|
Frogfingers posted:I would be cool with more Saharan provinces if they were all massive one slot nomadic oases. Could even an interesting challenge start. now we're talking
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
Is anyone else having trouble with HIP, figured I had fixed it earlier but now I can't assign my councillers to tasks. Clicking on the button then clicking a province just selects the province.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
Frogfingers posted:I would be cool with more Saharan provinces if they were all massive one slot nomadic oases. Could even an interesting challenge start. Oh yeah, there's no reason not to have some provinces in there. The Garamantes were still a major power at this point, and there were plenty of other Berber kingdoms in the desert who would come to play large roles in both the Byzantine and Muslim conquests of Africa. Vanilla CK2 frankly does the region a massive disservice by having the whole thing as wasteland. But putting more provinces in the Fezzan than in all of Egypt is just absurd, especially since climate change in the sixth century was about to make the inner Sahara a whole lot less hospitable for large oasis kingdoms like Garama.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
Has Paradox said anything about plans for Africa? Apparently they have two or three more DLC to come, and at least one is about filling in parts of the map that are empty currently, if I read/remember correctly, so they might be finally giving Africa a bit of love at some point? I hope so, at least.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
^^^ Doubtful, although I mention some new Pagan events in this nice new DD I just wrote: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/ck2-dev-diary-23-more-rules-less-lunatics.968680/
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
Quick question - why is Miaphysite considered to be "the best heresy" on the Notable Characters page of the CK2 Wiki?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:^^^ Doubtful, although I mention some new Pagan events in this nice new DD I just wrote: Oh, that's neat. Will Zoroastrians get a Crusader-equivalent too, despite sort-of-not-quite being Pagans? (Or do they already have one and I never noticed?) Also man, wish some of those things were in my game already; the pretender Shia caliph I mentioned earlier in my game has gout at age six, which is another thing making it sadly likely that they might not last.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Quick question - why is Miaphysite considered to be "the best heresy" on the Notable Characters page of the CK2 Wiki? Might be because it's the strongest? Low bar because it's just some guys in Armenia and independent realms in Abyssinia who never survive the abbasid onslaught
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:According to some big data thing I saw a while back, horse archer retinues are among the worst in the game unless they're led by a commander who is both Altaic and Tengri, in which case they're acceptable. It's a bit out of date. .though, so I don't know if there have been significant changes since then, but it's post-horse archer nerf at least. The one linked on the wiki? Because I'm pretty sure it ignores retinue cap cost and (maybe?) cost in gold terms. For example you have Baltic Warriors and Druzhina coming out significantly ahead of Houscarls yet both those units are 50%/25% bigger and more expansive. Is anyone playing feudal even using retinues anymore? At the moment they feel like a trap that eats all your gold reserves after the first engagement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
One mod idea I've had, but don't have the chops to code, is an epidemic of cancer. Basically a deposit of radioactive material is unearthed, you get some nice events about new fashions in jewelry sweeping the court, and suddenly everyone starts getting cancer. I'm half-remembering the plot of a novel where a medieval sword was made out of a radioactive meteor and mis-representing the principle of radio-luminescence a bit, but it's neat flavor. And you get more cancer, which is always nice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:^^^ Doubtful, although I mention some new Pagan events in this nice new DD I just wrote: There's some neat stuff in there, glad to see more free content  Oh and there seems to be a misspelling in the description of the Baltic not-Crusader trait, it says "forrest" instead of "forest".
