|
Torrannor posted:The -2 opinion penalty caps out eventually, after 30 years! If you can live with -60 vassal opinion... If you've got the retinues / mercs / personal levy for it, it's not the worst thing in the world. Especially because after 30 years you'll have a long reign bonus, tons of prestige / piety, etc. You just make sure your council is actually useful people and not vassals.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
I am hella PEEVED posted:It does at least make you consider setting your Court Chaplain to something other than "Hunt Apostate". Unfortunately it's just back to the old default of "suck up to Pope". Or you can suck up to a powerful bishop in your court and have him crown you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The pope asking for some big huge gesture every time seems like a bit much
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
The new crowns are really cool!! I'll be excited to see what kind of game play effects stuff like the cursed crown will have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
big dyke energy posted:The new crowns are really cool!! I'll be excited to see what kind of game play effects stuff like the cursed crown will have. Yeah there are definitely whole cultures I avoid playing because their emperor-tier crowns are lame (looking at you, German, English, and westerngfx. You're cool, Celts, East Africans, and Italians). Looking forward to the aesthetic change. Also the new French portraits in particular look loving great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
I hope if you found an uncreated or new kingdom or Empire, you have the chance to create a suitably badass piece of headwear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
binge crotching posted:If you've got the retinues / mercs / personal levy for it, it's not the worst thing in the world. Especially because after 30 years you'll have a long reign bonus, tons of prestige / piety, etc. You just make sure your council is actually useful people and not vassals. They didn't say as much, but I would be surprised if you can actually lose Short Reign while remaining uncrowned. Seems like your reign wouldn't be officially recognized as "started" yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
Holy poo poo I just realized that the new Africa hugely boosts both Jews and the Nestorians (and the boring Abyssinians with their shite religion too I guess) I really wish religious societies flipped too, like holy orders, for the Nestorians Do wonder if you'll ever be able to recreate the Ursulines in Holy Fury tho: was a great feeling having my family holding all the church lands
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
Sky Shadowing posted:I hope if you found an uncreated or new kingdom or Empire, you have the chance to create a suitably badass piece of headwear. Yeah, now that you can rename artifacts hopefully you can pick what the generic Crown of Majesty looks like when you order it. Really, the whole "conquering all Western Europe in a series of increasingly bloody wars" thing is just a means to the end of a fancier hat than anyone else
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
If you can think of a nobler cause I'd like to hear it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
First TF2, now CK2. All games eventually turn into hat simulator. At least all games ending in 2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
tubamortis posted:When is Paradox finally going to make a grand strategy game about the U.S. Senate? I'm gonna be honest, a Paradox-style game about modern geopolitics would be loving incredible. Democracy 3 is like halfway there, but it's a little too dry and impenetrable for my tastes. If the UI wasn't a clusterfuck and it had more of that Paradox sense of fun (stuff like literally any of the Lunatic events) it'd be perfect. WeedlordGoku69 fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Oct 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 04:10
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:I'm gonna be honest, a Paradox-style game about modern geopolitics would be loving incredible. The main issue with Democracy 3 is that it's ENTIRELY domestic issues. Foreign policy/military is so abstracted that you can basically ignore it entirely and it doesn't make a huge difference. A modern day Paradox game would be pretty cool but I feel like Paradox have said at some point that they don't want to do anything that's set too recently? I guess it's easy to get into trouble when trying to model current political issues. Hell, look how much poo poo people still give them for the purge decisions in HoI4.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
I feel like the answer to that is to focus less on the actual issues themselves, and more on the procedural fuckery. Like, CK2 isn't really super interested in debating divine right of kings or the Magna Carta or anything, it's way more interested in the stabby fucky parts. No reason why a modern game couldn't do the same: abstract actual issue positions to the point where it's more "what alliance you're in" than "what your beliefs are," and then go all in on House of Cards poo poo from there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
