|
So now that I've started playing CK2+ ironman and can't savescum anymore, it's like a whole different game. Actually having to deal with the consequences of my rulers dying early/getting assassinated makes things a whole lot more interesting. I was playing my dude who succeeded Alexios Komnenos in my most recent game, and I was suddenly assassinated by (I'm assuming) an ambitious cousin with a claim on the Empire who I had landed as Alexios. Whoops. This happened just as my ruler, who was nearing 30, had gotten a bunch of +fertility stuff and had fallen in love with his young-enough wife, with whom they had only three children--all daughters. I was looking forward to finally getting a son when my dude got iced. Control passed to my second daughter, who got the title ahead of the firstborn because she was born in the purple. She was also five at the time of her inheritance. I assumed I was pretty much hosed and would have to abandon this ironman, but winning a defensive war against the Fatimids got me a shitton of cash that I used to bribe my most important vassals to like me more. I managed to get the princely, court, and religious factions' attitudes up to content pretty quickly--but a "Prince Andronikos for Byzantine Empire" faction for my uncle's (interestingly enough, not the one who I presume killed my one ruler) persevered. I teetered on the edge of revolt and worringly watched the claimant faction's strength ebb and flow for a while, but they never rebelled--until my ruler turned 11, and right after I had felt confident enough to declare a holy war to finish mopping up a small amount of the Turks still in Anatolia. By that time I had good relations with enough of my vassals that the balance of power was pretty even. Still, it wasn't clear it'd be an easy victory for me. I wiped out the Turks as quick as I could, raised the Varangian Guard and all the levies I had left, and built up my dudes around Constantinople. The doux of Cyprus, who was leading the rebellion, landed in Thrace with a big army. I managed to beat them and then sailed a large contingent of my mans for Cyprus, hoping to capture the rebellion leader for an immediate 100% war score. I somehow managed to do that after taking his first castle, and luckily forced him and the rest of the rebels to surrender right then and there. Right after releasing and ransoming most of the rebels for sweet sweet cash and relations bonuses, my ruler finally came of age. She became an elusive shadow with middling stats (despite being raised by a ward with super-high martial and stewardship wut). Now I have her on a war path against the rest of the Turks in Anatolia and seeking to grab more land in Egypt, and most of my vassals love me. What a satisfying arc--this frickin' game some times. Other Interesting Things: The Seljuk sultans (both of Rum and Persia/Syria) decided to go Tengri, which is leading to some really weird poo poo. Curious as to how that's gonna play out.
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:41 |
|
|
Allyn posted:Crusades are for everyone of that religion to be able to join in, for the entirety of Christendom (or whichever religion). Holy wars are only for the benefit of whoever's declaring it, and only for their allies to join. What's the real history behind this anyway? Did vassals really go to war with foreign powers without support from their lieges? Seems like a crazy idea, but then again a lot of feudalism seems crazy to me, a lifelong republican.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Caufman posted:What's the real history behind this anyway? Did vassals really go to war with foreign powers without support from their lieges? Seems like a crazy idea, but then again a lot of feudalism seems crazy to me, a lifelong republican. Yes. You need to stop thinking of feudal kingdoms as being like modern nation states. A large centralised nation state just wasn't possible with medieval communications technology- vassals had to have a large degree of autonomy. And it wasn't just nobles deciding on their own to go off to the holy land- read up on the Children's Crusade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Crusade
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Allyn posted:Crusades are for everyone of that religion to be able to join in, for the entirety of Christendom (or whichever religion). Holy wars are only for the benefit of whoever's declaring it, and only for their allies to join. But why would they turn down help from their liege if they get to keep any gains?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Plus, Crusades, as I understand them, were initially less actual wars between nations than mass migrations/pilgrimages.