June 3 BETA PATCH: GENERAL FEEDBACK

[unmerged(2456)]

I got a chance to see how the horde (Il-Khanate) did the other day again and I haveto say, "What horde?" Littlerly within less than 6 months it was gone after it formed! I mean even the iberian chrisitans in 1.04a put up more of fight!

 

[Quarto]

couldnt you just be more descriptive in your save?
EnglandWilliam1069 for example?

Sure could. I'd only end up with about a hundred saves per game, I guess.

I usually have two or three saves per game, and I suspect I'm not the only one. And of course, not even having descriptive saves would help someone who, starting the 1066 scenario, thinks "I wanna play the Habsburgs... now, what did the Habsburgs own in 1066?".

Of course, I realise (better than most people here, in fact - I work for a games developer) that coding UI changes is no less time-consuming than any other game changes, and in the greater scheme of things, a bit of confusion with the savegames and scenarios is preferable if it means that some other aspect of the game was cleaned up. I'm just saying, if Johan can find the time, it would be mighty nice to have a proper scenario screen instead of that current placeholder .

 

[Velasco]

Is there any way for me to get rid of the realm disruption events within my own files?
Meaning absolutely no disrespect to anyone, but i am playing with set goals (ie world conquest)
Having gone straight from 1.04a to the latest beta im real happy with all the events, just not the realm disruption ones.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Go to the file:

Crusader Kings/db/events.txt

You then get a list of all the eventfiles.

You can either remove this line.

event = "db\events\realm_disruption_events.txt"

Or better type a # in front of the above line.

 

[Nikolai]

A couple other notes:

1.) Has the speed BB disappear been changed? It seems to me it takes much longer time to go down that before...
2.) I was at war with the Il-Khanate. Being winning for some time and then beginning to loose land, I decided to get a peace ASAP. When I tried to call for it, I noticed I could demand the land I just lost, back. Not having enough VPs to do that, but being curious how it would work against a Muslim, I used "byzantine" and asked for 4 provinces. I got the offer accepted of course, but afterwards I noticed I had gone from -0.5 to -3.6 IIRC due to BB, in vassal relation hit every month(not the total, but the BB part of it). Is that supposed to work like that when demanding land from Muslims?

 

[Duuk]

Most likely the game doesn't check for muslim/non muslim in that case, it just applies the BB since the game assumes you can't "control" a muslim province... it would just flip to you.

 

[borg1980]

u019 tag...

I cannot load any of my savegames - 'U019 phantom tag bug' is still there .

 

[unmerged(45061)]

June 3rd Feedback

First time poster and I would like to share some thoughts comments. First of all, I think this forum and these betas are incredible. To all of you who work very hard improving the game, many thanks. CK is a great game and these betas really make it even better. Though some people appear to have a difficult time expressing their gratitude, it's safe to say everyone appreciates the efforts of Mr. T & Johan and countless others.

Now, down to business. Feedback from the June 3rd patch:

- Three games: England (1066), France (1066), Leon (1187)
- "Shiekdom of Praha" still exists: England 1066 saw Shiekdom of Brittany survive (1090's on), and France 1066 saw, my personal favorite, Sheikdom of Essex, Bedford & Oxford (1100-on)
- Horde is on the move...In Leon 1197, by 1233, The Horde ate up the HRE and was nudging against France. Wow! They'rrrrre Backkk...
- Stability has been fine. One random fail, but fine.
- Everything else appears to be great. Love the events and tweeks.

So, really, the main issue remains: Military Access. This has been debated ad naseum. My opinion is thus (sorry if off topic):

- Non-access is critical. In reality, the only outsider that would ever be allowed to march through would be your liege or a really big invading army like during the Hundred Years War. No foreign, let alone Muslim power would ever be allowed through without a DOW. A foreign armny needs supplies. Those supplies would have to be "taken" from the land; for example, no christian would sell a muslim supplies & stores! Logic would dictate that the "taking" of supplies by a foreign army from the lands it cross is, indeed, an act of war.

- Naval transport. Fact of the matter is that only two nations had sufficient transport to move armies: The Genoese and Venetians. Naval transport is still too easy and is based on the false premise that, as long as you have funds, you can sail. In reality, there are only two powers to procure sufficient transport, it was VERY expensive, and attrition was VERY high (from losing ships). Most crusades were over land. I propose making the cost and attrition on naval transport very, very high. Hopefully, that will deter AI.

 

[Giant Tourtiere]

- Naval transport. Fact of the matter is that only two nations had sufficient transport to move armies: The Genoese and Venetians. Naval transport is still too easy and is based on the false premise that, as long as you have funds, you can sail. In reality, there are only two powers to procure sufficient transport, it was VERY expensive, and attrition was VERY high (from losing ships). Most crusades were over land. I propose making the cost and attrition on naval transport very, very high. Hopefully, that will deter AI.

