Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Already waiting patches - fastest Paradox game that I stopped playing

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 III 17924 Console 206 Suggestions 5234 Bug Report 2433 Tech Support 1980 User Mods 1724 Multiplayer 148 AARs (After Action Reports) MP Open Beta Feedback 27
So I just randomly fired up a CK2 game to compare CK3 directly and found myself playing for another 3 hours. I know CK3 is new and CK2 had the benefit of tons of support and DLC, but WOW there are so many events and decisions that keep you engrossed in your characters and your gameplay! I’m really missing these random events in CK3. The random event of legendary courtiers , friendship events, swaying events (in CK3 I know), war events, battle events, crusader events and reconquests events! And that was only playing for 3 hours! I’m really missing all this that keep the gameplay fresh!
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
ThePatriot1776 said:
Because genetics says that at the base they are the same people with a shared genetic history. The only differences between the two is that Lombards added in further genetics from the local inhabitants of Italy. They're an offshoot of their original genetic group that are the Norse.
Click to expand...
My dude, did you really just dislike all my post because I disagreed on your responses in this thread? Don't have to take it so personally. Border gore is an issue and its not just the Norse that are causing this, I think the overall fix is to balance Tribes and the CBs
 
  • 3Haha
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
it's seriously funny how in 1066 in every game I start, Lappland conquers random provinces. I saw them conquer York and surrounding counties from Norman-conquered England somehow and they took part of Normandy. Lappland. In 1066.
 
  • 5
  • 2Haha
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Imperator Mueller said:
My dude, did you really just dislike all my post because I disagreed on your responses in this thread? Don't have to take it so personally. Border gore is an issue and its not just the Norse that are causing this, I think the overall fix is to balance Tribes and the CBs
Click to expand...

My dude why did you dislike a factual post? Do you disagree with science? Don't take it personally kid.
 
  • 9
  • 3Haha
Reactions:
ThePatriot1776 said:
My dude why did you dislike a factual post? Do you disagree with science? Don't take it personally kid.
Click to expand...
You may pull history and science but the matter is you seem blind to the real issues that is being discussed in this thread. Pulling genetic history to validate absurd border gore by the Norse in a video game is just dumb, regardless how accurate your statements are.
 
  • 15
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Screenshot 2020-09-16 222807.jpg Another illustration of a balance issue - won a crusade for Castille after Dhunnudids blobbed and switched over to my dynasty member who took the throne, everything was converted to Islam. 87 years to convert one province, and constant peasant uprisings of over 10k. No wonder they always flip immediately
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Imperator Mueller said:
You may pull history and science but the matter is you seem blind to the real issues that is being discussed in this thread. Pulling genetic history to validate absurd border gore by the Norse in a video game is just dumb, regardless how accurate your statements are.
Click to expand...

Oh you mean where I acknowledge the problems with the game that you disagreed with? Let me quote you the post.

ThePatriot1776 said:
As for bordergore, it's historical. Not everything was nice and neat with many counties on the borders being claimed by different kingdoms. You should see the historical map of the HRE. That's bordergore.

Do I think that the AI waging aggressive wars is terrible and seizing territory far beyond diplomatic range? Yes, it needs to be turned down by a lot. There also needs to be ranges implemented on naval exclave path. Funny, but you never actually asked me my opinion on and assumed that I was the opposite of your opinion regarding it.
Click to expand...

Nothing personal.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
ThePatriot1776 said:
As for bordergore, it's historical. Not everything was nice and neat with many counties on the borders being claimed by different kingdoms. You should see the historical map of the HRE. That's bordergore.
Click to expand...

None of those HRE princes and vassals were sovereign. Or king, for that matter. You are thinking of the Westphalian system. That's modern thing.
 
  • 5
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
ThePatriot1776 said:
That happened all the time which is why CK has the fabricate claims system. It's historical whether you like it or not. Have a good evening.
Click to expand...

Dynastic intermarriage and inheritance isn't 'fabricate claims'. You still failed to demonstrate how the internal vassal border of the HRE is somehow interconnected to the Norse county conquest and resulting bordergore.
 
  • 5
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Admiral Fischer said:
Dynastic intermarriage and inheritance isn't 'fabricate claims'. You still failed to demonstrate how the internal vassal border of the HRE is somehow interconnected to the Norse county conquest and resulting bordergore.
Click to expand...

