|
Romuva should probably get more attention seeing as they kept on trucking for almost 400 year after Norse paganism went out of fashion and that longevity should give them at least bit of an edge. You could also argue that "Suemensko" is still a thing among some Sami and Mari people who simply incorporated christian elements into their paganism.
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
I will not rest until we have everything up to and including a fully featured Mithraic Mysteries in the game.  (Serious talk: I find the mystery religions really cool despite the fact that we know basically nothing about them. Maybe because of that.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Groogy posted:Got it, I'll add more stuff to the Zunbils. Alternatively, add more stuff to the Aztecs so the paradox forums have a meltdown.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
By far the worst part of these tiny religions like Romuva and Suemensko and the various heresies is that they never spread. I guess if you reform the pagan faiths you can send your court chaplain to other non-reformed pagans but that seems to never work. So in my Romuva game I have no real brothers in the faith to compete with. Similarly, in the Fraticelli game, my empire and dynasty has just a ridiculous amount of land, prestige, and wealth, but since we're the only Fraticelli realm in existence, it's just a mopup operation against the scattered Catholics and Pagans because nobody shows up to the Catholic Crusades or the Norse GHWs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
IDK what I'm trying to say really. I guess by the time you get big enough that nobody will dare Holy War you even when you're weak, you don't have many goals left to strive for. Maybe the whole province defects to heresy thing from low MA should have a chance of affecting it's ruler too, and they defect to the heresy with the highest MA instead of a random one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:I will not rest until we have everything up to and including a fully featured Mithraic Mysteries in the game. Boy, have I got the mod for you  More seriously, Slavic is probably the pagan religion that feels the least satisfying at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:IDK what I'm trying to say really. I guess by the time you get big enough that nobody will dare Holy War you even when you're weak, you don't have many goals left to strive for. Maybe the whole province defects to heresy thing from low MA should have a chance of affecting it's ruler too, and they defect to the heresy with the highest MA instead of a random one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Aside from Pagans, which definitely need some work, some more features for the tiny Christian sects like Nestorianism and various heresies would be nice, too. Also, I'd love to see Manichaeism get some unique stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:I will not rest until we have everything up to and including a fully featured Mithraic Mysteries in the game. They wouldn't be very good mystery religions if they weren't mysterious would they?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Boy, have I got the mod for you Lux Invicta? Man, I hated that poo poo. The whole thing that makes religion interesting is how it forces unities on otherwise disparate peoples or splits otherwise homogeneous blocs. Everyone having their own snowflake religion defeats the entire point. FreudianSlippers posted:They wouldn't be very good mystery religions if they weren't mysterious would they? Well yeah, it's pretty obvious why we don't know anything about them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Heresies and non-Norse pagans are in fact the parts of the game that could use the most attention! By far they seem the most haphazardly put together aspect now that almost everything else has gotten a polish since its first implementation. While we're wish thinking.. They did a good job making theocracies unique and fun in EU4, let's start small and make them actually playable in CK2, eh?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Even though I don't like it, I think it has been said many times now that there will not be playable Theocracies in the game sadly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
I wish we could do away with dynasties. If only so we could play theocracies and republics. And don't say "play EUIV  " because it's not the same.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 02:19
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Romuva should probably get more attention seeing as they kept on trucking for almost 400 year after Norse paganism went out of fashion and that longevity should give them at least bit of an edge. You could also argue that "Suemensko" is still a thing among some Sami and Mari people who simply incorporated christian elements into their paganism. The Romuva also need to get that Jewish exile event, there was quite a large Jewish population in pagan Lithuania because they were very tolerant.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Groogy posted:Yeah was what I was thinking, I always had a daughter that had like 25-30 martial and amazing traits for being a commander and I would look at her "Aaaaw poo poo why can't you replace your good-for nothing brother?" IT also will be a pretty rare occurrence so when it happens it will be like how it happened for Eric here this one bad rear end queen who carves her own Kingdom by use of Bohemian Steel. If you are looking for historical accuracy there is also basis for it, there's a big Wiki page only dedicated to listing martial commanders of the medieval ages of the fairer sex, majority of them being either Regents to sons or Rulers themselves. By jupiters cock I will see the roman pantheon in this game! Re: doing saints, I was trying to name saints as The Martyr of <death place> if they were executed/killed in battle/died in dungeon, but by the time the on_death action triggers their location is reverted back to their capital, so I think I'll have to go with the generic Martyr for them. Looking at loving around with their title names to get Saint to appear at the start, because nicknames are suffix only. Solemn Sloth fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Jul 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Boy, have I got the mod for you the Slavics are well developed compared to West Africans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Groogy posted:All female rulers can lead their own armies since 2.4, made a lot of people angry because of reason: "We are going to see female commanders fuckin everywhere! Damned SJW's ruining our game!" I like this change and I'm glad it's intended rather than just a bug resulting from "rulers are automatically considered commanders in their own realm". It was always annoying to have a female