If having Craven also made you, say, harder to assassinate because you were more likely to run away, or something like that, especially with a well-written event chain, it could be fun. As it stands its not.
- 2
Swords are sharp and dangerous..
- Thread starter gdj
- 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.
- Status
I agree on the "fear" idea. It's kind of ridiculous when I blind a vassal and they start conspiring against me again before they even step outside.
Speaking of getting Craven while leading the center in battle, the GoT mod has a trait to keep yourself safe - it was called "Leads from behind" or something like that. It doesn't mean your character is craven though - he's just pragmatic enough to realize that leading from the front might ruin all of his plans by getting killed or losing his nerve (and losing respect in the yes of his ariostocratic peers) But would such a trait warrant even getting Craven as a result - it shouldn't.
i still wanna know why war is not more dynamic, why cant i get benefits from leading from the front like alexander the great? or direct from the rear and watch the battle unfold before me as most nobles did.
the craven trait needs to be redone, or atleast add in detailed events, such as our army was totally destroyed and i was taken prisoner, and i saw most of my men murdered
that seems like a good reason to become craven.
and another thing ! norse vikings should not become craven, for if i am correct it was a good thing to die in battle leading your men.
the craven trait needs to be redone, or atleast add in detailed events, such as our army was totally destroyed and i was taken prisoner, and i saw most of my men murdered
that seems like a good reason to become craven.
and another thing ! norse vikings should not become craven, for if i am correct it was a good thing to die in battle leading your men.
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
Because this isn't Total War so there's nothing to watch unfold. Frankly, I wouldn't mind some actual battle system (to be activated on a case-by-case basis, as most battles I'm content to let play out as they do now but some I'd like to get hands-on with)...Something blending Total War and Warband, maybe.
- 2
This may already have been covered...
Comparing modern warfare to medieval warfare is apples and oranges.
The major difference between war in medieval period and modern war is there are no breaks for a modern soldier, we always have a fear of death at any moment. Constant fear of a sniper, poor living conditions, and frequent artillery barrages. Medieval war was brutal, yes, but there would be alot of downtime between battles.
- 3
- 1
There is a lot of down time between modern battles too. All modern troops are on various regular rotation schedules and are all generally in and out of a war zone within 12 months. At the same time, it is standard military procedure to cycle the lead troops out of a battlefield as soon as an assault is finished - apart from troops cut off or wounded the first wave troops on the Somme offensive were all cycled out within 24 hours. The same applied on D-Day - after the horror of the first 12 hours most of the leading units were in placed in reserve or returned to the ships within 3-4 days.
There is a reason that most veterans say that war is 99% pure boredom and 1% sheer terror.
I am also always amused by the idea that troops somehow have it tougher than troops of old. First off, whether modern or ancient random death can always come at any time and from any source. In the middle ages a random arrow could take you out at any time and a small wound could fester and go gangrenous turning a minor puncture into a mortal wound (just as Richard I).
Second, although I have never killed anyone (that I know of !) I reckon that there would be something a lot more personal and meaningful to hacking off an opponents limb than simply shooting at him blindly from 300 yards away. This is not to say that (say) modern drone operators don't suffer the trauma and moral grief of taking another person's life, it's just that it seems to me that it would be a LOT more meaningful if you had to plunge your sword into the enemy to finish the job and stop him from screaming in pain and terror.
The absolute level of the horror of war never changes, it is only how it is experienced that changes.
- 1
- 1
I like the fantasy wank that ~Vikings~ were so manly and cool they'd never get traumatized by war.
- 1
About half of my commanders seem to get craven. I guess it just goes to show you there were some smart people alive even then.
i would actually love to have an event system similar to the war game event you get by choosing the war focus
My ruler is Just, Kind, Honest, a True Christian Knight, and a known murderer. It's possible to be all these things together. All he's doing is eliminating the threats to the realm. He's a true friend to his friends, just towards his vassals, honest to his wife and children (he has never take a lover despite plenty of chances), and he won the First Crusade, leading an army personally in which only one in six returned to England, restored the Papacy to Rome, and has no deadly sins.
