Crusader Kings II - Free content patch v2.5

[Sanchellios]

I hope it will run a little bit faster. Right now it's impossible to play this game, if I want to start from the very beginning of CK2 ages.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

Which religion? I'm not aware of an issue with this.

By what i read it seems to happen without the HorseLords DLC for several religions if not all (I myself haven't played 2.4.5 enough to know).

 

[Erendir]

Whenever we did try to “deepen” the core gameplay in an expansion, it often turned out to be a mistake: The Retinue mechanic of Legacy of Rome should, for example, have been a part of the base game so we could have kept building upon it.

I wonder what happens with Conclave mechanic.

 

[Thure]

This is an era of men over laws. The concept is anachronistic and has almost no real life precedent throughout most of the game's timeframe.

The Egyptians allied with the crusaders against the Turks/Mongols.

And Castille did ally with the Muslim taifa to counter an expanding Kingdom of Leon. It did happen and it's historical.

 

[Castorem]

Does anyone know: Will the patch break current savegames?

 

[Memoryofthelost]

Does anyone know: Will the patch break current savegames?

'It won't" they said that multiple times.

 

[StJimmyRocks92]

Does anyone know: Will the patch break current savegames?

As said above, it won't break saves. However, Groogy also said that due to the changes in laws you will probably have the default starting laws instead of what you had before.

 

[TheDungen]

This is an era of men over laws. The concept is anachronistic and has almost no real life precedent throughout most of the game's timeframe.

That is only true for the pre 1066 start dates, in 1066 and later laws are indeed a very big part of how europe functions.

That was one instance of a cross-religious group alliance (it was not a broad coalition) that happened near the end of the 13th century. How many empires swept across Eurasia up until that point in history? How does this one, rather exceptional example justify re-working game mechanics back to 769?

If coalitions were based on anything real, then Islam should never have become what it became under the Umayyads because there should have been a coalition of Romans, Slavs, Zoroastrians (perhaps even sea creatures and Aztecs?), etc to stop it from ever reaching as far as Hispania and Persia.

Oh yes because you can think of one example 700 years before the main timeframe of CK2 then there's no way there could be coalitions in the ck2 timeframe.

 

[durbal]

Pillaging for one isn't an issue. The #1 reason this is? Because the AI never does it, except to tribal holdings.

There isn't anything broken with nomads, only that as a player you can easily conquer the world. But that is sort of the point. Are they a little too powerful? Yes and but the only thing that needs affecting is the populations and manpower figures.

You can not balance a government type on the aggressiveness of human players. I can conquer the world as Welsh Catholic, so we should nerf the Welsh Catholics right?

No, things should be nerfed not because of what's absolutely possible but based on how they are strong relatively. That's always the basis for any kind of game balance.

Nomads aren't fun because they're an instant win. It's just Declare War > Conquer > Repeat frolm day one.

And pillaging is an issue because it gives way too much gold. Because the AI isn't programmed to do it doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.

 

[Dracko81]

No, things should be nerfed not because of what's absolutely possible but based on how they are strong relatively. That's always the basis for any kind of game balance.

Nomads aren't fun because they're an instant win. It's just Declare War > Conquer > Repeat frolm day one.

And pillaging is an issue because it gives way too much gold. Because the AI isn't programmed to do it doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.

So nerf the Welsh Catholics then? I will endeavour to push this as much as possible then.

I'm glad to hear that you have a very strong knowledge of how balance works.

 

[The Duke of GTFO]

And the Out of Sync error for Multiplayer?

Ahh well, maybe next time

 

[DaVincix]

The ongoing discussion about intermarriage/war/alliance/coalition/alignement/liking is a difficult item, no matter from which perspective you are watching, if historical or gameplay-mechanic.

