|
AdjectiveNoun posted:What if they're not allies, and the Saxons are just raiding you? A 4000 man raiding stack to raid a tribal county with no loot in 775 seems somewhat unlikely.
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:Anyway, they are now married and I get an inheritence warning. He is now King of Lothlorien and I think the inheritance issue came up when when they had their first child. Did I maybe make a mistake and the kid is on the mother's dynasty? Or did him becoming King of Lothlorien overpower his later title of King of Aragon as he hasn't claimed it yet? Lotharingia is the name of the kingdom. You can check - go to your son or his wife's page and it'll show what sort of marriage it is under the portrait of the spouse. If it's got the venus sign on the front it's matrilineal if it's the mars sign it's not. You can hold the pointer over it and it'll tell you as well. I'm pretty sure there's a bug with it though because it always shows whatever land my heir controls as "about to leave my kingdom" when it plainly isn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
I find that up to a point, having 10x the amount of people in a stack when you force a siege is how to go. So 600 you would want 6000 not to take major losses. As for the 1700 versus 122, you had full moral? If you find you're losing a siege after you force it, just move you guys away and it will cancel the action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Yeah assaulting with just twice the amount of troops is just insane 6 or 7 times is the best place to start considering assaulting. Hell there's a chance with twice the number you'll fail a regular siege.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Rumda posted:Yeah assaulting with just twice the amount of troops is just insane 6 or 7 times is the best place to start considering assaulting. Hell there's a chance with twice the number you'll fail a regular siege. Yeah, if it's near the end of the war and you're trying to get war score up quickly then I'll go lower than 10x, but if it's an even match (his levies versus yours), it can be risky to lose a bunch of men assaulting holdings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Anything under 10x and you're going to take insane losses unless your besieging force is heavy on archers. Now those goddamned Welsh retinues can wipe a siege clean at like 6x.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim. Noice
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Rumda posted:Yeah assaulting with just twice the amount of troops is just insane 6 or 7 times is the best place to start considering assaulting. Hell there's a chance with twice the number you'll fail a regular siege. I didn't care my losses. If I could have completed that siege successfully before that 4k stack got to me, I would have had 100% warscore despite massive casualties, and been able to end the war before it got to me. Assaulting was my only hope because the stack was like a week away. Normally I wouldn't assault with that low a ratio. I thought in the past that I'd have won, albeit with massive casualties. Maybe things changed. And the 1700 stack was indeed at full morale, being my personal levy in 778 or so, so almost entirely light infantry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:being my personal levy in 778 or so, so almost entirely light infantry. Yeah, there's your problem. Light infantry are completely useless. When calculating your numbers vs. their numbers, just remove your light infantry from the calculation, they don't count.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Yeah, there's your problem. Light infantry are completely useless. When calculating your numbers vs. their numbers, just remove your light infantry from the calculation, they don't count. That's not true when everyone's numbers is 95% LI and Archers that early in the game. I've had luck assaulting with that before, although I probably had more archers. I really didn't need them to come out well, I just needed it to succeed and I was just somewhat surprised that it outright failed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
So, uh, every single one of the Indian rulers in my game have Arab portraits. I'm not running any mods, and I'm running all the DLC and the latest beta patch. What? e: my checksum is ZQXO, like it's meant to be. e: nm, apparently it's a bug in the beta patch that they decided to live with rather than delay. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:There are lots of benefits. First of all some succession types give you a penalty for having I landed sons--mainly anything but gavelkind. What is more, you will get events where they ask you to land them and if you blow them off long enough they'll leave your court and show back up with an adventurer horde to steal your titles. While they accumulate a piddly amount of prestige for being a count, they get a host of events, and 9 times out of 10 the AI chooses very badly and completely screws up your heir's traits. Meanwhile, the prestige loss for having unlanded heirs isn't significant once you have a kingdom title. Never land your sons unless you have compelling reasons to do so (Muslim open inheritance for example).
