|
Blitz7x posted:So this is a dumb question for having played this game for so long, but what exactly am I looking for in a wife? Should I be angling for a Princess from a large kingdom/empire? Should I be looking at stats or traits instead? Basically should I marry a Duchess or someone with low traits versus some 16yo foreign culture pretty peasant woman with the genius trait? Spouses can do several things for you. In roughly descending order of importance: They'll help administrate the realm. (For Muslims, this is only true of your primary wife, although secondary wives with high Intrigue or the Ambitious or Envious traits may scheme to become primary.) Half of your spouse's stats are added to your own for some purposes. In particular, half of your spouse's diplomacy is added to your State Diplomacy (which is the base modifier of how much people like you), to your Stewardship for the purposes of taxes and demense size, and to your Intrigue for the vast majority of Intrigue effects. A wife (including secondary wives) can also be a Spymaster, at the cost of the bonus she's giving to your own Intrigue (if she's primary), or a court chaplain if you're one of the religions that allows female priests (mostly just pagans). Keep an eye on your wife's Diplomacy and Stewardship, since this is the only way to improve your State Diplomacy or base demense size without improving your ruler's stats directly. They'll parent heirs for you. If you need an heir right now or lots of kids for whatever reason, try to marry someone with fertility-boosting traits like Lustful, Hedonist, and Strong, while avoiding their opposites, Chaste, Weak, and especially Celibate and Castrated. (There is also a base Fertility stat, but it's hidden.) Also, try not to marry someone who's likely to die soon, and do not marry a woman who is nearing the 45-year-old cutoff for bearing children. Men do not have an age cutoff, but older men are more likely to die and more likely to develop old age traits that decrease fertility. Reverse this advice if you don't want children for whatever reason; Muslim rulers have to deal with decadence from unoccupied sons, and unreformed pagans (or deeply unpopular Christian rulers) may have Gavelkind concerns. They can have inheritable claims. (This is almost never a concern for Muslims. It is very useful when considering concubines, especially since captives taken in war or raiding can be pressed into concubinage.) A parent will pass their strong claims (except forged claims) and inheritable weak claims to their legitimate children (and three closest relatives in the line of succession, if they have less than three legitimate children) when the parent dies. You can turn a weak, uninheritable claim or a forged claim (which will show up as strong but not inheritable) into an inheritable claim simply by pressing it in war and ending the war in white peace. You can also look ahead, and marry someone who will inherit a claim, either because their still-living parent has a claim, or because they're second- or third-in-line to a title. (Rarely, you can just marry someone who is due to inherit a title, although the "Too high in the line of succession" objection will almost always prevent you from doing this easily.) Remember, however, that claims dilute with each generation: strong claims dilute to weak inheritable, weak inheritable claims dilute to weak uninheritable. Remember also that women cannot press claims except on other women, and will not inherit claims to Agnatic titles. They can have useful inheritable traits. Stats absolutely do not matter in this case (except for Health and Fertility, which are heritable but hidden and thus harder to aim for). Any stat that's in a green (good) or blue (bad) heart is inheritable. Genius, Quick, and Strong are all great, and Attractive is very good for would-be queen rulers and moderately useful for men. This isn't as important as many people make it out to be, since the chance to inherit most traits is only 15-20%. (The main exception is Dwarfism, which is very inheritable, but it's only really bad for female rulers.) There is also Sayyid for Muslims: a Sayyid mother's child will always be a Mirza, and get an opinion boost with all Muslims. You can form alliances through marriage. (Secondary marriages for Muslims do form alliances, but concubinage does not.) If you marry a ruler or their close relative (no further removed than niece/nephew or grandchild/grandparent), then you're allied to them as long as the marriage lasts. If the marriage is broken through divorce or death of one person involved, then the alliance ends. Also, if the title passes to someone who is no longer closely related to the married couple, the alliance ends. Alliances are personal, not national. Be careful who you're forming alliances with: allying with a vassal of someone who isn't your liege lord is basically useless. They can educate your children. There are other, easier ways to get educators into your court, but this may be the only way available to some new, small rulers. A good educator has a good education trait, and no traits that negatively affect childrearing, like Cruel, Wrathful, or Slothful. Culture is also important. If you send your heir to be educated by a foreigner, it will annoy the poo poo out of your vassals. Educators also have a roughly 50% chance to convert children to their own