|
Chalks posted:I thought the game automatically ends at 1453 but my game is still going at 1466... is this something that changed in the old gods or a setting or something? You're either running a mod that does this or you've hit a very weird glitch.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:37 |
|
|
Torrannor posted:I don't think this is true. I have captured several leaders of mercenary bands, and none had the gold to pay their random. They don't seem to get gold from being hired, otherwise the captain of the Cuman Band would not have zero money after 20 years in captivity. I know mercenary leaders can get cash - I've ransomed them before... not sure what's going on in your case. ThomasPaine posted:Could you theoretically hire a mercenary band to help you in a war against themselves then? That would all kinds of weird/hilarious. Try it and report back! The tricky part is finding a mercenary who's taken a title; you'd probably have to engineer it by hiring a bunch of mercenaries, running out of money, & surrendering to the one with the funniest name. Then tagswap to someone else... Bloody Pancreas posted:I find Hungary to be a great starting point (1066 start). As the king you don't have to worry about outside invader and there are a number of dukes with strong claims you can start as. Note that you will almost certainly see a huge succession crisis within the first ten years if you're playing as the king. (Because of those aforementioned dukes.) I remember there was one guy in this thread a few months ago who was claiming it was 'impossible' to play as Hungary because he couldn't win that initial civil war; while that's of course untrue, it's something to keep in mind for new players.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:You're either running a mod that does this or you've hit a very weird glitch. The only mod I'm running is CK2+. I wasn't aware of it extending the end date and I googled and couldn't find anything about it. This game has been far more glitchy than I remember, with trait events saying a character gains a trait then the trait simply not appearing, and at one point I married my son off to someone and the next time I checked back they were married to an entirely different character. This is the first time I've played with the old gods and CK2+, but apparently others have been playing without any issues so I'm not sure what the root cause is. Oh well, I'll just hit retire rather than seeing if the game just keeps on going forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Chalks posted:The only mod I'm running is CK2+. I wasn't aware of it extending the end date and I googled and couldn't find anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
You should have exported to EU4 in 1444, anyway. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
So the new DLC might be called Sons of Abraham. From the Paradox forum thread:quote:please god, let it NOT be jews.... quote:agreed quote:with you on that ... +1 quote:I hope it's not jews... quote:Beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Chalks posted:The only mod I'm running is CK2+. I wasn't aware of it extending the end date and I googled and couldn't find anything about it. One of the mods in CK2+ (the better combat one, can't remember the name) extends the end date to 10,000 AD for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:So the new DLC might be called Sons of Abraham. From the Paradox forum thread:
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
That's some racism, right there. That pic. O_O Anyhow, I'd be kind of disappointed if a DLC was just Jewish, because there really aren't a lot of total starting areas to make it worthwhile. (Assuming it was the price of a full DLC) But a lot of the people there seem adamant about not including it at all, which, uh... strikes me as weird.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
That's very promising, an Abrahamic faiths DLC is just what I was hoping for. Something that's a mixture of stuff for all three religions. If it adds Jews, redoes the decadence system, and adds Cardinals and proper papal elections I will be very pleased.Ofaloaf posted:Do any of them actually give a reason, or is it all some mealy-mouthed "well what did Jews do during the Middle Ages anyways, they're not important, why can't CK2 just go to 1918 instead" or whatever instead? Well they should obviously be doing a DLC that's devoted entirely to (country crazy nationalist paradox forums poster is from) instead!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:So the new DLC might be called Sons of Abraham. From the Paradox forum thread: I think the only DLC that would get worse responses would be one focussing on Romani,
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
Veryslightlymad posted:That's some racism, right there. That pic. O_O Honestly, a mod that added court Jews & made courtiers more interesting in general would be nice. Right now, courtiers are basically only there for you to marry off & press claims for. More events & mechanics to get them involved would be neat. Doubt that's what we'll be getting, but we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
I heard rumors it does add Judaism AND overhauls the Christian religions so they have more depth to them like the Norse and Muslim religions do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
