|
Roland Jones posted: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. It's just a coincidence. I've had kings spend their entire reigns leading troops in the field while their wives steal tech in Constantinople, and they've still ended up with six legitimate children.
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
My favorite thing when my Dynasty starts to get huge and I have enough room for a Merchant Republic is to make a member of my Dynasty a Doge, and then the unlanded men in a dynasty will wind up manning tradeposts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Edison was a dick posted: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. Gotta agree with this. I conquered most of India in my Jain game but haven't finished it because it's playing really slowly (Ironman) and frankly rather boring. The Jain get huge bonuses to realm stability: designate heirs, +1 health from Digambara sect is awesome, no short reign penalty, +3 demesne size, +30 vassal opinion. Everybody loves you and the two assholes in your empire who start factions will get nowhere because 1) your personal levies are huge and they won't get near enough support and 2) everyone else loves you so stab stab stab. I haven't had a single faction revolt in the entire ~150 year game. The drawback is, of course, you get dick all for CBs and no hunts so it's really rather boring. You Subjugate for a Kingdom once each ruler and then slowly creep your expansion with county claims. You're almost completely helpless to expand into anyone that's not Indian religious group, though, as you'll be stuck with fabricating claims. Hindus and Buddhists are considerably more fractious and also get more cool things to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Angela Christine posted: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. This is exactly how I feel. My king is always leading the center, unless he really sucks in which case he gets a flank and someone competent gets the center. And if he gets conked on the head or maimed or whatever, well, that's just the price of being a badass. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat 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. As far as I can tell, you get seriously diminished fertility if you have at least 10 living kids, but it's hard to know for sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
It'd be nice to at least have a little more control over your own dudes for some circumstances. Sure, I understand leading from the front when you're a ruler waging a holy war against the Djeneriq Emirate, but if you're the King of Hugelands and some peasants revolt off in the unfashionable corner of nowhere, it'd make more sense for some local noble to lead the small levy rather than having your fat king interrupt his daily orgy of decadence to gently caress off to the far side of the realm to kill some commoners (and potentially get stabbed by a spear and die).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Darkrenown, anyone else from Paradox: Also, for the love of whatever Paradox find holy, change the toggle that blocks people from leading armies back to the way it was pre-Rajas. Before you could set it, and then no matter how many times you changed your council, it would remain set. Now, every single time you replace a council member you have to re-enable it. Usually I have my entire council out doing something, but sometimes I haven't sent them somewhere yet and having that box checked is crucial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
If you are concerned about your king leading armies, then just keep an eye on your portrait. The background changes depending on if you are at home or leading an army. But yes, any craven king who doesn't lead his men into battle personally isn't worthy of being called a king.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
So I've picked this up again first time post Rajas and I'm the ruler of the Tomara Raj (Kuru/Mathura). I notice I'm a Hindu with my provinces being largely not-that. Should I stick with Hindu despite its apparent conversion malus or save myself the trouble and go Jain or Buddhist? On the one hand, raiding, on the other hand, I can't actually muster enough mans to raid anything, so I'm not sure if there's an advantage to sticking with it with a distinct lack of juicy targets as compared to the Norse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
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, no. Go put your army into organize mode (where you can move individual levy groups between flanks) and look at the specific squads in each flank - "Barony of _____" levies raised from a direct feudal vassal's primary holding will have that character permanently associated with that particular set of troops (unless that vassal is otherwise ineligible to lead troops), and the levy raised from your capital holding will always have your character tied to it (again, unless they're otherwise ineligible). If those characters are not a flank leader somewhere, then they will be considered to be in whichever army stack the levy troops they're tied to are. "Liege Levy of _______" troops raised from vassals, on the other hand, are always characterless, as are retinues. I have no idea what determines whether a particular's vassal levy is "Barony of ______" or "Liege Levy of ______"; maybe based on whether they've already got their own troops raised somewhere else? For example, let's take a look at mainland 1066 Byzantium's forces, all gathered up into one stack:  Although there's only three flank leaders, there's actually five characters associated with that stack, and all of them have a chance of getting captured or killed in combat. Even if I remove Basileios from his flank leader position, he'll still be part of whichever army the "Barony of Constantinople" levy is in, unless he's made a flank leader elsewhere or the Constantinople levy is disbanded. The upshot of this is that you can keep your