Not worth navel dlc? But.. so all that money thrown at the monitor will do nothing? D:
Crusader Kings II: The Republic - "Post Mortem" Thoughts
- Thread starter Doomdark
- 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.
I like the ideas behind the expansion, but the balancing is terrible. Republics are by far the most powerful thing in the game (I watched a guy on /gsg/ destroy the ilkhanate and the golden horde in one war while their stacks were brand new), I can buy every merc with money to spare and build a huge inland empire. Alternately I can make one ducal vassal holding a republic and make massive money as a king. I really think it should be an influence, money, and intrigue game, without the whole territorial expansion thing (seizing cities is great, seizing the county doesnt make sense). Alternately, As a patrician I seized a huge dukedom in crimea, but it turns out I cannot make myself an independent duchy, make myself a feudal lord, and create taurica) which made me sad, and put me way over the demesne limit.
Btw, the best thing in the DLC is the patrician mansion. Every single dynasty, muslim, feudal, and patrician should have a home castle to upgrade, and it should be fleshed out like, forgive me, diablo 2 talent trees. Make the mansion less linear, customize your dynasty, and grow the object kind of like the civ throne rooms.
As a side note, I hope you guys are noting what Project Balance is doing with the holding laws and crown authority system. Fantastic ideas that make for a much more diverse game.
Btw, the best thing in the DLC is the patrician mansion. Every single dynasty, muslim, feudal, and patrician should have a home castle to upgrade, and it should be fleshed out like, forgive me, diablo 2 talent trees. Make the mansion less linear, customize your dynasty, and grow the object kind of like the civ throne rooms.
As a side note, I hope you guys are noting what Project Balance is doing with the holding laws and crown authority system. Fantastic ideas that make for a much more diverse game.
Expansion is a very important part of the Republic. What I need is not nerf Republic, but improve their inner realm gameplay. The 5 random patrician family in game is very inactive, there isn't many interacts with them. A lot of mechanics in game limit the option of the player, for example: one patrician family can only participate in one republic, or the separation between feudal and republic. I really want a game where those border is blurred, and players can choose everything in between to fit their taste.
I have to say, I am a wee bit disappointed with this expansion.
I think doing trade routes the EU4 way would have been better... not only would it have made the gameplay a bit more challenging (currently, as republics, all you really have to do is build trade posts, amass money, build more trade posts, and occassionally plot or wage wars to get more trade posts or land), but also this would have introduced naval elements in the game. The Navy would have been used not for battles, but for controlling trade (like in EU4).
Also, instead of this "respect" nonsense, you could have had a Senate like EU:Rome, with various factions (Military, Civic, Religious, Mercantile) each having various levels of power and selecting their leader based on different aspects. (For example, the religious faction would put more emphasis on Piety and so on). This would have given players something to do inside their realm as well, apart from just pumping money into election campaign (which the AI never seems to do...) and getting your heir elected year after year. Also, having a distinction between your family's holdings and the Merchant republic's holdings, as well as having a separate republic treasury would have put another element into the game.
I think you had a chance to take the game out of its comfort zone and take it to a different level here and you didn't go for it for some reason...
I think doing trade routes the EU4 way would have been better... not only would it have made the gameplay a bit more challenging (currently, as republics, all you really have to do is build trade posts, amass money, build more trade posts, and occassionally plot or wage wars to get more trade posts or land), but also this would have introduced naval elements in the game. The Navy would have been used not for battles, but for controlling trade (like in EU4).
Also, instead of this "respect" nonsense, you could have had a Senate like EU:Rome, with various factions (Military, Civic, Religious, Mercantile) each having various levels of power and selecting their leader based on different aspects. (For example, the religious faction would put more emphasis on Piety and so on). This would have given players something to do inside their realm as well, apart from just pumping money into election campaign (which the AI never seems to do...) and getting your heir elected year after year. Also, having a distinction between your family's holdings and the Merchant republic's holdings, as well as having a separate republic treasury would have put another element into the game.
I think you had a chance to take the game out of its comfort zone and take it to a different level here and you didn't go for it for some reason...
Last edited:
It would have been better if they allowed the stat upgrades to be used by non-patricians, which would make for ... interesting mods. Sadly, only patricians can take advantage of such modifiers.
Still, if they export that to make feudal players also a valid recipient of building stat bonuses, and make it possible for mutually exclusive buildings (e.g. choosing building A locks building B out), then a makeshift "skill tree" of sorts could easily be modded. I was all excited with an idea to try implementing one as well for my current building overhaul for LI, but sadly it's limited to patricians so it got scrapped.