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
ThaumPenguin posted:There's some neat stuff in there, glad to see more free content Thanks, will fix it. Roland Jones posted:Oh, that's neat. Will Zoroastrians get a Crusader-equivalent too, despite sort-of-not-quite being Pagans? (Or do they already have one and I never noticed?) Zoroastrians don't have one, I might be able to sneak it in though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:^^^ Doubtful, although I mention some new Pagan events in this nice new DD I just wrote: I honestly don't understand how you even justified charging money for Reaper's Due without a Masque of the Red Death event! At least now it's fixed!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
if you're attempting to assassinate and fabricate on the same guy and have gardener and cruel maybe an event to release a disease. obviously there should be a chance for it to go HORRIBLY wrong
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
genericnick posted:The one linked on the wiki? Because I'm pretty sure it ignores retinue cap cost and (maybe?) cost in gold terms. For example you have Baltic Warriors and Druzhina coming out significantly ahead of Houscarls yet both those units are 50%/25% bigger and more expansive. That one, yeah. And I admittedly don't know how valid the data there is. And yeah, retinues costing so much has me a bit unsure about them too. Dareon posted:One mod idea I've had, but don't have the chops to code, is an epidemic of cancer. Basically a deposit of radioactive material is unearthed, you get some nice events about new fashions in jewelry sweeping the court, and suddenly everyone starts getting cancer. That would be neat. Also probably really annoying if it hit you, but hey. Just need to have your physician get to amputating. Missing parts of your body is the new fashion. Darkrenown posted:Zoroastrians don't have one, I might be able to sneak it in though. Cool, thanks. I hope you can manage it; Zoroastrians are one of my favorites to play. Both orthodox and Mazdaki, though the latter don't get a religious head and thus no great holy wars and are irrelevant in this particular discussion. Which is a shame, though the anti-clericism of the heresy makes them not having a head priest make some sense I suppose. Edit: Oh, I know I asked about this before, but would some sort of thing to make it so that, if you go full status of women, your vassals start to as well? It's odd that it's flavored as you making the entire realm tolerant, and your vassals all stop minding you having female rulers, and yet their realms are all still male-only. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
It is just me or winning military battles barely lowers the numbers of the losing army anymore? It seems like the "ping pong" persecution required to finish an enemy army never been worst. Ive seem cases where I had to spent like 20 real life minutes ping pong beating an enemy stack of 10K, every time it would lower its numbers by around 300-500 tops It's very annoying and that's all it is: annoying. It doenst not makes the game any harder, when you beat that enemy stack you won, and you will wipe it out. Forcing the player to click 100 times to do that is just dumb. Shattered retreat is no good solution either, CK2 is not EU4. Just make the army auto dismiss after a few defeats Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
If you let them get their morale up a bit (so they try to stand and fight against your superior numbers instead of instantly turning tail), you can clean them up a lot faster. Alternatively, grab some generals with pursuit-phase buffs. It seems somewhat intentional that you can't really rush down a stronger enemy and crush all their individual armies in detail any more - they'll typically have a chance to form up the survivors and put together a reasonable stack of their own. But if you're not trying to pull off that sort of upset, you don't really need to keep ping-ponging their armies - just post up and siege down some holdings, and group back up for a fight when they come back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
Did I just cure myself?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
Why isn't the immortal vs. immortal event called "There Can Only Be One"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:It is just me or winning military battles barely lowers the numbers of the losing army anymore? What have you got in terms of cavalry? I like to keep up a cavalry retinue for the times when morale breaks during skirmish, and then, when the enemy's shattered, you can use them to raid while keeping ahead of the enemy and joining your main army in battle when the enemy recovers and returns to the fight. It helps a lot in killing a retreating enemy. This works out better for me than the optimized retinues, since I like to play republics and like to have lots of cities so I've generally got a good amount of archers and pikemen. A lot of it though really does depend on your army comp.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Jabor posted:If you let them get their morale up a bit (so they try to stand and fight against your superior numbers instead of instantly turning tail), you can clean them up a lot faster. Alternatively, grab some generals with pursuit-phase buffs. Yeah, but often you do need to wipe that stack or it will join with another stack and then it can gently caress you up The point is: requiring us to ping pong it to death dont makes it any harder, is just an annoyance. When you start pingponging an army, there is no way it can survive no matter what happens, is just forcing the player to click click click And its always been like that, I know. But in the latest version it seems worst than ever Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
I observed a game from like 768 to 1000, Svibjod ran wild and basically dunked all of Scandinavia by 900, the only influence I had was starting for a few days in Iceland. So by the time I was done observing all of Scandinavia, Estonia, and northern Russia were Norse, Islam was losing ground in the Levant, then I saved the game and decided I'd observe later. I accidentally forgot to pause and shutdown. So the descendants of my dude in Iceland now are patricians of a Merchant Republic, it's like 1200, Hinduism has ran a train on the Norse and Catholic religions, Byzantines shrunk, Europe in chaos, half of Europe is reformed Norse living under Hindu and Mazdak kings, and Zoroaster has gained lots of ground back in Persia 
Top Hats Monthly fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
