|
Legitimacy is in a bit of an odd place for me. My experience has been that my first ruler sometimes struggles to raise legitimacy, but subsequent rulers often have little issue, unless I go about revoking titles or marrying lowborns willy-nilly. In a pinch, I can leave some titles uncreated and then create them if I'm expecting to dip. I don't know if this matches what other people's experience or not, since I do use some mods.
Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Apr 30, 2024 |
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
So what does it take to Get Good at CK3? Divided I guess into these categories assuming Catholic-adjacent Feudal and relatively early game start without some specific singularly strong cultural tradition: - Make money. - Expand - Securing a line of God-King Kwisatz Haderachs. - Good PVP army (assume multiplayer). - ??? Anything else I should keep in mind? Some advice I've been given has been: - Use cheapest Men at Arms for a while as even the weakest Men at Arms will defeat Peasant Levies and typically are 2v1 them early game (even against AI rulers?) and will help avoid faction/peasant revolts. - Avoid expanding/wars, mainly do free wars that cost nothing (try to diplo vassalize instead?) In some recent MP games I notice that some players can just easily blob pretty quickly and get a King title and I dunno if they do it in just extremely risky ways or if I should just be more aggressive at first.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 17:12
|
|
|
it's not a map painter. you Get Good by Being Extremely Feudal. do interesting stuff ck3 is much closer to stardew valley and the sims than it is to eu4. unironically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 17:17
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:it's not a map painter. you Get Good by Being Extremely Feudal. do interesting stuff Also useful for legitimacy discourse too honestly You can be king for 20 years but if you aren't doing the stuff a king is supposed to do (win wars,, feast and hunt, marry other bluebloods, protect the realm from plagues) people are going to look at you weird.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 17:26
|
|
|
The DD sounds like a good direction to take the game, but I do wonder if the accolade system will ever get any love. It really feels like it got immediately forgotten by the developers after being introduced.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 18:34
|
|
|
Accolades are more finicky than they're worth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 18:54
|
|
|
they're a part of the space marine picture if you want to make space marines out of your knights. otherwise yeah
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 18:56
|
|
|
I think being able to turn off their notifications so we can lock them in the basement and forget about them is about all the love they're worth unless they get a full rework.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 20:41
|
|
|
SlothBear posted:I think being able to turn off their notifications so we can lock them in the basement and forget about them is about all the love they're worth unless they get a full rework. yeah, if I will be able to completely ignore accolades, I will. 'you need to appoint a successor' - somehow this specific combination of traits was so rare that you need to recruit a new knight with prowess of 5 and force him to be a knight - he somehow dies in next 5 years because he was 70 years old or something - 'you need to appoint a successor'
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 20:56
|
|
|
My favorite is "you can't use the action to recruit someone because a dude with half the prowess needed to be your knight someone meets the requirements" Also when you can recruit someone he somehow doesn't have the same traits at all the bonuses aren't useful anymore. Also nothing about this system means anything at all ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 21:00
|
|
|
I honestly wouldn't care so much about any of the notifications and what not if I could just select a candidate directly from the list of qualifying candidates and force them to be a knight directly from that interface instead of having to go back to the knight list, find the character, force them there, and then go back to the accolade successor selection. I don't mind checking off my notifications, but the selection screen is basically dumb and useless for showing you characters that you can't select.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 21:08
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:I honestly wouldn't care so much about any of the notifications and what not if I could just select a candidate directly from the list of qualifying candidates and force them to be a knight directly from that interface instead of having to go back to the knight list, find the character, force them there, and then go back to the accolade successor selection. Honestly this is also my only major problem with the accolade system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 21:17
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:I honestly wouldn't care so much about any of the notifications and what not if I could just select a candidate directly from the list of qualifying candidates and force them to be a knight directly from that interface instead of having to go back to the knight list, find the character, force them there, and then go back to the accolade successor selection. Pretty sure that Accolade UI Tweaks does this, if you hadn't previously heard about it. I've been using it since I found it and I agree, that's really the last thing about accolades that was genuinely enraging to me. Yeah, the best accolades depend on traits that are rare enough that you'll have to be using the decision a lot, but otherwise the game will just pick a successor on its own unless you have a specific reason to intervene and pick a specific person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 21:50
