DLC questions

[jhhowell]

Assorted questions about the huge mess of DLC they made for this game (I was a Paradox fan in the good old days when they rarely made DLCs at all; haven't paid much attention this past decade with their infinite DLC business model...). For reference, I'm using this strategygamer DLC article and the wiki DLC page for information. Apologies for the long post.

1. Legacy of Rome looked like the only no-brainer DLC for me to get, since I'm a big Byzantine fan. Had some memorably good games with them back in EU2 and CK1 (which was just called "CK" back then... ). But one of the Steam reviews mentioned that CK2 now hard-codes the Byzantines to always be elective succession, with no possibility of change from within. (Yes, I saw forum threads here about gamey shenanigans one can pull to work around that). That seems wrong.

Consider the Komnenos dynasty: Alexios dies, John II takes the throne, contested by his sister. John II dies, Manuel takes the throne, potentially constested by his brother Isaac. Manuel dies, Alexios II "takes" the throne and is quickly deposed by his cousin Andronikos.

To me, that looks like CK1's Semisalic Consanguinity succession law, not Elective succession. And I notice that Consanguinity succession is not present in CK2... More precisely, a CK-style model of Byzantine inheritance looks like it should vary between Elective and some form of Consanguinity (or other dynastic inheritance law) based on the strength of the emperor. The CK2 mechanic of factions issuing demands seems perfect for handling this kind of thing, so it's weird that elective seems to be permanent and unchangeable.

Am I missing and/or misunderstanding something about how CK2 Byzantine succession law works?

2. Another Legacy of Rome question: I see people say "get LoR just for the retinues!". And I can see the appeal; a standing army in a CK game is definitely "ooh shiny!" But is it appropriate to the period? I recall an EU2 flavor event about France forming the first standing army in the 1400s. The comments I've seen about retinues coming to completely dominate late-game CK2 add emphasis to that conflict between "cool!" and "that does not sound legit".

Anyway. Still on the fence about LoR, on both counts.

3. Way of Life: I see lots of recommendations for this one, but I still don't get why exactly. The focus thing sounds mildly useful but not big enough to justify a DLC. So presumably the reason people think so highly of it is "Some of the best events in CK2 came out of this DLC". Are there specific examples, to help make that argument more convincing?

4. Reaper's Due. Certainly topical. How well does the base game handle the Black Death? The comment that it "was barely represented in CK2" makes this this sound like something that belongs in the base game.

5. Conclave. In the base game you already have vassals voting on changes to laws (I wasn't able to get particularly close to improving Leon's centralization in the tutorial scenario, for example). This DLC sounds like that, except even harder to get anything done? Again, I think I must be missing something, since it seems to be pretty well-regarded.

The rest seem to be in the "get this if you want to play as X" category. The one that seems most appealing is Rajas of India, since I know practically nothing about India in this time period and that could be really interesting. How historically accurate is the content in it? Back in the day I wouldn't have had to ask, but Paradox is now a company that makes CK2 DLC where characters get magic powers from dark cults, and/or fight Cthulhu, so who knows... (Monks & Mystics is at the very top of my "definitely not buying" list).

Thanks for reading.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

Assorted questions about the huge mess of DLC they made for this game (I was a Paradox fan in the good old days when they rarely made DLCs at all; haven't paid much attention this past decade with their infinite DLC business model...). For reference, I'm using this strategygamer DLC article and the wiki DLC page for information. Apologies for the long post.

1. Legacy of Rome looked like the only no-brainer DLC for me to get, since I'm a big Byzantine fan. Had some memorably good games with them back in EU2 and CK1 (which was just called "CK" back then... ). But one of the Steam reviews mentioned that CK2 now hard-codes the Byzantines to always be elective succession, with no possibility of change from within. (Yes, I saw forum threads here about gamey shenanigans one can pull to work around that). That seems wrong.

Consider the Komnenos dynasty: Alexios dies, John II takes the throne, contested by his sister. John II dies, Manuel takes the throne, potentially constested by his brother Isaac. Manuel dies, Alexios II "takes" the throne and is quickly deposed by his cousin Andronikos.

To me, that looks like CK1's Semisalic Consanguinity succession law, not Elective succession. And I notice that Consanguinity succession is not present in CK2... More precisely, a CK-style model of Byzantine inheritance looks like it should vary between Elective and some form of Consanguinity (or other dynastic inheritance law) based on the strength of the emperor. The CK2 mechanic of factions issuing demands seems perfect for handling this kind of thing, so it's weird that elective seems to be permanent and unchangeable.

Am I missing and/or misunderstanding something about how CK2 Byzantine succession law works?