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice people. Looks like the grandchild is Aragonian, and the inheritance warning message is either a bug or more likely HRE related. I didn't think I was that big but I just won the Crusade for Jerusalem and bow I have even more land which is guess I have to give away or something? There's no vassal that I can really give it to. I know that's a common issue though so I'll Google it. But my army is so big that when I get Loth too maybe I will be big enough to take the HRE or become independent. Or if its too much hassle I can pass the two kingdoms on to different kids I guess. Will be good to get some HRE experience. Maybe I'll take the plunge with another religion or region one day!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
The AI is bad at picking event choices, but sometimes it ends up with really kickass rulers despite that. I wonder how that happens, are there "lucky" dynasties that have a better ability to pick traits?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
NihilVerumNisiMors posted:The AI is bad at picking event choices, but sometimes it ends up with really kickass rulers despite that. I wonder how that happens, are there "lucky" dynasties that have a better ability to pick traits? The choices the AI makes during events are influenced by the traits it already has, so if it has lots of good traits from childhood it will continue to make good choices in adulthood (there are some exceptions - zealous makes them make horrible choices if educating a child for example)
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
Yeah the player can make an enlightened cost-benefit analysis for each choice but the AI will go with what makes sense for their traits. Using zealous (because it comes up a lot) a tutor will almost always pick the "pray for his soul!" option when that comes up. That choice has really bad odds of a good outcome. So if you hand them off to someone with good traits, sometimes through luck and good decision making, something good comes of it. Generally you just do it cause you have spare kids who will never see the throne and its a great way to get someone to like you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I am trying to play a game through where I only have a small Empire/large Kingdom by game end, but Catholics are all dead/gone and my lineage is on as many Norse Thrones in not-Catholic Europe as possible. From a few pages ago, but:     I did this a while ago, pre-Charlemagne. I ran that game all the way until 1444 and by that point the homogeneous world was so boring that most of the Middle-East was Norse, too. My proudest moment was when I saw Vikings from the coast of Saudi Arabia raiding India.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
What's up with the Paulician dominance in the Byzantine?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:I did this a while ago, pre-Charlemagne. I ran that game all the way until 1444 and by that point the homogeneous world was so boring that most of the Middle-East was Norse, too. My proudest moment was when I saw Vikings from the coast of Saudi Arabia raiding India. I saw a prepared invasion of Rajputana  OK, I'd like to try an Islamic run. I'm still running 2.1.6 because retinues and I prefer weaker vassals. Is the latest beta in good shape now, even without owning CM?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Martello posted:What's up with the Paulician dominance in the Byzantine? It was a while ago so I can't really remember. I think at the 867 start date there's already a sizable Paulician presence among the Byzantines? I know for sure that at one point it flipped so that Orthodoxy became the heresy. It all became Norse later anyways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:It was a while ago so I can't really remember. I think at the 867 start date there's already a sizable Paulician presence among the Byzantines? I know for sure that at one point it flipped so that Orthodoxy became the heresy. It all became Norse later anyways. Barring player intervention, Orthodoxy in general doesn't do very well at any start date earlier than 1066 or so. Because there are so many more Catholic missionaries running around than Orthodox ones, most of the pagans turn Catholic, even the ones in modern-day Russia that historically converted to Orthodoxy. And of course Byzantium itself turns Catholic fairly often also. Incidentally, in my current 769-start game, literally the only Catholic regions left at the turn of the millennium are the Empire of Francia, ruled by Charlemagne's descendents, and the British Isles. Byzantium fell to the Bulgarians, of all people, before a crusade took back Greece and split the empire between the Catholic Greeks and an Iconoclast Iconium (fitting, really). Then the Abbasids swallowed Greece and the king of Iconium managed to install a cousin on the throne of Italy, which over the course of the next hundred years or so turned Iconoclast also. I think the Pope is hanging out in Flanders or something, and naturally heresies are popping up like goddamn prairie dogs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
I don't know why it is, but it's happened in my Abyssinia game as well: firstly the whole of Eastern Europe goes Orthodox and then Byz goes Paulician. I figure it's something to do with the Chaplain heresy event? I know others have seen the other Orthodox heresy instead and maybe it's down to the Byz emperors being absurdly powerful and stable already (I haven't seen Macedon lose the throne once, or even to a fellow dynasty member).
