Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Moon Slayer
Jun 19, 2007

DStecks posted:

Those kids will be of his dynasty though?

I knew I forgot something.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

DStecks
Feb 6, 2012

cock hero flux posted:

Just force convert them before the marriage and you do can do matri. You don't lose Sayyid if you convert.

Muslims can't matrimarry, so you'd need to execute some kind of trick shot where you convert to Christianity, get ag-cog succession, have no sons, get your daughter AND the sayyid to both convert to Christianity, matrimarry them, and wait until you're playing as the kid to convert back to Islam. We're talking about a ~60-year scheme during which all of your Muslim vassals will be very angry at you for not being Muslim.

Moon Slayer posted:

I knew I forgot something.

Yeah, I had a similar plan once, and got screwed by the same thing. To be a sayyid in Andalusia you either need to start elsewhere and migrate there, or use the ruler designer.

Bamford Brownstone
Jul 21, 2010
The other way would be to just take over the required territory to create the title. You just need to control Mecca and Medina or control Baghdad, Damascus and Jerusalem. Not quite the easiest thing to do when you're starting in Spain, but certainly doable once you get powerful.

http://www.ckiiwiki.com/Religious_head#Caliphates

quote:

For Shia, Sunni, Ibadi, Karijite, or Hurufi:

1000 Piety OR Sayyid(male-line relative of Mohammed) OR Mirza(son of a Sayyid mother)
(1000 Piety AND Sayyid) OR (control Mecca AND control Medina) OR (control Baghdad AND control Damascus AND control Jerusalem).

DStecks
Feb 6, 2012

So I'm doing a Navarra game, implementing a multi-generational scheme to merge the thrones of Navarra and Castille. My daughter is set to inherit Navarra, and her daughter (and heir) is already Queen of Castille. But my granddaughter is patrimarried to a man I cannot assassinate. My plan is to keep stabbing her kids as my daughter, until I'm playing as her at which point the plan is to get divorced; but since you can't kill your own kids, if I'd wind up as my granddaughter with living children of the wrong dynasty, is that basically a game over right there?

EDIT: Ultimogeniture could be an option, actually. Or hell, even elective.

Iseeyouseemeseeyou
Jan 3, 2011

Bamford Brownstone posted:

The other way would be to just take over the required territory to create the title. You just need to control Mecca and Medina or control Baghdad, Damascus and Jerusalem. Not quite the easiest thing to do when you're starting in Spain, but certainly doable once you get powerful.

http://www.ckiiwiki.com/Religious_head#Caliphates

This is what confused me you drat fools. Just marry your heir to a woman with the sayyid trait. Their children will inherit Mirza (Mizra?) and you can create it

Torrannor
Apr 27, 2013

---FAGNER---
TEAM-MATE
Aren't we due another dev diary? Or is that tomorrow?

Moon Slayer
Jun 19, 2007

Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:

This is what confused me you drat fools. Just marry your heir to a woman with the sayyid trait. Their children will inherit Mirza (Mizra?) and you can create it

Won't that just last one generation? Children of Mirza aren't Mirza. What happens to the Caliph title then?

Iseeyouseemeseeyou
Jan 3, 2011

Moon Slayer posted:

Won't that just last one generation? Children of Mirza aren't Mirza. What happens to the Caliph title then?

I would assume you'd keep the caliph title. Alternately just marry every generations heir to a sayyid.

Groogy
Jun 12, 2014

Tanks are kinda wasted on invading the USSR

Torrannor posted:

Aren't we due another dev diary? Or is that tomorrow?

Tomorrow

jwalrus
Jul 27, 2007
I've got a question about the stewardship focus. After getting out of tribalism, I got the option to build a castle in one of my provinces for cheap. The province in question had no city or temple. Could I use these events to fill every slot with a castle, or does it not fire if there's two open slots and no city/temple? Seems logical that the latter would be the case, or some similar limitation, but it got me wondering.