Legacy of Rome is not the DLC that enhances gameplay experience the most. That would fall on Conclave and Way of Life. Retinues are the most impactful aspect of that DLC, and aren't required for gameplay. Wrecks game balance if anything.

Anyways Byzantine succession is elective. Candidates with the most intrigue are favored, so usually adult males. Quite befitting given a lot of the succession crisis usually revolves around court intrigue. Eligible candidates include family members of the emperor, claimants, commanders, and Duke tier vassals. This allows entirely new dynasties to usurp the throne if intrigue is high enough, and is much more accurate than boring primogeniture. Also yes there are mildly gamey ways to switch out of this succession type.

2. Another Legacy of Rome question: I see people say "get LoR just for the retinues!". And I can see the appeal; a standing army in a CK game is definitely "ooh shiny!" But is it appropriate to the period? I recall an EU2 flavor event about France forming the first standing army in the 1400s. The comments I've seen about retinues coming to completely dominate late-game CK2 add emphasis to that conflict between "cool!" and "that does not sound legit".

Anyway. Still on the fence about LoR, on both counts.

They're to represent the standing armies you'd get after becoming emperor. Again not really required. Get it if you want to "differentiate" yourself from the AI. Aka be wildly overpowered in relation realms around you.

Or if you want to play as the Byzantines.

3. Way of Life: I see lots of recommendations for this one, but I still don't get why exactly. The focus thing sounds mildly useful but not big enough to justify a DLC. So presumably the reason people think so highly of it is "Some of the best events in CK2 came out of this DLC". Are there specific examples, to help make that argument more convincing?

Gives you something to do in between wars. That's usually enough of an argument, as you won't always be at war. Also gives stats that begin to powercreep your character in relation to AI, it can significantly inflate your stats and provide a substantial advantage, although it is quite mild relative to Societies and Artifacts (Monks and Mystics.)

4. Reaper's Due. Certainly topical. How well does the base game handle the Black Death? The comment that it "was barely represented in CK2" makes this this sound like something that belongs in the base game.

Black death is represented well in the base game in that if you try to do anything during it you're almost guaranteed to die.

Reaper's due fleshes out the other common diseases in the medieval world and best of all doesn't add too much powercreep. Hospitals that they introduce don't provide stats like diplomacy after all. Would recommend getting this for immersion's sake.

5. Conclave. In the base game you already have vassals voting on changes to laws (I wasn't able to get particularly close to improving Leon's centralization in the tutorial scenario, for example). This DLC sounds like that, except even harder to get anything done? Again, I think I must be missing something, since it seems to be pretty well-regarded.

Conclave makes the game easier amd more convenient once you understand the game mechanics. Whereas you need every vassal to like your law change to vote for it, in Conclave you only need 7-9 people. So even the smallest, dinkiest baron is worth a vote in base game. This has significant implications once you reach empire tier, especially since some of the more beneficial laws (to the liege) inflict a permanent opinion penalty as long as it's active.

You could wait decades to get the last centralization law passed, as you have no method to make said dinky barons like you more aside from bribes. Gets pretty expensive when there are hundreds of vassals in an empire. Gets harder the larger you get.

Whereas with Conclave you bribe half the Council and you can pass even the most oppressive laws. A law that doesn't inflict a permanent opinion malus.

The rest seem to be in the "get this if you want to play as X" category. The one that seems most appealing is Rajas of India, since I know practically nothing about India in this time period and that could be really interesting. How historically accurate is the content in it? Back in the day I wouldn't have had to ask, but Paradox is now a company that makes CK2 DLC where characters get magic powers from dark cults, and/or fight Cthulhu, so who knows... (Monks & Mystics is at the very top of my "definitely not buying" list).

Thanks for reading.

The ones that break the balance of the game the most.

1. Monks and Mystics. Artifacts and Societies offer so much stat inflation you need to do multiple acts of tyranny to get people to hate you enough and cause problems.

2. Sons of Abraham. Gives Catholics more Holy Orders than anyone else, making their late game hilariously lopsided. Withput it Catholics get ~30,000 manpower advantage over other religions. With it Catholics get a 50,000 manpower advantage over other religions. Terrible balancing decision. Avoid.

On the plus side it allows you to switch religions on a dime if you meet the requirements, so your call.

3. Holy Fury. Crusaders can now take Egypt or Byzantium 100% of the time. Two power blocs they historically had no hope of taking while they are strong (and Holy Fury Crusades blow through these two while they're strong.) Paradox basically designed this DLC with the philosophy, "screw balance on this end of life game, let's just make the base game religion as easy to play as possible to get people interested in CK3."

