|
If the Pope hates a king and you're smaller than said king, you could ask the Pope to authorize an invasion. That said, if the Pope doesn't already hate a king for whatever reason I don't know that there's anything you can do to change his mind. Overall really there aren't enough ways to convince one AI character to think differently about another.
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Is the Muslim educate daughter bug fixed yet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
 As Italy I've managed to get my dynasty on the throne of Bavaria (albeit somehow they cultureshifted to Dutch with some Frankish in there). Bavaria is on high crown authorty and primogeniture while I'm running Italy on medium with elective. Is there a quick and easy to fold Bavaria into Italy? I can't seem to nominate the heir to Bavaria as my heir in Italy, I guess because he's not immediate family.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
MrBling posted:
Matrilinearly marry his firstborn son to your daughter and make her your heir?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
MrBling posted:
It's likely because he's not an eligible elector. As for how to do it: Torrannor posted:Matrilinearly marry his firstborn son to your daughter and make her your heir? The longer play is to marry a daughter to get an heir with a weak claim, then stabby-stabby or wait till you can press the claim.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It's likely because he's not an eligible elector. Or get a claimant (a third+ son) to come to your court, land him, elect him as the ruler, then eventually press his claim on Bavaria.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Alternately: Open the console and add "give claim k_bavaria [characterid]" and call it a day. But then, that would be cheating.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Matrilinearly marry his firstborn son to your daughter and make her your heir? If they're of the same dynasty, who gives a poo poo about doing it matrilineally?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Allyn posted:If they're of the same dynasty, who gives a poo poo about doing it matrilineally? Matrilinearly means he comes to your court, which gives you some more options (education comes to mind).
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Clanpot Shake posted:Matrilinearly means he comes to your court, which gives you some more options (education comes to mind). You can usually invite your daughter and she'll bring him with her, though
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Allyn posted:You can usually invite your daughter and she'll bring him with her, though Well that's true. Anyway, the point is to marry his daughter to Bavaria's heir and wait until the two realms inevitably unite (involves electing the firstborn son of his daughter though).
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Allyn posted:If they're of the same dynasty, who gives a poo poo about doing it matrilineally?  Making sure your grand-son doesn't get some lovely name.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:
Yeah, I once landed my heir and he named all three of his sons Almerich. He also picked up Arbitrary somehow, but the names were the real crime. EDIT: To be fair, Almerich isn't a bad name, and the eventual King Almerich was decent, but goddamn dude, it was like the George Foreman family of the 1140s. ninjahedgehog fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Still got it  
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
If you marry your daughter to his heir matrilineally and make the resulting child your heir, he'll automatically inherit both kingdoms, whereas if it's not matrilineal you'll have to press his claim in war. I think? But the only way to get a matrilineal marriage to anyone's heir is if said heir hates hates his father and is thus willing to come to your court, as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:But the only way to get a matrilineal marriage to anyone's heir is if said heir hates hates his father and is thus willing to come to your court, as far as I know. Sometimes the heir ends up in somebody else's court, and even if it's in the same country, their liege will often be far more willing to matri-marry them off than if they were in their parent's court.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:If you marry your daughter to his heir matrilineally and make the resulting child your heir, he'll automatically inherit both kingdoms, whereas if it's not matrilineal you'll have to press his claim in war. I think? If your of the same dynasty it doesn't matter you can arrange matrilineal marriages with no extra malus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Man I just had a crazy game as Aquitaine. Not really my doing but I was looking around and The Caliph of Shia Islam is a republic... Has anyone else seen this? A religious head becoming an electable position?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
LordGugs posted:Man I just had a crazy game as Aquitaine. Not really my doing but I was looking around and The Caliph of Shia Islam is a republic... Has anyone else seen this? A religious head becoming an electable position? From what I understand, it happens to the Pope every once in a while.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
catlord posted:From what I understand, it happens to the Pope every once in a while. Isn't this basically the story of Pope John from the OP?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Off in loving Finland I have found a single solitary county that is Ibadi Muslim amidst a sea of Suomenusko and Orthodox Christianity with the nearest Ibadi county thousands of miles away. I am at a loss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:But the only way to get a matrilineal marriage to anyone's heir is if said heir hates hates his father and is thus willing to come to your court, as far as I know. At least once I've seen a female ruler in a regular marriage agree to a matrilineal marriage for her direct heir. "poo poo, whatever, he's not my dynasty anyway."