culture, if they educate the child from 6 to 18. (Less time is less chance to convert.) Shy and Slothful decrease that chance (although Slothful is terrible for childrearing for other reasons), while Gregarious and Diligent increase that chance. Gregarious, Diligent educators are great if you do want to change your child's culture for whatever reason, though. Religion works similarly to culture, with the chance to convert children increased by Zealous and decreased by Cynical, but you can almost always just ask your wife to convert. Spouses can also plot against you if they hate you or against your children from other parents. They can also end up as the regent for your underage heir, even if they are not that child's birth parent, which sucks a whole lot. Be careful to not get murdered by your concubines, and bear in mind that Muslim wives will plot against each others' children and attempt to usurp each other. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Nov 12, 2013 |
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:You can only have vassals who are lower rank than you. If you're a duke, and you give away a duchy, that duchy will no longer be in your control. (You could have given away the earldom safely, though, yeah.) Worth noting that independent dukes are referred to as (Petty) Kings in some parts of the world, which can make things a little more confusing. When in doubt, look at the ring around the portrait: silver and blue is a Duke, gold is a King.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
So looking at the Dev diary I see a mention of Wiz working on the combat AI but no details, anyone have a clue on what could be changed/fixed/improved etc? His attention to this area gives me hope however
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
I don't think I'll ever have a king as good as Hartmann the Dragon ever again. The game started off in 1081 with a ruler designer-made count of Luebeck, Erastus Rotemann. Aside from his fantastic red beard, the main thing that made Erastus memorable was that by replacing the historical, Wendish ruler of Liubice he somehow got a claim on the Tribe of Obotrites. He successfully pressed his claim, and became the new (German!) chief of the Obotrites. This marked the beginning of a century-long pattern of incorporating Slavic and Baltic natives into the Rotemann dynasty's expanding realm, making expansion go much faster than would otherwise be the case through fabricating claims and waging holy wars. For the most part it worked. By the mid-12th century, my dynasty had created and controlled the kingdoms of Wendland (Pomerania in the mod I was using) and Livonia. Things were going moderately well. Then, in early 1171, Queen Magdalena of Wendland and Livonia died, leaving the union of kingdoms to her pampered son Melchior. Melchior was disliked immensely by the native Baltic nobility, and a huge rebellion began, intending to place a native Pomeranian on the Wendlander throne. King Melchior had little time to react before an arrow struck his skull one day... ...and then, as Melchior's newly-enthroned son Hartmann, I received a message informing me that our plot had succeeded, and everyone was buying the "lone bowman" story about Melchior's death. King Hartmann was 12 years old. The new king's first order of business, of course, was to put down the Balts' rebellion. Hiring mecenaries and calling upon an alliance with the Rurikids, Hartmann put down the revolt in short order. Every imprisoned native duke was stripped of his ducal titles, and administration of the duchies put into the hands of Germans who would never view the king as a cultural foreigner. For a while, things calmed down, and King Hartmann had time to further improve the kingdom. Rights of taxation were shifted from the dukes to the king, and revenues soared; a few holy wars were waged against the pagan Lithuanian tribes which laid between Wendland and Livonia; wars of conquest were waged to the east, eventually leading to Hartmann crowning himself King of Polotsk; settlers began arriving, turning Pskov into German Pleskow and Porkhov into Porchow. In 1194, however, the German dukes of Wendland carried out a plot to force Hartmann to cede the Pomeranian crown-- in this case, the crown was surrendered to Prince Gebhard, the brother of late King Melchior. Hartmann begrugingly gave up the crown to the plotters, as he was tied up in a war against all the Rurikid realms at the time, leaving him with the crowns of Livonia and Polotsk. At least some of the sting was taken out of the loss by the knowledge that Wendland was still in the hands of his dynasty. Peace between Wendland and Livonia did not last. In 1213, a new duke-run coup was carried out in Wendland, and the Wendlander King Melchior II (Gehbard's son) was deposed in favor of Drosuk z Pomorski, a man not of the Rotemann dynasty, and (to rub salt in the wound) not even a German! King Hartmann finally acted against Wendland, and in 1215 forced King Drosuk to admit defeat and return the crown-- to himself, not Melchior II. That guy was killed, to prevent plotters from using him again and splitting the realm, and Drosuk's family was also executed to prevent them from raising the banner of rebellion. It was at this point that Hartmann became known as 'The Dragon'. The remainder of Hartmann the Dragon's reign was bloody, but free of civil wars. Any