 

[DPS]

Taking the DLCs in order:

Sword of Islam: the main feature here is that it makes Muslims playable. Since there are a lot of Muslim realms in the game, that in itself is a major positive, though tbh I don't find Muslim gameplay all that interesting.

Legacy of Rome: in addition to retinues, it also adds factions, which definitely make the game more interesting (though experienced players shouldn't have too much trouble managing factions formed by their vassals under most circumstances, it's almost a necessity if you want to play as a vassal yourself).

Sunset Invasion: stupid alt-history crap. Avoid.

The Republic: makes Merchant Republics playable. Tbh, I haven't really tried to play an MR, so even though I have the DLC, it might not have been the best investment for me. To clarify, I'm not saying that I dislike playing an MR; I simply haven't really tried it yet.

The Old Gods: makes Zoroastrianism and pagans playable and adds an 867 start date. Pagans provide some of the most interesting gameplay IMO, so I view this one as a must-have.

Sons of Abraham: makes Jewish rulers playable, which isn't really all that big a deal, since there aren't many Jewish rulers available, and they are some of the hardest starts in the game. But it's still worth it, because it adds a lot of flavor for Catholics.

Rajas of India: greatly extends the map and makes Jains, Buddhists, and Hindus playable. I can't speak to the historical accuracy of the depiction of India, because I too don't really know much about it, but I do find playing there occasionally to be fun.

Charlemagne: adds a 769 bookmark and lets you play as Charlemagne (d'oh) and potentially form the HRE. Personally I like the longer gameplay, but some players thing the 769 start is not well balanced.

Way of Life: completely a lot of gameplay not directly relating to war. A must-have IMO, since it gives you a lot to do when not at war.

Horse Lords: changes most steppe realms from tribal governments to a new nomadic government type. I don't find nomadic gameplay particularly engaging, but I do think it makes steppe realms and how they interact with tribal and feudal realms, so worth it.

Conclave: makes major changes in diplomatic relations, especially with your vassals, and overhauls the education system. Another must-have IMO.

The Reapers Due: adds a lot of content relating to disease. I dont have this one--reports of how stupidly physicians work put me off from getting it. I know their medical knowledge was very limited compared to ours, but some of the stuff is just silly.

Monks and Mystics: adds secret societies. I don't have this one either, because reports indicate that the societies are overpowered, and the powers you can get from joining the Satanists are completely fantastical. I do like the idea of people following secret religions, but the implementation is lacking from what I've heard.

Jade Dragon: adds Tibet to the map and allows interaction with off-map China and make Bon and Taoism playable religions. I find playing in Tibet, espcially as a Bon ruler, to be fun, but if that doesn't appeal to you, the interactions with China are probably only worth it if you play on the eastern side of the map.

Holy Fury: makes major changes to pagan gameplay (mostly for the better, and I already considered pagans the most fun to play overall) and some fairly significant changes to how other religions play, particularly with regards to crusades. Very much worth it.

Summary: get everything except Sunset Invasion, The Reaper's Due, and Monks and Mystics.

 

[Urloc the Great]

In defense of the more unpopular DLCs:

Sunset Invasion: For one it makes the west less save as it works like sort of a counterweight, but it also would simulate the fear of the end of the world in the middle ages, as you will get invaded for what medieval people would consider demons.

Monks and Mystics: Societies are very entertaining, drawing wieners on the faces of your fellow Monastic Buddies, partying hard with your fellow Demon Worshippers or debating your rival into the ground. However it should be noted that joining the Demon Worshippers tinkers with your characters genetics, so don't do it if you don't want an ugly clumbfoot hunchback.

Conclave: Played with it from the start, so I don't know what it's like to play without it. (Though on a side note: It allows you to bring Horses and Cats into the medieval world.)

Reapers Due: Symptoms are great for fleshing out characters and role play.

Horse Lords: You can play any religion as long as you are a nomad without getting a game over screen.



I'd say all DLCs are worth it, especially if you get the "Royal Bundle" bundle with the extra 10% discount.

 

[Sunshine Moon]

I think some of the above posters are mixing up what the DLCs add with what the free patches that came out along with those DLCs added.

Rajas of India and Jade Dragon don't "add more to the map". The entire map is in the base game now. Of course, if you don't have RoI you can't play as characters of Indian religions which makes it hard to play in India, but it's still there!

Additionally, factions are always in the base game as of...quite a while ago, I think. The only major change any expansion makes to them is that Conclave replaces "lower crown authority" with "increase council power" as the most common faction for less-than-ecstatic vassals to join.

