|
CharlestheHammer posted:Ruler designer may give you unfair advantages (which it could) but it didn't break the very point of the game. Which retinues kind of did, by making vassal politics kind of pointless. Game's not bad if you just turn off Rome DLC, makes blobbing harder and that much more satisfying
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
Radical idea: since retinues, given their name, are conceptually supposed to be more a ruler's personal guard than a standing army, perhaps they should be used only within one's own territory and suffer a massive morale penalty if they go outside of it (i.e., are used in offensive wars)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
Bloodly posted:In a single-player game where you have Ruler Designer. That's...sketchy. I can see the kind of reasoning that leads to that, but at the same time I'm not sure that I agree with it. You don't agree with games providing a challenge? You don't agree with games being balanced? What aren't you agreeing with here? As for the Ruler Designer, totally different kettle of fish. I don't think making a broken ruler to start with ruins the balance of the game forever like retinues do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
The main problem with retinues was that they made it much harder for your vassals to plot against you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:I agree, but they're honestly not even that much worse off than before. They've just changed the numbers around and everyone is freaking out like they've been fundamentally broken. You shouldn't be able to keep a 10k strong army sitting around not getting paid, even if you're a modestly sized kingdom. They are much much worse than they were before. They were halved in size, reinforcement rate was cut in half, and the constant maintenance cost(which isn't too bad honestly) combine to make it a majorly serious nerf. The worst nerf was honestly the reinforcement rate nerf, since now you spend twice as long paying the reinforcing cost and your retinue is out of combat for twice as long. It was a much needed nerf, but it goes far enough that I'm honestly not sure they are ever worth getting until you can get like 30k of them at once and afford it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Feel free to change the RETINUE_REINFORCE_RATE in defines.lua. It used to be 0.05, now it's 0.025, feel free to make it 0.04 or whatever if you want to try to find a middle ground.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
There's one set of retinues that gives 550 dudes for about 650 retinue cap, so I guess if you want quantity go for those guys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:I agree, but they're honestly not even that much worse off than before. They've just changed the numbers around and everyone is freaking out like they've been fundamentally broken. You shouldn't be able to keep a 10k strong army sitting around not getting paid, even if you're a modestly sized kingdom. Part of the problem is that the UI is buggy and makes it seems like they are more expensive than they really are. Anyway, I don't mind the retinue rebalance now I know the actual costs, but I have to N-th that adventurers badly need rebalancing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Funky Valentine posted:There's one set of retinues that gives 550 dudes for about 650 retinue cap, so I guess if you want quantity go for those guys. It's a trap--it's mostly light infantry, which die easily in battle and will incur the astronomical replacement costs. Adventurers need removed from the game. They're just 100% "gently caress you, player" bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
I like retinues being much weaker. It makes you actually play CK2, instead of playing like 25% of CK2 and then putting the rest in a box in the corner. It makes war into an actual decision to be weighed up, instead of the absolute obvious decision to make every time, as once again you are relying on your own county men to shoulder the burden in war. Also, if you still want to use them heavily, I believe the best combination is 2 skirmish units, 1 light skirmish unit. That is the most bang for your ducat. e; I still have never had an adventurer in a lot of play time. What even causes them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
I've played a decent amount of CK2 and never had too much trouble beating off adventurers (w/ the help of plenty of mercenaries ofcourse  ). Does the nerf in retinues make it that much bad?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Funky Valentine posted:There's one set of retinues that gives 550 dudes for about 650 retinue cap, so I guess if you want quantity go for those guys. Ethiopians and Somalis get 400 dudes for 280 cap. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
McGavin posted:Ethiopians and Somalis get 400 dudes for 280 cap. Light infantry? Because if so that's like bragging that the cinema concession stand charged you five dollars less for a bucket full of styrofoam peanuts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
The Welsh get 250 archers for 250 cap, which is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
hiandbaii posted:I've played a decent amount of CK2 and never had too much trouble beating off adventurers I hope the adventurers enjoyed themselves
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