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:Pretty sure that Accolade UI Tweaks does this, if you hadn't previously heard about it. Thanks, I was wondering if there was a mod for that
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 22:06
|
|
|
It's nice that they're looking at difficulty tweaks, adding conquerors, but I kind of wish the AI was just more... active? Hard to say when I'm not familiar with the underlying scripting, but it felt like in CK2 it was much more dangerous to have a bunch of unhappy vassals- they'd get to factioning and scheming pretty fast. In CK3 you can just kind of ride it out most of the time, rulers in general don't bother expanding very much, etc. Make it a game option to be more proactive, like Victoria 3's ability to set nations to More Aggressive than default
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 22:32
|
|
|
Am I the only one who feels the conqueror trait is extremely contrived? It's like the devs are saying "we can't bother to make the game interestingly difficult-- let's staple a bunch of modifiers to a random AI and call it a day". Really disappointing. I do like the court events rework and the notification settings. That they're going to move more features to paid is kinda funny--is it that legends of the dead would have better reviews if it included diseases? The free part of any update has been consistently better than the dlc, tbh.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 00:42
|
|
|
scaterry posted:Am I the only one who feels the conqueror trait is extremely contrived? It's like the devs are saying "we can't bother to make the game interestingly difficult-- let's staple a bunch of modifiers to a random AI and call it a day". Really disappointing. I'm used to the AI cheating at strategy games to get any kind of challenge out of them, it's been a thing in the genre forever. With that said it seems to be easy to turn off it it's not your thing. The conqueror personality can bring the AI changes without the silly bonuses from the trait.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 00:44
|
|
|
scaterry posted:Am I the only one who feels the conqueror trait is extremely contrived? It's like the devs are saying "we can't bother to make the game interestingly difficult-- let's staple a bunch of modifiers to a random AI and call it a day". Really disappointing. The lead up to that was basically him saying exactly the same thing but acknowledging that some people enjoy those options right? I can’t really be disappointed in giving people options for stuff like that - loads of people in that thread seem excited for it. I just think CK3 is basically impossible to even come close to balancing in a way that works for everyone so you have to give lots of options for people to tweak it themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 00:59
|
|
|
The conquerer trait is extremely contrived but stuff like that is basically always required for complicated strategy games to have difficult aI.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 01:28
|
|
|
Anno posted:The lead up to that was basically him saying exactly the same thing but acknowledging that some people enjoy those options right? I can’t really be disappointed in giving people options for stuff like that - loads of people in that thread seem excited for it. Yeah and it seems like they've separated out the conqueror AI from the conqueror bonuses, so if you like the idea of a few hyper-aggressive, "playing to win" AIs but without letting them cheat to do it, you can just configure the rules to do that. They already talk about this in the DD but I think a big thing about CK3 is that it's really more of a strategy-themed roleplaying game than it is a pure strategy game which is why the difficulty question is such a hard one to answer. You want the game to resist you just enough to make for a more interesting narrative, but not so much that you're forced into boring, game-y, "optimal" strategies just to make things happen. The game has to allow you to be kind of bad at it because being kind of bad is an interesting story. I think the main issue it runs into is just that the challenge doesn't scale up very well - running a huge realm generally just makes you untouchable and a lot of the historical reasons why these sorts of huge empires were rare and difficult to keep stable in real life aren't really modelled, so you tend to end up "winning" relatively early in the game's timeline. The system they talk about to swap to "interesting" characters rather than your direct heir does seem like a way to try to address this - in the past the only real option for doing this was to set up a crusader kingdom and use the prompt to take over as the ruler of the new, much smaller and less stable realm, but the opportunities for doing that were always pretty limited. The other option was just console swapping to someone else but that never feels very "natural".
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 01:51
|
|
|
The idea of letting an AI with the Conquerer trait act much more actively sounds very good. By default the AI is almost actively programmed for idleness, which is why they so rarely expand effectively even when they are in a strong position. The extra bonuses feel like a bit much, but if that's what it takes...
