[TOG] Nerfing Norse - petition

[Velorian]

What'd that change? Norse will take Romuva in 2 generations instead of one? And what about unified Slavs going after them? Once again - Subjugation CB is nonsense. I could live with that upon launch, since balancing takes time, but now they are taking their shot at balancing the thing and half the forum did better job at changing it by themselves.


Yet, there are mechanics and ways to implement it to CK2 already in place - they'd make both process and outcomes more historical (and harder, ergo more challenging, for the player), but apparently the game is not supposed to be historical - it has to be fun for people who want to unify half of europe under high crown authority, medium taxes and max levies... without any effort ^^.

Well, I completely agree with everything you just said, yet you seem to disagree with me somehow. My main point is that rebalancing was definitely needed, I can't try out these new changes as I don't use Steam, so I've no idea how they actually play out ingame. I personally think it doesn't go far enough, but I realize that it had to be a compromise as many people want the opposite.

In theory there also wouldn't have been anything truly stopping a medieval lord from declaring war upon and invading almost anyone, yet the mechanics require casus belli because the consequences that might potentially have historically ensued can't be properly simulated.

 

[trias10]

this is a joke right

before you could take EVERY HOLDING held by a pagan every 10 years. oh that's a nice Scandinavian Empire there, why don't I subjugate it?

CK2 is already beyond ridiculous in blobbing and subjugation AT ALL is one of the root causes. the game lacks absolutely any kind of manpower or population mechanic to prevent 100% constant offensive warfare, so adding in CBs that allow unlimited seizure of territory is beyond broken.

(the only thing more overpowered is Tengri/tribal invasions, and those need a massive nerf.)

I agree that the original 1.10 Subjugation was too powerful and had to be nerfed, no disagreement there.

But I think the 1.101 nerf was too harsh, and doesn't address the issue well. I am a firm believer that Subjugation should be culture limited, i.e. Norse can only subjugate other Norse, and that the target of the subjugation should share a border with you.

I have released a Subjugation nerf mini-mod which implements these changes, and have been getting great results. I urge people to give my mod a shot. It doesn't cost anything and I think you'd be pleasantly surprised with the fairness and historical accuracy it leads to.

 

[unmerged(148491)]

I agree that the original 1.10 Subjugation was too powerful and had to be nerfed, no disagreement there.

But I think the 1.101 nerf was too harsh, and doesn't address the issue well. I am a firm believer that Subjugation should be culture limited, i.e. Norse can only subjugate other Norse, and that the target of the subjugation should share a border with you.

I have released a Subjugation nerf mini-mod which implements these changes, and have been getting great results. I urge people to give my mod a shot. It doesn't cost anything and I think you'd be pleasantly surprised with the fairness and historical accuracy it leads to.

Did the same, and also made restriction to subjugating duke level and below (no more taking whole kingdom in one go). I didn't like the idea of bordering because it kinda makes iceland/shetland-dudes immune, and I don't think it's correct. Or did you make sea-zones restriction on top of it?

 

[Velorian]

I agree that the original 1.10 Subjugation was too powerful and had to be nerfed, no disagreement there.

But I think the 1.101 nerf was too harsh, and doesn't address the issue well. I am a firm believer that Subjugation should be culture limited, i.e. Norse can only subjugate other Norse, and that the target of the subjugation should share a border with you.

I have released a Subjugation nerf mini-mod which implements these changes, and have been getting great results. I urge people to give my mod a shot. It doesn't cost anything and I think you'd be pleasantly surprised with the fairness and historical accuracy it leads to.

Then it's less of a case of it being too harsh and more a case of it being clumsily applied. I do think your changes are better than the patch though.

 

[trias10]

Did the same, and also made restriction to subjugating duke level and below (no more taking whole kingdom in one go). I didn't like the idea of bordering because it kinda makes iceland/shetland-dudes immune, and I don't think it's correct. Or did you make sea-zones restriction on top of it?

I have a sea zone restriction as well.

