|
The Cheshire Cat posted:It is fun to build a Satanic empire where you reach the top of the society and abuse the "subordinates will accept any diplomacy action from you" to diplo-vassalize a shitload of otherwise unrelated land (and abusing possession to get the same effect on people who aren't satanists). There's a mod on the steam workshop that lets you make it into a real religion, which is pretty fun for a gimmick run
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:38 |
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:So checking out the new Monarch's Journey, how to I get mass-converted? Be a tribal unreformed pagan, neighbor a non-tribal, non-nomadic, non-theocratic king or emperor with an organized religion. Then it's a button in the religion screen, next to the pagan reformation button.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:So checking out the new Monarch's Journey, how to I get mass-converted? You're feudal, so you can't request a mass conversion. I haven't gone in depth on mine yet, but I plan to swear fealty to Poland in order to convert.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2020 03:56
|
|
|
just watched a video about jesters and i hope ck3 has Realistic Jesters. apparently they were the only ones who were allowed to insult nobility and therefore kings often went to them when they needed an honest opinion about something  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7F5ioUQLJc
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 15:31
|
|
|
yeah, that's a true story. even with good, just kings, everyone had to agree with him because he had divine right and all of that poo poo. the jester was explicitly a 'fool' so he could yell "I DISAGREE SIR, IF YOU KILL THE DUDE IT WILL CAUSE A REVOLT AMONG HIS MERCHANT FAMILY ALLIES" and outright call the king's considerations idiotic because oh, it's just the court fool. the fact that the king would have a change of heart a day later with a completely unrelated justification has nothing whatsoever to do with the jester's outburst and how dare you suggest that the fool knew what he was talking about!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 17:43
|
|
|
baw posted:just watched a video about jesters and i hope ck3 has Realistic Jesters. apparently they were the only ones who were allowed to insult nobility and therefore kings often went to them when they needed an honest opinion about something If you're interested in learning more, see if you can track down Clowns by John H. Towsen. It's like $70 used on Amazon now, but maybe a local library has it? Basically, the jester was outside of the social hierarchy, and so was not a threat to anyone within it. The jester called you an imbecile? Who cares, he's a nobody and now my opinion has changed upon reflection, with NO INPUT WHATSOEVER from anyone. E:FB /\ Edit: I wonder how often the jester was used to launder the opinions of other powerful people? Like Duke Fuckington could tell the jester to tell the King x,y,z? The King could understand that the jester's word is what vassals are realllly thinking, but this way he isn't contradicted in public, saving the feudal relationship. Jews, after all, were used to launder money taken as interest from loans. The North Tower fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Jul 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
This kind of feels like one of those just-so stories that Victorian medievalists came up with. Yes, jesters had special leeway to insult and mock nobles up to and including the monarch in some cases, and surely some would also be bright individuals who, having a great degree of access to the court, might come into the confidence of the king, but the question should be asked if the jesters who are famous for such things were typical of their profession, or famous specifically because of their deviation from the norm. The notion of the king as an absolute ruler who's will must never be questioned seems much more in line with the Early Modern conceptions of the Divine Right and absolutism than the medieval version of it. Monarchs had advisory councils in this period, monarchs leaving their minority often struggled to actually gain control of their realm from powerful regents, nobles rebelled against their kings semi-regularly. I'm extremely doubtful that if you were a powerful noble and close confidante of the king that a private conversation where you diplomatically suggested that an alternative course of action to the king's plan would be beyond the pale, but totally OK as long as you had a funny hat on while you did it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
Kings have way more power and stability in CK2 than they did irl during the time period.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:So checking out the new Monarch's Journey, how to I get mass-converted? you could just stay as Romuva until you've cleared up the holy orders, your neighbours, and created lithuania. The holy order territories will give you a bunch of catholic provinces, and it's much easier than trying to get territory from them as a catholic, or trying to take defensive pagan land without military organisation 4. You can bait the holy orders to fight on your turf for the attrition + defensive bonus, then mop up. Catholics will be sending missionaries to you constantly so just let one do his thing once you're all set up, then mass revoke the rest of the land and hand it out to diligent zealots. I did all this while bumming around on a first attempt to see what worked and it was surprisingly easy. Took me a few failed wars before I could get to grips with fighting the teutonic state, but they're not really a major threat to you because of the defensive pagan thing. I don't think you have any real threats other than the HRE tbh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 18:58
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:This kind of feels like one of those just-so stories that Victorian medievalists came up with. Yes, jesters had special leeway to insult and mock nobles up to and including the monarch in some cases, and surely some would also be bright individuals who, having a great degree of access to the court, might come into the confidence of the king, but the question should be asked if the jesters who are famous for such things were typical of their profession, or famous specifically because of their deviation from the norm. you're talking about private settings, the context involved is a public one. councils were definitely in general expected to support the king after a decision was made publicly and not doing so was certainly hazardous to your health. both of these narratives are more true than false though obviously if you want to really drill down into it you're going to find that monarchy isn't a monolith and things varied from place to place, much the same way democracy is and does in the modern day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
I think I have a solution: make the jester more predominant on the ruler screen the higher the centralization of the territory, indicating the necessity of the jester facilitating court protocol.
