|
Secrets, blackmail and dread all sound great. Stress vs. roleplaying will be interesting I think.
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
I'm cautious after imperators release but these ideas seem great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
There was already tension over the western church preferring latin while the eastern did greek. Western christianity was mostly under one singular administration (with the exception of weird denominations that they worked to stamp out before CK2 starts), and the pope was a heavily influential individual, whereas the eastern church was split between patriarchs who regularly met up in ecumenical councils and the Byzantine emperors had more control of. Western christians also sometimes had trouble showing up to ecumenical councils held off in the east, and they had some argument that the patriarch of Rome was supposed to have supremacy over the rest of the pentachy for Reasons. There were also a series of doctrinal differences that I really can't parse fully. The history of christianity is fascinating and worth reading, but it's hard to understand people's actual beliefs. But the final straw was in 1054. While popes were generally more powerful in the west than the patriarchs were in the east, they were still in the precarious position of having to deal with big powerful states. The pope was dealing with the Normans taking over big chunks of Italy, couldn't get help from the Byzantine Emperor, and eventually granted the Norman conquests (that included Byzantine territory) legitimacy. That and everything else spiraled into an argument between the pope and ecumenical patriarch that led to the mutual excommunication of Orthodox and Catholic churches from eachother, and that wound up sticking. But while they both were separate administrations with significant doctrinal differences, there was still significant intermingling between subjects, and the first crusade was ostensibly a catholic response to orthodox calls for help against muslims, and most of the big crusader lords had to swear loyalty to the Byzantine emperor on the way to their fight, which most of them betrayed that deal and set up their own little independent states. It's all weird.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
One thing I always wondered about, though this is more of an EU4 thing is how Orthodox Christianity and the various Protestant sects saw each other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:One thing I always wondered about, though this is more of an EU4 thing is how Orthodox Christianity and the various Protestant sects saw each other. They tried to get to together but it didn't really pan out. Some communiques between Luther's successors and orthodox deacons occurred. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitrije_Ljubavi%C4%87
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
Are there any relatively up to date tutorials or let's plays that you guys suggest? I really want to learn more about this game, I have a very surface level understanding at best.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
No antipopes or investiture seems extremely glaring
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
I'm hoping they're making interacting with the Pope more involved and meaningful. My standard Catholic game either ignores him all together, or just runs an antipope. Although it's missing investiture so who knows what direction they're taking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:One thing I always wondered about, though this is more of an EU4 thing is how Orthodox Christianity and the various Protestant sects saw each other. it's complicated, in a word. most of luther's objections weren't doctrinal but rather procedural; he never wanted to argue about the state of the heavens, he was much more concerned about how preoccupied the church was with political affairs versus the spiritual and social ones that they should have been concerned with (in his words). the hierarchy of the church was something he had problems with and wanted to see reformed but it was not one of his primary complaints. due to the patriarchal rather than papal organizational structure in orthodoxy, orthodox realms tended to vary a lot more in these specifics than catholic archbishoprics did. so this ended up being a highly case-by-case basis where protestant enclaves that bordered highly ostentatious patriarchal enclaves would get pretty hot and bothered about them, protestant enclaves that bordered patriarchal enclaves that were relatively less ostentatious than the archbishopric would tend to look at them as an example that their vision could work, and protestant enclaves that were further away from orthodox land (esp in the German heartland where a lot of the Protestant movement started) the sentiment was pretty much the same as local Catholics because the orthodox christians weren't the point and people didn't really think about it that much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 20:16
|
|
|
Orcs and Ostriches posted:I'm hoping they're making interacting with the Pope more involved and meaningful. Rub the pope for prestige. Rub harder for bonus piety.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
Henrik Fåhreus posted:"You always have a revoke reason on minor baronies. Of course, if it's a church, the church is still there and will not be pleased, but if it's just a baron that you've assigned to some castle there's no real negative consequence for revoking. The idea with barons—the feudal barons—is basically to be a refrigerator for interesting characters." That's cool. Baronies generally are more fun to use like that anyways, and it'd be nice to be able to have an easy avenue for consolidating or dispersing control over your demesne instead of taking 10 years steadily scheming against every little person. Henrik Fåhreus posted:"Stress is a new system that encourages you to roleplay," Fåhreus says. "In [Crusader Kings 2] you didn't have to care about your own personality traits. So the idea in CK3 is that when you act against your character's personality, which you're still free to do, you gain Stress. So there's no 'Stressed' trait; it's a percentage, essentially. When you go up a Stress level, some negative things happen, so you have a little mental break. When it reaches the max, you probably go insane or something like that... your character will have serious problems." Could be cool, could be incredibly tedious having