Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

How many times do i have to say it? nerf muslims and nerf blobs

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69867 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10588 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6361 After Action Reports
Lafayette53 said:
There are some mods (CKPlus) that solve this problem of big realms being far too stable really well.
Click to expand...

Aye, CKPlus isn't shabby at all if your goal is a more organic, fluid state of nations/preventing super-blobbing. Unfortunately, I'm not a huge fan of the modmaker's method for achieving, which is basically nerfing the levies of Kings/Emperors. It just doesn't feel right that the Shia Caliphate can only bring up 3k troops. It does work though, and at the moment I've got a game going as the King of Nubia and I've managed to last a few years without being overrun. That, and it also has a few other features I wish I could flip back (like his removal of attrition... just because the AI is too stupid to deal with it doesn't mean it's a game mechanic I still have to work around).
 
Comradebot said:
Aye, CKPlus isn't shabby at all if your goal is a more organic, fluid state of nations/preventing super-blobbing. Unfortunately, I'm not a huge fan of the modmaker's method for achieving, which is basically nerfing the levies of Kings/Emperors. It just doesn't feel right that the Shia Caliphate can only bring up 3k troops. It does work though, and at the moment I've got a game going as the King of Nubia and I've managed to last a few years without being overrun. That, and it also has a few other features I wish I could flip back (like his removal of attrition... just because the AI is too stupid to deal with it doesn't mean it's a game mechanic I still have to work around).
Click to expand...

He nerfed the respawn rate of levies, not the total amount.
 
I think that some of you are not taking one thing into account: there is more than one way to reduce Crown Authority. Every time someone wins a war for [kingdom], its CA gets lowered by one.

When I played, the problem of HRE kinda fixed itself around 1200, when after two really great kaisers there came a mediocre one. Suddenly there were not one but four Wars for Holy Roman Empire and several Wars for Independence. Each time a new kaiser touched his acquired throne, his previous allies were either too badly beaten to help him with the rest, or immediately switched their support into the next pretender. After this was over, the empire was ruled by a woman and its Autonomous Vassals were happily fighting among themselves. Except of the Lower Lorraine which was independent. The big gray blob was still enormous, but weak as a recently born kitten and managed to somehow lose a war with France.

The only thing that's riling me up a bit is the Primogeniture Succession Law. Passing it in the Holy Roman Empire should really be a big deal. Currently the vassals don't mind it that much, despite the fact that it's violating the ancient tradition of one of the most powerful entities in the medieval Europe.
 
I think the HRE should be hard coded as elective. IRL even the Hapsburgs went through the motions and held elections. Eventhough everyone just voted for their canidate after the 1450's. Making the HRE effectively Hereditary.
 
Hootieleece said:
I think the HRE should be hard coded as elective. IRL even the Hapsburgs went through the motions and held elections. Eventhough everyone just voted for their canidate after the 1450's. Making the HRE effectively Hereditary.
Click to expand...

That is easy enough to do by modding the law files, so that you throw in
Code: 
NOT = { title = HRE }
in the list of conditions. There's all kind of deterministic stuff you can throw in, but the devs kept things pretty open-ended (while being cool enough to keep the door open if you want to change the house rules).
 
gman551 said:
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
Click to expand...

I have played Dukes and counts. In all honesty dukes are fun but counts are dead boring. I find i just speed the game up for the first 100 years or so till i expand enough for me to actually have stuff to do. If you have ever dealt with a large scale rebellion in France , you'd see why duke and above is far more interesting (every duke starts off stronger than you as france and aquitene is a mega duke that constantly land grabs till he tries to take the throne). Or try playing an Iberian king. You get kab / maur and the smaller iberian nations always waring against you.

Unfortunately as you yourself admitted you haven't had enough experience with the game so far bc of only two serious runs. I can assure you your experience is not typical
Click to expand...

We all play for different reasons. But i always tend to find myself simply conquering the world.


When i said i only had 2 serious runs , that wasn't to say i never played anything else. Ive had many runs as a count or a Duke (as i said in my second big play i was duke of britanny). Ive found playing a low rank slows the early game a bit , but eventually i conquer enough to get a duchy , then a kingdom , then HRE. After i take HRE i get bored and quit. In my 2 serious plays , i took it and quit. This doesn't mean i never had other games where i was virtually untouchable. I just consider those games a victory (once you own 1/3 of the map , nothing can touch you bar inner rebellions).

