Or to allow them to serve as advisors to our Marshal. Adding half of there Martial skill to his.
Things I like to see in CK2 (was Top 3 Things You Want ...)
- Thread starter LordofSaxony
- 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.
How it is not ahistorical? It's not because Eleanor of Aquitaine forced herself to accompany his French King Louis VII of a husband on crusade, that suddenly all women could participate in wars. They didn't, and the case in which women commanded armies are very few and far between.
The only place women were tolerated near an army camp was either in the whoring tents or as lavenders. Women were simply not seen as warriors, point blank. They were seen to be knitting home holding the hearth together waiting for their husbands to come back.
You are right, women could high high martial rating is CK. I disagree with you, however, as to me it was nonsense. In fact, I would to on the exact opposite and forgo Martial ratings for women altogether. They simply didn't fight, so it doesn't justify being there.
it wasnt a women werent allowed to go to war, it was a men HAD to goto war. women didnt because they were guaranteed by law and custom a protection from war, there was no reason for them to, that was why the men had to so as to protect those who had the right to be effected by war [Women, Serfs, Monks, Nuns, Children, etc.]. The middle ages is still separate but equal, the separate and subjugated comes in after the renaissance
A woman might be an exception, but only as a result of a really hard to trigger personal decisions or something.
A woman might be an exception, but only as a result of a really hard to trigger personal decisions or something.
I would like to see more use for intrigue (okey the intrigue rating of the ruler changed the number of provinces you can control directly IIRC, but other than that, there was only assasination - which AFAIK is also the only use of the spymaster).
Maybe the rebellious trait wouldn't be seen automatically, but if a character turns rebellious, there would be a small chance to discover it, which would be influenced by the skill of the spymaster, maybe even a special possibility to spy on specific characters, using that, you could be discovered doing it, which could lower loyality of your vassals or something, and if not discovered it could be successful or not (if successfull maybe discovering the rebellious trait if the character has it or something like that)
just my 2 cents
EDIT: also assasinations should be a little changed, IIRC you could order in CK1 the assasination of your spymaster, IMHO you should never be abel to assasinate the spymaster himself and maybe there should also be problems if you order the assasination of your spymaster friends and/or relatives
EDIT2: another trait which could not be seen could be the bastard trait, a character would be given it by birth (the chances changed by the relation between his mother and her husband and by his mothers traits), and then events could happen which could reveal that, or the previously mentioned spy action to spy on a character
Maybe the rebellious trait wouldn't be seen automatically, but if a character turns rebellious, there would be a small chance to discover it, which would be influenced by the skill of the spymaster, maybe even a special possibility to spy on specific characters, using that, you could be discovered doing it, which could lower loyality of your vassals or something, and if not discovered it could be successful or not (if successfull maybe discovering the rebellious trait if the character has it or something like that)
just my 2 cents
EDIT: also assasinations should be a little changed, IIRC you could order in CK1 the assasination of your spymaster, IMHO you should never be abel to assasinate the spymaster himself and maybe there should also be problems if you order the assasination of your spymaster friends and/or relatives
EDIT2: another trait which could not be seen could be the bastard trait, a character would be given it by birth (the chances changed by the relation between his mother and her husband and by his mothers traits), and then events could happen which could reveal that, or the previously mentioned spy action to spy on a character
Last edited:
Ok as the warmonger I must add my military-related wishlist
I know CK1 had great potential in terms of war.
Maybe bring back the siege equipment, winter equipment idea that you guys dropped?
Customized army. Im not talking about having pikemen, and this-men, or that-men. I'm talking about having the same "groups" so like in CK1. So you'd have the knights, the peasants, the burghers, and horse archers. However with the technology researched you could add by yourself, how each group should be equipped.
So by late 1400's we could see peasants in plate armours(read Hussites
). This of course would make them cost a lot more, make them a lot slower on the strategic map and in the tactical battle
Let the player be creative. You need light cavalry? Just give some of the peasants horses.(we could also add some period of training because it would be obviously be highly unrealistic to get light cavalry by just giving peasants some horses).
Changeable martial attributes- Obviously if you have a marshal fighting some war for 30years and he started off his career at martial 4, he is not going to stay at 4.
One thing I'd also like to see is raids or chevauchees. You can only launch a raid against a neighbor. The raid will temporarily put a hold on productivity and decrease population(if pop will exist in CK2). A chevauchee will be a large scale raid organized by dukes or kings and will require a lot more preparation
I know CK1 had great potential in terms of war.
Maybe bring back the siege equipment, winter equipment idea that you guys dropped?
Customized army. Im not talking about having pikemen, and this-men, or that-men. I'm talking about having the same "groups" so like in CK1. So you'd have the knights, the peasants, the burghers, and horse archers. However with the technology researched you could add by yourself, how each group should be equipped.