Roland Jones
Aug 18, 2011

by Nyc_Tattoo
I think someone else asked this earlier, but I'm really curious as to what constitutes being "caught in the conflict" for Silk Road routes. Just the owner being at war at all (even if they're the aggressor/the fighting is happening elsewhere), there being an army in that province, that province having been captured, or what? Hopefully it's not just "the owner is at war".

kingturnip
Apr 18, 2008

jwalrus posted:

I've got a question about the stewardship focus. After getting out of tribalism, I got the option to build a castle in one of my provinces for cheap. The province in question had no city or temple. Could I use these events to fill every slot with a castle, or does it not fire if there's two open slots and no city/temple? Seems logical that the latter would be the case, or some similar limitation, but it got me wondering.

This seems to be the code for the event:
code:
trigger = {
		owner = {
			ai = no
			has_focus = focus_rulership
			is_ruler = yes
			is_tribal = no
			wealth = 400
			NOT = { has_character_flag = architect_offer }
		}
		has_empty_holding = yes
		NOT = { has_global_flag = rulership_castle }
	}
	
	mean_time_to_happen = {
		months = 280
	}
	
	immediate = {
		owner = { set_global_flag = rulership_castle }
		if = {
			limit = { 
				owner = { job_treasurer = { stewardship = 5 } }
			}
			random_list = {
				75 = { 
					owner = { 
						character_event = { id = WoL.12003 }
						set_character_flag = architect_offer
					}
				}
				25 = { 
					owner = { 
						character_event = { id = WoL.12002 }
						set_character_flag = architect_offer
					}
				}
			}
		}
		if = {
			limit = {
				NOT = { owner = { job_treasurer = { stewardship = 5 } } }
			}
			owner = {
				character_event = { id = WoL.12001 }
				set_character_flag = architect_offer


I can never seem to read these things right, but someone might make sense of it. I think the last line means that if it's happened to your ruler once, it can't happen again.

The Cheshire Cat
Jun 10, 2008

Fun Shoe

kingturnip posted:

This seems to be the code for the event:

*snip*

I can never seem to read these things right, but someone might make sense of it. I think the last line means that if it's happened to your ruler once, it can't happen again.

Yes, you can have that event build you a castle even if you wouldn't normally be able to do it manually - I've had it fire in a province where I had no cities built. The actual code there only checks if there's an empty holding.

I'm not sure how global flags work compared to character flags, but from the look of it you can only get the event once (if you accept), even if your character dies and you take over as the heir. If you reject it that specific character won't get the event again but their heir can.

Iceblocks
Jan 5, 2013
Taco Defender
Do the Mongol hordes still lose their event troops after a certain amount of time has passed?

Dallan Invictus
Oct 11, 2007

The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes, look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.

The Cheshire Cat posted:

I'm not sure how global flags work compared to character flags, but from the look of it you can only get the event once (if you accept), even if your character dies and you take over as the heir. If you reject it that specific character won't get the event again but their heir can.

Global flags are set in the save game (if you open up a save game in Notepad++ you'll see a list of global flags and the dates they were set very near the top) so they are once per game for ANYONE (since that particular event is human-only this is not as big a problem as it sounds).

Presumably even in games where there are multiple human players only one could ever accept that event, which seems kind of nuts to me but I don't play much MP so maybe there's some weird workaround I don't know about.

Iseeyouseemeseeyou
Jan 3, 2011

Iceblocks posted:

Do the Mongol hordes still lose their event troops after a certain amount of time has passed?

Lol no, have fun

Volkerball
Oct 15, 2009

by FactsAreUseless
so wait you could hypothetically have 7 castles in a province through the stewardship focus?

Excelzior
Jun 24, 2013

jwalrus posted:

I've got a question about the stewardship focus. After getting out of tribalism, I got the option to build a castle in one of my provinces for cheap. The province in question had no city or temple. Could I use these events to fill every slot with a castle, or does it not fire if there's two open slots and no city/temple? Seems logical that the latter would be the case, or some similar limitation, but it got me wondering.

