|
Alright, started the Zoroastrian game over because I felt like I hit a dead end. New start is going pretty well. Holy warred for Khiva right out the gate and took it, then holy warred the Taharids while they were dealing with the Saffarids. Got three of the four counties (Lut had already been besieged by the Saffarids, though I seem to have the two baronies), including the holy site, so I'm off to a good start. Also the Gilan dude managed to take over Tabristan and win a defensive holy war from that big rear end in a top hat in the west, so Zoroastrianism's moral authority is sitting at a pretty 42% (though my idiot vassal having declared a holy war for Merv and then getting his rear end stomped is going to knock it down a little again). However, now I'm wondering what to do. I mean, when it comes to holding counties and stuff; obviously I'm going to take over Persia in the long-term. On the one hand, distributing out all the baronies and counties beyond my demense drastically cuts my levies, which I need a lot of, but on the other hand I'm pretty sure that costs me in the long term, and unless I hold everything all my vassals will hate me for holding so much, so I'm not sure if going full tyrant and holding everything myself is worth it. And there just aren't enough Zoroastrians to give only one thing to each; in my last game I was giving everyone the baronies with the counties I distributed, but I'm not sure how good an idea that is either. Advice on the pros and cons of all this?
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
Rincewind posted:When I use the ruler designer I actually kind of enjoy the little minigame of trying to min/max my ruler, so I'm glad that the system of attaching costs to traits exists. It's pretty easily modded out when you just want to do whatever, but the restrictions being there by default are kind of neat. I've never really enjoyed the Ruler Designer in that way, even though I am a total sucker for chargen in RPGs and usually enjoy them more than I do actually playing the drat things. I think it's probably because, historically, it's been overconstrained? I never felt like I had enough resources to build the characters I wanted to unless I resorted to cheesy bullshit (which confines you to a narrower set of character types anyway). On a related tangent, how do people feel about the spread of education traits as it stands right now? I feel that it's so easy to get a four-dot education at the moment that anything less than a three is garbage (and threes are borderline)... but, from the fluff at least, the game seems to operate under the assumption that the median is the two-dot, and that fours should be extremely rare- exceptional.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
So I finally got to try out the new patch and it seems ironman mode is taking even longer. Up at least by 2-3 seconds. Paradox quit breaking my heart! Fix this plleeeeeaaaassseee. Roland Jones posted:in my last game I was giving everyone the baronies with the counties I distributed, but I'm not sure how good an idea that is either. Advice on the pros and cons of all this? IMO I would right click the baronies and create a random vassal. For barons or dukes that are directly under you I would pick zoros. Tbh though you should have such a high opinion with someone after you grant them a landed title they should convert when you ask them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I'm confused about why exactly they do this. It's not like CK2 is a competitive game, and the achievements aren't available when I use the ruler designer, so I don't see how my game experience improves from not getting to play that God King. Because experimenting and finding winning strategies is fun, and replacing luck of the draw with decisions that enable that kind of experimentation is almost always for the better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Zig-Zag posted:IMO I would right click the baronies and create a random vassal. For barons or dukes that are directly under you I would pick zoros. Tbh though you should have such a high opinion with someone after you grant them a landed title they should convert when you ask them. Oh, didn't realize that was an option. Neat. Still, dang, running low on courtiers to give single counties too. Gonna have to do something about that somehow. Should I spend money on the Intrigue option to invite noblemen to court for that, or some other option? Edit: VVV Alright, so I was close. Thanks. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:
Mash that "invite holy man" button in the intrigue tab. 5 piety to generate a random zoroastrian of your culture with no claims on anything. Its the easiest way to generate new guys if you're a small religion/culture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
MrBling posted:Mash that "invite holy man" button in the intrigue tab. 5 piety to generate a random zoroastrian of your culture with no claims on anything. Its the easiest way to generate new guys if you're a small religion/culture. I think they finally fixed this so it actually only generates theologians now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:However, now I'm wondering what to do. I mean, when it comes to holding counties and stuff; obviously I'm going to take over Persia in the long-term. On the one hand, distributing out all the baronies and counties beyond my demense drastically cuts my levies, which I need a lot of, but on the other hand I'm pretty sure that costs me in the long term, and unless I hold everything all my vassals will hate me for holding so much, so I'm not sure if going full tyrant and holding everything myself is worth it. And there just aren't enough