What depth is there to the norse ones? Other than Blots and the... well I can't remember how it is spelt but "norse caliphate" thing. I'd just like more events in general, anything that makes the game more like King of Dragon pass is a good thing in my book, because peace time tends to be boring and if you pick your fights well the game is way too easy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Dark_Swordmaster posted:I heard rumors it does add Judaism AND overhauls the Christian religions so they have more depth to them like the Norse and Muslim religions do. Nice, here's hoping for Cardinals. Just that simple step would add so much intrigue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:What depth is there to the norse ones? Other than Blots and the... well I can't remember how it is spelt but "norse caliphate" thing. Reformation and raiding, on top of being one of two religions for which you can play as the religious head, yeah Also concubines, and viking/berserker traits & associated storylines
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
Allyn posted:Reformation and raiding, on top of being one of two religions for which you can play as the religious head, yeah I keep forgetting about raiding, and I thought concubinage was already in the game prior to OG? I dunno, I just wanted a couple of cool "build buildings" events, not every king is going to want to be constantly at war, but he can still show off by making a gigantic temple and/or fortress. I mean look at Westminster abbey or the Palace of Westminster, all of them designed to create both fear and awe in the medieval mind, but you don't get to play that game. The addition of saints (or close equivalent for other religions) would be kind of cool, getting a sacred member of your own family always seemed like a good way of boosting prestige.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Hopefully they expand on their early idea that they had to cut where Christians can crusade and adventure for relics and then build unique structures or get rare event lines once they have them, i.e. Grand Cathedrals that house a Piece of the True Cross, young heirs questing for the The Holy Grail, etc. Questing and crusading knight groups becomes the Christian equal to the Varangian Guard for the Norse. I also hope they add Abbeys and Abbesses too, they were a major part of the medieval church that is as oddly absent as Cardinals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Omnicarus posted:Hopefully they expand on their early idea that they had to cut where Christians can crusade and adventure for relics and then build unique structures or get rare event lines once they have them, i.e. Grand Cathedrals that house a Piece of the True Cross, young heirs questing for the The Holy Grail, etc. Questing and crusading knight groups becomes the Christian equal to the Varangian Guard for the Norse. You mean we could have a crusade for the holy prepuce? I'm sold.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Omnicarus posted:Hopefully they expand on their early idea that they had to cut where Christians can crusade and adventure for relics and then build unique structures or get rare event lines once they have them, i.e. Grand Cathedrals that house a Piece of the True Cross, young heirs questing for the The Holy Grail, etc. Questing and crusading knight groups becomes the Christian equal to the Varangian Guard for the Norse. This sounds rad as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
Omnicarus posted:Hopefully they expand on their early idea that they had to cut where Christians can crusade and adventure for relics and then build unique structures or get rare event lines once they have them, i.e. Grand Cathedrals that house a Piece of the True Cross, young heirs questing for the The Holy Grail, etc. Questing and crusading knight groups becomes the Christian equal to the Varangian Guard for the Norse. This was something The Prince and The Thane implemented that I was really fond of, except the relics would always end up in the hands of unlanded merc and holy orders.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Yeah, TPaTT was a quality mod, too bad it's all but dead. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
Veryslightlymad posted:That's some racism, right there. That pic. O_O You're right that a Judaism-only DLC would be a little bit thin, but I still don't understand why it wasn't included in The Old Gods. As has been pointed out a few times, Khazaria's ruling class converted to Judaism around the time of the Old Gods start. I was very surprised to see Zoroastrianism on the map (Karen) but not Judaism (Khazars). p.s. the Zoroastrian start is quite difficult even with the ridiculous ahistorical "event troops" they give you. Somebody really wanted Zoroastrianism to be playable, and it is, just barely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:You're right that a Judaism-only DLC would be a little bit thin, but I still don't understand why it wasn't included in The Old Gods. As has been pointed out a few times, Khazaria's ruling class converted to Judaism around the time of the Old Gods start. I was very surprised to see Zoroastrianism on the map (Karen) but not Judaism (Khazars). Thematically it