|
CrazyLoon posted:I remember Dan Carlin had a really good line on this topic, but I forgot what it was. Its essence was, basically, that while it is true, that exceptional individuals or cliques of individuals most definitely do influence history in a great way, the truth is that they all come from those circumstances/social forces (as you put it) in how they were raised and with what they were raised to understand. As he put it for Genghis Khan very well: "If you'd ever want to put forth the argument, that we are ultimately the product of our environment, this guy would be exhibit A." Meaning that, yes, he was an exceptional individual, as were the generals he picked to help him change the entire landscape of Asia for a century and beyond. But, ultimately, what he did and how he did it all stemmed from the environment in which he was raised being quite brutal and unforgiving. This is a good thought. I've always liked Marx's formulation of this idea: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living." quote:Historians ultimately love big names. It makes it easier for them to categorize history, after all, to just say: "This and this exceptional individual made history happen in this time period!" Rather than try and approach the truth, which is that all of these individuals were born in a certain period of time and in a certain type of environment, which was a huge influence during them being raised into exactly how they would find that will to shift history in their own way. But...down that road lies the complexity of describing reality, of not settling for any single easy-to-digest golden rule and well...historians usually say they don't have time for such things and prefer whatever single leading principle they came up with, heheh. I don't think this is really fair to "historians" generally. In academic history, the trend for a while has been against a focus on exceptional individuals, or an attempt to look at their influence in a broader context. Popular history is more friendly to a focus on "Great Men" but this also reflects the fact that stories about interesting people sell. quote:As to how CK2 simulates this...yeah, there's very little of that environmental influence right now, tis true. Still, they do a nod towards it with the different GFX for event pictures and such...and with different government systems...but ultimately, I'd say it'd be very hard for them to do so for every single environment or culture in Europe during that time period, unless they completely decide to re-re-re-vamp childhood and early adulthood events yet again and yeah...just...I can't blame them for not going that route. Part of what makes CK2 interesting and worth playing is how personal it is. If they redesigned some things to make characters more hemmed in by/driven by broader forces, that would OK so long as the focus on interpersonal machinations didn't go away.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:See my own spergfest of feeding into the 'obscured char statistics' idea a page or 2 back. I could've just said: "It might be nice to not have information so readily available and a bit obscured, since that could potentially help inter-character intrigue a great deal." and just left it at that. But no, I had more time on my hands than I knew what to do with and I went I have a similar reaction in hindsight to some of the ideas I spitballed a few pages back, like "uncertain state/troop/money counts." But I also still think it would be cool and fun if "dirty secret" traits were not generally known until exposed by intrigue actions. This could even work with the "favors" system as the perfect way to model blackmail. This seems simple and limited enough in concept that I could probably try to mod it (so long as there some way to make traits only visible to some characters under some conditions, and I have no idea if this is true). I've forgotten if the fact that someone is having an affair already works something like this though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:39
|
|
and yea...unsurprisingly a lot of people immediately said that it sounds like an awful thing. And given what I hear from the DLC right now, I agree. This will already make poo poo complex enough for inter-character intrigue, and my non-game developer suggestions really were entirely off base.
|
GunnerJ posted:This seems simple and limited enough in concept that I could probably try to mod it (so long as there some way to make traits only visible to some characters under some conditions, and I have no idea if this is true). I've forgotten if the fact that someone is having an affair already works something like this though. I don't recall there being any code support for "hidden" traits, though you could probably do something similar by removing the traits and applying a hidden character modifier with any of the trait's strictly internal effects (so for example, the fertility penalty for Homosexual could be added to a Secret Homosexual character modifier, but you could leave out the opinion penalty - is there an opinion penalty? I can't remember off the top of my head.). As for affairs working that way, well, they kind of do and kind of don't. Intrigue actions can already expose someone's affair, and stuff like your lover's spouse hating you and being able to challenge you to duels doesn't happen until the affair is "exposed" like this. On the other hand the relations panel of the UI (friends/rivals/lovers/etc.) seems from what I can tell to know about affairs before uninvolved characters do - so you as the player King A can see that Duke B and your wife are having an affair (though one-off seductions are invisible unless someone gets pregnant) but you can't actually do anything about it until someone catches them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Groogy posted:No the joke is that it's only in my dev diary that I call it Yay and Nay. It doesn't show the text anywhere except in the code where it is called For, Against and Abstain. DEVELOPER DIARY PATCH NOTES Fixed improper use of inverted commas Added additional paragraphs for Council system Modding: Added "Style_Manual" to DevDiary.txt, to allow for modders to use the Chicago Manual Fixed error in polygamy event
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Other things from the dev diary thread: Dukes at least can also have a council, someone dug up a screenshot with that shows it. Ambitions and factions are also being reworked since they tie into the council system. Factions are generally more dangerous and vassals will tend to group together into fewer, more powerful ones than they do now. Councils always become discontent (ie able to form factions) on succession. Absolute rule is possible and you can not have a council at all "with the correct law setup."