The North Tower fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jul 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 19:35
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:you're talking about private settings, the context involved is a public one. councils were definitely in general expected to support the king after a decision was made publicly and not doing so was certainly hazardous to your health. both of these narratives are more true than false though obviously if you want to really drill down into it you're going to find that monarchy isn't a monolith and things varied from place to place, much the same way democracy is and does in the modern day. But kings were not permanently in public all the time, so if you accept that the kings councillors could advise him in private, what need is there for the king to be openly called out and mocked in public? You don't need the jester to yell "I DISAGREE SIR, IF YOU KILL THE DUDE IT WILL CAUSE A REVOLT AMONG HIS MERCHANT FAMILY ALLIES" if you can take the king aside and say "I disagree sire, if you kill the dude it will cause a revolt among his merchant family allies". There does at least seem to be some modern questioning of the traditional narrative of jesters being speakers of truth to power. I found this paper, originally published in The Journal of American Culture: quote:Stumbling between imprecision and implausibility, the trickster model trips on faulty evidence. Apparent instances turn out to be more asserted than established. Wallett's autobiography gave three alleged historical examples of the truth-telling jester, William the Conqueror's “joculator,” Henry VIII's jester, and the court fool of James I, but Wallett did not relate any of the “truths” each supposedly told his respective monarch. The paper therefore claims that pretty much all the evidence we have for supposed wise Jesters are either entirely fictional in the first place (as in the Shakespearean examples), or are sorely lacking in actual evidence for them actually mocking the king, as opposed to mocking those the king didn't like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
anything would be better than a throwaway title with no function except for a universal -5 opinion modifier (iirc)
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
baw posted:anything would be better than a throwaway title with no function except for a universal -5 opinion modifier (iirc) Having it assigned to someone enables some fun events but that’s pretty much it and even those are rare
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 21:40
|
|
|
It's good for when a vassal tries to start poo poo so you ruin his life, cuck him, and assign him the role of clown bitch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 21:52
|
|
|
Lesson learned. Get rid of loving gavelkind as soon as possible. It seems to be designed to gently caress you over. Sometimes it makes a new country to give it away. Some times it takes that country and gives it to your younger brother? Can anyone explain this series of events? I Started as king of Sweden, I owned Sweden Denmark, Lappland and 1/3 of Finland. I made Denmark my primary title. I die. I keep Denmark, and my brother gets Sweden. I get that. For some reason, Lapland and lots of Finland also becomes Sweden. For reasons. Then my next guy is assasinated and I lose half of Denmark. I get that part. But the half of Denmark I lost is now suddenly part of Sweden. And since I didn't get to retake Sweden in the usual civil war, I didn't have a claim. Decided that was enough of a gently caress you and it was game over. And to keep my streak going, I restart as Gotland. Take the ambition to become king. Take a couple stray provinces. Somehow, despite the game telling me I have unlimited subjegaction of territories in de jure Sweden, it actually costs me my one free lifetime subjegaction . What the gently caress game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 03:54
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:And to keep my streak going, I restart as Gotland. Take the ambition to become king. Take a couple stray provinces. Somehow, despite the game telling me I have unlimited subjegaction of territories in de jure Sweden, it actually costs me my one free lifetime subjegaction . What the gently caress game. Yeah, this has been either a bug or working as intended for years. I was going to put it in the bug report forum ages ago, but there were already copies of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 03:55
|
|
|
baw posted:just watched a video about jesters and i hope ck3 has Realistic Jesters. apparently they were the only ones who were allowed to insult nobility and therefore kings often went to them when they needed an honest opinion about something Very informative. You would think it would be a boost in opinion since they had free reign to insult nobles and the king.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 03:56
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:And to keep my streak going, I restart as Gotland. Take the ambition to become king. Take a couple stray provinces. Somehow, despite the game telling me I have unlimited subjegaction of territories in de jure Sweden, it actually costs me my one free lifetime subjegaction . What the gently caress game. I think it specifies that you need to be an unreformed pagan with elective gavelkind succession somewhere but not everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 04:23
|
|
|
Does the king of X subjugation option not work if the person owns territory outside of the de jure kingdom as well as inside of it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 05:47
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:Lesson learned. Get rid of loving gavelkind as soon as possible. It seems to be designed to gently caress you over. Sometimes it makes a new country to give it away. Some times it takes that country and gives it to your younger brother? Check the vassals of Denmark and Sweden - it's likely that some of them held territories across kingdom borders so when your brother gets Sweden he also gets all the lands belonging to people whose primary titles are in Sweden, whereas you get the lands of the vassals who are primarily in Denmark.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 06:31
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:And to keep my streak going, I restart as Gotland. Take the ambition to become king. Take a couple stray provinces. Somehow, despite the game telling me I have unlimited subjegaction of territories in de jure Sweden, it actually costs me my one free lifetime subjegaction . What the gently caress game. I found its best to take a subjugation target once, then become king ambition to keep that from happening. Its a dumb, old bug, but that is a work around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