My personal top recommendations:

-Way of Life: Focuses may seem small, but they add so much to the feeling of playing a living character that makes CK2 stand out, especially for one of the cheaper DLCs.

-Holy Fury: What can I say, custom pagan reformation is just my favourite thing to do. The features it adds for Catholics also make things more in-depth for them, if a little harder when starting out and trying to pay for those coronations and so on.

That's the other correction I'd make to an above post: Installing Holy Fury does not make the Crusades more powerful. That was part of the free patch accompanying Holy Fury! It's in the base game now. (They are more powerful than they should be as of these changes, but it's also a much more interesting system now, so hey.)

And I wouldn't call it a favourite, but I am also one of the weird people who like Sunset Invasion, because of how it shakes things up on the side of the map that's otherwise mostly safe from the Mongols, Turkic conquerors and (with Jade Dragon) Chinese invasion. Still one of the less important ones, of course.

 

[jhhowell]

Thanks, everyone!

I do have The Old Gods, since it's free if I give Paradox my email, which they've had for a long time now.

I was wondering about that comment about factions; I'd assumed they were in the base game (which apparently they are now, but weren't early on). That's one of the most interesting differences from CK1, for me. Way better than the old Realm Duress mechanic.

Good point about horses - I remember reading a hilarious AAR many years ago about someone doing shenanigans to get a horse dynasty and eventually making one of them the Byzantine Empress. Mare Nostrum indeed! Absurd, but so funny that I'm OK with it. And apparently there's a way to have cat characters too? I saw something in the wiki about a cat spymaster giving +20% to murder plots, which sounds about right (I have several small furry murderbots in my home). Conclave is definitely a priority. More for the improved law passing as Naughtius Maximus described (I completely misunderstood that part before; thanks for the explanation!) but absurd lunatic events for animal councilors is a fun bonus.

What is the balance concern with the Charlemagne start date? Did Paradox do a bad job setting up the scenario, or is there something about CK2's game mechanics that starts to break down at very low tech levels?

 

[Sunshine Moon]

What is the balance concern with the Charlemagne start date? Did Paradox do a bad job setting up the scenario, or is there something about CK2's game mechanics that starts to break down at very low tech levels?

Mainly that it's easy for the Umayyads and Abbasids to both end up empire-tier in short order and start steamrolling, since decadence revolts got reduced in likelihood, while gavelkind remains just as much of an issue for many of their neighbours as it ever was; so unless Charlie does particularly well Catholicism often sinks without trace during the 800s.

Of course, this doesn't happen every time, and in my experience those empires do eventually tend to get decadence-fractured, but it's pointing back to the underlying issue that with CK2's mechanics, large blobs tend to snowball more than in history.

(Of course, all this is sort of only as ahistorical as Catholicism doing unexpectedly well in basically any start with an established HRE since 3.0, due to large stable realms and upgraded crusades)

 

[jhhowell]

Thanks; I hadn't thought of that. Catholicism disappearing would certainly be an interesting map...

I had noticed that large states seem much more stable than in CK1. I'm used to Germany (HRE) and France almost instantly shattering in a 1066 start, but from what I've seen so far they generally don't in CK2. Starts in west or central continental Europe are more constrained than I'm used to. I tried the Konan of Brittany Monarch's Journey, figuring I could snipe Cornwall or the Duchy of Normandy once the chaos started. But there wasn't a lot of chaos to exploit, and some of it was in my own lands (double-strength heretic rebellion, each half of which was significantly stronger than my army ).

I'm starting to see the significance of Way of Life as stuff to do when not at war. There seems to be more not-at-war time than I remember from CK1 (though maybe that's just memory bias because peacetime is usually forgettable).

If I may ask a gameplay question unrelated to DLCs: how do three-sided wars work?

I realized in that Konan game that they don't behave as I'd expect. For example, 1066 starts with Harold (England) defending against separate wars by Harald (Norway) and William (Bastard, I mean Normandy). The historical outcome would keep everything clean and simple, but that's rarely what happens in game. In my Konan game, Harold lost to William, then somehow Harald's war was still active with William swapped in as the defender. I've always understood CK wars as being person to person, so when Harold lost to William I'd expect that to cancel Harald's war (white peace, presumably).

Shortly before giving up, I ran into the same situation on a Brittany-sized scale, when I tried to go into Ireland and an Irish heretic decided to pile on a holy war against the same count I was already besieging. Somehow when I finished pressing my claim I became the defender against that holy war. Which would have been fine, except there was yet another weirdly strong heretic rebellion back in Brittany, and the Duke of Anjou had just whipped up a forged claim on me. Moral: don't do anything risky unless the big neighbors are very busy.

