|
That should totally be an event you get if your highest level title is gavelkind. A witch curses your character with fertility. edit: and if you try and remain unmarried to avoid getting extra kids, random events will occour where you and a character of the opposite sex slip, fall, and through a incredible series of coincidences, have sex. Pharohman777 fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Mar 31, 2018 |
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
Someone saws through the supports on your balcony but instead of falling to your death you bounce off a cart and tumble through the marketplace somehow impregnating a dozen of your subjects.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 10:43
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:That should totally be an event you get if your highest level title is gavelkind. The Most Fertile Man in [Root.PrimaryTitle.GetName] e: They should totally have some events inspired by the civil war period of Norway in the 12th century. To put it short Norway just in a state of perpetual civil war because motherfuckers just kept turning up claiming to be a son of the previous king, there was no set succession principle so any son legitimate or illegitimate could in theory (and it turns out in practice as well) just claim the throne and see if someone follows them. It was often hideously obvious that some notable basically just took some child and claimed them to be a royal bastard in order to further their ambitions. Just have random bastards and such with unknown fathers have a chance to be declared children of a dead king and increase the likelihood of factions forming to get them made kings in a gavelkind title. Should make for fun times. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 11:33 on Mar 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 11:17
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:That should totally be an event you get if your highest level title is gavelkind. Woods babes only you can't turn them down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 11:29
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Woods babes only you can't turn them down. Because they have an axe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 11:33
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Because they have an axe. I almost said "but that would be rape and rape is wrong!" Then I remembered how many babies I've murdered in the game and just accepted that the world of CKII is one of unspeakable monsters. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Mar 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 11:44
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:The Most Fertile Man in [Root.PrimaryTitle.GetName] If they ever make a CK3 I really want them to allow for more weird inheritance schemes like this because these kinds of crazy lineage shenanigans are what drove so much of medieval politics. Give me weird stuff like the thing that the Russians used where it passes between brothers, or the actual Turkish succession where basically the whole realm erupted into a civil war between each of the former ruler's sons every time, or the one where it's this complex thing that jumps between two branches of the family tree that I can't actually remember the name of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 14:06
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:If they ever make a CK3 I really want them to allow for more weird inheritance schemes like this because these kinds of crazy lineage shenanigans are what drove so much of medieval politics. Give me weird stuff like the thing that the Russians used where it passes between brothers, or the actual Turkish succession where basically the whole realm erupted into a civil war between each of the former ruler's sons every time, or the one where it's this complex thing that jumps between two branches of the family tree that I can't actually remember the name of. That'd be cool. I also hope that they read up a bit on Medieval history and design mechanics designed to reflect and emphasize the changes that took place during this era in history, particularly in Europe during the high middle ages. New things I'd like to see
That's alot of stuff, and I could think of more. But I think going somewhat along these lines in building CK3 could be interesting. Of course these almost all portray Europe and not Byzantium or the Islamic World, though they could be kind of portrayed by having them start as having gone through the changes that Europe goes through, in that they start with access to plenty of educated ministers, mature cities, navies, mercenary armies and permanent seats of government, though down the line (or at start if we're lucky) they should get more unique gameplay mechanics as well (I'd really like to see Mamluks/Ghulams and military coups represented for the Islamic world for instance).
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
Personally id like to see the map extended quite a bit. My inner weeb would love to see the game go through the heian period and the early edo period of Japan. Japan's own feudal system formed around this time so it seems like a good fit for ck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
Sengoku already exists, and if that isn't a compelling game, I don't know what is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Sengoku already exists, and if that isn't a compelling game, I don't know what is. Sure but i guess theres an appeal for me in just having a big dumb map euiv style that allows me to play in africa one game, japan another, and paly as the pope when i get bored.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:The Most Fertile Man in [Root.PrimaryTitle.GetName] Read up on this, and holy poo poo, Magnus IV. Usually, when a king is captured by an opposing claimant, deposed, blinded, castrated, has one leg cut off, and is sent to a monastery, that's where they stay. But this poor fucker managed to get dragged back into the struggles for the throne anyway. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
They should actually contract the map, It already goes way farther than it should. For CK3 I hope they focus on making all the different forms of governments different. The Byzantines, the Islamic Empires, Hordes, Pagan Kingdoms, and Monastic Orders should all be represented and should all feel distinct instead of having a few unique mechanics tacked onto a sort of pseudo medieval kingdom framework. They should also re work combat because It's very confusing and strange and any sort of tactics beyond smashing stacks together takes a ton of micro.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Read up on this, and holy poo poo, Magnus IV. Usually, when a king is captured by an opposing claimant, deposed, blinded, castrated, has one leg cut off, and is sent to a monastery, that's where they stay. But this poor fucker managed to get dragged back into the struggles for the throne anyway. That whole era was just all kinds of hosed up. Contemporary historians just kind of gave up trying to record stuff beyond just stating that "things are hosed up and I don't know if it's worth my time to describe it any more than that".
