|
Holy poo poo, it is hard to keep a Norse crown. loving insane levels of hard. I managed to unite England and Ireland and Wales under the Irish crown, my King died, and despite his son being the most carefully-tended genius with twenties all across the board, every single loving vassal I had rose up to depose him. The crown then changed hands eight times in four years. Eventually I ended up being king again because I was essentially the only person with any manpower left and was consequently able to smash everything the last king (who was in fact the original usurper, my younger brother) could put together. On the flip side, Zoroastrianism is Easy Mode in which if you win your first few wars, the rest of the game is you rolling over everyone you want to until you get bored of the idea of conquest. Not a huge fan of what they've done with Zoroastrianism; the fact that the religion doesn't need reforming makes it very, very easy to play.
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:
Yeah, rebels need to stay the gently caress at home. Some guys from near Samarkhand looking for independence ended up besieging Baghdad, because WOOOOO! ROAD TRIP! I don't think there was really ever any need to reform the rebel system in CK2, the rebels that mattered were nobles anyhow, and those are modelled by default.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
Quick question, does anyone know if Great Holy Wars are subject to the same time limits Crusades/Jihads are? In the sense I'm not going to be able to call all my Norse brethren to liberate holy Sicily until the 1090s?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 12:01
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Anyone else experienced the Norse turning to Christianity? It's really hard to convert those goddamn pagans. I was playing as the Byzantines, and decided to convert the Rus to glorious Orthodoxy. They imprisoned my guy, (after which you can't send another, possibly in your lifetime), so I sent another priest on. Bam, imprisoned. I ended up reconquering the Levant and Egypt, and giving it all to the priesthood, whom I taxed and levied outrageously. Why, you might ask? Every time one of those literate fucks got a tiny bit out of line, I immediately made them my personal priest, and gave them the great honor of going to convert the heathens in Norway. Or Finland, or Russia, or England, wherever, really. Out of the sixty-two priests I sacrificed to the Old Gods, one was not immediately imprisoned and was allowed to preach. He quickly converted one of the King of Denmark's second cousins to Orthodoxy, and was imprisoned for his troubles.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
crm posted:If you do a reformation on the Norse religion, you still can't switch to primogeniture unless you have High crown authority? Kind of. Basically, if you give your unlanded sons stuff, it counts 'against' their inheritance. If I was a Duke with three counties and a Duchy, and three sons, and I gave my second son a county, my third and first sons would inherit the other two. Under old gavelkind, you could just give your first son all your poo poo and happily wait to die, which made the law effectively a way to have more holdings and keep your family happy. Now it actually works as intended, which is both frustrating and kinda neat.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Yeah I'll second the 'start as a pagan in 1066' thing. It's much more fun when the whole world hates you and I don't like how the new start date tends to result in Europe being a huge loving mess outside of Italy and France which seem to generally stay in one piece or blob. Started as Erik the Heathen. There's a really neat trick to prepared invasions that I suspect is not meant to be abusable in this way. The number of dudes you get per prepared invasion event is proportional to your manpower. No problem, except this includes your mercenaries As Erik in 1066, I quietly raided the gently caress out of the Med until I had around 4k gold and prestige, and then declared a prepared invasion on Norway. I then raised a fuckload of mercenaries, and kept my regular levies on raid duty to pay for them. I ended up with something like thirty thousand event troops. As soon as I did, I got my massive army of event troops and also declared war on Sweden for the kingship. I smashed both of them (armies now give a lot more warscore), and I ended up King of Sweden with all of Norway as my possession (since the Ynglings had England, for some reason it didn't give me the King title of Norway) by about 1080. I then took Sjaelland, found Holland in revolt, took Zeeland and managed to reform the faith by 1085. Here's another neat thing about the Norse. Any kingdoms you have count as having Free Investiture, which grants you a +10 (and for some reason a +25 once I gained my imperial title) bonus to church relations. As leader of the faith, you gain another +20 to your relations to the church, and in addition if you have a lot of clerical vassals you'll hit the +20 piety relation bonus in no time at all. Keeping in mind that maximum penalty to church vassal relations (specifically) is -40 with max levies and taxes, so you're still 10 ahead. Once you include tech in there, (which is easily upped to +9 early in the game, you can run a massive theocratic empire with no fear of anyone ever revolting effectively. There also seems to be a +10 bonus for any church vassals of yours at Duke-level or above. Overall you end up with a base of +94, and if you want to max out your levies and taxes you can just going loving wild. Also declared a Great Holy War for Egypt, took it, and granted it independence. I'm hoping to see the most loving metal pyramids ever built.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 12:43