 

[Sunshine Moon]

If I may ask a gameplay question unrelated to DLCs: how do three-sided wars work?

I realized in that Konan game that they don't behave as I'd expect. For example, 1066 starts with Harold (England) defending against separate wars by Harald (Norway) and William (Bastard, I mean Normandy). The historical outcome would keep everything clean and simple, but that's rarely what happens in game. In my Konan game, Harold lost to William, then somehow Harald's war was still active with William swapped in as the defender. I've always understood CK wars as being person to person, so when Harold lost to William I'd expect that to cancel Harald's war (white peace, presumably).

Shortly before giving up, I ran into the same situation on a Brittany-sized scale, when I tried to go into Ireland and an Irish heretic decided to pile on a holy war against the same count I was already besieging. Somehow when I finished pressing my claim I became the defender against that holy war. Which would have been fine, except there was yet another weirdly strong heretic rebellion back in Brittany, and the Duke of Anjou had just whipped up a forged claim on me. Moral: don't do anything risky unless the big neighbors are very busy.

Depends on the CB. William and Harald both have claims on the title of the Kingdom of England; they can keep pursuing their respective wars as long as the title exists. Similarly, though not identically, that holy war was targetting the county (well, technically 'that one person's holdings within that de jure duchy', but since you can only target one person at a time, effectively that county), so as its new holder, as long as you were still a religious enemy to the attacker it could continue.

Some wars are obviously still tied to the person--Excommunication wars and the like will end inconclusively if the target character is overthrown.

(I think when I was doing the Brittany Monarch's Journey William lost and remained duke of Normandy, then I managed to strike at the right time while France was weak to take some of its/his land, which further weakened France which then started fracturing from internal disputes...)

 

[Rubidium]

5. Conclave. In the base game you already have vassals voting on changes to laws (I wasn't able to get particularly close to improving Leon's centralization in the tutorial scenario, for example). This DLC sounds like that, except even harder to get anything done? Again, I think I must be missing something, since it seems to be pretty well-regarded.

Just figured I'd add some more info on Conclave. It has a learning curve, but it can actually make it easier to get things done if you know how to use it.

The big thing it does is shift most power to your council. As noted, you can pass laws just by making the council agree, rather than the whole realm, but it also means they can vote on a lot more things, depending on how much power you give them (for instance, you can choose to give them the option to vote on your war declarations or imprisonments). You can deprive them of all power if you want and can muster the votes (generally involving generous bribery), or you can leave them some powers (notably war declaration: if they retain the right to vote on your war declarations, then as a tradeoff council members can't join factions except in very specific circumstances, with implications I'm sure you can work out on your own). Once you have the favors/council management side figured out, you can pass most and get most of the things you care about.

The flipside, however, is that powerful vassals now expect a seat on your council, and will have an opinion malus if you don't give them one. So it's a balancing act: do I want to make this random, high diplomacy lowborn guy my chancellor and benefit from the good stats, or do I want to give the seat to my less competent vassal and keep him happy? Or maybe I'll put my good friend or lover in that spot, so I have a yes-man for votes. It's one of the biggest changes: there's a reason not to just use whoever has the highest stats for your council members.

The other thing to be aware of is that it increases everyone's income pretty significantly (since it changes the tax system somewhat, so now everybody pays at least some tax by default, with various laws affecting how much of each you get).

 

[Bernard95]

People are definitely mixing up some features.

Sword of Islam - Makes Muslims playable along with some flavor for them. Note that the AI uses this DLC whether you have it or not. Like all the DLCs that focus on religion or a government type, this you can easily pass on it if you don't care about that particular religion or government.

Legacy of Rome - Byzantine flavor events and retinues. Retinues are like standing armies / a king's personal guard. Some cultures have way better unique retinues than others. If you know what you're doing, you can build very OP armies. Considering you're a Byzantophile, you might as well get this.

Old Gods - Unlocks the 867 start date, as well as pagans and Zoroastrians. Also overhauls revolt mechanics and adds adventurers. Widely regarded as a must-buy.

Sons of Abraham - Flavor and tons of events for the Abrahamic faiths, College of Cardinals (which is really no biggie), unlocks Jews, heresy tweaks, adds two extra Catholic holy orders and one holy order per mainstream religion. Not the end of the world if you don't have this, but you might as well since you'll likely spend most of your time playing as a Christian.

The Republic - Unlocks the Merchant Republic government type along with the related flavor. Not really that big of a deal honestly, and MRs can be a little buggy. Very easily passable.