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Sindai posted:Other things from the dev diary thread: Dukes at least can also have a council, someone dug up a screenshot with that shows it. Ambitions and factions are also being reworked since they tie into the council system. Factions are generally more dangerous and vassals will tend to group together into fewer, more powerful ones than they do now. Councils always become discontent (ie able to form factions) on succession. Absolute rule is possible and you can not have a council at all "with the correct law setup." Which, let's be fair, getting that kind of law setup probably amounts to a win condition, like vassalizing the pope.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Hit gender parity before the DLC hit  
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Which, let's be fair, getting that kind of law setup probably amounts to a win condition, like vassalizing the pope. Speaking of which, could the AI please do that less? My last three games have all had the HRE vassalize the pope within the first ten years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
The Meat Dimension posted:Hit gender parity before the DLC hit I am extremely disappointed that a female Pope doesn't gloss to Mome.  Top priority fix for the expansion, Groogy 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Speaking of which, could the AI please do that less? My last three games have all had the HRE vassalize the pope within the first ten years. On the other end of the spectrum, since I typically start in the Charlemagne start, in my last three games there never was a HRE or any other empire level Catholic realm, so this was never a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:On the other end of the spectrum, since I typically start in the Charlemagne start, in my last three games there never was a HRE or any other empire level Catholic realm, so this was never a problem. I see the HRE form from the charlie start pretty often but it's always a laughable mess that usually gets jointly stomped by nomads and whatever Karlings are still kicking around in France. Actually I think the least common big AI thing I see is pagan reformation. I saw Germanic pagans do it only one time but that's it. And drat it I still want to see more love given to W.Africa.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Karl just keeps making Francia even when I help him get all the land to form the HRE 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
The Meat Dimension posted:Hit gender parity before the DLC hit Was this something you consoled in or did it happen legit? I ALMOST got a female Pope legit once - some weirdness with inheritence ended up with the duchy of Aquitaine becoming a theocracy and then being inherited by a woman (it had something to do with how lieges who lose their landed titles will auto-revoke the titles of their vassals in order to stay in the game, I forget the specifics), who did end up becoming a cardinal, but ended up dying before getting a shot at the Papacy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Shouldn't the Tribe of the Mouse in After the End be Consumerist? You know since they're literally Disney.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Was this something you consoled in or did it happen legit? I ALMOST got a female Pope legit once - some weirdness with inheritence ended up with the duchy of Aquitaine becoming a theocracy and then being inherited by a woman (it had something to do with how lieges who lose their landed titles will auto-revoke the titles of their vassals in order to stay in the game, I forget the specifics), who did end up becoming a cardinal, but ended up dying before getting a shot at the Papacy. This is exactly what happened. Her duchy went theocracy and she got a shot at the Papacy; her duchy didn't get ingested into the papacy, you can see it being transferred to a new dude The Meat Dimension fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Shouldn't the Tribe of the Mouse in After the End be Consumerist? Technically they just worship Disney iconography. They don't necessarily know anything about the Disney Corporation, they just know that there are these mouse ears images everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Was this something you consoled in or did it happen legit? I ALMOST got a female Pope legit once - some weirdness with inheritence ended up with the duchy of Aquitaine becoming a theocracy and then being inherited by a woman (it had something to do with how lieges who lose their landed titles will auto-revoke the titles of their vassals in order to stay in the game, I forget the specifics), who did end up becoming a cardinal, but ended up dying before getting a shot at the Papacy. The Meat Dimension posted:This is exactly what happened. Her duchy went theocracy and she got a shot at the Papacy; her duchy didn't get ingested into the papacy, you can see it being transferred to a new dude Yep. Happened in my completely legit vanilla game. From the last thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3551718&pagenumber=944&perpage=40#post441756939
