|
Midgetskydiver posted:No it's really not and there's absolutely no reason to be a dick about this. Ya it is. The only way to lose this game is to end/unland your dynasty. Aside from any other self made objectives you have, it is literally the one thing you should strive to avoid.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
Never ever under any circumstance allow your player heir to have any land, because they will always do the stupidest thing possible at every opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 05:28
|
|
|
you can switch characters real easy in ck3. my house rule is that i'm able to switch to any member of my immediate family.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 05:33
|
|
|
Unfucking your heir’s poo poo is the best part of the game!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 05:36
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:Unfucking your heir’s poo poo is the best part of the game! Nope the best part is obviously loving your heir
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 05:47
|
|
|
The best part of the game is killing any Lollards you see edit: that sounds creepy. I had a bad interaction with a lollard vassal in my first game and I have decided that they’re my enemies in all subsequent games Trevor Hale fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Dec 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 07:01
|
|
|
Midgetskydiver posted:I find the befriend perk to be almost a necessary choice for any ruler. It's just such a great way to circumvent a lot of the obstacles preventing people from liking or joining you. Befriending a bunch of bad rear end knights and watching them wreck poo poo against levies never gets old. I said it already in the past, but things like Kidnap, Befriend etc should be usable even without perks; the perks should make them more powerful/easier to achieve, not gate them off completely. As is, I find myself going for the Family Hierarch tree first on almost every ruler because Befriend is just too useful and only takes 1-2 points (that tree also has the "children get extra skill points" which is another no-brainer pick-it-every-time choice and it's open from the start, and also the now-broken +stats for having friends and children that were impossibly good but at least those two are deep in the tree so I won't take them on every single ruler)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 11:48
|
|
|
Midgetskydiver posted:Befriending a bunch of bad rear end knights and watching them wreck poo poo against levies never gets old. Are they more effective when they're buds or something? In other words, is that different than using the 'invite knights' decision to get knights?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 12:02
|
|
|
Nosre posted:Are they more effective when they're buds or something? In other words, is that different than using the 'invite knights' decision to get knights? Befriending lets you pick out the cream of the crop and you get to choose specific combat traits (I always go for beserker if I can get it because they seem to trigger battle events way more often) and you can pick the youngest. So my usual routine is, when I don't have another diplo action active, I char search and sort by prowess, then look for anyone with 20+ prowess who is under 25 years old. At that age they'll serve you a long time and likely gain prowess if you have a good marshall. Also, befriending lets you occasionally steal knights directly from rivals instead of getting wanderers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 15:04
|
|
|
neat, gonna have to try that. I opened with the +2 Knight +knight effectiveness Family perk, and the knight Duchy building in my playthrough (first with CK3) and it didn't seem impressive; I was still losing plenty of evenly-matched battles and it seemed like other modifiers (like a good defensive position, or a strong commander) were always more important. One of those things where it's hard to tell exactly how much it's doing in CK's combat system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 15:49
|
|
|
Nosre posted:neat, gonna have to try that. Knights (with a decent prowess) absolutely massacre levies, but aren't as OP against MaA or other knights, so it will entirely depend on what's the enemy army composition. Peasant rebels? Lol you can probably just send your knights alone and they'll singlehandedly take them down. Typical Crusade situation, where you see a 10k stack but it's actually 10 single 1k stacks from different rulers, each with 6 knights so they have 60 knights to your, say, 10-14? Not a good idea to attack them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 16:04
|
|
|
Nosre posted:neat, gonna have to try that. Basic rule of thumb, especially in the early game, is that levies are hot garbage that are pretty much only suitable for sieging and raiding away from enemy armies. The overall army quality is a good indicator of how well you're going to do against other, similarly comprised armies. In short, you want to always maximize the quality of your army, which means knights and man at arms at a higher ratio. One decent strat that I like to use is to have 1 or 2 fighting armies composed of all my knights, then like 75% or more men at arms, and 25% or less levies. Then put your levies into as many sieging / raiding armies as you need. Use the fighting Army(ies) as your vanguard and do all your pitched battles with them. As long as they keep running into levies or other lower quality armies, that army will cut a swath through the enemy territory and your levies can follow behind, doing the sieging and taking most of the attrition. This can be a risky strat because if a quality enemy army outmaneuvers you and hits one of your levy armies, your army will similarly get wrecked, but that's not a huge deal in most cases as it's rare for armies to get completely wiped out. If you run this strat well, you can lure the quality enemy army into attacking your hopefully better quality army at a disadvantage. If you win that initial battle, it has a snowball effect especially if you can chase that first army down and destroy it. After that, most enemies won't be able to recover unless they have powerful allies or mercs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
Does this sound like a bug: Have 8 children. Institute ultimogeniture. Die when the youngest is 11 (because I had a bad trip after eating a magic dish but that’s a coincidence). Youngest takes over, makes it to 16 and gets the option to consecrate the bloodline and does so. Vassals hate him and steal his empire title and he loses the culture and family and dynasty head roles. He’s also a 16 year paranoid lunatic so in the interests of comedy, I do everything to give him stress and see what happens. By 18, he abdicated. Older brother takes over. With a few years he has the empire title back and controls the culture and the dynasty. But my abdicated wandering brother is still family head. Is it because he’s Bloodfather?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
Trevor Hale posted:Does this sound like a bug: How long as he been family head for? Sometimes it takes a little while in-game stuff like that to update (family head, head of culture, maybe a couple other things), so it might help to let it run for a month or two. But if your current dude already controls culture and dynasty, maybe that's not the issue. I've never used ultimogeniture so 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:How long as he been family head for? Sometimes it takes a little while in-game stuff like that to update (family head, head of culture, maybe a couple other things), so it might help to let it run for a month or two. It’s been over a year. I thought it was just a monthly reshuffle thing too
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 19:39
|
|
|
Knuc U Kinte posted:This is the same as saying “I didn’t press A when I approached a pitfall in Mario and now I’m falling down the hole. What do?” Haha. Maybe it was forseeable. I didn't notice what my son was up to until it was too late! I was so focussed on trying to take over the neighbouring County.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
