Saulot said:
I didn't know.
Yeah, if so, they should be in communion with the Copts instead of Constantinople.
j.
-
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.
- Status
I didn't know.
Yeah, if so, they should be in communion with the Copts instead of Constantinople.
j.
RP value. The PC is probably having half of Ireland excomed because he's an asshole, but you RP that he's claiming the Celts aren't good Catholics.Veldmaarschalk said:
This would be slightly different from culture BTW, it is possible to take the religious traditions of another culture without all the secular ones.
So there'd be a few mondo-religion tags, with lots of subtags to represent all the different sects of that religion. Some based on culture, others based on theology.
If they did it right you'd be able to represent schisms via event.
No real bonuses or penalties. They should play exactly like Catholics.Veldmaarschalk said:
Just like Arabs play exactly like Saxons.
Nick
not sure if this has been requested yet, but I'd like to have the soldier pictures in each province actually be wearing the armor and weapons that has been researched in that province...
more provinces would be cool as well.
more provinces would be cool as well.
Saulot said:
Llywelyn said:
Once again, they'd be either Monophysite or Oriental Orthodox.
I think we can reform the way heresy a bit. Here's my plan:
Certain religions (such as Gnosticism or Proto-Protestant- probably need better names than that) are heretic offshoots of Christianity (maybe the Nazaris can get the same sort of thing with Islam), and are basically Pagan in that any of their particularly pious neighbors will declare war on you, and you could get crusaded on. To offset that, I think if you form some sort of economic links with your neighbors, they'd leave you alone, and even defend you, if more zealous non-heretics attack you.
However, you keep the heretic event in provinces. Basically, they're just religious revolts. Either the heretics are not supported by or not in control of the province. So basically, they either get crushed or they get enough support to take control, upon which they either adopt one of the heretic religious tags (Gnostic or Proto-Protestant), or maybe just vanilla Heretic (like if the Flagellants or one of those run-of-the-mill wacky heretics had won). I'm making the distinction, because I think the psuedo-Gnostics like the Cathars and the Bogomils and the Proto-Protestants like the Waldensians, and Hussites were more organized and had more staying power.
How "notable" were they?
My only issue is that how do you make the distinctions to separate the various Pagan groups? Wouldn't it be easier to connect Pagan with culture, and just divide them that way? I don't think the differences between which Pagan religion they followed caused Pagans to war against each other, and since in CK 2 you're playing as a non-pagan and all the pagans are the same to you anyways, does it matter so much?
From this thread:
I have no idea to what you're referring here. EU's War of Austrian Succession events can't be used in any way shape or form. . .
She should suffer a massive loyalty penalty. AFAIK, the game gives claims to the male heirs already, but there's no way at all to make the boys exert them.
j.
Woz Early said:
I have no idea to what you're referring here. EU's War of Austrian Succession events can't be used in any way shape or form. . .
She should suffer a massive loyalty penalty. AFAIK, the game gives claims to the male heirs already, but there's no way at all to make the boys exert them.
j.
A 'massive loyalty penalty' is exessive. In all the cases of a women inheritance, only in the case of Empress Matilda was there an issue with the succession. And even in this example, it was because of her forced Angivine marriage (she did not wish it any more then the people), not necessarily because of her gender.
I do agree that, prehaps, a modest penalty could be introduced. I have always granted this. But it should not be crippling to the player.
In most cases of female succession, the father specifically designated his daughter to rule by heriditary and civil right. In the Aquitaine, according to author and historian Alison Wier and others, it was codified that women did inherit title and land, administered it seperatly from their husbands realms, and designated their own successors.
Last edited:
Strategos' Risk said:
They should be Coptic, unless Armenians or any other monophysites are included. They had their own language and differed from the other monophysites regarding their heirarchy, history, favorite saints, liturgy, etc, etc, etc. Nubia was another country and had its own language, but their rites and bishops were always either Coptic or Melkite (ie, Byzantine Orthodox).
