Crusader Kings II: I desperately want to be cucked by Satan

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Crusader Kings II: I desperately want to be cucked by Satan

Deus Rex: Mar 5, 2005

Another Person posted:

Ah drat. That is really silly. Terynyllwg is not de jure anywhere right now it seems, which is real messy.

e; no, wrong. it is de jure powys, which is technically two English counties and a Welsh one.

The first game I noticed this it later flipped from Powys to the Scottish Duchy of the Isles. I have no idea if it was a timed event or because I controlled it as King of Pictland or what.

# ? Oct 28, 2014 16:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 31, 2024 20:13

Baron Porkface: Jan 22, 2007

What do we know about the Loyalist stack and rebel stack events during civil wars and how they form?

# ? Oct 28, 2014 17:04

GenderSelectScreen: Mar 7, 2010; I DON'T KNOW EITHER DON'T ASK ME; College Slice

Ofaloaf posted:

code:
XXXX001 = {
	name = "Hypotheticus"
	dynasty = YYYY001
	culture = bedouin (or levantine or egyptian or whatever)
	religion = "whateverite"
	1234.5.6={
		birth = yes
		culture = greek
	}
	1300.1.1={
		death = yes
	}
}
Set the culture you want the character to appear as in the first culture entry, and then redefine what culture the character is at birth (or some point before the game begins).

Thanks.

# ? Oct 28, 2014 17:22

Deceitful Penguin: Feb 16, 2011

Deus Rex posted:

Any tips for reforming the Zunist faith? I won't be able to touch Baghdad for at least a couple hundred years now and it seems impossible otherwise without winning a bunch of defensive holy wars. Not being able to raid infidel temples sucks.

Yea, basically what you wanna do is make a fairly powerful tribal vassal, usually both of your dynasty. Their lovely duchies aren't dick compared to yours but they let them beat up the pagans for easy MA and setting them up isn't too hard, especially once they start also subjugating. The fact that lots of the counties are Tengri too, which you actually have a tiny chance of managing to convert is a a happy coincidence. They also spit out tiny lil rebellions which give MA, just gotta be careful about engaging all your troops.

Then start making your way towards the one holy site in India, I found that grabbing that one independent country at the start that lets your get access to the lower part of the west is hella nice, even if you have to eat a holy war for it later from the Abbs. Just eat the -3 MA, you can more than recoup it by taking over the small indies or rebels down there.

Just gotta stay opportunistic; keep an eagle eye on their loving holy orders because even the OPM can hire them and they gently caress you up, go to Ultimo stat and if the Abbs implode (it happens sometimes) be ready for it, meanwhile keep them buttered up because they can end you at any time. If they're already super cool with you, you might try speeding up your MA by forging a claim on your India holy site to get it quicker.

Edit:

I wonder if Tribal Zuns burning temples lowers MA. Might be worth checking out.

# ? Oct 28, 2014 18:07

Tsyni: Sep 1, 2004; Lipstick Apathy

It seems like this new beta patch messed with elective gavelkind. My nephew is now favoured by most of my vassals, though he's unlanded. I don't understand why. Two of my sons are adult kings.

# ? Oct 28, 2014 19:08

Corbeau: Sep 13, 2010; Jack of All Trades

Tsyni posted:

It seems like this new beta patch messed with elective gavelkind. My nephew is now favoured by most of my vassals, though he's unlanded. I don't understand why. Two of my sons are adult kings.

Sounds like normal Elective Gavelkind to me.

# ? Oct 28, 2014 19:14

Tsyni: Sep 1, 2004; Lipstick Apathy

Corbeau posted:

Sounds like normal Elective Gavelkind to me.

Haha, well...I was playing the old patch and one of my sons that was a king was favoured, but after loading the game after updating this newest patch it switched to this random nephew. I'd closed and opened the game when the other son was favoured and nothing changed, so I assumed it was something to do with the patch. Maybe it's because he just became an adult though. Do they favour non-son family members, or family members that aren't part of your court?

# ? Oct 28, 2014 19:24

fool of sound: Oct 10, 2012

Tsyni posted:

Do they favour non-son family members

It's this. It's an intentional nerf to Elective and by extension Elective Gavelkind.