Well the thing is that historical distance makes it easier to make abstract mechanics about things that would have been contentious issues in the day. Like, the Protestant Reformation is a pretty major part of an EU game and nowadays nobody really gets too mad about it (well, some people probably still do but those people are crazy), when back in the day it was a bit of a big deal, on a very personal level. It would be hard to do a game like that in the modern day without making it all very generic, broad strokes events, which isn't usually what Paradox does. All those little flavour events like the Cadaver Synod are fun little touches, but they were REAL THINGS that happened and that's what makes them interesting. I'm not saying that Paradox couldn't make a good modern day grand strategy game of some kind - just that it would probably feel more like Stellaris than the historical titles in terms of flavour touches - it'd draw a lot more on pop culture than real history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 04:31
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:I'm gonna be honest, a Paradox-style game about modern geopolitics would be loving incredible. There's this https://store.steampowered.com/app/553260/Realpolitiks/ Reviews are a bit of a concern but it looked kinda amusing when matn played it
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
Azhais posted:There's this some poor schmuck who bought this posted:- In all five games I played, there is a pre-scripted assault by "terrorists" about five years in. These terrorists always seem to have your exact army (destroyers and all) plus one infantryman -- no matter how stacked you are.  that sure is a 1C Company game
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
big dyke energy posted:If you can think of a nobler cause I'd like to hear it. Pretty borders?!?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
Problem with more modern settings for some kind of grand strategy game is that nobody really knows the full story with what's happening in the present, or at least of the people who think they know the full story, there's a wild variety of truths. It takes a couple centuries of distance to be able to do grand sweeping analysis and make generalizations. Also a present game is either going to be very short or it'll turn into a sci-fi future game pretty quickly. I think the only way it really works is if the game dev takes a bunch of their own personal hot takes or philosophical baggage to the table and invest a lot into aesthetics. Alpha Centauri's the best example of that, and I think Fate of the World does it to a lesser degree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 06:07
|
|
|
Azhais posted:There's this I've played it. It's not terrible, but it's not your dream game by any means. It plays closest to EU of the Paradox games. You pick a country (I played USA), then manage your budget, taxes, debt, institute country policies for various bonuses, research tech, conduct wars, manage military production, conduct diplomacy, and respond to individual and extended event choices. All the usual stuff you'd expect. The problem is that the systems are all half baked and start to break down halfway through play. You have 3 resources: Money, Action Points (think monarch points), and Resources. Implementing new policies usually requires some amount of money and action points. Building military units requires money and resources. Most events require spending money and/or action points. The problem is that money and action point costs for policies and events are scaled according to your population which increases exponentially. Tax income increases with GDP, which will grow exponentially, but your action point income is fixed. So by the mid game as your population grows your government can't run any of the high-tech advanced policies like universal health care or universal education because the bureaucracy never expands (unlike in real life). Likewise, Resources are fixed except for a small amount you can gain by building mines. So you'll also run out of resources late game. There's also an ideology drift component that is frustrating. Countries start somewhere on the scale from Democracy to Totalitarianism. Democracies like other democracies; totalitarians like other totalitarians. There's special votes you can call in the UN against totalitarian countries, etc. Countries drift towards their baseline ideology with each election. The factors that make them drift are based on the policies you enact and the event choices you choose. Some are obvious and straightforward--implementing surveillance cameras or secret police will push you towards Totalitarianism. So will implementing religious fanatic ideologies. But some policies don't make sense per se: implementing trade unions, universal healthcare, and universal education all lead towards Totalitarianism, too, by increasing "dependence on the government." So Sweden or other European social democracies would, in game, be halfway to Totalitarian on the scale. There's also bullshit like you pointed out where other nations armies grow to ridiculous levels, but wars only allow one battle to occur at a time. By mid game it is functionally impossible to lose a war as the USA, but it's also functionally impossible to win a war against any major power. You simply can't kill their units one at a time fast enough to keep up with their production. This is especially evident if you try to fight a war with China--while the US will win their battles due to the tech advantage, China will build 10 more infantry for every 1 you kill. It doesn't matter if you have complete air and tank superiority, either. Wars have to be fought to 100% warscore before the enemy will surrender, and warscore is only advanced by winning battles, not by incurring losses. The final battle of a war is an all out land unit push, so if China still has infantry left (they do), and they dig in (they will), it's not possible to dislodge them. I saw a war between India and China