|
ZombieLenin posted:Not really. The Mongols caught Central Europe by surprise in 1241; however, they did not have the ability to move their horse armies--at least in great numbers--over the heavily wooded European terrain. Would that really matter? Heavily defensible mountain fortresses didn't stop the Mongols from stomping on the Persians. Schizotek fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Jul 28, 2015 |
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:I barely do any work on it at all these days, tbh. The team's trucking along and doing most of this on their own and I'm mostly just a notional presence. Earlier on I did a fair bit- most of the continental US from the East Coast all the way to Utah's my doing, but our very own fellow-goons Sam (notalbanian) did the Caribbean and Texas (and Nova Scotia?) and Shadeoses did all of Mexico and Central America. Klonself did initial work on California, as well. SteelyGlint and thecookiemaster, two non-Goons, did much of the West Coast and northern Rockies work. Well, basically I think everyone involved in the mod is cool & good 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
I decided that I didn't really care for playing as a nomad and don't know what I should do next. Are there any interesting Muslim starts where I could start small and work my way up?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
holy god taking san francisco and developing it's interstate trade zone sees you buried in gold 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Hadaka Apron posted:I decided that I didn't really care for playing as a nomad and don't know what I should do next. Are there any interesting Muslim starts where I could start small and work my way up? One that I like is the duke of Medina in the Charlemange start - you're a Shia duke under the Sunni Abbasids with both Mecca and Medina, so if you can get independence you can form the Caliphate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Does anyone know how to use the set_government console command? I'm trying to change one of my vassals into a merchant republic, so I switched to them, and ran the command "set_government republic" and "set_government merchant_republic" and a few others, but I just keep getting a "government not found" error. What's the deal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
It would be set_government merchant_republic_government, I believe, and make sure you put the right province ID after that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Hm, my temples-not-counting issue for tengri has somehow gotten worse. Now 4 of the holy sites say they are not settled. they clearly all have temples. they are all owned by tengri and are counting as such. each of them is owned by the high priest of tengri, each one has an appointed priest save one, which the high priest holds himself. I really am missing that 20% moral authority.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Probably because their liege isn't settled?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's intentional that nomads don't contribute to MA and can't reform because they change religion in a stiff breeze. So I guess that's one reason to settle. Sindai fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
My temple vassals contributed fully to moral authority in my game as Turkestan, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Probably because their liege isn't settled? no, because they were counting correctly earlier under the exact same conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
Aw poo poo, edit =! post. anyway, I already reformed this religion 75 years ago or so. Everything was functioning properly, the issue is that it has stopped doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:After the End has updated to version 0.6 and CK2 patch 2.4.2. This is my first time playing this mod (it is great by the way), so I don't know if this is an old bug, but for some reason playing as an Ursuline doesn't show any of my vassal bishops in the religion window. The Abbess General also complained about me having free investiture when I wanted to ask for favours, but I didn't even have investiture law as an option on my law screen as the kingdom of Aurora.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 09:37
|
|
Mediafire download 
|
Is anyone else getting a weird purple aura around certain character portraits in After the End? Is that a bug or some kind of hidden feature?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
The jewel encrusted character border? That was a feature of Horse Lords I think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
 This is an example of what I mean. The odd purple ring inside the portrait border. It seems to be randomly spread across characters, but always the same ones. Edit: I should add that AtE is the only mod I've seen it in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
I was fighting a Holy War against a single county sheikhdom on Sicily and I was sieging down his holdings. All of a sudden my vassal also declares a Holy War on him and puts troops on the same county that I am sieging. I completed a siege and my warscore went down. The assault button said I wasn't the leader of the siege, why the gently caress not? I was there first. edit: Can that happen when you split a stack in the middle of a siege? Pivotal Lever fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Bloody Pom posted:
I think it denotes a government type? Beauraucrats maybe?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Would that really matter? Heavily defensible mountain fortresses didn't stop the Mongols from stomping on the Persians. It has been argued that European expertise in siege warfare and static defense was far greater than in other places, and that Chinese siege tactics, which the Mongols had adopted, probably were not adequate. The invasion of 1287 kind of proved this point. The Mongols tried to assault a number of "Westernized" fortifications in Poland, were un-successful and "bled" in the process and the Hungarians and Poles were able to completely destroy what remained of the Mongol army. However, none of this is to say that they couldn't capture a fortress or a castle in Europe. The problem for the Mongols would have been: 1. The sheer number of fortresses they'd have to take to actually hold Europe 2. The extra time it would have taken to siege them given European tactical expertise in siege warfare These two things would combine with, what was then, the heavily forested terrain of Europe, which in addition to denying the Mongols their superiority in maneuver, or at least reducing it, would be catastrophic on a Mongol army. A horse army in Western Europe past the Hungarian basin, for any length of time let alone sitting around trying to take a hundred castles, could not support the horses. For the Mongolian army to be successful they needed about 10 horses per soldier; and those horses would be dropping from starvation really quickly. Horses need to graze and they do not do that very well in European forests while competing with 250,000 other horses for food. Edit. Even during the 1241 invasion the Mongols had to bypass a large number of stone fortified castles and towns. ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