|
|
|
KPC_Mammon posted:
Difficulty only really makes you comparatively weaker than the AI by giving you less morale and the AI more morale and money. It doesn't increase the size of enemy levies, so Very Hard isn't super different from normal in CK2. (And the massive fertility bonus on Very Easy in fact makes it harder to play effective Norse kingdoms, ironically enough) Chalks posted:How do the laws work if you usurp a kingdom? I usurped a kingdom in my game which only had a single county controlled by the old leader - the laws matched my empire so everything was fine until I captured that final county at which point the laws flipped to Gravelkind. Maybe I'm missing something but is this normal? Had I known this would happen I would have just let the title get destroyed rather than usurping it. I'm not sure if this is working as designed or whether it's one of the numerous new bugs in 1.10. Every DLC or expansion patch is incredibly buggy, so there's a good chance once we hit a few more patches this won't be the case. occipitallobe fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Jun 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:When I raise my levies to support my liege against rebels, if I siege a province it counts towards his warscore, but if I smash an enemy army it doesn't. How does that make any sense. I posted a bug thread about this a couple of days on the Pdox forums, and while I haven't gotten a dev reply, another player answered me with this. quote:I've had something similar happen when one of my vassals destroyed an enemy army. The icon in the lower right didn't update, but the actual war window, with the warscore breakdown participating ruler display, did update. The icon in the lower right updated once I opened the war window. Been busy doing exams so I've had no chance to test this and see if it works as a vassal and as a ruler, but it might be worth looking into.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
I swear the 'adventurer has a claim on your title" wars have to have some weird bug in the new patch. I was the Kingdom of Mauritania, and I owned all of Muslim Spain and all of Africa (west of Egypt), and could raise roughly ~35,000 men (a few of my vassals were annoyed with me). An adventurer showed up with a claim on the Kingdom of Africa, and over 40,000 dudes. Some random landless guy was capable of raising an army roughly the same size as that of the Byzantine Empire or Abbasid Caliphate. Makes sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2013 10:05
|
|
|
Morol posted:Is there a mod that make the AI not move their capital around too much. Seeing the Abbasids ruled from some desolate place in Arabia and not Baghdad is pretty silly. Often this is due to successful rebellions for a King (or Emperor) title - these don't include a claim on the natural capital of that de jure kingdom or empire, so the new king rules from his personal demense.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
To anyone looking for a fun game in CK2, start as any Finnish High Chief in 1066. The non-Tengri, non-Norse pagan faiths are actually really interesting to play, and feel like a balanced version of pagans. You gain massive defensive bonuses when fighting, something you'll need to take advantage of cleverly in order to fend off Christian holy wars, conquering external land is difficult and slow, and reforming the faith doesn't make you an absurdly superpowered God-King. The faith is reformable, though, and it's not obscenely hard to do so, like it is with every other non-Tengri faith in 1066. Generally you'll end up facing a massive Rus or a massive Cumania, and either of those is a ticking time bomb who will stomp you and take your territory, so you have a decent challenge to face down, and since the Pope is sure to call a crusade on you (I've never played a 1066 pagan game where I took a kingdom and didn't eventually cop a crusade), you get to play a really interesting, challenging game for the first 50-100 years.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2013 13:23
|
|
|
That plot thing is going to be loving brilliant when I'm trying to murder someone who's already unpopular. canepazzo posted:Title name change and dynasty name change I look forward to. Depends on the price point I guess This as well. I'd pay a couple of dollars for this,if only so I can obsessively rename the titles I give my vassals in a way that suits my liege's (and their) culture.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 14:07
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:We are both running Agnatic-Cognatic Primogeniture. Try reloading your game. Occasionally the game has weird succession quirks - I once had a succession go through my son and my grandson to make my heir my great-granddaughter in Ag-Cog Primogeniture. When I reloaded my game, my son was heir once again.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Yes, and i have over 500 piety and 63 moral authority Jihads also have to be unlocked.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2014 11:44