ruler with really kickass Martial skill and combat traits and yet not have them able to lead battles. Sure you'd still get a big levy from it, but it just seemed cooler to have a badass warrior queen leading her troops from the front. I'd thought about modding it in somehow in the past but I wasn't sure how to implement it in such a way where female rulers could be appointed to lead armies but also not allow you to appoint female vassals as commanders (since it seemed like it wouldn't really fit the concept to have some random female baron leading your troops). It seems like the new system handles all that exactly how I wanted it. Are there any plans to open up Muslims or Merchant Republics to be moddable to allow for female successors/matri-marriages? I understand how for MR's it would be a bit tricky because of a few edge cases like what happens if a Patrician marries a Patricienne, but I'm still not really sure why Muslims are hard-coded to not allow for matrilineal marriage? Hitlers Gay Secret posted:I wish we could do away with dynasties. If only so we could play theocracies and republics. Yeah the dynastic focus of the game is what scuttles the idea of playable theocracies. The closest you can get are things like the Fylkirite or Caliphates where it's a feudal as well as religious title. At the same time the dynastic element is what makes the game more interesting than just playing as an abstract nation. I suppose you could have it set up so that you don't game over if your heir isn't a member of your dynasty when playing a Theocracy/Republic (similar to what happens if you manage to get yourself in control of a mercenary company now), but that still seems like it's just fundamentally breaking away from the one aspect of the original concept the game has actually stuck to. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Jul 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
I actually reformed the tengri faith as nomads yesterday, I'd set up family members as all of my priests, so when a high priest was chosen it picked my brother? Then I died before my sons came of age. I was my brother, the high priest of the tengri church, as well as being the khagan. I didn't seem to have any cool powers, but it was nice that I didn't just lose the game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Khaganate does not pass to your first born, but to the most prestigious. Your brother must have had the most. I've had it do things like pass to uncles before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Oh yeah I knew that, the weird part was that I was also, apparently, a theocracy, since it shows me as the head of the religion as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Some religious head titles are funny like that. If you reform it, then it is your title to grant or keep. If you reform the Norse faith then you can be both the top level feudal or republican ruler, and the head of faith.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
quote:- Fixed a bug where many coats of arms were black when running the game without CoA DLCs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Another Person posted:Khaganate does not pass to your first born, but to the most prestigious. Your brother must have had the most. I've had it do things like pass to uncles before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Yes, I see "no heir of your dynasty" far more frequently than anything else. If nothing else, settling down to an organized dynastic structure to have more valid heirs could be a reason to stop being nomadic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I think it can only pass to sons or brothers. This can itself be problematic, as if you have a lot of sons but your elder brother doesn't, it can pass to him, and then he dies before having any sons himself, resulting in suddenly and unceremoniously losing. Nah, I have definitely had it pass to a nephew before. My first wolf kid who became a ruler was a nephew of the previous ruler. The father of him was a ruler before them all. Uncle ruler died in combat against the Abbasids, so the first objective of the wolf nephew was to put them to the sword.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Might not be the most historical thing in the world, but I feel like you ought to be able to send missionary expeditions out even to rulers of non-pagan faiths. Absolutely
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
I was just thinking earlier about religion related stuff based on my India game - I think part of what makes RoI feel like such an "isolated" expansion is that the mechanics behind the Dharmic religions are basically the major thing in the expansion, and there's almost zero chance of those religions ever spreading outside of the subcontinent because of the way that religious conversion mechanics work. I was thinking that maybe there could be some kind of thing where when the MA of a religion gets really low, then essentially people of that religion might start decide to convert to one with a higher MA - not just embracing a heretical uprising but potentially switching religious groups entirely. That might kind of cause things to swing too hard in the other direction though, with random religions just popping up all over Europe with no real rhyme or reason behind it. Maybe some kind of religious bleed system instead - where rulers or courtiers with a low MA religion may decide to embrace the religion of a neighbouring ruler or a courtier they have a high opinion of (if that religion has a higher MA than their own). Maybe give cynical characters a chance to do it at higher MA as well, to allow for some religious spread to happen anyway. People with "sympathy for X" traits could also be treated the same as cynical characters, open to spontaneous conversion to a neighbour's religion even at higher MA levels, but only to one that they're sympathetic towards. Naturally zealous characters would never spontaneously convert even with a MA of zero (this should also apply to religious heads so you don't somehow end up with a Buddhist Pope). The main reason this makes sense in my head is that while it is funny to see Catholicism eat itself when you're playing as a Muslim or Pagan and just holy war the poo poo out of their MA, it does seem kind of weird to me that they'll adopt a ton of crazy heresies but none of them even consider switching to Orthodox Christianity, or hell, converting to Islam or whoever else is destroying them. Maybe they could just open up the concept of missionaries entirely and just let you put them in any county neighbouring your own territory (as well as Pagan capitals, because that still seems like a logical mechanic to me) and let religion spread that way. Much like Pagans, rulers could choose to let the missionaries stay or imprison them (or maybe just banish them so it's not quite as dangerous as Pagan conversion).