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 02:07
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I just wish the AI would band together for defensive wars. The irish will just let you take the entire kingdom a county at a time instead of coming to the aid of one another in defensive wars against another culture invading.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 02:11
|
|
|
PookBear posted:I just wish the AI would band together for defensive wars. The irish will just let you take the entire kingdom a county at a time instead of coming to the aid of one another in defensive wars against another culture invading. The Irish Goodbye
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 02:52
|
|
|
PookBear posted:I just wish the AI would band together for defensive wars. The irish will just let you take the entire kingdom a county at a time instead of coming to the aid of one another in defensive wars against another culture invading.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 09:00
|
|
|
Jakosa posted:Why should Ireland act like a single kingdom in a time before it was a single kingdom? Even contemporary history has examples of geopolitics where neighbors band together vs newcomer threats. To varying degrees of success. Thing is, much like that other comment about how ck3 doesn't really do justice on how hard it is to hold an empire together, those types of mechanics are really outside the scope of the game character-driven gameplay.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 09:21
|
|
|
Other paradox games handle this through a sort of aggressive expansion penalty that encourages people to ally against you. I think CK3 relies on the idea that your lands will be hard to hold because invading other cultures makes them difficult to govern and will lead to factions and peasant revolts etc., but the penalty is so minor and the result so easy to overcome that it isn't even a speed bump.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 14:15
|
|
|
SlothBear posted:Other paradox games handle this through a sort of aggressive expansion penalty that encourages people to ally against you. I think CK3 relies on the idea that your lands will be hard to hold because invading other cultures makes them difficult to govern and will lead to factions and peasant revolts etc., but the penalty is so minor and the result so easy to overcome that it isn't even a speed bump. mod for that https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/?id=3034367754
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 14:18
|
|
|
Realms without alliances can band together to defend against holy wars, but it seems to be fairly rare.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 17:46
|
|
|
It did not help that it was straight up bugged for like years after release where the aI just would not join in defensive holy wars. It can do that now, at least.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 17:56
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:mod for that How does having tiny nobody counts dislike you do anything? If you're gobbling up all the small fry next to west Francia having the king of Francia get pissy at you might have an effect, somewhere, if you where trying to marry his son or something. But for eating up a shattered kingdom like Ireland, who gives a gently caress what the counts think of you? They're still not banding together to stop your expansion as a form of mutual self-defense. Rulers don't wardec based on their opinion of you afaik. And if they did, it certainly must be negligible compared to all the other causes.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 21:40
|
|
|
they do try to kill you the sneaky way based upon their opinion there's also huge money and prestige things. tripled building cost is not fun times
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 21:48
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:they do try to kill you the sneaky way based upon their opinion vvvvvvvv edit: Oh, it's not mentioned in the mod text, but in a jpg. Eeeeh, that's gotta be the least elegant way of doing anything, giving players game-y across-the-board penalties like that. Without really addressing role-playing or historic/realistic parts. Serephina fucked around with this message at 22:21 on May 1, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 22:03
|
|
|
no, look at the mod harder, its not just opinion
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 22:09
|
|
|
Jakosa posted:Why should Ireland act like a single kingdom in a time before it was a single kingdom? because that's what happened irl and ck3 has no mechanism for managing more informal relationships between polities such as irish concepts of high kingship
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 04:33
|
|
|
the game still has 0 modeling of the fwiggin investiture crisis for chrissakes
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 04:35
|
|
|
1178. Interesting, definitely going to play Manuel I Komnenos and Henry Plantagenet with that start date.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 12:50
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:1178. Interesting, definitely going to play Manuel I Komnenos and Henry Plantagenet with that start date. And Tamar of Georgia! 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
I'm grateful for another bookmark, and obviously the Third Crusade has a lot of interest around it, but it still seems a shame to me that they haven't placed this new bookmark at some point after 1204. The map around the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East becomes so much different after that point, opening up loads of different play options, and the formerly Byzantine lands seem to be crying out for another 'Struggle' alongside the existing Iberian and Persian ones.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 19:32
|
|