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
CK2 generally doesn't have much that shows the evolution throughout the medieval period. Hell, the early medieval starting points were added very clearly as an afterthought, and the game's mechanics don't really support a lot of key aspects of that part of the era, especially the Normans. The game really doesn't know what to do with groups of people moving around within realms without necessarily being led by a feudal land-holding lord. That's another reason why the Crusades fall flat, most of the important people in the first crusade weren't established feudal lords, and their troops weren't just feudal levies. I feel like it also might be worth walking away from the rigid adherence to dynasties as the only playable structure. Let people play theocracies, let old family names either die out or get overtaken by cadet branches with different names. Let them choose who they want to play when a realm gets split by gavelkind, or other occasions with multiple inheritors. I think CK2 went as far as it could go as a purely dynastic game, and it might be worth exploring some alternate take. I really don't need transporting troops by water to be more complicated though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
An armed navy is a completely different thing from the transport boats you can raise at the drop of a hat. Obviously those boats don't just poof into existence, you are commandeering existing boats. Fish boats, merchant ships, pleasure yachts, every single boat in town that is sea worthy. So the maintenance cost is high not just because of the physical maintenance of the ship and crew, but due to the lost productivity of having the fishing fleet transporting soldiers instead of fishing. A proper Navy would be more like retinues. You pay big money to build them, and then more money to keep them functional. They are there all the time, costing money all the time. You can't just decide you want a fleet of hundreds of warships one day, once you pay the creation cost it will take years for them to build up to full strength. Honestly I like the lack of navel combat. Navel combat is it's own big thing. In the 20th century we're all about sinking the other guy's ships, but navel artillery doesn't become a thing until (checks wiki) 1571. So in the CK time you'd mostly be looking at ramming and boarding actions. You could end a battle with more ships than you started with. That would be super complicated to get right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Facebook Aunt posted:An armed navy is a completely different thing from the transport boats you can raise at the drop of a hat. Obviously those boats don't just poof into existence, you are commandeering existing boats. Fish boats, merchant ships, pleasure yachts, every single boat in town that is sea worthy. So the maintenance cost is high not just because of the physical maintenance of the ship and crew, but due to the lost productivity of having the fishing fleet transporting soldiers instead of fishing. Basically at no point in time were armies transported by fishing boats. Hell it took a long time and lots of work in the Middle Ages to make a ship capable of effectively transporting horses in any significant number (they refined it to the point that a cavalryman could basically charge into battle right off the ship) across the Mediterranean. I definitely would like naval transport to be a bit more complicated in a potential new CK3, or at the very least more significant and something not everyone will be able to do, unless we are talking about just crossing smaller bodies of water on a short transit (in which case we are talking about just commandering wahtever ships and river barges could be found ), which could be represented by being able to cross over at certain points on the map provided there is not a actual enemy navy contesting the crossing. The fact that if you wanted to bring an army to the Holy Land meant you absolutely had to make a deal with Genoa, Venice or Pisa is an important fact of Medieval history, and basically one of the main reasons driving the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople, and one I would like to see represented. EU4 already has being able to capture ships in combat, naval combat in that isn't perfect by any means, but it's fine and simple enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
If you want to add in naval combat, you need to add more sea regions, more types of ships, a whole bunch of poo poo, all for the joy of getting your army wiped without even landing. You might as well add in random chances of any and all ships at a distance from your coast getting destroyed, but it's not fun. The game's mechanics already make me unhistorically avoid faster naval movement in favor of slower, less complicated land transit, I need that to be more complicated like I need a hole in the head.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:If you want to add in naval combat, you need to add more sea regions, more types of ships, a whole bunch of poo poo, all for the joy of getting your army wiped without even landing. You might as well add in random chances of any and all ships at a distance from your coast getting destroyed, but it's not fun. Well generally I'd like transporting an army by sea to be a rather rare occurence in general only undertaken under special circumstances (going on a crusade, being vikings), and most of the other times you'd use it, such as going from France to England, from Spain to Africa, etc. to basically be done exactly like land movement except that if there is an enemy navy in that sea then it's not possible. Also, most countries would not have navies for most of the period.