Plus it just feels better (RPwise) as a resurgent Nubian eparch or disloyal Fatimid administrator to see the ankh cross and Coptic tag than something more generic.
Oriental Orthodox is clunky and anachronistic.
The above, natch, are my two cents, since here all of the terms are technically correct. And it's all just so much babel, since religious tags would probably be one of the last things they'd bother expanding.
Gnostic is correct as a catchall term. There were a lot of different heresies, but most of the major ones (Catharism/Albighensians, the Bogomils, the Paulicans) were regional branches of essentially the same movement as it developed and spread over time. So Gnosticism covers all of them, or you could essentially pick one of the other three to stand in for the other two.
Proto-Protestantism came in a number of forms, but usually as attacks against the wealth and vanity of the church. Reform or Reformist would actually be descriptive, even if inauthentic. Usually they were called after their leaders or their region - the Wycliffites and the Waldensians/Poor Men of Lyon, eg. Anyone know a general term for these guys?
Assuming that a trade model gets built into the game.
That's a bit much to add just to model regional alliances, ain't it? How about, full diplomatic access, except that you're still a relgious enemy, and you can form alliances (yknow, maybe - nonmarital diplomacy ain't CK's strong suit).
I'd love to see a screenshot with this religion.
Well, they assassinated 'Ali, for starters. They're an entire third division of Islam, along with the Shia and Sunni. They get less press because Oman (eventually) got crushed and the Shia and Sunni have dominated the Gulf. They're more important - if maybe less topical during this period - than the Nazaris.
On the basis of their actual faiths. Tengriism was a continuous communion across a section of Eurasia probably larger than Western Europe. The Norse mythos was a similar pantheon. The Sami's faith is largely unrecorded but survived in pieces and has some info on Wiki. The only place conflation might be necessary at all is along the Baltic shore. Frankly, I don't know what their deal was - Germanic/Nordic or Russian/Slavic or some weird Ugricy thing.
That's what is currently the case, and it's just as inaccurate as calling Fatimid Egypt (Sunni) Muslim. They didn't believe the same things at all, although perhaps the Sami could be conflated with other shamanistic faiths if that's what was up with the Baltics.
They didn't declare crusades, but sure they could, would and did DOW religious enemy neighbors. Cf. eg, the Vikings v. the Christians and the (different) pagan Slavs. There would have been nothing in their faith causing them to recognize the soverain (sp) rights of their noncorreligionists.
Shia matters. A lot. It should be added.
Jewish courtiers matter a little less, but should still be added for flavor.
Everything else is flavor, pagans included.
Just some thoughts, but those are mine,
j.
Drachenfire said:
In most, her husband ruled iure uxoris. The cases I can think of off the top of my head, the women truly had to be masterful with their politics (ie, DIP) to play factions off each other and exert authority over their realm. By massive, I meant -3 to -5%, but it should certainly be a non-zero number.
j.
Llywelyn said:
iure uxoris in some cases, but not all. It was not the case in the Aquitaine, or the intention for Matilda or Urraca. I agree that the woman did have to be truely masterful to exert her authority. Urraca of Leon-Castilla, Melisende of Jerusalem, Constance of Antioch, Margeret of Denmark, Empress Matilda, Eleanor of Aquitaine. All of these would be those women who did rule by right. I do not understand your last sentence, though, about the statistic.
If there was an initial penalty for female succession, I think it would have to apply only when the realm initially changes to male preference primogeniture and/or cognatic primogeniture. As Woz Early also pointed out, if a women inherited after a women already ruled in the realm, there should be some curve making it less of an issue. In the late 11th and early 12th century it is plausable that, in an alternitive history, women rulers would have become more successful and common. But what happened of corse was the Catholic Church encouraged prohibitions agains women rulers, mayhap as a direct result of Urraca, Melisende, Maltilda, and the others.
AND of corse I do not wish fot the AI to chose cognatic as a succession law unless it is a vassle of a human player.