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I was just thinking earlier about religion related stuff based on my India game - I think part of what makes RoI feel like such an "isolated" expansion is that the mechanics behind the Dharmic religions are basically the major thing in the expansion, and there's almost zero chance of those religions ever spreading outside of the subcontinent because of the way that religious conversion mechanics work. When the Byzantines were getting their butts kicked by the Muslims, they didn't think of becoming Norse or Catholics. They thought of becoming Iconoclasts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
I love the wacky religions that nomad hordes can convert to. My last game, some Khan converted to Jainism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
Pakled posted:I love the wacky religions that nomad hordes can convert to. My last game, some Khan converted to Jainism. The best part is that the only thing he gains from it is +1 piety per month when at peace. He can't designate his heirs and I don't think the opinion bonus applies to tribal vassals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
quote:- Fixed a bug where many coats of arms were black when running the game without CoA DLCs. Now it's just some black CoAs. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
Another Person posted:Some religious head titles are funny like that. If you reform it, then it is your title to grant or keep. If you reform the Norse faith then you can be both the top level feudal or republican ruler, and the head of faith. I reformed the West African faith and it picked some completely random priest to be High Priest. I was trying to get the guy who had the Temple in my capital to get it. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
So what exactly do the CoA DLCs do? Do they just change a select few historical CoAs? Do they add more stuff to CoA editor?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
Did Horse Lords remove the ability to get cash from banishing rebel leaders? Whenever they wind up in my dungeon their gold just disappears.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
lurksion posted:Was this supposed to fix existing saves or just new ones? You might need to force your flag cache to regenerate
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
LowellDND posted:Nifty! How did you get the cultures to raid? For that you'll just need to edit the culture files. Add the tag "allowed_to_loot = yes" to the cultures you want to loot. I think by default the Norse are allowed to loot, so check their files to get exactly how it should be formatted. E: and if you add "seafarer = yes" it makes them more likely to hit coastal provinces? Not totally sure what that one does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
Mr.Morgenstern posted:When the Byzantines were getting their butts kicked by the Muslims, they didn't think of becoming Norse or Catholics. They thought of becoming Iconoclasts. interesting to note that the Muslim faith too was/is iconoclastic (in nature, not in name), no icons, when warring Byzantium perhaps could be seen as a factor in the switch to Iconoclasm, even if there were different and greater reasons for it One thing I would like in a potential CK3 is dynamic heresy. Make a whoooole bunch of traits that a faith can have, similar to EUIVs aspects of faith in Protestantism, and make a system wherein once moral authority gets low enough, a heresy will spawn out with a few randomly selected aspects. The traits might be good, they might be bad, which might give the player to adopt the faith or scrub it out entirely. A heresy might spawn which gives the ruler a great CB, however, it also reduces levy replishment and also makes the population unhappy if you do not go to war often enough. Another might be one which encourages the player to give a lot of land to religious rulers, but giving out that land would give a very large, persistent opinion bonus which would offset you raising church levies and taxes. Odd things like that. Heresy is a cool thing that happens in CK2, however, a lot of the reasons for their formation was a unique historical setup with individual factors which influenced their development or growth. While it is really funny when you click on England and see they have jumped to Cathar in the 700s, it doesn't make a great deal of sense in reality that it was randomly assigned to them due to low MA, rather than the conditions that provoked real Catharism. Those real life heresies should really be events that can fire. What would be even cooler is a semi-unique heresy which forms instead for low MA, or influencing decisions made by rulers and the Papacy. Infact, I think I might be onto something bigger here. Dynamic evolution of faith. A system somewhat like the HRE/Papacy mechanics in EUIV where there is a person 'in charge' for a time, and a bunch of voters who are representatives of faith from all of the nations that faith is present in. This group then votes or influences decisions from the centre of that religion to create doctrinal change. Once changed, an edict is sent out declaring that the faith has made a ruling on a practice, and that all nations of that faith must follow. Rulers can adopt these changes, and take the benefits or consequences that come with them which would gain them favour in the faith and make their vote slightly more important due to being in line with current practices, but can also oppose them. If they oppose enough decisions, then a heresy based on the voting pattern of that nation might develop, reflecting their preferences. gently caress man, I wish I had the ability and patience to make a mod. I would make so many sick, dumb mods.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:So running a new nomad game to try some stuff out and my Khan died before his heir was of age. In previous experience this means that the Khanate goes to another clan leader... except this time the Khanate totally breaks apart and every clan becomes independent. Did they just turn independent or did they settle as feudal? Check their government status thingy icon below the rulers religion. I noticed that the very second my Khanate was inherited by the AI they settled as feudal. If the khanate then was inherited by another Khan they in their turn might have settled e.t.c until only your horde was left and inherited what was left, it happened to me every time I did not inherit the Khanate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
mornhaven posted:Did Horse Lords remove the ability to get cash from banishing rebel leaders? Whenever they wind up in my dungeon their gold just disappears. Yeah, on the enforce demands tooltip now it shows the leader losing X gold where X = all of it
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Another Person posted:interesting to note that the Muslim faith too was/is iconoclastic (in nature, not in name), no icons, when warring Byzantium This was in fact the justification for joining the Iconoclasts. "If these iconoclastic heathens are kicking our butts, clearly God is angry with us for having images!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 08:01
|
|