Paradox don't believe in the Reconquista

[yourworstnightm]

Iberia have been rebalance a couple of times. Each time they either got the Muslims or Christians too strong (slow reconquista has never been feasible).

 

[JoeSteel]

No, please, no. "Historical" events are horrible in EU4 already, and the ones already in CK2 could probably bear to become generic, as well. Nations should be able to crumble, and this should in no way or reason bound to being Andalusia, or Andalusia in a specific moment. Why should it? Because muh history? And who cares? Surely not the one conquering the Baltic as an Estonian tribe chief.

As I said, the events before those at game start have some sway on the events that take place shortly after the start. In the EU4 example, the war of the roses was bound to happen due to the events taking place over the past two hundred years in england. If we ignore what happened before then we create a scenario as if history had JUST started at that moment, and somehow everyone magically just behaves in the way the AI dictates them to. This can, and has lead to very un-fun scenarios such as the byzantines taking khiva, or the umads rolling over france, or lombardy taking over all of africa. It breaks the immersion of the game. It's fine if you don't like history, but please respect those of us who dislike the gameyness that CKII has become.

(Historically implausable scenarios should be possible, just much MUCH harder to come by.)

The dev team has normally been quite good at it, but has slumped for a while in it. Each start had something to make historical plausability a thing. In 1066 it's the norman/turkish invasions. In 876 it's the magyar/norse invasions. Finally, in charlemagne start it was charlie, but charlie can't manage under the new conclave system. I have not once seen him succeed in taking saxony, or lombardy, and only half of the time does he even manage to beat his brother. Most of the time both him and his brother break into warring factions that destroy francia. CKII relies on a few set events to generate historical plausability, and the charlemagne start is destroyed by conclave.

 

[WeissRaben]

As I said, the events before those at game start have some sway on the events that take place shortly after the start. In the EU4 example, the war of the roses was bound to happen due to the events taking place over the past two hundred years in england. If we ignore what happened before then we create a scenario as if history had JUST started at that moment, and somehow everyone magically just behaves in the way the AI dictates them to. This can, and has lead to very un-fun scenarios such as the byzantines taking khiva, or the umads rolling over france, or lombardy taking over all of africa. It breaks the immersion of the game. It's fine if you don't like history, but please respect those of us who dislike the gameyness that CKII has become.

(Historically implausable scenarios should be possible, just much MUCH harder to come by.)

The dev team has normally been quite good at it, but has slumped for a while in it. Each start had something to make historical plausability a thing. In 1066 it's the norman/turkish invasions. In 876 it's the magyar/norse invasions. Finally, in charlemagne start it was charlie, but charlie can't manage under the new conclave system. I have not once seen him succeed in taking saxony, or lombardy, and only half of the time does he even manage to beat his brother. Most of the time both him and his brother break into warring factions that destroy francia. CKII relies on a few set events to generate historical plausability, and the charlemagne start is destroyed by conclave.

I love history, which is exactly why I hate DHE: despite their "dynamic" label, they are anything but. It's stuff that happens without any real care for the context, like the Burgundian Inheritance killing off the ruler of Burgundy even though there is a check for rulers dying in battle, or the Iberian Marriage being something that pops up from thin air. History is not a list of unrelated events happening at random dates: it's a long chain of causes and their effects, which are - at the same time - causes for other effects. "Nations never collapsing" is a CK2 problem way deeper than Andalusia: Stem Duchies never fragment, empires never collapse, and conquering stuff is the right choice, always. Putting a "must collapse" label on Andalusia is not history: it's book accounting, list of dates with no real relation between one and the other.

 

[Zolotaya]

I have not once seen him succeed in taking saxony, or lombardy, and only half of the time does he even manage to beat his brother. Most of the time both him and his brother break into warring factions that destroy francia.

We must be playing different CK2 engines. In hundrerds of complete campaigns, I have never seen Charlemagne not take Saxony. He often loses it to the Saxon rebellion (because he chops their tree 100% of the time) but yje only time he did not attack Saxony with me was when I ruler designed a Christian Tribal Saxony.

Also Charlemagne loves to install his relative onto the Bavarian throne instead of directly taking it in my campaigns. 9/10 time a Karling survives in Bavaria until the end for me.

 

[OnvreOrrivle]

How about creating some event armies for asturias or something like an event?
> Implying charlemagne dlc would follow history as it happened

 

[LowTartare]

Asturia is hilariously irrelevant and but most of the times Reconquista does happens. If you play until 1453 there is a good chance for Christian Iberia.