Recommended Posts

Oh, I know that it DID happen. But I was under the impression that it wasn't the norm. Or as easy as it is in the game. The AI always feels incredibly passive in agreeing to marriages. I am guessing that there was a fair bit of diplomacy and various factors playing into the historical examples you cite.

 

It just feels weird that a lowly Irish count can court European royalty. Maybe an easy way of tackling this would be to more closely align marriage decision making to your prestige, and connections between the courts? So, sure, your humble Irish count and still still marry into germanic royalty, but he'll have to have a hell of a lot of prestige and great reputation?

 

Its definitely exaggerated in CK2, more kids survive than probably should so there are more chances to marry children off to multiple dynasties. Similar to how much conquest CK2 has, it seems way to frequent. I think there were definitely concessions to gameplay in some of the mechanics.

I forgot to mention the Habsburgs original rise to power was through multiple marriage alliances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone played a long game as a pagan ruler? I started off in Sweden as a germanic pagan and I'm doing pretty well on my route to building the Scandinavian Empire, but it seems like some mechanics just aren't useable or useful for pagans? I know to an extent it's just how pagans are restricted (ie. the single fixed succession law), but it seems like it's stacked to push me into either converting or reforming paganism (which I just found out I could do, if I get enough holy sites).

 

For example, the technology menu seems to be half useless. Why upgrade castle holdings if I can never build one? Likewise with the culture options to increase vassal opinions. Each of my counties will only ever have a single tribe, so all the building and upgrading stuff is out the window.

 

In theory I'd like to just plough through the full game as an unreformed pagan, but is that just an impossible task I'm setting up for myself? Should I reform the religion so I can stick more with how other societies work or embrace the changes with being pagan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone played a long game as a pagan ruler? I started off in Sweden as a germanic pagan and I'm doing pretty well on my route to building the Scandinavian Empire, but it seems like some mechanics just aren't useable or useful for pagans? I know to an extent it's just how pagans are restricted (ie. the single fixed succession law), but it seems like it's stacked to push me into either converting or reforming paganism (which I just found out I could do, if I get enough holy sites).

 

For example, the technology menu seems to be half useless. Why upgrade castle holdings if I can never build one? Likewise with the culture options to increase vassal opinions. Each of my counties will only ever have a single tribe, so all the building and upgrading stuff is out the window.

 

In theory I'd like to just plough through the full game as an unreformed pagan, but is that just an impossible task I'm setting up for myself? Should I reform the religion so I can stick more with how other societies work or embrace the changes with being pagan?

 

I am pretty sure they are trying to represent the fall of pagan religions by making it hard for them to compete late game. However if you reform I think you get most of the standard mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll see how remaining unreformed goes. If I can form my empire, I think I can avoid massive problems with succession, since I'll have a single primary title, rather than two duchies/jarls/kingdoms that need to be split up between kids. My main beef is the succession issue, I can live without the other stuff. I was just unsure if it was actually removed fully or I was just doing it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory I'd like to just plough through the full game as an unreformed pagan, but is that just an impossible task I'm setting up for myself? Should I reform the religion so I can stick more with how other societies work or embrace the changes with being pagan?

I'll see how remaining unreformed goes. If I can form my empire, I think I can avoid massive problems with succession, since I'll have a single primary title, rather than two duchies/jarls/kingdoms that need to be split up between kids. My main beef is the succession issue, I can live without the other stuff. I was just unsure if it was actually removed fully or I was just doing it wrong.

 

The design of the unreformed religions is to force you to reform, full stop. You're setting yourself up for a game that's much more difficult than normal because a lot of mechanics are intentionally locked off in order to force you to convert or die roughly around 1100. Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The free content patch accompanying the DLC got announced last week, but I just looked at it: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/crusader-kings-ii-free-content-patch-v2-5.903473/

A couple of my thoughts I've already voiced. Infamy and coalitions make no sense in the period that the game covers; realms should break apart because it's impossible to keep everyone happy beyond a certain size, not because all the realm's neighbors get together to tear it down. There is not one example of the latter in the Middle Ages that's not already recreatable by the game's existing mechanics. Likewise, if the concern is that a lowly count can wed the daughter of the Holy Roman Emperor and use that marriage alliance to make the emperor do all the count's fighting for him, the answer is to improve the AI's matchmaking process, not to water down marriage alliances into marriage non-aggression pacts. Again, the historical basis for families bound together by kinship or marriage not supporting each other in war is vanishingly small and already represented by the ability to refuse an ally's call to arms.

