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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
When do you think a game gets boring? The point that its time to retire and start anew. When you've lose no more battles, are not challenged, and have no more projects to complete.
I finally turned count into an emperor of Aquitaine. And I plucked half a dozen counties from the HRE in six easy wars. Do I have anything else to do? Is there any point to this game now? Is it time to hang up my crown and start again?
Pick more ambitious goals? Establish an Indian colony containing an entire de jure empire, set out to eradicate the Catholic faith, convert Russia to Nestorian Mandé, etc.
I would say just keep playing because the game doesn't get really interesting until you're a few centuries in and have dynasty members all over the map. But since conclave's change of alliance mechanics (which I think are great for the early game), I'm not sure this is true anymore. I'm afraid paradox may have broken the game's very best feature.
I would say just keep playing because the game doesn't get really interesting until you're a few centuries in and have dynasty members all over the map. But since conclave's change of alliance mechanics (which I think are great for the early game), I'm not sure this is true anymore. I'm afraid paradox may have broken the game's very best feature.
I solved it doing it the Habsurg way; unless you're in for the single children policy you can keep alliances running with a fair share of your dynasts.
I've done this some. But not nearly enough to make my dynasty serious outside of my own borders. How do you do this? I've tried:
Checking claimants of other countries, inviting strong claimants to my court marrying them to my family (matrilineally, if needed) then fighting for their claims. This works. But so often that demesne king can't hold onto his position. And if I'm going to all the trouble of going to war I guess I'd rather do it for for the counties.
I've also tried to marry claimants without inviting them to my court. This is difficult to do to men matrilineally. Very rare. And tough to find women that are in line for a throne. In any case this strategy is usually dependent on lucky deaths or assassinations. Both can be tough.
How do you guys spread your dynasty? Is there an easier way?
Usually happen a few generations in. I sometimes play about Three centuries, but I have never played a Old Gods or Charlie scenario to the finish line. It just gets tediously boring.
I usually play till I break the back of whatever looming threat is perched on my doorstep (Hispania, the Caliph, the ERE, etc), and then quit and move on. Sometimes I'll keep at it till I reach a goal (become Saoshyant, for example), but that becomes tedious after you've beaten your main enemy into the ground. Once there are no more threats, the game just gets boring...
In my current game as 867 Khazaria, it's currently 1008. I've slayed the Byzantines and the Abassids, and control most of India after subjugating de facto Rajastan (he didn't have enough piety to create the title, but he controlled all seven kingdoms and their territory). My goal is to see if I can conquer every last county on the map before the game ends.
I solved it doing it the Habsurg way; unless you're in for the single children policy you can keep alliances running with a fair share of your dynasts.
You mean through marriages? If so, that's nothing like it was pre 2.5: you didn't have alliances with a fair share of your dynasts, you had alliances with every single one no matter what. So marriages don't solve it. The new alliance mechanics make ck2 a completely different game.
I've done this some. But not nearly enough to make my dynasty serious outside of my own borders. How do you do this? I've tried:
Checking claimants of other countries, inviting strong claimants to my court marrying them to my family (matrilineally, if needed) then fighting for their claims. This works. But so often that demesne king can't hold onto his position. And if I'm going to all the trouble of going to war I guess I'd rather do it for for the counties.
I've also tried to marry claimants without inviting them to my court. This is difficult to do to men matrilineally. Very rare. And tough to find women that are in line for a throne. In any case this strategy is usually dependent on lucky deaths or assassinations. Both can be tough.
How do you guys spread your dynasty? Is there an easier way?
Conquer a de jure kingdom through a claimant (you need to be an emperor) revoke the strongest duchy and give it in its entirety to a family member. Grant them independence and because you have given them a strong demesne they should survive.
I'm not a type of player that goes to conquer vast territories, and I never really reach levels when I'm omnipotent compared to other characters.
In the game from that screenshot, my goal was to play as a vassal of the Byzantine Empire and become the most influential character under the Emperor. As you can see, my character holds the title of a King. I started as a Duke of Antioch, then proceeded to conquer most of Syria. With clever marriages, I also managed to gain hold of Duchy of Moesia, Trebizond and Edessa. To be honest, I didn't really hope to achieve all that so shortly.
I felt I was too powerful for my own good, so I meddled in other matters, rather than conquering. At one occasion, I was elected to become the Emperor. No thanks.
Didn't even try to assure that my dynasty heir inherits. I nominated someone else for the title.
Few decades later, my character was elected again. It was extremely annoying, since the sudden influx of new obligations overwhelmed me. Tons of angry vassals, too much provinces, Jihad against Armenia... I went on to become the greatest tyrant ever. No surprise that I was assassinated. Good.
Later on, I got a message that my character's mother died. I married her to my previous character because she was a prominent noble from a prestigious dynasty in Italy.
Their marriage didn't last long, but they had two kids. One of them is my current character.
I didn't really pay much attention to her (terrible person, I know), but she apparently did far better than I thought.
