|
Big patches like this have typically broken save compatibility in the past, either explicitly or by simply causing a whole bunch of weird poo poo. And this one is a whole new version number to boot. However, for 1.10 they let you load up 1.09 using Steam's beta opt-in feature, so that will likely be an option this time as well.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
For anyone who likes YouTube LPers of CKII, Arumba broke the record for fastest world conquest, as the Magyars from the 867 start: 60 years, 2 months, 29 days, although he could've probably knocked a year off were it not for a decadence revolt. It was hilarious seeing him break about ten truces to subjugate the final kingdoms. Just in time for Sons of Abraham to invalidate it too! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
TinTower posted:For anyone who likes YouTube LPers of CKII, Arumba broke the record for fastest world conquest, as the Magyars from the 867 start:
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
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 didn't nerf it, they ripped it out. The fact of the matter is that any of the fixes proposed here are better than Paradox's. Veryslightlymad posted:I hope the conversion doesn't break my Norse game. I think I have several theocratic vassals. It won't break it, you just won't be able to make any more. There are duke-level theocracies in the historical starts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
Theocratic vassals were gamey as hell for so many reasons that were fundamental to how they worked/the game worked that there isn't really a way to nerf them short of ripping them out. From an earlier post answering "Why are prince-bishoprics so good?" 1) Bishops no longer get the wrong government penalty that doges do 2) Bishops don't generate claims, making it very difficult for people to get a reason to attack them and making it harder for the bishops to expand if there's nobody for them to holy war (meaning vassal management is easier) 3) The strengths/weaknesses of castles vs. towns vs. temples aren't proportional. The general idea is that castles are most troops/least income, cities are most income/least troops, and temples are half and half. In reality though, feudal lords are exempt from paying taxes by default and only have to provide troops, while temples get about half the troops of castles while generating some income. 4) Bishops don't get the opinion penalties from crown authority 5) Bishops frequently get additional opinion bonuses, like personal piety, free investiture, and wincest marriages 6) The lack of many opinion penalties combined with the additional opinion bonuses make it easier to increase the tax rate and levy rate for bishops vs. feudal lords, further distorting the proportions between the two. 7) Bishops are not candidates in electoral succession, meaning they vote but can't be chosen as candidates. This can set up elections where the only possible candidates are your dynasty members You could maybe address #1, although because of #5 and #6 it's not changing much. #3 could have some slight tweaks, but if you make them too weak and there's no real point (you become extremely stable and can't ever do anything so...what is the game again?) That's really it. jpmeyer fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Nov 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
jpmeyer posted:Theocratic vassals were gamey as hell for so many reasons that were fundamental to how they worked/the game worked that there isn't really a way to nerf them short of ripping them out. I'm on board with the first half of this post, but I would once again like to point out the multiple less drastic ways to nerf them that were proposed one page ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Could catholic lords even make archbishops themselves? I was under the impression that these were/are always appointed by the pope.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:I'm on board with the first half of this post, but I would once again like to point out the multiple less drastic ways to nerf them that were proposed one page ago. The only specific nerf I see is "Make them only able to make up a certain percentage of your realm", which still means that if you want to be gamey you do the same thing you did before: make as many prince-archbishoprics as possible. Edit: and "Require Papal Investiture", which only affects Catholics (and is worked around if you can vassalize the Pope) and again, still doesn't fix how you generally have pretty good relations with your theocratic vassals due to how they're set up in the first place. jpmeyer fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Nov 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Yes, but lowering the amount you can have is still a nerf to the tactic in the damage-mitigation sense which is, I agree, the only way you can really nerf it short of ripping out the mechanic entirely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
I'm hoping that Sons of Abraham will rework the way archbishops etc function. It's kind of weird as it stands that archbishops generally only come about when you give bishops a duchy and then they're more or less similar to secular lords. Really there should be archbishops everywhere who exist alongside lords and have power and jurisdiction over certain ecclesiastical provinces - kind of like how the orthodox patriarchs have spiritual authority over their regions without necessarily holding any actual land beyond their bishopric. Not sure exactly how archbishops of this nature would work in-game but if they were planning on doing something it would explain the changes you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
jpmeyer posted:wincest This is Crusader Kings II, not the Supernatural fanfiction megathread. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I'm hoping that Sons of Abraham will rework the way archbishops etc function. It's kind of weird as it stands that archbishops generally only come about when you give bishops a duchy and then they're more or less similar to secular lords. Really there should be archbishops everywhere who exist alongside lords and have power and jurisdiction over certain ecclesiastical provinces - kind of like how the orthodox patriarchs have spiritual authority over their regions without necessarily holding any actual land beyond their bishopric. Not sure exactly how archbishops of this nature would work in-game but if they were planning on doing something it would explain the changes you're talking about. I was hoping cardinals would work that way, like autocephalous patriarchs do, so that each catholic independent realm gets their own cardinal. But seems like they aren't going that far with changing the way the catholic church works. I'd like church lands to be completely separate from noble lands, give each province a tab where monasteries and nunneries live (similar to the way trading posts work).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
