|
The slowdown in ironman has become unbearable. My Indian empire has expanded into Lithuania, but it takes five seconds for a single day to pass.
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
RonJeremysBalzac posted:The slowdown in ironman has become unbearable. My Indian empire has expanded into Lithuania, but it takes five seconds for a single day to pass. I think that's a more general slowdown problem not ironman. The Ironman problem is the once a month save. 3 months seems an OK compromise to me but what do I know. It already saves for important poo poo like successions etc. anyway I believe? I only played ironman for one patch other than giving it a go every now and again since I must admit.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Thanks for that, the intention is to start in 1066 as a count and make small progresses, try and be a strong technologically advanced independent country and move on from there.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is the point of Ironman - to prevent players from savescumming or modifying things. Even before achievements, that was how Ironman worked. Yes. And by definition if you cheat ironman you are only cheating yourself. Oh noes, we wouldn't want anyone to act dishonourable while playing our child murder simulator. I'm not mad or anything. It just seems deeply silly. Hilariously silly.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
DrPop posted:Gonna chime in here and say the length of the Ironman save thing is pretty annoying regardless of how powerful your computer is. My solution to Ironman games taking forever to save every dang month was to just start playing non-Ironman as if I was playing Ironman proper and not savescum, who gives a poo poo about steam achievements honestly This is the answer, if iron man is unplayable, it's just vanilla but with no save scumming. So just do that.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
 Beware the Zirid Empire! Next goal: eradicate all holy orders not belonging to the Sunni faith! edit: I actually control the empire since 1347...  edit2: was a really fun playthrough. I expanded east from Tunis, to destroy the Shia faith, moved my capital to Cairo and restored the Abyssinian Empire. The moved onto India while chipping away Italy and Byzanz. After conquering half of india, the Pope was such a pain in my rear end, declaring crusades on jerusalem all the time, so I had to capture Rome. Then onto Constantinople, moved my capital there and from then on it was a cakewalk. Crushing the Mongol hordes and moved onto mainland Europe via Russia. Btw. it involved a Muslim HRE, because the Kaiser figured that I wouldn't be able to call holy wars on him then, that bastard! wilbur.walsh fucked around with this message at 08:06 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
DStecks posted:gently caress it, this is loving stupid, I'm getting worked up over stupid bullshit Just so you know, this is a great way to get a monthlong probation.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
Please add some kind of visible counter for the antipope deposition cooldown. I keep wasting my crown law change on flipping back between papal and free investiture because I don't know when the last pope got changed, and I can't tell if the restriction is in effect until I actually change to free investiture. I would still like to abuse claims while I'm waiting. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
Is there some kind minimum amount of de jure land you need to hold in an empire to be able to pass the title on? I murdered a lot of Holy Roman emperors but I'm pretty sure I couldn't have hunted down every eligible heir yet. Pretty sure.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
Knuc U Kinte posted:Please add some kind of visible counter for the antipope deposition cooldown. I keep wasting my crown law change on flipping back between papal and free investiture because I don't know when the last pope got changed, and I can't tell if the restriction is in effect until I actually change to free investiture. I would still like to abuse claims while I'm waiting. Yeah, I added that to my list after seeing it in cpt andy's LP.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
Jesus, I give up. The Karen start is unwinnable now, even if you go the immediate vassalization route instead of holy warring your way through Khiva. The Samanids are too big to take head-on except for one lucky game in five (at best) where you get the maximum possible event troops and they get the minimum, and the decadence changes means that the Saffarids virtually never collapse like they used to and instead crush you the instant you become an independent Zoroastrian ruler. You can't even rely on kissing the Shah's rear end because his dukes still have 2k-4k armies each and will all join each other's holy wars. Maybe I'll go back to the 1066 Russian principalities or something as my go-to scenario. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 13:52 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
  I don't know how this happened, but I'd like to think they were so evenly matched neither could best the other. Their sons are ruling each respective kingdom now, two generations after the Dunkelds won England in a crusade against a Dulcinian de Normandie (this game is the loving best). Hefty Leftist fucked around with this message at 14:22 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