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:But why would they turn down help from their liege if they get to keep any gains? I think it is a balance thing. In the real middle ages, if you had the troops to conquer and occupy a whole kingdom you would do it and not go county by county. So in this case it is probably to prevent players from getting around the truce timers by simply joining the wars of their vassals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Plus, Crusades, as I understand them, were initially less actual wars between nations than mass migrations/pilgrimages. Kind of depends one which one you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Plus, Crusades, as I understand them, were initially less actual wars between nations than mass migrations/pilgrimages. Nah, they were more like a bunch of jumped up europeans waging disorganized wars on various Islamic polities. The whole people's crusade ended hilariously bad in anatolia with most of the pilgrims getting enslaved IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Question, are people generally still using CK2+ or is vanilla improved enough to no longer be generally inferior?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Lockback posted:Question, are people generally still using CK2+ or is vanilla improved enough to no longer be generally inferior? CK2+ is still a huge improvement over vanilla but it runs like molasses, so I prefer HIP these days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Bishop Rodan posted:I've seen the Byzantines release captured enemy warleaders after blinding/castrating even when the war was going badly, rather than just ending the war in their favour. This phenomenon was immortalized in my LP-- I was in a huge civil war against my vassals, I was still winning on war score but my stack was whittled away into nothing, I got captured and the war score shot down to -100%-- and then I just got castrated and released, allowing me to white peace out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:This phenomenon was immortalized in my LP-- I was in a huge civil war against my vassals, I was still winning on war score but my stack was whittled away into nothing, I got captured and the war score shot down to -100%-- and then I just got castrated and released, allowing me to white peace out. What could be more important than chopping off your enemies balls? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
fspades posted:CK2+ is still a huge improvement over vanilla but it runs like molasses, so I prefer HIP these days. Oh, haha, I've recently been plunking around with CK2 after being away from the game for a while and I totally forgot the performance hit from CK2+. I actually spent like an hour last night trying to find what happened to my laptop that I remember used to run it fine. Maybe CK2+ will be for desktop-games then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
I haven't played CK2+ in a few months, did they remove all the stupid poo poo the guys that took over from Wiz added? I really just want the faction system and plots.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
marktheando posted:I haven't played CK2+ in a few months, did they remove all the stupid poo poo the guys that took over from Wiz added? I really just want the faction system and plots. The main problem I have is the horrible map, which unfortunately still exists. I think they may go back to the vanilla map for Rajas (I sure as hell hope so, anyway), but don't quote me on that. You also have poo poo like guys converting to Celtic paganism for no reason which, while not a huge problem, is still pretty dumb. They at least made the Cultural Titles thing an optional submod, though, as it should have been all along.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
marktheando posted:I haven't played CK2+ in a few months, did they remove all the stupid poo poo the guys that took over from Wiz added? I really just want the faction system and plots. The only bad thing was the map. I too would love a mini-mod that was just factions, plots, and ambitions. Other things like changing the retinue size to 300 or culture/religion changes I didn't really care one way or the other about. The limited CB system is probably a good thing too actually.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Bishop Rodan posted:The main problem I have is the horrible map, which unfortunately still exists. I think they may go back to the vanilla map for Rajas (I sure as hell hope so, anyway), but don't quote me on that. You also have poo poo like guys converting to Celtic paganism for no reason which, while not a huge problem, is still pretty dumb. Ah right, so just the same as when I last played. SeaTard posted:The only bad thing was the map. I too would love a mini-mod that was just factions, plots, and ambitions. Other things like changing the retinue size to 300 or culture/religion changes I didn't really care one way or the other about. The limited CB system is probably a good thing too actually. The siege mod they included was stupid as poo poo as well, let you abduct someone's entire family just for taking a castle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Kind of depends one which one you're talking about. The craziest crusade was the Fourth. Innocent III called it to conquer Jerusalem, but the Crusaders ended up sacking Constantinople instead 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
marktheando posted:The siege mod they included was stupid as poo poo as well, let you abduct someone's entire family just for taking a castle. That's still there (MY VERISIMILITUDE) but now it's only a chance of the family being captured (MY GAME BALANCE).
