Returning to CK2

[incognitus]

Hey guys... I used to play a LOT of CK2, but then I got sick of it somehow. I guess my biggest beef with the development of the game was that it was made harder and harder to play the way I like to play (i.e. paint the map my colour). Or I should say... it was made more and more tedious. Nothing about CK2 is hard, once you understand the mechanics of the game.

But I digress. DLCs are on sale at the moment and I'm wondering if I should buy some. The latest ones I have are Way of Life and Horse Lords... are any of the following ones so terrible I should skip them? Or are they maybe all bad?

 

[Serenity84]

Conclave, Reaper's Due and Monks & Mystics will add the most no matter who play as.

You can check out what they add here:
https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Downloadable_content
Holy Fury for example is great if play as Pagans and Catholics. Jade Dragon is nice if you play in the eastern half of the map

There are now game rules to customize the game to a large degree. For example you can turn off defensive pacts to make conquering easier. But it's not really meant to be a map painter per se. EU4 is more like that

 

[incognitus]

Thanks! So, I am 5 DLCs behind, 4 of which (Conclave, Reaper's Due, Monks&Mystics and Jade Dragon) are reasonably discounted for another 90 min. I guess I might get them. I do remember, however, that there was some talk about the new court / council / cabinet / whatever system introduced with Conclave was stupid and somehow gamebreaking. What's your take on it?

 

[Serenity84]

Hardly game breaking. Having some internal politics actually gives you something to do when you aren't at war. And there is a choice between giving the council power in order to have stability or trying to go for early absolutism, but having a higher risk for rebellions. Either one works.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

Thanks! So, I am 5 DLCs behind, 4 of which (Conclave, Reaper's Due, Monks&Mystics and Jade Dragon) are reasonably discounted for another 90 min. I guess I might get them. I do remember, however, that there was some talk about the new court / council / cabinet / whatever system introduced with Conclave was stupid and somehow gamebreaking. What's your take on it?

what people were complaining about mainly was Threat and Defensive Pacts but the pacts can be switched off in the game rules

 

[incognitus]

what people were complaining about mainly was Threat and Defensive Pacts but the pacts can be switched off in the game rules

And should they be turned off? I just started a game and during my first participation in a war I realised I should probably have turned off shattered retreats, since they make decisive battles impossible for the numerically inferiour side... and that is boring.

 

[Serenity84]

Shattered retreat is good. Having an enemy defeated by one battle isn't so great either. It also applies to you. If you lose a battle you aren't hopelessly wiped out. But you still get a ton of warscore from large, decisive battles. So really smashing a stack can shorten a war a greatly.
But ultimately it's a matter of taste. Don't put so much stock in what people say how you need to play. There are way too many people who push certain strategies as the only way to go. But there are plenty of ways to play this game.

Defensive pacts get crazy later on. And you get a lot of threat for just taking a single duchy. I wouldn't mind if the numbers were different, but as it is it feels very artificial

 

[Castimirr]

I have been playing with Threat and Defensive Pacts for a while, but I think that is about to end. They do make world-conquest harder (and if you are going for that, it's probably worth leaving them on since it can add to the challenge at certain points.).

I have other goals this game though and they are adding more tedium than challenge. I haven't been able to declare a war with my last four rulers because it would also drag in a bunch of people I'm trying to support. I can't even use a GHW, since it would trigger all of the other Germanic rulers to join the defense. (I mean, I could, but that would defeat the purpose of using it to help them expand.)

 

[Castimirr]

Defensive pacts get crazy later on. And you get a lot of threat for just taking a single duchy. I wouldn't mind if the numbers were different, but as it is it feels very artificial

A thousand times this. I don't mind the mechanic, but the current threat gain vs decay is insane.

If your threat ever gets high (and taking a dutchy or two will do it), your vassal's wars are enough to keep you from ever dropping below 90% again. Their expansion may be threatening to the rest of the world, but the pacts don't help against them. It just ties your hands. Even with a good chancellor focused on lowering threat, there is really nothing I can do (the de jure restriction means even granting independence isn't an option a good bit of the time. Even if it was, that's not really an interesting mechanic.)

At the very least, threat gain needs to scale differently. I also think a lot of the threat should go down on succession, with some type of carryover similar to the "opinion of predecessor" modifier. (I get this may not be exactly realistic, but it would be a nice concession to gameplay.)