So by late 1400's we could see peasants in plate armours(read Hussites
). This of course would make them cost a lot more, make them a lot slower on the strategic map and in the tactical battle Let the player be creative. You need light cavalry? Just give some of the peasants horses.(we could also add some period of training because it would be obviously be highly unrealistic to get light cavalry by just giving peasants some horses).
Changeable martial attributes- Obviously if you have a marshal fighting some war for 30years and he started off his career at martial 4, he is not going to stay at 4.
One thing I'd also like to see is raids or chevauchees. You can only launch a raid against a neighbor. The raid will temporarily put a hold on productivity and decrease population(if pop will exist in CK2). A chevauchee will be a large scale raid organized by dukes or kings and will require a lot more preparation
Why shouldn't you be able to assasinate a spymaster ? Since then you could make your son and heir spymaster and you won't fear for his assasination.
A thing that could be done to prevent the exploit of first killing a spymaster and then the real target is to no allow assasination-spam.
So you can order to assasinate 2 people (or more) at the same time, but not first 1 guy and then another.
What if you Spymaster was the assassin?
and you actually had to send him personally to carry out the assassination
maybe it would take him one day for every region [duchy] between your capital and theres
so as to give an amount of time to get there, kill someone and then get back so youd have a gap between being able to do it
and if he was discovered, you risk losing your spymaster and it coming out that you were behind it
- Being able to play all states
- More buildings for the provinces, events and technologies
- A well done fleet and sea battle sistem
- More buildings for the provinces, events and technologies
- A well done fleet and sea battle sistem
1. Titles being indipendant of each other (allowing the king of england to be a vassal of the king of France through his duke of Normandy title, and allowing them to be inherited apart from each other).
2. Give Norwegains boats instead of light horsemen. Boats giving a discount on sea travel, but othervise fights as infantery. (Boats were standard part of norwegian levies)
3. Make the AI handle money, so that it is balanced without having the AI cheat.
2. Give Norwegains boats instead of light horsemen. Boats giving a discount on sea travel, but othervise fights as infantery. (Boats were standard part of norwegian levies)
3. Make the AI handle money, so that it is balanced without having the AI cheat.
I wasn't clear about this one, I meant you shouldn't be abel to assasinate your own spymaster
1. choose where to hold my court. After building up Brandenburg to a beacon of enlightenment and wealth, i've no desire to resettle on a muddy field just because I happened to win the crown of Lithuania. (Of course, staying so far away should have consequences for my administration efficiency).
2. the power to veto my landed sons marriage plans - and enforce better alternatives. (of course, if he is in love that should seriously strain the relationship both with me and his new wife...)
3. spinoffs of point #1:
a) if I move my court, I somehow should be able to bring along the newest thoughts on military tactics, noble customs etc.
-in general, if a tech is known in a part of the demesne that has the same culture as the capital, then that tech should spread quicker to the capital (even if there is no direct road connection). Possibility for 'gamey tech spread' that screws the AI could be countered by a hefty cost of moving capitals.
b) when my children are to be educated, the beacon of enlightenment may be a better option than the muddy field that happens to be new capital.
-church educations should be linked to a province with church/monastery/school/etc, while court eduation would have to be in a capital.
-the culture and religion of the province should matter (either for assimilation or as event/trait modifiers)
4. what i *dont* want is a lot of army micromanagement. This is a dynasty-building game, not a wargame.
I've learned to trust the PI team to make very good calls. Failing that, there is always the modders.
2. the power to veto my landed sons marriage plans - and enforce better alternatives. (of course, if he is in love that should seriously strain the relationship both with me and his new wife...)
3. spinoffs of point #1:
a) if I move my court, I somehow should be able to bring along the newest thoughts on military tactics, noble customs etc.
-in general, if a tech is known in a part of the demesne that has the same culture as the capital, then that tech should spread quicker to the capital (even if there is no direct road connection). Possibility for 'gamey tech spread' that screws the AI could be countered by a hefty cost of moving capitals.
b) when my children are to be educated, the beacon of enlightenment may be a better option than the muddy field that happens to be new capital.
-church educations should be linked to a province with church/monastery/school/etc, while court eduation would have to be in a capital.
-the culture and religion of the province should matter (either for assimilation or as event/trait modifiers)
4. what i *dont* want is a lot of army micromanagement. This is a dynasty-building game, not a wargame.
I've learned to trust the PI team to make very good calls. Failing that, there is always the modders.
1. Appearance of a refined version of the "DNA" genetic lineage system that existed in the original game but was removed in the expansion. (An option to turn it on or off at the player's preference would have been better than removing it, in terms of addressing the supposed balance issue it caused.)
Unique, never-before-seen-in-games features like this can only help advertising and game sales. Don't let the idea die with the original game.
Unique, never-before-seen-in-games features like this can only help advertising and game sales. Don't let the idea die with the original game.
All I really want to see that deviates from the original is:
1) Muslims and Republics playable.