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Off in loving Finland I have found a single solitary county that is Ibadi Muslim amidst a sea of Suomenusko and Orthodox Christianity with the nearest Ibadi county thousands of miles away. An Ibadi was captured in a raid and made a concubine, and later educated an heir to that county, who then proceeded to convert his courtiers and county. At least, that seems like the most plausible scenario.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Off in loving Finland I have found a single solitary county that is Ibadi Muslim amidst a sea of Suomenusko and Orthodox Christianity with the nearest Ibadi county thousands of miles away. It could also be that they converted to Sunni, but for whatever reason went Ibadi. In my game right now, in Volga Bulgaria there was a one province Yazidi country. The only other Yazidis were in West Africa (how the gently caress that could be explained...), all because the Sunni MA completely flatlined (and is still struggling, Shia is the dominant Muslim religion, and Sunni is just barely holding onto not being overtaken by Yazidi and Ibadi).
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Wonderslug posted:At least once I've seen a female ruler in a regular marriage agree to a matrilineal marriage for her direct heir. "poo poo, whatever, he's not my dynasty anyway." AKA every time I manage to regular-marry a man of my dynasty to a woman I stab onto a foreign throne. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Do the AI ever actually choose between Mutazilim and Asha'ri for Muslims? Because if not Asha'ri doesn't seem terrbly useful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
So I got a question for you guys: I've been playing a republic, and for my retinues I've mostly been using Defense retinues - 300 pikes, 200 archers. I've got enough to form entire armies of them by now, and I've noticed a pattern whenever I send them into battle. They'll do well in the skirmish phase, often killing considerably more than they lose and playing hell on enemy morale, but when it comes to the melee these all-pike/archer flanks tend to start getting mauled, taking very heavy casualties compared to the enemy - 2:1 or even 3:1. Despite this, their morale usually holds very strong while enemy morale is consistently shredded, so that despite taking heavier casualties the pikes usually win through and lumber into a chase after routing enemies. So does anyone here know enough about combat mechanics to explain why this is happening? From my reading of the combat mechanics on the wiki it SEEMS like the enormous casualties my pikes take should be playing hell on their morale, but somehow it doesn't seem to work out. I'm Greek culture, incidentally, so I'm not getting the Italian pike morale bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Do the AI ever actually choose between Mutazilim and Asha'ri for Muslims? Yes. Not super regularly, but more often than AI Christians go on pilgrimage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Tomn posted:So I got a question for you guys: Switch to Cataphracts. Problem solved. They're not the best retinue loadout in the game, but they're drat close, especially since you don't need to worry about army composition, just get a bunch and go. They're solid all-around and can even win when they're pretty heavily outnumbered. Speaking of retinues, what's the best way to use longbows? I've been doing 3-1 longbows to shock, but I still get hit by the undefended flank tactic now and then and it's nearly cost me a couple major wars so far. Edit: also, how do I get the pope to call a crusade? I'm the most powerful christian ruler in the world and I want to start gobbling up some muslim lands, but don't have anything near enough to holy war with. A Real Happy Camper fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Jul 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Captain Novolin posted:Switch to Cataphracts. Problem solved. They're not the best retinue loadout in the game, but they're drat close, especially since you don't need to worry about army composition, just get a bunch and go. They're solid all-around and can even win when they're pretty heavily outnumbered. Well, there's no problem. I'm still consistently winning battles and wars, and that's good enough for me. I'd just like to know WHY this is happening for the sake of analysis. Also, the reason I went with defense retinues is because they slot in well with my mostly-city levies that I get on account of having mostly republican vassals. I can chuck my retinue armies straight into my levy armies without having to worry too much about tactics going funny - at least, that was the theory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Tomn posted:So I got a question for you guys: Are you attacking or defending? Pikemen are actually not very good offensive troops. If you're going to be Venice and Italian yeah your retinues should be crammed full of defensive retinues but you should also mix in some other types as well. Chuck a few cavalry and some shock retinues in so your armies aren't balls on offense. The other issue you're probably running into is that your armies are 2/5 archers if you're all defense and archers get absolutely massacred in the melee phase.