# ? Oct 28, 2014 19:35

The Cheshire Cat: Jun 10, 2008; Fun Shoe

An issue I've found with CM: If you start in the new start time, the Hashshashin don't form when Jihads are unlocked like the other two Muslim holy orders - and the odds of them forming at ALL are fairly low, since they require an open holding slot in the Dailam province in 1089. In the original start time that's not usually a problem, but in CM they've got 300 years to fill it in.

# ? Oct 28, 2014 20:17

Gniwu: Dec 18, 2002

fool_of_sound posted:

It's this. It's an intentional nerf to Elective and by extension Elective Gavelkind.

I really, really cannot get behind this idea. No matter how much I try to rationalize it, it still seems like naked 'player punishing' of the worst kind. I guess I understand the principle of the various lords not wanting to establish a royal succession tradition that would eventually become too powerful to control (even though the actual implementation doesn't give me the feeling that this in-universe thought was what drove the change at all), but you had those problems - which often forced you to hand out stuff to the electors or scheme against them - long before the unnecessary nerf. Now they'll even try to sabotage the plans of a King they honestly like from the depths of their hearts? This makes NO sense. And Crusader Kings lives and dies by its roleplaying immersion and narrative plausibility, so things like this are poison for my enjoyment.

I can only hope they look into this again.

# ? Oct 28, 2014 22:08

Smoremaster: Aug 5, 2009; Don't forget to source your quotes!

Gimmick Account posted:

the various lords not wanting to establish a royal succession tradition that would eventually become too powerful to control

It's this. Even if your vassals like your leadership it makes sense that they would vote for someone closely related to you but not necessarily your direct descendant or the heir of your choice. It suits the time period, especially for the tribal states, and without it playing them would be boring and way too easy. I like the challenge of it, makes it harder to just switch to primo, never worry about succession again, and grow your blob to the size where it's boring and you abandon the save.

That's my take on it, anyway. v :shobon:

# ? Oct 28, 2014 22:34

Luigi Thirty: Apr 30, 2006; Emergency confection port.

Haha, you can kick off the Crusade era by taking Rome as an Orthodox ruler. You get a big event about how infidels have taken over Rome, how horrible, holy warriors gather, it spawns all the holy orders within a few weeks...

And then the Pope over in Orvieto just goes straight to Abassid Jerusalem anyway. gently caress Rome, I guess.

# ? Oct 28, 2014 22:38

GenderSelectScreen: Mar 7, 2010; I DON'T KNOW EITHER DON'T ASK ME; College Slice

Smoremaster posted:

It's this. Even if your vassals like your leadership it makes sense that they would vote for someone closely related to you but not necessarily your direct descendant or the heir of your choice. It suits the time period, especially for the tribal states, and without it playing them would be boring and way too easy. I like the challenge of it, makes it harder to just switch to primo, never worry about succession again, and grow your blob to the size where it's boring and you abandon the save.

That's my take on it, anyway. vv

It doesn't actually make any sense, unless people in Medieval times really liked their fields getting destroyed by endless rebellions.

# ? Oct 28, 2014 22:45

Apoffys: Sep 5, 2011

There have been some good changes in Charlemagne, but I've been rage-quitting with alt-f4 way more than I ever have before. Like now, when my council-spawned raiders got so angry at not being allowed to raid anyone that they abandoned me while I was raiding:

Doesn't besieging a castle to get at the valuables count as raiding to these bastards?

I get that the council-spawned troops need some sort of drawback, but in my experience they're only any good if through sheer luck they spawn just when you need them and near the people you want killed. I usually just have to disband them immediately, because they're too impatient to be any use. They're too random, and too quick to leave (with no real indication of how long you can keep them waiting).

# ? Oct 28, 2014 22:47

AAAAA! Real Muenster: Jul 12, 2008; My QB is also named Bort

Luigi Thirty posted:

Haha, you can kick off the Crusade era by taking Rome as an Orthodox ruler. You get a big event about how infidels have taken over Rome, how horrible, holy warriors gather, it spawns all the holy orders within a few weeks...

And then the Pope over in Orvieto just goes straight to Abassid Jerusalem anyway. gently caress Rome, I guess.