to constantly fight against the grain. I guess you'd have much more motivation to try gaming the system to change your traits around rather than what we have now where it's a couple stat boosts. It's gonna be anyone's guess what traits correspond to what at first though. Henrik Fåhreus posted:Unless you start the game as one, playing as a cadet house will be "pretty rare", according to Fåhreus. It's mainly a feature meant for the AI to use, though a cadet house that gets more powerful than the original house can become the new leader of the dynasty. Dynastic civil wars will, sadly, not be in at launch. Okay, this one annoys me. Not because of the specifics of cadet house features or whatever, but just the fact that it's basically confirming that CK3 will be going for the same sort of uncontrollable character succession that CK2 has. No choosing which heir you want to become when your realm fractures in gavelkind, no openings for non-dynastic governments like theocracies, kind of sounds like their cadet house mechanics ignore things like Tanistry too. That dynasty tree screenshot they keep showing is just totally unreadable on my monitor during the day. It's too dark and low contrast. I don't think I like the principle though. Henrik Fåhreus posted:Men-at-arms won't stand around on the map like Crusader Kings 2's retinues, but will appear ready to fight when you call your levies. All of your armies will also now appear at designated rally points after a certain amount of time rather than having to march from their home counties. It still takes about the same amount of time to assemble an army, but you won't have to micromanage dozens of tiny stacks. So they're moving to presenting different types of armies between knights/levies/standing armies, which is neat, but even cooler is that they're avoiding the bit that I found tedious about retinues, the having to constantly maneuver them around during peacetime and putting them back into place after wars. That's one of the reasons I liked CK2 over EU3, managing armies is so simple in comparison. Also probably mitigates the possible annoyance of having to weave through all these baronies just while mobilizing and demobilizing your armies. Tactical depth is cool when tactics are necessary, but it's just busywork otherwise. Top Hats Monthly posted:No antipopes or investiture seems extremely glaring Did they say that explicitly? The article made reference to seizing churches as part of being able to revoke baronies. They also said that mere baron-level bishops don't directly exist ingame and are represented more indirectly. Which I took as a bit of a positive because while investiture was an important point of contention in feudal leaders vs. the church, it was also incredibly tedious to directly manage free investiture constantly. It seems like a horrible oversight if they actually left out antipopes though. The Church v. State conflict in CK2 always seemed a bit weird because there was very rarely any way to see things from the other side of the power dynamic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
I pretty much always go papal investiture, doesn’t seem worth it to bother changing
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:No choosing which heir you want to become when your realm fractures in gavelkind, This has been on my wish list for a long time. Not even with just gavelkind. Sometimes I just don't want to play my top title, and want to go play a landed son or minor inheritor. SlothfulCobra posted:Did they say that explicitly? The reddit page has a few questions that didn't make the article, and they explicitly say it there. a fatguy baldspot posted:I pretty much always go papal investiture, doesn’t seem worth it to bother changing I'm greedy so it's always free. The pope rarely bothers me much more than a token whining.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
free investiture gives you big bonuses with your temple vassals and makes it much more likely that you will get their taxes rather than the pope so you should basically always be on free investiture if you can manage it. that said, if i'm on free investiture and the pope demands i switch it back to papal to crown me, i tend to consider that a preferable sacrifice when i compare it to most of the demands he can make.SlothfulCobra posted:Could be cool, could be incredibly tedious having to constantly fight against the grain. I guess you'd have much more motivation to try gaming the system to change your traits around rather than what we have now where it's a couple stat boosts. It's gonna be anyone's guess what traits correspond to what at first though. to me the relative merit or hazard of this point is entirely dependent upon the educational system. if i have at least as much control over my characters' outcomes as conclave lets me have, i'll probably enjoy it just fine and will appreciate not having to worry about getting stressed at random intervals and dying of overwork at 29. if i have relatively little control over my characters' outcomes (like in base CK2), i'll find this very frustrating because getting an heir that is wroth and cruel will tacitly oblige me to playing in a way that isn't sustainable and will mess me up strategically. Coolguye fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Oct 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:free investiture gives you big bonuses with your temple vassals and makes it much more likely that you will get their taxes rather than the pope so you should basically always be on free investiture if you can manage it. that said, if i'm on free investiture and the pope demands i switch it back to papal to crown me, i tend to consider that a preferable sacrifice when i compare it to most of the demands he can make. I love it when the pope demands that I depose an excommunicated ruler who has roughly 10x as many troops as I do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
Armacham posted:I love it when the pope demands that I depose an excommunicated ruler who has roughly 10x as many troops as I do. Yeah, got that last night. Attack the HRE and depose the antipope, as the Brittany challenge guy. Decided it wasn't worth having the Pope crown me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
yeah those were the exact requests i was thinking of when i made that post