king out of trouble, by simply never sending your direct capital levy to war. Assuming, of course, that your armies are powerful enough and your wars are small enough that you can afford to not use the largest and most powerful of your direct levies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Zig-Zag posted:Darkrenoun is there any word on ironman saves? I'm sure y'all are looking into it but I was just curious. Nothing interesting to report, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I don't think it affects the odds, no. Go put your army into organize mode (where you can move individual levy groups between flanks) and look at the specific squads in each flank - "Barony of _____" levies raised from a direct feudal vassal's primary holding will have that character permanently associated with that particular set of troops (unless that vassal is otherwise ineligible to lead troops), and the levy raised from your capital holding will always have your character tied to it (again, unless they're otherwise ineligible). If those characters are not a flank leader somewhere, then they will be considered to be in whichever army stack the levy troops they're tied to are. "Liege Levy of _______" troops raised from vassals, on the other hand, are always characterless, as are retinues. I have no idea what determines whether a particular's vassal levy is "Barony of ______" or "Liege Levy of ______"; maybe based on whether they've already got their own troops raised somewhere else? Ooh, actually, that gives me an alternative solution; if I'm really worried about the consequences, I can just not use my personal levies. Not really an option at the start of the game but that should be handy later!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Hambilderberglar posted:So I've picked this up again first time post Rajas and I'm the ruler of the Tomara Raj (Kuru/Mathura). I notice I'm a Hindu with my provinces being largely not-that. Should I stick with Hindu despite its apparent conversion malus or save myself the trouble and go Jain or Buddhist? On the one hand, raiding, on the other hand, I can't actually muster enough mans to raid anything, so I'm not sure if there's an advantage to sticking with it with a distinct lack of juicy targets as compared to the Norse. All Indian religions tolerate each other and have less conversion chance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I don't think it affects the odds, no. Go put your army into organize mode (where you can move individual levy groups between flanks) and look at the specific squads in each flank - "Barony of _____" levies raised from a direct feudal vassal's primary holding will have that character permanently associated with that particular set of troops (unless that vassal is otherwise ineligible to lead troops), and the levy raised from your capital holding will always have your character tied to it (again, unless they're otherwise ineligible). If those characters are not a flank leader somewhere, then they will be considered to be in whichever army stack the levy troops they're tied to are. "Liege Levy of _______" troops raised from vassals, on the other hand, are always characterless, as are retinues. I have no idea what determines whether a particular's vassal levy is "Barony of ______" or "Liege Levy of ______"; maybe based on whether they've already got their own troops raised somewhere else? Actually you can put your kings army in a flank alone, then switch the leader for the stack. It'll remove your king from the army entirely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Actually you can put your kings army in a flank alone, then switch the leader for the stack. It'll remove your king from the army entirely. Yeah, but that's the kind of micromanagement thing we'd like to just get rid of entirely. The idea someone had for an opinion bonus if you put your king on non-leader mode would be fine I think, especially if you can also mark your heir(s) as non-leaders too. Something simple like a -10 opinion modifier to all vassals would be a good trade off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Actually you can put your kings army in a flank alone, then switch the leader for the stack. It'll remove your king from the army entirely. I posted this a few posts ago, but all you have to do is make your character a leader of any army, flank or centre, and then click the resign button in the leader selection menu. Your character will go back to your capital never to lead an army again...until you raise the levy for the capital again. I make a habit of doing this immediately at the start of every war. My character is always a grey eminence, he has no time for battle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:I posted this a few posts ago, but all you have to do is make your character a leader of any army, flank or centre, and then click the resign button in the leader selection menu. Your character will go back to your capital never to lead an army again...until you raise the levy for the capital again. My current leader is an amazing warrior. 22 martial, Viking, heavy infantry specialist and inspiring leader. The center always caves first, dying in battle is just a faster way to Valhalla 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:My current leader is an amazing warrior. 22 martial, Viking, heavy infantry specialist and inspiring leader. The center always caves first, dying in battle is just a faster way to Valhalla Haha, I tried doing a martial leader in my Viking game, but when my 20+ martial skill character gets bonked in the head during a peasant revolt it's kind of demotivating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
It's particularly annoying when the ruler who you have constantly leading people into battles gets the craven trait from a battle event. I mean, yes, swords are sharp and I can lead better from inside my castles. But I'm NOT inside my castles, so why does everyone think I'm craven. 
Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
How the hell am I supposed to deal with adventurer threats? I have two years to assassinate him, and if that doesn't work I get a host that's easily five times the number of troops I can muster magically plunked down in the middle of my territory. And then when I surrender he gets to keep the special event troops so I have almost no chance of taking back my titles. It feels like complete bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:How the hell am I supposed to deal with adventurer threats? I have two years to assassinate him, and if that doesn't work I get a host that's easily five times the number of troops I can muster magically plunked down in the middle of my territory. And then when I surrender he gets to keep the special event troops so I have almost no chance of taking back my titles. It feels like complete bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:How the hell am I supposed to deal with adventurer threats? I have two years to assassinate him, and if that doesn't work I get a host that's easily five times the number of troops I can muster magically plunked down in the middle of my territory. And then when I surrender he gets to keep the special event troops so I have almost no chance of taking back my titles. It feels like complete bullshit. If he's part of your court then give him a title. If he's not then try and get him there (try inviting his wife because that will drag him there too). Remember you can put your spymaster in the county he is in for a bonus to assassination attempts. Otherwise...hope he lands his men in waves and you can hire enough mercenaries to counter him. I don't necessarily think they are over powered. I usually play iron man and when I lose territory it enrages me briefly...but then I'm back into the game and plotting my comeback. Your fortunes can change quickly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:Haha, I tried doing a martial leader in my Viking game, but when my 20+ martial skill character gets bonked in the head during a peasant revolt it's kind of demotivating. It would be nice if your martial played into those kind of events. I know a lot of mods have a duel engine where characters can fight to the death and your traits determine the outcome. It'd be nicer if it meant my 20+ martial character would have a lesser chance of being incapacitated or maimed. (Granted I've all but come to the conclusion that having a Martial education with diplomatic traits is the best since you can easily have 15+ diplomacy and 20 marital.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:It is complete bullshit. Right now, the thing determining how many troops they're supposed to get is broken, and often gives them far, far too large a force. You absolutely have to stab them before they launch the invasion. They actually nerfed match_mult a bit in yesterday's (or was it last week's?) patch, so adventurers and event-troop rebellions should have fewer troops but I've been waiting for RoI to get stable/CK2+ to get patched so I'm not sure if the nerf was enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
The thing that's bugging me right now is pressing foreign claims and plot ultimatums. If you press your son's claim to a foreign-culture, different-religion kingdom, they'll get a single county (usually completely empty of troops), and all of their new vassals will hate them. Fair enough - that part is reasonable. But as a consequence, the factions that inevitably form to press someone else's claim will have extremely high plot power. The base chance to accept a plot demand is only 5%, not too bad, but when the plot power is greater than 400% (something very likely under these circumstances), the 95 in the 90/10 drops down to only 4.4, resulting in a better-than-even chance that your son will hand back the throne you fought so hard for to the guy who just lost it, often while your own forces are still RIGHT THERE. Taking allies into account in this situation is difficult, but surely the system can work better than this. edit: Maybe when someone's claim is pressed, there should be a five-year period or so in which they will always refuse to hand it back without a fight? Odds are that if it's pressed for them, whoever pressed it will be willing and able to jump into a fight as an ally. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:It is complete bullshit. Right now, the thing determining how many troops they're supposed to get is broken, and often gives them far, far too large a force. You absolutely have to stab them before they launch the invasion. I showed that thread to Doomdark, he says it's not broken  I've had some nasty adventurer invasions too, but I've never had a dude turn up with 5 times more men than me, so if anyone has a save like that just before an adventurer invades it would be interesting to look at (and not if it's because you spent the warning period assaulting holdings 24/7). The bigger problem for me is that even turning up with 80-150% of my armies they can sometimes assault down the entire target area before I can get my army there, which I think really sucks. I've suggested there needs to be some kind of "decisive battle" before adventure wars can tick to 100% score, or the dude needs to hold the area for X years so you can't just run away. But you do know he's coming, so you can save money for mercs, and maybe raise your levies in advance and get them into place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:I showed that thread to Doomdark, he says it's not broken It's always going to annoy people to some extent, I think, just because of the free troops. Soldiers are currency, in a way, so it doesn't feel fair when your opponent is just handed as much as you have, even if it were to be properly matched. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:I showed that thread to Doomdark, he says it's not broken This is actually a really good point, and how I've survived them in the past. If they are attacking by sea you have a decent idea where they will land (and it seems like if they land in pieces they always land in the same place.) So raising your levies beforehand and getting them into place is a good idea. They'll land with reduced moral and you should have a chance to squash them even with less troops.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Unfortunately I don't have a save from before the invasion, but here's the fucker who took my titles: Before the invasion, my total levies, including retinues, was about 5000 men.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
 Finally finished Florida.  Never really realized how much the Florida Everglades are absolutely devoid of human habitation. It was tricky to just get 8 potential baronies for the county, and I'm sorely tempted to go back and merge them with the Florida Keys' county. As it is, the Everglades have just 1 holding in-game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
marktheando posted:If you are concerned about your king leading armies, then just keep an eye on your portrait. The background changes depending on if you are at home or leading an army. There are dozens to hundreds of people who could lead an army, but only one king. A king who plays at being general instead of administering the realm is a fool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Higsian posted:There are dozens to hundreds of people who could lead an army, but only one king. A king who plays at being general instead of administering the realm is a fool. This is correct. Leading armies is for crown princes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
I've had one adventurer attack so far. He showed up with 60k to my like 28k. Luckily he attacked from Africa so it gave me enough time to get a navy up and my levies and together. ( I'm on the Iberian peninsula). I let him split his troops into 11k stacks and cap some of my land. I was able to pull some stacks away from each other and knock them out one at a time. It came down to luck really and navy bombing. I had enough land that he capped like 6 counties but only hit 50 warscore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:This is correct. Leading armies is for crown princes. Correction: Leading armies is for unwanted pretenders.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:This is correct. Leading armies is for crown princes. That and unwanted heirs. "You lead the charge. We've totally got your back." (Actually this should be a possible event in assassination plots - if the target is leading an army, your plotters manage to bribe/sabotage his troops so that they end up abandoning him to the enemy)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
There should probably be a morale bonus for being lead by higher-rank characters. Soldiers would be happier being lead by a king rather than an out-of-favour baron, since one is expendable and the other is not. There should also be a small chance of a revolt if you give all your levies to a vassal who hates your guts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
No there shouldn't. Combat sucks in this game too much already.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Is the Mythos mod still being updated? The last version doesn't seem to work with the latest patch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:How the hell am I supposed to deal with adventurer threats? I have two years to assassinate him, and if that doesn't work I get a host that's easily five times the number of troops I can muster magically plunked down in the middle of my territory. And then when I surrender he gets to keep the special event troops so I have almost no chance of taking back my titles. It feels like complete bullshit. It happened to me the first time last night. I was worried, considering all Ive read here, but then it was so easy it wanst even fun. My allied Bulgaria took most of their before their troops before he even got to my Russian Empire (and Bulgaria is not even that strong), and then I killed the rest with my retinues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
Darkrenown posted:I showed that thread to Doomdark, he says it's not broken https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLdBFa3jGZI&t=974s Not my video, so I don't have a save for it, but I feel this suits the issue pretty well- 30,000 event-spawned troops in year 975. And he magically spawns another 40,000 a bit later. A little much when your levy is a tenth of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 01:34
|
|