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Basically at no point in time were armies transported by fishing boats. Hell it took a long time and lots of work in the Middle Ages to make a ship capable of effectively transporting horses in any significant number (they refined it to the point that a cavalryman could basically charge into battle right off the ship) across the Mediterranean. Just like soldier levies must be mostly farmers and other workers who have normal jobs, but can be handed a weapon and pressed into service in emergencies. Building an archery range may give you the ability to raise 30 archers, but it certainly doesn't have the maintenance cost to represent supporting 30 full time soldiers and their families -- those are 30 dudes who have a regular job, but also drill in archery. A navel retinue would be closer to real life history. Randarkman posted:I definitely would like naval transport to be a bit more complicated in a potential new CK3, or at the very least more significant and something not everyone will be able to do, unless we are talking about just crossing smaller bodies of water on a short transit (in which case we are talking about just commandering wahtever ships and river barges could be found ), which could be represented by being able to cross over at certain points on the map provided there is not a actual enemy navy contesting the crossing. The fact that if you wanted to bring an army to the Holy Land meant you absolutely had to make a deal with Genoa, Venice or Pisa is an important fact of Medieval history, and basically one of the main reasons driving the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople, and one I would like to see represented. Okay, but what would be the gameplay effect of that? Island nations would live in splendid isolation, I guess. Or even more little red dash marks to show it is possible to cross from this island to that one to the mainland without a proper navy? That might make it possible to march from Ireland to Jerusalem without worrying about shipping at all. The Fatmids certainly won't bother interdicting the Straight of Dover in most games. Logistics management can be a fun game, but it's mostly been kept very abstract in this game. Like only needing to worry about the supply limit, not worry about actually managing and protecting your supply trains. Complex navy would be like having to manage supply trains for extended campaigns, to make sure your men had enough replacement gear, lest your Long-bowmen spontaneously become light footmen when they run out of ammo a 3 month march from home.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
All sailing should be hugging the coast. None of this ahistorical navigation of the open sea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Iceland rebels against Norway. No one cares or even notices, because raising a navy to go spank their 90 dudes is just too much trouble. And then the rebellion war drags on for years, because nobody can ever get 100% war score without spending far more on ship mercenaries than Iceland will ever be worth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
Facebook Aunt posted:Okay, but what would be the gameplay effect of that? Island nations would live in splendid isolation, I guess. Or even more little red dash marks to show it is possible to cross from this island to that one to the mainland without a proper navy? That might make it possible to march from Ireland to Jerusalem without worrying about shipping at all. The Fatmids certainly won't bother interdicting the Straight of Dover in most games. Jesus Christ, I'm not asking for loving War in the Pacific here. I just want it to be closer to history by mostly cutting out transport over sea from the game, unless you are playing as someone who actually have access to a navy of seaworthy ships capable of transporting an army, and in cases where you'd only be transporting an army over a short period for a short distance, such as France to England or Denmark to Norway, for it to be entirely abstracted. Facebook Aunt posted:Iceland rebels against Norway. No one cares or even notices, because raising a navy to go spank their 90 dudes is just too much trouble. And then the rebellion war drags on for years, because nobody can ever get 100% war score without spending far more on ship mercenaries than Iceland will ever be worth. Well, that kind of reflects what actually happened in Norway and Denmark in the late Middle Ages, they became completely dependent on the Hanseatic League for shipping and transport, especially in the case of Norway where transport across land is very much impractical, this essentially crippled royal power and the ability to deal with dissent if the Hanseatics said no or wanted too much money to do so. If Iceland is under Norway and rebels, and the Norwegians don't have a navy or can't afford to pay for the use of someone else's then tough titties, that should settle it. e: It's aready possible to march from Ireland to Jerusalem without worrying about shipping at all, you just need to have enough fleet levies and then sail right there without having to worry about naval power or anything. For some reason in my games Irish nobles always seem to make up the bulk of Crusades for some dumb reason. e2: And Iceland is a case of a place that had so little political interaction with the rest of the map that it might as well not even be playable in the game. e3: Also feudal levies were not conscripted peasants, they were mostly professionals (knights) or retainers of said professionals and such, in general arming peasants was thought to be a very bad idea and not really done, hence why Medieval armies generally were quite small. The problem was the terms of service making it difficult to count on their service at all times, and the risk for feudal lords to rely on their own powerful vassals, who had their ambitions, to provide the bulk of their soldiers. Hence why, when kings amassed greater wealth through more efficient and comprehensive tax collection (as well as having a greater tax base with the rising population), they eventually came to prefer mercenaries over feudal levies, because of their availability and reliability compared to these (especially foreign mercenaries were generally thought to be more loyal and politically reliable a fact that carries over into the early modern period). Randarkman fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Mar 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:The fact that if you wanted to bring an army to the Holy Land meant you absolutely had to make a deal with Genoa, Venice or Pisa is an important fact of Medieval history, This is the reason the English flag is St George’s cross. They licensed it from Genoa to allow their ships to cross the Mediterranean.  ToxicSlurpee posted:Woods babes only you can't turn them down. I thought this was a joke about Tiger Wood’s affairs at first 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Well generally I'd like transporting an army by sea to be a rather rare occurence in general only undertaken under special circumstances... Also, most countries would not have navies for most of the period. Also this... The majority of the armies fighting in the crusades walked across Europe and weren’t boated in over the Med like happens in game. Sizeable standing navies just didn’t exist for most kingdoms in Europe at this period.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:if you want to ship your armies around, for example to go on crusades then it should be possible to lease transport and support from them if you lack a sufficient navy yourself in return for compensation (promise of land, privileges, trading rights, etc). And if it turns out you can't pay you wind up pressing a claim for them and eventually end up sacking Constantinople? Sounds good to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