The Sin of Onan posted:As a student of late antiquity, I have SO MANY problems with these pictures. The religious setup is insane and half the cultures appear to be in the wrong place. Also, I like how nearly every duchy in Germany has its own culture, but there's a single Slavic megablob stretching from the Black Sea to (almost) the Gulf of Finland. Is that also the case in Hispania and Thrace? Because Galician, Asturian and Cantabrian in Spain, along with Armorican and Gallic in northern Gaul and Galatian in central Anatolia, are all still "Continental Celtic" culture in 476. 'Thracian' in Dobrudja (not to be confused with Helleno-Thracian and Thraco-Roman), Illyrian and Dacian are Proto-Carpathian and still present on the map as well. I think I like getting worked up about this project.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Yeah, but often you do need to wipe that stack or it will join with another stack and then it can gently caress you up agreed. i've been playing ironman games since reaper's due, but i usually run with a mod called "decisive battles" that has an approach that is probably what you're looking for. love the bloody nine reference in the rival event, just finished re-reading that series
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:There's something I've been wondering for a while- is there a general consensus for Romanization levels in the late Empire? I've been chugging through Wightman's Gallia Belgica, which seems to suggest that by the 5th century, at least most of the pre-Roman Celts in Gaul had been decently well Romanized aside from a few very rural areas. Nerd
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Before I joined SA, I made a Fall of Rome mod back in 2012 or so which iirc was shared on 4chan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Angry Salami posted:I honestly don't understand how you even justified charging money for Reaper's Due without a Masque of the Red Death event! At least now it's fixed! This, I had just assumed without checking that it was in there from launch. Please create 1-2 variants of the event which track the story (the guest takes off their mask, and then...)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Before I joined SA, I made a Fall of Rome mod back in 2012 or so which iirc was shared on 4chan. Holy gently caress, was that really in 2012? I remember asking you when you like first posted in this thread if you were the guy who made that mod on /gsg/
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Raserys posted:Holy gently caress, was that really in 2012? I remember asking you when you like first posted in this thread if you were the guy who made that mod on /gsg/
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
So you're saying we're getting a Rome DLC gotcha I'll spread the word
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
I'm surprised that people are having trouble with nomads since I've found them to be the easy mode for getting achievments (especially ones like founding Israel or becoming Shaoshayant). Nomads are broken because they don't follow the usual unit composition structure that everyone else has to follow. When you hire mercs or raise levies (and since retinues have long since been nerfed), you get a mix of troops, some better than others. With nomads you can get an almost exact composition of whatever you want. If you look at a random feudal ruler and see that he can raise 5k of levies, that 5k might be say, 1k of light infantry, 1k of archers, 1k of cavalry, and 2k of heavy infantry. The archers and light infantry kind of suck, the cavalry is good but they don't have much of it, and the heavy infantry is sort of like the "baseline" unit. A nomad that can raise 5k of troops can set that up however they want to, which means if possible 5k of heavy cavalry. In one of my recent games, the Aztecs invaded and I wiped out one of their 90k doomstacks with a stack of about 15k of heavy cavalry because of the crazy stat difference between the two. So the rule of thumb for nomads is simply "as much heavy cavalry as possible, and if that's not possible then light cavalry". Gold is a little light at the beginning so you'll need to spend prestige on some of those pure light cavalry stacks, but once you start raiding/getting tribute/pillaging (ESPECIALLY pillaging) you can switch to getting only the heavy cavalry/light cavalry split, and then once you expand enough to move your capital down to southern or western europe you can switch to buying pure heavy cavalry stacks. The other way that the unit composition for nomads is broken has to do with commanders and tactics. Again, if you take my hypothetical feudal lord, if he does an archery tactic, he would be giving 20% of his army a 200% boost (since only the archers would get the bonus, and also archers are a fairly weak unit so it might only be like giving 5% of the total army strength a bonus), but when a nomad does a cavalry tactic they are giving 100% of the army that boost. The Altaic thing is a high risk/high reward scenario. Altaic leaders with the right stats can keep resetting combat back to the skirmish phase, where horse archers are the only unit that really does anything. This is brutal against your standard feudal armies since their infantry do almost nothing, but is weak against nomads since light cavalry are okay in this phase, which might be why the one poster here keeps getting wrecked by other nomads with his horse archer army. The latest stats from the wiki: Light Cavalry: 4 Morale 2 skirmish Attack 3 melee Attack 6 pursuit Attack Horse Archers: 3 Morale 4 skirmish Attack 1 melee Attack 7 pursuit Attack Heavy Cavalry: 10 Morale 0.5 skirmish Attack 10 melee Attack 4 pursuit Attack Heavy Infantry: (for a comparison with the feudal lords you'll be fighting) 4 Morale 0.25 skirmish attack 6 melee Attack 1 pursuit Attack So as you can see, a heavy cavalr, even before tactics is worth multiple times more than other units in terms of fighting power. Once you add in the tactics and multiply that by another 2-3x times (and your armies are always at full morale so you can start invading someone while you declare war and fight their low morale units once you arrive) you start being able to completely steamroll other armies. Finally, it sounds like a lot of people are using Otuken as babby's first nomad experience, which is a difficult start because you are really penned in and have a powerful neighbor in the Uygurs who will often conquer the second they can. The Uyghurs are a much easier start for the CM bookmark. Khazaria in both CM and TOG is also a decent first start. Another thing that people haven't mentioned is that if you are the khagan you should min/max the