Trevor Hale posted:Does this sound like a bug: I don't believe a house head changes until they die. A dynasty head can change on a monthly basis if the head of one house is more powerful than the head of another house, but this doesn't apply to house heads as far as I know (and the wiki seems to agree). So I don't think this is a bug. Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Dec 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
That said, the dynasty head is supposed to be a house head, so something weird is going on if your current character is a dynasty head while not being the head of their own house. Are you sure that he didn't found a cadet branch while you were playing the younger brother?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:That said, the dynasty head is supposed to be a house head, so something weird is going on if your current character is a dynasty head while not being the head of their own house. Are you sure that he didn't found a cadet branch while you were playing the younger brother? Nope. Still part of the main house, though I’ve had the option to found a cadet, but gently caress that. OG for life
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
Is there an easy way to tell how closely related two of my dynasty members are besides trying to find them on the dynasty tree? Everyone has gotten around but it's been generations in some case but it's not easy to tell
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
Spikes32 posted:Is there an easy way to tell how closely related two of my dynasty members are besides trying to find them on the dynasty tree? Everyone has gotten around but it's been generations in some case but it's not easy to tell My quick and dirty method is just eyeballing the grandparents. If we have four different grandparents it’s probably gonna work out alright. But then I did just have the super lunatic ruler ruin everything so maybe not
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
I thought you were supposed to marry cousins until you got a beautiful herculean genius running things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
Cyclopean needs to be an inheritable trait.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
Midgetskydiver posted:Basic rule of thumb, especially in the early game, is that levies are hot garbage that are pretty much only suitable for sieging and raiding away from enemy armies. The overall army quality is a good indicator of how well you're going to do against other, similarly comprised armies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 07:44
|
|
|
Didn't see it linked yet, but we stealthily dropped the 1.2.2 hotfix patch notes yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 13:38
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:Is there ever a case where adding levies to an army actually makes them perform worse, though? Ignoring gold maintenance. That I'm not sure of. It's a good question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 14:37
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:Is there ever a case where adding levies to an army actually makes them perform worse, though? Ignoring gold maintenance. Are we also ignoring attrition?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 15:34
|
|
|
The only instance I can think of is that it's easier to bait the AI into attacking a bad position (or stop running away) when you have a smaller army — it seems to have a fondness for drastically overvaluing sheer numbers when it decides what fights to get into. But even that feels like has been tweaked over time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 15:38
|
|
|
Adding levies can reduce the quality of your army, which matters due to combat width. If you outnumber your opponent, the damage is scaled down to the average size of the two armies. So adding levies to superpowered MAAs could prevent them from stackwiping.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 15:48
|
|
|
LordMune posted:Didn't see it linked yet, but we stealthily dropped the 1.2.2 hotfix patch notes yesterday. Oh man. There are some good fixes in there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 17:43
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFN05T_7rcw Hope this hasn't been posted yet!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
Had to form a custom empire because I had no way to get Scotland and form Britannia in this generation and inheritance would've splintered the realm. However my son is married to the queen of Scotland (thanks to a lot of stabbing) and now my grandson is next in line for that title so I've have Scotland as well before long. My sister is queen of Jerusalem because the Fatamids got absolutely steam rolled and I had an army digitated solely to sieging their capital in Egypt and then running away when all their armies turned away from Jerusalem to defend the capital and another bigger one to actually sieging down the Holy Land FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Dec 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
drat it's annoying to take the empire where the rulers hate your religion. That - 1000 rate is tough to get around when you forget to change your kids religion and getting them to agree to a matrilineal marriage is worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
I'm playing my first real game as Harald Fairhair, and I feel like the modular setup for religions make them way too generic. Even for the norse, there aren't many unique events to bring flavour to the different cultures and religions in the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:I'm playing my first real game as Harald Fairhair, and I feel like the modular setup for religions make them way too generic. Even for the norse, there aren't many unique events to bring flavour to the different cultures and religions in the game. Yeah, I've been holding off on the game until they get some more flavour. I don't want to burn out on it before it gets even better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 19:52
|
|
|
Yeah, this is probably beating a dead horse but the game really seems to be designed around the feudal realms first and foremost. One change to confederate partition that I'd like to see is that you can reform your religion if three holy sites are controlled by your dynasty instead of just by yourself, and require that you be the dynasty head. That way you wouldn't have to do idiotic poo poo like celibacy or murdering your children or whatever to keep your realm whole. Additionally confederate partition should actually be confederate, i.e it should be a loose kind of alliance.
ToxicAcne fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Dec 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
I want to play the CK3 of five years from now, but now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
If there was a single peice of advice I could give new players, it's probably to just let your realm fracture and not worry about it. It's real easy to stitch back together if you need some piece of it, while having fellow dynasts be independent is objectively good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 20:44
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
^^^basically what he said, but there are a lot of ways in which the game discourages that. Once I've reformed my religion or formed whatever title is my goal then it's a lot easier to play this way. ToxicAcne posted:Additionally confederate partition should actually be confederate, i.e it should be a loose kind of alliance. Alliances between co-heirs in most confederate partition realm splits are literally a click away. (you can always negotiate an alliance with siblings). Problem is, so are fratricidal wars, so we know which one will usually get picked, especially with all the play goals that require that your realm, specifically, hold X. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Dec 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
Yeah, the game does seem to do a better job with highlighting dynastic success as the measure of success as opposed to map painting, but it's still not all there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 21:12
|
|