In my first ironman game, an adventurer landed with about 7K troops while I could muster only about 5K. Oh, while I was "defending" against two holy wars for Sicily at the same time. So gently caress you adventurers. Weirdly the two Muslim invasions (the Tulanids and whatever dynasty gets Tunis) never came in force - one seemed to walk around the map and got caught by the Italians, the war just timed out. Pretty sad. But somehow my character went from count of Capua to queen of Sicily so there's that. I am playing 2.1.6 because screw the nerfing and I want a pet republic which is still busted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
Another Person posted:I like retinues being much weaker. It makes you actually play CK2, instead of playing like 25% of CK2 and then putting the rest in a box in the corner. It makes war into an actual decision to be weighed up, instead of the absolute obvious decision to make every time, as once again you are relying on your own county men to shoulder the burden in war. THIS. It's completely changed the game for me and it's taking some painful adjustment after 700 plus hours of stupidly aggressive play. I love it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
Just out of curiousity, was it always true that you could never ursurp the HRE title or was that a bug/recent patch change?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
Another Person posted:I still have never had an adventurer in a lot of play time. What even causes them? The target must be coastal (?duchy I think?), and a Norse/Germanic person must want it. AFAICT, that's it. hiandbaii posted:I've played a decent amount of CK2 and never had too much trouble beating off adventurers (w/ the help of plenty of mercenaries ofcourse Adventurers aren't usually too bad unless they are really inopportunely timed (the ones that attack me always seem to arrive 6 months before the end of a truce, which is nice of them). Prepared invasions by the Norse though, yeah that can go gently caress right off. Trying to play in the Baltics+Poland from the Charlemagne bookmark is unbelievably painful. It takes me about 150 years or so to be in a position to make a 6 demesne holding feudal, and then you're back to 200 man armies instead of ~600 man ones. And you lose the magic of tribal armies. But it's basically that or be stuck on a form of gavelkind. gently caress. Schlesische fucked around with this message at 09:28 on Oct 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 09:25
|
|
|
How about this: your retinues work like a merc company / holy order only you can use, and have a company head which you appoint. They're really cheap, but the downside is they can wind up getting involved in politics, and back other people in exchange for having more autonomy (can appoint their own head, cost more to use, worst case having them hold a perm-regancy where youd have to do poo poo like hire mercs to drive them out).
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 09:37
|
|
|
Soo, I haven't heard anyone talk about the custom kingdom aspect of the game. It's really poo poo as far as I can tell. I'm certain I read somewhere that you could choose the flag etc and I was expecting you could choose colour as well, but it's literally just an upgrade of your primary duchy that resets all of your inheritance laws. Sorry son, now that I have a gold circle floating around my head I HAVE to split everything between your 12 brothers now. But hey. Look on the brightside, I have one more demesne slot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
Knuc U Kinte posted:Soo, I haven't heard anyone talk about the custom kingdom aspect of the game. It's really poo poo as far as I can tell. I'm certain I read somewhere that you could choose the flag etc and I was expecting you could choose colour as well, but it's literally just an upgrade of your primary duchy that resets all of your inheritance laws. Sorry son, now that I have a gold circle floating around my head I HAVE to split everything between your 12 brothers now. But hey. Look on the brightside, I have one more demesne slot. I use it, but I know that it's incredibly wasteful and lovely; they should definitely carry over inheritance laws. Custom Empires though? Yeah, the arbitrary line on that is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
Schlesische posted:The target must be coastal (?duchy I think?), and a Norse/Germanic person must want it. AFAICT, that's it. Unlanded courtiers with a claim may sometimes decide to go off and press it themselves as an adventurer regardless of culture/religion as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
 Gavelkind What the game says will happen on succession:  Okay I lose Frisia, Flanders and a couple counties, including my capital, to my nephew. Sucks but gavelkind What actually happened:  I lost Frisia, Flanders and all of my counties. In exchange I got his (the King of Denmark's) titles in Denmark, except the kingdom title itself. I don't get gavelkind. EDIT: oh and apparently my merchant republic of Holland lost all of its landed vassals inside Frisia, including two patricians (may or may not be related). He is a vassal of Frisia while the cities he lost are my direct vassals
Jabu fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Oct 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
How is Charlemagne at the moment? I'm holding off until it's stabilised a little so wondering what the current status is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
david... posted:How is Charlemagne at the moment? I'm holding off until it's stabilised a little so wondering what the current status is. The beta patch has fixed most serious issues, most remaining issues are because old strategies aren't working right and players are still trying to work around them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Sky Shadowing posted:The beta patch has fixed most serious issues, most remaining issues are because old strategies aren't working right and players are still trying to work around them. Also it sounds like merchant republics are still broken post beta patch
