• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Also clearly the issue is with the large powers being to stable, it takes away from the game when you have these large empires, there needs to be more plots and less stability to help make them more fluid

Yes,
Yes
And yes...

Tooo much stability on the big blobs.
 
there are lots of people complaining about rebellions, and peasant rebellions need to be relegated to an event. Ducal rebellions are annoying as well but honestly lets make it a little harder to hold blobs together, OR pump up the intrigue side of it and by that i mean some more plots and make the ai more susceptible to matrilinear marriages maybe. But mainly plots

Seriously now, most of the problem in this game right now could be fixed by more intrigue choices.
Question is:
How far can AI handle plots ?
 
I sort of agree with this, but on the other hand there was a lot of internal strife, bad coordination and miscommunication involved in (especially the least successful) crusades.

+1

Most crusades where aparently organized.
But once they d hit the holy land, it was "Each one for itself and god for all".
As i sayd in maybe another thread. Only time it was a bit more coordinated it was the moment the "panic" button was pressed, and IF the presents could speak to each others.

Exagerating a bit, many would prefer to see the muslim have it than his "brother" of europe hated one have it.
 
No that's ordothox christian and they had seprate pope.

Byzantine Empire was Orthodox not Christian, however Orthodox is part of the Christianty. So that means only Christian Orthodox were beaten badly.

With this logic you can say that russian are mongols. And that all westren cultures are the same.

You know what I mean, but in a way you are right they were part of the Christianty.

Orthodoxy does not have its own Pope. The Patriarch is NOT an Orthodox Pope. And what does this mean: "Byzantine Empire was Orthodox not Christian, however Orthodox is part of the Christianty."? That's completely self-contradictory. Orthodox Christians are Christian just as much as Catholics. And I have no idea where that Russians and Mongols bit comes from.
 
What this really started as was two things, I didnt like the Crusading mechanic because of the caliphate blob. its unstoppable.

1. I want to have a more fun crusading mechanic. Lets say take it from impossible to very improbable that the crusade succeeds and the land stays in european hands.
2.lets work on empires they're far too centralized and powerful.

I am not saying there should not be some tweaks and changes, I agree with others that crusades could be improved.
However, they are far from impossible.

I regularly succeed with crusades in the holy land using small kingdoms like Sicily. It is all about timing. Wait until they are engaged in wars, and you wont face the full brunt of their forces. Besides that, how can you lose in vanilla when you can recruit 15000 overpowered holy order troops?
 
So you mean that the crusades in fact succeeded, and the Middle East is full of christian nations? And the Mongols hordes didn't dominate the steppes for hundreds of years?

haha.

I have to agree the only real success the Christians had against the Muslims and the Mongols was the first crusade and later on and just barely the Iberian Peninsula. (For this time period of course)
 
I believe if you say it five more times the Devs will bow to your indomitable will. Could be six, don't hold me to five.

And .... go!
 
Well they have a long history of listening to the fans. There's too much stability and not enough plots in blobs. Look I don't want to mod it, I want to play the game unaltered bc its so close to being perfect. So close!

It's a really hard game too so everyone who claims its easy, its not.
 
I agree the empires are too stable. But I can see it's a tricky thing to balance. You push it too far the other way and it becomes too chaotic, unplayable if you're playing the emperor. On the other hand, I don't think Muslims are too powerful. The Iberian Muslims tend to overperform, in my experience (or maybe it's the Iberian Christians underperforming), but I regularly see crusading armies cutting big swathes of territory out of the middle east and north Africa. Not to mention France or the HRE frequently eating Mauretania and so on.
 
its tricky I wholeheartedly agree, im not suggesting that it is made completely unstable but it should be MODERATELY harder to keep a large blob together especially the two empires. I cant count the number of ck2 games ive played, day and night since before it came out and the same stuff always happens. Ive NEVER after tons of games seen crusaders make a dent in the middle east. Other regions dont count
 
In my current game as Duchy of Tuscany --> Kingdom of Italy, the Il Khanate went Catholic. It's the early 14th century and they've converted most of central Arabia and parts of Persia. They control the knights Templar and just beat me to a crusade target in Gallile. Was fairly irritating, actually. But yeah, not that hard. Just spam them with marriage offers as soon as they arrive, until they have a bunch of young, European Catholic women floating around their courts. I even married off one of my daughters to the Khagan.
 
The muslims as a whole don;t seem to be overpowered.

More often than not most of their lands get taken by Castile in Iberia, and the HRE and France in Africa, only their holdings in the Near East remain relatively untouched, depending on how crusades play out.
 
I dunno if it's really gamey. Historically, they did convert to the local religion, after all. I just headed that off by introducing Catholicism into their courts early on. It certainly provides them with advantages in the form of crusader orders, potential alliances with powers too far away to conquer anyway, and Papal support for taking over the middle east.
 
I have no idea what people are complaining about.

Given i have only played 2 serious run's , One as france and the other as britanny.


Either way in both games the Muslims are a joke. As France i completely crushed them. Utterly destroyed the African muslim nations and was easily able to take and hold Egypt + Jerusalem. The only threat on the map , as it is in most games is ERE , and a various times the Khans.

As Britanny the Muslims are getting owned by Iberia + France + Me (conquered England and Ireland with ease , now just rofl stomping the east pagans).



Overall i think the Muslims are still far too weak. They just don't seem very strong considering they are supposed to be really advanced in their tech's. My one complaint and thing i agree with is i think ERE and HRE pretty much never crumble. They never pose a direct threat to me in any of my games , and its usually easy to get a claim on HRE (they marry their princesses off like they are nothing) and wait till a civil war to take it (which makes the game boring once you have it). But if the player doesn't intervene , none of the AI nations like Poland or Hungary or even the Muslims ever take advantage of HRE and ERE's periods of immense weakness. So i don't think the problem is with them being too strong or vassals not rebelling enough (they rebel every time emperor changes). I think the issue is the fact the AI are content to sit within their own little kingdoms and the Muslims are only ever interested in Iberia , and any occupied lands that are de jure part of the muslim world (successful crusades). Maybe the Muslims were not historically invaders (i really don't know) , but it wouldn't hurt to see other countries get a bit ambitious.
 
why did you start as a king thats boring as hell >.> ck can only be enjoyed when youre coming up from being a count or small duke. but they are overpowered and since 1.04b theyve taken a shine to invading europe