Discussion in 'PC/Console Game Discussion' started by Calistas, Feb 4, 2012.
1.09 patch notes. Wow. It's a novel!
And the 3 DLCs are out on GMG and Gamersgate today.
I really need to play through this game at least once. Now it's just getting pathetic...
They keep releasing new content when I'm in the middle of a game, and since I must experience all new content, I start a new game.
Seriously. The DLC release schedule is frantic!
New expansion not released on Steam yet!
DEPLOY INTERNET NERD ENTITLEMENT GAMING RAGE
It has been 3 hours and the DLC is still not out.
SING GODDESS SING THE RAGE OF XPAV
Oh wait, that was my Hulk voice. Actually, I like that better. The Illiad, as performed by the Hulk.
And he shaketh his sword at them therewith.
GMG has the Steam version, it's cheaper too with their coupon.
Unfortunately GMG and everyone else ran out of keys yesterday when Steam didn't release the DLC on time.
For those wondering about the new succession laws it should be noted that Tanistry is only applicable to the Gaelic culture group - such as Scotland - and that Ultimogeniture is (according the Paradox boards) only for pagans. I suppose we can guess what the next big DLC is.
They moved everything around! The Characters button is down in the map menu, the map menu buttons are blank and you have to open the "+" toggle to get to the modes. Up is left and down is right.
Dogs and cats living together!
So Merchant Republics make a STUPID AMOUNT OF MONEY.
Only played for a bit last night, but, wow, it seems almost overpowering.
There is also the problem that there aren't enough of them. During the 1066 start Gotland is able to certainly blob huge without any competition. Seems the DLC needs a round of balancing.
Playing a Republic.... within a few months had to sabotage my rival's new flagship... First thing that crossed my mind:
YOU SANK MY FLAGSHIP!
:) Still love this game
Republics are wackily, wackily, wackily overpowered, so yeah.
How the heck do you build a trade post?? I seized a city in someone elses territory but how can I add a trade post?
Click on the province you want a trade post in. There are two new tabs on the province info panel, poking out of the lower right side. One looks like a pile of boxes. Click it, and it should tell you who owns the trade post in that province - and if nobody does, there is a button that lets you build one.
Thanks Blacktea. I love the game but I have to say the UI is a chore and the lack of any help docs other then the dev diaries is an annoyance at times.
They must have tweaked something, because your kids seem to have a lot more children now before they inherit. They used to be like other members your court and only have one or two kids until they actually got their own land. Now, they're spitting out all kinds of babies. It may just be those who stand to inherit land since only my oldest and second-oldest male children seem to be doing this.
So 40 years into my 1066 Genoa game I have won the crusade for Southern Italy and have a yearly profit of over 700.
There's also a Mac crash bug with a fix on the paradox forums, btw.
So freaking overpowered. I have the Templars and Hospitallers on permanent retainer for a mere 38 a month, when I'm making double that. They wander from province to province taking coastal cities. I took about 10 from the Byzantines when they were under civil war, and 2 provinces on top of that.
It is a little nice being forced to not play Primogeniture or kill-your-children gavelkind, each Doria gets a city as they come of age.
Other patrician families get thrown in jail and left there.
Despite my love for CK2 the main weakness of the game, modded or unmodded, is still the fact that wars come down to numbers, with a 10-15% terrain modifier to the defender on occasion. Commanders don't seem to matter at all. I find myself missing the combat in Europa Universalis where the difference between a good general and a mediocre one could see armies defeat twice their number.
And on a related note, failure on the battlefield doesn't have enough political repercussions. Let's say you're king of wherever and you just massed your entire army for battle and suffer a crushing defeat. Historically that would be a reason for massive political unrest. In CK2 you get a relationship penalty for calling up levies but not for getting them massacred, something that just strikes me as both unhistorical and something that would be a great addition to the game.
Agreed on both points. To the second one, yeah, historically speaking battles aren't weighted nearly enough in the war score system. William conquered England by winning the Battle of Hastings, not by laboriously besieging every county. It's still my major sticking point with Paradox's games - wars end up feeling like whack-a-mole a lot of the time.
I can see the argument that it needs to be the way it is for balance reasons, but I really wish the game would realize that if I've just wiped out my opponents 15k army it's really only a matter of time before I capture whatever territory I need to. I think the balance should come from making it harder to get good CBs, not from making wars tedious.
I'm not just talking about the war score (which can be modded, major battles in CK2+ can easily end up giving 80+ war score), I'm talking about the political effects of war. Subjects should get pissed when their levies die, they should get rebellious when their sovereign displays incompetence on the battlefield. Prestige won and lost deals with this indirectly but when you rule a kingdom or an empire the prestige losses are negligable.
CK2 does an very good job of mapping feudal politics as personal relations already, I just really find myself missing the impact war has on my relations with my vassals.
