|
Yeah, at this point I'd rather just tough out Gavelkind than risk Elective.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:29 |
|
|
Kingdom + viceroyalty duchies + destroy duchies on inheritance
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
It's awesome as a strong King to just put in place sycophants in your council instead of strong vassals and just go nuts passing laws
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
I just played a game to the end as elective the entire time and didn't have any trouble with it. There were one or two times I had to go with a second choice but my vassals almost always voted for who I wanted. This has pretty much always been my experience with elective though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
I wish there were more wacky inheritance laws like tanistry. Open is ok, as is Seniority, but it seems that way, way too often you just have it go elective/primo. Dullllll
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
I think I heard once that the Rota system is impossible to code in CK2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Rayy in Hamadan, Persia, should be Rey
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
dp
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I think I heard once that the Rota system is impossible to code in CK2. looks like a combination of seniority + something like born in the purple that fires when a character's parent is title holder
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Yeah, unless they changed it lately, the big factor in the electors choice was "gently caress the player". To the point that the only strategy I've found to have any chance of getting the heir I wanted was to specifically choose someone else It used to be that people would elect someone who was incompetent and corrupt and evil to a staggering degree who they also personally hated because the current ruler, who they thought was kind of ok, wanted them to. Now someone can be a pious, kind, fair genius with no flaws who they and everyone else absolutely adore and who has the support of the current King who is also a living saint that they have pledged their undying loyalty to and they will not win because gently caress the police
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:That makes sense in the meta/RP realm though, they assume they can control the total retard and/or have already made a deal with him along the lines of "you get to be king but we'll make the actual decisions". It's also far easier to form an independence faction and break off into your own little fiefdoms that answer to nobody when you're ruled by an idiot king that everybody hates. You'll have a much harder time breaking off from the 30 martial god of war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
There really just needs to be a "vote for my heir" favor. That would solve the problem nicely I think - you get the benefits of being able to pick your heir like the old elective behavior, but it's not as simple as just making people like you. Also I feel like personality should play more of a role in the AI's choice for elective succession. Gregarious people will be more likely to vote for their friends. Content people will be more likely to match the king's choice. Ambitious people will be more likely to vote for their relatives (or themselves if eligible), etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:There really just needs to be a "vote for my heir" favor. That would solve the problem nicely I think - you get the benefits of being able to pick your heir like the old elective behavior, but it's not as simple as just making people like you. Agreed. In fact, I wish personality traits had more weight in all AI decisions (for example, an ambitious guy who has no titles or council position should be more willing to accept an invitation to another court, specially from a bigger more powerful realm)
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:There really just needs to be a "vote for my heir" favor. That would solve the problem nicely I think - you get the benefits of being able to pick your heir like the old elective behavior, but it's not as simple as just making people like you. That sounds a lot more reasonable. I was exaggerating a bit on them always voting for a total retard but some of the time in a recent ironman game their choices were like really odd, like someone who would probably imprison them and take counties because they're ruthless scumbags and you have one in their duchy buddy or some other thing that made me think what's the point of this move. But then seeing someone with+50 opinion of me in a faction pisses me off too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Goofballs posted:That sounds a lot more reasonable. I was exaggerating a bit on them always voting for a total retard but some of the time in a recent ironman game their choices were like really odd, like someone who would probably imprison them and take counties because they're ruthless scumbags and you have one in their duchy buddy or some other thing that made me think what's the point of this move. But then seeing someone with+50 opinion of me in a faction pisses me off too. If you have conclave, people with high opinions of you in factions were probably forced to join by favours. The AI is really aggressive about that. The thing is because favours are owed to people, not factions, if you get the faction leader to drop out somehow (spymaster action, imprison them, assassination, give them a council seat, etc.), then anyone that was pressed to join the faction will be free to leave. You can often see relatively large factions just immediately crumble because they were entirely dependent on the leader having called in a ton of favours.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
That makes sense, my response to those situations was generally have the spymaster move around a lot more unless I wanted a rebellion, it used to be his biggest job was stealing tech for me. If the ai doesn't cheat on money though all those favors are a lot of holdings upgrades they aren't building.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Never really understood why people dislike Conclave so much, the Council stuff more than makes up for shattered retreats. Coalitions are fine, too. Stop expanding like mad and then being surprised that your neighbours turn against you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
I don't really mind coalitions either, although I wish it would tell you what your threat would be from taking over before you declare war. It does impede me some from expanding as fast as possible but it certainly makes sense that all my neighbors would band together if I'm constantly taking over other countries. Besides I usually get to the point where I'm strong enough to take on all the members at once anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Dr. S.O. Feelgood posted:I don't really mind coalitions either, although I wish it would tell you what your threat would be from taking over before you declare war. It would have to fix the cost at declaration time, which means you'll take less threat from a subjugation where the target inherits or wins their own expansion war between your war declaration and your victory. This works for EUIV since while you set targets at the beginning, the amount you take is based on what you demand at the end of the war instead. quote:It does impede me some from expanding as fast as possible but it certainly makes sense that all my neighbors would band together if I'm constantly taking over other countries. Besides I usually get to the point where I'm strong enough to take on all the members at once anyway. If you surround your borders with nations you have a non-aggression pact with, then it's a lot more manageable when you're small, and probably also convenient when large.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 22:05