In my mod, the target must share a border with you or be up to 2 sea zones away. This is the standard mechanic used for the Holy War CB and I think it's a good one. Not sure if it will let you subjugate Iceland though, however, in all games I've played, if you form the kingdom of Norway, Iceland/Shetland/Orkney always accept an Offer Vassalization request.

 

[unmerged(112259)]

I've yet to see a Norse superpower.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...e-petition&p=15572781&viewfull=1#post15572781

Although i'm not sure what conditions you mean by super-power? I think having all of North-Western Europe as a near fully Norse zone, even if under different Kingdoms is quite 'Super-Powery' in that they will be difficult to beat back once they head into new zones like the main Catholic zone of mainland western europe. What with the Muslim hordes to the south and these Norse powers to the North, the future of Christian Europe looks bloody.

I've had that same kind of result (prior to using trias10's mod) 3 out of 4 observe games (running from the 860 start to 1066 each time). The other time it was Merica that formed a Christian England after they had beat back Jorvik and Ivor the Boneless (wessex didn't take of as much).

===============================

I need to catch up on a bunch of posts here since that new patch which i have not tried out yet.

 

[unmerged(281782)]

Just wanted to give my impression. Yes, I am playing without 1.1101, but it doesn't address the main problem. You know why vikings are freaking OP? They are filthy rich. They are republics of 9th century.
I've got that event starting preparing invasion. "Fine", I've thought, "I need some money now." So I've took all my ships, all ships from events (why 180 guys arrive in 12 boats?) and all troops from events — didn't even bother with levies. The fleet totalled almost 100 ships, and in one yearly tour over Mediterranean I've filled all boats with gold. The time for invasion came, so I had to return and take over some part of England, but I've had over 1k gold already. When I've finished with Englishmen, I've turned my eyes to the continent — being unable to take all holy places in Norse lands, I needed to take Zeeland.
So I declare war on Lotharingia for Zeeland, thinking my newly-found 3k of levies coupled with mercs would be enough. The trouble came in the form of all Karling (Francia, Aquitane and whats-its-name) coming to their aid. Fine, I think, I'll crush them divided. I've bought as much mercs as I could allow (with spare cash for salaries, of course) and crashed first Lotharingian army of 8k with my 10k before they could unite with others. Meanwhile, all my ships with some 1k of levies were off to farm Med again.
I've captured Zeeland and started besieging Holland when united Army oh Christendom came. They were totalling 20k, so I temporarily started running. At that time my raiders arrived with another 1k of gold, I've hired every merc company in the list and, with usual tactic of luring and dropping reinforcements from ships, decimated the enemy. Yes, the petty kingdom of Jylland can decimate all Karling Empire united, killing of two of its Kings in battle (just bad luck for them, I guess, but that was fun). Afterwards they burst into rebellions, and most of those were successful. While that is not as awesome as Republic invasions that reunite both Roman Empires into Roman Republic by 1120, it still feels... wrong?
After all that it was piece of cake to reform Norse in 880.

 

[Zsrai]

They were totalling 20k, so I temporarily started running. At that time my raiders arrived with another 1k of gold, I've hired every merc company in the list and, with usual tactic of luring and dropping reinforcements from ships, decimated the enemy. Yes, the petty kingdom of Jylland can decimate all Karling Empire united

Well that's why you won, doing amphibious landings that the AI in incapable of countering to win is a known gamey tactic... I wouldn't pin that win just on being a rich Northman. Being able to hire EVERY merc company you have access to is definitely a large factor in even being able to use that tactic though.

 

[iamjmph]

So what you are saying is that while you did want the balancing changed, you wanted it done in a different way. Unless you mean it was balanced perfectly before?

I mean I definitely want gameplay to be as immersive and historic as possible, but as the game engine has many limitations that will never happen to the full extent I might want. So failing that, I want situations to typically more or less pan out how they did historically, provided I don't interfere myself. The Norse can still quite easily conquer half the map in record time, so I don't see how your possibilities have been restricted in any meaningful way.

Also you have no real way of knowing whether your opinion represents the larger pool of players or not. Quite frankly I suspect the larger pool of players don't care much either way.