duke caught plotting against the realm was imprisoned, stripped of titles and executed. Commoners were given titles when old noblemen were taken care of, and they in turn were imprisoned, stripped of titles and executed if it ever seemed like they were in on a plot, at which point a new commoner was given the county or duchy and the whole cycle started again. King Hartmann died peacefully in his sleep in 1227, at the age of 68, after having ruled for 56 years. Unsurprisingly in hindsight, everything went to poo poo after his death. Hartmann's son, King Theodorich, was personally slain by a Danish prince just four years after Hartmann's death. Theodorich's daughter, Maria, was deeply unpopular with the dukes and forced to reverse many of the Dragon's efforts to centralize the state. The periphery of the state has been slowly nibbled away during these latest disturbances, leading to the loss of Brandenburg, Lebus and Traken. Requiescat in pace, Hartmann. I miss you already. 
Ofaloaf fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Nov 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Would anyone be interested in a Monday/Tuesday MP game to try out Sons of Abraham?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
2.0 Patch Notes Parts I found more or less cool: quote:- Ironman mode The Battle AI changes in general sounds pretty amazing, guess we should thank Wiz for that!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
Kainser posted:- Armies on ships are capped at 50% morale Does this mean navy-bombing your opponents isn't going to be anywhere near as effective? I never used it because it seemed too gamey, but I'm interested to see the new strategies people will come up with for holding off the Mongols now that the primary strategy is gone. e: just noticed this in the full patch notes: quote:- The black bastard blood drop is now shown correctly with the new bastard dynasty system What "new bastard dynasty system" is being referred to here? Punished Chuck fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Nov 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
I enjoyed that little story. Also, doesn't Paradox usually do a sale around the time they release new big DLC? I still need to grab some face/music packs and the customizer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
WeaponGradeSadness posted:e: just noticed this in the full patch notes:
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
Basically, since 1.11 non-legitimized bastards get new dynasties created for them if they marry (in such a way that they would pass on their names), and this note is just patching the blood drop display so it'll be the proper bastard drop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Soviet_Russia posted:Would anyone be interested in a Monday/Tuesday MP game to try out Sons of Abraham? I'm game, send me a message on steam over the weekend to try to arrange.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Oh god finallyquote:- Added Quick-Split icon menu to quickly split army based on mercenaries, holy orders and retinues. Patch is looking real good, I wonder if you can start into Iron Man mode from a normal save? I'm guessing based on EU4 you'll need to run Iron Man to get most achievements. Wonder if they'll port over some of the new multiplayer features from EU4 eventually as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Gwyrgyn Blood posted:Oh god finally e: brain fart, sorry. Achievements will require vanilla but there's no reason why ironman mode should as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Rumda posted:I'm game, send me a message on steam over the weekend to try to arrange. I'm down for Monday.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Soviet_Russia posted:Would anyone be interested in a Monday/Tuesday MP game to try out Sons of Abraham? hail satan wait no the other guy that's what the expansion's about
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
Soviet_Russia posted:Would anyone be interested in a Monday/Tuesday MP game to try out Sons of Abraham? I, too, am game for this. Steam ID same as username here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
Another quick question. If I get an Invasion CB on someone who's got a bunch of people rebelling against him, can I occupy the rebel's holdings too? And should I try to occupy all holdings or just the capital to get it under my control?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:e: brain fart, sorry. Achievements will require vanilla but there's no reason why ironman mode should as well. There's no real reason why ironman should require vanilla, but doesn't EU4's ironman still require it? That's the main reason why I expect that CK2's ironman will (which sucks because even though vanilla's importing a lot of CK2+'s major changes I think I'll still prefer to mod my install after 2.0, but I really want a way to partially restrain my urge to savescum assassinations and the like). edit: I'm surprised no one's commented on the nerf 2.0 applies to the All Archbishops All The Time strategy. Am I reading this wrong or will it be entirely impossible to create duchy-level bishops as a feudal lord? If you're trying to make some particular bishop of yours stand out for the Pope to pin a snazzy red hat on in SoA, I've gotta wonder how we'll be able to influence that as players. edit2: vvvvvv ha, right at the same time. I never used that strategy as a player, but surely putting in the limit to the percentage of archbishop vassals would have been enough to curb the unrealistic stability that strategy offered, without completely closing off the creation of higher-ranked theocracies as the patch appears to do. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Nov 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