I still think it is mindboggling that the Catholics get so many holy orders and they get them immediately. They all immediately have full strength armies and can ALL be recruited by any Catholic immediately. Meanwhile everyone else gets a singular holy order that requires special circumstances (beyond the Crusader age or whatever starting).

# ? Oct 28, 2014 22:53

monster on a stick: Apr 29, 2013

Luigi Thirty posted:

Haha, you can kick off the Crusade era by taking Rome as an Orthodox ruler. You get a big event about how infidels have taken over Rome, how horrible, holy warriors gather, it spawns all the holy orders within a few weeks...

And then the Pope over in Orvieto just goes straight to Abassid Jerusalem anyway. gently caress Rome, I guess.

It's like kicking off the Jihad era as a Catholic by taking Tunis, knowing that the Abassids will immediately go after the Byzantines, which is a win-win (either the Byzantines get seriously weakened and won't attack you, or they will lose and you can HW that territory back under the One True Catholic Faith.)

Apoffys posted:

There have been some good changes in Charlemagne, but I've been rage-quitting with alt-f4 way more than I ever have before. Like now, when my council-spawned raiders got so angry at not being allowed to raid anyone that they abandoned me while I was raiding:

I think that's a feature in the new beta, right? Inactivity is only one month.

# ? Oct 28, 2014 22:54

Apoffys: Sep 5, 2011

I'm on 2.2.0.3, I think that's the newest beta. If that's a feature, it's a bloody stupid one. One month isn't enough time to do much of anything (I generally gather up my troops somewhere before sending them out, which takes time), and they were still raiding anyway in my opinion.

# ? Oct 28, 2014 23:00

Crazy Ted: Jul 29, 2003

You know...Elective Monarchy is a pretty good racket when you're the ruler of a small kingdom and have no direct vassals and thus the only vote. "Yes, yes, my three dear sons, you all want to inherit the kingdom, but guess what: you suck. Sigered, you can't manage money for poo poo. Saelred, you couldn't plot your way out of a box and you're weak. Cenfus, you're okay but you're still a bit dim. You know what? gently caress it. Sigered, the kingdom is going to your 13-year-old son because you managed you marry a genius". And then, you die a month later and the right man for the job inherits the kingdom:

Crazy Ted fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Oct 28, 2014

# ? Oct 28, 2014 23:01

Deceitful Penguin: Feb 16, 2011

Bort Bortles posted:

I still think it is mindboggling that the Catholics get so many holy orders and they get them immediately. They all immediately have full strength armies and can ALL be recruited by any Catholic immediately. Meanwhile everyone else gets a singular holy order that requires special circumstances (beyond the Crusader age or whatever starting).

Tedious as poo poo more like, especially as they've got free upkeep in a defensive holy war. Why, yes, it does make perfect sense that taking on the loving count of L�on is more bother than the half-dead remnant of the Umms because they lend/kick jews then hire every order under the sun.

# ? Oct 28, 2014 23:18

ninjahedgehog: Feb 17, 2011; It's time to kick the tires and light the fires, Big Bird.

Bort Bortles posted:

I still think it is mindboggling that the Catholics get so many holy orders and they get them immediately. They all immediately have full strength armies and can ALL be recruited by any Catholic immediately. Meanwhile everyone else gets a singular holy order that requires special circumstances (beyond the Crusader age or whatever starting).

To be fair, this is actually more-or-less historically accurate. I think most of the non-Catholic holy orders besides the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre and the Hashashin are at best legendary (Jomsvikings), not actually a militarized knightly order (Order of St. Anthony, Bektashi), long-extinct (Immortals), or in most cases completely hypothetical.

That said, it would be cool if there were more for other religions. Every single second after unpausing for the first time is crazy alt-history anyway, so why the hell not? The ability to found a holy order would be pretty cool too.

# ? Oct 28, 2014 23:18

KOraithER: May 13, 2007; Kids, go in the other room. Grown-up talk.

The way Elective works now actually feels more authentic to me. There's a bunch of examples from the Early Middle Ages where titles would hop between various branches of the family. The electors preferred picking an adult over a child, but occasionally they would choose the son of the previous ruler.