But there are two big changes that I think are unalloyed goods for the game:

  • During non-elective succession, primary successor inherits 50% of temporary opinion modifiers from subjects of previous holder.
  • Tweaks to many opinion modifiers to make it more difficult to keep good relations with your vassals.
Oh man. No more instant revolts upon the death of a beloved king. No more dying to head off a revolt. Huge nerf to elective succession, which now trades potentially huge opinion boosts from father to son for a small permanent boost to all rulers regardless of dynasty. In general, a great gameplay change that should promote being a good dynasty more than being a good ruler who's suddenly shitty at the end of his life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The free content patch accompanying the DLC got announced last week, but I just looked at it: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/crusader-kings-ii-free-content-patch-v2-5.903473/

 

A couple of my thoughts I've already voiced. Infamy and coalitions make no sense in the period that the game covers; realms should break apart because it's impossible to keep everyone happy beyond a certain size, not because all the realm's neighbors get together to tear it down. There is not one example in the latter of the later that's not recreatable by the game's existing mechanics. Likewise, if the concern is that a lowly count can wed the daughter of the Holy Roman Emperor and use that marriage alliance to make the emperor do all the count's fighting for him, the answer is to improve the AI's matchmaking process, not to water down marriage alliances into marriage non-aggression pacts.

 

But there are two big changes that I think are unalloyed goods for the game:

  1. During non-elective succession, primary successor inherits 50% of temporary opinion modifiers from subjects of previous holder.
  2. Tweaks to many opinion modifiers to make it more difficult to keep good relations with your vassals.

Oh man. No more instant revolts upon the death of a beloved king. No more dying to head off a revolt. Huge nerf to elective succession, which now trades potentially huge opinion boosts from father to son for a small permanent boost to all rulers regardless of dynasty. In general, a great gameplay change that should promote being a good dynasty more than being a good ruler who's suddenly shitty at the end of his life.

 

Does the units retreating thing mean I will have to chase enemy armies even more? Because Ug. 

I think you missed out on how important death sound variance by age, sex and method of death is :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it looks like Conclave is another botched release from Paradox that would have benefited from even a few weeks of singleplayer testing. Coalitions form immediately if you win even two wars too close together (or inherit a lot of land); are often a bizarre mix of pagans, Muslims, and heretics; and take forever to come apart. The new alliance system (where marriages form non-aggression pacts that must be upgraded to alliances through mutual consent) means less alliances overall and more war, because it's somehow messed up the AI's ability to calculate a "smart" war to fight and because your allies join wars automatically (and you join their wars, annoyingly). Going against all history and sense, non-aggression pacts are totally inviolable until the marriage ends with the death of one spouse or the other. Shattered retreat (rather, chasing ping-ponging armies) has made wars take much longer without any other mechanical benefit. The new council mechanics make it incredibly trivial to control your vassals, leaving it a non-issue to pass laws because the maluses for doing so have been removed in preference to the new "favor" system. Meanwhile, you can just hand out favors like crazy to get support for anything, because favors are so limited in utility right now that there's not really a trade-off.

 

There are pictures all over Reddit of four- and five-county Irish duchies with the entirety of Europe and Asia east of the Elbe and the Mediterranean in a coalition against them, plus multiple reports of the AI that plays Henry IV getting the Holy Roman Empire to agnatic primogeniture in six years! As a historian who's done some work on one of the most energetic and intelligent emperors of the Middle Ages failing to do just that, it makes me sad.