A few things about this i disagree with. As i have stated, I'm not one who really cares about historical outcomes... half the fun for me is things being different. Do i mind if it goes the same as history, no not really. But i don't get upset that it doesn't.

As for meaningful restrictions go, well as I have said in previous posts, make any changes you want to the a.i., but dont take away MY options because a minority of players don't like them. Especially ones that a simple mod will fix. I'm not that great at modding, but if i do end up getting this patch(so i can play elder kings mod) i'll probably mod this stuff back to pre-patch....

A resourceful player, who wants to, could start as a Romuva count, and end the game in charge of most of the world. They could do the same as a Christian, a Muslim, or anyone else. Taking options away from the PLAYER to limit the A.I. is not the way to go imho...

As for the last paragraph... yeah, I'm sure you are right that most don't care. Why should those who shout the loudest get to be the one who make changes?

But it's ok, I'm sure some future patch will change things you(in general no the person i quoted specifically) didn't want changed because of a vocal minority. I hope yall remember this....

edit: yes, im bitter that I am losing options because you(general, not specific) don't like things.. i've played two and observed one game and never saw a huge norse blob(other than my own of course.) but, as it happened to you, it must ALWAYS happen and just HAS to be changed....

 

[senior_hombre]

-1

 

[Velorian]

A few things about this i disagree with. As i have stated, I'm not one who really cares about historical outcomes... half the fun for me is things being different. Do i mind if it goes the same as history, no not really. But i don't get upset that it doesn't.

As for meaningful restrictions go, well as I have said in previous posts, make any changes you want to the a.i., but dont take away MY options because a minority of players don't like them. Especially ones that a simple mod will fix. I'm not that great at modding, but if i do end up getting this patch(so i can play elder kings mod) i'll probably mod this stuff back to pre-patch....

A resourceful player, who wants to, could start as a Romuva count, and end the game in charge of most of the world. They could do the same as a Christian, a Muslim, or anyone else. Taking options away from the PLAYER to limit the A.I. is not the way to go imho...

As for the last paragraph... yeah, I'm sure you are right that most don't care. Why should those who shout the loudest get to be the one who make changes?

But it's ok, I'm sure some future patch will change things you(in general no the person i quoted specifically) didn't want changed because of a vocal minority. I hope yall remember this....

edit: yes, im bitter that I am losing options because you(general, not specific) don't like things.. i've played two and observed one game and never saw a huge norse blob(other than my own of course.) but, as it happened to you, it must ALWAYS happen and just HAS to be changed....

You can still conquer the areas with next to no effort, you are barely being restricted at all. If all you want is no restrictions why not just mod all casus belli to always be available to the player? There is nothing logically preventing a Catholic ruler from attacking anyone at any time, yet the game already restricts that...

I don't give a damn whether an individual game gives historic results but if it usually gives a very unlikely result then something is very wrong, and some sort of balancing is needed. I actually love the vikings, and their mechanics, but it bothers me that they feel so easy-mode to play. It's like they are this new thing that has to be cool and powerful instead of being integrated properly into the rest of the game, if it isn't balanced it cheapens the experience.

Patches constantly contradict what I want, even this one doesn't do it the way I would have done, quite frankly there is almost no change Paradox could make that wouldn't make someone angry, like you who care nothing for balance but only want to be unrestricted in your choices for the game. Well I'm sure you are not alone, but nor are you part of a greater majority being forced to have something only a tiny minority wanted.

Pretty much everyone agreed Norse were, at the very least, a bit overpowered, well that or the others underpowered. Something had to be done, I'll agree that this wasn't the perfect solution, but I'm getting the feeling you didn't want any kind of solution if it affected you. The vanilla game SHOULD be balanced, if you want an unbalanced version with all the choices and options you could ever want, then that is what should be the mod, not the other way around.

Who even says the loudest voice got heeded? Paradox routinely ignores whining and complaints and decides on their own balancing, to fit what they believe is the average player.