quote:Non-theocracy lieges are now only allowed to create single county or barony temple vassals (bishoprics) Wait, am I reading this wrong, or does this mean that archbishoprics and king-level theocracies have been completely patched out? Because if non-theocracy lieges can't create duke or king level theocracies, then nobody can, since theocracy lieges can't exist at those levels if nobody else can create them. The only way that I can see higher level theocracy titles coming into existence now is by a large bishopric gobbling up neighbor counties and creating/usurping the duchy, or through a pressed claim on a landed bishop claimant. Which happens rarely enough as it is, so now theocracies are going to be even rarer. I get that making everything bishoprics was a bit of an exploit, but why not just reduce its efficacy instead of arbitrarily reducing variety in gameplay?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Up for Monday, I think. Tuesday's probably out of the question. EDIT Half-tempted to play a Romuva just to gently caress with people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
DStecks posted:I get that making everything bishoprics was a bit of an exploit, but why not just reduce its efficacy instead of arbitrarily reducing variety in gameplay? You're doing that thing again. Players can't play as theocracies anyway, and NPC theocracies are minimally different than standard realms. All this means is that non-theocracies can't grant multi-county theocracy titles; they otherwise are formed and behave as normal. It's not as though NPC nations often, if ever, intentionally created theocracies in any case. Removing lovely features is not 'reducing variety'. fool of sound fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Nov 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:You're doing that thing again. Players can't play as theocracies anyway, and NPC theocracies are minimally different than standard realms. All this means is that non-theocracies can't grant theocracy titles; they otherwise are formed and behave as normal. It's not as though NPC nations often, if ever, intentionally created theocracies in any case. Yeah, I am doing that thing again, because Paradox is doing that loving thing again. Let's walk through the thought process here: Why should players not be able to create theocracies when they could before? If it's because creating theocracies makes it too easy on the player, that's a legit justification. But removing that option wasn't the only choice. They could have made it less advantageous for players to have a majority of their vassals be theocracies, and such a situation seems like a failure of design. Instead of correcting the problem (theocracy vassals are too good), they simply ripped out the functionality to exploit it, leaving a poor design in and reducing the player's choices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
e; never mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
Yeah, that's the thing. (edit: eh, you removed your post before I could quote it but damnit I'm still going to comment.) If they'd just put in the limit on how many theocracy vassals you could have that would likely have been enough. Theocracy vassals are great for a lot of reasons (no inheritance to deal with, usually high opinions if you manage to teach your heirs well or are using Free Investiture, etc, etc) that are deeply embedded in the game systems and would have been a bitch to change, so I can see why they took the route of "don't let players do this" rather than "change why players want to do this". Still, there are non-exploit reasons (mostly flavour/RP reasons, but maybe you want a quick piety boost or you want to hand off some land gains to the Church out of spite) to create archbishops, and I think Paradox may have overcorrected here. The lovely system is not "creating archbishops at all", it is "creating an entire empire's worth of archbishops". Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Nov 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:If they'd just put in the limit on how many theocracy vassals you could have that would likely have been enough. Here's the puzzling thing - they did put that in: quote:- You are now only allowed to have a certain percentage of counties under theocracy vassals (MAX_THEOCRACY_COUNTIES_IN_REALM) Unless I'm missing something, banning duke-level bishops seems completely redundant when their realms can't make up more than X% of your realm anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