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:The Pope just asked to marry one of my courtiers Yeah, this just started happening to me, too. I saw a king-level dude asking to marry someone of my dynasty and just hit 'ok', and a few female members of my dynasty later I realised the Pope was just collecting women. On another note, the catholic ruler start into swearing fealty to the Byzantine Emperor is immensely strong (we were talking about it over in the Byzantium LP thread), because as soon as you become Emperor you have Greek culture, it's fairly easy to remove duchies from your vassals and use them to convert all of your new dukes, and you can very easily set up an antipope and make the Pope your vassal, at which point there is literally only one major power in the world (Rus in the 1066 start) who you can't either Holy War or seize all the land from using the Pope. You also get Crusades, excommunications without the bother of Patriarchs stopping you excommunicating your various vassals in their dioceses and on the whole it's a lot more fun. Honestly, Orthodoxy needs a rework of some kind - it's ridiculous that I can't make the Patriarch of Antioch excommunicate people in his diocese even when he's my direct vassal because he's not my head of religion. Traditionally the Byzantine Emperors had more power over their religion than Catholic lords, not less.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
double nine posted:Huh, is it normal for a captain that took territory from his employer to remain "lowborn"? I thought they got a dynasty name assigned to them when they take over a country/title? It's because his highest-level title (Captain of a mercenary band) can be held by a lowborn character. Likewise, if you give the Pope a county, he won't gain a dynasty. If somehow he were to gain a King-level title (though I'm not sure if that's entirely possible for mercenary captains in any way whatsoever) he would gain a dynasty.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
The Seljuk Turks are weird. They invaded, took over one duchy, and proceeded to join the Abbasid Caliph in every single one of his wars (I was playing ironman as Byzantium, having started as a duke in Sicily), throwing 30k troops against me in the first war (in a game where I had 35k, the Abbasids had 40k), destroying my beautiful ironman empire. I saw them show up and thought 'great, finally an opportunity to pincer the Abbasid Caliphate', but the reality turned out vastly different. It's bizarre that the Seljuks prioritize helping out their most obvious conquest target over, well, conquering them. They've been around for 20-30 years and they act as a de facto vassal to the Caliph.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
TaurusTorus posted:What causes a county to not be de jure part of any empire? In what should be part of Tartaria, when I go to the map mode there are just black provinces. In vanilla there shouldn't be any way for this to happen. All counties are de jure part of an empire, and while they can drift into other empires, there's no way for a province to be not de jure without either a bug, a mod, or maybe some peculiarity in an update.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Look I just can't let this go: the Mongols lucked out with the conquest of Jin China since they'd happened to arrive after Jin and Song spent 40 years on a series of incredibly violent and exhausting wars. The old capital of Kaifeng changed hands 3 times in a ten year period, to give you an idea of how violent the wars were. The Mongols conquered China because the Chinese had spent the 40 years prior to their arrival kicking the absolute poo poo out of each other. I didn't know that, but it's a really interesting parallel to the Islamic conquest of Persia and a whole lot of what was Byzantine territory at the time - the Byzantines and Sassanids were busy kicking the living poo poo out of each other and as a consequence the Caliphate had a chance to hit the ground running - the alienation of some desert tribes by the Byzantines (at a time when they usually played various tribes off against one another) religiously gave Islam a much more fertile ground to grow in, as well. I've also been working to stabilize my realm (despite losing Georgia and Anatolia, I've taken most of Spain and Italy, as well as Egypt and North Africa after the Shi'ites reemerged there), and I've found that if you're trying to stabilize a giant realm you really only have two options. The first is play semi-Islamic in the sense that you rigorously prune your family tree by forcing most of your sons to take the vows, getting them killed, nor marrying your daughters, and so on and so forth. That way there's literally only one dude with a claim on your throne in every generation and as such a lot of the more dangerous factions never form. The second is that elective law is bullshit powerful. I'm not sure how the ai works vis-a-vis elective law, but what I've seen so far leads me to believe that your electors will vote roughly in the order of dynasty-culture-religion-a whole bunch of other factors (liking the guy, preferring a weak or strong king, so on and so forth). As a