No such limit is currently coded, it just checks to make sure :
-that you're NOT a tribal,
-that you have 400 gold,
-that this character has not had that event already.

so with enough generations of rulership, you could fill all the holdings with castles.

e: fixed, it checks Tribalism and not paganism. Event WoL.12000 (hidden, it then rolls one of 3 sub-events for the various architects)

e: e: It also checks that you have an empty holding but that should go without saying.

Excelzior fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Jun 30, 2015

Music Theory
Aug 7, 2013

Avatar by Garden Walker

Excelzior posted:

No such limit is currently coded, it just checks to make sure :
-that you're NOT a tribal,
-that you have 400 gold,
-that this character has not had that event already.

so with enough generations of rulership, you could fill all the holdings with castles.

e: fixed, it checks Tribalism and not paganism. Event WoL.12000 (hidden, it then rolls one of 3 sub-events for the various architects)

e: e: It also checks that you have an empty holding but that should go without saying.

Wait, does reformed norse count as paganism? Because I swear I got that event as the Emperor of Scandinavia.

Groogy
Jun 12, 2014

Tanks are kinda wasted on invading the USSR

Roland Jones posted:

I think someone else asked this earlier, but I'm really curious as to what constitutes being "caught in the conflict" for Silk Road routes. Just the owner being at war at all (even if they're the aggressor/the fighting is happening elsewhere), there being an army in that province, that province having been captured, or what? Hopefully it's not just "the owner is at war".

Province is under siege or has fallen under control of someone who is not the owner (won siege)

This includes raiders

Roland Jones
Aug 18, 2011

by Nyc_Tattoo

Groogy posted:

Province is under siege or has fallen under control of someone who is not the owner (won siege)

This includes raiders

That's a good way to do it. Thanks for the answer.

Really looking forward to this DLC.

Though, looking at the last dev diary, I noticed something odd; in this picture of the Silk Road, Samarkand is labeled as Khiva, Ahvaz seems to be labeled Tigris, and so on. Is there something I'm missing here? Most of the provinces have the right names and are named individually (despite going through where the Abbasid blob would be, so it seems unlikely that it's just a matter of who owns what), so I'm not sure what's going on.

Charlz Guybon
Nov 16, 2010

Autonomous Monster posted:

Maybe, but Paradox seem determined to keep pushing the boundaries out, both chronologically and geographically. That genie isn't going back in its bottle. I figure the effort's better spent pushing to make it the best possible Old World 476-1453 simulator than trying to stop it altogether.

Why stop at 1453? Politically I think the system could handle going out to at least 1648, though the rise in importance of the American colonies means going that far out is impossible. I think extending it to at least 1521 is doable though.

Charlz Guybon
Nov 16, 2010

Chaotic Flame posted:

I still haven't really grasped the inviting claimants to court since most people don't want to come to my court. And don't they have to be your vassal for their claim to become part of your territory?

I've still expanded to empire status thanks to good marriages and some careful plotting though.

I did this recently in my warhammer game. Married the rebelling countess in Averland as the Emperor of Imperial Reikland. I had a son already, so I gave the son I sired on her a barony, and arranged things so his Mom got the throne, expecting that once he inherited he'd still be my vassal. I'm sure this has worked for me before in the base game, but it didn't here.

I wonder if the reason he became independent is that I built the castle in a county that is a dejure part of Averland because I didn't want too many overlapping claims. Thoughts?

EDIT: A reading further, I think it's because my Empire is titular and I have no dejure vassals.

The Cheshire Cat posted:

They do if they aren't kin, but "vassal" can be anything - give them a barony and it still counts even if you press their claim for a kingdom (at least as long as you're an emperor - even if they are a vassal if you press a claim for a title equal or higher than your own they'll still become independent). I believe they'll also be a vassal if the title is de jure part of your territory, although you don't really need to invite claimants for those anyway since you already have a CB.