doesn't really fit in wit the old gods. A bunch of dead religions and one of the more important religions of the current era seems like a weird marriage. The picture teaser showed what seems to be some kind of migration or possibly a pilgrimage. It seems to me that it's likely we'll get an overhaul to at least the Christian religions and hopefully also maybe some Jewish stuff thrown in. And if we're super, DUPER, lucky, we'll get the playable theocracies, finally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Zurai posted:One of the mods in CK2+ (the better combat one, can't remember the name) extends the end date to 10,000 AD for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Its not Better Armies FYI, it's the base CK2Plus mod. Open CK2Plus/Common/defines.txt and you can move the end date to whatever if its bothering you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
A cardinal system like the one in Medieval 2: Total War would be rad, especially with all the fun that CKII intrigue allows for. A fleshed-out papacy system could also make antipopes more worthwhile. EDIT: Maybe have the Court Chaplain position be replaced by Cardinal in the councils of independent characters? DStecks fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Oct 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
Flippycunt posted:Its not Better Armies FYI, it's the base CK2Plus mod. Open CK2Plus/Common/defines.txt and you can move the end date to whatever if its bothering you. The independent version of Better Armies has it 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Zurai posted:The independent version of Better Armies has it CK2+ implemented it first (I never understood why either, so I changed it back for my own copy). Better Armies was originally built off CK2+ and only ported to vanilla later, as I recall, and I guess that change to the date bookmarks got overlooked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
DStecks posted:A cardinal system like the one in Medieval 2: Total War would be rad, especially with all the fun that CKII intrigue allows for. A fleshed-out papacy system could also make antipopes more worthwhile. They probably need to remove or heavily rework the antipope mechanic. Right now if you are an emperor it is trivially easy to install an antipope as your vassal, solving all problems you have with the church. Even as a king it is not too difficult to make an antipope and conquer Rome for him, to get rid of a pope that excommunicated you for example. Why would you bother with cardinals when you can vassalize that papacy at will?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:They probably need to remove or heavily rework the antipope mechanic. Right now if you are an emperor it is trivially easy to install an antipope as your vassal, solving all problems you have with the church. Even as a king it is not too difficult to make an antipope and conquer Rome for him, to get rid of a pope that excommunicated you for example. Why would you bother with cardinals when you can vassalize that papacy at will? Declaring war on the pope should be a diplomatic clusterfuck. It should automatically issue a call to arms for all Catholic realms, or something of that nature.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Declaring war on the pope should be a diplomatic clusterfuck. It should automatically issue a call to arms for all Catholic realms, or something of that nature. Fighting with the pope was quite common during the time period though. There was always some conflict with either the Normans in the south or the Germans up north, and it didn't result in faith-wide calls to arms or even excommunications (all that often). I'm sure plenty of rulers in the middle ages realized just how broken the system was and how problematic a powerful or unchallenged pope/church could be, and were probably quite happy to see people quarreling with him. Sheep fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Oct 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Declaring war on the pope should be a diplomatic clusterfuck. It should automatically issue a call to arms for all Catholic realms, or something of that nature. Minor fights over counties and whatever shouldn't be dealt with so harshly, but I agree that attempting to conquer Rome as a Catholic should not be treated lightly. If the Pope has some county somewhere that you want, most people likely wouldn't care, but actually attempting to seize Rome itself should probably work like some kind of Reverse Crusade, where the Pope calls up all Catholic rulers to defend the city. Installing an Antipope should be a similar clusterfuck in which all Catholic rulers can declare allegiance to either the incumbent or Antipope. Maybe if that new Sons of Abraham thing is a theocratic DLC that will get fleshed out a little.