While i sort of agree, i wouldn't like to see this taken too far. While it's true that Venice and Genoa were key providers of transport around the Med, they were not (as far as i'm aware) involved in the transport of armies across the Channel nor from Britain to Ireland. I wouldn't like to see those costs go up much higher than they currently are.

 

[unmerged(40711)]

I agree with the idea of encouraging crusaders to take the land route rather than everyone going naval transport. IRL Hungary and the Byzantines had a lot of trouble with these crusading armies marching through, pillaging the countryside (and sacking Constantinople).

In the CK crusades many nations choose to go naval transport and hit the beaches rather than take the long march. When I see England hit the beaches at Alexandria with 3000+ troops in the First Crusade, something seems out of balance...

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Crusade Expectations still need to be upped. I had my count who was zealous take the crusader trait and his expectations went from 0.0 to -0.1. Now considering the average count can get about .5 piety from paying to the church this is seriously out of wack.

 

[unmerged(45061)]

While i sort of agree, i wouldn't like to see this taken too far. While it's true that Venice and Genoa were key providers of transport around the Med, they were not (as far as i'm aware) involved in the transport of armies across the Channel nor from Britain to Ireland. I wouldn't like to see those costs go up much higher than they currently are.

Well, yes, Northern European transport-- at least in 1066 & 1187, was localized. William the Conqueror had between 500-700 ships made over about 9 months. Now that was a remarkable feat, performed by a truly unique person in history. It was also a relatively short ride. However, CK affords that remarkable feat to any ruler with money and over any distance. Perhaps one could allow short trips with no penalty, however much longer than a channel crossing should be severely limited. This is true historical context and pervents the Almohads from overrunning Scotland!!

Note, by the 14th century, Italian mercenary fleets were regularly procured in Northern Europe-- for example, in the Battle of Sluys, the French had about 190 sail, of which 1/2 were Genoese under Barbavera.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Crusade Expectations still need to be upped. I had my count who was zealous take the crusader trait and his expectations went from 0.0 to -0.1. Now considering the average count can get about .5 piety from paying to the church this is seriously out of wack.

Maybe it needs a litle tweaking.

Because when I am f.e. the count of Sligo and there is a crusade called to rescue Jerusalem, which is part of the Seldjuk kingdom, people can't really expect me to liberate Jerusalem with my 350 men against 60.000 men. So I would be foolish to take the crusadertrait, but then have a change to become a heretic of excommunicated.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Ok additional comments....

1. Byznatium is really now messed up. I understand that you wanted to create a feeling of civil wars between various principalities but this is insane. I mean there are at least 5-6 vassals declaring war to Byzantium yearly...and this is a good year if it happens and they all do it with their maximum loyalty. If Byznatoum was falling apart like this they wouldn't last a year not alone all those centuries.
2. Events - some events really don't make sense. The event with the managment of the province. I mean I play as King of Naples and the event triggers for me for controlling Palermo...I am based in Salerno...this is insane.
Other event that is really ridiculous is the one when your vassal declared independence for "better managament of his far-away lands". This is event would be fine if I was for example England controlling Egypt, but 'Duchy of Sinai' doing it the same to my King of Jerusalem(I conquered Jeruslaem and proclaimed myself king leaving Naples to my junior branch). is not just hillarious but insane.

Everything else is more less very good, however these two events need to be fixed.

Btw. I totally support Prince Hal, his suggestions are really in place and would in fact fix many problems with the Muslims conquering Europe and creating "muslim islands" in middle of Germany, England, etc...

 

[Giant Tourtiere]

Well, yes, Northern European transport-- at least in 1066 & 1187, was localized. William the Conqueror had between 500-700 ships made over about 9 months. Now that was a remarkable feat, performed by a truly unique person in history. It was also a relatively short ride. However, CK affords that remarkable feat to any ruler with money and over any distance. Perhaps one could allow short trips with no penalty, however much longer than a channel crossing should be severely limited. This is true historical context and pervents the Almohads from overrunning Scotland!!

Note, by the 14th century, Italian mercenary fleets were regularly procured in Northern Europe-- for example, in the Battle of Sluys, the French had about 190 sail, of which 1/2 were Genoese under Barbavera.

I absolutely agree that long range transport should be limited, expensive, require prior planning, or something. Maybe all of the above. Tales of English Crusaders sailing straight to the Holy Land are obviously silly. I just wouldn't like to see costs jacked up so high that moving an army from Kent to Calais becomes ruinously expensive, also. Playing as Gwynned (now King of Wales), it's already a reasonable chunk of change to get an army to Ireland.

