Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

There Will Be War

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.
Multiple choice.

King of Men said:
It is shorthand for "A duchy in that region".
Click to expand...

O.K if I play the count of Naples, because of the money and count disadvantage could I have

1. a guarantee of "hands off Sicily"

OR:

2. Vassalage with Byzantium, so I can get myself Duke of Campania.

OR:

3. Just make the count into Duke of Campania... anyway in real-life Sergios was Duke of Neapolis.
 
"blink"? Explain.
 
Honestly, I would prefer not to make any changes to the initial setup. If you are going to start as a count, then you ought to accept the disadvantages inherent in that choice. Anyway, a South Italian count is as wealthy as many a Duke of the poorer northern lands.

Touching the question of whether or not we should start close together, could we have some input from the other players on what you prefer? I will try to summarise the two options:

  • (My preference) We start close together, say in the region Germany-North Italy-France-North Iberia-England, and expect that some Dukes will be conquered in the course of the initial skirmishing. These players will then be given new positions on the periphery.
    • Pros:
    • Instant human-human interaction; no initial period of bashing the AI as fast as possible in order to grow strong.
    • No guarantees of who will be in control of a given nation, or even that a particular nation will unify; it would be quite possible to end up with the British Isles split between a northern and a southern dynasty. Alt-hist for the win!
    • Cons:
    • Some humans are going to lose out, with possible hurt feelings.
    • Possible imbalances in the power levels of new positions.
    • Possibility of a rather patchwork map of Europe upon conversion.
  • (Sid's preference) We start far apart, roughly one to each historical nation, or perhaps two for large ones such as Russia and Germany.
    • Pros:
    • Everybody is more or less guaranteed to be in the same nation throughout.
    • Definite spheres of influence upon conversion.
    • Cons:
    • No human-human wars or alliances at the beginning of the game; a long period of having nobody to fight except the AI.
    • Possible imbalance when one player is highly successful in his own region, where the other players will have difficulty uniting to drag him down; for example, the Russian player managing to unify the Big Green Blob, or Byz scoring a major success against the Seljuks.


If I missed any pros or cons, let me know; but at any rate, let's hear your preferences.
 
King of Men said:
Honestly, I would prefer not to make any changes to the initial setup. If you are going to start as a count, then you ought to accept the disadvantages inherent in that choice. Anyway, a South Italian count is as wealthy as many a Duke of the poorer northern lands.

Touching the question of whether or not we should start close together, could we have some input from the other players on what you prefer? I will try to summarise the two options:

  • (My preference) We start close together, say in the region Germany-North Italy-France-North Iberia-England, and expect that some Dukes will be conquered in the course of the initial skirmishing. These players will then be given new positions on the periphery.
    • Pros:
    • Instant human-human interaction; no initial period of bashing the AI as fast as possible in order to grow strong.
    • No guarantees of who will be in control of a given nation, or even that a particular nation will unify; it would be quite possible to end up with the British Isles split between a northern and a southern dynasty. Alt-hist for the win!
    • Cons:
    • Some humans are going to lose out, with possible hurt feelings.
    • Possible imbalances in the power levels of new positions.
    • Possibility of a rather patchwork map of Europe upon conversion.
  • (Sid's preference) We start far apart, roughly one to each historical nation, or perhaps two for large ones such as Russia and Germany.
    • Pros:
    • Everybody is more or less guaranteed to be in the same nation throughout.
    • Definite spheres of influence upon conversion.
    • Cons:
    • No human-human wars or alliances at the beginning of the game; a long period of having nobody to fight except the AI.
    • Possible imbalance when one player is highly successful in his own region, where the other players will have difficulty uniting to drag him down; for example, the Russian player managing to unify the Big Green Blob, or Byz scoring a major success against the Seljuks.


If I missed any pros or cons, let me know; but at any rate, let's hear your preferences.
Click to expand...

I don't think we should be stuck too close to each other, while I also don't think that we should all scatter to each of our own corner.