 

[iamjmph]

You can still conquer the areas with next to no effort, you are barely being restricted at all. If all you want is no restrictions why not just mod all casus belli to always be available to the player? There is nothing logically preventing a Catholic ruler from attacking anyone at any time, yet the game already restricts that...

I don't give a damn whether an individual game gives historic results but if it usually gives a very unlikely result then something is very wrong, and some sort of balancing is needed. I actually love the vikings, and their mechanics, but it bothers me that they feel so easy-mode to play. It's like they are this new thing that has to be cool and powerful instead of being integrated properly into the rest of the game, if it isn't balanced it cheapens the experience.

Patches constantly contradict what I want, even this one doesn't do it the way I would have done, quite frankly there is almost no change Paradox could make that wouldn't make someone angry, like you who care nothing for balance but only want to be unrestricted in your choices for the game. Well I'm sure you are not alone, but nor are you part of a greater majority being forced to have something only a tiny minority wanted.

Pretty much everyone agreed Norse were, at the very least, a bit overpowered, well that or the others underpowered. Something had to be done, I'll agree that this wasn't the perfect solution, but I'm getting the feeling you didn't want any kind of solution if it affected you. The vanilla game SHOULD be balanced, if you want an unbalanced version with all the choices and options you could ever want, then that is what should be the mod, not the other way around.

Who even says the loudest voice got heeded? Paradox routinely ignores whining and complaints and decides on their own balancing, to fit what they believe is the average player.

A few things...
firstly, someone in this thread made a post that said paradox said the subjugation cb was WAD...that they changed it shows they listened to the complaints.
secondly, you and i have different definitions of "pretty much everyone"... because, i am fairly certain the the # of people who complained about OP norse do not even come close to a majority of those who have purchased and play CK2... if they do then how can paradox continue to support this game with so few players.
thirdly, nerfing the norse was NOT the only way to achieve balance, as most of the complaints in this thread were about norse conquering the other northern pagans and/or england. They could have easily buffed the other northern pagans and lowered the initial troops in england with out taking away options from the player.
fourthly, I do like balance in the game. I don't care if the a.i. plays out like it did in history. I think the a.i. doesn't use the mechanics in the best way. I could care less what changes are made to the a.i. I DO care about players options being taken away because a FEW players don't like them...

I don't mind restrictions that Paradox makes on the game. I will play within the rules they set up. If the made a mistake and fix it, i'll abide by the changes, or mod what i can to how i like it. Im not the best modder, and the cb file confuses me in some places, so i will probably just save the current one, and then copy and paste the pagan cbs as is. Some of the changes are hard coded, and thus i am stuck with them.
That said, if paradox says something is WAD and then changes it because of complaints on the forum...well i disagree with that.

I don't care that some play throughs are unhistorical. My self and others posted examples of non-super norse games, but most people who were calling for nerfs dismissed them as not what usually happens. I have played 2 games and observed 1. The only time the Norse blobed was when i played as them. Others had different results.

As i said, unless pdox comes to the forum and says that we are the majority of players, im going to have to assume that the regular forumites are a minority as far as CK2 players. If a portion of a minority call for a change, and that change is made, then that is a vocal minority forcing changes on everyone. I also fail to believe that the 20-30(more, or less) who called for nerfing of the norse make up a majority of the regular forum posters. In fact, i would say a vast majority didn't weigh in at all.

I know i don't always make a lot of sense, so ill try to boil it down.

I don't care what changes are made to the a.i. I do care what changes are made to player options. I had the option to subjugate every ten years, i used it once. But i had the option. Now, i don't. And its not because Pdox made an error in the code. Its because SOME players thought the a.i. abused it. Who cares if the restirction still allows me to conquer easily. they are still unnecessary(imo) restrictions...

gah, i hate my thought process sometimes, im just going to post this and hope i got my point across... most will probably think I'm making a big deal about nothing, thats fine. It is their opinion, and I'd be a hypocrite if i tried to force my opinion on others....

 

[unmerged(281782)]

Well that's why you won, doing amphibious landings that the AI in incapable of countering to win is a known gamey tactic... I wouldn't pin that win just on being a rich Northman. Being able to hire EVERY merc company you have access to is definitely a large factor in even being able to use that tactic though.

