|
I start in 769 and it happens all the goddamn time, often including Italy as well.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:53 |
|
|
Yeah, Old Gods start. I know it's much harder to get from the Charlemange start. I guess there's still a lot of game to go. Also my empress today celebrated her 100th birthday with the conquest of western Mali. The dynasty is currently rated higher than the Plantagenets, but it's really more accurate to say the immortal god-empress is rated higher than the Plantagenets since only like 8000 of that score is from the previous two kings and Fylkir Alvor was the one who conquered Brittania and unified Scandanavia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
If you're a military superpower, is Threat really- well, a threat? Thanks to a Lombard rebellion my armies managed to conquer all of Western France and I'm wondering if I should just stop giving a gently caress about truces and poo poo and just paint the map. God knows I have no lack of sons to award land to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
CommissarMega posted:If you're a military superpower, is Threat really- well, a threat? Thanks to a Lombard rebellion my armies managed to conquer all of Western France and I'm wondering if I should just stop giving a gently caress about truces and poo poo and just paint the map. God knows I have no lack of sons to award land to. Depends how superpower you are, I guess. I've got about 35k troops (nearly at 1000AD), about double that of anyone else, but on the other hand, the entire rest of the world is still more guys than me. Probably also worth considering where they come from; most of my big stacks come from England, and my ability to project force into the eastern map edge is much weaker since it's mostly but not entirely newly ex-tribal finnish and baltic duchies. spectralent fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
Plus even if you have the forces to win, a billion little armies on every border are so tedious to fight that I usually prefer to wait the threat out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Yeah, the biggest threat of threat is tedium. The thing to ask yourself is if you trust your retinue to be the cruise missile that gets 100% war score before the coalition makes it to the theater.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
It's been over two years, but every time I see that image, I can't get through reading the list without bursting out laughing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
The Crusader Kings II twitter account recently posted these images about the Societies. Most of the information is old, but there's some new information in there (mostly as to how each lay member of a monastic community is expected to help out, i.e. the Nestorian order is devoted to spreading the faith, the Hindus are to support the gurus, and the Dominicans seek Divine Truth) as well as some history of the historical societies.   
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
I really need to get another computer. This dlc update has me just as hyped for conclave please give me more reasons to be a terrible terrible ruler GODDAMN HERETICS
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
verbal enema posted:I really need to get another computer. This dlc update has me just as hyped for conclave please give me more reasons to be a terrible terrible ruler Next scene in your kingdom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEGo41443iI
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Sky Shadowing posted:Next scene in your kingdom: Considering this is how I play the game rn against other realms yes
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
My empire is now so big my viceroyalties keep gobbling up bits of other kingdoms when I'm not looking. I feel like I might WC by accident. Honestly, this whole thing has been really fun, and now I want to try out other guys. I feel like "stable starts" was a really bad way to try and get in the game (ireland and NE india), because it takes off so much better when you've got some actual crusading to do. I kinda want to try abyssinia or one of the muslim states, next. EDIT: While I'm here is all-huscarl a viable retinue? I've got something like 5000 of them, now, and I'm wondering if I should have any other troops mixed in there. spectralent fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
All housecarl is the sort of thing that's a hard call because it gets better over time. The retinue bonuses are offensive and the cultural building bonuses are offensive. As time goes on you get enough stats and a big enough retinue to do an alpha strike in the first melee and care less that defense retinues have both offense and defense sewn up. e. to clarify your choices are mono-housecarl or mono-defense. Mono retinues are too good the way tactics work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
There are a couple retinue that you don't want 100% of because they roll lovely tactics. Off the top of my head archers, light calvary, and camel calvary roll bad tactics when you have more than 40% in a stack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Sadly, that's over thinking the retinue meta. Its one note enough that if you aren't Scottish or Latin, you usually want all Defense except for some edge cases like how all housecarls can be good enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
New achievements for Monks and Mystics are up on Steam:quote:Unwelcome Visitors
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
Can't wait to hear how much this DLC adds for West Africans!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
That is a lot of good cheevos
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
WILL I BE ABLE TO CONVERT MY INDO-HORSE GLITTERHOOF EMPIRE TO EU4??
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
.
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Nov 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Mr.Morgenstern posted:New achievements for Monks and Mystics are up on Steam: Thanks to the ironman and no mods requirement, I'm creeping up on 600 hours of CK2 and still have a big fat goose egg for achievements. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Crusader Kings II: When eating your prisoners, you can now attract a non-serious disease
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Coward posted:Can't wait to hear how much this DLC adds for West Africans! Like, am I just tripping here or is there literally nothing for them??