Zoroastrians to give only one thing to each; in my last game I was giving everyone the baronies with the counties I distributed, but I'm not sure how good an idea that is either. Advice on the pros and cons of all this? Build up piety and click the Invite Holy Man option until you run low, just not low enough that you can't holy war if you need to. Then, hand out the counties to the new guys. Sort by highest stewardship and hand out one county to one person at a time. It's a bit of micromanagement but it will save you major headaches in the future as each guy will have an independent council which means each one will have a chief theologian guy that can convert his province - in addition to your own theologian. In addition to this, because each province has its own count the culture conversion event is more likely to fire, this is why you want to prioritize for stewardship although it never hurts to have at least four or five military men for generals/educators. Giving out land reduces your levy, but with the RoI release going over your demense limit is even more penalized than it used to be so don't do it for more than the few months you get as a grace period before the negatives kick in. Oh, and maximum feudal levies is only like a -5 opinion hit with vassals so you always want to do that. Giving the baronies out with the counties isn't a big deal, the vassals won't hold temples or cities of the 'wrong government type' thing so they'll make their own baron level vassals anyway and the occasional two caste count isn't a big deal. If you're worried about it just click 'create vassal' on the sub-holding itself before handing out the land. edit: beaten. Even if they're almost always theologians click it enough and you'll get someone who knows what they're doing. And you only have to do it a few times, after that you can promote from the courts of your counts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I think they finally fixed this so it actually only generates theologians now. I've never noticed it making non-church guys, but considering he apparently has no zoroastrian courtiers I dont think he will be too picky.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Okay, thanks for the tips. Think I'll be handing out the baronies with the counties anyway, since it gives a bigger opinion boost but they still make their own vassals anyway apparently. Meanwhile the ways to create new courtiers are really useful, though yeah, now that they have their own courts the Character Finder, limited to men of my religion and no land holdings, should be enough to find people from now on. It's just the beginning where it's hard to find people. Edit: I find it funny how distributing land differs here from my Ua Briain games, though. In Ireland I try to give everything to other Ua Briains when possible, while here, family doesn't matter, as long as they're Zoroastrian. Obviously there being no Karens besides Vandad and his sister-wife makes it hard to practice nepotism, but it does reflect my general priorities here pretty well. Also, while I already said that I did it, how I won Qohistan was interesting. In one of my sieges I captured one of the ruler's secondary wives. Despite being pregnant she didn't give a drat about her, so I just left her in my prison. She proceeded to give birth and die, and while I was wondering what to do with the little kid I noticed my warscore had jumped all the way to 94%. Turned out I now held his only son in my dungeons. The war was over shortly after that, only one more sieged city and I was at 100%. So that was fun. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Okay, thanks for the tips. Think I'll be handing out the baronies with the counties anyway, since it gives a bigger opinion boost but they still make their own vassals anyway apparently. Meanwhile the ways to create new courtiers are really useful, though yeah, now that they have their own courts the Character Finder, limited to men of my religion and no land holdings, should be enough to find people from now on. It's just the beginning where it's hard to find people. Something which may be useful in the future is to take the random courtiers generated from your newly-enfiffed vassals and give them lands of their own. I was able to create an entire Zoroastrian Baloch nobility from one person this way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Oh, one last question. I didn't usurp/create the title of Satrap of Khiva or whatever after winning that holy war, and eventually the icon disappeared. Any ideas why? I still own all four counties that make up Khiva, and I also have the option to usurp the Satrapy of Khorasan now that I own (most of) it, so I'm lost. Also for some reason Vandad's title this time around is Emira rather than Satrap for some reason, which doesn't make a difference but is still odd. Edit: Actually another question, is it worth it to just keep breaking my oaths with the people I fight and holy war them out of existence, or should I respect them? If it were only an opinion malus with the Muslims I'd do it in a heartbeat, but it also gives me a Diplomacy penalty with everyone, which seems like a really bad thing. Also it eats tons of Prestige, which is bad too. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
