|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Yeah but the HRE is kind of a special case, historically. Also in-game that's just having "autonomous vassals" crown authority. It's different than losing control of a title completely. I think that's what's missing is communication lag. Historically empires were hard to govern because you just couldn't get a central authority to govern with the speed that humans lived at. CK2 effectively gives every ruler the internet and lets them govern with perfect information and instant feedback on intentions. You don't get governors of some out of the way kingdom raising an army that is "to fight barbarians" and suddenly have it come knocking on your door instead.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Yeah but the HRE is kind of a special case, historically. Also in-game that's just having "autonomous vassals" crown authority. It's different than losing control of a title completely. Point being, historically speaking, "holding a title" has always been a matter of perspective. How many unlanded and landed pretenders have there been in history? For the sake of the game, and clarity, I don't think it's such a bad idea for a single county to possibly be an empire. It's a decent, abstract, representation of a emperor in exile, and I can't think of a better way to show that. Edit: and yeah, ck2 will always be ahistorical until they somehow calculate in communication lag, and that sounds terribly unfun. In fact: representing the world as feudal beyond England and parts of France, is so far from the truth, that who cares about accuracy! Famethrowa fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:Edit: and yeah, ck2 will always be ahistorical until they somehow calculate in communication lag, and that sounds terribly unfun. In fact: representing the world as feudal beyond England and parts of France, is so far from the truth, that who cares about accuracy! I've heard this before but I don't know anywhere near enough about medieval history to understand it. What was going on outside England and France that wasn't feudalism as we typically think of it, and why do we think feudalism extended father than that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I've heard this before but I don't know anywhere near enough about medieval history to understand it. What was going on outside England and France that wasn't feudalism as we typically think of it, and why do we think feudalism extended father than that? A whole mess of things that don't neatly fit into a neat concept like "feudalism". The gist is as I understand it, is that only for brief periods of time (10th and 11th century) did England and by extension France have a centralized and rigid system, with legal support behind it, like you see in the old graphics. Other areas had varying levels of Master-->Knight-->Serf relationships, but it wasn't consistent, and it varied greatly across Europe depending what year it was, and on how centralized the rule was. Most areas didn't have a powerful monarch like England, so very few relationships were writ in stone like England. Feudalism as we know is a 18th century invention, and was more or less cemented in place by Marxist interpretations of history. edit: not the best source, but an example of the Russian system. http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CF%5CE%5CFeudalism.htm quote:In Rus’ there were no formal contractual ties between prince and boyar. The landed estates of the boyars were not conditional fiefs, but allodial property (votchyny). Neither was there a hierarchy of noble titles. The grand princes of Kyiv, and later also senior regional princes, exercised authority over the minor appanage princes; but inasmuch as all the princes belonged to a single dynasty, the Riurykide dynasty, interprincely relations were conceptualized in familial rather than in feudal terms: as relations between father and son or between older and younger brother, rather than between suzerain and vassal Famethrowa fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Omnicarus posted:I think that's what's missing is communication lag. Historically empires were hard to govern because you just couldn't get a central authority to govern with the speed that humans lived at. CK2 effectively gives every ruler the internet and lets them govern with perfect information and instant feedback on intentions. You don't get governors of some out of the way kingdom raising an army that is "to fight barbarians" and suddenly have it come knocking on your door instead. Yeah, this is high on my wish list for the eventual CK3.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
CK2 starts chugging late game on my old laptop. I think some is CPU, but even when paused, it's stuttering a bit. Are there any settings or performance mods that can improve graphical FPS?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