I think a good starting date for CK3 would be 915. It's the coronation year of Berengar I, the last emperor before the interregnum of 924-962. It'd get rid of the problems of the early start dates but keep the things people like. Viking raids would still happen, but you'd also have Normans since they settled in 911. The Magyars have already moved into Hungary. The only Carolingian around is Charles the Simple who rules West Francia and Lotharingia but he was overthrown by his nobles and Robert, brother of Charles's royal predecessor Odo, became king in 922 so the Carolingian monopoly is broken. Germany is already under a non-Carolingian, Conrad I. While Berengar is emperor he only rules in Italy and the King of Provence Louis the Blind has a claim to his throne. The Abbasid Caliphate is beginning to disintegrate under Al-Muqtadir but only a few decades ago was underwent a reverse of fortunes and strengthening of the state under his father Al-Mu'tadid. And the Macedonian dynasty is in place, as are the Fatimids.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
Having a pre-1066 but still relatively recognizable and balanced start date would definitely help the feel of the early game. There was a 935 start mod on the paradox forums a few years back, and it remains the best start I’ve seen for Ck2: It has a viable Zoro kingdom in Persia, a Viking/Christian conflict in Scandinavia that isn’t completely one-sided, no giant HRE bulldozing its way around the map, it’s just nice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
Lord Cyrahzax posted:Having a pre-1066 but still relatively recognizable and balanced start date would definitely help the feel of the early game. There was a 935 start mod on the paradox forums a few years back, and it remains the best start I’ve seen for Ck2: Iranian Intermezzo, it was indeed dope. I think it got folded into an awful kitchen sink overhaul though, so, y'know, rip
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 02:42
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:Iranian Intermezzo, it was indeed dope. I think it got folded into an awful kitchen sink overhaul though, so, y'know, rip Maybe Paradox should just allow selectable start dates for the entire game?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
binge crotching posted:Maybe Paradox should just allow selectable start dates for the entire game? This never really worked in EU4 and the feature has been essentially abandoned for years. It'd be cool but requires way too much detailed knowledge to be implemented in the history files.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 07:59
|
|
|
Weavered posted:I thought this was a joke about Tiger Wood’s affairs at first Nah it was about the women you meet when out hunting sometimes that give you syphilis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 08:20
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:This never really worked in EU4 and the feature has been essentially abandoned for years. It'd be cool but requires way too much detailed knowledge to be implemented in the history files. The amount of research required to do a halfway decent approximation of local "rulers" for the entire game map, for one bookmark, seriously boggles my mind
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 08:55
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Nah it was about the women you meet when out hunting sometimes that give you syphilis. Yeah I hate when this happens to me, and also when it happens in CK2.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
I've had the queen of Lombardy as a lover for a while and even had two daughters with her, and after my wife died and I killed two of her husbands, I really wanted to try to get married to her and skip the century of conniving and tiny wars I'd have to wage for the last measly 5 counties I need to finally restore the Roman Empire. Only thing is, she isn't biting. I've bribed her and even joined one of her wars, but she's still only at 80 affection and I've run out of ideas to push her over the edge into marrying me. The most she'll agree to is a matrilineal marriage, but that would ruin the whole point. I've even bought a favor, but apparently that doesn't work on queens. Is there any way to get her to marry? And to make things worse, I've been seducing boatloads of women, but none of them have produced any good kids to make my heir. I'm stuck with my sister's dumb idiot son. Marrying the 40 year old duchess of Friuli and Verona sounded great when my ruler was 12, but it didn't pan out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
Oh hey, I saw on their Facebook that the base game of Crusader Kings II was free for "A Limited Time", so I don't know how long. If you know someone that wants to try it, now's a good time!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CrusaderKings/status/981939649122795521 Looks like one of those "if you dl it today, it is yours" types of deals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Steam page says it runs till Sat at 10am Pacific. Also the DLC is on sale. Jade Dragon is at 33% off. Everything else is at 50% off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
Is the tutorial broken or something? I've tried it twice, the first time I lost a battle that I was scripted to win, the second time it told me to siege some island, but when I tried it told me my army needed to be bigger then theirs. Both times I just stopped getting instructions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
Probably it's years out of date
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 23:48
|
|