Bloody Pom posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
If there is now, with all the changes and things, a way to let females do SOMETHING besides be useless, or if people are working on ways to un-hardcode that, it'd be nice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Become Catharist? It unlocks absolute cognatic succession and allows women to be council members and commanders.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Bloodly posted:If there is now, with all the changes and things, a way to let females do SOMETHING besides be useless, or if people are working on ways to un-hardcode that, it'd be nice. There has been for ages just remove is female=no from every thing or remove restrictions on true cognatic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Bloodly posted:If there is now, with all the changes and things, a way to let females do SOMETHING besides be useless, or if people are working on ways to un-hardcode that, it'd be nice. Unless you exclusively play republics and/or Muslims, female characters have never been hardcoded as useless, it's always been just a matter of editing the conditions on stuff like cognatic or enatic successions, council jobs, or various events that are gender restricted. And apparently republics aren't hardcoded anymore, there are reports that since 2.4 modders have been able to enable female patricians in republics just by modifying the government form. (not sure if this changes, for example, the mechanic where unlanded male relatives contribute to your trade post limit and draw a stipend, because I don't play republics.) The AI still isn't insistent enough on matrimarriages when using cognatic or enatic successions, but then again the AI doesn't care about avoiding game-overs so  .Haven't heard anything on the Muslim front, but in general look into mods and you should be able to find what you're after.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Is it just me, or do the Magyars never seem to conquer Hungary anymore?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Bishop Rodan posted:Is it just me, or do the Magyars never seem to conquer Hungary anymore? Which start date are you using? In the 769 start there's no way in hell that's going to happen. The only reason they ever did conquer Hungary is because in the 867 start they're already at war with Bulgaria for the kingdom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:Which start date are you using? In the 769 start there's no way in hell that's going to happen. The only reason they ever did conquer Hungary is because in the 867 start they're already at war with Bulgaria for the kingdom. 867. They always seem to either lose the initial war, or conquer part of Hungary without taking the decision, resulting in exclaves in Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
So is it still pretty much impossible to designate a regent? I assigned one in the minor titles tab and then lost a rivalry war (the Holy Roman Emperor is a dick). The guy I wanted gave me the whole "Yup, I'm your regent" thing, and then immediately after another guy I didn't want gave me the same and he became my regent... and then he lowered crown authority because of course. Also, are there any mods that make it harder for blobs to stay alive? Byzantium and the Abbasids are both super invincible empires and somehow a new Muslim empire swallowed all (ALL) of India while I wasn't looking and almost completely religiously and culturally converted it in the two hundred years since the Charlemagne start. Also decadence supposedly still does absolutely nothing, I'm using Randarkman's decadence tweak mod and even with %100 decadence and negative amounts of piety, prestige, and money,(I consoled all that to see what would happen) the Muslim empires have suffered one revolt to lower crown authority and a hand full of peasant and religious revolts which might as well not even be in the game for all they ever accomplish. And one last question, are religious revolts bugged? I've consoled a few to victory to see what happens and... well nothing happens as far as I can see.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
OhGreatAGinger posted:And one last question, are religious revolts bugged? I've consoled a few to victory to see what happens and... well nothing happens as far as I can see. Religious revolts have to capture territory to continue existing afterwards, so if you just console them away before they do that, then yes nothing happens. I've also seen the Abbasids blow apart somewhat regularly, but probably about as often as they stick together. Rarely they get overthrown and the next guy manages to keep everything, but usually a revolt leads to the persian area at least breaking up, if not more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
The Caliph is much, much weaker in 867 than 769 so if you want to play a non-Zun near Persia or Egypt that's probably the bookmark to do it in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
TacMan posted:Religious revolts have to capture territory to continue existing afterwards, so if you just console them away before they do that, then yes nothing happens. Ohhh, okay that makes sense. They broke up a bit at the beginning of my game, and then even lost the Shia revolt which broke them up more. Then they retook everything and have squashed any chance at an interesting and diverse middle east ever since, it also doesn't help that they seem content to leave the Byzies alone and vice versa leaving both to gobble up all the smaller nations that are way more hip and interesting then they are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
I wish decadence revolts were a bit more unbeatable (I've seen the Seljuks defeat two so far) and the independence decision for vassals was weighted more towards independence. Also de jure empire titles should get automatically destroyed if you no longer hold more than like 40% of it and aren't in a civil war. There needs to be a faction to repeal imperial administration/viceroys and Byzantine viceroys should do that before trying to lower CA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
The problem with decadence is that it's not an issue that the AI has to worry about most of the time. It's difficult to accumulate and easy enough to get rid of that the AI usually sits below 25%, which give it bonuses to income and troop morale. Also decadence revolts aren't an issue until it gets above 75%, which almost never happens. Most revolts that the Abbassids get are usually independence revolts, which they can usually crush thanks to their bonus troop morale from being at low decadence.