consequence, if under 50% of your electors are of your dynasty, they'll almost always line up behind whoever you choose rather than let some other douchebag get on the throne. However, once your dynasty hits a certain critical mass they'll start backing other candidates from your dynasty and that's when the whole civil war thing starts to become an issue. Basically you can generally count on your entire dynasty to vote for your guy (provided there's some other guy who poses a threat) even if they loving loathe you and want you dead. Balancing your realm between people in your dynasty and people who aren't to the point where the two are reasonably matched means that the risk of losing the throne goes down to zero. I had one Empress assassinated while the heir was an insane, infirm, lustful, cruel, deceitful, drunkard guy with 0 diplomacy and the family still lined up behind the guy he wanted as soon as he stumbled onto the throne and vomited on a courtier. (The other lesson here is keep an eye on your elective heir, holy poo poo)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
Playing an Ironman game as Count of Capua, end up swearing fealty to the King of Italy (easier to seize parts of Sicily that way). After a hundred or so years, I own (or have vassalized) every single province in the Kingdom of Sicily, as well as two or three in Italy proper. Being a vassal, however, the King of Italy decides to form the Kingdom of Sicily as well. I figure I'll take the Kingdom of Italy, and use the fact that half of Sicily is my demense to score Sicily via usurping. As soon as I win the war, though, the game gives every single one of my Sicilian provinces to the (former) King of Italy (now King of Sicily only), leaving me a wrong-culture king with a demense of one undeveloped Italian province. What the hell, game?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Allyn posted:That's pretty weird. What CA is Sicily at? If high, maybe that stopped the territory from passing outside the realm? Not sure, otherwise I'd managed to get it kicked down to autonomous, though Italy was at Medium. Either way, it's weird as gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
Is the new ironman hilariously slow for anyone else? The autosaving is taking well over twice as long to the point where the initial autosaves are as bad as the "I've played 400 years of history" autosaves. I seriously can't see myself using this mode anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
Drone posted:I don't really get why there are mandatory monthly autosaves in Ironman to begin with. I could understand yearly or bi-yearly autosaves, but there's no reason why this ironman mode should have to save THAT often. It's frustrating. It's not as if savescumming is a particularly huge issue - there are gamey ways to get most of the achievements and secure yourself a giant gently caress-off empire anyway, I just like ironman because it removes the temptation of cheating (which is often high when you're about to lose your throne) and makes the game more enjoyable overall. If there was a way to turn off cheats without ironman, I'd be all up in that. e: I'm getting 6-second saves now at the beginning of the game, up from between one and two. It's silly.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Because Muslim/Zoroastrian titles automatically default to family name regardless of the actual title, probably. You can turn it off in the cultural files. I thought that was just Arabic culture-group rulers? European Muslims tend to get their realm title over their family ones.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
For anyone worrying about the Religious Unrest bug in India, it seems to crop up no matter what religion you are. I ruler-designed an Orthodox Sri Lankan guy, managed to conquer most of India and a single wicked priest Patriarch in Constantinople dropped the RA down to a point where 'religious unrest' was dotted across a full quarter of my realm. It got to an entertaining point where I was having trouble keeping it down while cheating myself gold and a massive force of mercenaries. I suspect it might only crop up in Jain/Buddhist provinces but isn't removed even when the province religion is my religion. Nothing quite like starting a war with your eight thousand men against a nine thousand man alliance and twenty-five thousand rebels cropping up in the meantime. edit: Compressing the saves makes no difference as to the autosave. The end-of-year saves hit 8 or 9 seconds at 1200 on a full playthrough from 867 (and I'm just running a regular old 7200 RPM HDD) which is bearable, but I couldn't imagine doing it on ironman. occipitallobe fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Just had a game where one great Norseman reformed the entirety of the faith, conquered England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland (handing off each kingdom to various nobleman), united all Scandinavia under himself finishing by destroying the Duke of Svijbod, making him a mere count. So far I was doing pretty well. The former Duke had the Fylkir's daughter killed, and right after challenged the new Fylkir to holmgang. The Fylkir killed him in single combat, cementing his rightful place as ruler of all Scandinavia and head of Odin's mighty church. His son was a craven, slothful drunkard who inherited two of his