literally last 50 years because of this, with both powers nuking each other every year or so. China sat at 85% warscore the entire time, trouncing India over and over again, but they could never push through the final battle for the last 15%. And the scripted wars the US has to fight are bullshit, too. The terrorist war does overpower you--it's bizarre to see terrorists fielding tanks and jet fighters against you. But the "badboy" mechanic is also bullshit--if you build up too much infamy (which is about 3-4 provinces taken in a war and taking about a decade to remove the infamy for one province)--the UN will form a coalition which happens to have always about 30 more soldiers, tanks, and jets as you do, no matter how many you have. It's just frustrating because trying to play "optimally" goes something like this: 1) keep population as low as possible, never take any of the decisions to take in immigrants or pay for maternal/fetal healthcare 2) Never get into any wars 3) Accept that you will become totalitarian whether you want to or not and implement universal healthcare and education 4) Use your totalitarian hellscape socialist dystopia with healthy, well-educated citizens to exponentially grow your GDP until you are far more developed than anyone else 5) Have nothing to spend all your money on by mid game because you never have any action points left Don't get it. Maybe the sequel will be better. It's a shame because they're some great ideas in there--a UN that you can propose motions in, alliance blocks, stock markets, worldwide events like the Olympics or Moon colonization or Aid for Africa where nations compete to be the top contributor. But the mechanics are so broken it's just not possible to play. edit: also I forgot about the alliance bloc system where you form NATO-like alliance blocs with other countries. The only problem is that any great power wants to form their own bloc. So instead of forming NATO, the US forms a bloc, the UK tries to form a bloc, France forms a bloc, Germany forms a bloc, Russia forms a bloc, China forms a bloc, Brazil forms a bloc... It's literally functionally impossible to keep any two great powers allied in the game. Cantorsdust fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Oct 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 07:25
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:But some policies don't make sense per se: implementing trade unions, universal healthcare, and universal education all lead towards Totalitarianism, too, by increasing "dependence on the government." So Sweden or other European social democracies would, in game, be halfway to Totalitarian on the scale. I was gonna joke about the developpers being "small government" Republicans, but they're Polish. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 09:32
|
|
|
Kassad posted:I was gonna joke about the developpers being "small government" Republicans, but they're Polish. Yeah reading that I initially thought it was developer politics being really blatant but then reading more it was like "actually it's probably just poorly designed". They probably didn't have enough levers to tweak to balance out things like universal healthcare so they just make it arbitrarily totalitarian.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 09:36
|
|
|
Kassad posted:I was gonna joke about the developpers being "small government" Republicans, but they're Polish.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 11:58
|
|
|
Been playing my Anglo-Saxon England game. Put my Irish wife on the throne of Scotland, which went to a second son, while England and Wales went the son of my late son. Jerusalem keeps falling and then I put a kinsman back on the throne in the next crusade. Had one of the most uneventful long regencies I can remember. Guess my vassals are uncharacteristically not jerks this generation, though I'm sure the boy being quick helped. Was engaged to a quick countess in the Byzantine empire, but I broke that up after the cutest turn of events. I wanted to go into a haunted house, but the girl I was playing with told on me. I looked her up, she was the oldest daughter (same age as me) and heir of the Duke of Wessex, who was my guardian. So, I was like, it makes a lot more sense to marry her in character. So, I did and they fell in love.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 13:35
|
|
|
Awww Not every cool CK" story involves torture or Glitterhoof!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 13:45
|
|
|
I don't really care about the historical aspect of CK2 much. The important thing is that (granted, thanks to the fact that it's trying to simulate feudalism) it's a personality game rather than a nation game; that's what makes it nearly one of a kind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
Trying to get back into this, any tips for a good character in the 1066 start? One that starts out low but should be able to seize opportunities here and there. e: lol tried and failed with the Prince of Denmark, the nearby High Chief stole my wife and then one of my counties Phlegmish fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Oct 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Depends on how low is low. Matilda of Tuscany is a fun start. You're a duchess in the HRE with plenty of opportunity to expand in Italy and from there you can try to become independent, plot to takeover the empire, or whatever else. You get a nice clean slate too. No husband, children, or any other living dynasty members.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