allocation of holdings with your khans. I believe that you can control a maximum of 1/3 of the total countries (and you usually want to stay below this so that if you conquer a new area you aren't immediately pushed over the limit because that cause instant revolts), but it's the number of empty holdings that determines manpower. So for example, you have 5 vassal khans and your realm contains 15 provinces, each vassal should have 2 counties and you can have 3. However, you can keep Constantinople, Rome, and Baghdad for yourself and give the other clans some frozen Scandanavian wastelands, meaning that you get 21 holdings worth of manpower while each of them only has like 3 holdings worth of manpower. Pillage everything* that you capture. This will cause almost nonstop revolts, so keep a few stacks of troops (I like to have about 2,000) on top of the territories until the pillaging finishing. This will let you instantly fight the peasant revolts when they spawn on top of your troops, and even when you're outnumbered you'll still crush them easily since they're mainly light infantry. Once you start pillaging you will start to end up with more gold than you could ever spend (since really the only things you spend money on are unit upkeep and the upgrades in your capital, both of which are really cheap) and this will give you absurd technology boosts. The technology boosts are even more absurd when you remember that you don't even need most of the categories. In the military tech branch for example, only cavalry, siege equipment, and organization (mainly to get rid of pagan attrition) do anything for you since you aren't using infantry and boats. (*the only real exception I can think of is you may want to keep/make some coastal vassals in order to have ships or else you can't conquer islands). Nomads are also broken because you really only care about the opinion of your khans, meaning that you have maybe 5 vassals total to keep happy and it's extremely easy to keep them happy since you're going to be constantly gifting them tons of land. You can be as tyrranical as you want with non-nomad vassals that you end up with since your khans don't care and it's rare that you even have enough non-nomad vassals for them to even be able to push back against you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:So you're saying we're getting a Rome DLC gotcha I'll spread the word
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
genericnick posted:Did I just cure myself? Did you install Oprah as your physician? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Yeah, but often you do need to wipe that stack or it will join with another stack and then it can gently caress you up If they have another army then they just march it over and stop you though? If their other army isn't a threat on its own then go crush them instead of putzing about playing with your food. Like, the only time you can actually get away with ping-ponging them over and over and over and over and over is when it doesn't really matter to the outcome of the war anyway. Your pain is entirely self-inflicted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Jabor posted:If they have another army then they just march it over and stop you though? If their other army isn't a threat on its own then go crush them instead of putzing about playing with your food. Nah. There are times when you're fighting someone larger than you, but their armies are split off into a couple different stacks - you might have enough troops to reasonably defeat one of the stacks (say 16k vs. 10k), but if their stacks link up, you'll be outnumbered (say 20k to 16k). If you can defeat half of their army out of the gate, you're in good stead, but when that first army retreats across the map and connects with its friend, you're staring down the barrel of insurmountable odds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
I suddenly have this urge to create essentially a youtube celebrity count or duke How can I prank someone
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:I suddenly have this urge to create essentially a youtube celebrity count or duke Kill their mom
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Lord Cyrahzax posted:Kill their mom after cucking their dad
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Parallax Scroll posted:Update on the jihad I had to defend aginst a few days ago. Aside from a bit more micromanagement than I'm used to in wartime I'm surprised how easy it was! Since I fought mostly defensively my only disappointment is I never got the chance to go stomp on Baghdad. I even ended up with a little more gold than when I started after some last minute ransoms. Glad to hear it went smoothly!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
Pfox posted:Nah. There are times when you're fighting someone larger than you, but their armies are split off into a couple different stacks - you might have enough troops to reasonably defeat one of the stacks (say 16k vs. 10k), but if their stacks link up, you'll be outnumbered (say 20k to 16k). If you can defeat half of their army out of the gate, you're in good stead, but when that first army retreats across the map and connects with its friend, you're staring down the barrel of insurmountable odds. Yeap Suppose the enemy as 20K total, divided in 2 stacks of 10K. Your own stack of 15K just won against one of those You won, the enemy is down to 10K that cant take your 15K. But only if you finish the 10K stack you just beat. If you dont, it will retreat and reinforce, and join the other 10K and you will be hosed. So you have to ping pong it. While you do it, you cant lose. Even if the other 10K stack arrives, he will join a losing battle with the one you are pingponging. But if you dont do it, you will probably lose. So you have to ping pong it to death Or even if your army is bigger than your enemy total, that stack you never finish can reinforce and join with some allied stack that finally arrived, or some holy order that just became available and your enemy hired. And when it goes back to fight you, your own army probably already lost a good % to attrition and poo poo And even when there is no danger, is usually better to finish the beaten army or it will go retake land you have already occupied, making the war last longer Bottom line: is always better or even required to ping pong the enemy stack to death, but it is very boring to do so, and lately it seems like you have to do it even more. It's ok if you got to beat that stack 2-3 times. Heck, even 5 or so. But when you have to do it more than 10 times, it's too much Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 17:11
|
|