Soviet_Russia posted:Would anyone be interested in a Monday/Tuesday MP game to try out Sons of Abraham? I would also like to do this, Monday preferably. My steamid is the same as my username.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:Here's the puzzling thing - they did put that in: Yeah, that's what I'm saying. They only needed to do that to solve the actual problem, which is why I can't understand why they did both.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Another simple fix would have been to only allow multi-province title grants to bishops if you're under Papal Investiture. That would have taken some of the benefit out, since you couldn't guarantee good relations with theocracies any more. It would also provide a new legit reason to choose Papal Investiture, and giving players interesting choices is Good Design.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
Soviet_Russia posted:Would anyone be interested in a Monday/Tuesday MP game to try out Sons of Abraham?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
It might be better if they just threw in a Religious faction like CK2 and made all theocratic vassals join it. So if you want the benefits of all those theocracies you have to deal with them all getting together and plotting against you. Make the church too powerful and there's no reason that they shouldn't, say, decide that maybe they'd rather be under a Prince-Bishop instead of a King.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm a little bothered by that too. I don't generally do the "all religious vassals" thing, but I do like to occasionally set up a prince-bishop here or there, where it feels appropriate. Now I can't. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:Here's the puzzling thing - they did put that in: Unless merchant republics can have a 100% republic percentage this change is the first thing I'm modding. Sons of Abraham seems cool and all but the patch is changing some things that didn't need changed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
I was about to complain about you guys complaining, and say how theocracy vassals are gamey as poo poo and I'm glad they are nerfed, but then I remembered that I do have the Coptic Pope as the Duke of Alexandria in my current Ethiopia game. I'm such a hypocrite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:e: brain fart, sorry. Achievements will require vanilla but there's no reason why ironman mode should as well. It wasn't really clear but what I was asking was if I could take a save game pre-2.0 and load it up as an Ironman game. Or if you can only choose Ironman when you start a brand new game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Unless merchant republics can have a 100% republic percentage this change is the first thing I'm modding. Sons of Abraham seems cool and all but the patch is changing some things that didn't need changed. Presumably that limit only applies to non-theocracy/republics. I'm not even sure a Republic limit is necessary: Republics actually have relations penalties for form of government, you have less control over who runs them (and their major advantage, taxes, is impacted by relations), they marry and inherit more normally than theocracies, and they can hire endless hordes of mercenaries, so if you think you can manage a ton of unruly vassal republics that grow like weeds and have more money than you, well, good loving luck. I usually create one at least for novelty's sake, but they tend to eat the entirety of whatever coastline is convenient and grow to utterly terrifying size so I've reconsidered that plan for future games. I wonder if a member of a patrician family can even be named heir/elected to two different merchant republics at the same time. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Nov 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
marktheando posted:I was about to complain about you guys complaining, and say how theocracy vassals are gamey as poo poo and I'm glad they are nerfed, but then I remembered that I do have the Coptic Pope as the Duke of Alexandria in my current Ethiopia game. I'm such a hypocrite. They are gamey so they should fix that, not ban them completely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:Yeah, that's what I'm saying. They only needed to do that to solve the actual problem, which is why I can't understand why they did both. Probably to prevent you from making/getting regular vassal dukes/kings and then turning them into religious rulers through barony revokations. Also to prevent you from centralizing power in a vassalized religious head, but the max percentage is probably larger than what you'd like under a single person anyways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Perhaps the ban on theocracies is because of the new cardinal features of Sons of Abraham? Anyway, theocratic duchies were quite rare in real life, and the AI never makes them. If you want a duke bishop, grant him the title per console. Besides, it was gamey as poo poo. And you can still grant the land to the pope.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
Worst case scenario, adding an appropriate decision to vassal_decisions should get around the limitation as long as you are only forbidden from granting duke-level theocracies and not from having them (i.e. if you don't automatically lose them).code:NihilCredo fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Nov 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
I hope the conversion doesn't break my Norse game. I think I have several theocratic vassals. Man, I can't help it if my most loyal men were all religious. That's the only reason why I gave them the duchies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:48
|
|