You gotta weigh it up and decide for yourself based on how it will affect your game. If you're already on rocky ground then truce breaking can really mess you up, but if everyone loves you some diplo and prestige loss isn't going to change that. Also the diplo penalty doesn't stack so you'll just make muslims more mad and lose more prestige with every successive truce broken.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Okay, thanks for the tips. Think I'll be handing out the baronies with the counties anyway, since it gives a bigger opinion boost but they still make their own vassals anyway apparently. Meanwhile the ways to create new courtiers are really useful, though yeah, now that they have their own courts the Character Finder, limited to men of my religion and no land holdings, should be enough to find people from now on. It's just the beginning where it's hard to find people. For the maximum in realm stability go with the search parameters of: within your realm, men, who aren't in prison, not a ruler, same religion, same culture, and not from a great house. Think of it as being a very progressive meritocracy. Or think of it as promoting people with no pre-existing ties, claims, or relatives that will completely gently caress up your pretty borders inside of twenty years. This way you at least buy about fifty to one hundred years before things go to hell and the new guys start screwing things up. The only downside is although the new guys like you they're too weak to do anything so sometimes it helps to grant all the land within a particular duchy to one guy, it'll take longer to convert, but at least that one guy will really like you and have a nice levy. This is particularly helpful when the duke-to-be is young and so are you because that way you'll have a couple decades of a strong loyal vassal. (Who will promptly start scheming against your kids the moment you die).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
Going for the "content" trait is also a good way to get vassals who won't rock the boat too much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Going for the "content" trait is also a good way to get vassals who won't rock the boat too much. On the inverse, never put someone with ambitious up under any circumstance. Even if they like you they'll still try to cut your legs out from under you. RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Going for the "content" trait is also a good way to get vassals who won't rock the boat too much. Yep, once your realm gets large enough that you have a large selection, start searching for content in addition to same culture/religion/no ruler/no great house.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
Finally managed to unify India from a Pala (Buddhist) start  , though I don't think I'll go further.Are Hindu and Jainist more interesting, or should I go back to screwing around in Europe?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:Finally managed to unify India from a Pala (Buddhist) start How about trying to do it as Norse? http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?768000-MOD-Jarls-of-India
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
Well this is interesting. Shah of the Samanids died of poor health, so I holy warred for Merv now that his son was in charge and I didn't have a truce stopping me; Merv is also the territory my idiot vassal had holy warred for earlier. Said holy war had never finished, and despite being around 50% in the other guy's favor he had Merv and one of its baronies besieged. When I won the war, I didn't get Merv (though I got the other three territories in the Satrapy of Merv, before anyone asks/gets confused), because it was sort-of controlled by my vassal. Which, alright, he can have it. Except, it's still in the control of the guy I kicked the crap out of, and apparently will be until that other holy war ends. Which, seeing as my vassal is marching his ~500 troops into a completely unrelated territory, may be a while. Any tips on how to get this dumbass to finish what he started? The warscore, despite me dominating his opponent, is still heavily against him, so I doubt his opponent will surrender soon, and for some reason he doesn't seem too eager to end it himself. (Tangent, but when I started my holy war I had a warscore of 12% from the start because it counted me as occupying what my vassal did, so he gave me a bit of a head start despite his generally poor performance.) Edit: Okay, turns out he was heading his army to the Shah's last remaining army. Except their armies were about even in size and he lost horribly, so now the warscore's even more stacked against him and he has less than 200 troops left. I mean, it looks like the Buddhist rebellion is going to finish the Samanids off anyway, but still. Edit again: Okay, after the Buddhists destroyed literally all of the Shah's troops, causing the warscore to tick down a few percent every month despite my vassal not doing anything, they eventually made a white peace. At least it doesn't affect Zoroastrainism's moral authority, and in fact, after my plot to assassinate this kid goes off, will let me just claim Merv for myself instead and give it to someone less incompetent (and not in control of two duchies already). Meanwhile I'm eager to see the Buddhists destroy all of Samarkand and take it over; I can probably holy war them afterward and not have to worry about anyone else hating me for it since it's a rebellion of some peasants rather than any established group, so I won't be provoking any alliances or anything. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 09:17 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:Finally managed to unify India from a Pala (Buddhist) start Jain is only interesting if you're also Mongolian. You can't go on tiger hunts, but Mongols get the Nerge, which is the most brutal hunt possible: your entire realm goes to a patch of wilderness and kills everything in it, and if your vassals make a mistake you beat them until they are wounded. As a Mongolian Jain you get the best of both worlds:
