Recommended Posts

I don't know if the forum is open for unregistered users right now, but the Tutorial Megathread on Something Awful is really good and really in depth. The Irish Catholic guide is a little out of date, but most of the basic mechanics still hold true, and a lot of the other ones are good reads. I highly recommend the Karling resurgence tutorial

 

I'm getting ready to move back to a computer that can actually handle CK2 decently, so I haven't been playing for a while, but I"m interested in some of the changes coming with the next DLC. If the tribal vassals stuff includes some tweaks to crown laws, and lets the HRE act more like it did historically (a loose confederation of states, rather than a mega blob of doom) I'll be really interested to see how things play out. They're getting dangerously close to the point that you can't really define a separate Orthodox and Catholic church, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting ready to move back to a computer that can actually handle CK2 decently, so I haven't been playing for a while, but I"m interested in some of the changes coming with the next DLC. If the tribal vassals stuff includes some tweaks to crown laws, and lets the HRE act more like it did historically (a loose confederation of states, rather than a mega blob of doom) I'll be really interested to see how things play out. They're getting dangerously close to the point that you can't really define a separate Orthodox and Catholic church, though.

 

I doubt the Holy Roman Empire will ever operate anywhere close to how it worked in the Middle Ages without 1) an overhaul of how empires work, making them a powerful but tenuous thing only possible under exceptional rulers rather than just super-kings, and 2) an overhaul of crown authority, hopefully with more granularity and gradations rather than just pumping it up to High for the succession change and then back down to Medium.

 

I am very nostalgic for how empires worked under the now-defunct Britannia 479 AD: The Winter King mod, where there would be two votes upon the death of an emperor: first, whether the title should continue to exist, and second, who should rule it. It made it so that empires had to expand slowly if they wanted to remain intact and so that separatists could drift out of their orbits without having to win a battle against a huge blob. There was nothing better than watching a great conqueror be succeeded by an unworthy son and the empire title disappear, leaving the son to be king of the core but having to spend the rest of his life pulling together the scraps if he wanted to pass it on to a more noteworthy grandson. It worked almost perfectly, but Paradox is very slow to adopt mechanics from mods. Wiz, the creator of the CK2Plus mod, now works at Paradox, but his amazing faction system, which replaced the succession-focused factions with static "interest groups" that made demands to make the kingdom more suitable to their interests (Church faction would push for high ruler piety, more bishoprics, green-trait advisors, etc.), has mostly been ignored (and somewhat ruined by the people who succeeded to the mod). If they were to combine a revamped faction system, where different groups would push for higher and lower crown authority according to their circumstances, with the more fine-grained crown laws of the Project Balance mod, which had different crown laws for a lot of stuff like title revocation and war declaration, it would make for a much more dynamic game within the realm and allow kingdoms to be weak in some ways while not being total pushovers. The big problem with the HRE is that there's no way to make it as fragile as it was, five stem duchies and Italy united in the person of the emperor, without making all feudal realms weak. That's why I'm hoping for new mechanics, but it's not on the bullet points of the website for the DLC, so no breath is being held.

 

Also, yeah. Ugh, Paradox needs to code the Great Schism, but not only would it be incredibly difficult and prone to breakage, but there'd be no way to simulate several centuries of gradually differentiating policy properly through events and you know they're not going to introduce new religion mechanics to make "natural" schisms and heresies more workable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Anym and Captain Novolin!

SA is currently open to read so I'll probably go through that first since that could change. But thanks to both of you! One day I will rule the world! :molyneuxcrown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current team running CK2+ is going through and re-doing everything from the ground up since between SoA and RoI basically everything broke so hopefully they'll have a stable release soon (They have a dev version floating around but I'm too lazy to find it, and it's pretty crashy anyway) CK2+ died right around the time I was just getting into the game so I never had a chance to properly try it out, but I know a few mods try to use its faction system, so hopefully some version of it will remain in the new release, and the current team doesn't seem to be going overboard with dumb things.

 

LATE EDIT: they talked more about the expansion and: 

cmFrLaNl.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So one of the big plans surrounding the new DLC is to remove the assassination button and make plots the only way to kill other characters. There's a fairly reasoned thread on the Paradox forums that mostly involves people critiquing quite lucidly Paradox's design arguments that just pressing a button to make something happen circumvents the intended rhythm of gameplay (for instance, that is the case with giving gifts and imprisoning characters, but those haven't been removed in favor of expanding the plot system, even though mods have come up with good answers there). The real answer is, of course, that Paradox wants to push multiplayer CK2 on its playerbase and an instant-death button for someone's character, however expensive and chancy it is, has been deemed OP.