The fact is, I've had an army equal to theirs(18k but with greater number of HI and much better generals), I simply couldn't force them in an equal battle (not attacking them over river\strait) and had to force them to attack. If any of 4 kings did not participate, I could even went on offensive and still crushed them.

And speaking of amphibious landings, being able to attack enemy from rivers (and withdraw right back) is another factor greatly increasing Norse capability to wage wars. I've destroyed over half of Bulgarian levies simply by dropping on small stacks before they could unite and withdrawing back to ships.

And God, coastal conquest of ANY non-pagan province? Do you remember how much rage there was about way more limited coastal conquest of republics? Now I can simply sail my mercs to Venice, declare war and drop mercs them on their heads. They can't do a thing and I can get FREAKING VENICE with little more than 2k soldiers? That's ridiculous.

 

[unmerged(148491)]

firstly, someone in this thread made a post that said paradox said the subjugation cb was WAD

You misread me then. I've just referred to what Doomdark replied to me in some other thread which was that Subjugation being WAD in a way that it isn't limited to attackers culture - which seems to have been their initial plan that got reverted... unfortunately.

 

[Velorian]

A few things...
firstly, someone in this thread made a post that said paradox said the subjugation cb was WAD...that they changed it shows they listened to the complaints.
secondly, you and i have different definitions of "pretty much everyone"... because, i am fairly certain the the # of people who complained about OP norse do not even come close to a majority of those who have purchased and play CK2... if they do then how can paradox continue to support this game with so few players.
thirdly, nerfing the norse was NOT the only way to achieve balance, as most of the complaints in this thread were about norse conquering the other northern pagans and/or england. They could have easily buffed the other northern pagans and lowered the initial troops in england with out taking away options from the player.
fourthly, I do like balance in the game. I don't care if the a.i. plays out like it did in history. I think the a.i. doesn't use the mechanics in the best way. I could care less what changes are made to the a.i. I DO care about players options being taken away because a FEW players don't like them...

I don't mind restrictions that Paradox makes on the game. I will play within the rules they set up. If the made a mistake and fix it, i'll abide by the changes, or mod what i can to how i like it. Im not the best modder, and the cb file confuses me in some places, so i will probably just save the current one, and then copy and paste the pagan cbs as is. Some of the changes are hard coded, and thus i am stuck with them.
That said, if paradox says something is WAD and then changes it because of complaints on the forum...well i disagree with that.

I don't care that some play throughs are unhistorical. My self and others posted examples of non-super norse games, but most people who were calling for nerfs dismissed them as not what usually happens. I have played 2 games and observed 1. The only time the Norse blobed was when i played as them. Others had different results.

As i said, unless pdox comes to the forum and says that we are the majority of players, im going to have to assume that the regular forumites are a minority as far as CK2 players. If a portion of a minority call for a change, and that change is made, then that is a vocal minority forcing changes on everyone. I also fail to believe that the 20-30(more, or less) who called for nerfing of the norse make up a majority of the regular forum posters. In fact, i would say a vast majority didn't weigh in at all.

I know i don't always make a lot of sense, so ill try to boil it down.

I don't care what changes are made to the a.i. I do care what changes are made to player options. I had the option to subjugate every ten years, i used it once. But i had the option. Now, i don't. And its not because Pdox made an error in the code. Its because SOME players thought the a.i. abused it. Who cares if the restirction still allows me to conquer easily. they are still unnecessary(imo) restrictions...

gah, i hate my thought process sometimes, im just going to post this and hope i got my point across... most will probably think I'm making a big deal about nothing, thats fine. It is their opinion, and I'd be a hypocrite if i tried to force my opinion on others....

If you are going to compare amount of posters to number of copies sold, even a thousand wouldn't mean much. There was a general consensus that the Norse were grabbing the Baltics a bit too often, and perhaps too successful in general, opinions mostly differed on how the re-balancing ought be done. I think most players feel the Norse are a bit too powerful, of course I could be wrong about that, but then so could you in disagreeing.