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Dauntasa posted:Minor fights over counties and whatever shouldn't be dealt with so harshly, but I agree that attempting to conquer Rome as a Catholic should not be treated lightly. If the Pope has some county somewhere that you want, most people likely wouldn't care, but actually attempting to seize Rome itself should probably work like some kind of Reverse Crusade, where the Pope calls up all Catholic rulers to defend the city. Installing an Antipope should be a similar clusterfuck in which all Catholic rulers can declare allegiance to either the incumbent or Antipope. This is what I mean. Because the Papal States were a temporal power, they're going to have border disputes and shenanigans with their neighbours same as anybody else. It's just that unilaterally deposing the Pope and installing your own should not be greeted by Christendom with bemused disinterest. (A cardinal system would also help to discourage this, since the Pope's realm of origin would have a vested interest in keeping him in power.) The CB system would provide an easy means to distinguish the proper reaction. "Assert de jure claims" or "Press claims" should work the same as for anybody else, but a CB that threatens Rome or intends to install an antipope would initiate the pan-Catholic call to arms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
DStecks posted:This is what I mean. Because the Papal States were a temporal power, they're going to have border disputes and shenanigans with their neighbours same as anybody else. It's just that unilaterally deposing the Pope and installing your own should not be greeted by Christendom with bemused disinterest. (A cardinal system would also help to discourage this, since the Pope's realm of origin would have a vested interest in keeping him in power.) There were several historical instances of emperors invading Rome, deposing the pope, and installing their own, but to my (somewhat limited) knowledge none of them resulted in a worldwide Catholic march to the Pope's defense. Individual popes just didn't have that much power and influence, and outside of their immediate neighbors (who generally picked sides based on political alliances rather than theological loyalty) nobody really cared who was actually in charge in Rome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There were several historical instances of emperors invading Rome, deposing the pope, and installing their own, but to my (somewhat limited) knowledge none of them resulted in a worldwide Catholic march to the Pope's defense. Individual popes just didn't have that much power and influence, and outside of their immediate neighbors (who generally picked sides based on political alliances rather than theological loyalty) nobody really cared who was actually in charge in Rome. This is taking things a bit far. The Pope did have temporal power and did as a result have quarrels with his neighbours, but he was by no means seen in the same way that any old European noble would have been. The investiture controversy which you linked was a HUGE deal in Europe at the time and certainly wasn't looked on with ambivalence by contemporaries. Making war on the Pope was a major, major thing. A lot of nobles would bitch and moan a great deal but when it came down to it the Pope represented God (and it's very easy to underestimate how earnest they were in their belief here) and to physically move againt him was unthinkable. It certainly happened, but by no means lightly. Thw idea that any other noble could just decide to go to war and conquer Rome one day with no consequence is absurd - even Henry IV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV,_Holy_Roman_Emperor), whose reign was at the height of the investiture controversy, did penance when it was demanded of him. Excommunication was no laughing matter, and the Pope held that power exclusively. Still, I'm not sure that a pan-European defensive casus belli would be accurate in cases where the Pope was assaulted by a Christian because that goes too far in the other direction. Maybe a casus belli to any ruler who liked the Pope more than the invader?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:This is taking things a bit far. The Pope did have temporal power and did as a result have quarrels with his neighbours, but he was by no means seen in the same way that any old European noble would have been. The investiture controversy which you linked was a HUGE deal in Europe at the time and certainly wasn't looked on with ambivalence by contemporaries. Making war on the Pope was a major, major thing. A lot of nobles would bitch and moan a great deal but when it came down to it the Pope represented God (and it's very easy to underestimate how earnest they were in their belief here) and to physically move againt him was unthinkable. It certainly happened, but by no means lightly. Thw idea that any other noble could just decide to go to war and conquer Rome one day with no consequence is absurd - even Henry IV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV,_Holy_Roman_Emperor), whose reign was at the height of the investiture controversy, did penance when it was demanded of him. Excommunication was no laughing matter, and the Pope held that power exclusively. No, it should be a casus belli to every ruler, but not everyone should join. People who don't like the Pope and who have no political reason to do so wouldn't bother. It should be like a Crusade in that showing up and winning should be rewarded but if people have other stuff going on they won't come.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
