I just hate it when, say a count in some minor duchy revolts against a doux above him and both are of your dynasty. Literally the whole empire takes a side thanks to dynastic alliances. WWI a couple of centuries early. That said, I still always play this way just because it gives you a focus beyond expansion and, to be honest, makes things harder early on.
Playing a state, not a dynasty
- Thread starter birdboy2000
- 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 just hate it when, say a count in some minor duchy revolts against a doux above him and both are of your dynasty. Literally the whole empire takes a side thanks to dynastic alliances. WWI a couple of centuries early. That said, I still always play this way just because it gives you a focus beyond expansion and, to be honest, makes things harder early on.
Just replace any instance of the word "state" with "polity" in your head and you're good to go.
I was actually hoping that playing as a state would be part of the Republic DLC features, but it looks like its a no go, which suggests they probably dont want or cant go there in the Theocraties DLC either.
I only reload when the ai ends my reign. I had a king who lived into his late 70s. His son had only daughters whom the ai married all normally. The king died and his son followed 3 weeks later. The daughter has 3 sons who are all both her heirs and not of my dynasty.... game over.
The Byzantine Empire was very close to a modern nation state especially in the latter years of its existence.
I'm on the n'th iteration of the same duke in ERE, always it's something different. Lose, lose, lose, lose.
But, isn't it a bit refreshing to play a game that can beat you with some regularity? The only comparison I find is computer chess, and for the money I'd much rather play CK2.
Eventually, I'll get lucky roles of the dice and make the right moves and my duke's dynasty will last more than 50-75 years, that's called persistance.
But, isn't it a bit refreshing to play a game that can beat you with some regularity? The only comparison I find is computer chess, and for the money I'd much rather play CK2.
Eventually, I'll get lucky roles of the dice and make the right moves and my duke's dynasty will last more than 50-75 years, that's called persistance.
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with playing that way, it is just a choice in a sandbox environment... In many ways it would produce a more historical outcome than the one dynasty for hundreds of years thing we all try to do...
However the I think most people playing CK2 like the differentiation between dynasty and Kingdom...
However the I think most people playing CK2 like the differentiation between dynasty and Kingdom...
I personally love dynasty character driven environment of CK II because it will give possible tactics that would not otherwise be possible. For example I have many times saved myself from war that I cannot win with good timed assassination when militarily I have zero chance of winning the war.
I just love that in CK II even a count with 500 troops could totally turn around the war just murdering guy who gave claim to start war even when guy who is attacking could raise 100k troops.
In more state driven games if more stronger side attacks you. You cannot do anything than lose.