's life that will end up deciding whether the child is a bastard or not. If he does end up being a bastard and you have no other children, you will play as your bastard, but you will have an opinion penalty with pretty much everyone. Any other sons you have will take precedence for your line of succession unless you legitimize him.

 

As for the antipope, only independant rules are supposed to be able to create them, so you either got a glitch or Hedmark got swallowed after they created him. It sounds like your only path to get rid of him would be to get Hedmark seperated from the rest of Hamar somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two more things:

During my wife's last pregnancy, "doubt beset me" as the game put it, and sure enough, she has not one, but two lovers listed on her "relations" tab. But when the child was born, he was listed as "my son" and I as his father. As he's also my heir, I'm wondering, does that mean that he really is my son, if the game lists me and my wife as the kid's parents, and also if it would matter if he weren't. If I die and he is a bastard, do I still get to play as him or would he gain my empire while I play on as some lowly count that actually is related to me by blood?

Also, there seems to be an Antipope in Hamar that I can't seem to get rid of. His liege is the countess of Hedmark, who's religous head he is, but who I can't declare war on as she isn't independent. Her liege, the duke of Bergslagen, however, follows the Pope in Rome as does his liege, the King of Sweden, so I don't have a "Depose Antipope" casus belli againt them either. Assasinating the Antipope also doesn't help, as a new one will immediately succeed him.

 

For the former, there's "secret bastard" events that can trigger and are fun, but they're pretty rare. Basically, the only difference that you'll notice is that if you type "charinfo 1" into the console, you'll notice that the DNA code for your son is completely different. Otherwise, your character's line has actually died out and only you as the player have knowledge of it.

 

And yeah, like Dewar says, it sounds like a bug where the antipope wasn't automatically deposed when someone made a de jure claim on Hamar. Theoretically, the "depose antipope" CB should apply to any realm containing an antipope, but obviously that's not happening, so you can either fix it with the console or just play it out regularly. I also recommend reporting the bug to the Paradox forums, if you can. They haven't been in any hurry to make things work after Sons of Abraham changed a lot of the antipope mechanics, but at least having it on their list is a mitzvah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now