 

Eventually, the lead designer shows up to state that he doesn't have answers to many of the posters' critiques, but it's Paradox's game in the end, so everyone will just have to trust them. Further comments that this was unsatisfactory were met with threats to close the thread.

 

I really hate the way Paradox has been going the past year, both in their attempts to dictate mostly through the removal of features how people play a supposedly sandbox game and in their high-handed treatment of criticism about this from longtime fans. It was enough for me to stop playing EU4 when Johan Andersson's comments made clear what a mess he was making of that game, but now the same philosophy is becoming increasingly apparent with CK2, my love that I just can't quit. Even the official response to the Charlemagne DLC announcement has been disappointing, full of "We don't care what you want, we make the game we want to make and you'll like it." Sigh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who were wondering how Paradox was going to balance the Abbasid Caliphate, a strong and centralized power that was at its greatest extent in 769, covering nearly a quarter of the in-game map, the answer is... well, they'll just make it ahistorically weak and give random border kingdoms independence just because they can't be bothered to find an anti-blobbing mechanic that works. For reference, here is the actual extent of Abbasid power in 750 (with 786 being the actual height):

 

Califato-Abasi.jpg

 

And here is what Paradox thinks is an accurate reflection of this. Observant people will note that, besides Egypt, there is little practical difference between the Abbasids in 769 and in 867. So much for a century of decay, right? I think I might just have too much knowledge of this historical period to enjoy this game like I used to, which is sobering because I'm not even halfway through my dissertation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, if decadence revolts for the CPU had any real long-term effect, they might be able to make a powerful country like that actually realistically collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who were wondering how Paradox was going to balance the Abbasid Caliphate, a strong and centralized power that was at its greatest extent in 769, covering nearly a quarter of the in-game map, the answer is... well, they'll just make it ahistorically weak and give random border kingdoms independence just because they can't be bothered to find an anti-blobbing mechanic that works. For reference, here is the actual extent of Abbasid power in 750 (with 786 being the actual height):

 

Califato-Abasi.jpg

 

And here is what Paradox thinks is an accurate reflection of this. Observant people will note that, besides Egypt, there is little practical difference between the Abbasids in 769 and in 867. So much for a century of decay, right? I think I might just have too much knowledge of this historical period to enjoy this game like I used to, which is sobering because I'm not even halfway through my dissertation.

 

Seems like they could just set up some specific events/targeted penalties for the Abbasids that cause them to be unable to expand properly. The best example of a forced event i remember in a paradox game is Italian Unification in Victoria, I can never get it to stop. So they have done it before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like they could just set up some specific events/targeted penalties for the Abbasids that cause them to be unable to expand properly. The best example of a forced event i remember in a paradox game is Italian Unification in Victoria, I can never get it to stop. So they have done it before.

 

 

Seems a bit crappy from a game-mechanic point of view. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like they could just set up some specific events/targeted penalties for the Abbasids that cause them to be unable to expand properly. The best example of a forced event i remember in a paradox game is Italian Unification in Victoria, I can never get it to stop. So they have done it before.

Seems a bit crappy from a game-mechanic point of view. 

 

Well, two things.

 

First, Paradox is willing to use scripted events to force some historical events (the rise of Shia Islam, the emergence of melting-pot cultures, the Seljuk and Mongol invasions), but not others. It's not in the design philosophy of the new developers there, who seem to believe in abstract "balance" above all. Most of the event chains are actually quite fragile anyway. The Seljuks never appeared in my 867 Byzantium game, for instance, and Norse culture is still around in 1220.

 

Second, I find their choice to depict the Abbasids as ahistorically weak and divided frustrating because it shows their obvious awareness of a fact that any person who's played more than a dozen hours of Crusader Kings 2 knows. Empires are impossibly stable. Once you get between twenty and thirty duke-level vassals, you will never get a rebellion again, because each vassal will be discouraged by the money, manpower, and prestige that the rest give you. Lobsters in a bucket, etc. It's ironically the opposite of how empires worked in the Middle Ages and Paradox has slowly begun to acknowledge it. They're even introducing a pair of mechanics in the Charlemagne DLC, a Centralization crown law and a Vassal Limit tech, in order to slow down growth before and after that tipping point, so it's really disappointing that in the same DLC they still have to fudge the historical setting so dramatically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, two things.

