Jesus. Bloody. Hell.

I don't rage quit.

But I remember one game I played, starting as the Count of Brefine in Ireland in 867. I build myself up into Emperor of Britannia with several Kings known as "The Blessed", "The Holy", and one known as "The Saint" for defeating Vikings throughout the isles. I added much of Spain, all of Scandinavia, Germany, Brittany, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem to my empire. A member of my Dynasty sat on the Roman throne, and all was going well.

Then, suddenly, my old King dies just as a Jihad is declared against me for Jerusalem. I have to raise all the troops I can as the young King and send them to Jerusalem to defend against the Jihad. Fortunately, I am successful, but I'm in debt to the Jews, I am losing 20 gold a month to a treasury of just over 200. And then my 21 year-old King gets ill. Two days later, he dies, leaving his realm to a two-year-old son.

My entire empire explodes. Every single duke declares independence within a year. I lose every title I've spent centuries building, and become a two county count under the Duke of Ulster who is under the new King of Ireland. In the span of a three years, 250 years of work are undone.

I started working my way back up, but my save got corrupted before I could get anything done. If I'd had another 150 years with that game, I could have had the greatest story of triumph ever, where against all odds I build the greatest Empire Europe had seen since the Roman Empire, and then built it again. I know I could have. But.... Such is life.

As for young rulers, I had a sickly character inherit the Kingdoms of Ireland and Wales at the age of 1. For 18 years I endured the golden crown atop my screen until the King's wife finally had a baby. That character, that sickly infant, lived to the age of 89 without any genetic traits or health enhancement. So you never know.

When did they make it so that the winner of a crusade doesn't get the King title and why? It keeps causing weird situations in my games too, like all of Jerusalem being held by a Scottish count who had to try to win an independence war while massively over his demesne limit because he couldn't get rid of any counties without losing them permanently. And at any time his liege who didn't even participate in the Crusade could have created Jerusalem and just yoinked the whole carpet out from under him anyway.

I've had a few moments where it felt like the game was against me. I usually make threads whining about them. For example I had one similar to you when playing as the Byzantine Empire where everything was going well until I had a century of turmoil inside my empire. It started with a regency lowering crown authority from medium (where I always keep it) to zero. I couldn't get it back to low with that empire because he had already changed it in his lifetime (even though it was forced on him) but it didn't matter, he died at 23 from "natural causes" despite being perfectly healthy. His son died at 3 or 4 as a sickly infant, leaving his even younger son on the throne. A long regency ends with the short reign bonus gone, my vassals have screwed up my borders and I have dukes in Greece stealing vassal counts in eastern Anatolia and becoming very powerful. I raise crown authority to minimum with this 16 year old emperor... and he dies at 16 of natural causes. At this point some relative from the family takes the throne who I gave land to a few decades ago, so a man in his 60's becomes emperor, a cousin or something. I try to raise crown authority back to medium but he quickly dies of old age, leaving a son in his 30's as emperor with bad stats, so I can't get votes for crown authority. It doesn't matter, he dies, leaving another baby on the throne and crown authority goes back to zero. It continues like this for 100 years, emperors dying in their teens or 20s of natural causes despite being perfectly healthy. It ends with me rage quitting, but not before imprisoning and executing half my realm and their entire families out of sheer frustration of a hundred years of not being able to get crown authority past low and vassals becoming more powerful than me and owning half of my empire while I'm a helpless baby on the throne with zero authority.

Another time was playing as Kingdom of Lombardy where for a period of... I dunno, pretty much the entire game from when I started to when I quit, maybe 200 years, literally every male child I had became craven during their education. It wasn't just my heirs, it was ALL of them. I made a thread about it and people even said it was strange. For a period of 200 years every single child my rulers had became cowards, no matter what.

I started as the tribal Dregovich with an eye towards reforming the Slavic Religion and setting up a Novgorod-esque Trade Republic. Three generations in, I was a sixty-two year old with four kids, but with enough land and Piety to form the Kingdom of Ruthenia. All I had to do was watch money trickle in until I had enough to make the title.

The very day the number ticked over to 280, my character died. I was reduced to the smallest of four Duchies, and just to rub salt in the wound, I was immediately discovered after murdering my older brother for his titles and assassinated by one of my own vassals in an unrelated incident. I was somewhat unhappy.

It took me a hundred and fifty years to finally work myself back to where I was. Honestly, now that I have, I'm not sure I want to keep going.

aitaituo said:

When did they make it so that the winner of a crusade doesn't get the King title and why? It keeps causing weird situations in my games too, like all of Jerusalem being held by a Scottish count who had to try to win an independence war while massively over his demesne limit because he couldn't get rid of any counties without losing them permanently. And at any time his liege who didn't even participate in the Crusade could have created Jerusalem and just yoinked the whole carpet out from under him anyway.