Even the peaceful vassalization of a count who became independent because of a bug is enough to basically end any hope you had to going to war with no threat for the next 50+ years.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

And should they be turned off? I just started a game and during my first participation in a war I realised I should probably have turned off shattered retreats, since they make decisive battles impossible for the numerically inferiour side... and that is boring.

i'll echo the sentiment about not paying too much attention to how other people say you should play. it's your game. it's your world.

having said that i don't turn pacts off because i like the challenge

 

[incognitus]

I have yet to find out, but I remember from paying EU (3 or 4) that one could get so powerful it didn't really matter if the entire rest of the world conspired against one.

 

[Dragatus]

If you enjoy painting the map you should look into playing tribal. The basic hillfort now provides 100 retinue cap and the basic village market gives another 20, so if you start in 867 or later you tend to get at least 120 retinue cap per tribal holding. On top of that they now have access to special retinues that only cost Prestige, which essentially makes them free in the long term. So if you have access to a succession law that won't split your titles (Tanistry, Open, Edlership) it has become very viable to just ignore demesne limit as a tribal and personally hold every single title in your realm for massive prestige gain, which you then translate into a massive retinue.

As for the retinues themselves, my personal favorite is the Hunting Party one which combines 100 Light Infantry with 50 Light Cavalry.

 

[DPS]

Yeah, tribals are much easier to play now. Before, tribal realms couldn't support much in the way of retinues, but now they're more-or-less on par with feudal realms when it comes to retinue size, and that Hunting Party retinue helps to overcome the lack of cavalry tribals otherwise have to deal with. And it's much, much easier to get out of gavelkind without going feudal.

 

[incognitus]

Do you reckon NK playstyle is still feasible? And if so, do you take all holdings as well? Or just baronies?

 

[knppel]

NK is still valid (There's a detailed post somewhere on the forums that's from before holy fury, but holy fury did for once not break anything, but really just improve things).

DLC wise I play without conclave (no one's malcontent here, he-he) and without Jade Dragon (I dont like the Kaiser paying tribute to china, no).
You will have to take all holdings, as elsewise you generate a thousand vassals who hate you and will join in on any plot.

The game did however introduce a lot of new nice mechanics that all in all, make painting the map a more sophisticated challenge, if at all- managing threat and defensive pacts is really the tricky thing now that I like to play with currently.

For map painting in a legitimate way, you wanna try a horde and set out on dominating the steppe first. Threat or no threat, my Khazars are one county short of controlling the complete northern silk road 40 years ingame. Started as Crimea.

 

[Dragatus]

NK is still viable, but you need to be big enough. I would take all the holdings for myself. If you keep vassal mayors and bishops/priests they will hate you for being over demesne limit and refuse to pay taxes and faction against you.

NK mode is more effective if you have a special government type that allows you to hold either cities (Imperial or Chinese Imperial government) or temples (Iqta or Monastic Feudal government) in addition to castles. A key thing is to keep an eye on your succession law. Duchies, counties, and baronies will just follow your primary title, but kingdoms and empires have their own law and you may get multiple heirs if they don't match your primary title. If you have multiple kingdoms/empires and an elective succession law you will also have to make sure that you pick the same heir for all of them.

The perhaps easiest way to handle succession is to have 1 single kingdom and avoid getting any more. Then you can have Elective Monarchy and just pick whichever child or sibling you want to inherit. With Agnatic-Cognatic gender law you are already able to nominate a woman as heir (your vassal would just refuse to vote for her, but if you don't have any vassals that is irrelevant).

 

[incognitus]

Nice! Sounds like the Byzantine Empire is ideal for a play in NK mode then? They have Vassal Mercs AND Imperial government from the get-go, plus they are fairly large at all the earlier bookmarks...

 

[knppel]

I think Dragatus and I would genuinely agree Egypt makes a better start (as they have bigger merc stack). Were camel retinues nerfed yet, speaking of which...?

 

[Dragatus]

Camels are still as ridiculous as they were in the Jade Dragon patch. And yes, I do consider Egypt in 1066 to be the easiest to play NK mode. The Mamluks are twice as large as the Varangian Guard and camels are superior to the Cataphract retinue. That said, the Byzantine empire is also decent and you do not have to worry about decadence revolts.

 

[knppel]

Egypt's 1066 decadence issue is rather easy to handle- just make the jews pay your debt on day 1 and holy war something small first.
And if you take Alexandria from that useless son of yours, you can also go hellenic and then take on the Byzantine Empire quest- mamlukes are certainly not only cool in North Korea.
That said, I've settled for horde (ha ha) now nonetheless for my early game, as I found out I can use subjugation on mercenary companies if they successfully invade a broke employer.