Losing church vassals will suck, but give me the ability to play as a theocratic leader, and I'll be happy again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
marktheando posted:I'd like church lands to be completely separate from noble lands, give each province a tab where monasteries and nunneries live (similar to the way trading posts work). That's actually a really good idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Arbitrary Coin posted: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? So can anyone answer this for me? Also, oh no my 31 dip genius son died.   Perfect My grandsons are both genius too
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
Fighting a gamey realm of bishops with a gamey arbitrary limit is pretty dumb. Survival at all means being extremely gamey. Also, in a game full of gamey things not initiated by the player I don't really know why player-initiated gamey things are so frowned upon. Gamey. That stuff really didn't bother me, though. This one stood out: quote:- You no longer get any liege levies from vassals with a negative opinion of you Some super awesome things not posted before: quote:- Waived the creation conditions (culture, religion) for most kingdoms and empires for human players
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
I'm actually gonna miss the AI trying to pull a fast one on you. "You said REGULAR marriage, right? That's what I heard."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
Walliard posted:Big patches like this have typically broken save compatibility in the past, either explicitly or by simply causing a whole bunch of weird poo poo. And this one is a whole new version number to boot. Well, the changelog post says that old saves should be fully compatible, but they'll provide a 1.111 opt-in just in case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
quote:Fixed a bug with the subjugation CB where the winner could become the vassal of the loser Anyway, even though I don't play with vassal arch-bishops, I am always in support of soft caps, rather than hard-caps. Instead of "No, you can't create another arch-bishop!", they could implement something like: - Every arch-bishop and higher in your realm increases opinion penalty towards you unless you are a theocracy (game over). It increases exponentially, like 3 higher-than-bishop vassals (no penalty), 5 htbv (-5 p), 10 htbv( -20 p) etc.. - Give them power to plot for changing the realm from feudal monarchy to theocracy (game over). With of course, one of them as top liege. - Just give them something to do so that they can be a holy pain in the butt, like rest of the vassals quote:Added 'Random Character' button when selecting character Patch notes 2.01 - Random character button no longer selects unplayable characters fuck off Batman fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Nov 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
- AI: Will now consider the actual composition of an army when determining its strength, rather than just looking at numbers - AI: Now factors in effects of terrain when determining whether to attack with an army - AI: Will now consolidate several armies into a large HK stack when fighting a defensive war against a superior opponent - AI: Will now create Hunter-Killer stacks to chase enemy armies - AI: More prio on keeping its armies close together when advancing in enemy territory - AI: Will now lift sieges to attack enemy armies when appropriate - AI: Will now split up its armies into medium-sized stacks to avoid attrition - AI: Will no longer assault unless it has at least 10:1 numbers Well, poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
Do you actually get to play as theocracies in Sons of Abraham? Google is weirdly vague about that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
Inside Outside posted:Do you actually get to play as theocracies in Sons of Abraham? Google is weirdly vague about that. No.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:- AI: Will now consider the actual composition of an army when determining its strength, rather than just looking at numbers Now I'm curious as to how the AI will determine how to create Hunter-Killer stacks. This seems like an attempt to just port EU4's AI over into CK, but in EU even the smallest possible army can still lay siege effectively. In CKII, armies need to be of a certain size, and random events will very often deplete the besieging army by a small amount. I wonder how large of a buffer will the AI leave to prevent bandit raids from ending the siege.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
SoA looks like it's gonna be a Legacy of Rome-size DLC, rather than one of the BIG CONTENT updates (Republic, Old Gods, etc.). Still, it looks like it plus the patch will get me back to playing CK2 for the first time since EUIV came out. Unrelatedly, can any goons attest to the quality of Lux Invicta? It seems pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
Question completely unrelated to the patch - When do holy orders become available for rent? They're sitting and chilling out in four of my drat holding slots, completely full, but no one has hired them and I can't hire them either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
Arbitrary Coin posted:So can anyone answer this for me? Nice, the few extra points of dip you get are completely negated by having a female ruler.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
Mailer posted:Question completely unrelated to the patch - When do holy orders become available for rent? They're sitting and chilling out in four of my drat holding slots, completely full, but no one has hired them and I can't hire them either. Most likely they're subject to a weird bug where they never out down their levies. SoA patch should fix that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 05:28
|
|
|