 

First, Paradox is willing to use scripted events to force some historical events (the rise of Shia Islam, the emergence of melting-pot cultures, the Seljuk and Mongol invasions), but not others. It's not in the design philosophy of the new developers there, who seem to believe in abstract "balance" above all. Most of the event chains are actually quite fragile anyway. The Seljuks never appeared in my 867 Byzantium game, for instance, and Norse culture is still around in 1220.

 

Second, I find their choice to depict the Abbasids as ahistorically weak and divided frustrating because it shows their obvious awareness of a fact that any person who's played more than a dozen hours of Crusader Kings 2 knows. Empires are impossibly stable. Once you get between twenty and thirty duke-level vassals, you will never get a rebellion again, because each vassal will be discouraged by the money, manpower, and prestige that the rest give you. Lobsters in a bucket, etc. It's ironically the opposite of how empires worked in the Middle Ages and Paradox has slowly begun to acknowledge it. They're even introducing a pair of mechanics in the Charlemagne DLC, a Centralization crown law and a Vassal Limit tech, in order to slow down growth before and after that tipping point, so it's really disappointing that in the same DLC they still have to fudge the historical setting so dramatically.

 

 

The other solution would be to make empires less stable, but historically empires have collapsed for many different reasons that can be quite difficult to build into a simulation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like they could just set up some specific events/targeted penalties for the Abbasids that cause them to be unable to expand properly. The best example of a forced event i remember in a paradox game is Italian Unification in Victoria, I can never get it to stop. So they have done it before.

 

That's the reason that I quit Hearts of Iron 3. I would rather they leave it ahistoric rather than build a bunch of custom events that make it break in a certain way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the reason that I quit Hearts of Iron 3. I would rather they leave it ahistoric rather than build a bunch of custom events that make it break in a certain way.

 

But the game starts as historical and some events that brought down nations are too complex to really put in CK2. You can always play that mod where only counts exist, especially if the next expansion makes it so kingdoms, duchies, empires can be generated anywhere. Ahistorical to the max.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the reason that I quit Hearts of Iron 3. I would rather they leave it ahistoric rather than build a bunch of custom events that make it break in a certain way.

 

I mean, the issue is that it's the choice between it being made to break in a certain way and it not breaking at all. I'd rather have the former than the latter, but Paradox definitely disagrees.

 

It just bothers me, because it's another instance where a game gives an unreasonable and unenjoyable amount of player agency over component systems. Historically, states in the medieval period did experienced a dramatic upswing as territory and centralization increased, but they also experienced an equally dramatic downturn in both when they transcended certain geographic and ethnic boundaries. As the simulation currently stands, only the first half of that bell curve is modeled.

 

There have been mods that have experimented with vassal opinion maluses like "empire too big, feeling ignored" or "too many other vassals, feeling jealous" or "different culture group than top-level title, feeling restive," with limitations on how high crown authority can be raised based on the ratio of direct vassals and higher-level titles held, and with various tweaks to how empire-tier titles are created and inherited, like requiring approval of religious head or of some majority of vassals. Paradox has repeatedly stated that they aren't interested in such solutions because empires being powerful is the game working as intended, but then they quietly implement nerfs to the largest in-game empire in the history of Crusader Kings 2 and introduce a mechanic that, rather than being a soft limit, is a flat time-based hard limit, so really I don't know what's going on. It seems like Paradox is really hostile to adopting mechanics that everyone's mods are using for a couple of years, after which they get folded into the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been wondering if it would be feasible to take distance and the speed of communication into account. I know that there have been wargames that modelled that, but has anyone ever tried it in a grand strategy game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been wondering if it would be feasible to take distance and the speed of communication into account. I know that there have been wargames that modelled that, but has anyone ever tried it in a grand strategy game.

 

Travel times can be a factor, my current Roman Empire game is getting annoying because there is always a war or rebellion somewhere in my empire, constantly moving my armies around in Africa, Russia, Europe and the Middle East gets tiresome. I wish vassals would deal with small rebellions on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, Charlemagne came out today with limited fanfare.