It's really not just an AI problem, this game generally isn't all that difficult, but the Norse takes the cake, they are simply too easy. Rectifying that could be done in many ways, I'm not saying the way this patch handled it were the best or even that it truly fixed the problem. But I strongly believe there is a problem, or having yet to try out the new patch, at least were one. The AI Norse dominating the Baltic is really just a symptom of a deeper problem.

Whatever Paradox decides will essentially be forced on everyone, Paradox does not blindly cave in to forum complaints, maybe they noticed the balance problems themselves, even if they didn't they must have agreed with it to an extent.
It seems to me the patch notes are more of a compromise, as they might have been afraid of truly weakening the Norse and get people angry who just bought the pack and want them to be strong. Well I'd rather err on the side of making them too weak, barely strong enough for the AI to manage, so that I'd have a challenge myself, but I don't suppose many agree with that desire.

 

[iamjmph]

If you are going to compare amount of posters to number of copies sold, even a thousand wouldn't mean much. There was a general consensus that the Norse were grabbing the Baltics a bit too often, and perhaps too successful in general, opinions mostly differed on how the re-balancing ought be done. I think most players feel the Norse are a bit too powerful, of course I could be wrong about that, but then so could you in disagreeing.

It's really not just an AI problem, this game generally isn't all that difficult, but the Norse takes the cake, they are simply too easy. Rectifying that could be done in many ways, I'm not saying the way this patch handled it were the best or even that it truly fixed the problem. But I strongly believe there is a problem, or having yet to try out the new patch, at least were one. The AI Norse dominating the Baltic is really just a symptom of a deeper problem.

Whatever Paradox decides will essentially be forced on everyone, Paradox does not blindly cave in to forum complaints, maybe they noticed the balance problems themselves, even if they didn't they must have agreed with it to an extent.
It seems to me the patch notes are more of a compromise, as they might have been afraid of truly weakening the Norse and get people angry who just bought the pack and want them to be strong. Well I'd rather err on the side of making them too weak, barely strong enough for the AI to manage, so that I'd have a challenge myself, but I don't suppose many agree with that desire.

please don't generalize. There was NOT a general consensus about it. There were some who thought that, some who disagreed, and some who didn't care but offered ideas on how to make it better for those who did feel that way. I disagreed about the norse being overpowered, but i still offered suggestions on how to "balance" it for those who felt it was unbalanced. Idea's which did NOT take options away from players. You are right, neither of us knows what "most" players think. I just don't think "most" players should have options taken away from them because some don't like them. Any faction(except maybe Abbysinia(sp?) can be easy for players. I've never tried them so i don't know.

It is an AI problem though. Just because you have a cb doesn't mean you HAVE to use it. Building cash, stabilizing your realm, making marriage alliances... all those can be done instead of conquering, and done correctly they take time. If the a.i. would raid, build and consolidate their kingdoms, rather than war every chance they get, we wouldn't be having this discussion... maybe a similar one, but not this.

It's true we have to live with what paradox decides, and i agree they don't blindly cave. They will however, occasionally listen to customer feed back and work it in... and in that case those who shout the loudest are usually the ones who get heard.... As for them noticing balance issues themselves, i direct you to http://www.twitch.tv/paradoxinteractive/b/409894918 . If you follow this link you will find the project lead discussing the game. About 30 minutes and @50 seconds into it Henrik(project lead) talks about the discussion on the forums about subjugation being unbalanced, or OP. He explains, and I'm paraphrasing, that the subjugation is a cb that all pagans can use against each other,usually with 10 years in between and that is IS powerful, cause they did that kinda thing. The balance, other than the 10 years, was gavelkind and the short reign malus.

I'd call that pdox offically saying it was WAD. they made it powerful and made forced gavelkind and a harsh short reign malus as a balance.

 

[unmerged(148491)]

He explains, and I'm paraphrasing, that the subjugation is a cb that all pagans can use against each other,usually with 10 years in between and that is IS powerful, cause they did that kinda thing.