Charlemagne - 769 start date (which is arguably unbalanced as all hell), Charlemagne's story events (albeit very forgettable ones), viceroy system (which the ERE starts off with), custom empire formation. While few people would agree with me on this, this isn't really worth it except to perhaps a Byzantophile for the viceroy mechanics.

Rajas of India - Unlocks the Eastern religions such as Hinduism, allows you to adopt the culture of your capital, Indian flavor events. Does not actually add the continent of India which was free.

Way of Life - Adds character foci and related events which is great for roleplay and giving you something to do in peace time. The game (and particularly Conclave) is balanced around the stat increases you can get from foci, so keep this in mind. If there's one DLC you get, it really should be this one.

Horse Lords - Adds the Nomad government type, the Silk Road, and tributaries. Nomands are insanely OP and play more like EU4 or even Vicky 2 since their retinue-like armies are based on population. Do bear in mind that this makes playing around Russia and the Steppes a nightmare, so you may actually want this for the difficulty hike alone in the future.

Conclave - Adds Council and child education mechanics. Generally designed to make the game more difficult for veteran players, but once you get the hang of the Council mechanics it ironically makes things easier. Still beats the hell out of trying to get the approval of literally everyone in your realm under the old system and can occasionally throw you a curveball or thwart your plans. A must-have DLC, though you may not necessarily want this enabled your first time or two around since you don't really need the extra complexity as you learn the game.

Reaper's Due - Adds health/disease mechanics, some events (some of which lean supernatural), and the Prosperity mechanic. In a nutshell, this adds some unpredictability to the game since you never know when you or your heir's time is up. A little overrated if you ask me (this DLC was seriously boosted by its patch and people always conflate the patches and the accompanying DLCs), but is generally worth having.

Monks & Mystics - Unlocks societies (monastic, Hermetics, Satanists, Assassins, religious cults) and artifacts. There's a few little things thrown in as well such as prisoner mass actions, AI ally controls, and some cosmetics. Societies are generally OP (each have their perks) and like WoL foci are meant for roleplaying and something to do in your down time. Satanists used to be insanely OP, but now the Devil must have his due and it'll take a toll on your character the more you abuse your supernatural powers. Totally up to you if you want any of this.

Jade Dragon - Adds the off-screen power of China with its associated mechanics as well as giving access to new CBs. Also unlocks Bon pagans and Taoists if you don't already have Old Gods or RoI. The major consequence of having this is that India and much of the Eastern half of the map is now a Chinese playground. Suffice to say, the Chinese are scarier than the Mongols ever were in CK2. Note that this does not add Tibet, which was a feature granted to all. If you plan on playing in the Middle East or beyond, get this. If not, pass.

Holy Fury - Basically the Great Pagan and Christian Overhaul. Adds societies and an improved reformation mechanic for pagans, while adding flavor for both religious groups. Another major feature is the ability to alter the map in several different ways for a fantasy playthrough. A noteworthy free feature was the overhaul of Catholic crusades, making them really OP and extremely rewarding to participate in. As a consequence of the latter, Egypt becomes a European colony a few hundred years too early in basically every game. Definitely worth having, but you don't need this your first go around by any means.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

Mainly that it's easy for the Umayyads and Abbasids to both end up empire-tier in short order and start steamrolling,

Abbasids are empire tier in the first two starts. In the 800s they are stunted and in 700s they have too many tributaries that constantly get declared on to actually do any form of expansion. Oftentimes the neighboring weaker Byzantines are never attacked as the Abbasids are too busy putting out dumpster fires. And 800s Abbas are quite busy trying to reclaim former glory amongst same religion realms to threaten Byzantines.

Umayyad empire formation was already pretty uncommon once Paradox shifted factions to favor claimants over elective succession. That vulnerable period where the Sultan must hold two kingdom titles is often enough to have a claimant faction fire and permanently ruin any chance of an empire. They already form it about the same frequency as AI Charlie forming Francia/HRE.

Then (free) Holy Fury came along to split Andalusia, making more factions for independence revolts also and further decreasing empire formation chances. Not to mention unhistorical early reconquista events with no reciprocal event for any other religion. Worst of all the requirement to oust all foreign religions before empire formation.

Hispania forms less often than Charlie's HRE/Francia now, and without empire tier the Umayyads don't even get out of Iberia.

This is already ignoring the fact that if there is a Francia or HRE (as they now form about as often as Hispania,) the Umayyads don't leave the peninsula even as an empire.

since decadence revolts got reduced in likelihood, while gavelkind remains just as much of an issue for many of their neighbours as it ever was; so unless Charlie does particularly well Catholicism often sinks without trace during the 800s.