That's because I didn't. You made the claim that it's interconnected. My reply was to a specific statement someone made which was about bordergore. I pointed out that historically there was bordergore and I proved it. The HRE was comprised of Lotharingia, Frisia, East Francia, Bavaria, and more. As provided by the map you can see that the kingdoms had intertwined to the point that it was a mess of their borders.

Fabricating claims and disputing of titles is well known. There are numerous wars fought over said titles. With this I am done talking to you. This is my last reply.
 
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
It's interesting how the same false argument gets repeated over and over again.

I'll just quote a post written three weeks ago:

Elm0__ said:
Regarding some comments stating that bordergore was historical - it's not exactly true. Basically it boils down to two issues:
1. Historical examples of bordergore people usually show are mostly just maps of HRE. This is simple inheritance patchwork. It is also contained in one region. It is a results of intermarriage, inheritance, splitting domain between sons and so on. One could argue that there is actually too little of inheritance bordergore in CK, mostly because how matri marriages sometimes enable rulers to avoid being inherited by someone from another dynasty.
2. IMHO Usual AI bordergore is caused by "blobby" warfare - using territorial (not claim-based) CB. To be clear - I would consider fabricated claims as territoral CB, because one has control over where he fabricates. AI probably evaluates war targets basing on some difficulty factor while downplaying territorial and cultural cohesion factors, which leads to snaky domains and ugly blobs. That's my guess.
Click to expand...
 
  • 8
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
ThePatriot1776 said:
Nope, I'm thinking of this.
View attachment 627610

Enjoy the bordergore. Go ahead and tell me that none of them were princes or sovereign vassals.
Click to expand...
How this justify the King of Sweden owning lands in the middle of Mauretania? We have some historical examples for this? ( I mean in the game historical period)
 
  • 7
  • 2
Reactions:
Admiral Fischer said:
It's interesting how the same false argument gets repeated over and over again.

I'll just quote a post written three weeks ago:
Click to expand...

I just disproven that since within the HRE since you had France, Lotharingia, Germany, Bavaria, Bohemia, Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia all under one empire. As evidenced by the map you can see that all of the kingdoms have their vassals owning territory in sections outside of their kingdom borders. It's you that failed to address anything. Now have a good day. I'll let you get the last word.
 
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
SargonAkkad said:
How this justify the King of Sweden owning lands in the middle of Mauretania? We have some historical examples for this? ( I mean in the game historical period)
Click to expand...

Oh look strawman. I've already answered your questions and stated I agreed with you about the problems with the Norse taking over land far from their home. Here's the reply to you that you ignored and disagreed with. You disagreed with me agreeing with you.

ThePatriot1776 said:
Do I think that the AI waging aggressive wars is terrible and seizing territory far beyond diplomatic range? Yes, it needs to be turned down by a lot. There also needs to be ranges implemented on naval exclave path. Funny, but you never actually asked me my opinion on and assumed that I was the opposite of your opinion regarding it.
Click to expand...

Funny that you ignored that bit.
 
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
ThePatriot1776 said:
I just disproven that since within the HRE since you had France, Lotharingia, Germany, Bavaria, Bohemia, Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia all under one empire. As evidenced by the map you can see that all of the kingdoms have their vassals owning territory in sections outside of their kingdom borders. It's you that failed to address anything. Now have a good day. I'll let you get the last word.
Click to expand...

All I see is one continuous realm. Once again, dynastic intermarriage and inheritance isn't 'fabricate claims'.
 
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
ThePatriot1776 said:
Oh look strawman. I've already answered your questions and stated I agreed with you about the problems with the Norse taking over land far from their home. Here's the reply to you that you ignored and disagreed with. You disagreed with me agreeing with you.



Funny that you ignored that bit.
Click to expand...
Ok I made a wrong example. So how the HRE bordergore could justify the Byz owning land in the middle of France or England? Or the Seljuks own a single piece of land in Lapland?
Oh, and thank you to call me "strawman"
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
SargonAkkad said:
Ok I made a wrong example. So how the HRE bordergore could justify the Byz owning land in the middle of France or England? Or the Seljuks own a single piece of land in Lapland?
Oh, and thank you to call me "strawman"
Click to expand...

I didn't call you a strawman. I called your argument a strawman. It's because you set up this false position and attributed it to me. There you go with more strawman arguments. I already agreed with you that diplomatic range should be the limit on where a ruler can have a vassal. Do you disagree with that?

Now I'm done with this conversation since all you want to do is argue. Have a good day.
 
  • 6
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back