He also had his rival (who was leading a dangerous faction, spreading lies and falsehoods about him, and plotting to overthrow the Empire) assassinated, and he got caught doing so.
He also had his rival (who was leading a dangerous faction, spreading lies and falsehoods about him, and plotting to overthrow the Empire) assassinated, and he got caught doing so.
That reminds me, the game is really bad at epithets. Regardless of traits and actions.
I had one great king of France. He had almost all good traits. He had deity-level stats. He was also attractive and strong. And then one day he somehow gets the trait 'gluttonous'. And the game almost immediately names him "the Drunkard".
I mean, seriously? CK2, did you really ignore he has 5,000+ prestige and 1,000+ piety? That he single handed conquered Egypt and Jerusalem, and helped Pope win two Crusades in a row and won Syria for himself? That he held off a giant Sunni Jihad for Greece? That he killed three major enemy rulers (one being Abbasid Caliph) personally in battle? That he had over 3,000 gold in treasury? That he is an emperor in all but name of most of Europe and Africa? That he is a kind, compassionate ruler who has always ruled justly and people and vassals alike love him like a god? You gave him no "the Great" or "the Just" or "the Holy" epithet in his 82 year lifetime, but when he was 79 and became a glutton one day, you immediately decide to remember this great man as a petty drunkard?
/rant
I had one great king of France. He had almost all good traits. He had deity-level stats. He was also attractive and strong. And then one day he somehow gets the trait 'gluttonous'. And the game almost immediately names him "the Drunkard".
I mean, seriously? CK2, did you really ignore he has 5,000+ prestige and 1,000+ piety? That he single handed conquered Egypt and Jerusalem, and helped Pope win two Crusades in a row and won Syria for himself? That he held off a giant Sunni Jihad for Greece? That he killed three major enemy rulers (one being Abbasid Caliph) personally in battle? That he had over 3,000 gold in treasury? That he is an emperor in all but name of most of Europe and Africa? That he is a kind, compassionate ruler who has always ruled justly and people and vassals alike love him like a god? You gave him no "the Great" or "the Just" or "the Holy" epithet in his 82 year lifetime, but when he was 79 and became a glutton one day, you immediately decide to remember this great man as a petty drunkard?
/rant
Last edited:
- 3
I haven't gotten any focus-based events yet.
@Will Steel: People do tend to accentuate the negative. Whatever else Edison may have accomplished or been, he fried an elephant for propaganda.
But that is ridiculous. Yet funny.
Touchy feely modern view? Are you suggesting that PTSD is an invention of the modern age? Please enlighten me, when exactly did we evolve from 'badass', manly killing machines without any inner psychological ramifications to the lame, emotional sissies we presumably are today?
I highly doubt that. Go and psychoanalyze some Somalian child soldiers. They grew up in an environment even worse than medieval times. They weren't 'pussified' by western culture, customs or media, either. Still most of them are traumatized beyond repair, because exposure to violence and brutalization affects the human psyche, regardless of time or place.
Yes, I remember this discussion very well. Me and others provided various academic sources that supported the existence and social awareness of what we today call PTSD, even way back in classical greek times.They of course didn't call it PTSD, but they noticed that something funny was going on with some soldiers that returned from war.
But alas, you still fail to grasp the point me and others were making. Those peoples thoughts might have been different, but their psyche worked just like ours.
- 2
- 1
- 1
Epithets are kind of funny. I sometimes have great ones, like my character who inherited the throne at age 32, had a bunch of tough stats that made him really grizzled, and they called him "Ironside", which suited him perfectly. I had a character who ruled for 42 years, and at the age of 60, just a year before he died, they called him "The Old". But I've also had the character with a single negative trait get something that focused solely on that negaive trait.
At least we don't have 11 of 15 dynasty members with "The Great" any more.
At least we don't have 11 of 15 dynasty members with "The Great" any more.
- 2
- Status