The fact that some stayed was due to them being married and the divorce action making them go home instantly. Should be fixed in 2,5,2 though, unless there are additional issues.
- 3
Comments and Suggestions on 2.5.2 Conclave beta
- Thread starter GalenZ
- 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.
The fact that some stayed was due to them being married and the divorce action making them go home instantly. Should be fixed in 2,5,2 though, unless there are additional issues.
@Darkrenown: Re: uninvitable characters. I've seen other posts referring to this problem, so I assumed it was a known issue. Here's how to dup:
In my savegame at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxGMkSglbFzAWVh5RVBjc0RsVGs/view?usp=sharing
look at the character Pericle Enganna, conveniently in my list of characters of special interest. He's been just sitting there doing nothing, and being completely uninvitable, for 45 years.
I am posting this issue in the bugs forum, too.
In my savegame at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxGMkSglbFzAWVh5RVBjc0RsVGs/view?usp=sharing
look at the character Pericle Enganna, conveniently in my list of characters of special interest. He's been just sitting there doing nothing, and being completely uninvitable, for 45 years.
I am posting this issue in the bugs forum, too.
I was speaking of single people.
You have an unwed son with a learning education and not heir to anything. You hit order to take the vows what is supposed to happen?
It was my assumption that all of them gained the monk trait. And then based on something sometimes they stay in your court, sometimes they instead gain celibate and join the Knights Hospitaller. And this was sometimes annoying if you were going to set him up as prince arch-bishop but now hes in the Knights. But Conclave accidentally fixed this because now you can favor him back to your court.
Last edited:
Are there no plans to make the Overthrow Ruler faction only use-able if the ruler has tyranny?
As I said in my other thread. Forces abdication, forces elective, forces council authority. This a reaction worthy of King John or Ivan the Terrible not a +30 opinion crusader. Besides the fact that just a blatant overthrown faction seems weird / out of place for a benevolent ruler.
Besides the fact that it's really like the 5th layer of icing (if icing is difficulty) to the already stacked Conclave cake. They didn't need another reason to faction, especially when their reasoning for joining this faction seems flawed.
As I said in my other thread. Forces abdication, forces elective, forces council authority. This a reaction worthy of King John or Ivan the Terrible not a +30 opinion crusader. Besides the fact that just a blatant overthrown faction seems weird / out of place for a benevolent ruler.
Besides the fact that it's really like the 5th layer of icing (if icing is difficulty) to the already stacked Conclave cake. They didn't need another reason to faction, especially when their reasoning for joining this faction seems flawed.
- 3
Agreed, especially when the devs themselves identified elective realms popping up too often as problem and moved to fix it in the last patch. This move just makes said problem worse.
Thanks for save, will take a look tomorrow.
Same for Taking vows, will check what it's actually meant to do.
For the Overthrow faction, no it isn't meant to require tyranny, but I did decrease the opinion at which the AI will create the faction - people with positive opinion won't do it.
Same for Taking vows, will check what it's actually meant to do.
For the Overthrow faction, no it isn't meant to require tyranny, but I did decrease the opinion at which the AI will create the faction - people with positive opinion won't do it.
- 7
- 2
But will those with positive opinion be able to join said faction, or are they also barred?
(my knowledge of the inner workings of factions is limited to say the least so sorry if that's a question with an obvious answer)
Typically the AI won't join a faction at the same tier it wouldn't start a faction. But the opinion threshold to get them to leave a faction is much higher than the one to get them to join. So once they're in, they're harder to get out. Always best to get the faction leader out first. They can use their spy master/favors to make people join factions at any opinion level. Forcing them out lets those who do not want to be in out.
What's really ugly is even if someone's your heir and best friend, once they owe someone in a faction a favor that faction-leader can call them into the faction no matter how much they like you. Favors are very dangerous to have floating around out there.
I'd really like some sort of indication if someone demands a seat on your council. Currently, I only notice it when I appoint new councillours.
- 1
Would it be possible to have a toggle in defines for the old system, or better yet, a toggle that can be put in individual CBs, so certain CBs will call everyone, while others will give you a choice like the old way. (If I'm just county claiming a barony, why would I want to call in all my allies? Or if Random Peasant Revolt # 27 fires, why would I need to call my allies in to help with that? But if the Vikings launch a prepared invasion of my lands, well, I'd want my allies there for sure.)
Edit:
Also, more moddability never is a bad thing.
- 3
I think all these suggestions are very well reasoned. If any of this works out, Paradox is really using the open beta system to its full potential and could potentially make a great patch.
No, I don't believe so. We looked into this the other day, but the alliance rework involved an overhaul of the code and the old system no longer exists
Last edited:
- 1
That's a pity.
Say, is it true that the forced CTA function was added to prevent the disruption of coalitions by declaring on multiple members simultaneously, as I've heard said elsewhere? If that is the case, was the idea of a cooldown on war declarations, like in EU4, considered? I'd be curious to know why forced CTAs was chosen over a cooldown, if that is the case.
- 1
I think it was more to make alliances serious commitments rather than something you could pick and choose when to follow, and to put the player and AI on an equal footing (since it's difficult for AIs to know if a player would honour an alliance or not).
For the taking vows thing above, it is correct that characters can stay as a monk or leave to join a Holy order, as long as the outcome matches that the confirm box dialogue says they'll do then that's all WAD.
For the taking vows thing above, it is correct that characters can stay as a monk or leave to join a Holy order, as long as the outcome matches that the confirm box dialogue says they'll do then that's all WAD.
- 1
- 1
Couldn't you have made refusing calls to arms have more penalties, similar to breaking truces? And encourage accepting calls to arms by giving favours with your ally for example? At least every ally shouldn't be called in automatically, I don't want every ally of mine in every war.
- 1
I only moved to CK2 after Conclave was done, so I'm afraid I don't know the thought process involved. I'd agree with you that I don't need my Allies helping out in every war though.
- 4
What do you mean by "exploitable?" That a player can elect to make a gamey choice? If so, why is that a problem? If the player complains that the gamey choice makes the game no fun, then isn't the simplest solution just to say, "Well, don't do that anymore"?
I've never understood the thinking behind removing player choice for everyone simply because some folks can't resist making gamey choices that ruin the game for themselves. Why "fix" something that only a certain group of players are breaking only for themselves?
Apart from the chaos caused by changing the game for everyone just because some can't control themselves, it seems to me to be colossal waste of precious development time. You'll never be able to program away all the possible ways for a gamey player to ruin the game for themselves. That's like trying to keep rats off a cheese ship.
Not a rant. Just an honest question about something I've always found puzzling.
- 12
- 1