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Shouldn't the Tribe of the Mouse in After the End be Consumerist? That might be a good idea in order to provide a Consumerist start. I've never seen Consumerism catch on anywhere, though I haven't played many games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Time to go into hiding!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Change it to 'yippie!' and 'hell naw!' Really, I would murder for a "For Want of a Nail" DLC, with ahistorical poo poo, custom nations/cultures, random landmasses and titles or even for more cultural names for titles. (Though it would be neat if you could click a "display standard name" thing) Sure, there's mods, but I want the Basque West-African Horde to invade the Georgian Zoroastrian Most Serene Republic as it struggles against the Holy Welsh Empire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
That's just Lux Invicta though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Why were you conspiring against yourself, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 09:07
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Why were you conspiring against yourself, exactly? Look at his traits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
Skellybones posted:That's just Lux Invicta though. If it's not on the workshop, I'm not gonna bother using it, tbh. Also that thing had awful documentation, which is something that Paradox has improved to such a crazy degree that their games are probably the most approachable grog-games made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
THE BAR posted:Look at his traits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
I don't know if I'm just unlucky in my latest playthrough or what, but I've been getting a lot of lunatic and/or possessed dynasty members. Last time I played was after The Old Gods came out, and I never really had any. If I did, they were usually pretty old and didn't last more than a few years before they died. I had a Lunatic Possessed Byzantine emperor for a whopping 40 years this time around, and the constant faction related revolts almost ruined me. Are these traits genetic or something? That said, I'm kind of glad I got them because some of the lunatic events are pretty entertaining. Possessed kind of ruins you over time though, swapping all your positive traits for negatives can really kick your rear end; especially if your character already has a low Diplomacy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
Crosscontaminant posted:Mind translating for those of us who don't have a dictionary of tiny pictures in our heads? Grey Eminence, Harelip, Crusader, Architect, Kind, Diligent, Humble, Gregarious, Paranoid, Possessed, Lunatic, Stressed Something tells me the italicized ones are key here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
quote:Your chancellor wants you to press his claim on a neighboring county. Your marshal is a bit of an incompetent. An incompetent what? Come on these are important plot details. Incidentally release date is 2nd Feb: https://www.paradoxplaza.com/news/Conclave-Release-Date/ E: I would kindof like to read this announcement without the huge menu bar following me down the page covering up large chunks of text and screenshots. Nobody Interesting fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Nobody Interesting posted:Incidentally release date is 2nd Feb: https://www.paradoxplaza.com/news/Conclave-Release-Date/ Oh gently caress off, right before XCOM 2... DO NOT MAKE ME CHOOOOOOSE!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
That's fast! And the announcement has lots of preview images .
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Is it just me, or is it really easy/cheatsy to go rulership until you get the depression event, then go full on North Korea mode and commit suicide to avoid any complications?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
A Tartan Tory posted:Is it just me, or is it really easy/cheatsy to go rulership until you get the depression event, then go full on North Korea mode and commit suicide to avoid any complications? Fixed in 2.5 EXPLOIT WHILE YOU CAN!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Groogy posted:Fixed in 2.5 Though TBH I never aimed for that on purpose. Does this mean tyranny crosses generations like old CK2+ did in the 1.x generation (don't know if it still does that) or if the suicide decision was removed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
quote:This expansion will also ... allow you to rent out some of your soldiers as mercenaries – just because you’re not at war doesn’t mean you can’t make a ducat or two off someone else’s aggression. Oooh, what's this? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
lurksion posted:Aww man. There's a fancy picture on forum where it highlights some of the major changes of the patch. On phone so can't link but it includes the fix for that exploit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Groogy posted:There's a fancy picture on forum where it highlights some of the major changes of the patch. On phone so can't link but it includes the fix for that exploit. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
-2 million? That's an odd number for an overflow bug. Groogy, were casualties calculated using 32-bit fixed-point starting at millicasualties or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Yeah you are spot on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
"Death sounds differ depending on age, gender and violency of reason for death."  to all, though when it comes to kids and babies I'll prolly be moreso
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:54
|
|