This is often exaggerated to try to play down how overpowered Catholics are and to ask for yet more buffs. Rarely do Catholics in 769 start lose Germany, de jure France, or Italy to Muslims before the Crusades start. And once Crusades start they steamroll the opposition with ridiculously overpowered 50,000 manpower advantage. That's not including the new Holy Fury mechanics which break the game balance entirely. Umayyads often don't win, and once they lose will continuously lose again as reciprocal Jihads often target the Byzantines than whatever their holdings in Western Europe.

This bias that Catholics are weak typically stem from people only playing for 200 or so years, rather than letting it play out. Worse they often play within the region and don't help same religion realms.

Play 400-500 years outside the region and it's always the same old events. Muslims might push into Aquitaine if they're empire tier and Catholics are not. Crusades blow them up and mop up by 1200s. I speak as a guy who plays primarily in Iran, and expand only via marriage claims (so relatively slowly.) I rarely if ever bother to interact with Catholics before 1100s. Usually by the mid 1150s the Umayyads have lost half the peninsula.

Of course, this doesn't happen every time, and in my experience those empires do eventually tend to get decadence-fractured, but it's pointing back to the underlying issue that with CK2's mechanics, large blobs tend to snowball more than in history.

That's because Paradox refuses to make factions a viable internal threat. They have made them toothless with the decrease in opinion threshold to faction (50 instead of 80.) Ridiculously easy to meet with all the positive opinion and stat modifiers Paradox has flooding the game. Once a realm gets large enough there are no external threats. The only threat is internal. When that isn't a threat anymore players quickly get bored. Hence why I assert most players just play 200-300 years before abandoning the campaign. Never play long enough to watch Catholicism predictably stomp out the world in its broken, OP state.

(Of course, all this is sort of only as ahistorical as Catholicism doing unexpectedly well in basically any start with an established HRE since 3.0, due to large stable realms and upgraded crusades)

Barring making factions a viable threat again the best way to fix this is to fix gavelkind and make it work like elective gavelkind. Creates top titles upon death and splits the realm evenly among sons/daughters. Much more historical, a la Charlamagne.

Also to OP here's a basic description to the first three starts. By balance I consider how long it takes for you to generally reach empire (and hence snowball) size as a Duke tier. I haven't played Iron Century yet, so no comment.

769 features superblobs. You will not easily be reaching empire size facing them externally. This is if you want to play as a vassal and eat up a sizable blob size from within. This is much slower as you'll need to understand how to acquire claims. Marriage or otherwise.

867 Old Gods. Often lauded by players as the best start, you should only play this if you want to have a strong realm randomly blob out of control. The regional power blocs are much weaker don't stop expansion of an uncommonly strong AI/player.

Whereas in the other three starts you'll need to build up a powerbase before taking on these blocs, in Old Gods just reach kingdom tier and the world is your oyster.

Worst start for balance. Only play if you want to blob out of control, then bore yourself from lack of challenge 300 years into the game.

1066 default and probably best start if it weren't for how broken Catholics are nowadays. You have strong regional powers that take up all the good land, making it slow to build a power base from less optimal land large enough to take them on. Better yet these regional bloc each represent a distinct religion, providing nice variations to gameplay.

The Big Three used to hold the richest lands in Byzantines for Orthodox, Egypt for Shiites, and Persia for Sunni. They would keep each other in check all the way to late game, with Sunnis usually getting absorbed (and usually replaced) by Mongols.

Best start counting how long it'll usually take you to reach empire tier compared to the other two starts. Well until now anyways, when Catholics from less developed areas historically (in that era) can just run over the more developed Egypt or Byzantines with no effort, even when the two have no civil war and are at full strength.

 

[Sunshine Moon]

Excellent summary from Bernard, though again, I'm fairly certain the upgraded crusades were part of the free patch accompanying Holy Fury, though it's still a big expansion (quite a lot of Christian flavour mechanics/events/decisions, the custom pagan reformation which is a joy, and the alternate starts)

 

[Bernard95]

Excellent summary from Bernard, though again, I'm fairly certain the upgraded crusades were part of the free patch accompanying Holy Fury, though it's still a big expansion (quite a lot of Christian flavour mechanics/events/decisions, the custom pagan reformation which is a joy, and the alternate starts)

Whoops, even I'm not perfect. Just checked the wiki and yeah, you're right. I thought that sounded like too many features for one DLC. Let me fix that.

 

[Tryvenyal]

Depends on the CB. William and Harald both have claims on the title of the Kingdom of England; they can keep pursuing their respective wars as long as the title exists. Similarly, though not identically, that holy war was targetting the county (well, technically 'that one person's holdings within that de jure duchy', but since you can only target one person at a time, effectively that county), so as its new holder, as long as you were still a religious enemy to the attacker it could continue.