In my Mongolian Empire game, after I've conquered enough to get the Khan of Khans achievement, I'm going to create the Empire of India, destroy it, then go Othodox, re-create Rome and de-jure drift everything, then re-create all the now titular empires.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 08:53
|
|
only
|
Darkrenown, anyone else from Paradox: Please, please for the love of god let us set "this character is forbidden from leading armies" on anyone instead of just councillors. I've just wrecked my second promising Zoroastrian start in a row to "woops, turns out your king was leading an army and got conked on the head" because every time I raise an army he gets thrown in there somewhere, no matter how many times I subbed him out in the past.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
Okay, another one of my vassals decided he could succeed where the other failed and is holy warring for Merv. Since Merv just has two castles to siege before it falls (the other two baronies I got after winning the war), that should be pretty fast. On the other hand, though, the Buddhists are caught in a weird loop where their armies will start their sieges, then start moving (one's in a dark province but given that the smoke there disappears I'm assuming it's moving as well), then stop again, so their progress in the war has stopped. Any way to make them just sit down and end the war they already won, or are they going to be there forever with their 6000+ troops until I holy war for Samarkand and put them down myself? Because holy crap do I not want to deal with those massive armies, and also it's really annoying to watch that stupidity in the corner of my screen. Edit: Now I can see both, and yeah. One starts moving towards the other, then that one starts moving towards teh first, then they both stop moving, each time ending their sieges to do so. What the hell. Tuxedo Catfish posted:Darkrenown, anyone else from Paradox: Oh yeah, that's frustrating. I had to deal with it too, though for me the issue was that it kept Vandad away from his wife and concubines and made the already slow process of making heirs take even longer. Fortunately I have a pretty sizable peace period going (for me, at least), so hopefully they'll finally get a son soon. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 10:20 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 09:46
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Darkrenown, anyone else from Paradox: I find the way around this is to raise my army, then set my character to be a leader in an army (if he isn't already, though he probably is) and then clicking him again and pressing the resign button up at the top. You can always look at the player location on your paper doll to make sure he's at court, and not leading an army.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Oh yeah, that's frustrating. I had to deal with it too, though for me the issue was that it kept Vandad away from his wife and concubines and made the already slow process of making heirs take even longer. Fortunately I have a pretty sizable peace period going (for me, at least), so hopefully they'll finally get a son soon. Leading troops/being a councillor that's stationed elsewhere/whatever has absolutely no impact on fertility, actually. You're just getting RNG'd (or have lovely fertility on your guy and/or his wife and/or his concubines).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 10:21
|
|
|
Allyn posted:Leading troops/being a councillor that's stationed elsewhere/whatever has absolutely no impact on fertility, actually. You're just getting RNG'd (or have lovely fertility on your guy and/or his wife and/or his concubines). Oh, really? Because the one time (I can remember) my wife got pregnant while I was away, I got the message that, well, it happened while I was away, i.e. She cheated on me. Which turned out to be true, and it was a bastard daughter. Which was rather unfortunate. Though I ended up discarding that save for other reasons shortly after anyway. Anyway, the Buddhist armies are still being stupid and refusing to sit and siege, but also aren't moving anywhere, just starting to move and stopping repeatedly. Plus side, my vassal took over Merv, so I'm one holy war away from controlling all of Khiva.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Darkrenown, anyone else from Paradox: I actually asked about this long ago, before CK2 even came out, and it's pretty much by design. Your King is meant to be with your army, because giving your whole army to some dude often carried the very real risk that he might say "You and what army?" when you ask him to disband it. CK2 doesn't have a loyalty mechanic, it just assumes your king is always with your army - specifically with either your first called levy or with your capital's levy, although you can game it a bit with retinues etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:I actually asked about this long ago, before CK2 even came out, and it's pretty much by design. Your King is meant to be with your army, because giving your whole army to some dude often carried the very real risk that he might say "You and what army?" when you ask him to disband it. CK2 doesn't have a loyalty mechanic, it just assumes your king is always with your army - specifically with either your first called levy or with your capital's levy, although you can game it a bit with retinues etc. Does removing your king (or any other character, for that matter) from leading a flank affect their odds of getting caught in random events triggered by battles? If it doesn't make a difference then that's another story, but if it does, then you're basically enforcing gameplay through UI inconvenience. I'd like to think better of y'all than that. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I'm confused about why exactly they do this. It's not like CK2 is a competitive game, and the achievements aren't available when I use the ruler designer, so I don't see how my game experience improves from not getting to play that God King. I feel the same way with there being no load button on the ingame menu. Just let me play the way I want without jumping through hoops, dammit! The Moon Monster fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 12:29