I'm playing my first serious CK2 game since the expansions came out, and man I wish I'd documented it better for a little LP Tumblr series or something. I can't put my finger on why exactly--on the surface it's nothing fresh or all that exciting--but it's probably the most enjoyable, drama-packed run I've had in CK1 or 2. Using the Old Gods start, I started as the Count of Dorset. My first dynastic ruler had a pretty messy reign, but somehow schemed and backstabbed his way into running the petty kingdom of Wessex (before himself taking a suspicious fall off a tower). Upon taking charge, his rough-and-tumble heir forged a strong alliance with Mercia to stem the tide of dirty vikings, and before dying gloriously on the battlefield as an old man, found himself ruling the northern and southern thirds of England, with Mercia in the middle. My next ruler made nice with the vikings, who turned their aggression westward and built a mighty kingdom consisting of all of Skotland and Ireland. That ruler's gay hunchback literally retarded son (his only son, despite having like ten daughters, which made him the best French/German alliance-maker of all time) was assassinated just a few weeks into his rule (at the behest of some prick who was hiding out with the Varangian Guard where I couldn't properly get at him; seriously gently caress that chicken-poo poo who I gleefully managed to assassinate like forty years later). Then, his unlikely progeny went onto watch as Mercia turtled up into a nation of disagreeable, inept, inbred assholes. Since they were destined to get conquered by somebody and soon, he made it his life's work to absorb Mercian holdings--piece by excruciating piece--into his own. Wessex's next ruler--the first King of Angleland--finished that job of uniting the nation, but by that point the Vikings had wised up and decided not to let this new kingdom grow unchecked. Thirty years of nearly non-stop war took its toll on both sides, but Angeland was slowly losing through attrition. Fortunately a few rear end in a top hat Norse/Skottish nobles (led by a very Jabba the Huttesque 80-year-old chieftess) saw all this as a great opportunity to seize power, resulting in a big-rear end civil war that allowed Angleland to catch its breath. The great Skot-Irish Viking Kingdom collapsed, and meanwhile some Irish superman came out of nowhere to liberate the Whole island from Norse oppression. And that's where I currently am, and it's not even the year 1000 yet. Britain is roughly divided into equally powerful thirds--Angle, Skot, and Irish--a power balance which is, in this universe, a complete novelty. Oh and the Welsh are hanging in there still; they're at war with everybody constantly, but I guess they're such a low priority target that nobody has bothered finishing them off. Anyway, unlike so, so many others, I'm totally going to play this game until the end, and if the dynasty's still alive and kicking, port it over into EU4. Also one of my heirs early on ended up following the Norse religion without me realizing it, so a lot of my political effort over the decades has gone into increasing crown authority and eliminating that god damned gavelkind curse. Planned on going back to primogeniture, but at the last minute I went elective to shake things up a bit. All in all it's been an interesting run so far. edit: Random question... In an earlier game I changed the name of a Norse dynasty (in-game, via the family tree menu or whatever). Just last night I noticed that that change has crept/carried over i to my current, unrelated game. It totally shouldn't be doing that right? A new game should always give me a default, untainted start, shouldn't it? Or should I be more worried about some of the in-game customization options? Trustworthy fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Oct 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Dauntasa posted:No, it should be a casus belli to every ruler, but not everyone should join. People who don't like the Pope and who have no political reason to do so wouldn't bother. It should be like a Crusade in that showing up and winning should be rewarded but if people have other stuff going on they won't come. True, but to realistically model it you'd have to get into the hugely complicated sphere of imperial vs. papal allegiance which was even further muddied by the intertwining of spiritual and temporal power - despite the conflict the emperor did still, technically, accept subservience to the Pope in a religious context even while doing everything he could to undermine him politically. It's just so complex an issue that it simply wouldn't be possible to represent in the same way any other conflict is. I'd like to see Paradox's take on it, if this is the area they're focusing on for the next DLC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
You can vassalise the Pope if you raise an Antipope and win their war for the Papacy. I assume the "I am the Pope's liege lord" thing would've been completely unthinkable in the day?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:37 |
|
|
Flesnolk posted:You can vassalise the Pope if you raise an Antipope and win their war for the Papacy. I assume the "I am the Pope's liege lord" thing would've been completely unthinkable in the day? From what little I've read the Pope was a vassal of the Byzantines and then later the HRE, but they were independent for a fair time after that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 04:43
|
|
