It's not the AI that screws me over, it's the "no rule has exeptions EVER" that is my pet peve atm. On the other hand, i have over 1000 hours clocked so it must still be a great game 
Has CK2 improved?
- Thread starter fenwayb
- 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.
Maybe its just the control freak inside you who cant stand it to see his plans in ruins. Its ok. We are all control freaks somehow. I had this with CK1 as well.
Just the education made me go up a wall untill....i kept playing and understood the game mechanics better as well as having fun in overcoming every burdon that was put on my shoes.
Its hard to get at first. I know, because i love micromanaging, but this is not about sliders, but possibilities and options. surprise, surprise...(read it with a french accent)
Last edited:
People did try to be helpful. Instead you thumbed your nose and went "Uh uh!" What you experienced was a mixture of bad luck and an apparent failure of comprehension that the AI characters have their own motivations. Would've been far classier of you if you'd just said everything after the first "me" and before "the people", and cut the rest. There's absolutely no reason to get all excited, no one here is "fanboying" (probably). Believe it or, it's completely possible for someone to disagree on game mechanics for motivations beyond being a "fanboy".
I think you nailed it on the head. It's the same reasoning you'll see some people say things along the lines of "I never cheat or reload... except when some BS happens like [insert something unexpected that wasn't part of their uber-plan o' perfection, but is honestly not a game killer in the least]".
Really? I love the EU:3 rebels compared to the CKII ones. In EU3 they're an actual threat and can do some interesting things, like cause new nations to be born. Here in CKII, they're 99% annoyance with a 1% chance of causing you to lose a county when the stars align in the most magical of ways.
Eh, very possible. Sometimes these things don't click. I'm still not that fond of HOI3.
I'd disagree:
Some have been helpful, others have exaggerated his points into irrelevancy and crossed lines of patronisation or even aggression frequently.
I'd say he's been largely polite, especially given his treatment.
Well, to be fair? It's a bit of a silly point. The unpredictable-ness of the game is what makes the game...well, interesting! And to suggest that it be 'fixed' is doubly silly.
Though, also to be fair, I think people have been pretty ridiculous throughout this thread
I think you are focusing on the wrong thing. There is luck involved in the rest of the games, in Victoria 2, all the AI chance, mean time to happen on events, even pop promotion and demotion is based on a percent. The AI randomly declares a war, military goods are harder to get, you loose lots of money, can't support your army, get beaten by someone with higher prestige. There is cause and effect, but the randomness is more abstract, harder to find. In CKII, since it deals directly with the people, its right there. People aren't always logical, sometimes they die randomly. Since you are interacting directly with them, you can see them more clearly. I think this is part of what makes it fun, the best laid plans can fail, but you can decrease the probability too. Luck pretty much evens out overall, what is different in this game is that it effects you directly instead of from far away.
That... sounds like the definition of the AI playing intelligently, actually. The local rulers don't want you inheriting, so they do whatever they can to preserve their independance. Also, your argument about war being the only to expand is simply incorrect. Peaceful expansion just takes a lot more time and forethought, is all.
You just quoted two people and ignored all the ones who offered advice. Also, citing that handful of examples as "frequent" and suggesting the unhelpful/mildly rude are somehow equivalent to the larger number of people who were giving advice is an exageration itself.
Last edited:
Its certainly improved since the Muslims patch, but that introduced some wonky/buggy mechanics that are easy to avoid. The interface looks better, the game seems to flow smoother. It was great when I bought it a few months ago, and its better now. In my opinion, the best paradox game. It could use some fixes with stuff I've ran into (Something needs to happen when you conquer the Papacy. Need more macro-management control; big Empires take a lot of pausing and clicking).
Well, that's the idea.
I'm responding to someone who claimed absolutely that "people did try to be helpful", and regardless I mentioned the people who offered genuine advice in the same post.
Again, please reread my post:
I cited the negative behaviour of these posters in this thread as frequent (as in, they have not taken part in this discussion without doing these things up until now); nowhere did I say it was frequent to all posters in the thread or frequent to the thread as a whole.
I will concede that my tone was quite harsh. Although I am far from a fanboy. I do believe CK2 is a fantastic game, one to which I've become quite addicted. But anyone who has followed my posts also knows that in the past I've often been quite critical of sloppy design decisions and the like when they've popped up. I just call them like I see them.
The reason I was harsh was because of your tone and the implication of your argument. You complained that CK2 was broken because when you played it you didn't always get what you wanted. When you met opposition to your plans, you believed you were "getting screwed" by the game. That it was, in fact, the AI intentionally targeting you to "screw" you and that this was a design flaw. I found that argument more than a little offensive. Still do.
If you had written your OP in a more neutral tone, I would have simply ignored it. But the outright aggression behind it, and the sense of total entitlement to a game in which you meet no opposition and your perfectly controlled plans always work, are the sort of arguments that deserved to be pushed back against and firmly. I don't do it often or lightly, but I thought your OP was almost uniquely troublesome and your follow ups haven't changed my mind about that. I'm sure it's not fun to be taken on directly and personally like that, but I still believe the tone and content of your posts indeed deserve that response.