As i said earlier , the biggest problem is that the AI has no interest in provinces outside there little area's. The only time they ever seem to invade is during a crusade , or when taking iberia / africa. The muslims never seem to try take over ERE or HRE when they are in the middle of a massive rebellion or just finished a long war. The fact ERE always blocks the muslims is probably a factor , perhaps it needs to be nerfed again (sorry ERE players). Once Kabayla and Maur die out , no arab nation is a threat. Then you just wait around for the east to invade , but by the time it does you are a mega emperor and can easily crush them. The only way to invoke a challenge is to do something artificial like change your religion to pagan. I even took rome from the pope in one game and no one cares lol. They just sat back and watched.


Given i always start at 1066. Maybe thats why my games always play out this way. Perhaps if i started as a low count in 1300's , i probably wouldn't be able to build much up by the time the game ended and the east comes knockin.
 
Last edited:
That's alright kynaz I've done exactly the same thing I've risen from a count to emperor and quit once I own half the map. What seems to be proving me right is in my current game I rose from lusignan to king of France and the Muslims are freaking invading me over the pyrenees and I don't understand how they stomp my army of 10,000 with 9,000 and they're suffering more hardcore attrition (i think don't get mad if I'm wrong I admit I'm not sure).

The Muslims are unstoppable for me, maybe it stems from some concept I'm not grasping but all my armies seem to just get really stomped by them in all my games. This one is particularly infuriating since I'm playing what should be a huge juggernaut...yet I'm getting destroyed when I can command pretty hefty levies and mercenaries. No holy orders though I don't have the piety yet (maybe that'd help?)
 
RedRooster81 said:
That is easy enough to do by modding the law files, so that you throw in
Code: 
NOT = { title = HRE }
in the list of conditions. There's all kind of deterministic stuff you can throw in, but the devs kept things pretty open-ended (while being cool enough to keep the door open if you want to change the house rules).
Click to expand...

Seeing how they put in the clause for only Basque being able to implement absolute cognatic, I don't see why there couldn't be a special clause for making the HRE hereditary. Though I don't really think it should be absolute, you should be able to go primogeniture but it should come at a very high cost. That's how they did it in EU3, you needed to do a lot of reforms and have a lot of strength and support within the empire in order to make it hereditary.
 
I'm a very big fan of elective, and never ever felt that I'm about to lose my kingdom with it. Actually, has anyone ever played elective and lost the major titles because of it? I did not, and as it is, is like primogeniture with the bonus that you can elect your heir, most of the time your first born isn't your best offspring. Probably if 2 kings die in a short period of time to be any danger, but if you have a long reign, most of the dukes will agree with you with whatever heir you are choosing.
 
Ensiferum said:
I'm a very big fan of elective, and never ever felt that I'm about to lose my kingdom with it. Actually, has anyone ever played elective and lost the major titles because of it? I did not, and as it is, is like primogeniture with the bonus that you can elect your heir, most of the time your first born isn't your best offspring. Probably if 2 kings die in a short period of time to be any danger, but if you have a long reign, most of the dukes will agree with you with whatever heir you are choosing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I sort of accidentally got into the HRE and was elected emperor in my latest game and it has really opened my eyes to elective. It's sort of the succession law that was in CK1 that made your strongest child heir. It's awesome to bypass your huncback homosexual petifogger son and have the virtuous genius instead.
 
Ensiferum said:
I'm a very big fan of elective, and never ever felt that I'm about to lose my kingdom with it. Actually, has anyone ever played elective and lost the major titles because of it? I did not, and as it is, is like primogeniture with the bonus that you can elect your heir, most of the time your first born isn't your best offspring. Probably if 2 kings die in a short period of time to be any danger, but if you have a long reign, most of the dukes will agree with you with whatever heir you are choosing.
Click to expand...

I haven't, but I've come very close a few times. The AI seems to have ADHD when it comes to deciding who to vote for.
 