I tried playing Arp Aslan last night. I beat the Romans to take Armenia and a few other counties, but their army reinforces at 1000+ men a month until 5000 men so I had to end the war early. Arp got brained in battle though. Also, I had no idea WTF was going on in my realm. Vassals fighting and killing each other all over the place, but as long as it didn't interfere with my war, I say go nuts. Wish I could get an advisor to give me an executive summary of my current vassal situation though. Like a medieval PPT presentation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
Gobblecoque posted:Depends on how low is low. Matilda of Tuscany is a fun start. You're a duchess in the HRE with plenty of opportunity to expand in Italy and from there you can try to become independent, plot to takeover the empire, or whatever else. You get a nice clean slate too. No husband, children, or any other living dynasty members. I'm finally giving her a go and yeah, she owns. I stupidly lost one of my counties by giving it to my first husband who proceeded to immediately die of pneumonia before we could have an heir, but whatever. I'm amassing insane amounts of gold and prestige. I'd like to work towards Primogeniture, what should I be doing in my situation?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Awww Well of course not. Some of them involve incest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
My fav I never shared was actually about how back when the steppes were tribal I'd subjugated my way to Scandinavia as Zunists to try and get raiding MA and accidentally got an heir who was Norse rather than Zunists and then had to deal with that nonsense
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I'm finally giving her a go and yeah, she owns. I stupidly lost one of my counties by giving it to my first husband who proceeded to immediately die of pneumonia before we could have an heir, but whatever. I'm amassing insane amounts of gold and prestige. Getting rid of gavelkind is probably easier than usual as Matilda since as a woman you can go seduction focus and get a huge opinion bonus with your vassals (and most anyone else who matters really). Get late feudal administration passed and then once you've reigned for 10 years and none of your count vassals have a negative opinion you should be good to change your succession law to whatever you want. Also, one thing that's nice but you might not notice is that you can do a plot to get a claim on the duchy of Lombardy and with seduction you can get plenty of strong supporters to help. With that you won't be too far from having enough land to become queen of Italy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
Turns out my idiot husband got my heir into a matrilineal marriage, and I only found out after I died. Now if I die, I lose the game. Have to get a divorce as quickly as possible. Of course I've already wasted time buttering up the wrong pope, turns out there's an antipope in Nassau... e: and now the antipope is imprisoned. gently caress this poo poo. e2: all is not lost, I found someone to give a good tumble e3: about Primogeniture, looks like Crown Authority in the HRE is too low. What do I do now? Phlegmish fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Oct 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
What the gently caress, I am attacking France with vikings, and I have 4500 soldiers and they got 2000 and they won.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
Was your army mostly Light Infantry compared to their Heavy Infantry? If so, yeah that's pretty much expected.
Blooming Brilliant fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Oct 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
Blooming Brilliant posted:Was your army mostly Light Infantry compared to their Heavy Infantry? If so, yeah that's pretty much expected. I never noticed what troops my army has due to how little info you get in battles. I bet that was the issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 23:50
|
|
|
Feudal European countries have a considerably better unit mix than tribals. Especially if they're a more advanced one like France. You'll be stuck with mostly light infantry and archers, while they'll have a lot more heavy infantry, spears, cavalry, etc. They're probably worth easily 3 of your troops each. If they recruit a holy order, it's even worse for you. Overwhelming numbers can still do it, but it's a blood bath. If you gotta do it, use numbers, rivers, mountains, and any advantage your commanders can muster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
Combat is incredibly bad in this game, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
Order of importance for combat, at least in my experience: 1. Number of units. As you saw this can be overcome with quality, but once you hit around 3:1 it's really hard for the smaller side to win unless everything else is in their favor. 2. Unit composition. Light infantry is made of paper in all situations, and you want as little of them as possible. Ideally a decent mix of heavy infantry, light cavalry, heavy cavalry, and archers is ideal. Horse archers are situationally useful but usually not worth it, pikes are strictly better than heavy infantry on defense, but strictly worse on offense. 3. Commander stats/traits. This is getting into the weeds of combat tactics (you can read about it in detail here if you want but imo it's not necessary) but basically look for guys with high martial and no negative traits. Stutter/Lisp, Craven, and Cruel in particular are the worst to have on a commander. WrightOfWay posted:Combat is incredibly bad in this game, unfortunately. Also this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 01:43
|
|