Pity it is not true in every aspect and reflects mostly what Norse and Tengri did - not really applying to defensive pagans except a few (and I mean very few) exceptions. But that doesn't matter - I really hoped they'd allow us to work with homeland attrition, but it doesn't seem like it's gonna happen any soon .

 

[Beric Dondarion]

If you're going to post pictures of the Norse being overpowered, please post 20 pictures of 20 different games, as one game is not every game. In 4/10 of my games, Norse get wiped from the map.

 

[TankRush]

Bless the Lord! Norse were nerfed and eastern pagans buffed! What more can we want?

Yes they were nerfed. But, and I'll leave it at this, it wasn't the really nerfs that some/many were clambering for.


" - Fixed an issue where the primary heir under Gavelkind would not inherit the capital county"

" - Under Gavelkind, your oldest son will no longer ask for titles"

I'm sure everyone is happy about these ones too. The second is especially nice, because it was something that was always annoying, but nothing that ever came to mind enough to ask about changing.

"- The ambition to gain a council position now only increases a skill the first time it is successful"

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's going to miss being able to use this to upgrade your heir.

You can no longer game it by changing your primary holding to one in another de jure kingdom.

That's what people were so bent out of shape about, when it came to the Subjugation CB? Geez, I didn't even realize you could game it like that, by changing primary title (I also decided I'd rather be King of Denmark, instead of Pommerania or Lithuania).

Not being able to destroy titles, to keep from losing lands, is going to be a big difference too. Since one of the reasons my Danes expanded so much early on is because I destroyed one of his King titles (and launched a claim war to get the other back).


"- Added the Hellenic religion"

Interesting... now I really want my Zoroastrians to go to war with them, someone needs to make a mini-mod with that scenario. A (mostly reformed) Persian Empire, and a Hellenic Byzantine Empire (that needs to finish off converting the Christians, before it can get to work on everyone else). Does anyone know if the Hellenics get any events or such?

Or wanted smaller changes, or different ones.

But these are small changes, and largely different from what people were calling for (as seen in this thread).

Frankly, I don't think it's going to ruin the game for the Norse. But I will say, it remains to be seen how this effects the game. It's too soon to tell, for certain.

Yet, there are mechanics and ways to implement it to CK2 already in place - they'd make both process and outcomes more historical (and harder, ergo more challenging, for the player), but apparently the game is not supposed to be historical - it has to be fun for people who want to unify half of europe under high crown authority, medium taxes and max levies... without any effort ^^.

So I need to go in to detail about how equating a historical game, with a challenging game, is a load of crap? All this talk about realism, but the only realism you seem to find fun is that the Romuva don't get crushed (and they're still around in my Zoroastrian game, over 100 years later). Which brings me to my point, if we must have a game that is historical, then that means essentially making it impossible to play Zoroastrians or Hellenics, since they never made a huge revival in real life, and so on down the line of every implausible thing that we can't include now, because then the game wouldn't be realistic. And it wouldn't be as fun either. It's not like this is a new thing Paradox is trying, they've been moving away from following set history with just about every game. Like by removing events that railroad you along.

Some games, like Hearts of Iron, it's nice to have that inertia, because you play Hearts of Iron not to be the Soviet Union, or Germany, or whatever. Most people play it because they want to fight WW2 as one country or another. Crusader Kings is different. I don't play it because I want to immerse myself in a historical world. I want to manage a feudal bloodline. Assassinate my rivals, keep my ancestors well bred, and usurp the throne in a vicious coup. I don't want to sit back and read about how it's 1066 and because I was foolish enough to play a Saxon, I'm now the subject of William the Conqueror, "because that's what happened now in history".

 

[unmerged(281782)]

If you're going to post pictures of the Norse being overpowered, please post 20 pictures of 20 different games, as one game is not every game. In 4/10 of my games, Norse get wiped from the map.

Well, I can tell you certainly that out of 20 games at least 18-19 games where I play Norse would be successful for Norse. Just like republic AI's were while agressive but not roflstomping, and on the other hand any human Republic can easily invade and take over all of HRE before 1100.