 

Basically everything that people predicted would be wrong, incomplete, or buggy is wrong, incomplete, and buggy. The vaunted proto-cultures are lacking basic information and regularly fail to generate melting pots and dynasties. The Charlemagne events are railroaded as all-get-out and make his empire almost a certainty unless he dies or the events break. The new "custom title" system has instant de jure drift upon creation, so the current de jure map and system might as well not even exist for the player now. The "assassination" button has been removed, but plots are otherwise unchanged and now targets can go into hiding, so killing someone that you can't just imprison and execute is effectively impossible. Jihads and crusades are firing in the eighth century. Retinues have been heavily nerfed, both in terms of manpower and cost, but troops for events and adventurers are largely unchanged. The religion, culture, and political map is an incomplete mess, with more out-of-place than in place. Allies are incorrectly flagged as hostile to you in some wars. The much-awaited "dynastic chronicle" is a computer-edited version of the event log at the bottom of the screen, even less detailed and interesting than the feature in Europa Universalis III.

 

There's not a single positive thread on the front page of their forums right now. Even Paradox advocates in the negative-to-neutral threads are mostly sticking to the talking point of "hey, it's better than Rajas of India was on release," which is kind of like comparing the Iraq/Afghanistan War favorably to Vietnam. I have no idea what's happening with Paradox now, but they've lost a seven-year customer with this half-baked, scatter-shot, design-from-the-gut shit. They'll have to earn the right to have my money spent on them again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend who bought it so I'm probably going to play some multiplayer with him tonight and goof around. Unfortunately, that may lead to me buying it, no matter how dumb it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Picked CKII up super-cheap through Nuveem (Brazilian site) yesterday - I'm listening to old Thumbs and I'm just past Nick and Chris's tales of Ragnar, couldn't resist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played the new CK2 expansion over the weekend. It struck me that event troops are the one thing that never reall made sense in CK2, and then they put in a government form that relies on event troops. The whole thing went horribly, and I'm glad I didn't pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they likely to patch/fix it at a later date? How is the modding scene? I suppose the game is getting introduced too often for a stable community mod to emerge? 

 

I guess as I only have the first DLC, I'm safe to continue with my plan of buying an expansion in a sale, and only buying the next expansion once I've played around with the one that I've bought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they likely to patch/fix it at a later date? How is the modding scene? I suppose the game is getting introduced too often for a stable community mod to emerge? 

 

I guess as I only have the first DLC, I'm safe to continue with my plan of buying an expansion in a sale, and only buying the next expansion once I've played around with the one that I've bought. 

 

They did several hotfixes right away for Rajas of India, but didn't touch a lot of the major issues, electing instead to roll the planned patch for the DLC into the patch introducing changes for Charlemagne, the next DLC, which introduced a lot of bugs that Paradox is only fitfully patching... There's somewhat the feeling of a cycle starting here, if you know what I mean.

 

Most Paradox fans trumpet how the mod community fixes broken stuff months before Paradox gets around to it, but you're right to say that the radical nature of the last two DLCs really destabilized that relationship, not just because most mods were invalidated by the timeline, legal, and cartographic changes, but also because Paradox kept promising to fix their own bugs soon, so many of the modders held off. The big mods (Historical Immersion Project, CK2 Plus, Game of Thrones) are keeping abreast, but there have been a lot of dead mods the past six months, and I don't really know if Paradox cares. They got their first big PR bump for the game with the Game of Thrones mod, but now they're pushing a vision more in keeping with EU4, and a lot of those changes are against the systems that allowed the Game of Thrones mod to work so well in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird... Paradox used to be well known for releasing broken buggy games that they would eventually fix. Now they are gaining a reputation for releasing good games that they slowly break.

 

Here's hoping the mess is cleared up by the time i catch up with the DLC :) I'll likely pick up Legacy of Rome in the next Steam sale. 

 

Here's hoping the mod scene sorts itself out. 

 

On that note, one small thing that's always bugged me is that all the CK2 characters appear to start unmarried, which means some have children with no mother. It also gives the game a weird cyclic baby boom. Are there any mods that sort this out? Seems like a small, reasonably trivial and easy change to the starting conditions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They got their first big PR bump for the game with the Game of Thrones mod, but now they're pushing a vision more in keeping with EU4, and a lot of those changes are against the systems that allowed the Game of Thrones mod to work so well in the first place.

 

I thought you hated the Game of Thrones mod?

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