I'd imagine that's something along the lines of one receiving a mortal wound but still having the strength to give a mortal wound back to the other one before dying. I assume that's something that has happened in many battles in real history. Still  as all hell in CK2 though.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Jesus, I give up. The Karen start is unwinnable now, even if you go the immediate vassalization route instead of holy warring your way through Khiva. The Samanids are too big to take head-on except for one lucky game in five (at best) where you get the maximum possible event troops and they get the minimum, and the decadence changes means that the Saffarids virtually never collapse like they used to and instead crush you the instant you become an independent Zoroastrian ruler. Can you not do the ol' swear fealty to Khiva and steal it via faction trick any more?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I'd imagine that's something along the lines of one receiving a mortal wound but still having the strength to give a mortal wound back to the other one before dying. I assume that's something that has happened in many battles in real history. Still Two men meet on battleground Their eyes are full of hate By sacred oaths both are bound Death will be their fate They share the blood of once proud men Yet foes they have become One fights for truth, the other for faith Perish has begun
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
I went from a Scottish count to Roman Emperor. I conquered the world as a Mongol. But drat these Zoroastrians are a whole different game. I've worked my way up to where the Saffarids aren't a problem, but every ten years the Abbasids come at me with a wall of death. Then my ruler got pneumonia and died, and the new guy just had to surrender. I guess that pissed some people off, as suddenly there was a snake in my bed! Luckily I drowned my sorrows with some delicious wine at a feast. Hopefully the new ruler lasts longer than this guy did.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
As for the ironman issue it is adding literally double the time to play. When I started saves were 5-6 seconds now they are closer to 10 sometimes more. It takes me 6 seconds to get through a month on highspeed. I really want to finish my current game but its getting harder to do. I only get like 2 hours to play when I do and it sucks only having 7 years pass. I really love this game but might have to put it down for a while.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
I just found out about the Messalian heresy for Nestorians.  Is there a feasible way of playing with that? It seems incredibly hard to even find Nestorian dudes, let alone their heresy.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
NihilVerumNisiMors posted:I just found out about the Messalian heresy for Nestorians. There's Nestorian Island (Socotra) as a starting option. I've had good luck starting in 867 as one of the steppe pagans- Cumania, Pechenegs, Yabguids. Most of the time there will be a couple randomly generated eligible young Levantine Nestorian ladies in the Abbasid empire, and they don't care about marrying infidels off to pagans. So, grab one of those as a wife, use your pagan Subjugations/Invasions then convert by decision to your wife's religion. Edit: you could probably do this with the Hungary start, too.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Ironman's saving issues only really become a bother when I've got nothing to do and just want to speed through a decade or two on speed 5, in which case the save practically takes longer than the month does. It's been buggy for me anyway, though, to the point where my last Ironman game stopped giving me achievements, so I'm going to just play vanilla with no savescumming and use Steam Achievement Manager to unlock the achivements I've filled the conditions for but haven't been credited for.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Knuc U Kinte posted:Can you not do the ol' swear fealty to Khiva and steal it via faction trick any more? That's what I did. It worked (eventually) it's just that the instant you take over the entire Muslim world declares holy war on you.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:That's what I did. It worked (eventually) it's just that the instant you take over the entire Muslim world declares holy war on you. Are you sure it's just not the one game? Like maybe you're just particularly weak after the war to take Khiva? I'm doing a game right now where I'm doing the same thing and I had one holy war declared on me after taking Khiva and everything's been quiet since I beat it back. Of course I haven't moved out of Khiva yet so maybe they'll go apeshit once I start working on Persia proper. I have had games in the past where one little mistake or a war going on too long ends in me getting dogpiled and destroyed 5 years into the game, and others where everything is pretty smooth sailing and the difference often seems to be one single instance of misjudgement.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
WeaponGradeSadness posted:Are you sure it's just not the one game? Like maybe you're just particularly weak after the war to take Khiva? I'm doing a game right now where I'm doing the same thing and I had one holy war declared on me after taking Khiva and everything's been quiet since I beat it back. Of course I haven't moved out of Khiva yet so maybe they'll go apeshit once I start working on Persia proper. I've done the Zoroastrian start literally dozens of times, both pre- and post-RoI. Not all of them were through the fealty method, because I hate it and could get by just fine with the brute force + chancellor diplomacy approach before. The issue isn't me being weak, so much as that now the Saffarids are always strong. The combination of a third flank and more forgiving decadence mechanics means they can just endlessly cycle holy wars against Shia, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists in turn and virtually never lose.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Are people really bitching about a beta patch being bad?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