The reason I was harsh was because of your tone and the implication of your argument. You complained that CK2 was broken because when you played it you didn't always get what you wanted. When you met opposition to your plans, you believed you were "getting screwed" by the game. That it was, in fact, the AI intentionally targeting you to "screw" you and that this was a design flaw. I found that argument more than a little offensive. Still do.
If you had written your OP in a more neutral tone, I would have simply ignored it. But the outright aggression behind it, and the sense of total entitlement to a game in which you meet no opposition and your perfectly controlled plans always work, are the sort of arguments that deserved to be pushed back against and firmly. I don't do it often or lightly, but I thought your OP was almost uniquely troublesome and your follow ups haven't changed my mind about that. I'm sure it's not fun to be taken on directly and personally like that, but I still believe the tone and content of your posts indeed deserve that response.
I think that's true. Luck plays a much bigger role in CK2 than in EU3 or V2. It's part of what gives the game a different feel. Everything revolves around your dynasty, so individual brilliance or death has a much larger impact than when you're playing as a nation.
Now you can do things to minimize risk, like if you're strategy revolves around marrying your heir to a certain character, you can keep your second son unmarried, so he can marry that character if your first son dies. But in general, you should always have a plan B and C, in case plan A gets screwed up.
On a very minor sidenote: the AI changing its inheritance laws to "screw" you is probably WAD. If you've managed to set things up so your dynasty will inherit someone else's lands, they should try to stop this. For example, if you marry your son normally to a Queen, then he dies and she remarries matrilinearly, she should favor the children of that second marriage over your grandchildren.
I bet that guy screaming "Kingdom for a horse!" was feeling the same way as the original poster. Or Mary Stuart. Or hussites at Lipany. Or Mongols after their khan's death ("damn it! we had half of Europe and now this!!!"). Or Ferdinand d'Este. Or Stalin. Man, history is so unfair.
Crusader Kings 2 should be more random and unpredictable than Victoria 2. In Victoria 2, by and large, the events in the game reflect the collective behavior of large numbers of people (the "pops" and their representatives), who are inherently more predictable than individuals.
Assuming that you original question was genuine (as it was the perfect troll question!), then yes... CKII is probably not for you... most people who like CK2 like the fact that the game 'screws you'... it is just that fact that this is not a "Civ5 everything goes to plan and then I win" type game that makes most of us like it.
If you are not enjoying it straight up, it is worth trying a little roleplay (and even if that sounds like a crap idea, just give it a go)... try for instance just rising from a count in scotland to be king of scotland - and holding at that. I find a game with a specific target can be more satasfying than the world-conquest type approach in CK2.
That sounds like you arnt very good at playing the game. I can inherit counties/duchies/kingdoms fairly easily, which is a bit unfortunate. But the game is great nonetheless
Honestly, you should have just left my post alone, then. I fairly clearly stated in both the first and the last sentence that I realize that my opinion wasn't of the majority, and yet, instead of simply overlooking it, you acted like a total ass. I'm sorry if the phrase "the game tries to screw you" somehow bothered you beyond reason, but that's not an excuse to attack someone else. Even this post is little more than an attack.
As I said previously, from the few posts that were actually trying to be helpful, I've realized that it's simply that this game doesn't mesh with me. I'm not bashing "your" game, so you can simply leave me alone.
Also, thank you to Guyfawkes5 for the support.
In general the game does have to work against you somewhat though otherwise most games would end with you on every throne from Ireland to Russia. Some do anyway but that's the challenge. What does annoy me is the AI using annoying ways to do that, like voting you emperor so you lose half your vassals when you finally get rid of the throne, Or if you marry a duchess she decides to declare independence, get captured before you can arrive to help and then gets all her titles revoked away, Oh she waits until after you had a son just in-case you were thinking just divorcing her.
Actually this game is rather easy to control precisely because it is so easy (I too am a control freak, I just scheme extensively). As long as you plot adequately with Plan A, B, and C this game rarely surprises, the problem is most people just think Plan A and ride with it or forget that the game is about individuals/dynasty. I actually relish it now if the game throws me curveballs because it happens so rarely. One of my most satisfying games was Count of Lubeck, 2 generations in the Duke of Holstein's jail .
As an example of a scenario OP put on his post: Marriage to inherit and the AI changing their crown laws. Of course the AI won't want you to inherit their lands, this should be obvious if you think that this would be essentially game over for that dynasty. It's THEIR lands especially if by changing their crown laws they would get one of their own or someone they choose to inherit. Did you look if they had a dynasty member that would stand to inherit if they changed their laws? Your Plan A would have been for the original marriage. Your Plan B would have been to make sure the dynasty member that would inherit if they changed laws would also marry someone from your family (you could do this easily if he is just a courtier). Your Plan C? If there is nothing else there is always war once you have the claim.
. As an example of a scenario OP put on his post: Marriage to inherit and the AI changing their crown laws. Of course the AI won't want you to inherit their lands, this should be obvious if you think that this would be essentially game over for that dynasty. It's THEIR lands especially if by changing their crown laws they would get one of their own or someone they choose to inherit. Did you look if they had a dynasty member that would stand to inherit if they changed their laws? Your Plan A would have been for the original marriage. Your Plan B would have been to make sure the dynasty member that would inherit if they changed laws would also marry someone from your family (you could do this easily if he is just a courtier). Your Plan C? If there is nothing else there is always war once you have the claim.