You can delete fogofwar.dds in map/terrain and change your settings to this: mapRenderingOptions= { draw_terrain=yes draw_water=yes draw_borders=yes draw_trees=no draw_rivers=no draw_postfx=no draw_sky=no draw_bloom=no draw_tooltips=yes draw_hires_terrain=no draw_citysprawl=no } There also used to be a flatmap mod, but i don't know if that's still around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I've heard this before but I don't know anywhere near enough about medieval history to understand it. What was going on outside England and France that wasn't feudalism as we typically think of it, and why do we think feudalism extended father than that? There are quite a few places on the game map where even the most basic principles of what the game calls feudalism are inappropriate; for instance, places where the local governors were appointed by the court, rather than hereditary, like Byzantium (for most of the game's period). Byzantium is usually cited as the odd one out when talking about how applying feudalism to all of medieval Europe and the Islamic world is inaccurate (although a lot of the same complaints could be made about the Muslim world) - the Eastern Roman Empire was a highly-centralised oligarchic state where most of the power rested with noble families in Constantinople and/or army commanders (often from the Empire's fringes, like Armenia); the provincial nobles were quite often rather irrelevant, unless they were themselves army commanders or they had power bases in remote areas like the Anatolian highlands - i.e. places where it was difficult for Constantinople to exert its authority. So portraying the whole Empire with CK2's feudal system - in which the provincial nobles hold most of the power - is rather bizarre and ahistorical. There are also odd situations that the feudal mechanics handle very poorly, like the joint Byzantine-Abbasid rule of Cyprus, which in game is handled by having one of Cyprus' two counties be ruled by an ERE vassal and the other by a vassal of the Caliph. This is absolutely not what the co-dominium of Cyprus in the early medieval period was like, but it's the closest one can really get within the game's governmental mechanics. Likewise, there's currently no real way to represent the strong parliamentary institutions that arose in the Iberian kingdoms over the course of the game, which were often significant brakes on the ambitions of the monarchs, although the upcoming expansion may change that. Those are just a few examples that I can think of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
Navarre had a king and no other noble titles at all.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 11:33
|
|
|
The Sin of Onan posted:There are quite a few places on the game map where even the most basic principles of what the game calls feudalism are inappropriate; for instance, places where the local governors were appointed by the court, rather than hereditary, like Byzantium (for most of the game's period). Byzantium is usually cited as the odd one out when talking about how applying feudalism to all of medieval Europe and the Islamic world is inaccurate (although a lot of the same complaints could be made about the Muslim world) - the Eastern Roman Empire was a highly-centralised oligarchic state where most of the power rested with noble families in Constantinople and/or army commanders (often from the Empire's fringes, like Armenia); the provincial nobles were quite often rather irrelevant, unless they were themselves army commanders or they had power bases in remote areas like the Anatolian highlands - i.e. places where it was difficult for Constantinople to exert its authority. So portraying the whole Empire with CK2's feudal system - in which the provincial nobles hold most of the power - is rather bizarre and ahistorical. I don't know whether Byzantium starts with Imperial Admin and Ducal Viceroys, but would that more accurately reflect them? quote:Likewise, there's currently no real way to represent the strong parliamentary institutions that arose in the Iberian kingdoms over the course of the game, which were often significant brakes on the ambitions of the monarchs, although the upcoming expansion may change that. Those are just a few examples that I can think of. I'd really like to see whether the council options could be used to simulate something like the English Parliament, which started operating as something like a co-governing institution in the 1200s iirc. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I'd really like to see whether the council options could be used to simulate something like the English Parliament, which started operating as something like a co-governing institution in the 1200s iirc. Elective Monarchy is the closest to the English Parliament atm. But true, there was a lot more nuance to it and these options will quite likely simulate it moreso... ...or it's just as likely that this expansion will simulate the traditional monarchy institutions and factions better, and you'd need a whole new system to accurately model the British system. Bah...ultimately, this is the point where I say: "gently caress historical accuracy." When people start demanding poo poo like lag-time for horse travel time, to carry your commands to and from your vassals, or this thing, or hell, all the dipshits that insist on how: "Nonono! Women's laws totes shouldn't exist in this game, since MEN were right at that point in history!" In the end, so long as it's a fun game, hits the major points of its subject matter spot on and properly leads you to similar priorities of that time (in this case, defending your bloodline and family through power), I don't give much of a poo poo as to everything being 100% accurate. CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
.