Ah, I see. Actually, if that happened it'd resolve the war score issue too. Big battle is lost, country starts to tear itself apart, opponent has to sue for peace to handle internal issues.
I've been playing this a great deal the last week, with the new patch and CK2+ on the World of Princes campaign (or whatever it's called). It's a fabulous experience, but I agree that the war system is pathetic. While CK2+ does make battles a deciding factor, there's just no way for me to win a war without have more men then my opponent, which is just so limiting. There are not enough battlefield events or options, not enough occasions for things to go magically wrong or right. I think if your monarch is leading troops, you should have decision events like you do when you mentor a child, that have varying degrees of impact on the outcome of a battle.
I haven't seen any mod's that address the fundamental flaws in the war system effectively.
This is actually something that I really like about the Game of Thrones mod. If Robb Stark's entire army gets defeated in a single battle against the combined might of the Reach, that's lights out for the North. I've seen wars go from 0 to 100% in a single battle. Which gives an even greater incentive for keeping a bunch of smaller armies looting and pillaging if you know your opponent has a giant stack of doom marching around.
I've definitely won battles where I've been significantly outnumbered by a combination of terrain and commanders. Having 20+ skill commanders with the right attributes (flankers on the flanks, rough terrain specialists, etc) made a huge different in one of them.
I do agree that it's not interactive enough or obvious enough, but it is actually quite powerful.
Looting and pillaging is another aspect of warfare that is almost entirely unrepresented in CK2. Armies staying in a province should trigger poverty and peasant rebellions. But that's a minor issue that doesn't really play into the relationship dynamics that make CK2 so great.
I think (though I haven't actually checked) that the battle engine is not open for modding except in tweaking existing values. So you can make the warscore 300% of vanilla and increase the flanking penalty, but you can't make the battle engine trigger stuff that isn't already in there.
I generally agree. I did, however, have a 12k stack of Templars and Hospitallers defeat a 20k stack of Byzantine troops. Surprised the hell out of me, so I still agree.
I haven't used them for awhile, but last I checked, the holy orders were all 100% heavy cavalry. They're going to generally kick the shit out of even larger armies which have the usual troop variety.
Paradox is practically giving CK2 away (and Sword of Islam) - both are a whopping 55% off at their website today:
Unless I'm missing something, $18 is not giving anything away. CKII has been way cheaper on Steam and Gamersgate.
Don't forget the ping-ponging, the AI's tendency to move its army out of a destination province the moment you give the movement order, and the sheer number of provinces on each game's map! The American Civil War in Vicky 2 takes the crown for masochism, but the only Paradox franchise that actually makes warfighting fun is Hearts of Iron. Apart from HoI, wars in Paradox games suffer from a very low ratio of interesting decisions to busywork -- the interesting decisions are largely made during peacetime.
Honestly, I would like to see Paradox address these issues by reducing the number of provinces on each map and generally making combat rarer but more decisive, but Paradox is cursed with a rivet-counter playerbase that makes the mistake of equating "complexity" and "work" with depth.
I mean, even small things like whether or not you endorse or encourage plundering (plundering will happen regardless, but if you encourage it, it would be particularly brutal/lucrative.) Right now, there are very few incentives to ruling through fear - you can't torture your way to high crown authority - so having some war time money making options (what's the point if not gold anyway) would help a bunch.
I actually did like the warfare in the Europa Universalis games. Sure, ping-ponging was still in effect to some extent but provinces were larger and you could plan a campaign around beating a numerically superior enemy on the battlefield.
Don't see how they could. The warfare system is pretty integral to the EU gameplay (initially, it was pretty much the entire EU gameplay). To change it would require significant changes to the game.
So.. I am sitting in Sweden playing Gotland. My poor leader of my house dies. I inherit 3 counties and lose the republic. I am bored and notice there is a crusade for Andalusia. Deciding I wanted the Crusader tag I pack up my "army" of 398 men... Load up my boat, sil to Spain. I dodge some 8k stacks... kill off 3 small remnant armies and settle in on Badajoz where I do not have enough men to besiege. The King of Leon cruises past with a 8k stack... I use him to whip out 3 quick sieges..I hold that province. I move off... He goes a different way, and eventually I lose a fight and my stack dies.. fast forward 3 years.. and the Crusade is declared a victory.. and somehow... I have no idea why... This happens:
Yes I am Lord Mayor of almost all of Spain. I have no ability to have vassals. I can't claim titles. I have 44 properties in my demesne.. And I would love to hold on to the 2 coastal ones at least ;)
My King MUST be quite pleased with me!
Has anyone actually tried using tanistry yet? It seems a little broken in the sense that you get a game over as soon as the current count/duke/king/whatever dies off. Set someone as my heir, everyone voted for him, and when I died the game tried to make me play as my current guy's landless son instead of my actual heir, so game over.
Separate names with a comma.