It shouldn't, but unfortunately it does.
I just had my CK2 update today, new patch? Hopefully it's fixed.
I just had my CK2 update today, new patch? Hopefully it's fixed.
Is this a bug with the new patch or just an infuriating game mechanic?
- Thread starter gsp_rooster
- Start date
-
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.
Imagine op arguing with pope and Kaiser (after they massacred his men):
"Da fuck, your eminen- pardon, your holiness, we aren't the fuckin' infidels, we have a setup claim from my fuckin' chancellor! The infidel siege camp is over THERE!"
"Da fuck, your eminen- pardon, your holiness, we aren't the fuckin' infidels, we have a setup claim from my fuckin' chancellor! The infidel siege camp is over THERE!"
Was this issue fixed in the newest patch or is it another thing to add to the 1.06 Wishlist?
I really hope they do sort this, it’s making strategising difficult (or at least it is for someone as hard-of-thinking as me)
I just attacked my ex-liege over a claim. He was weak and was gonna lose.
During war Muslims attacked me; that’s bad, but fair enough, so had to use most of my cash to hire mercs and eventually forced a white surrender with Muslims.
Muslims then declared war against my opponent. Would think that would be good but no, HRE came in to defend him and wiped me out at the same time.
So, during a war with ex-liege:
- Muslims attacked me – bad thing for me
- Muslims attacked him – bad thing for me again
Only solution I can think of is to hope Muslims obey truce's with opponent and so wait for those periods to arise before attacking. Still seems completely cocked though.
I just attacked my ex-liege over a claim. He was weak and was gonna lose.
During war Muslims attacked me; that’s bad, but fair enough, so had to use most of my cash to hire mercs and eventually forced a white surrender with Muslims.
Muslims then declared war against my opponent. Would think that would be good but no, HRE came in to defend him and wiped me out at the same time.
So, during a war with ex-liege:
- Muslims attacked me – bad thing for me
- Muslims attacked him – bad thing for me again
Only solution I can think of is to hope Muslims obey truce's with opponent and so wait for those periods to arise before attacking. Still seems completely cocked though.
While I agree it needs fixing there is a point with this, at least in the holy war scenario. You are helping a buddy out with a holy war he is in when a friend of yours tries to sneak in and stab your ally in the back. He might have good cause but he's still damaging your war effort and betraying brothers in faith.
Of course the ally shouldn't be able to call on a holy war and use it to kick the christian neighbor around either.
Of course the ally shouldn't be able to call on a holy war and use it to kick the christian neighbor around either.
I don't believe there is anything to fix here. If you DoW a nation/dynasty that has an exisiting army in the field, no matter what its make up, you can't expect that the AI should disband the army because you believe its not fair. It would be like saying that the AI hiring merceneries isn't fair either and needs fixing too.
Am having a break from CK2 at the moment until this and the other niggling issues get resolved, but still:
1. An attached Army from an ally not at war with an aggressor should help defend it's ally if attacked by an aggressor. At this point, the ally should have to make a decision to join in against the aggressor or not. If not, all subsequent actions against/by aggressor will not involve ally. If yes, then ally is added to aggressor's war and the two allied sides can now do what they want.
2. Until the aggressor attacks the combined stack, attached armies not at war with the aggressor will not be involved in any offensive actions against the aggressor, this to work in a similar way to Holy Orders vs same faith opponents.
1. An attached Army from an ally not at war with an aggressor should help defend it's ally if attacked by an aggressor. At this point, the ally should have to make a decision to join in against the aggressor or not. If not, all subsequent actions against/by aggressor will not involve ally. If yes, then ally is added to aggressor's war and the two allied sides can now do what they want.
2. Until the aggressor attacks the combined stack, attached armies not at war with the aggressor will not be involved in any offensive actions against the aggressor, this to work in a similar way to Holy Orders vs same faith opponents.
In my ignorance I don’t know what DoW means, but the enemy didn’t have a standing army, there were no wars going in the region until I declared one.
It’s not the same with mercs, those are fine, they are not a finite resource plus you can see how much cash an opponent has before you start the wars. Conversely, when Holy War defenders come to an opponent’s aid they can bring huge stacks with them, leading to an army of 10,000 from the HRE being attached to my opponents remaining 50 troops. It just seems wrong and out of balance, especially as THEY are the one’s now being additionally attacked by Muslims; that should be a bad thing for them but now it turns out it is always a good thing. Not sure I remember attacks from Muslim hordes being viewed as a good thing when I did history.