 

People have generally agreed that it's the team that took over CK2 development a year ago applying their experience developing EU4 to this product. It's too bad, they're different games and you can't just port mechanics over wholesale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to at least Old Gods I remember new expansions being broken. I think I will get this one after I finish Xcom2 and Firewatch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes this game just feels incredibly unfair. I tried playing tonight and it was just...ugh.

 

Like this:

 

1. Won a war against some Pagans. As part of the treaty, I get 16 gold. Eh, ok whatever. I still won. Plus I still get 100 prestige and 50 piety.

2. Lost a war against some Pagans. As part of the treaty, I owe them 150 gold. What?! I thought the amount you owe your enemy was based on how much you have in your coffers or something...but I had negative 13 gold at the time! So losing that one war basically doomed my entire kingdom to bankruptcy for years. Which results in smuggling rings and thieves guilds opening in every county, which further saps my ability to make money and get back in the black. Meaning that I'm basically fucked. For losing a single war. And on top of that, every AI instantly smells blood and dogpiles me immediately.

 

Or how about this:

 

1. At war against Pagans. Win 6 battles in a row. Each is worth +5% of my war score.

2. Finally lose a single battle after being whittled down. Instantly lose 25% war score. In the follow-up battle, lose another 15%. What the hell?!

 

Maybe I'm just bad at this game. I'm probably just bad at this game. But then again, I really don't remember it feeling quite this unfair in the past. I don't know if the most recent patch is to blame, or if it's the general direction that the game has been moving in or what. It just sucks, it's not fun.

 

Maybe I'll try again, but as someone's vassal. That's less fun, but I guess it's also less likely that I'll get wrecked for taking even the smallest risks. Or I'll just go back to save scumming. I like the idea of Ironman, but I'm not willing to look back on a game and say "Well, I just wasted two hours of my time for nothing" because I lose a single war.

 

/venting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, reparations are scaled off of your yearly income, not your treasury. That's why I try to no occupy my opponent's personal holdings in defensive wars, since that lowers their income.

Similarly, battle's warscore is determined by net loss of soldiers of the entirety of both alliances. Warring against tribals means that you're probably up against a substantial number of dudes, and unless that giant number of dudes is all together, its probably better to just tactical siege down enemy temples instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue I have with CKII is it just takes SOOOO long to play... and I am constantly upping and downing the speed... It seems like every time I sit down to it.... that's 10 hopurs of my life gone. happy hours, but hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it clicked for me on Sunday. I spent about 5 hours playing, survived multiple revolts, quashed them all, then my son took over after I hit 70 years old and died. He died after like 2 years and my grandson then lost everything. No alliances left, I had given away too much power, but poor kid was only 6.

 

It's a game where you watch and not much happens, but when things do, it's super cool and exciting. Really enjoyed it, aside from a few frustrations (like not being able to alt-tab (well cmd-tab on mac) to check some guides while playing.

 

I have a couple of big problems, I don't understand Vassals or demesnes. I accidentally dismissed most of my vassals because they kept betraying me, but I didn't know how to replace them. So my number of vassals kept shrinking and each vassal got more powerful.

 

I had a demesne of 3/2 to start with, so I waited and made a new title and gave one area away to some dude who liked me. Then I got an increase to 2/5 but I have no idea how to reclaim my demesnes. I had some that kept revolting so I wanted to take them, but every time I clicked claim, the pope was like "nah" even though the bastard loved me. Like fucking 50 positive opinion.

 

Was I doing something wrong? I feel like I should just be able to take my land back...it is mine after all, why do I need some pope to tell me what to do? (I feel like Henry VIII).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be a bit wrong, but I'm pretty sure...

 

- Demesne is your direct holdings. The duchies, counties and such that are just yours and no-one else's.

- Vassals are your underlings to whom you give control over land (a duchy, county or whatever).

 

You can only have so many direct holdings, after that the game has you start to lose control and vassals get pissy with you for being too involved and powerful. The number of holdings you can have varies, which is why it went up for you. If you hover over the number it will show you where it comes from (eg. What are the modifiers etc.)