What i think as for CK2 in the meantime (not playing for long as of yet) is, that for example the strict refusal of a muslim ruler to let happen a marriage with a christian ruler is ahistorical, but claiming the latter is or would be a theme for the academia. Anyways, i learn history during my life since childhood i started to have interest in the world's history. Some points or examples though from my view and/or knowledge:

- Religion played no (decisive) role between the rulers until Rome became christian. Intermarriage was common place, and also one tool for Rome to expand and/or keep its realm (same formerly, fe. Alexander the Great).
- When Angle/Saxon/Jute/Frisian "barbarians" fell into "christian" Britain, religion played no role for the rulers, the melting together of different religious/cultural tribe-groups happened no matter what the Pope or the bishops thought, the latter had not enough power over the merely/partially real-poltitics oriented nobility, not to speak of the society classes below them. Just in case a marriage was necessary that a christian ruler (pope or cardinal, bishop) had to verify, then the according baptizing happened formerly or parallel.
- Same within the Viking Age incl. Normans takeover of Normandie and short later South-Italy.
- ... etc., probably until the First Crusade, as pope Urban made his thing of "Deus Vult", european nobility started to really care for religion (between continents, so to speak). One reason, why i think that 1095 should be kinda a start date (marked situation on map) for CK2.
- Exception was of course Charlemagne's taking over europe, destroying paganism of the german Saxons etc.. One could say he was the first crusader, but it was imo. rather motivated due to real-politics, just to unite the realms, here the religion functioned as motivator to keep people together and getting them make war to each other. But i'm not aware that for example marriages between the noble houses were refused due to somebody is not strict pope-catholic at that time, as said, if the church had to verify, a baptism just happened. However, Charlemagne's radical approach made possible the HRE, a kinda first european union, which blossomed for a certain time in all aspects, for example the so-called early-renaissance.
- However, after 1099, the success of the first Crusader States was also possible because the christian rulers there didn't care a lot for religious/cultural differences, the idea was to keep peace under all options. Their christian rulers were of siculo-norman, norman and lothringian culture/ancestry.
- This kinda peacy approach in the Levante was certainly "modern" and could happen because the arabic/muslim side was rather okay with it, which was then later destroyed by religious rather fanatic rulers (pope, kings, whatsoever, motivations of certain persons supported kinda religious wars) ... second crusade etc. happened.
- The muslim side then reacted on this, and started the same kind of religious motivated wars, under the jihad idea (this, despite the former arabic conquest under the muslim/islamic flag, the arabic world was rather an open one to religions, in the middleage, also due to this, their realms blossomed in all aspects, science and technology was famous, and later one factor which caused the Renaissance in europe).
- Over all the time, the Byzantian empire (East-Rome, or corrected the remained original Roman Empire) was rather sucessful due to its multi-ethnic approach, real-politics was the thing, similar to the classical roman empire, from which this empire derives. Religion then but was also used, when the Seljuks invaded their far spread eastern realms (byantian emperor called the pope for help, 1st crusade initiator). However, strongly believe that intermarriage between different religious-cultural houses was common place there.
- The parallel slow reconquest of Iberia by christian houses was also not strict religious motivated, but of course clever rulers also used religion as motivator (Santiago, first knight orders of Spain, etc.). Despite this, muslim and catholic iberian rulers partially worked together in all aspects, especially the andalusian realms blossomed. Same then but as above written, religious aspects have been used to drive off the muslim rulership from Spain, so that only Grenada remained muslim. Same item on the muslim side, some fanatic jihad groups were used to fight back in Spain.
- Even then in this religion hate times, there where rulers which ignored it merely, for example see "Stupor Mundi", emperor Frederik II, who took its approach from his Siculo-Norman culture, which there was btw. the most modern approached rulership, a multi-ethnic state, which functioned, Sicily with its southern italian realms.
- Similar item also with the italian city states/republics, and elsewhere, for example the 'Hanse'. Successful trade wouldn't work with religious hate in background or at least if that would be the factor for everything.

Packing all that into CK2 is a hard task though. Keeping a kinda historical balance on the map, Paradox seemed to use the religion triggers (in a seemingly simplified way, i looked also short into files), which is but not in whole historical, as said, a very differentiated analysis would be necessary, in academic approach.

 

[TheDungen]

So nerf the Welsh Catholics then? I will endeavour to push this as much as possible then.

I'm glad to hear that you have a very strong knowledge of how balance works.

You do realise that welsh isn't op anymore right? Scottish are a lot better these days.

 

[CassCD]

I hope Paradox went above and beyond and included unique death sounds for this event:

Spoiler

 

[mrstevehazzard]

I hope Paradox went above and beyond and included unique death sounds for this event:

Spoiler

I'll never forget my first-ever Roman Empire playthrough, I had a great Emperor sexed to death by his lustful young wife, which set off a 'Year of the Five Emperors' style killing spree where morons kept ascending the throne and then getting assassinated in months. It was a great time.