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Sep 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
A lot of the stuff I enjoy about CK2 comes from the historical inaccuracy. I think it's the same for most players, actually. That's why we all get excited when a screenshot of Cyprus-owned Norway or Slavic Spain shows up, right? Because this game is all about the batshit crazy things that come from scheming AI and the ripple-effect our actions have on the world. That said, and I know it's pretty much the reverse of good game design, but I think this game could benefit from less information being given to the players. I shouldn't be able to tell that my vassal is a sadistic, scheming coward, should I? It's not like he'd brag about it at the feast - not unless he was a proud imbecile, at least. For a potential CK3, I think it would be great if other character's traits were obfuscated in some manner, or at least not as certain as in this game. Likewise, promoting commanders should come with a risk - sure, I could give command to my best general, but his dynasty has historically been at odds with my own. Maybe I should pick my son - he's an idiot, sure, but he won't march home and kill me. Probably. I especially shouldn't be able to see exactly how much someone (dis)likes me - not accurately, at least. Things like that, where you can never be certain who your real friends are, never know who you can trust, would make the game feel more like the period it's set in as opposed to, like a fellow poster put it, every ruler having the internet. I don't know. I'm not a game-designer. Adding in this level of uncertainty would probably be either too complex or too unfun, but I personally think it would be really cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:Bah...ultimately, this is the point where I say: "gently caress historical accuracy." When people start demanding poo poo like lag-time for horse travel time, to carry your commands to and from your vassals, or this thing, or hell, all the dipshits that insist on how: "Nonono! Women's laws totes shouldn't exist in this game, since MEN were right at that point in history!" In the end, so long as it's a fun game, hits the major points of its subject matter spot on and properly leads you to similar priorities of that time (in this case, defending your bloodline and family through power), I don't give much of a poo poo as to everything being 100% accurate. I generally pretty much agree. I never understood the urge to accurately model the idiosyncrasies of the HRE or any other famous nation/kingdom/whatever. Down that road you realize there is no general model and they were all different in significant ways. For example I figure it's fine to model the HRE as an empire with elective monarchy. The only advantage to worrying about "accuracy" is if it introduces new and interesting gameplay options that can be generalized. I wouldn't want to just model the English Parliament, I'd want a model of something like how a Parliament works that any kingdom could end up with given AI choice or player-set goals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Saith posted:That said, and I know it's pretty much the reverse of good game design, but I think this game could benefit from less information being given to the players. I shouldn't be able to tell that my vassal is a sadistic, scheming coward, should I? It's not like he'd brag about it at the feast - not unless he was a proud imbecile, at least. For a potential CK3, I think it would be great if other character's traits were obfuscated in some manner, or at least not as certain as in this game. Likewise, promoting commanders should come with a risk - sure, I could give command to my best general, but his dynasty has historically been at odds with my own. Maybe I should pick my son - he's an idiot, sure, but he won't march home and kill me. Probably. I especially shouldn't be able to see exactly how much someone (dis)likes me - not accurately, at least. I do agree that information being that readily available is a pretty big simplification, that could be done away with to make things a lot more backstabby and uncertain for you. But then...how would you accurately model the ability to discern these traits or opinions in characters outside your family (whom you'd probably manage to observe the traits moreso, if they lived with you)? There are deffo several interesting ways I can think of...let anyone that's stationed in your court have their traits revealed much faster, as time goes on, maybe since you see and observe them every day. Have your vassal traits be revealed a bit slower over time. Have said time go faster, if you're humbler and patient, and let it take longer for you to learn, if you happen to be wrothful and prideful. Maybe order your spy to find out every trait over a critically important character while your chancellor finds out their opinion about you for sure? And of course, when your character dies...all those traits get obfuscated somewhat again, as your successor probably didn't have his/her own intelligence on the same peeps as you did. Still, a ton of ways all these suggestions can become spergy and unfun, but yeah...this all really sounds like it'd be something at the core of CK2's engine and...it'd probably take CK3 to implement something this comprehensive, true. CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Abstract it as a function of Intrigue. You have a rough estimate of various character stats (like, "Martial: 12-18") that are more accurate the higher your Intrigue, same for things like their troop numbers and finances, and various traits are only "visible" as a function of Intrigue, distance, relationship, etc. with the more "negative" traits better hidden. The Intrigue focus "spy on character" would actually give you a chance to discover "dirty secret" traits that by default always seem to be treated as matters of public record. Like, wouldn't being gay be something medieval noblemen would keep secret? That you'd only find out through some degree of investigation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