 

Revoking lands is tough. I've never had the Pope stop me, but vassal opinion often does. It's tough, because you're not meant to revoke lands. It's quite tyrranical, but when the vassal has rebelled you usually have just cause (as long as you didn't 'use up' your retaliation by ransoming or executing them). As with demesne size, if you hover over the button where you want to click to revoke a title I think it should show you the modifiers why it may or may not work. But again, the Pope never got in my business so this may be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like I tried all that, but the pope was just no having any of it. Unfortunately as part of the Holy Roman Empire, it was impossible for me to just make an anti-pope or something.

 

I definitely need to read a guide on this, there are SO many different mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I've only ever played as a free count who works his way up, never under an emperor so I have no idea how that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A being a member of the Holy Roman Empire can definitely make things tougher. There's a lot of framework in place to keep the emperor from just eating everyone below him and becoming all-powerful. Those same structures can make it difficult to do anything as a lower level of royalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a demesne of 3/2 to start with, so I waited and made a new title and gave one area away to some dude who liked me. Then I got an increase to 2/5 but I have no idea how to reclaim my demesnes. I had some that kept revolting so I wanted to take them, but every time I clicked claim, the pope was like "nah" even though the bastard loved me. Like fucking 50 positive opinion.

 

You were using the wrong button to revoke vassal titles. Using the "claim" button under the title screen asks the pope for an automatic strong claim to the title in question, which he virtually never gives unless you personally put him on the Seat of St. Peter. What you want is to revoke those titles under the diplo screen for the vassal in question, which incurs an influence hit but certainly doesn't involve anyone beyond you and the vassal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't it affect other vassal opinions if it's seen as tyrannical?

 

Well, yes, but you certainly don't need to ask the pope's permission.

 

Generally, titles that you give to vassals will stay with those vassals for the foreseeable future, unless you're willing to flirt with civil war to get them back. If you want to place some lands in someone's hands temporarily, you put it in the hand of a son who's set to inherit from you or (barring that) an old man with no children or other family. It is also generally easier to expand your demesne through conquest than through reclaiming vassal titles, at least until you're surrounded by large, consolidated powers on all sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ok, great! I'll try that. I also attempted a game in the UK, as the Duke of York. Man England is a shit show in 1066, should have been obvious when I think about it. I lasted all of about 10 years before my armies were completely wiped out. 

 

Back to Germany in the security and bureaucracy of the Holy Roman Empire. Also, I don't think it will be tyrannical if the guy revolts 3 times. I had him in prison for most of his life!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to Germany in the security and bureaucracy of the Holy Roman Empire. Also, I don't think it will be tyrannical if the guy revolts 3 times. I had him in prison for most of his life!

 

There's a weird once off punishment allowance for rebellious vassals. The game lets you get one free pass, like taking one title, ransoming them, banishing them. But after that one action your vassals expect you to stop, otherwise they think it's a bit much to take two different counties off them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ok, great! I'll try that. I also attempted a game in the UK, as the Duke of York. Man England is a shit show in 1066, should have been obvious when I think about it. I lasted all of about 10 years before my armies were completely wiped out.

Back to Germany in the security and bureaucracy of the Holy Roman Empire. Also, I don't think it will be tyrannical if the guy revolts 3 times. I had him in prison for most of his life!

Yer, England is a bit tough, if I want a UK start I tend to like Ireland as you have a bit more time and space to expand and develop your laws and holdings.

A great tip I got from friends and streamers is the Find Character menu you can find on the bottom right taskbar. It allows you to search anywhere from the world down to your own local court for characters with certain traits or conditions. This is especially useful for finding people in your kingdom with claims and finding new vassals. For example, if you win a Holy War against infidels, you receive ALL the holdings in your wargoal (including some you cannot hold and make use of like churches). This means you end up well over ur demense limit and have to give titles out to vassals, if you use the character search to find unlanded men who have the same CULTURE as you, you end up with vassals that will like you more and the chance to spread your culture will go up. You can also speead out the titles across more people making them less powerful elements of ur empire. It can seem small but its about a 15 point opinion swing between 'foreigner' and 'same culture', and thats just 1 example of what character search can do for you.

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