I don’t want fair, I just want something that I can try to work a strategy around but at the moment I can’t see what strategy there can be to deal with this. I have been looking at nearby powers before starting wars to see if they are committed to other crusades at the time and so won’t be able to come to my opponent’s aid if the Muslims pounce but this doesn’t seem to make a difference either.
Yes, this would clear up the craziness that I've seen of Christians rallying to the defense of my Christian enemy against Holy Warring infidels, but then pillaging all my Christian holdings instead of fighting infidels.
This last suggestion makes sense to me, and would clear up lots of problems.
My relations with the HRE are immaculate, and they'd never choose pitiful little Apulia over me, who is a much stronger ally against the muslims in the south and doesn't need to call them in to march their armies halfway across the continent needlessly when they have uprisings to deal with in the north.
But I do believe that despite all the bantering over what is realistic, what should happen, how allies would "actually" behave, etc, there is one fundamental issue not being discussed. That issue is that this is a game, and games are meant to be FUN. This problem is NOT fun. It's annoying to the point of actually making people turn off the game and say "forget this, I'm not playing this game again until they fix this crap" and that's not what any developer wants to hear. So, let the trolls try to debate about what's realistic and let them have their moment in the internet spotlight, and let them think that they look like they know what they're talking about, but it's all just opinion. So it's rubbish and they know it. But in the meantime, the function, intended or not, is NOT fun, and it should therefore be fixed.
There are some other companies out there that have learned this the hard way recently. Need I point to EA? Whatever bonehead brought about that flap over the Mass Effect 3 endings needs to find a new line of work. If you make such a bad decision about something as basic as making sure your customers feel satisfied with the end of their product in the most basic way, by giving them an ending where they feel they've accomplished something, that it becomes a mainstream media story, disrupts your stock prices and causes tens of thousands of people to publicly denounce your company, then you shouldn't be allowed to make decisions. You need to go pick up a mop and do something useful.
Games are ultimately about fun, and that shouldn't be taken away from the consumer. And, of course, someone will come in and cry "well this is fun for me the way it is, blah blah blah" and tell me I'm crying and need to get over it. Let me just stop you right there and say - troll somewhere else, there are forums on the internet with people that will care about your overly uptight, obsessive compulsive tendencies towards a perceived level of realism that may or may not actually be accurate, but I'm not one of them.
My relations with the HRE are immaculate, and they'd never choose pitiful little Apulia over me, who is a much stronger ally against the muslims in the south and doesn't need to call them in to march their armies halfway across the continent needlessly when they have uprisings to deal with in the north.
But I do believe that despite all the bantering over what is realistic, what should happen, how allies would "actually" behave, etc, there is one fundamental issue not being discussed. That issue is that this is a game, and games are meant to be FUN. This problem is NOT fun. It's annoying to the point of actually making people turn off the game and say "forget this, I'm not playing this game again until they fix this crap" and that's not what any developer wants to hear. So, let the trolls try to debate about what's realistic and let them have their moment in the internet spotlight, and let them think that they look like they know what they're talking about, but it's all just opinion. So it's rubbish and they know it. But in the meantime, the function, intended or not, is NOT fun, and it should therefore be fixed.
There are some other companies out there that have learned this the hard way recently. Need I point to EA? Whatever bonehead brought about that flap over the Mass Effect 3 endings needs to find a new line of work. If you make such a bad decision about something as basic as making sure your customers feel satisfied with the end of their product in the most basic way, by giving them an ending where they feel they've accomplished something, that it becomes a mainstream media story, disrupts your stock prices and causes tens of thousands of people to publicly denounce your company, then you shouldn't be allowed to make decisions. You need to go pick up a mop and do something useful.
Games are ultimately about fun, and that shouldn't be taken away from the consumer. And, of course, someone will come in and cry "well this is fun for me the way it is, blah blah blah" and tell me I'm crying and need to get over it. Let me just stop you right there and say - troll somewhere else, there are forums on the internet with people that will care about your overly uptight, obsessive compulsive tendencies towards a perceived level of realism that may or may not actually be accurate, but I'm not one of them.