The real pro way to do it though is to marry a claimant to someone of your dynasty, and then press the claim when their child inherits it. Not only will they still be your vassal since they're a member of your dynasty, but you can raise the child yourself to ensure they're content (or at least, not ambitious), making them unlikely to cause trouble with their new power.

Charlz Guybon fucked around with this message at 12:58 on Jun 30, 2015

binge crotching
Apr 2, 2010

The Cheshire Cat posted:

I'm not sure how global flags work compared to character flags, but from the look of it you can only get the event once (if you accept), even if your character dies and you take over as the heir. If you reject it that specific character won't get the event again but their heir can.

The immediate clause on the global flag means that it can only happen once, regardless if you hit accept or not. That said, the global flag has an owner scope set for some reason, so it might not be set properly. I've never tried setting a global flag under an owner scope, so if it doesn't work right you could have that event fire once for every ruler.

Torrannor
Apr 27, 2013

---FAGNER---
TEAM-MATE
New dev diary!

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/weekly-dev-diary-8-map-changes-and-modding.866960/

We will continue to use the Rajas map, they only added 27 new counties to it. There's also a ton of new modding options that I don't understand, but will probably make the modding people very happy.

Banishing no longer confiscates all titles of the holder, he instead abdicates to his next heir. That's probably going to make North Korea mode even more difficult,

Other highlights are the option to freely move prisoners between house arrest, the dungeon and the oubliette (finally!), and an adjustment to tribal lands so that it becomes worthwhile to raid them.

Excelzior
Jun 24, 2013

oh man keep nerfing North Korea mode guys it's totally not a colossal waste of everyone's time when you spend man-hours on preventing a specific subgroup of players from ENJOYING THEMSELVES, usually resulting in unintended disadvantages for every single other player as the "world conquest players" just loving route around your latest roadblock.

Moridin920
Nov 15, 2007

by FactsAreUseless
I don't get why you'd be mad about the banish thing considering you can still just revoke their titles one by one for the same opinion hit and then banish/execute them. :shrug:

As someone who paints the map, I like the change. I usually just want some fucker vassal out of power, it doesn't matter who gets the titles next. Usually it's just because of an ambitious trait or whatever and the heir is fine. In cases where you are a republic with elected vassals or if you've got imperial administration I don't see that it would even matter as you'd either get a totally brand new vassal or get the titles back anyway.

It's not hard to take over the world. Form an empire, create some vassal kingdoms, don't jack crown authority so high they have no one to fight but you, and let them expand your borders. They have all the levies of a kingdom at their disposal to take land like mad but almost no one ever attacks them back because they'd have to deal with the entire empire. I used to stop at medium authority which lets you revoke infidel titles for free and stops vassal infighting, but last game I stayed at low and the infighting actually basically prevented any one king vassal from getting very strong and the situations where I wanted to revoke an infidel title weren't that many in the end (and I just demanded conversion instead).

In fact I don't think I've used the banish option more than once or twice ever in my hundreds of hours of playing this game because either the vassal only has a couple titles I can just revoke or they have so many that I can't afford the opinion hit to banish them and seize all their titles.

The only real thing you have to deal is the vassal cap but even with the lowest centralization I was able to have a 7 holding large demense fielding a personal levy of 20k and a massive gently caress off retinue. 48 or so vassals should be more than enough to take pretty much everything except for maybe India if you're making the occasional king level vassal here and there.

Right now in my CK2 game it is ~1320 and the Fylkirate owns the entire map except for the steppes (because useless land anyway), a tiny piece of the Middle East (the entire Arabian peninsula is mine though including the holy lands) and India (although I do have Ceylon and a bit of coast near it). My vassal count is 42/48 (and I could even tweak that down further if I consolidated some weak vassals together) and between my personal levy and retinue I have at least 80k troops. Not to mention I'm a republic with so much money that I could hire every single mercenary and keep them on retainer until the game ends in another 120 years if I wanted.