Examples:
Scotland
Asturias

# ? Oct 28, 2014 23:33

monster on a stick: Apr 29, 2013

KOraithER posted:

The way Elective works now actually feels more authentic to me. There's a bunch of examples from the Early Middle Ages where titles would hop between various branches of the family. The electors preferred picking an adult over a child, but occasionally they would choose the son of the previous ruler.

Examples:
Scotland
Asturias

The game already had Tanistry.

# ? Oct 28, 2014 23:45

telcontar: Dec 8, 2006

KOraithER posted:

The way Elective works now actually feels more authentic to me. There's a bunch of examples from the Early Middle Ages where titles would hop between various branches of the family. The electors preferred picking an adult over a child, but occasionally they would choose the son of the previous ruler.

Examples:
Scotland
Asturias

This is also how succession should work in non-Turkic Muslim realms.

# ? Oct 28, 2014 23:47

Arbitrary Coin: Feb 17, 2012; Cat Army
2nd Battalion

KOraithER posted:

The way Elective works now actually feels more authentic to me. There's a bunch of examples from the Early Middle Ages where titles would hop between various branches of the family. The electors preferred picking an adult over a child, but occasionally they would choose the son of the previous ruler.

Examples:
Scotland
Asturias

I though Elective was between member states of a collective, so no single dynasty ideally and Tanistry is more what you're describing?

# ? Oct 28, 2014 23:53

Reveilled: Apr 19, 2007; Take up your rifles

In all seriousness, the way elective should work is that your vassals get to vote on whether your eldest living son succeeds to the throne, with this almost always being a forgone conclusion that they do, and your vassals choosing the successor in the event of your not having any living sons, preferring any grandsons, brothers or nephews, but having no preference at all for other kinsmen over non-dynastic candidates.

That was pretty much how elective succession worked, at least in the Holy Roman Empire in this period. With a single edge case in which Henry IV disinherited his eldest living son for rebellion (which was massively contentious and led to his chosen successor rebelling too), Holy Roman Emperors did not pick anyone but their eldest living son so succeed them.

Electors in elective states should generally be very willing to endorse your choice, as long as your choice is your eldest living son. It might even be arguable that you shouldn't be able to pick anyone else unless your eldest son is rebelling or you have no sons, but if elective int he game allowed you to do that, all bets should be totally off with the electors just picking whoever they feel like.

# ? Oct 29, 2014 00:25

AAAAA! Real Muenster: Jul 12, 2008; My QB is also named Bort

ninjahedgehog posted:

To be fair, this is actually more-or-less historically accurate. I think most of the non-Catholic holy orders besides the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre and the Hashashin are at best legendary (Jomsvikings), not actually a militarized knightly order (Order of St. Anthony, Bektashi), long-extinct (Immortals), or in most cases completely hypothetical.

That said, it would be cool if there were more for other religions. Every single second after unpausing for the first time is crazy alt-history anyway, so why the hell not? The ability to found a holy order would be pretty cool too.

Oh yeah I understand that Paradox added them for a reason. But please point out when the Knights of Santiago left Spain to go win fame and renown helping Germans invade Denmark. The Hospitallers didnt even start out militarized. Most of the holy orders werent even founded till after the first crusade was successful and then the Hospitallers were more about caring for sick and wounded than fighting, the Tuetonic Order eventually settled in the South Baltic to raid the everloving poo poo out of the pagans in Lithuania; they didnt teleport around Europe every couple of years to campaign against Muslims in Spain one year then Muslims in the Holy Land the next.

And what if I am the Fylkir of the Norse and every time I push farther into Germany and I slaughter the Knights Templar stack five times throughout the war? Join the Knights Templar! Die in droves fighting the invincible Fylkir of the resurgent Norse Kingdom that took over Frisia! I could kill 100,000 Knights Templar and it wouldnt affect them or the Catholic religion one bit, they just keep regenerating.

edit: yeesh that turned into more of a rant than I intended. I dont feel that strongly about it or anything, but it is a tad annoying and bizarre that sometime in 1096 the First Crusade is called and *poof* FIVE Holy Orders of endlessly regenerating heavy infantry and friends pop into existence.