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Wezlar posted:The craziest crusade was the Fourth. Innocent III called it to conquer Jerusalem, but the Crusaders ended up sacking Constantinople instead There was also the time Frederick II just asked the Muslims to give him Jerusalem and it worked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:There was also the time Frederick II just asked the Muslims to give him Jerusalem and it worked. After he sailed there under the banner of a crusade, despite being excommunicated, resulting him to be double-excommunicated, and then he walked away with Jerusalem without a fight. The crusades in general would be histories greatest follies if not for the absolutely massive loss of life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:There was also the time Frederick II just asked the Muslims to give him Jerusalem and it worked. The funny thing about Jerusalem/Palestine was that at the beginning of the crusader era it was a total backwater. Like why the gently caress would the sultans and caliphs want Jerusalem (badly enough to commit the majority of their armies) when they had awesome places like Bagdad and Alexandria??? The crusaders met a great deal less opposition than they otherwise would have if they went after some place of actual strategic/commercial importance (also the muslim rulers were in-fighting like crazy, iirc). The history of the crusades is equal parts goofy, badass, and dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:The funny thing about Jerusalem/Palestine was that at the beginning of the crusader era it was a total backwater. Like why the gently caress would the sultans and caliphs want Jerusalem (badly enough to commit the majority of their armies) when they had awesome places like Bagdad and Alexandria??? The crusaders met a great deal less opposition than they otherwise would have if they went after some place of actual strategic/commercial importance (also the muslim rulers were in-fighting like crazy, iirc). Wasn't Jerusalem a holy place for Muslims, too?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
hellsjudge posted:Wasn't Jerusalem a holy place for Muslims, too? It still is. Jews revere it because King David named it the capital. Christians revere it because of its significance to Jesus (which comes in part from him being Jewish). Muslims believe that Muhammad, when he passed away, was transffered from Mecca to the Temple Mount, because it was said he would be transported to the al-Aqsa ("The farthest") Mosque, which at the time, Jerusalem WAS the farthest Mosque. Since all religions are Abrahamic it only stands to reason they'd share similar holy cities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
hellsjudge posted:Wasn't Jerusalem a holy place for Muslims, too? Yeah, but compared to Mecca it's a much more minor one. Jews and Christians cared about it a whole lot more, Muslim retaliation came about in part because the European Christian Crusaders refused to play ball and were dicks in general to everyone in the region.  I'm grossly over simplifying things, I suggest you check out Thomas Asbridge's Crusades history text if you're at all interested in the crusades. It's well written and, to my knowledge, one of the better modern texts on the subject! MLKQUOTEMACHINE fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Mar 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:I'm grossly over simplifying things, I suggest you check out Thomas Asbridge's Crusades history text if you're at all interested in the crusades. It's well written and, to my knowledge, one of the better modern texts on the subject! If you're already familiar with the Crusades I wouldn't really advocate Asbridge as the first guy to turn to-- I had just gone through Mayer before going on to Asbridge, and compared to the German Asbridge said very little about the Crusaders and Crusader States themselves. As an introductory text, however, Asbridge will probably do the trick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
I was going with the assumption that the person would rather be eased into the subject via an introductory text (also Mayer's a boring slog, hence the intro text, you need to get people hooked first, bruh). Why would you recommend something that's not an introductory text to a complete stranger who didn't even ask for your recommendation in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Riley Smith is a little dated now but he's pretty good and he's about ten times more accessible than the guys you've mentioned. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Crusade...des+riley+smith
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
So I was playing as the Count of Hellas at Old Gods start and decided to see what everyone else is doing while waiting to acculimate money and I notice this: Well then, that should be fun times for Catholic Authority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
http://www.theonion.com/articles/pope-insanity-mxlv-selected,31656/ The Onion posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Robindaybird posted:So I was playing as the Count of Hellas at Old Gods start and decided to see what everyone else is doing while waiting to acculimate money and I notice this: He's 75, the problem will solve itself very soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