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Also the Gilan dude managed to take over Tabristan and win a defensive holy war from that big rear end in a top hat in the west It's always awesome when that guy wrecks house. In one game he single handedly took over all of Iraq from the shattered Abbasids while I was getting pounded by the Samanids.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
CommonTerry posted:It's always awesome when that guy wrecks house. In one game he single handedly took over all of Iraq from the shattered Abbasids while I was getting pounded by the Samanids. He waged holy war for Azerbajin as well, but died before it could finish, and his heir took over and, after a while, White Peaced. (Or alternatively his heir started that war himself, I can't remember exactly, but I do think that a war kept me from offering him vassalage for a while.) Tried inviting him to become my vassal, but as I'm not his de jure liege (I am now Shah of Khiva) he wouldn't accept. Fortunately, I'm in the process of taking over Persia (the kingdom, though also the empire I suppose) so hopefully it won't be too long before the Justanids join the Karens in restoring Zoroastrian dominance. Tangent, looking around the Persian Empire's lands, it seems like Khiva is one of if not the best provinces in it, with seven possible holdings. Are there any better places for my capital, or should I just leave it here when I form said empire? Also, what are the risks of holding too many ducal titles now that I'm a Shah, other than my vassals being unhappy? Now that they won't leave my control I don't mind handing the extra ones out, but I just want to know what this entails exactly. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 12:51 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Does removing your king (or any other character, for that matter) from leading a flank affect their odds of getting caught in random events triggered by battles? I don't think it affects the odds, battle events pulse for anyone in a combat, not who is leading a flank. I agree that UI inconvenience should never be used to drive gameplay though. The Moon Monster posted:I feel the same way with there being no load button on the ingame menu. Just let me play the way I want without jumping through hoops, dammit! That's less to stop you reloading and more because it's hard for us to reload the game without clearing everything 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Thrasophius posted:Thus far mine is 12 soon to be 13 maybe 14 if my tumble with the lover paid off. Yeh sure I have alot of people wanting my titles but at the end of the day at least the dynasty is safe.  I feel like Walder Frey.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Well now unlanded sons have a chance to become adventurers so get ready for a real clustfuck. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Darkrenown, anyone else from Paradox: Just put him in charge, open the selection screen again, and click the Resign button. e: whoops, beaten. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Well now unlanded sons have a chance to become adventurers so get ready for a real clustfuck.  My dynasty won't stop loving
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
If your king is a huge pussy who consistently "leads from the rear" you should probably get some penalty for that. Perhaps a "Huge Pussy" trait, with -10 opinion with all non-pussies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Update on The Worst Son (i.e. kid of the badass single-county Zoroastrian dude who conquered several counties and successfully held off the Caliph in a defensive holy war before dying): He managed to holy war away a single province from the Saffarids, though he was also being counter holy warred by the Caliph. After getting that one province (he wanted three more in the same duchy but belonging to the Dulafids as well but failed to get them), he successfully stopped the Caliph from destroying him. ...By converting to Sunni. I mean, he did have a 6000+ doomstack parked right on his capital, but it's still disappointing. My current goal now is to vassalize him again and make him convert back; the Justanids being Sunni doesn't seem right after all his father did. Also, their family crest is a pyre and all, pretty much the most Zoroastrian symbol besides, well, the actual Zoroastrian symbol. I'm four counties from forming the Kingdom of Persia; let's see if he'll accept my vassal request then. If not, I might have to take more direct measures to make him listen to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Darkrenoun is there any word on ironman saves? I'm sure y'all are looking into it but I was just curious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:
This is my current Muslim game. My first ruler had 4 wives, 2 lovers, and the lustful trait. He had 12 kids. My current ruler also has 4 wives, 2 lovers, and 12 kids, and is only 36 so unless it caps out at something, there's plenty more on the way. Thankfully most of them have been girls so I don't need to worry about them becoming decadent. Still a LOT of friggin' kids.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 17:30
|
|