three countries. The Fylkir spent a few more years tormenting and humiliating this man, murdering his wife, luring him into plots and consequently imprisoning him and forcing him to pay ruinous ransoms. After a few years my Fylkir decided that it wasn't enough, so the beserker, viking, brilliant commander strong Fylkir challenged him to holmgang. He lost, killed by a man so drunk he thought he was in a bar fight. So of course his son about fifteen years into his reign decided to challenge the same guy to holmgang. He lost, killed by a man so lazy he turned up to the duel six hours late. Finally came his grandson, who was thankfully sixteen. I figured he wouldn't challenge the man who had killed both his father and grandfather to a duel. For some time he survived, and had two sons. I was right. Apparently murdering two emperors had really gotten the Count of Svijbod going, making him brave and wroth. He challenged the sixteen-year old boy to a duel. I accepted, figuring that this string of luck really couldn't last. The grandson however was one of six brothers, and I'd never quite had time to switch away from gavelkind. So Sweden, Norway, and Finland were all inherited by his fractitious, underage brothers. So when the sixty-two Count of Svijbod murdered him in formal combat, it left three kings in an independence faction united against a fourteen-year old kid. Despite fighting a valiant (and very short) war, the Empire of Scandinavia was all but destroyed. The stories this game can spit out are pretty neat.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
cock hero flux posted:The exact same thing happened to me. I figured that since his heir was Orthodox I could just let it be but in the 20 years he spent on the throne after converting he flipped half the Empire, including Constantinople. Huh. The same thing happened to me as well. I ended up offering to be vassalized in order to begin my ascent to Byzantine Emperor as the former Count of Naples, and ended up converting to Miaphysism in order to be able to secure the elective succession.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:As Byzantines, is there a better way to get a CB on Rome than Fabricate claim? Convert to Catholicism and create an antipope. Or Islam and Holy War! Or Norse and coastal conquest! If you're looking for a conquest of Rome, though, make sure if you control the two provinces below it (I think it's the Duchy of Capua) that there is a count directly below Rome and a Duke in the province below him as his liege. Seeing as they both border Rome, they'll both try and fabricate claims on it as well, so you can just press their claims if you're worried about the expense of fabricating claims. NihilVerumNisiMors posted:There's no way to split up fleets into smaller parts right? I have to use my entire fleet of 200 ships, which costs an assload of money, to ferry around my 2000 dudes. Are you raising your fleets from the one province? If so, I don't think so. Also, always raise vassal fleets if it's possible. Those guys have to pay for them and you're laughing all the way to the bank (with vassals too poor to rise up against you). If you're a Catholic Republic, it might be worth hiring a mercenary fleet as I'm fairly sure the mercenary fleets cost the same gold per month to use as regular ones. occipitallobe fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Apr 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
NihilVerumNisiMors posted:Yea, I'm a playing as Gotland and I can either raise 200+ ships from the island itself or like 20 from minor provinces I've conquered. It's always either too few or too many. Yeah, titular titles work just like others - if you hold Gotland for 100 years it should drift into being de jure part of the Duchy of Gotland. Cantorsdust posted:What's everyone's opinion on Byzantines converting to Catholicism? Having a vassal pope when you form Rome would be a nice bonus, and it would actually let you do things to other realms, unlike Orthodox's autonomous patriarchs. But I'd lose out on mending the Schism. Catholic mercenaries and Holy Orders are so much better, Catholic excommunications are far more powerful, and a vassal Pope allows you to fabricate claims and get cash, making him so much better than vassal Patriarchs. It also makes it easier to pick up those pesky duchies in North Italy to reform the Roman Empire. Your vassals lose out on bishop-vassal income, but on the whole it's a massive power boost to the point of being broken.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
Edison was a dick posted:Counties cannot de-jure drift, and I'm not sure titular duchies can de-jure drift into Kingdoms, since I think titular Kingdoms can't drift into empires until they have de-jure land. I think he's playing as the Republic of Gotland (titular duchy) which will in time have the county of Gotland drift into it de jure.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