Raph said:
Yeah, I sort of accidentally got into the HRE and was elected emperor in my latest game and it has really opened my eyes to elective. It's sort of the succession law that was in CK1 that made your strongest child heir. It's awesome to bypass your huncback homosexual petifogger son and have the virtuous genius instead.
Click to expand...
that's actually in-game, but not usable by the player.
it's the open succession, aka "Turkish Succession"
 
Ensiferum said:
I'm a very big fan of elective, and never ever felt that I'm about to lose my kingdom with it. Actually, has anyone ever played elective and lost the major titles because of it? I did not, and as it is, is like primogeniture with the bonus that you can elect your heir, most of the time your first born isn't your best offspring. Probably if 2 kings die in a short period of time to be any danger, but if you have a long reign, most of the dukes will agree with you with whatever heir you are choosing.
Click to expand...

I'm quite the fan of elective as well. Except for the rare times that a family member has amazing stats but is not "close," and therefore can not be chosen. For instance in my previous game my ruler's cousin had a son who was basically Superman, but I could not nominate him.

Besides that though I'm a big fan. It's not overly difficult to make sure enough landed vassals like you enough to nominate who you nominate.
 
AllThat4Nothing said:
I'm quite the fan of elective as well. Except for the rare times that a family member has amazing stats but is not "close," and therefore can not be chosen. For instance in my previous game my ruler's cousin had a son who was basically Superman, but I could not nominate him.

Besides that though I'm a big fan. It's not overly difficult to make sure enough landed vassals like you enough to nominate who you nominate.
Click to expand...

The problem is they don't always vote for your choice, even with +100 relations. And sometimes they like to just change their votes every few months.
 
AllThat4Nothing said:
I'm quite the fan of elective as well. Except for the rare times that a family member has amazing stats but is not "close," and therefore can not be chosen. For instance in my previous game my ruler's cousin had a son who was basically Superman, but I could not nominate him.

Besides that though I'm a big fan. It's not overly difficult to make sure enough landed vassals like you enough to nominate who you nominate.
Click to expand...

Well, what I noticed with elective is that you cannot nominate your family's children when their parents are still alive. So, I was ok to nominate my brother until I got a decent heir, kept him happy, and he had an amazing son that I could tutor myself, because I keep my males landless. But that amazing kid could not be nominated while his father was alive, and until he died I produced a decent heir myself.
 
Garak said:
The problem is they don't always vote for your choice, even with +100 relations. And sometimes they like to just change their votes every few months.
Click to expand...

and yet I have never once not had a majority, even by 1, or at worst an even split where it defaults to my choice. month-to-month flipflopping included. some people say elective is dangerous and I just don't see it. and I"m not a "great" player either and I still manage to always have my choice as the frontrunner.

I became such a fan of Elective because I started choosing as the quickest way out of Gavelkind before I could attain Primo, but then with more and more playthroughs I started to continue to Primo less and less. I just started to question the necesity since Elective is, at least for me, so easy.
 
AllThat4Nothing said:
and yet I have never once not had a majority, even by 1, or at worst an even split where it defaults to my choice. month-to-month flipflopping included. some people say elective is dangerous and I just don't see it. and I"m not a "great" player either and I still manage to always have my choice as the frontrunner.

I became such a fan of Elective because I started choosing as the quickest way out of Gavelkind before I could attain Primo, but then with more and more playthroughs I started to continue to Primo less and less. I just started to question the necesity since Elective is, at least for me, so easy.
Click to expand...

It just depends. Im sure most of us have had short reigning kings. Father dies , Son inherits , son dies within a year or 2. In a reasonably sized kingdom (or mega duchy) , every time you get a new heir you run into rebellions. Sometimes the entire state , sometimes just a couple remote / ambitious dukes. Either way if you get caught between , its very easy to lose out in elective. Unless ofc you cheat and reload when your king dies (some of us don't like to ruin the immersion). Though yes , if your king reigns for 10+ years , he usually gets popular enough amongst vassals to pass w/e laws and win w/e elections necessary.

Its also important to note that if you stay fairly small , its incredibly easy to maintain order. I don't normally stay small for long , but ive had vassals with -50 / -100 across everything in a small duchy and not one rebelled. You do that in a kingdom and you will be at war within days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back