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Next patch will probably take features away from them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
How does the cannibal thing work? I picked up the trait from eating some rando fatty during an epidemic at some point and I thought I would have another option with prisoners but I didn't see one. Then the character died and I didn't think about it again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Goofballs posted:How does the cannibal thing work? I picked up the trait from eating some rando fatty during an epidemic at some point and I thought I would have another option with prisoners but I didn't see one. Then the character died and I didn't think about it again. You need to be both Cannibal and Lunatic to eat prisoners. Crusader Kings II: You need to be both Cannibal and Lunatic etc etc
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
^^^ Possessed + Cannibal also works IIRCMcGavin posted:There are a couple retinue that you don't want 100% of because they roll lovely tactics. Off the top of my head archers, light calvary, and camel calvary roll bad tactics when you have more than 40% in a stack. Unfucking tactics was on my list of TODOs for 2.8 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
You could have probably spent an entire expansion unfucking the units and combat and it would be an easy purchase.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:^^^ Possessed + Cannibal also works IIRC Just out of curiosity, how historically accurate would it be to make commander skill more influential on the outcome of battles? As it works now, it seems like the primary thing that determines victory is raw numbers, very distantly followed by good tactics picks (usually they end up cancelling themselves out unless you've got force that's heavily stacked with one unit type), followed by commander combat traits, followed by general martial skill. I feel like it would make for a more interesting game if exceptional commanders could more consistently win with inferior numbers (without the aforementioned retinue stacking), but as far as I understand medieval warfare it was generally a big melee clusterfuck so maybe raw numbers is just the most realistic thing. zedprime posted:You could have probably spent an entire expansion unfucking the units and combat and it would be an easy purchase. I feel like if they ever make a Crusader Kings 3, redoing combat from scratch will probably be a priority. Although if that does happen, please don't make it work like EU4 combat. I hate the combat in EU4 so much. I never have any idea what's going on and it always feels like a bad dice roll in the initial rounds just completely fucks you. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Just out of curiosity, how historically accurate would it be to make commander skill more influential on the outcome of battles? As it works now, it seems like the primary thing that determines victory is raw numbers, very distantly followed by good tactics picks (usually they end up cancelling themselves out unless you've got force that's heavily stacked with one unit type), followed by commander combat traits, followed by general martial skill. I feel like it would make for a more interesting game if exceptional commanders could more consistently win with inferior numbers (without the aforementioned retinue stacking), but as far as I understand medieval warfare it was generally a big melee clusterfuck so maybe raw numbers is just the most realistic thing. Idk what would be more realistic but fwiw if you get someone with some crazy high martial skill it definitely has an effect on outcome. For reference, my genius/brawny/immortal dude with a martial of 35 can fight against like 3 to 1 odds (10k versus 30k) and come out with not only a victory but a victory in which thousands of the enemy are slaughtered and maybe like 300 dudes are killed on my side. I stopped using him as a commander because lol. Although that's def an extreme case, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Idk what would be more realistic but fwiw if you get someone with some crazy high martial skill it definitely has an effect on outcome. I mostly notice this happening when I've got a commander leading a retinue stacked force and said commander also has a combat trait that boosts that unit type - the bonuses from those traits are modified by martial skill so with the crazy 30+ skill commanders what says 10% in the tooltip can end up being more like 50%. It doesn't seem to happen as much with standard levy mixed composition armies though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Just out of curiosity, how historically accurate would it be to make commander skill more influential on the outcome of battles? As it works now, it seems like the primary thing that determines victory is raw numbers, very distantly followed by good tactics picks (usually they end up cancelling themselves out unless you've got force that's heavily stacked with one unit type), followed by commander combat traits, followed by general martial skill. I feel like it would make for a more interesting game if exceptional commanders could more consistently win with inferior numbers (without the aforementioned retinue stacking), but as far as I understand medieval warfare it was generally a big melee clusterfuck so maybe raw numbers is just the most realistic thing. It's pretty subjective, and honestly, numbers are a pretty major advantage. But our combat is both abstracted and slowed down enough that I think we can just go for whatever makes for the best gameplay. We don't want any one factor to be too overwhelming or players will just focus on that, but at the same time you need to show what factors are affecting things or else the results will feel random - at the same time there has to be some randomness because battles are loving chaos most of the time and I think it's more fun to be thinking "I hope things go well and/or I hope I planned well enough to offset something inevitably going wrong  " than "It's clobbering time!  " . CK2 is focused on characters, and for the most part, your army is a big pile of whatever levies, so I'd say commanders should be a major factor in winning battles - trying to control army/flank makeup and troop ratios is just a micro nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
I've torn my own kingdom apart to land a particularly good general before. That man did miracles and you were a whiny pissbaby during that war GET OFF THAT CHAIR
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
That isn't all the societies right? Because are there seriously only evil secret societies for pagans and nothing for either W-Africans, non-Shiite muslims or the heresies? Especially considering that warrior societies were a huge part of pagan life...
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
These are all the societies to be released right now, but they're planning to add more as time goes on. edit: give us Sufis guys geez
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Can't decide between  and  Though I can't wait to see what AtE crew will end up doing with it. At least we still get the swag?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:You need to be both Cannibal and Lunatic to eat prisoners. And now I know why a rival king had three separate negative modifiers for Lunatic, Cannibal, and Crazy Cannibal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
I think the Hermetic society is all religions? It didn't mention any restrictions on the description. So that would be a "good" society option for the groups you mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:That isn't all the societies right? Because are there seriously only evil secret societies for pagans and nothing for either W-Africans, non-Shiite muslims or the heresies? Muslims share Lucifer's Own with Christians and Jews.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:53 |
|
|
I'm all about the treasury addition. Gonna get some sweet purps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 21:19
|
|