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:No antipopes or investiture seems extremely glaring It really does, crazy pope shenanigans and the investiture crisis are practically defining traits of the middle ages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:There was already tension over the western church preferring latin while the eastern did greek. Western christianity was mostly under one singular administration (with the exception of weird denominations that they worked to stamp out before CK2 starts), and the pope was a heavily influential individual, whereas the eastern church was split between patriarchs who regularly met up in ecumenical councils and the Byzantine emperors had more control of. Western christians also sometimes had trouble showing up to ecumenical councils held off in the east, and they had some argument that the patriarch of Rome was supposed to have supremacy over the rest of the pentachy for Reasons. There were also a series of doctrinal differences that I really can't parse fully. The history of christianity is fascinating and worth reading, but it's hard to understand people's actual beliefs. A thought just occurred to me related to this: one of the weird elements of CK2 is how the start date moved back to pre-schism but the hard line between the Catholic and Orthodox church is still there because of the way the game had been set up - since the earliest start date of CK3 will be the Old Gods start, and they have a whole system set up for dynamic creation of new religious branches, I wonder if the game will actually start with a unified Christian church and fire off an event to cause the schism?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:to me the relative merit or hazard of this point is entirely dependent upon the educational system. if i have at least as much control over my characters' outcomes as conclave lets me have, i'll probably enjoy it just fine and will appreciate not having to worry about getting stressed at random intervals and dying of overwork at 29. if i have relatively little control over my characters' outcomes (like in base CK2), i'll find this very frustrating because getting an heir that is wroth and cruel will tacitly oblige me to playing in a way that isn't sustainable and will mess me up strategically. What you're describing would be good as hell, is the thing. It's more historical and creates better stories, plus it makes it less likely that you can just establish a huge fuckoff empire and then stay on top of it forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
there's a stark difference between a suboptimal heir that will require you to play to lose the least and a time bomb heir that is guaranteed to shatter everything you've spent the last 150 years building. the former we already have in CK2 and is known as the idiot heir whose entire legacy will be wasted time and massive revolts, some of which you won't be able to handle. the latter is an active malefactor that you can do nothing about. suboptimal heirs will be a fact of life one way or another, i'm sure. active malefactors are not a thing in CK2 right now and i'll need some real convincing to grant the idea that they should be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
Being able to pick and choose which heir to play as would fix a whole heap of problems especially if the other heirs are far superior and could unite the realm to overthrow the incompetent ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
Yeah I would prefer that in any succession system you can always just say, "Hey I want this kid to succeed me with the most stuff" but the other characters should react based on how big a breach this is. Like if you're on primo and it's a second kid, people will grumble, but it's not that untoward, but if it's the tenth kid people get pissed off. Or like in gavelkind/tribe if you pick the kid that's strongest at martial people won't care because hey the strongest should lead. Stuff like that. And then if you can get a heir designation succession, just those penalties go away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
I think the idea is inheritance happens as usual, you just don't become that person automatically. Instead there's a list of people you can play as based on whatever criteria and you just pick up from there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
Not even talking about picking and choosing succession - just being able to play as a lesser landed heir and being able to to overthrow the others in a good family feud would add a lot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
Eimi posted:Yeah I would prefer that in any succession system you can always just say, "Hey I want this kid to succeed me with the most stuff" but the other characters should react based on how big a breach this is. Like if you're on primo and it's a second kid, people will grumble, but it's not that untoward, but if it's the tenth kid people get pissed off. Or like in gavelkind/tribe if you pick the kid that's strongest at martial people won't care because hey the strongest should lead. Stuff like that. And then if you can get a heir designation succession, just those penalties go away. It's an interesting question because it's one of those weird abstractions the game uses that doesn't really apply to real life. Like in England there wasn't really any formal succession law for centuries - the first son of the king would usually inherit but there were tons of cases where they just picked someone else entirely, sometimes even a cousin over one of their own children or siblings. This usually caused problems but it wasn't strictly forbidden. The thing is that I think finagling succession is one of the aspects of CK2 that makes it unique among strategy games and making it more convenient would make it less interesting. The thing about "soft" penalties like vassal relations and so on is there's a lot of easy ways around them so they aren't really a deterrent to a min-max player. They will just always pick their strong genius uberchildren and then if there's a revolt on succession, just win that war and leave all their discontent vassals locked in prison forever where they can't do anything. By forcing people to play out suboptimal heirs it creates situations you can't just game the system to get out of, you have to actually play at a disadvantage sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:I think the idea is inheritance happens as usual, you just don't become that person automatically. Instead there's a list of people you can play as based on whatever criteria and you just pick up from there. Yeah, this is what I want. I don't want to pick and choose which heir is primary, outside of game mechanics. But when my character dies, I might want to switch to a lesser heir or landed child rather than keep rolling with the entire empire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