 

[Dracko81]

You do realise that welsh isn't op anymore right? Scottish are a lot better these days.

Of coarse they are, when in the hands of the player. If the Nomads need to be nerfed because an aggressive player can exploit them, then obviously the Welsh are too strong to.

Did you miss the part about how balance works, you balance for the AI, not for the player. Pillaging is there as a mechanic for players who wish to use it. There is no need to use it, the AI doesn't use it. If you want to use it, you can. This does not make the Nomads OP. It is and always is the player who is the problem. Pillaging is not a problem with nomads and balance.

 

[TheDungen]

Of coarse they are, when in the hands of the player. If the Nomads need to be nerfed because an aggressive player can exploit them, then obviously the Welsh are too strong to.

Did you miss the part about how balance works, you balance for the AI, not for the player. Pillaging is there as a mechanic for players who wish to use it. There is no need to use it, the AI doesn't use it. If you want to use it, you can. This does not make the Nomads OP. It is and always is the player who is the problem. Pillaging is not a problem with nomads and balance.

What makes welsh op? Longbows has been nerfed into oblivion. Both pike and HI retinues are better these days.

 

[Dracko81]

What makes welsh op? Longbows has been nerfed into oblivion. Both pike and HI retinues are better these days.

They are good at winning melee, but if you never get into melee there is little point. Archers were nerfed across the board yes. But since the introduction of allowing retinues access to cultural building bonuses, longbows are not really comparable to archers. They are not the same unit.

But it isn't only Longbows, nor is it culture alone. It is the combination of everything that allows me to exploit the mechanics at my disposal to easily take anything I want. I could name pretty much any culture and religion and make the same case, because the issue isn't the mechanics available to them. The issue is the player, the aggressiveness of them and their ability to abuse mechanics to their advantage. You remove those factors and Nomads have little wrong with them. The only thing that needs to be considered is the populations and manpower figures, the ability to have a horde that replenishes thousands of people a year to replace loses. That is their issue. People move out of population into manpower and into armies. Population lowers and reproduction rates increase instantly to recover the loss inside a year. Find a way to fix that issue and the nomads will be fine.

 

[TheDungen]

They are good at winning melee, but if you never get into melee there is little point. Archers were nerfed across the board yes. But since the introduction of allowing retinues access to cultural building bonuses, longbows are not really comparable to archers. They are not the same unit.

But it isn't only Longbows, nor is it culture alone. It is the combination of everything that allows me to exploit the mechanics at my disposal to easily take anything I want. I could name pretty much any culture and religion and make the same case, because the issue isn't the mechanics available to them. The issue is the player, the aggressiveness of them and their ability to abuse mechanics to their advantage. You remove those factors and Nomads have little wrong with them. The only thing that needs to be considered is the populations and manpower figures, the ability to have a horde that replenishes thousands of people a year to replace loses. That is their issue. People move out of population into manpower and into armies. Population lowers and reproduction rates increase instantly to recover the loss inside a year. Find a way to fix that issue and the nomads will be fine.

Except the nomads are op even in AI hands. They are fitting enough for the mongols but they treat all the nomads as if they were the mongols, and the mongols were really the exception (well them and seljuk, but the latter can be blamed on internal weaknesses in persia rather than the strenght of the turkish hode).

 

[Dracko81]

Except the nomads are op even in AI hands. They are fitting enough for the mongols but they treat all the nomads as if they were the mongols, and the mongols were really the exception (well them and seljuk, but the latter can be blamed on internal weaknesses in persia rather than the strenght of the turkish hode).

If nomads were OP, they would conquer the world and be the strongest world power after 100 years in every game. They would reform Tengri every game. As a human you would get crushed by them every game. These things don't happen.

If you played when Old Gods was released and compared Nomads to the Norse, there is no way you would ever consider the Nomads to be OP. The AI with Norse reformed their religion constantly (as did the Tengri), they conquered Europe without much effort. The Nomads take a single realm as a vassal in a few games and suddenly they are OP, no there is no comparison.

The AI is not OP with Nomads, they aren't even that scary.

But you continue to ignore the point that I was making so clearly there is nothing wrong with pillaging as I said. Since the AI doesn't use it and the AI is OP. So there is no reason to change anything about it. How about showing how you think Nomads are OP in the hands of the AI.