baw posted:anything would be better than a throwaway title with no function except for a universal -5 opinion modifier (iirc) The closest minor titles got to interesting in CK2 was in the ERE under their weird succession system where some titles could add weight to both someone's vote and their electibility, so you had to balance handing them out with keeping them in line.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
Are they finished with dev diaries? They seemed to be every week, but the last one was 6/30.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
The North Tower posted:Are they finished with dev diaries? They seemed to be every week, but the last one was 6/30. I think it's normal for them to stop for the month of July due to holidays at the company. Possibly part of August too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 00:46
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:I think it's normal for them to stop for the month of July due to holidays at the company. Possibly part of August too. Oh, that's great, then. One of these days I'm going to live in a real country. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
They said they were skipping two weeks two weeks ago, so there should be one next week.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
JustaDamnFool posted:The closest minor titles got to interesting in CK2 was in the ERE under their weird succession system where some titles could add weight to both someone's vote and their electibility, so you had to balance handing them out with keeping them in line. is that in the base game for Byzantium? or was that added in a mod?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 01:42
|
|
|
Captain Beans posted:is that in the base game for Byzantium? or was that added in a mod? That's a thing that was added in Holy Fury (I think as a free part of the update rather than the DLC). They got their own special succession system Imperial Elective which works like elective monarchy but there are a bunch of extra factors involved for who is allowed to cast votes and who they want to vote for. Unlike elective monarchy, not all votes are equal, and the pool of available candidates also includes the ruler's spouse and people you've appointed as commanders. The HRE also got their own unique succession system at the same time. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Jul 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
Yeah the idea was to model Byzantine/Roman succession which was only sort-of dynastic and featured a lot of politicking between power players like the generals, clergy, regional governors, etc. and even the general public sometimes. There's a book I've been meaning to read someday about it: https://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-Republic-People-Power-Rome/dp/0674365402 quote:Although Byzantium is known to history as the Eastern Roman Empire, scholars have long claimed that this Greek Christian theocracy bore little resemblance to Rome. Here, in a revolutionary model of Byzantine politics and society, Anthony Kaldellis reconnects Byzantium to its Roman roots, arguing that from the fifth to the twelfth centuries CE the Eastern Roman Empire was essentially a republic, with power exercised on behalf of the people and sometimes by them too. The Byzantine Republic recovers for the historical record a less autocratic, more populist Byzantium whose Greek-speaking citizens considered themselves as fully Roman as their Latin-speaking “ancestors.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
The biggest thing is learning to not just click "Auto Appoint Commanders", since that can hurt you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 01:56
|
|
|
the problem with the new ERE titles is that they're so loving many of them, it's a bit absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 01:58
|
|
|
That and the AI can’t handle imperial elective at all, and every emperor is almost always from a different dynasty
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 04:17
|
|
|
I like the general gist of it, giving out lots of claims so civil war is inevitable, but the actual election itself should be more like an appointment, with civil war happening depending on the candidates fitness/if you pissed someone off. Basically rather than the Emperor title ping ponging everywhere and the trouble being getting who you wanted elected, the trouble should be what happens AFTER they are elected.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 07:58
|
|
|
It'd be cool if there was a plot that allowed you to simultaneously assassinate and usurp within the Imperial system. Like John Tzimiskes did with Nikephoros II.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 08:07
|
|
|
Eimi posted:I like the general gist of it, giving out lots of claims so civil war is inevitable, but the actual election itself should be more like an appointment, with civil war happening depending on the candidates fitness/if you pissed someone off. I kinda wish every succession system had the option of writing up a will where you get to properly assign titles yourself, with a larger opinion hit/risk of civil war the further you stray from convention.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 08:41
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:It'd be cool if there was a plot that allowed you to simultaneously assassinate and usurp within the Imperial system. Like John Tzimiskes did with Nikephoros II. Rulers in general really should be executed during coups more often. It's so weird to see a former emperor hanging around with a huge amount of titles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 10:13
|
|
|
Vichan posted:Rulers in general really should be executed during coups more often. It's so weird to see a former emperor hanging around with a huge amount of titles. I hope kingdoms and empires are less stable in general, just to have something to do during the times you're waiting for other poo poo to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 10:18
|
|
|
if you are thirsty for CK3 stuff this guy does pretty good analyses of all the dev diaries and also the dev Q and As: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V1lOfiRkqQ
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 10:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:38 |
|
|
JustaDamnFool posted:I kinda wish every succession system had the option of writing up a will where you get to properly assign titles yourself, with a larger opinion hit/risk of civil war the further you stray from convention. This is a system I would love. The further you deviate from your laws the more penalties there would be, but you could give all your stuff to your genius daughter. Whether she could hold it...
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 16:06
|
|