On the subject of books, my first introduction to the Crusades was finding Stephen Runciman's three-volume history in a library in Vienna and reading it in a matter of days. It's quite old and a bit outdated now, but I do recommend those books because Runciman can make a great narrative and it's accessible despite its length. If you're interested in taking up the subject from another direction, Amin Maalouf wrote a book called "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes" that I read some years ago and remember favorably, which focuses on Muslim perceptions of the "Firanj" (Franks, as they called pretty much all the Crusaders).nutranurse posted:The crusaders met a great deal less opposition than they otherwise would have if they went after some place of actual strategic/commercial importance (also the muslim rulers were in-fighting like crazy, iirc). This latter part is probably the most important. Importantly, the whole Levant was being contested by the Seljuks and the Fatimids, and within the Seljuk Empire there were a ton of rival princes and governors who feared one another more than the Crusaders. The only reason they weren't all crushed at Antioch was because Kerbogha's vassals were more afraid of Kerbogha becoming more powerful than of the Crusaders winning; accordingly, they all abandoned him at the very start of the battle. It's often forgotten that when the crusaders first set out, Jerusalem was in Seljuk hands, but literally as the crusaders were on their way there the Fatimids, allies of the Byzantines, managed to recapture it all by themselves. The result was that the Crusaders, who were supposed to be mercenaries to help the Byzantines against the Seljuks, ended up storming (and absolutely massacring) a city that a prominent Byzantine ally had just taken from their mutual enemy. One can imagine the Fatimids asking the Byzantines what exactly was going on, only to have Emperor Alexius throw up his hands and admit he lost control of these guys a long time ago. The First Crusade honestly reads a bit like a really black comedy. Glass Hand fucked around with this message at 09:16 on Mar 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
The Republic DLC (never tried it till now) is fun but it's pretty easy to become perma-Doge unless you have some bad luck and can't buy all the elections. As Genoa it wasn't hard to develop an enormous tax base and put the other merchant republics out of business. I didn't do this with business acumen, but instead with a huge stack of mercenaries. Trade is a little boring, I can't really figure out what trade posts do and it never seemed to hurt me substantially when Pisa would steal one of mine. Anyway, what should I do with my merchant republic now, just take over the world?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 09:23
|
|
|
The strangest thing happened tonight. I got a pop-up about a title claimant starting to raise an army against me, and didn't try to assassinate him since he was a vassal and distant cousin, and got to see what happens when that fails spectacularly. So I just chilled and waited for him to land where the previous two host armies landed. Then I got the war declaration - but I never saw an army. Eventually he just surrendered to me. My Rome run is almost done - I had an emperor take the throne at 2, and 14 year regencies suck especially when the Duke of Finland decides to lower CA  He ended up ruling for 84 years. His successor son had good stats but was already almost 60, and got poisoned in retaliation for assassinating the Timurid high chief and some generals with all of nine months on the throne. His genius daughter seems to be holding things together, unfortunately I don't think it is likely that she'll make it until 1453 so there will be at least one other handoff. Question, what gets exported into EU4 and how should I set things up if I want to maximize any bonuses? Does CA above Medium matter? Would there be any disadvantage in making a bunch of kings in CK2 to help smooth out succession? Last question: my dynasty controls the Immortals, who currently have a metric crapton of gold (almost 2M.) I can make him my heir, I assume I get to keep the gold *and* the Immortals, or does he leave the Immortals and I end up with squat in extra gold? monster on a stick fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Mar 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 10:27
|
|
|
Ok, I have a non de-jure kingdom fully under control in my empire - why is only one duchy within it being incorporated, de jure, into my empire, and why is the rest "becoming independent, de jure, as my empire?" I control every single county and every single holding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
I know it's massive and sometimes a slog but Tyerman's Gods War is one of the best overviews of the crusades I've ever read. I ended up doing a fair bit of crusades study at Uni, and I still really enjoyed Gods war. The best thing about it is there's separate chapters for all the other smaller crusades so you can dip into te Teutonic, Cathar, etc etc if you get bored of ignorant Frankish bastards trying to ruin Islamic civilisation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
Just made my first anti-turned-vassal pope and  Unlimited claims on catholic county and duchy titles is broken as gently caress. I can't believe I ignored the pope for so long. Makes me wonder, what's the benefit of getting your own bishops made cardinals and elected to the position of pope. Is it the same?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Just made my first anti-turned-vassal pope and Not quite as good. If you threw money at their election to Cardinal, the resulting Pope will have +300 opinion of you. That's about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
Yeah he'll have a really high opinion of you, but the important part about being a vassal pope is the "+++++ Is my liege" bonus to all actions. For instance, an independent pope who was once your bishop will have a +100 opinion of you, but will still turn down requests for gold if you have free investiture, as that penalty is like three minuses -- a vassal pope won't because the is my liege bonus overrides all penalties, and ignores opinion completely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:41 |
|
|
Higsian posted:Just made my first anti-turned-vassal pope and The only benefit to the Pope not being your vassal but voting him into Papacy, he'll give you money until he goes down to about +70 opinion. Sometimes he'll give you up to 2k gold or more, but it kinda evens out, by that point you could be a giant blob and not need gold ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 16:25
|
|