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Are you attacking or defending? Pikemen are actually not very good offensive troops. If you're going to be Venice and Italian yeah your retinues should be crammed full of defensive retinues but you should also mix in some other types as well. Chuck a few cavalry and some shock retinues in so your armies aren't balls on offense. Well, that makes sense as far as the casualties go. But why am I still winning battles so handily, then? The baffling part to me isn't really the casualty breakdown, it's the fact that DESPITE massive casualties my pike-and-crossbow flanks seem to have nigh-invincible morale, allowing them to break the enemy and make good any casualties taken during melee via pursuit. Seriously, I'd be taking something like 300 casualties per day out of a 4000-strong flank and morale won't go lower than 90%, while the enemy would be taking 100 casualties per day out of a similarly-sized flank but lose like 5-10% of the bar or something per day. To make it clear since people seem to assume I'm in trouble and am asking for help: There is no trouble. I'm winning battles, I'm winning wars, and my all-defense retinues have secured me an empire that's coming pretty close to recreating the Roman empire. I'd just like to know why my battles are turning out the way they do because they don't seem to make a huge amount of sense. I was under the impression that being on the attacking or defending side in a battle only matters as far as terrain modifiers go, by the way? And yes, I take full advantage of hills and mountains wherever I can to maximize terrain benefits to my pikes and archers. (Also, I'm Greek. Started as the Republic of Amafli, ended up forming the Serene Dogeship of Sicily.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Well, that makes sense as far as the casualties go. But why am I still winning battles so handily, then? The baffling part to me isn't really the casualty breakdown, it's the fact that DESPITE massive casualties my pike-and-crossbow flanks seem to have nigh-invincible morale, allowing them to break the enemy and make good any casualties taken during melee via pursuit. Hmm. Yeah that is kind of odd. Can you build Greek cultural buildings or are you building the Italian pikemen ones? Italians get huge bonuses to pike morale, which is what makes defensive retinues so bonkers powerful if you're Italian. It doesn't matter how many casualties each side takes when it comes to winning; it only matters who breaks the others' morale first. I actually really like pikes as Italians for just that reason. You can murder the hell out of them but they just stand there and go "gently caress you" while your morale withers away. It SOUNDS like you're working with Italian pike morale, which is disturbingly difficult to break.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
I feel like content shouldn't apply to jailed characters. I drug this guy out of his home, threw him in prison for the mere crime of existing and not having rich relatives, and then put him in the oubliette and he still has 96 opinion of me. Nobody is that content.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
It's a really nice oubilette.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Hmm. Yeah that is kind of odd. Can you build Greek cultural buildings or are you building the Italian pikemen ones? Italians get huge bonuses to pike morale, which is what makes defensive retinues so bonkers powerful if you're Italian. It doesn't matter how many casualties each side takes when it comes to winning; it only matters who breaks the others' morale first. I actually really like pikes as Italians for just that reason. You can murder the hell out of them but they just stand there and go "gently caress you" while your morale withers away. I CAN build Greek cataphract training grounds, but I don't - most of my holdings are cities and my castles belong to vassals, so I don't get maximum use out of them. Much better, from my perspective, to build trade post garrisons and hire yet more retinues. I was under the impression that retinue bonuses aren't dependent on what you build anyways, though? At least the CK2 wiki suggests that all retinues have their own technological bonuses that apply regardless of what you've built - Italian pike retinues do get a bonus to morale, but defense retinues just get a bonus to defense instead and some kind of buff to archers. Chief Savage Man posted:I feel like content shouldn't apply to jailed characters. You can't chain a free soul, man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I was under the impression that retinue bonuses aren't dependent on what you build anyways, though? At least the CK2 wiki suggests that all retinues have their own technological bonuses that apply regardless of what you've built - Italian pike retinues do get a bonus to morale, but defense retinues just get a bonus to defense instead and some kind of buff to archers. This is correct. You can just look at the 00retinue_subunits.txt file, and it'll list the bonus for every retinue. All the cultural ones have the full damage/defense/morale bonus listed, and gained by default when they are created.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:It's a really nice oubilette. Maybe it's this oubliette.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
I've been playing CKII for the first time in a while recently, all has been going well as the Norse, but I'm a bit confused by what happened after I reformed the faith and declared and won a Great Holy War for Denmark, which was still following Old Norse. Upon my victory, the throne of Denmark went to my nephew, the Petty King of Iceland, who remained independent from my rule. I thought that Holy War conquests went to whoever initiated the war and expected to get Denmark for myself. What happened here? I reloaded to before the war and noticed my nephew has a strong claim to Denmark - will Holy War conquests go to a member of the victorious faith who has a claim on it rather than to the actual conqueror? Does this mean I'd have to kill anyone following reformed Norse with a (strong) claim before I can capture it for myself via Holy War? It's pretty frustrating, Denmark already slipped through my fingers once - I married into the Danish royal family, giving my resultant son and heir a claim on it and won a war to install him on the throne, only to have him die of sickness in his 30s before I myself could die and pass the rest on to him. My grandson succeeded him and somehow got replaced by some other guy not related to me. Argh. Wafflecopper fucked around with this message at 10:49 on Jul 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Great holy war spoils like all crusades go to who ever contributed the most. Or to the holder of the kingdom title if it is of the right religion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 11:37
|
|