And I didn't even use the console this game. North Korea mode ain't that hard get over it.

Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Jun 30, 2015

Excelzior
Jun 24, 2013

Moridin920 posted:

wall of text

I wish you could somehow colossally miss the point even harder. It's beautiful, I want to frame your post.

"MY NORSE REPUBLIC WAS EASY :argh:"
"I DIDN"T EVEN HAVE TO CHEAT (this time) :argh:"
"WORLD CONQUEST ISN'T HARD :argh:"

It took you 400 years, whereas north Korea mode aims for ....about....25. You're not even within an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE of what is being discussed.

Groogy
Jun 12, 2014

Tanks are kinda wasted on invading the USSR

Excelzior posted:

oh man keep nerfing North Korea mode guys it's totally not a colossal waste of everyone's time when you spend man-hours on preventing a specific subgroup of players from ENJOYING THEMSELVES, usually resulting in unintended disadvantages for every single other player as the "world conquest players" just loving route around your latest roadblock.

North Korea is still a thing?
Not why we did it but if you wanna qq for it go ahead

Roland Jones
Aug 18, 2011

by Nyc_Tattoo

Excelzior posted:

oh man keep nerfing North Korea mode guys it's totally not a colossal waste of everyone's time when you spend man-hours on preventing a specific subgroup of players from ENJOYING THEMSELVES, usually resulting in unintended disadvantages for every single other player as the "world conquest players" just loving route around your latest roadblock.

This is dumb. Getting someone's titles for banishing them doesn't even make sense in context; that's not how things worked in the past, as far as I'm aware, and it's kind of egregious since it's far and away the best option. Heck, it's not even listed as a "North Korea mode" nerf, it's just listed as a thing; it's the post you're responding to that described it as such. You're throwing a fit over a speculated reason for changing a thing that was extremely silly previously.

AdjectiveNoun
Oct 11, 2012

Everything. Is. Fine.
Only complete losers like North Korea mode. Play the loving game and stop whinging about how you can't make everything trivially easy in 25 years of gameplay.

Moridin920
Nov 15, 2007

by FactsAreUseless

Excelzior posted:

I wish you could somehow colossally miss the point even harder. It's beautiful, I want to frame your post.

"MY NORSE REPUBLIC WAS EASY :argh:"
"I DIDN"T EVEN HAVE TO CHEAT (this time) :argh:"
"WORLD CONQUEST ISN'T HARD :argh:"

It took you 400 years, whereas north Korea mode aims for ....about....25. You're not even within an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE of what is being discussed.

Actually it took me about one lifetime to form Scandinavia and take half of England (1-2 wars and you can form the Kingdom of Svipjod and vassalize everyone else and then press a claim on Denmark) and if I really wanted to be at constant war instead of take my time and watch Star Trek in the background I probably could have snatched most of Europe in about 100 years.

There's no fuckin' way you were ever doing world conquest in 25 years even when game came out sorry. I've been playing since release and you're just talking nonsense.

The republic was easy just because of the money but usually I just go feudal and it isn't really any harder. There's just some more vassal management required but 'some more' is trivial considering a republic's vassal management is pretty much nonexistent.

NK mode is some retarded poo poo for idiots who can't figure out how to get good, it's hilarious really.

cock hero flux
Apr 17, 2011



Excelzior posted:

oh man keep nerfing North Korea mode guys it's totally not a colossal waste of everyone's time when you spend man-hours on preventing a specific subgroup of players from ENJOYING THEMSELVES, usually resulting in unintended disadvantages for every single other player as the "world conquest players" just loving route around your latest roadblock.

There's literally nothing stopping you from just stripping all of their titles and it gives you roughly the same amount of tyranny anyway and the old way that banishment worked didn't make any sense.