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
It's weird that the CK2 end date doesn't align with the EU4 start date. You can play CK2 to 1453 or whatever then export it to EU4 and you go back in time to 1444.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Kly posted:It's weird that the CK2 end date doesn't align with the EU4 start date. You can play CK2 to 1453 or whatever then export it to EU4 and you go back in time to 1444. It's all based around the fall of Constantinople. People would be less than happy if you couldn't resurrect the Byzantines in EU4.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm finishing up a game soon where Paulician dominated Orthodox, though the only two places that still carry that religion are the HRE (which was a funny change), and a sizable kingdom of Armenia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
I haven't played much CK2 in a long while but am going to now that I realized the Charlemagne DLC is already out. Are they going to keep making more CK2 DLC? I think it would be cool if they kept going further back in time to just after the end of the Roman Empire, or maybe with part of it still around. I don't know too much about the later parts of the Roman Empire or the early Middle Ages but when is the earliest point in which something like Feudalism appears?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Mustang posted:I haven't played much CK2 in a long while but am going to now that I realized the Charlemagne DLC is already out. Are they going to keep making more CK2 DLC? I think it would be cool if they kept going further back in time to just after the end of the Roman Empire, or maybe with part of it still around. somewhere between the Charlemagne start date and the original start date if at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Martello posted:What's up with the Paulician dominance in the Byzantine? When you take over Europe as a pagan, the moral authority of Catholics and Orthodox suffer so badly from lost holy wars and holy sites that heresies become legitimately powerful. In my Polish/Reformed Slavic game all of Italia was Lollard and Spain was Fraticelli or something before I conquered both, and by like 1000 or something there were more heretic Christian rulers than Catholic/Orthodox.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
So what's the best place to expand once you've secured Afghanistan as the Zunbil? I've got the whole kingdom and I'm insulated from the Abbasids by breakaway Muslims. I'm making pretty good money. Should I save up for mercenaries and push right away for my third holy site across the mountains?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Re: Assaulting Fortifications There is a reason this was not done often in the ancient or medieval world, and the preference--if you have the time--is to wait for people to starve or work very hard over a prolonged period to undermine the besieged defenses. What being abstracted in the game is this: your 1400 guys are assaulting less than half their number, sure. But those 600 guys are in an extremely well prepared defensive position with tiny interior lines. Meaning there are 600 guys in the best kind of cover you can imagine, with clear lines of fire standing on walls at least 10 feet above your 1400 guys. Your 1400 guys, since you aren't taking the time to build siege engines and waiting it out, need to run up to the walls with loving ladders, while being shot at with arrows by guys they can't really shoot back. Your men then need to stick the ladders against the wall and climb them while armored. The whole time they are climbing, of course the 600 dudes are pushing your ladders over, dropping poo poo on your men's faces, and shooting your men with arrows. After facing this, if your soldiers get to the top of the ladder, even though you "outnumber" the enemy 2:1, the first over will be facing at least 3 defenders for every one of them. Now imagine how easy of a job that it for the defender. And since you only outnumber them 2:1, you don't really have the manpower to assault all the walls. You will have to pick one, and if you do manage to start getting the upper hand, the minuscule interior lines of the fortifications (at least with castles) means your enemy can quickly move reinforcements from other parts of their fortifications in time to contain you. Edit And if this doesn't work for you, think real hard about static defenses in WW1 and why they were so loving effective for 3 1/2 years at murdering millions. What do my  mean in CK2?In game terms this means you need 10x the number of the defender to not take huge casualties when assaulting fortifications. There are also other variables that effect the outcome of an assault, like the fortification level of the castle/city/bishopric, the type and quality of the assaulting soldiers, siege tech level, etc. ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
The movie Ironclad is a great example of a failed assault followed by a long siege.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
I gave this ten confusing minutes an eon ago, gonna fire it back up and click stuff and be puzzled by the vocabulary like a ten year old.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Captain Diarrhoea posted:I gave this ten confusing minutes an eon ago, gonna fire it back up and click stuff and be puzzled by the vocabulary like a ten year old. Watch a video of someone else playing first. I recommend Arumba.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Arumba is great. Also I'd suggest playing a small independent count (or perhaps duke) surrounded by other small fries; Ireland is recommended as newbie island for that reason. Starting off as a king is tempting but you have to learn the mechanics of dealing with vassals in addition to basic gameplay at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Captain Diarrhoea posted:I gave this ten confusing minutes an eon ago, gonna fire it back up and click stuff and be puzzled by the vocabulary like a ten year old. I've been streaming it somewhat often lately at twitch.tv/erectorbeast, I'd be happy to show you what I'm doing if you dropped by while I was playing it. Same goes for anyone else. Once you get past the at-first-overwhelming number of menus and options, the picture suddenly becomes very clear and there is not even that much to manage 95% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:From a few pages ago, but: This is from a year ago, but a roman empire game I did, the AI, in control of a unified Scandinavian Fylkirate, managed to do this:  This was how it ended up going into EU4:  
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Weird, never seen Christian Mongols before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Mustang posted:Weird, never seen Christian Mongols before. Speaking of which, do Jain Mongols still get the invasion CB plus the +30 vassal opinion for being "pacifists"? I know that was a thing for a while, but I'm not sure if Paradox fixed the glitch yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Mustang posted:Weird, never seen Christian Mongols before. By the time the Il-Khanate invaded there were literally only two religions left on the map, Norse and Orthodox, and since the Il-Khanate had invaded my territory (indeed, I deliberately lost to them), Orthodox was literally the only religion they could convert to. The Golden Horde, meanwhile, went Norse, as had Mali.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
Thanks for the offers of help but it's too late, I've married my brother to the teenage princess of England and brought her in on my plot to kill my wife. And I do not know why or what advantage this could ever afford me, except that my imagination made it funny I guess. Click click click My only question so far is the timescale of management - should I be letting months pass by at a time, or are you generally micromanaging a lot more? I've pretty much sailed through my first year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:07
|
|