Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Non-contrived and realistic house rules to make CK2 more difficult.

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 69868 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10588 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6361 After Action Reports
H

highsis

Field Marshal
29 Badges
Jan 9, 2011
2.971
771
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
Finding CK2 too easy however difficult I start in, I decided to restrict myself with realistic, not contrived house rules.

Feel free to share yours / give me any advices for my house rules or alternatives.



1. I will create/usurp every title available and distribute those. (so to delegate power. I will create all available kingdoms and give away all but one for myself if I become the emperor)

2. I will play without Legacy of Rome to disable retinues completely.

3. I will not use mercenaries. I will purely rely on allies' help when I want to overcome stronger foes.

4. I will not invite heir or anyone in 2 or 3rd in line of succession even if they hate their parents.

5. I will not use matrilineal marriage.

If the heir to all of your titles are non-dynasty member, do you lose the game, or do you transfer to other dynasty member with landed titles?

If I lose the game for that, I will use matrilineal marriage only for my female ruler character. Even if my dynasty discontinues in other countries, I will not interfere to force matrilineal marriage.

6. I will not burrow Jewish money. It's essentially a cheat without regular interests.

7. I will not ask money from the pope. It's a cheat.

8. Ironman only. This goes without saying.

9. I will not marry to a low born and petty-house(that are not 'great' house in character finder) dynasty to acquire traits like genius.

By the way, what defines 'great house' in finder screen?

10. If I can ask my vassal to stop plots, I will not skip it and directly try to imprison my vassal which can be exploited.



Any other non-contrived and realistic suggestions? / Is it possible to play without matrilineal marriage?
 
Last edited:
If your only heir is a daughter, then yeah you'll have to use matrilineal marriages unless you're willing to accept "Game Over".

Yes, if your current heir is non-dynastic, it's game over, as the game will always try to find a dynastic heir, restricted by gender laws.
 
A better version of 2.0 would just be 'don't make retinues'. No sense in disabling entire DLC because you don't want to use one feature.

I still say that if you want to make it hard, you should just play as a one-count infidel with no skills at all in the HRE.
 
1. Fine.
2. Why not just -not- create retinues? It wasn't odd for rulers to have private armies.
3. Again, if its a difficulty thing, sure. However perhaps limit yourself to only mercenaries from your area.
4. I'd drop it.
5. Seems fine, as long as it doesn't lead to the end of the dynasty.
(You get a game over, to your point after this.)
6. That seems fair.
7. Again, seems fair.
8. Mmhm.
9. That is a good rule, one I follow myself. -Unless- they are a lover, and your wife dies. I then pull an Anne Boelyn and marry them.
10. Again, conditional to the situation and plot.
 
On rule 10, it's usually a good indicator that when you CANNOT ask the fellow to stop the plot, it's time to induce the fellow to rebel by imprisoning him (and if the imprisonment is successful, to throw away the key).
 
Last edited:
ghostcaesar said:
You have to wait for possible retribution before starting a new assasination attempt
Click to expand...

You mean, not assassinating on pause, right? Are there always retributions? If so, I will add it to my houserule.



Raineh Daze said:
A better version of 2.0 would just be 'don't make retinues'. No sense in disabling entire DLC because you don't want to use one feature.

I still say that if you want to make it hard, you should just play as a one-count infidel with no skills at all in the HRE.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that allow AIs to run massive retinues when I can't use one? I am not going to use mercs, so it will be really unfair to only forbid me from using retinues.

No, I actually want to make it hard in a sensible term. What's the likelyhood an infidel will endup in the middle of HRE? I might try that for fun, but it will eventually become the same easy game once I overcome initial difficulties or simply convert.

Simmy93 said:
1. Fine.
2. Why not just -not- create retinues? It wasn't odd for rulers to have private armies.
3. Again, if its a difficulty thing, sure. However perhaps limit yourself to only mercenaries from your area.
4. I'd drop it.
5. Seems fine, as long as it doesn't lead to the end of the dynasty.
(You get a game over, to your point after this.)
6. That seems fair.
7. Again, seems fair.
8. Mmhm.
9. That is a good rule, one I follow myself. -Unless- they are a lover, and your wife dies. I then pull an Anne Boelyn and marry them.
10. Again, conditional to the situation and plot.
Click to expand...

2. It would be unrealistic if all rulers but me runs retinues. I'm not using mercs because AIs rarely use it even if they have plenty of money. However, I'm not sure of just restricting myself from retinues if I am to deal with AI without mercs.

3. it's about difficulty and realism. Yeah, I might just employ one merc in a war. However I feel using even one merc will ensure 100% victory in count-duke level wars.

4. I concur. If I don't use matrilineal marriage, restricting myself from inviting heirs or pretenders will be pointless and somewhat tedious to check succession lines. What do you think of inviting a female heir and marrying to my son, though? Did that historically ever happen, and did locals accept my son as king consort and his children as future king?


Thanks you for feed backs. I would like to hear more to set it in stone before I jump in :)

Any ideas as to what determines a dynasty is a great house or not?
 
Last edited:
highsis said:
Wouldn't that allow AIs to run massive retinues when I can't use one? I am not going to use mercs, so it will be really unfair to only forbid me from using retinues.

No, I actually want to make it hard in a sensible term. What's the likelyhood an infidel will endup in the middle of HRE? I might try that for fun, but it will eventually become the same easy game once I overcome initial difficulties or simply convert.
Click to expand...

You are the one complaining that the game is too easy. The entire point is that it's unfair. And, as said, the AI is terrible at using them properly.

And stranger things have happened in history. As it is, converting would count as a loss (since it's breaking the rules), and 'initial difficulties' also includes 'everyone in every direction hates me and my moral authority is possibly nonexistent'. Plus, HRE puts you in a nice, central location... which means if you Holy War, you get attacked from all sides.
 
I have a question.

Was it common for great houses with titles to marry with low class dynasty that held no titles? I was wondering if I shouldn't marry a low class noble woman with good traits for realism perspectives.
 
Raineh Daze said:
You are the one complaining that the game is too easy. The entire point is that it's unfair. And, as said, the AI is terrible at using them properly.

And stranger things have happened in history. As it is, converting would count as a loss (since it's breaking the rules), and 'initial difficulties' also includes 'everyone in every direction hates me and my moral authority is possibly nonexistent'. Plus, HRE puts you in a nice, central location... which means if you Holy War, you get attacked from all sides.
Click to expand...

OK, I will give it a try. I don't think it will be enjoyable after the first success, though. :)
 
sumdood said:
My house rules:

1. Always start with Haesteinn. Always.
2. Find a country I want to play.
3. Go invade that country to play them.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I consider those house rules, that's just how I have fun. Before RoI, I created pretty much every de jure empire as Haesteinn.
I also enjoy using customizer to change his house name to something reflecting wherever he settles, and usually adopt the local culture and religion.
I think one of my favorite ones has been the 869 invasion of Bulgaria. Take everything that Hungary didn't.
 
Darkshadows said:
I always play without savescumming because it takes fun out :(
Click to expand...

Took me a while to get into the habit. Ironman helped immensely.

To OP: Grant land and titles to ambitious vassals. Better still, as emperor, have vassal kings who are ambitious.
 
yezhanquan said:
If your only heir is a daughter, then yeah you'll have to use matrilineal marriages unless you're willing to accept "Game Over".
Click to expand...
I never got this. I forbid matrilineal marriage completely and play females all the time (well, when it makes sense anyway - e.g. a queen consort go queen regnant based on her strong claim). It's not a game over if her kids are of her dynasty.

Marry her to a dynasty member, problem solved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back