BioMe posted:I'm moving up to Abyssinian Empire right now (so Egypt, Nubia, Abyssinia). They generate techpoints in their own duchy capitals. So instead of a single teched-up capital with a ring or two of decently-teched provinces after which lies a great sea of illiteracy and stone clubs, most ducal provinces tend to keep pace with the provinces right next to your capital. Those techs are the ones that improve the province's troops, the buildings in those provinces, so on and so forth. If you don't give a poo poo how developed your realm is and instead prefer to keep a comparative advantage over your vassals, removing dukes is probably a good move. If you're playing an expansionistic singleplayer game, it might even be optimal play for keeping those gently caress-off huge empires together, though I've never tried it. In multiplayer of course it'd be stupid, but eh. There are like ten dudes who play multiplayer.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:Question about handing out duchies. As the King of Sicily, I hold the two duchies that I can hold without my vassals bitching at me (as well as a handful of counties). The rest of my vassals are all counts directly under me. I have about 4 duchies that I could create but haven't. I know that creating them would give me prestige, but I'm not super concerned about that, I have plenty. Is there some reason I'm missing that I should create these duchies and set up my kingdom as king --> duke --> count instead of (mostly ) king --> count? We had this discussion earlier, but dukes are the lowest-tier rulers who generate techpoints. If you only have counts, your realm is going to be mostly a backwater and have less troops and gold and worse troops. I do like to occasionally hold duchies I could create in reserve to give out when I have a new shaky ruler or a regency that needs propping up, but there's nothing wrong with holding off on creating duchies for awhile. If you rule a small kingdom (like Sicily) it might be worth your while to keep all your vassals as counts. Once you expand a bit though dukes are probably a good option to ensure you keep on-par technologically. In addition, being able to assign away lovely vassals (who hate you for whatever reason) under a vassal duke is really useful, and can help you change inheritance law when you need to. I'm pretty sure having vassal dukes lowers your net prestige (a vassal duke is worth two vassal counts in terms of prestige generated), so really there's no reason to give away duchies unless you absolutely have to. However, duchies are significantly easier to manage which counts for a lot when your empire gets big.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Kainser posted:Yeah, HiP gives you the option to not run with a crazy map if you don't want to. SWMH is 100% optional. SWMH is something you should definitely not install, though HiP is pretty good overall. Though to be honest, the best part of HiP is VIET, with the shitload additional plots and ambitions. Even if you prefer to play vanilla in every other aspect, VIET is a must-have. Being able to plot to frame your vassal as a traitor to you and then have it backfire and have all your vassals loathe you for trying to manipulate the feudal contract in that way is the sort of thing that CK2 should have in vanilla.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:Any tips on elective monarchies? I had a brief scare when a bunch of my vassals decided to support some Count for my primary title instead of my son, even though I was at or near 100 relations with all of them. I successfully plotted to kill the guy off so the succession is safe now, but I'm wondering what plays into the electors' choices. My assumption as to how the system works is that electors vote for the person who has the highest 'succession score', a number which includes a whole bunch of stuff including the sitting ruler's endorsement (and how much they like the sitting ruler), the stats and traits of the various contenders for the throne, and even the number of people supporting a single candidate (it's why you usually see two or three people in the race, not fifteen different little factions). I also assume this score is calculated differently based on personal traits (ambitious rulers prefer a weak king), If your son had enough negative traits and the count had enough positive ones, I think people will vote for him regardless. Cantorsdust posted:I'm wondering this too. I have a nephew who's heir to East Francia, and I'd really really like to merge the Byzantines with the West like that. I tried nominating him, but my vassals preferred one of my sons 14 to 8. My nephew's just a baby, is that it? I think the same thing's going on here. Babies (and women) are harder to get elected, and your sons tend to garner a bit of a bonus by virtue of being born in the purple. In addition, if your chosen heir is differently-cultured your chances of getting elected are tiny, if you're differently-religioned they're zero.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Edit the third: Oh jeez, only one holy war every five years. Zoroastrians are going to be miserably slow in this, since no one will ever conduct diplomacy with you (unless that's changed too I suppose). And you only get to do it on areas that have provinces of your religion. I guess holy wars were really good in the base game but man. (Though, I suppose it also drastically reduces your chances of being obliterated instantly, since you don't own any Sunni provinces so no one can religious reconquest you. Unless, again, there's another thing I'm not aware of.) You can go to the intrigue menu and change the holy war options under customization options if you feel so inclined. It's weird that the Priesthood option isn't there, I'm pretty sure it's there when I load up as Vandad normally.