Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The 1.04 official patch: contents

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 69871 Bug Reports 19708 User Modifications 10588 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6362 After Action Reports
Status
Not open for further replies.
Show only dev responses
Lessing said:
I dont think I ever, in my whole life, played a game where savegames werent patch compatible. Just imagining players of a big (long-running) game would lose their progress is mind-boggling. Skyrim? Lol. It'd be murder and shenanigans in the streets.
Click to expand...
Ever played Terraria for example? Certain features that were added in patches were tied to map creation, so one could only get them if one created a new world.
CKII can be changed in similar ways, for example when you change ownership and characters at the start of the campaign.
 
jpr123 said:
Paradox probably could spend ages going through the files and making sure that everything that was different was compatible or if not adding fixes. But it would be far to much time and effort for something that most people aren't that bothered about. I'd much rather they spent that time balancing, bug fixing and adding new content.
Click to expand...

Other companies get it done, too. I, for my part, expect it.

But hey, saying stuff like that and standing up for it draws out all the apologists. Cool it, fellas.
 
Lessing said:
Not that easy on steam, but I guess I can force it.
Click to expand...

You can disable the auto-update for CK2 in steam by right clicking the game in your library list and going to properties. There are update options in there. I tend to always do this for paradox games as a lost campaign is a big deal when you put so many hours into them.
 
I guess I've gotten use to the fact that most Paradox patches aren't save game compatible at all or if they are the effects can be messed up. I'm not being an apologist, because like I said I'd much rather they spent the time improving the game more. Since most of my campaigns are usually quite short (few really last past 1200) save game compatibility is something I just don't care about that much.

Comparing skyrim and CK2 still seems daft to me. But feel free to bitch and moan more though, eventually someone else in this thread might actually agree with you.
 
Did they fix the 'show de jure' thing? I'm sure they were the wrong way round or something but I don't see any mention of it. :(
 
Regarding Wales/Brittany:

First off, I think people are underestimating the importance of this for France. France, in the pre-1.04 game, has way too much automatic power over Brittany. They have de jure control over its laws, and I think they may have some sort of claim by virtue of the crown (not sure about that). Why is this wrong? Because the Duchy of Brittany was never -once- a part of the Kingdom of France during this entire period. Brittany avoided Frankish conquest in the 9th century and maintained independence up until the late 15th century, when the crowns of France and Brittany were unified through dynastic union (see Anne of Brittany).

I think the idea here is to separate Brittany a little more from France and to check France's blobbing tendencies.

That said, I'm not sure I entirely agree with the switch from France to Wales. I would prefer if the Kingdom was called "Kingdom of the Britons" or something like that, with some neutrality between Wales and Brittany. However, I think I'd more strongly prefer flexible de jure kingdoms, with Brittany starting in no particular kingdom. Then, through force of power, time, and prestige, Brittany could be incorporated into France, England, Wales, or whoever else was powerful enough to claim them.

Short of flexibility (which is, apparently, being worked upon?), I might prefer giving Brittany its own crown.
 
Surely a Brittany that's subject to the crown laws of a Welsh king of Wales makes even less sense though. I agree that flexible de jure borders would be great to see and would solve this problem. Who has its being worked upon? I haven't seen any mention if it and I was resigned to the fact that de jure borders would probably never be flexible.
 
Seems like two extra things where added from the preliminary that is listed first in this thread:
Major:
- Fixed a CTD that can occur in a rare situation with characters having multiple wars against each other
Minor:
- Fixed a bug with the guardian opinion modifiers given when entrusted with a ward
 
jpr123 said:
Surely a Brittany that's subject to the crown laws of a Welsh king of Wales makes even less sense though. I agree that flexible de jure borders would be great to see and would solve this problem. Where have they said its being worked upon? I was resigned to the fact that de jure borders would probably never be flexible.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I guess we should at least try it out for a while and see how it goes.

You can see their logic, even if its not that accurate.
 
Checksum I'm getting is MLDO. Is that right?

Starting as Count of Gwent, I notice the Kingdom is called "Brythonia". While an absurd term, the name change makes the Brittany/Wales thing more palatable, especially if you're concerned about a Welsh King of Wales dictating things to Brittany (which to me would still be far more appropriate than a French King of France).

Also, both Devon and Cornwall are included in the Kingdom, making it 14 provinces. I'd assumed just Cornwall (13). So Brittany needs two provinces in Wales to form the Kingdom (or the Welsh need two provinces in Brittany). Taking Cornwall from England is likely to prove too difficult, in the beginning.
 
I wish they had made the change to Wales a DLC instead of part of a patch, so we could choose to play without it without having to rely on a mod.

There is just no historical precedent or basis for linking Wales, Cornwall and Brittany as one kingdom. There are great cultural connections between those regions, but that has nothing to do with any ideal of kingship that ever actually existed during the Middle Ages. To have them be part of a de Jure kingdom in the game is simply a fantasy that exceeds the myth of Prester John. (People of the time actually believed in Prester John; no one in the Middle Ages ever conceived of a de Jure kingdom which linked Wales, Cornwall and Brittany.)

Additionally, I don't really understand the concern with whether a particular kingdom is inherently viable or not. So what if in most games Wales can't stand on its own. It couldn't do so historically, but that didn't ever cause the Welsh to appeal to the Bretons for help against the English.

If I"d wanted a fantasy game, I'd have bought one instead of CK2.

In any case, I do appreciate how modable the game is, because since this change seems set in stone I'm going to have to rely on a mod to eliminate it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back