She became the Queen of Sicily (don't know how), and proceeded to conquer North Africa.
My character was the only heir she had.
And so, I became the ruler of those Byzantine areas in Africa and Italy.
It's like someone punched me in the face.
What did I do next?
I completely neglected the inheritance of my FOUR kingdoms. Didn't pay any attention.
As a consequence, I lost Syria to a nephew, and Sicily and Mauretania to a powerful vassal.
I was left with my capital Antioch, and the Kingdom of Africa (basically d_Tunis), including part of Sardinia.
And my new character is Messalian for some reason.
This is now a completely new game. But the difference is that I have a very rich background lore for my dynasty. And this:
Nothing strange about his career. He rose from a mere Count in the Aegean Islands to a Strategos of his de-jure Duchy. Eventually, he was elected to become the next Emperor.
What caught my eye was the name of that dynasty.
So, I started digging (read: scrolling) up their history, and found some very interesting stuff.
I know, I know.....some of you guys are probably well aware of this dynasty, and you probably every so often catch a character with a very long family tree. For me, it was quite cool to see such a character randomly becoming the Emperor.
Also, it's probably a longshot to claim this guy to be a descendant of Mithridates I of Parthia, but still....it's rather awesome when you think about it.
I don't know how long is he going to last. His sons are nowhere near to succeed him as the Emperor. And due to him being utterly mad (including his sons), it seems that his dynasty will be dethroned once he is dead.
My initial plans for this playthrough involved me creating the Kingdom of Syria, then severing all ties with the Empire.
After finding this dynasty, I'm thinking about marrying my son with someone from there, and then to rename my dynasty to include "Pahlavuni". Maybe even add "Arsacid" for giggles.
I will then convert to Zoroastrianism and claim my descendants to be rightful heirs to the Persian Empire.
If time wills it, I plan on uniting the Greek and Persian empires. Then possibly venture forth into EU4.
I believe it is far more interesting when you limit yourself while playing. Allow yourself to lose.
When you only go in one direction (conquest, conquest and more conquest), you always reach that point where you are omnipotent.
By letting yourself be carried along by the randomness of this game, you get to explore the best of it.
After all, this game is not linear, but a sandbox. If you go linear, you always get the same results. And you get tired.
At least that is my opinion.
Try a different approach to this game. It's all I can say.
You mean through marriages? If so, that's nothing like it was pre 2.5: you didn't have alliances with a fair share of your dynasts, you had alliances with every single one no matter what. So marriages don't solve it. The new alliance mechanics make ck2 a completely different game.
And? You can be allied to your uncles, or make alliances with your cousins (you marry your unlanded brother's daughters to a dynast's heir and then you can renew the alliance with the heir once his father dies) as well as being allied to grand children. I think you can also renew alliances with someone if his mother is a close enough dynast.
The dynastic management has been made much easier than in 2.5 if just for the fact that vassals can join independant rulers war, so in my starts as vassal I can start polinating and spreading my dynasty and defending them. Once landed the AI seems much more reluctant to bow to claimant factions too; hated how I would fight wars for years just to find out that my wife is now a count in foreign realm without putting up a fight almost every single time.
Later on I keep them in place through marriage. Unless you just land and try to defend independant dukes, it's not that hard to keep a big enough pool of dynasts to marry away as you don't have to marry every generation for an alliance. It requires a bit of work but if you want a strong and close dynasty I think it makes sense to require active involvment.
You referring to the lag? If so, then yes, I know. I've stopped purchasing horde, even though I have 40k manpower, because it takes 20-30 seconds to spawn each unit of 250 in. The military and intrigue tabs both lag a ton as well. Though I suppose I could fix the intrigue tab by releasing the 108 prisoners just languishing in my dungeon...
This is so ridiculously important in this game, it still shocks me that more people have to WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN all the time. Then again, that's why the direction of the game has turned away from the more RPG aspects and into a map painting, EU-style strategy game I suppose.
I usually stop playing CK2 just a few decades after I get to be an emperor. If I knew vassals and factions would threaten my reign, I would certainly keep on playing.
Late game still offers no real challenge for me. It's sad and unfortunate Doomdark believes implementing mechanics that should break empires from within is a bad idea. That's in my opinion what would precisely keep many players interested in CK2 for much longer. The moment I realize nothing else can go wrong or stop me from achieving my goals - and that the game has been "won" -, is the moment I get bored and quit.
That said, I am not the kind of masochist hardcore player, but a certain amount of challenge and apprehension is still required to keep my interest on. Sadly, CK2 fails to deliver it after a certain point.
It's sad and unfortunate Doomdark believes implementing mechanics that should break empires from within is a bad idea. That's in my opinion what would precisely keep many players interested in CK2 for much longer.
Sadly there are a LOT of people who HATE to lose. Like, will give the game negative reviews if they lose and other such fits. It's part of why Ironman was implemented, so that people couldn't just save scum their way through bad events and hard wars. I seriously doubt that PDX will make it easier to "lose" by having realms able to break up more, unfortunately.