loving with the stat information displayed is bad and dumb hth
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
verbal enema posted:loving with the stat information displayed is bad and dumb hth Seriously, all these proposals sound super unfun. I want to see when some paranoid lunatic dwarf usurps the kingdom of France from the Karlings, that's a part of what makes CK2 so great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Seriously, all these proposals sound super unfun. I want to see when some paranoid lunatic dwarf usurps the kingdom of France from the Karlings, that's a part of what makes CK2 so great. Yeah. I suppose it could just as easily be that "sounds great in your head, horrible in practice" things. Best just to wait for Conclave, and see what it does. If it ups the intrigue and political stuff sufficiently enough, I doubt much else would really be needed. I guess this is what one does, when they're anticipating something. They can't help but sperg while waiting over poo poo that probably won't ever be in anyway, because it's horrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Not knowing traits and stats would be cool in a much smaller game, with fewer characters (like if you wanted to do a game focused solely on the Wars of the Roses, for example), but trying to do it on the scale CKII has would be a mess. EDIT: There's also the issue that AI behaviour looks less arbitrary when you can see the traits that influence it. If that's obscured, it just looks like the AI making random decisions, but if you're given that data, you read more sense into it than maybe really exists. It's counterintuitive, but exposing those under-the-hood numbers makes the game more immersive in practice. DStecks fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
verbal enema posted:loving with the stat information displayed is bad and dumb hth It would be nice if it was based on difficulty level. Because I still don't understand what makes Easy easy. Also considering that the game is still balls hard on Easy as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Easy makes battles easier by giving your troops better moral and lowering the AI's troops morale, and it also increases your character's fertility. Of course, high fertility under any kind of gavelkind is a mixed blessing. I hope we get a new dev diary tomorrow, we didn't get one this week 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Is it possible to mod what the difficulties do? I'd like the easier battles without the increased fertility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Abstract it as a function of Intrigue. You have a rough estimate of various character stats (like, "Martial: 12-18") that are more accurate the higher your Intrigue, same for things like their troop numbers and finances, and various traits are only "visible" as a function of Intrigue, distance, relationship, etc. with the more "negative" traits better hidden. The Intrigue focus "spy on character" would actually give you a chance to discover "dirty secret" traits that by default always seem to be treated as matters of public record. Like, wouldn't being gay be something medieval noblemen would keep secret? That you'd only find out through some degree of investigation? I like this idea if it also lets you uncover "false" traits attributed through Vicious Rumours maluses
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:It would be nice if it was based on difficulty level. Because I still don't understand what makes Easy easy. Also considering that the game is still balls hard on Easy as well. According to the wiki, it affects warfare, giving the player some (dis)advantages in morale and levy reinforcement depending on level. Also, as long as you're mucking about with stats, it should be Stewardship to know about the stats of people and places inside your realm. EFB, but I have a source.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
And to finish the discussion, you can check common\static_modifiers.txt for the actual modifiers for each difficulty level:code:Whether there are hardcoded differences in the AI within the engine code itself, I don't know. Cantorsdust fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Excelzior posted:I like this idea if it also lets you uncover "false" traits attributed through Vicious Rumours maluses That would be cool, even better if you have the Trusting trait which would make it even more difficult to determine what's real. What if when you have the cynical trait you gain info on people's stats that are lower than they actually are? CK3 is shaping up nicely, even if it's nothing but a fever dream that only exists in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Seriously, all these proposals sound super unfun. I want to see when some paranoid lunatic dwarf usurps the kingdom of France from the Karlings, that's a part of what makes CK2 so great. Whether the king is a dwarf or gibbering crazy isn't quite like a vice that could ruin someone. Everyone would know if a crazy dwarf became a king, anyone would have a real good idea about the traits of rulers of neighboring kingdoms. It would just be good imo if some things were actual secrets or uncertain until you put some some effort or resources into discovering. "Gathering intel" isn't exactly a radical concept in strategy games. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Football Manager is an example of a game with tons of AI characters making lots and lots of decisions, but you can't see what's under the hood. It's incredibly annoying when decisions get made that hurt you but you can't see why. Stick with having it all on display.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Look, the point isn't for everything to be hidden and mysterious. But some things would be uncertain and some things a secret because knowledge is power. It's a game about intrigue and diplomacy as much as anything. Keeping secrets and telling lies and uncovering both can be a compelling challenge as a part of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
So, I'm playing the latest version of After the End when I notice this in one of the optional mods.quote:After the End - Extra Empires Submod I activate it and start as the Duke of Philadelphia but I'm only seeing a generic "found empire" decision, nothing about a "Empire of America" Am I doing something wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
verbal enema posted:loving with the stat information displayed is bad and dumb hth Seriously. gently caress that, I want to know what is going on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:So, I'm playing the latest version of After the End when I notice this in one of the optional mods. Looking at the decision i think you're only missing a realm size of 100 before you'll see the decision and the requirements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I don't know whether Byzantium starts with Imperial Admin and Ducal Viceroys, but would that more accurately reflect them? Eh. The problem with the viceroy system is that you can only really give the viceroyalty to a local ruler, so it doesn't really take the focus off the provincial nobility; it just means you can swap the ducal title around among the local counts every generation or so. Ideally I'd like imperial administration to play a little more like merchant republics, with a set of major families in the capital (with their own family palaces, so that you can continue to play them even when you don't have any land at that point) that you have to keep happy by grants of land and minor titles, or else they start trying to organise a palace coup against your family. So perhaps the county capital of the title in question would revert to the ruler on the holder's death/their term expiring, ready to be parcelled out to the next governor, with a severe limit on the amount of titles one can hold under an imperial administration in place (to compel the ruler to keep giving the titles away, rather than trying to hold onto them all). The job then falls to your provincial nobles/disloyal appointed governors to try and build up enough of a power base that they can essentially make their title feudal and resist your efforts to take it away and give it to your next appointee. Also, everyone with the Commander minor title automatically gets a non-inheritable claim to the throne, so that one of your generals can at any point decide to march on the capital and take the empire if they don't like you enough. But that's just my opinion, anyway. Re. hidden traits: I would definitely be on board with this for non-physical traits. It is kind of absurd that you can't try to keep traits like Syphilitic, Homosexual, or Deceitful hidden when having them be public knowledge would be disastrous for your reputation in the medieval world. I'd also like to have the ability to hide one's religion, especially if one is a heretic; it seems like the logical thing to do when your beliefs are radically different from those of your Zealous persecutor monarch, and what's the point in that event where one of your courtiers accuses another one of being a heretic when you can just look at their profile and see what their religion is for yourself?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Back To 99 posted:Looking at the decision i think you're only missing a realm size of 100 before you'll see the decision and the requirements. Yeah, found it on the Paradox Forums quote:Yeah, it's an intrigue decision with several cultural, religious, and realm requirements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
If I declare on the Pope to install my antipope, my tributaries won't declare on me, right? I know I can call them in to the war on my side but I just want to ensure that if I don't, they won't join the war against me. I'll be declaring war once I get home from work but I wanted to be sure once I pushed the button.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
papal wars can only be joined by direct allies of the Pope (and he usually has few to none, barring dynastic alliances or mercenary hires)
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
New dev diary, and it is a big one! https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/conclave-dev-diary-2-power-to-the-council.903120/ quote:New
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
This looks like everything I've ever wanted out of CK2.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 13:16
|
|