I'll admit, the main reason I want to main her is that I feel like running a female main and due to the stewardship. Who needs vassals when you have "Summon Mercenaries?" She's the last kid my current main character had with his wife before she died of illness like 2 years later. They had a 100-100 lover's relationship with one another and since I like to kinda roleplay, she's essentially daddy's most precious little girl. What would make a better coming of age gift, Wales or Scotland? Again, just want to make sure that for invasion you have to take over all holdings you want to own, not just capital holdings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 05:31
|
|
|
brocretin posted:SoA looks like it's gonna be a Legacy of Rome-size DLC, rather than one of the BIG CONTENT updates (Republic, Old Gods, etc.). Still, it looks like it plus the patch will get me back to playing CK2 for the first time since EUIV came out. It tanked my comp's performance, and I personally am not a fan of its setting (too much of what a Pdox fan would consider fun alt history, I guess) but that's a personal objection. If you enjoy nation building and blobbing from small starts you'll probably get a kick out of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 05:33
|
|
|
Arbitrary Coin posted:Again, just want to make sure that for invasion you have to take over all holdings you want to own, not just capital holdings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:It tanked my comp's performance, and I personally am not a fan of its setting (too much of what a Pdox fan would consider fun alt history, I guess) but that's a personal objection. If you enjoy nation building and blobbing from small starts you'll probably get a kick out of it. No, I'm that guy but the mod is utter poo poo. Each loving micronation has its own religion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 06:51
|
|
|
Knuc If U Buck posted:Nice, the few extra points of dip you get are completely negated by having a female ruler. That is wrong. She is not arbitrary like her brother = +10 She is just = +10 She is kind = +10 She is brave = +10 She is female = -10 She will be much more popular than the previous heir.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
Arbitrary Coin posted:Again, just want to make sure that for invasion you have to take over all holdings you want to own, not just capital holdings. I haven't played CK2 in many patches, but back in Legacy of Rome days yes, you need to siege everything you want to own.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:That is wrong. Also vulnerable to claimants until she dies. edit: When does the patch come out?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 08:22
|
|
|
Patch comes out Monday.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
If the AI changes in regards to attrition work well, then Crusades will become a lot more interesting. As will horde invasions. I guess the only real downside of all of this is that small states that require mercs to stay alive will now get horribly hosed over by the increased merc/levy/retinue costs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 08:39
|
|
|
brocretin posted:SoA looks like it's gonna be a Legacy of Rome-size DLC, rather than one of the BIG CONTENT updates (Republic, Old Gods, etc.). Still, it looks like it plus the patch will get me back to playing CK2 for the first time since EUIV came out. Its worse than Prince and the Thane and that putting it nicely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 09:37
|
|
|
Paradox posted:- The Aztecs, Mongols and Seljuks now spawn with more but smaller regiments  RIP Doomstacks?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 09:47
|
|
|
Oh god, this patch...Ironman mode...Steam achievements...countless other improvements... I'm going to have to lose all semblance of a life once this comes out, won't I? Veryslightlymad posted:I'm actually gonna miss the AI trying to pull a fast one on you. "You said REGULAR marriage, right? That's what I heard." Yeah, I must admit, I always thought that would be more realistic, too - trying to get you to quickly hit "Yes" before reading the fine print. "Whoops, looks like we're stuck with a regular marriage, then!" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 09:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
SkySteak posted:If the AI changes in regards to attrition work well, then Crusades will become a lot more interesting. As will horde invasions. I guess the only real downside of all of this is that small states that require mercs to stay alive will now get horribly hosed over by the increased merc/levy/retinue costs. Will horde invasion stacks still be attritionless? If so the changes will not matter at all. Just because they are getting "more smaller stacks" does not ease my worry. I do hope they change though. A big part of the Mongols clowning everyone in their path in the theatre of this game is that they never faced competent opposition. To my knowledge: in the north, the Russian Princes tried to organize an army but were too slow and got cut to pieces. In the south, the Abassids (I think it was the Abassids? I am little rusty) were declining, so they did not try to resist until it was too late and Baghdad was under siege. I do remember that one of the books I read stated that the mongols did so much damage to the agricultural infrastructure in Persia that some areas never recovered because the daming/acqueduct/river diversion type work was so completely destroyed and so many people died that no one tried to ever fix it. Anyway the point of me saying that is that adding a ~25(or even ~10) year variance forward or backwards for when hordes show up but making them less powerful (and suffer attrition) plus have them actually destroy buildings in holdings -or even destroy entire holdings if the holding's owner resisted- would make them more interesting to deal with. Especially if they made it possible to submit to the horde, forcing you to give up money and have reduced levies and tax income for x amount of time (because if you resisted, you died; if you submitted, they were actually kinda nice). I could go on, but dealing with hordes (and blobs in general) requires gamey tactics and I think a lot of these changes would not be necessary if hordes and blobs had ways of being dealt with, rather than simply "horde/blob showed up, I do not have the ability to do my only option for winning (e.g naval bombing) so I lose". I am kinda on the boat here with DStecks in that Paradox could be doing so much more (albeit at more cost of programming time and dealing with new game mechanics) to enhance gameplay, but instead we are seemingly just getting things taken away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 09:57
|
|