# ? Oct 29, 2014 00:45

BgRdMchne: Oct 31, 2011

The Knights of Rhodes were all peaceful doctors.

# ? Oct 29, 2014 00:48

Gniwu: Dec 18, 2002

Reveilled posted:

Electors in elective states should generally be very willing to endorse your choice, as long as your choice is your eldest living son. It might even be arguable that you shouldn't be able to pick anyone else unless your eldest son is rebelling or you have no sons, but if elective int he game allowed you to do that, all bets should be totally off with the electors just picking whoever they feel like.

But the problem isn't that all the bets are just off, it's that the electors will specifically NOT elect whomever you happen to pick for the job, even if they love you. That's more than just them ignoring your wishes due to having their own will - It's pointlessly spiteful and not fun. And it'll almost certainly endanger the kingdom and come back to bite them in the rear end, too!

Oh, and forget ever being able to get another woman elected again, I suppose. Too bad, I had a really cool Norse Queen take a huge chunk out of Karling Germany in my last game - With this and the also completely unnecessary 'No more Great Holy Wars for women!'-change (I didn't realize that was a problem that needed changing?? The reformed Germanic religion is all made up, anyway!), that kind of playthrough is probably going to be but a faint memory before long.

# ? Oct 29, 2014 01:16

GenderSelectScreen: Mar 7, 2010; I DON'T KNOW EITHER DON'T ASK ME; College Slice

I still can't figure out why they barred women from declaring Great Holy Wars. :psyduck:

# ? Oct 29, 2014 01:23

Gniwu: Dec 18, 2002

Hitlers Gay Secret posted:

I still can't figure out why they barred women from declaring Great Holy Wars.

Yeah, I've never heard a single complaint about that 'problem' since the release of The Old Gods, so I'm absolutely sure that this change happened on a whim and with no discussion beforehand. To be honest, it sounds like something that 'old Paradox' would do.

# ? Oct 29, 2014 01:31

Reveilled: Apr 19, 2007; Take up your rifles

Gimmick Account posted:

But the problem isn't that all the bets are just off, it's that the electors will specifically NOT elect whomever you happen to pick for the job, even if they love you. That's more than just them ignoring your wishes due to having their own will - It's pointlessly spiteful and not fun. And it'll almost certainly endanger the kingdom and come back to bite them in the rear end, too!

Oh, and forget ever being able to get another woman elected again, I suppose. Too bad, I had a really cool Norse Queen take a huge chunk out of Karling Germany in my last game - With this and the also completely unnecessary 'No more Great Holy Wars for women!'-change (I didn't realize that was a problem that needed changing?? The reformed Germanic religion is all made up, anyway!), that kind of playthrough is probably going to be but a faint memory before long.

I'm not talking about Elective as it is now, I agree that the way it works now is not fun or historical. My point is that justifying it historically either for or against the way it works now or worked before is pointless because the way it worked historically is that the ruler could never elect anyone but their eldest living son without provoking civil war. Elective has gone from being the best succession method to being pretty darn poor, but it's now arguably even worse than it was historically. The solution is not simply to change it back to the way it was before, it's to change it to the way it should be, a poor man's primogeniture, an acceptable state of affairs in the medium term, but not preferable to primogeniture. It's true that picking your heir is fun, and there should still be ways to do that, but the inexorable tide of this period in Europe was a move towards primogeniture succession, and there should be compelling gameplay reasons to want to do that, that generally outweigh the temptation to put your better son on the throne.

# ? Oct 29, 2014 01:39

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Basically what I'm hearing is that the latest patch+expansion massively reduced the fun factor of the game. That about right?

# ? Oct 29, 2014 01:49

Gniwu: Dec 18, 2002

Strudel Man posted:

Basically what I'm hearing is that the latest patch+expansion massively reduced the fun factor of the game. That about right?

Yeah. I hope Paradox realizes that soon enough and doesn't have to go through a 'ALL WORKING AS DESIGNED!! *quietly changes stuff back six months later*'-phase first. I would really like to play now. I even bought the expansion on launch, which is not something I've ever done before.

# ? Oct 29, 2014 01:57

CharlestheHammer: Jun 26, 2011; YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

Strudel Man posted:

Basically what I'm hearing is that the latest patch+expansion massively reduced the fun factor of the game. That about right?