Last edited:
Drachenfire said:
Well Nubia certainly and some Celtic state apparently had succession through the king's sister's children, isn't that a form of cognatic? or you just mean that they shouldn't switch to it from, eg, Salic primo?
j.
Llywelyn said:
Not exactly. What you describe is Matrilineal primogeniture succession. It was the case in the Welsh Mabinogian stories. I can not answer for Irish or Scottish successions, but it was the case in Wales. This harkens back to the times when decent was traced through the female line, rather then male. Men married into his wife's family. This was the basis for this succession law. Additionally, as is evidenced in Welsh litituture, women could own land under certin cercumstance, though not as completly as in the Aquitaine. It is more then reasonable that Matrilineal decent could have influenced cognatic promogenture,.
Cognatic, or absolute primogeniture, is the the inheritance by the eldest child. This is the law for most European monarchies today, in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands. Spain is expected to change the succession laws shortly too in favor of Princess Leanor. Conversly, semi-salic primogeniture and male preference primogeniture are basicially the same thing, and is what is currently practiced in England and Spain.
I desire both male-preference primogeniture and cognatic primogeniture. Granted cognatic primogeniture is a more modern concept, it is worthy in a game such as this where succession laws were only then being set down.
When I say I would not like the AI to switch to cognatic succession, it is so appease those that are bascially against female succession being added to the game.
Last edited:
Even though it is 'Crusader Kings' the option to play Islamic states
*scenarios during the Kingdom of Jerusalem's apogee & in the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade.
*Royal court titles specifically for vassal Dukes\Counts with attribute gains\losses (eg + loyalty & $$$, - stewardship & own vassals more rebellious). Or at least
*More local management of the realm
*ability to marry members of your court to each other
*Characters can inherit titles through marriage of heiresses as opposed to current offspring inherits arrangement.
*Regency Events for young title-holders & female inheritance where applicable.
*scenarios during the Kingdom of Jerusalem's apogee & in the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade.
*Royal court titles specifically for vassal Dukes\Counts with attribute gains\losses (eg + loyalty & $$$, - stewardship & own vassals more rebellious). Or at least
*More local management of the realm
*ability to marry members of your court to each other
*Characters can inherit titles through marriage of heiresses as opposed to current offspring inherits arrangement.
*Regency Events for young title-holders & female inheritance where applicable.
Yeah, they need to specify who's acting as Regent when the ruler is too young, as well.
aylo1 said:
There are some at the moment, but they should be further and better integrated into the game.
j.
Yeah, my game got a bit confused with "Unable to Rule" and "Schizophrenia" People kept getting killed.
When schizos start killing people in my games I use F12-die on them. It's the only time I use F12-die.English Patriot said:Yeah, my game got a bit confused with "Unable to Rule" and "Schizophrenia" People kept getting killed.
What's the point of being King if you can't execute murderers?
Nick
I want this thread to be about matters even remotely related to a GAME that Crusader Kings 2 could be. If you want to discuss history, please do so in the history forum. If you want to discuss theology, the OT forum is best for you.
Grosshaus
Moderator
Grosshaus
Moderator
I would like to be able to grant a title to anybody, not just my courtiers and vassals.
I was recently playing a game where an uncle had his territory in Asturias taken away and he was reduced to being a courtier in Sweden. I wanted to give him one of my own comital titles in Spain, but I couldn't, since he was neither my courtier nor my vassal. That seems kind of unrealistic and very frustrating.
Let title-granting be free for all!
I was recently playing a game where an uncle had his territory in Asturias taken away and he was reduced to being a courtier in Sweden. I wanted to give him one of my own comital titles in Spain, but I couldn't, since he was neither my courtier nor my vassal. That seems kind of unrealistic and very frustrating.
Let title-granting be free for all!
About possible religions:
Nestorians are the one people really forget a lot. It, of course, comes with the Mongols.
And the Mongols in CK2 would have to be significantly redone.
Nestorians are the one people really forget a lot. It, of course, comes with the Mongols.
And the Mongols in CK2 would have to be significantly redone.
- Status