I figure it's more of an alternative to execution that's "I want this guy to die but if I execute him I'll get Kinslayer and/or piss off a bunch of important people so instead he can just gently caress off forever".

Moridin920
Nov 15, 2007

by FactsAreUseless

cock hero flux posted:

There's literally nothing stopping you from just stripping all of their titles and it gives you roughly the same amount of tyranny anyway and the old way that banishment worked didn't make any sense.

also this.

Like I said nothing prevents you from taking all their titles anyway and the old banishment was dumb and only useful as a shortcut for your one weird play style.

cock hero flux posted:

I figure it's more of an alternative to execution that's "I want this guy to die but if I execute him I'll get Kinslayer and/or piss off a bunch of important people so instead he can just gently caress off forever".

which is exactly what I want.

Excelzior posted:

"I DIDN"T EVEN HAVE TO CHEAT (this time) :argh:"


also lol you're one of those people that gets mad about cheating in single player games, aren't you? Yeah I use the console sometimes :wow:

Sometimes I wanna see interesting event chains without sitting on my couch for 5 hours waiting ya know?

It's always the people that are super angry about 'cheating' but then have zero issues with exploiting the gently caress out of a game to make it trivial because 'still working within the confines of the rules technically :shepface:'

Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Jun 30, 2015

binge crotching
Apr 2, 2010

Moridin920 posted:

There's no fuckin' way you were ever doing world conquest in 25 years even when game came out sorry. I've been playing since release and you're just talking nonsense.

Why do you think it got so nerfed? There were videos of people doing a world conquest in a single ruler's lifetime. Usually starting with the Magyars because of the crazy event troops they got.

Moridin920
Nov 15, 2007

by FactsAreUseless

SeaTard posted:

Why do you think it got so nerfed? There were videos of people doing a world conquest in a single ruler's lifetime. Usually starting with the Magyars because of the crazy event troops they got.

I meant in regular play using a regular dude.

Yeah if I tag to the Golden Horde right when they invade with their 200k doomstack and tribal conquest CBs and no attrition then sure. This new banish change isn't going to stop you if that's what you want. But you're not conquering the world as Ireland in 900 or whatever in a couple decades.

It's still trivial to do a world conquest in ~150 years if you put your mind to it :shrug:

And you can also NK mode by picking a tribal start and then you get a decision that gives a free 2500 army for 500 prestige. Then go on a spree; the battles/wars give more prestige for more event troops and you can ransom people back for mad money. Always be at war and your massive tribal army will never disappear. You can also spam more event troops with your 3 councilors.

Basically poo poo's easy and if you are mad about banish then lol at you change it back it's probably a simple change in the files.

Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Jun 30, 2015

Groogy
Jun 12, 2014

Tanks are kinda wasted on invading the USSR


Actually we have a beta who can manage to conquer the entire world in like a couple of years. 3-8 years or something depending on the Rng.

Groogy fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Jun 30, 2015

Freudian
Mar 23, 2011

Groogy posted:

Actually we have a beta who can manage to conquer the entire world in like a couple of years. 3-8 years or something depending on the Rng.

I'm afraid that's witchcraft and you're obliged under Swedish law to have them executed, or else to fine them not less than 4 riksdaler per offence.

Elias_Maluco
Aug 23, 2007
I need to sleep

Groogy posted:

Actually we have a beta who can manage to conquer the entire world in like a couple of years. 3-8 years or something depending on the Rng.

I would like to see a video of this, please

Ive done "almost world conquer" (almost because when you are stronger then everybody by a large margin it becomes too boring and I drop) several times, but never in less then 200-300 years (never used "NK mode" either).

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

kingturnip
Apr 18, 2008
My Mongol Jain Empire of Britannia was just crusaded.
Sadly for the catholic idiots, the Pope led the charge at the first battle.

As it happens, it was also the only battle of the crusade.

  • Locked thread