The way I see it:

If we are all confined in Central, Northern and Central/western-south Europe, I think that the possible Crusade targets will be limited to Spain and Tunisia.

If we are too far apart it will become a game where everyone is "sitting in their own corner" which will make up a far too boring game.

I think some sort of compromise must be possible.

BTW: Can I pick any dukedom or are there limitations there as well?

f.x. Playing as the Duke of Normandy pretty much guarantees you a eventual crowning as King of England.
 
I think considering that we are converting should have a certain level of influence on our start up.

Keep also in mind that in CK distances dont nessasarily matter since any christian nation can walk through any christian nation.

Also remember that the AI, and the very nature of the game makes even slightly single player experiances enough of a challenge on their own that adding player vs player challenges may be a little too much for some people.
 
Sid Meier said:
Keep also in mind that in CK distances dont nessasarily matter since any christian nation can walk through any christian nation.
Click to expand...

Two points: First, that's only true if you're willing to accept heavy attrition; the defender always has an advantage. Second, it may not be true any more in DV, if we're lucky.

Also remember that the AI, and the very nature of the game makes even slightly single player experiances enough of a challenge on their own that adding player vs player challenges may be a little too much for some people.
Click to expand...

Oh, come now. In such a case, why would they be playing MP at all? Crusader Kings as a glorified chat program?
 
I'ld like to point out certain nations wont survive long enough for us to die.
 
LordRobbie, welcome. At this point you do not need anything in particular, although I think there was some consensus that we would wait for Deus Vult to come out, so you'll need that.

Blayne, that comment makes no sense. What are you talking about?
 
Sid, about your point that PvP wars could very well happen when they are all spaced out. In MTT, that didn't happen, until the players started to bump up against each other. Ergo, when there are space between players, to conquer or dominate, there is no real reason why they should go PvP.
 
What about a few people per region, say 1 to 3 people in the benelux region, a few people by toulouse and aquitaine, same for britain and northern italy. Wouldn't this be the middle ground, it would allow for competition both for the different thrones as well as allowing for expansion against the AI.
 
Sid, it seems you forgot to add me to the roster. Sign me up for anywhere.
 
LordRobbie said:
I could be spain I guess :)
Click to expand...

I have decieded that I won't participate, as I recently have become hooked on Victoria.
 
you can play multiple games you know
 
Sid Meier said:
you can play multiple games you know
Click to expand...

aye, but I got multiple commitments as well...

I am actually planning to see if I can start a multiplayer game in Victoria...

Actually, nevermind my last post, I am still up for a game as Norway, if commitments overtake me (which is something I don't find all that likely) it is not really a nation that will be missed that much. The only problem I see is that I am a comuter, and to get my comuters tax refund, I need to travel home to my parents every third weekend, but as they do have internet (unless I am going to their cabin, which I am sad to say I often do) I may have to pass up a couple of games depending on how long time it will go on.

As Norway I guess I will have to play as the Duchy of Trøndlag, as it is the only other dukedom in Norway. I would prefer to play as the Kingdom itself, as the Duchy of Trøndelag makes as much money as counts do in other locations, but I guess being the next in the heredetary line for the title of King in the beginning of the game has its advantages.
 
To me Byzantium or a Russian duchy to me is whats most likely to prevent me from falling asleep as has happened before inregards to me as England in CK before I had my laptop. Byzantium form the start is prefered because otherwise the Seljuks will overrun it.
 
All right; let's see what we've got of consensus. It seems to me that we have agreed

a) Start in late September, when DV comes out.
b) Game time will be Saturday mornings American time; the exact hour is not yet settled.
c) We will play Duchies at first. As a compromise between spread-out-ness and compactness, any major nation which has one player in it should have at least two players. For example, nobody should be the only Russian Prince in the game, but it's quite ok to be the only Norwegian Jarl. If there is one French Duke, then there have to be at least two. And so on.
d) We will convert to EU2 upon reaching 1419, or conceivably, if all players agree, to EU3 upon reaching 1453.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back