Some wars are obviously still tied to the person--Excommunication wars and the like will end inconclusively if the target character is overthrown.

Can clarify abit , this is a buggy area. It depends greatly on the circumstances whether war continues with a new target or not. it depends if target is invalidated due to "war mechanisms" or "CB mechanisms", I´d say. For example, if my wartarget give in to a factionultimation for the primary title(that is the olny title of that tier held), he becomes a vassal and there are a new king. He tend to inherit the war(same as if target dies and is inherited by his heir, i´d say.). if he instead loose the title to a faction war(or a subjunction/vassalisation war), wars tend to not be inherited, as mechanically, if for only a moment, the primary title is not a primary title anymore - which is my conclusion here, if the primary title of the current holder is not immideatly the same for the new holder, War mechanics will invalidate any war.

In the example with William, if Harald of Norway enforces demands first, Williams war will be invalidated(Kingdoms of England becomes a secondary title), while William will have to fight the norway force, because Kingdom of England is still a primary title. Should Godwin have had kingdom of Wales(or any kingdom titer title), CB rules would had invalidated both wars.
In the example with the independent count on ireland, had hi still still been independent in another county on ireland. Mar Mechanism had not transferred the war to you, but insted the CB mechanism had invalidated the war(unless it is still valid for the othe county, ofc).

Wars invalidated by the CB will allways end. For example if you holywar a duchy, and then the target duke joins a revolt. Then the war- mechanism will be ok, you can still be at war with the old target but CB will invalidate it as no target land is still under his control..

Messy stuff... Has led to alot of frustration when 90+% warscore wars are disappearing without a trace and races - who to peace first! I hope i have managed to explain it at least a tiny bit.

 

[Sunshine Moon]

Hmm, I'd have thought that if Harald wins, William can still keep fighting--you can still press claims on titles that aren't someone's primary. But you may be right about how the game actually calculates it.

 

[Tryvenyal]

Hmm, I'd have thought that if Harald wins, William can still keep fighting--you can still press claims on titles that aren't someone's primary. But you may be right about how the game actually calculates it.

Yes this does not affekt how you declare war. If I´m right, and the primary title is the key, even if it´s a same-tier title that´s contested, it would also explain disappeared wars where a secondary, now independent son of the previous wartarget does not inherit the war, when it othervce seems fully appropriate for him to. That is because war is invalidated by CB against the primary title rather than first transferred to the new holder.

 

[Rubidium]

Can clarify abit , this is a buggy area. It depends greatly on the circumstances whether war continues with a new target or not. it depends if target is invalidated due to "war mechanisms" or "CB mechanisms", I´d say. For example, if my wartarget give in to a factionultimation for the primary title(that is the olny title of that tier held), he becomes a vassal and there are a new king. He tend to inherit the war(same as if target dies and is inherited by his heir, i´d say.). if he instead loose the title to a faction war(or a subjunction/vassalisation war), wars tend to not be inherited, as mechanically, if for only a moment, the primary title is not a primary title anymore - which is my conclusion here, if the primary title of the current holder is not immideatly the same for the new holder, War mechanics will invalidate any war.

In the example with William, if Harald of Norway enforces demands first, Williams war will be invalidated(Kingdoms of England becomes a secondary title), while William will have to fight the norway force, because Kingdom of England is still a primary title. Should Godwin have had kingdom of Wales(or any kingdom titer title), CB rules would had invalidated both wars.
In the example with the independent count on ireland, had hi still still been independent in another county on ireland. Mar Mechanism had not transferred the war to you, but insted the CB mechanism had invalidated the war(unless it is still valid for the othe county, ofc).

Wars invalidated by the CB will allways end. For example if you holywar a duchy, and then the target duke joins a revolt. Then the war- mechanism will be ok, you can still be at war with the old target but CB will invalidate it as no target land is still under his control..

Messy stuff... Has led to alot of frustration when 90+% warscore wars are disappearing without a trace and races - who to peace first! I hope i have managed to explain it at least a tiny bit.

This may be vary from patch to patch: I've definitely seen some patches where Harald wins, then William wins, which is obnoxious because William only gets de jure England in this case (so Harald keeps Cornwall)

 

[AlexArgos]

What you are all forgetting about Legacy of Rome is that it adds a lot of flavor for the Byzantines. Like restoring the (old) Roman empire and mending the Schism.
But what I consider a must have DLC for playing the purple blob is Charlemagne which adds viceroys. Without Themes/Strategoi/Exarchs the Byzantines feels like just any other feudal realm.