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Two things I wish were different about the decision that makes new kingdoms: First, it'd be nice if I could make more than one new kingdom. That's a nitpick based entirely on the fact that I want the British isles to be Germanic, but not have England's EUIV ideas or ability to form Great Britain. Second, I'd really like to be able to edit my flag. When I first formed the Kalmar Union it was the Germanic religion icon on a blue field, and then at some point it turned into a cross on a red field. Ideally it would be this flag I found on Google
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Inside Outside posted:Second, I'd really like to be able to edit my flag. You do know that all flags are saved as .tga files and can be replaced with a drag-and-drop, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Drone posted:You do know that all flags are saved as .tga files and can be replaced with a drag-and-drop, right? Can you change the flags for a CUSTOM kingdom/empire, though? The only way I can think is if you change the flag for the duchy it was based on, and I don't really want to do that. Plus, it would be cool to have tools like the coat of arms editor to custom-make them, since my Photoshop/Paint skills are dick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
So for the last couple of days I've been playing Ironman Axum with the end goal of becoming the Jewish Emperor of Abyssinia. After 200+ years of dealing with 4 kinds of religious revolts, the Fatimid Dynasty, and several other issues I finally became the King of Abyssinia and Nubia. But then I realized that to become Emperor I also need to be the Sultan of Egypt.  
Frijolero fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Oct 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
 Here's the problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:So for the last couple of days I've been playing Ironman Axum with the end goal of becoming the Jewish Emperor of Abyssinia. After 200+ years of dealing with 4 kinds of religious revolts, the Fatimid Dynasty, and several other issues I finally became the King of Abyssinia and Nubia. But then I realized that to become Emperor I also need to be the Sultan of Egypt. I've done a lot of those games and it just means be king of Egypt. Its confusing, like a lot of text and mechanics in CK2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
I have crippled myself by upgrading to feudalism far too early, when I only had my capital's fort and a couple of buildings upgraded. So I have gently caress all troops from the reset of my demesne and from my vassals. When should I have done it? When all my demesne is fully upgraded? Or wait until my vassals are feudal? I miss the free event troops as well. And jesus, Pictland is much worse than Scotland, Pictish light infantry does not compare well to the devastating Scottish pikemen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Snatch Duster posted:I've done a lot of those games and it just means be king of Egypt. Its confusing, like a lot of text and mechanics in CK2. Yeah, it's saying that because at the moment it's held by an Arab.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Sky Shadowing posted:The beta patch has fixed most serious issues, most remaining issues are because old strategies aren't working right and players are still trying to work around them. Counterpoint to this, I'm using the beta patch and the game still crashes most of the time when I click the religion tab, and in one of my games all the armies of the world are stuck permanently hostile to me. I'd say it's going to be a few more weeks before the the serious issues are gone but ymmv.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Snatch Duster posted:I've done a lot of those games and it just means be king of Egypt. Its confusing, like a lot of text and mechanics in CK2. Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Yeah, it's saying that because at the moment it's held by an Arab. I know it means King. I'm just upset that you need to be King of Egypt to be the Emperor of a completely separate de jure region.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:
Can you take a screenshot of what happens when you click on it (bringing up the building menu)? That looks like a Norse-culture castle, not a Norse-culture tribal holding, to me. I know it says Tribe of Jylland but it doesn't say "Holder is of wrong holding type", which you would expect. The little red icon on it is simply because you conquered it recently. e: I just did this myself, it upgraded Jylland to a castle just fine but the name of the holding remained as "Tribe of Jylland". Which is a small issue, but not a major one Allyn fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Oct 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:I know it means King. I'm just upset that you need to be King of Egypt to be the Emperor of a completely separate de jure region. Cuz being TWO kings isn't enough kings. You need to be THREE. In this case, technically "of Orient."
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
Frijolero posted:I know it means King. I'm just upset that you need to be King of Egypt to be the Emperor of a completely separate de jure region. Yea I agree it is pretty stupid. Ethopia was a legit empire in and of itself, and adding in Egypt is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:41
|
|