McGavin fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
That definitely hasn't been my experience. Every big AI empire is getting decadence revolts on a regular basis, they just either defeat them or don't disintegrate enough when they lose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
I've gotten a decent Zunist start going. Managed to grab the counties around me to form Afghanistan and then steal a couple of Silk Road counties while the Sunni duke next to me had some succession problems. A bit later, I'm now up to ~20 counties in my realm. The Abbasids have tributaries to the South-East and North-West (although the latter is getting stomped by some nomads and a Zoro uprising) but are themselves facing a hefty rebellion after switching Caliphs 3 times in the last decade. My heir has 30 Martial base so that's looking good for keeping the conquest going. The main thing I'm hoping for is that the Abbasids lose some more territory so I can push towards Baghdad and try to reform the faith sooner rather than later.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Bloodly posted:If there is now, with all the changes and things, a way to let females do SOMETHING besides be useless, or if people are working on ways to un-hardcode that, it'd be nice. IIRC, they set it so that female rulers lead armies when they added in the commander features. So that's something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
kingturnip posted:I've gotten a decent Zunist start going. Managed to grab the counties around me to form Afghanistan and then steal a couple of Silk Road counties while the Sunni duke next to me had some succession problems. The ease of nomad religion changes and their power seems to rob some of these achievements, like the Zunist or Zoroastrian achievements, of some of their luster. They're now super easy to get, so kudos for doing it the hard way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:Unless you exclusively play republics and/or Muslims, female characters have never been hardcoded as useless, it's always been just a matter of editing the conditions on stuff like cognatic or enatic successions, council jobs, or various events that are gender restricted. And apparently republics aren't hardcoded anymore, there are reports that since 2.4 modders have been able to enable female patricians in republics just by modifying the government form. (not sure if this changes, for example, the mechanic where unlanded male relatives contribute to your trade post limit and draw a stipend, because I don't play republics.) The AI still isn't insistent enough on matrimarriages when using cognatic or enatic successions, but then again the AI doesn't care about avoiding game-overs so Would female patrician enabled Republics be able to do matri marriages though? I thought that was the hard-coded aspect - like with Muslims you could always enable female succession, but doing so would lead to a game over within a generation because you wouldn't have the ability to produce an heir of your dynasty (although I suppose you can sidestep that now with seduction focus and producing a bunch of bastards). Sindai posted:That definitely hasn't been my experience. Every big AI empire is getting decadence revolts on a regular basis, they just either defeat them or don't disintegrate enough when they lose. Yeah the Muslims empires are a lot less stable than they used to be, especially since they buffed up the Shia rising event to actually post a significant threat. This is a screenshot of my India game and the state of the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties, after starting at Charlemange:  What's not actually clear in that screenshot is that the Abbasids in Arabia do NOT control the Caliphate - they lost it ages ago in a decadence revolt and the ones there now were one of the old vassals of the empire that managed to gain independence and recapture some of their old territory. The Caliphate/Arabian empire is controlled by the Khaireddin dynasty. Also bear in mind that none of this stuff was my doing - I'm India in this game and have basically never interacted with the Muslims until fairly recently when I formed the Indian empire, and they were already in this state for ages when I did that. *edit* Also not super clear in that screenshot is that the brownish/grey blob east of the Byzantines in Armenia/Syria is the Shia caliphate, who have been chugging along pretty well on their own since the original Shia rising event hit in the 800's. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Would female patrician enabled Republics be able to do matri marriages though? I thought that was the hard-coded aspect - like with Muslims you could always enable female succession, but doing so would lead to a game over within a generation because you wouldn't have the ability to produce an heir of your dynasty (although I suppose you can sidestep that now with seduction focus and producing a bunch of bastards). Maybe I ought to try the Charlemagne start again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 23:37
|
|