Nah it is fine.

There are some really, really weird bugs that could do that to ya tho.

# ? Oct 29, 2014 01:59

Fuligin: Oct 27, 2010; wait what the fuck??

Strudel Man posted:

Basically what I'm hearing is that the latest patch+expansion massively reduced the fun factor of the game. That about right?

I don't really think so. If you really, really loved elective succession then maybe, but otherwise I think all the mechanical changes are pretty good. Tribal holdings are especially cool and work well with the beta patch changes. The only thing that really seems hosed right now is Decadence gain with Muslims, there's pretty much no cure for their blobbing at the moment. The Charlemagne bookmark itself isn't particularly exciting either, it's very similar to 867 but with its downsides significantly magnified (do you like Karling and Abbasid blobs? Then you're gonna love the next 700 years!).

# ? Oct 29, 2014 02:07

Average Bear: Apr 4, 2010

I need new and creative ways to off my first born, inferior son. I have elective gavelkind. He will get Denmark and Sweden (where all of my lands are) if I don't kill him off. Is my only recourse imprison-> execute and ride out the haters till death?

# ? Oct 29, 2014 02:11

monster on a stick: Apr 29, 2013

Gimmick Account posted:

Yeah, I've never heard a single complaint about that 'problem' since the release of The Old Gods, so I'm absolutely sure that this change happened on a whim and with no discussion beforehand. To be honest, it sounds like something that 'old Paradox' would do.

There are a bunch of changes that seem to be "programmer decided to change gameplay because reasons" instead of a game designer who has a lot more context about what players find enjoyable about the game and does it enhance that experience.

Reveilled posted:

I'm not talking about Elective as it is now, I agree that the way it works now is not fun or historical. My point is that justifying it historically either for or against the way it works now or worked before is pointless because the way it worked historically is that the ruler could never elect anyone but their eldest living son without provoking civil war. Elective has gone from being the best succession method to being pretty darn poor, but it's now arguably even worse than it was historically. The solution is not simply to change it back to the way it was before, it's to change it to the way it should be, a poor man's primogeniture, an acceptable state of affairs in the medium term, but not preferable to primogeniture. It's true that picking your heir is fun, and there should still be ways to do that, but the inexorable tide of this period in Europe was a move towards primogeniture succession, and there should be compelling gameplay reasons to want to do that, that generally outweigh the temptation to put your better son on the throne.

Electors can have a massive bonus (+50?) to your eldest-born son, so unless he's an infidel wrong-culture kinslayer imbred dwarf with a lisp, they're going to vote for him. I mean, half the fun of Elective for me was having a crop of meh kids and then finding some distant cousin who somehow managed to be a Grey Eminence Genius and nominating him/her to take over.

# ? Oct 29, 2014 02:16

Gniwu: Dec 18, 2002

Fuligin posted:

I don't really think so. If you really, really loved elective succession then maybe,

Yeah, hello, that's me.

Although I'm actually okay with electors being more independent-minded when it comes to making their choice. I just don't want them to basically flip me off for no reason.

I also do like all the tribal additions and some other things, so it's not all bad. But it hurts in all the wrong places!

# ? Oct 29, 2014 02:16

Ceciltron: Jan 11, 2007; Text BEEP to 43527 for the dancing robot!; Pillbug

Average Bear posted:

I need new and creative ways to off my first born, inferior son. I have elective gavelkind. He will get Denmark and Sweden (where all of my lands are) if I don't kill him off. Is my only recourse imprison-> execute and ride out the haters till death?

Court Chaplain, send him off to some other country.

# ? Oct 29, 2014 02:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 31, 2024 20:13

The Cheshire Cat: Jun 10, 2008; Fun Shoe

Ceciltron posted:

Court Chaplain, send him off to some other country.

That won't necessarily kill him right away though - I don't think they become disinherited just by being in a foreign prison.

Also wouldn't they already be out of the line of succession if you can make them Court Chaplain in the first place? (Assuming non-Muslim)

# ? Oct 29, 2014 02:26

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Crusader Kings II: I desperately want to be cucked by Satan

«‹›1029 »