2) Greenland and Vinland included, although made v. difficult to colonise. (the Americas were known about by the Greenlandic in this period, as they used them as a source of wood.
1) Muslims and Republics playable.
2) Greenland and Vinland included, although made v. difficult to colonise. (the Americas were known about by the Greenlandic in this period, as they used them as a source of wood.
Well, it did happen... Saying it did not is just too big of a generalization. Some were even better than man at it.
And if something happened... it cannot be ahistorical, can it? You are contradicting yourself.
Being able to command troops may be a rare trait women with high martial skill or ruling a demesne can gain from events, but it should remain an exception not the rule.
I don't want to see female marshalls everywhere because it's easier to get women with good stats than males (due to marriage mechanic).
I don't want to see female marshalls everywhere because it's easier to get women with good stats than males (due to marriage mechanic).
CK 2 is in production, and I am happy
Well, I have waited a long time, and now I can't wait for CK 2 to come out. Unlike Vicky 2 that I will probably buy when it's patched and I might perhaps even wait for a Complete version before I buy it, I'll probably run down to the Game Shop to get my copy of CK 2 the day it's released. I am a little disappointed Muslims won't be playable in the initial version, but the hints they will be playable in a expansion is enough for me.
Here are some wishes for CK2
1. Less important characters more interesting:
At a certain time in CK your court grow drastically and there are a bunch of characters you don't really care about at all, and just ignore, and nothing really happens to them, except they might fall ill. More events and other stuff to make those guys more interesting would be very nice.
2. Marriages:
I very much prefer the CK way on handling marriaged (i.e. you seek matches for the member of your dynasty) to the Rome way, where they just happen. However I liked the thing that people outside your dynasty got married in Rome. I think the lesser members of your court that are not part of the ruling dynasty could marry their sons and daughters to each other would be nice. Would also make them more interesting.
3. Navies:
Because medieval naval battles would be awesome!
Well, I have waited a long time, and now I can't wait for CK 2 to come out. Unlike Vicky 2 that I will probably buy when it's patched and I might perhaps even wait for a Complete version before I buy it, I'll probably run down to the Game Shop to get my copy of CK 2 the day it's released. I am a little disappointed Muslims won't be playable in the initial version, but the hints they will be playable in a expansion is enough for me.
Here are some wishes for CK2
1. Less important characters more interesting:
At a certain time in CK your court grow drastically and there are a bunch of characters you don't really care about at all, and just ignore, and nothing really happens to them, except they might fall ill. More events and other stuff to make those guys more interesting would be very nice.
2. Marriages:
I very much prefer the CK way on handling marriaged (i.e. you seek matches for the member of your dynasty) to the Rome way, where they just happen. However I liked the thing that people outside your dynasty got married in Rome. I think the lesser members of your court that are not part of the ruling dynasty could marry their sons and daughters to each other would be nice. Would also make them more interesting.
3. Navies:
Because medieval naval battles would be awesome!
The assertion was that it was not ahistorical, and I asked how it was not ahistorical.
So by rule of double negative, it reads as "how was it historical", which is my point: it isn't.
I have to agree. Women may have been pressed by necessity into combat, but IMHO that's scarcely a reason for the game to model that. So I too would be happy to see female "martial" ratings scrapped. Actually, I would be happy to see all of the ratings scrapped, insofar as they provided direct numerical indices of someone's suitability for a job. I would rather see everyone rated on identifiable personality traits such as prudence, generosity, and so on, and then have the engine use those traits to generate ratings for different offices. So instead of havng traits be modifiers on a base rating, the interplay of traits would directly yield the suitability.
BTW, I sure wouldn't mind seeing traits morph less rapidly in CK2. The majority of someone's personalitry is pretty fixed by the age of 12 or so, after that, let's allow for perhaps a couple of shifts at most that are unrelated to illness or madness!
BTW, I sure wouldn't mind seeing traits morph less rapidly in CK2. The majority of someone's personalitry is pretty fixed by the age of 12 or so, after that, let's allow for perhaps a couple of shifts at most that are unrelated to illness or madness!
Historical military units like the Varangian Guard and the different knightly orders (for example, have some Knights of Santiago in your army/court) and a better representation of the political system in Byzantium, with military commanders and Themes instead of the feudal system.
the case in which women commanded armies are very few and far between.
You said that. Therefore, you were confirming that it did happen. And if it did happen, it could not be ahistorical, right?
And btw, it might had been rare to see a woman commanding an army, but so it was rare to see a woman with 19 martial stats for example in CK1.
And anyway, whats the matter with this thread? Are people suposed to post the things they would like to see in CK2, or are they suposed to be commenting on the things other people would like to see, or on things they would not like to see?
Just because they are not aware of women that commanded armies with great sucess, it does not mean that such women did not exist. Either way it is my last post on the matter since i already said one thing i wanted to see. And i am not here for endless chatter or to bring light into dark places.