Click to expand...

If there is a Christian who has a claim on the title, they get the title at the end of the Crusade. This has been the case for... how long? Since the beginning, I think.

As the King of Israel, my heir died in battle. Then I died in battle. Then I was placed into a regency. Then my ruler grew up.. and he died in battle. I guess it was my fault for wanting my rulers to fight, but it was enough to get me to rage quit.

I like having my rulers fight wars, too, but sometimes I take extra care to keep them at home if I feel like I'd be in too awful of a situation if they died.

General Karthos said:

If there is a Christian who has a claim on the title, they get the title at the end of the Crusade. This has been the case for... how long? Since the beginning, I think.

Click to expand...

Not what I was talking about at all.

If a vassal wins the Crusade they should get the option to pass their original primary title onto their third in line for the throne so they can go and make the Kingdom of Jerusalem. That way what ever country they are from doesn't lose territory and it doesn't screw over anyone that actually wins a Crusade.

Was playing a game as the Hautvilles. Robert formed Sicily. Bohmund had a devil child who oddly enough didn't murder him so he has a possessed lunatic genius heir with a weak claim on the ERE. Fought off 1 Byzantine attempt to regain a foothold in Italy. Bohmund the Lionheart wins the 1st Crusade and becomes KoJ. The Byzantines declare war again towards the end of the crusade then after it finishes a Sunni Jihad launches. I didn't ragequit until I noticed that for some reason my brilliant if flawed son was no longer my heir, instead his son was.

aitaituo said:

Not what I was talking about at all.

Click to expand...

Reads to me like somehow this Scottish count had a claim on the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Although it seems like it should have created the Kingdom of Jerusalem, his highest title would become the primary title, and that should have made him automatically independent. Which I can see now is what you were asking about from the beginning. That is odd. Maybe you should report it as a bug?

Ultima_Ratio said:

this was the point of rage-quit.

TL: DR Moments when you felt like whole game was against you?

Click to expand...

This sounds familiar.



I recommend you read this and have fun: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?588118-Saltborn-A-Crovan-AAR

Ultima_Ratio said:

Starting as Hugues 'the Devil' de Lusignan in 1066, I mean to build myself enough of a power base in Europe to be able to win the first crusade and become king of Jerusalem. Through fabrication, plotting, seduction and all kinds of shenanigans, Hugues becomes the duke of Poitou while his son Hugues II brings to an end the war for the duchy of Bretagne, leaving him the strongest vassal of the French king. Meanwhile, his wife Aines dies, leaving the duchies of Aquitane and Gascogne for their daughter Mathilda. So, yeah, life is pretty good and when the crusade is finally called the Shia Caliphate's forces are quickly overrun, with Hugues being granted the spoils of the war.

Now here's where things get ridiculous: Hugues declares for for independence against the king of France, and after a while dies in a battle, leaving his young son Guy in a 10 year regency. Okay, that's fine, I just wasted a few hundred ducats on mercenaries, but I can afford it and I start planning the next war. Guy marries the HRE's daughter to get a strong ally, declares independence, and... gets incapacitated during some meaningless skirmish and soon dies without leaving an heir. His vast holdings pass to Mathilda's hunchbacked son Ancel, who has been ousted from Aquitane, and another regency commences. Well, Ancel marries a 'strong' princess of Hungary, who is put on the Hungarian throne and despite Ancel becoming an 'amateurish plotter' instead of Midas touched like his guardian, life is looking good again. But what do you know? When Ancel finally comes of age, he declares independence, and the king of France is getting soundly defeated (~75 warscore). And now... THIS asshole gets pneumonia, and dies. Currently, the duchies of Poitou, Bretagne, Jerusalem, Ascalon and Oultejourdain are held by the 0 year old Payen, a sickly infant who will probably die before reaching majority. I don't really care, though, because this was the point of rage-quit.

TL: DR Moments when you felt like whole game was against you?

Click to expand...

Only when I encounter bugs and design oversights. And there are quite a number of them which is more than enough.

Whenever the game works but is against me, I laugh at the challange.

Learn a lesson from Dwarf Fortress: Losing is Fun! :ducks:

safe-keeper said:

Learn a lesson from Dwarf Fortress: Losing is Fun! :ducks:

Click to expand...

Did they ever fix cleaning, so you know it works now? I so wanted a dedicated dwarf cleaner who actually did his job that was always going to be the end of my fort, I got so obsessed with it, that I missed something crucial which caused everyone to explode, drown or otherwise melt.