|
|
only
|
Have I been underestimating how lethal stress is? My last three or four Norwegian kings have dropped dead within two years, apparently of stress, while out raiding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
I fixed my succession problems, a nephew of mine turned out to be a total genius when he came of age, I landed him and enough people voted for him, good stuff. Then the other guy ended up top again, as I was scheming to take his supporters down, my original first choice streaked into first place and stayed there. Then I became King of England with only Earls as vassals so I get the one and only vote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Kayten posted:Never really understood why people dislike Conclave so much, the Council stuff more than makes up for shattered retreats. Not even your horse likes you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Perhaps a hamster posted:Not even your horse likes you. To be fair, she doesn't like the horse either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
What are the horses from?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:What are the horses from? They were part of an update, I believe. If you're a lunatic, you can choose to replace your Chancellor with your favourite horse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Ah, of course, the Caligula thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:Ah, of course, the Caligula thing. Yeah, normally it would vote for anything you suggest. Somehow, the horse owed a favour to someone against me. But that's OK, three people owed favours to Glitterhoof. It balances out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
I love the bizarre little scenarios that can occur because the game treats the horse like any other NPC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I love the bizarre little scenarios that can occur because the game treats the horse like any other NPC. ETA: Astroclassicist posted:One of my vassals, and bastard half-brother, just assassinated Glitterhoof so he could get a place on the council. The Cheshire Cat posted:The best thing about that story is that it's very revealing about the AI's psychology. When a ruler appoints his horse to a council seat, rather than your half-brother going "oh poo poo, my brother is insane", and conspiring with the other lords to depose you, he goes "What? That horse is loving DEAD." darthbob88 fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Kayten posted:Yeah, normally it would vote for anything you suggest. Somehow, the horse owed a favour to someone against me. But that's OK, three people owed favours to Glitterhoof. It balances out. I can't decide which would be a better explanation for this. That Glitterhoof actually understands and navigates the political world well enough to come out ahead on her own merits, or that Glitterhoof is just a horse and people weave intricate webs around her because they're convinced there's more to it than that
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
I should see if I can get one of my Irish Khagans to go insane, see if anything's different about the Glitterhoof event. Best-case scenario, it looks at the flag you set for your Favorite Warhorse and changes the name.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Dareon posted:I should see if I can get one of my Irish Khagans to go insane, see if anything's different about the Glitterhoof event. Best-case scenario, it looks at the flag you set for your Favorite Warhorse and changes the name. I'm fairly sure that it's always glitterhoof - there's actually a whole list of names for "horse" culture, but glitterhoof is manually created by the event and doesn't use it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
ironman tabriz->persia boy he bout to do it   one more good war against the abbasids and I can form the empire what a god drat clusterfuck to start off, barely able to find a bride, no alliances, but fortunately starting as an abbassid vassal was good enough to gently caress around chewing up county by county keeping the one duchy title so as to not gently caress up with gavelkind until I started hitting the vassal limit and needed to form the kingdom, getting lucky revolting for independence with egypt
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
I thought Gavelkind just splintered your land. So if I'm King of England and I have no dukes below me but many Earls, if I switch to Gavelkind, only one son with get the King title and the Kingdom stays as it was, right? And the rest will have to share my Duchy/County titles among themselves?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
Walton Simons posted:I thought Gavelkind just splintered your land. So if I'm King of England and I have no dukes below me but many Earls, if I switch to Gavelkind, only one son with get the King title and the Kingdom stays as it was, right? And the rest will have to share my Duchy/County titles among themselves? yeah but you need two duchies to form a kingdom, so I didn't want to create it until I had enough for the kingdom too
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
If you have Gavelkind but only one top-level title, your land will stay together as a single duchy/kingdom/empire, yeah. But you could lose direct control of a lot of your personally-built-up holdings, and your brothers that got those holdings are likely to think that they deserve to be the duke/king/emperor way more than you, which can cause exciting problems. If you have multiple top-level titles then it's even worse though, since the land your brother got is just gone out of your realm and you'll probably need to fight a war if you want to get it back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
One of many reasons why a will system would be ideal to add...
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:One of many reasons why a will system would be ideal to add... if you were smart enough to not have multiple sons when you were in gavelkind you wouldn't need to worry about it. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:if you were smart enough to not have multiple sons when you were in gavelkind you wouldn't need to worry about it. The best in life is of course to pop out kids as wildly as possible to further your dynasty, so that you end up with an entire realms of solely your own dynasty, just waiting to repeat the Habsburger success.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:29 |
|
|
As usual, the answer is to become Breton. You get Tanistry and sweet cavalry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 23:59
|
|