They could probably tweak probabilities of bad traits so that only every so often your kid's education totally backfires. Like you get a wroth, cruel character when you're trying to play things nicely and delicately, or if you're on a real murder spree and get a nice guy, you can just eat the stress, get depressed, and kill yourself, so you get a head start on your next ruler.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
  I'm guessing they mean like six side civil wars, I hope.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
I got After the End going and it's really great fun, but I think I've run into some bugs. When I first started playing a big warning came up that the checksum was wrong and I should deactivate any other mods, except I didn't have any others active so I ignored it. First, this province exists. I accidentally sent raiders into it once and I couldn't select them afterwards to move them, or even see them on the map. I had to lower my levies to get them out if it.  Secondly I'm not sure if this is a bug or if I've just forgotten how CK2 works, but I'm pretty sure I shouldn't be able to regenerate my full levy while its deployed somewhere else. I saw the mod is rated to work on 3.2.1 and my launcher version is 3.3, is there anything I can do or should I just live with these issues?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
MaxieSatan posted:What you're describing would be good as hell, is the thing. It's more historical and creates better stories, plus it makes it less likely that you can just establish a huge fuckoff empire and then stay on top of it forever. Coolguye posted:there's a stark difference between a suboptimal heir that will require you to play to lose the least and a time bomb heir that is guaranteed to shatter everything you've spent the last 150 years building. the former we already have in CK2 and is known as the idiot heir whose entire legacy will be wasted time and massive revolts, some of which you won't be able to handle. the latter is an active malefactor that you can do nothing about. I was going to write up a post on how stress is going to be really polarizing and sharply divide the playerbase into the people who like role-playing and the people who like accomplishing goals, but y'all did it for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
yeah i'm perfectly fine roleplaying a character and even during the streams i would do a lot based on how a ruler turned out versus how they were 'optimally' used but i certainly don't think a bad heir should shatter my holdings without much i can do to handle the problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:It's an interesting question because it's one of those weird abstractions the game uses that doesn't really apply to real life. Like in England there wasn't really any formal succession law for centuries - the first son of the king would usually inherit but there were tons of cases where they just picked someone else entirely, sometimes even a cousin over one of their own children or siblings. This usually caused problems but it wasn't strictly forbidden. I mean right off the bat too William made Rufus King of England and left his oldest son Duke of Normandy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
If this forced roleplaying will be really problematic for many people, I think they will just make it optional game rule (possibly disabling achievements) like they did with shattered retreats, assassinations for gold and so on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 23:55
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:It's an interesting question because it's one of those weird abstractions the game uses that doesn't really apply to real life. Like in England there wasn't really any formal succession law for centuries - the first son of the king would usually inherit but there were tons of cases where they just picked someone else entirely, sometimes even a cousin over one of their own children or siblings. This usually caused problems but it wasn't strictly forbidden. The huge success that is the new Byzantine succession system got me thinking that a lot more places in the world should be using that sort of informal, semi-elective system. There's a huge amount of potential there for modelling really nuanced power relations within courts, and if anything it makes succession more complicated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
OneTruePecos posted:It really does, crazy pope shenanigans and the investiture crisis are practically defining traits of the middle ages. yeah that's actually gotten me quite worried. got the feeling it'll be quite bare bones on launch, CK2 with expanded feudal mechanics with not much else. might end up sticking to CK2 for quite some time
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
quote:BONUS ROUND (Stuff that didn't make it into the article): I took this from the guy who spoke to the devs and wrote an article for a gaming website.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
If you have a bad heir then you can choose to not role-play them, make optimal decisions, and then as a bonus your bad ruler dies faster from stress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
Shame about no artifacts. Also doesn't look like societies are in. Still what is there sounds good. And tentatively I can still reform Hellenism. I also hope their focus on more historical doesn't mean that enatic succession is out. At least leave it in the files.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
The problem with enforced roleplay is that gameplay is non-flexible - it's a script after all. So if you get penalized for something you disagree with you're going to get pissed off. I think the correct fix for this from a game design perspective is to invert the whole thing and give bonuses to forced roleplay. At least that doesn't piss the player off Dwesa posted:If this forced roleplaying will be really problematic for many people, I think they will just make it optional game rule (possibly disabling achievements) like they did with shattered retreats, assassinations for gold and so on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 01:34
|
|