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:I meant before but I found it. The Old Gods was beneath the 1066 start. I'm pretty sure you can choose between SMWH and the full VIET install, as they're not compatible. The new map is loving terrible, the VIET immersion (or events maybe, I can't recall which module isn't compatible) adds a whole bunch.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Zodium posted:That option is why Depressed is the best trait. Imprison and revoke the properties of all your dukes and then off yourself. Imprison and banish anyone with enough gold to fund your son's conquering spree. Whatever, really. Depressed kings are basically goldmines that allow you to put your heir in a ridiculously powerful position. I once had a depressed King of France who (coupled with a rather impressive spymaster) imprisoned every single one of his dukes, power-banished them in a single day and then committed suicide (I like to think the spirit of Marx was inhabiting him, causing him to have irresistable urges to destroy the upper class and finishing up with himself). I think his son had something like 10k gold to start his reign with.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Oh yes.. He can even become Jewish instead I kinda get what they're going for there - the chances of any religion forming as it did historically given hundreds of years of alternate history seem pretty slim - but at the same time unless you've managed to write a procedural way of generating new religions which can be introduced into the game given certain timeframes and events, there's really no better way to do it. Still, in the event the Byzantine-Sassanid wars never happen, it'd be pretty hard to argue that Islam would've reached anything resembling the heights it achieved. If you set your startdate in 632, things should probably turn out the same way. Still, it seems logical to treat it the same way any other major event invasion is treated - give Muhammad a bunch of troops (as well as Umar, probably) and an invasion CB. Maybe the two empires are strong enough to rebuff Islam, maybe they aren't. Maybe Islam ignores the Sassanids completely and takes over the Byzantines entirely instead. I don't get the whole '10% chance of founding Islam' thing. I could see weird conditions working (if Mecca is Christian Muhammad doesn't found Islam, maybe), but removing major events because of the butterfly effect means you really can't have any off-screen invasions whatsoever. If we had a comparable mod around 50 BCE-100 CE, I think you'd just suck up the spread of Christianity even if you end up with something bizarre like a resurgent independent Israel. lenoon posted:More than anything else in the 500- 1000 AD timeframe, the rise of Islam is vastly important to world history. It may well be THE single most important event in European/Levantine history. I guess the invention of the kebab means nothing to you.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 14:26
|
|
. I tried to work on it but people kept shooting me down with dumb BS like "Islam should only succeed 10% of the time" and "I know you keep saying you just started writing the events but you haven't shown any alternate paths, what gives?" These same people keep advocating for Rome to be easily restored or the Franks should be historically power yet Islam should be a weak heresy with little to no chance of succeeding. I really wanted this mod to succeed.
|
Bold Robot posted:
You're going to want the entire Duchy of Thrace. You get extra troops from your capital duchy. Secondly, as the Caliph you only need to hold the holy site in Mecca which is one of the temple holdings. If you want to do this in a way that doesn't anger the duke you place in charge of the area (assuming you take Constantinople's holdings, which is a good idea) create baron vassals for every holding in Mecca apart from the temple holding you need. Then create a count in Mecca. Then give a Duke the other counties in the duchy (I think Mecca is a two-province duchy, I never really play around that area) and the Duchy of Mecca. The count will be mad at you because he doesn't hold the temple holding, but the duke won't be and he's your only direct vassal in the area.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:Ok, great! Thank you! The first explanation makes sense I suppose, but it's kind of their fault for sending their entire army across the map when they had someone that could press a war. I always try to leave at least a token force at home when I'm off helping an ally or pressing a claim far away and then keep enough cash around to augment them with a mercenary company if I need to. They should have to do that too rather than the game locking the warscore. The other problem is multiplayer balance. Back when retinues weren't nerfed, it was literally impossible not to win a lightning war against an enemy if their retinues weren't precisely in place to defeat yours when you declared a war. You'd run through their poo poo, siege down castles and get a 100% warscore before they could even gather their armies. Large empire wars were a matter of lightning strikes (in which war was declared and counter-declared) and nothing ever really got done.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 17:23
|
|