I know its supposed to be a sandbox game, but I play these games as a history nut. Republics simply were not expansionist in this time period. The worst offenders were Genoa in the Crimea and Venice, and even these were more zones of trading influence except for the coast of the balkans and crete.
Though, as a history nut, wouldn't you have been pissed if Venice couldn't grab land in the Balkans or Crete?
I like the DLC as a whole but have some issues with it. Mostly; Gotland is far, far to easy to play and quickly becomes boring without another republic as a opposition. Then we have the other Patrician families, who don't do much and are easily bested if you want to, plus the fact that there is no point in eliminating them. I would like to see a mechanic where new families pop up over time and there isn't a fixed number, but that somehow don't make it so that you can kill them all and go home (for example, if you're alone, you're family splits into two branches).
Are there any ideas in the works to balance republics? 1.091 addressed a few important issues, but I didn't see anything restricting the number of trade posts a patrician can maintain. It's easy to get 20-30, and without any risk of losing them aside from embargo wars, as you can always find an heir with the necessary stewardship or diplomacy to nullify the "spread the wealth around" events. Patricians can also make obscene amounts of money from city holdings, as much as you get from 20 or more trade posts from just 3 moderately upgraded cities.
EDIT: I forgot to say how much I enjoy the core concepts of the DLC. At first I was skeptical that republics could work well in CK2, but it feels good to be proved wrong.
EDIT: I forgot to say how much I enjoy the core concepts of the DLC. At first I was skeptical that republics could work well in CK2, but it feels good to be proved wrong.
Although this is the first significant DLC I didn't purchase, due to the DLC being focused on specific Catholic republics I have no interest in playing, I found this post-mortem very interesting and it was great that you gave some insight into your thinking as to why certain things were/weren't done and why they were done in certain ways. Thank you!
Yes, but there is no flavour for them, and you cannot play Cordoba, Novgorod, or any republic made in the southern Arabian peninsula or Persia without modding (and again, all flavour is for the five republics made available, and most of that is for Italy).
I'm not angry they did this, but it doesn't interest me enough to buy it.
The biggest issue I have with The Republic is that the republics get seemingly-infinite doomstacks that they use to stomp northern africa, pretty much every game. It's also a real grind to battle them directly, since they just throw said doomstacks in your face, over and over. It just sucks.
Great to hear your afterthoughts, Doomdark!
I have to thank you guys and girls at Paradox for the Republic. In my view, The Republic has been the greatest improvement and innovation in the game since I got it in the spring of 2012. For the first time, it has really felt that I am the head of a dynasty, not just the guy and his heir after him. The scope and the focus of the DLC were satisfying to me.
Because you can still improve: I still hope a little bit more difficulty to get your lad elected to the next doge, it is still too easy. Maybe some variation to seasons, possibility to introduce 5 or 10 year season (not only until death) and more aggressive/capable rival families. (In the newly created republics, all families start from scratch - for player it too easy to outmatch the AI. So, the other families are not growing in power, and are never a threat to me - which means consequently that they are totally incapable in advancing the republic (both in foreign policy or improving infrastructure or even their family's own power) - if I rarely lose the election.
Keep up the good work!
I have to thank you guys and girls at Paradox for the Republic. In my view, The Republic has been the greatest improvement and innovation in the game since I got it in the spring of 2012. For the first time, it has really felt that I am the head of a dynasty, not just the guy and his heir after him. The scope and the focus of the DLC were satisfying to me.
Because you can still improve: I still hope a little bit more difficulty to get your lad elected to the next doge, it is still too easy. Maybe some variation to seasons, possibility to introduce 5 or 10 year season (not only until death) and more aggressive/capable rival families. (In the newly created republics, all families start from scratch - for player it too easy to outmatch the AI. So, the other families are not growing in power, and are never a threat to me - which means consequently that they are totally incapable in advancing the republic (both in foreign policy or improving infrastructure or even their family's own power) - if I rarely lose the election.
Keep up the good work!
Why 876 CE? Viking expansion started in the 840's when the "Great Heathen Army" landed in Britain and Alfred defeated them in the year of 878 CE.
Last edited:
It's just a balancing issue, if you really want to find an excuse for it you can think that Republics traded for money, and they didn't care that much who was in power. Crusades are excluded obviously.