The Decadence change is pretty important, as now the Muslims blobs break up even less than they did before. I rarely see a decadence invasion go off, the only one that really matters is the Shia one...which just puts another rear end in a top hat to fight in your backyard. I admit I've gotten around it by just starting as the Saffarid...which isn't really an answer but eh, the Muslim powerblock is hard enough to break up as it is I don't feel too bad using the designer.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Eimi posted:The Decadence change is pretty important, as now the Muslims blobs break up even less than they did before. I rarely see a decadence invasion go off, the only one that really matters is the Shia one...which just puts another rear end in a top hat to fight in your backyard. Under old Decadence, they didn't break up at all, they just changed rulers an got a giant pile of event troops. New Decadence still has problems, but is vastly better.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Two questions: 1. How are war elephants as a retinue choice? 2. Have cataphracts been fixed since the "grey wall" bug?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Dorkopotamis posted:How are war elephants as a retinue choice? Very good, but you have to mix them 1:1 with Shock retinues to avoid Charge on Undefended. You also really want to run them with very high Martial commanders so you can pull of the cultural tactics with them.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
I'm trying to figure out decision and event modding, working on decisions. What's 'is_playable = yes?' Is that just to say that players can use it? If I don't have it in there, would players not be able to use it? And if I want to limit it to Slavic pagan Russians, what would that look like? Edit: And is there a way to set the earliest you can take a decision, like with events? catlord fucked around with this message at 00:56 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
catlord posted:I'm trying to figure out decision and event modding, working on decisions. What's 'is_playable = yes?' Is that just to say that players can use it? If I don't have it in there, would players not be able to use it? And if I want to limit it to Slavic pagan Russians, what would that look like? My understanding is that is_playable = yes limits a decision or event to only happen to "playable" characters - that is, landed characters above count level, and patricians. I don't know for sure if this excludes count-and-above level bishops or landlocked republics even though you can't currently play them, however. quote:Edit: And is there a way to set the earliest you can take a decision, like with events? It is, in fact, done in the exact same way, except that you put the "year = <earliest year>" clause in the allow section of a decision's code, as opposed to the trigger section in an event's code.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
I should have included this in my last question asking post, but maybe this is its own conversation. Is playing a merchant republic ever fun?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Dorkopotamis posted:I should have included this in my last question asking post, but maybe this is its own conversation. Do you like limitless money, and high quality retinues?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Dorkopotamis posted:I should have included this in my last question asking post, but maybe this is its own conversation. It's one of my favourite ways to play. The thing I like the best, is that your borders start naturally looking like the Venetian borders ended up looking with a lot of coastal enclaves, and you punch well above your weight in war time. The AI can't really tell what your true strength is, so they will attack you a lot so you can beat them down for gold and smash them in a weakened state for territory.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Dorkopotamis posted:I should have included this in my last question asking post, but maybe this is its own conversation. The intrigue vs vassals part was one of the big selling points of the game for me originally, but once you get going it can get real annoying. Lord Mayors are kittens compared to feudal vassals. They don't act up so you can get to the important business of creating as many adult male members of your dynasty as possible to run all your trade ports. I had the distinct pleasure of my son who I groomed to be the designated heir to the republic committing suicide in the Romeo and Juliet event. RonJeremysBalzac fucked around with this message at 05:15 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
RonJeremysBalzac posted:I had the distinct pleasure of my son who I groomed to be the designated heir to the republic committing suicide in the Romeo and Juliet event. After having that happen a few times, I now just choose the option at the start of the chain to cancel it entirely. There isn't any benefit to going down that chain once you've seen the events, it ends up being a net loss in almost every case. I would rather take the small upfront prestige loss than deal with the random loss/gain + potential heir death.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Would it be a bad idea to have an all camel cavalry retinue?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Anyone know why I'm getting a runtime error whenever the game tries to save? I haven't played since before the new DLC came out, but it used to work fine. I've tried reinstalling, but I'm not sure what else I can try.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 11:02
|
|
|
Do you have any out of date mods on. Try deleting the documents folder as well as verifying the cache on steam.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
 Apparently I talk to myself. And make free money out of nowhere. I don't even remember why she's in prison, I think she tried to kill a genius son of mine.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 11:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
Bold Robot posted:Would it be a bad idea to have an all camel cavalry retinue? Nah. They're basically better Heavy Infantry, stats wise. With your regular levy mixed in you'll be fine with just camels in the retinue.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 11:21
|
|