If a differentiation can be made between short hops and long trips, that would obviously be ideal.

 

[Damocles]

I absolutely agree that long range transport should be limited, expensive, require prior planning, or something. Maybe all of the above. Tales of English Crusaders sailing straight to the Holy Land are obviously silly. I just wouldn't like to see costs jacked up so high that moving an army from Kent to Calais becomes ruinously expensive, also. Playing as Gwynned (now King of Wales), it's already a reasonable chunk of change to get an army to Ireland.

If a differentiation can be made between short hops and long trips, that would obviously be ideal.

Especially since the vast majority of the Crusaders had to walk through Anatolia to get to Jerusalem. In the Third Crusade, the English and French armies had to walk down to Sicily first.

 

[Justinian_A]

Great ideas, Prince Hal.

 

[Duuk]

If Byznatoum was falling apart like this they wouldn't last a year not alone all those centuries.

But they didn't last centuries *at this time*. Within 100 years Byzantium was 1/2 of its starting size in 1066. Less than 100 years after that the title wasn't worth much since the Emperor was mostly living as an "ally" of the Seljuks.

Shortly thereafter there was no more Empire since the Ottomans conquered it.

Byzantium in 1066 isn't a monolith. It's a state that exists simply because its neighbors were too disorganized to conquer it.

 

[Damocles]

But they didn't last centuries *at this time*. Within 100 years Byzantium was 1/2 of its starting size in 1066. Less than 100 years after that the title wasn't worth much since the Emperor was mostly living as an "ally" of the Seljuks.

Shortly thereafter there was no more Empire since the Ottomans conquered it.

Byzantium in 1066 isn't a monolith. It's a state that exists simply because its neighbors were too disorganized to conquer it.

Fully agreed. Even in 1066, Byzantium is laughably overpowered and unified compared to reality. And that was before the Seljuks took over the majority of Anatolia. Something which the Empire had itself entirely to blame. Upon his capture, Romanos Diogenes built up a bit of a friendship with the Turks and made a very favorable peace treaty since the Seljuks were more interested in fighting the schismatic Fatimids. But after being ousted and blinded (whereupon he died from it), Michael VII abrogated the treaty, opening the floodgates.

The Byzantine situation needs to be modified in the two following ways:

A) That whomever becomes the Emperor gets a claim on Byzantion. Too often, I've seen Romanos reduced to Count of Byzantion with the capitol moving elsewhere.

B) It needs to be setup so the Bulgarian and Serbian kingdoms have a better chance of moving. They were historically recognized by the Pope in 1080. Nor were these lands paying homage to the Emperor in any way. Hell, the Ragusans joined with Guiscard to attack them.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

But they didn't last centuries *at this time*. Within 100 years Byzantium was 1/2 of its starting size in 1066. Less than 100 years after that the title wasn't worth much since the Emperor was mostly living as an "ally" of the Seljuks.

Shortly thereafter there was no more Empire since the Ottomans conquered it.

Byzantium in 1066 isn't a monolith. It's a state that exists simply because its neighbors were too disorganized to conquer it.

I do not dispute that, but Byzantium was not falling apart it was being pressured from Latins and Turks from two sides. There was occasional revolt with some Prince/Duke or Count/Despot but those were isolated incident...I mean as it is now the Byzantium is falling apart by itself....Seljuks don't have to do nothing....in fact in most games they don't do nothing as they more often conclude peace and then....nothing...Byzantium falls apart....and what else is new....

The bzantine events need to go under an overhaul immediately.

The Byzantine situation needs to be modified in the two following ways:

A) That whomever becomes the Emperor gets a claim on Byzantion. Too often, I've seen Romanos reduced to Count of Byzantion with the capitol moving elsewhere.

Not only that but it should be made that only few can get the claim on the title and even then it should be made that they think twice before declaring war on the Emperor. I mean Byzantines were quarreling between themselves but they were not stupid....they knew that in unity they are stronger to resist both the invading Latins and Turks.

B) It needs to be setup so the Bulgarian and Serbian kingdoms have a better chance of moving. They were historically recognized by the Pope in 1080. Nor were these lands paying homage to the Emperor in any way. Hell, the Ragusans joined with Guiscard to attack them.

I advocated before that Belgrade should not be a duchy, the duchy should be removed and the count of Belgrade should be a vassal of Prince of Serbia/Rashka. I think that would be sufficient for him to declare himself king. Also something really needs to be done with Bulgarians. I mean where are the famous Bulgarian dynasties!?!?!