I'd just add it needs to be observe only games as well. I've ran half a dozen or so 'observe' games from the new 860 start until 1066, with the results i was talking about. In particular i just didn't feel that ToG gave a credible game scenraio in terms of the British Isles most of the time. I've not looked into the baltic state issue as much, being more concerned with a Pagan Norse English empire!
[TOG] Nerfing Norse - petition
- Thread starter CzokletMuss
- 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.
I'd just add it needs to be observe only games as well. I've ran half a dozen or so 'observe' games from the new 860 start until 1066, with the results i was talking about. In particular i just didn't feel that ToG gave a credible game scenraio in terms of the British Isles most of the time. I've not looked into the baltic state issue as much, being more concerned with a Pagan Norse English empire!
Well, as I perceived it, most either felt they were overpowered or that there at least was a problem with their impact on the Baltic. But fine we'll never agree on that. If the AI can subjugate them, then it will, because the game doesn't model any reasons why it shouldn't. If you just ordered the AI to stay out of the Baltic that would have been a pretty damn lazy solution too.
The problem is that it is both easy and profitable, in the real world it would have been neither, and this applies both to the player and the AI.
As I said, there are many possible solutions to it, if you were to criticize the WAY they went about fixing it I wouldn't argue as much as when you deny that there was any problem to fix at all.
At any rate the patch change you seem most angry about is a small restriction on ONE of your many different choices for CBs, it really shouldn't be such a big deal. It would have been better if that CB could only be used on other of the same Pagan branch, but I suppose you'd see it as an even bigger restriction. Well what's the point of being given choices which wouldn't have been available to rulers at the time?
The changes implemented were small enough that I'd wager you'd be hard-pressed to really notice them in-game, but as I said, I've yet to test them on account of the whole steam thing.
It's true that they did that kind of thing, but not as often as portrayed in the game, and not against the Baltics EVER, sure they could perhaps have done it if they wanted, but then it should be an occasional occurrence not a trend. Anyway Paradox still decided on their own solution to the problem, and as matter of definition anything they implement is WAD unless it is directly a bug.
I don't think the situation with the British isles is all that unusual, or to be unexpected.
The game starts out (in 867) with some of the most powerful Norse lords declaring war on English petty kings, and with huge armies poised to invade. The inevitable outcome is that they're going to end up taking over, often. Frankly, I'd be more annoyed if they never took the British isles at all, considering all the attention they're given.
Which brings me back to my games. As the Danes, the Norse were kicked out of the British Isles in a few decades, and never returned. While my current game, as Zoroastrians, they have a small foothold of no bigger than a Duchy, and the Romuva are still doing alright. (this is pre-patch even too, when the Norse were still horribly broken, because I forgot I turned updates off on Steam).
The game starts out (in 867) with some of the most powerful Norse lords declaring war on English petty kings, and with huge armies poised to invade. The inevitable outcome is that they're going to end up taking over, often. Frankly, I'd be more annoyed if they never took the British isles at all, considering all the attention they're given.
Which brings me back to my games. As the Danes, the Norse were kicked out of the British Isles in a few decades, and never returned. While my current game, as Zoroastrians, they have a small foothold of no bigger than a Duchy, and the Romuva are still doing alright. (this is pre-patch even too, when the Norse were still horribly broken, because I forgot I turned updates off on Steam).
well i guess we wont agree. I will never be able to agree that most ck2 players felt one way or another because most of the players didn't weigh in. Ill admit a lot, maybe even the majority of those who posted in this thread or others like it felt that way, but that is hardly a surprise. I never felt they were overpowered... as i said I have only played 3 games, but the only one that had norse blobs was the one in which i played norse. And i think i have said i don't mind making changes for balance to things a player doesn't have an option in, i.e. attrition, levy bonus, cultural unit strengths and weaknesses, etc., etc.
Yes, it is a small change in my options, heck it wouldn't have effected my norse game, as i only used subjugation cb to make sweden anyways... BUT, i still had the choice to use it more than once outside of creating a kingdom. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the catholics can still invade as many catholics as they can get the Pope to agree to right. Same for orthodox with the Patriach(i don't want to offend anyone by misspelling the proper title...) That option isn't limited to once per ruler. The muslims can invade more than once correct? Perhaps rather than limit subjugation usage, they could have set it like a chirstian invasion, or the norse prepared invasion, where you only got the lands that you controlled. I'd still have the option to use it every ten years, and i wouldn't be taking whole kingdoms in one go, probably... That seems like a fair compromise to me...
Heck give it a similar size limit as prepared invasions(although not the same... maybe 2-30 holdings for attackee but with holding size restriction for the attacker
i know I'm not answering in the orer you wrote this stuff sorry if I get confusing... anyways, I know that the new patch(minus any bugs) is WAD. My main point was that the original was WAD, so why change it? They knew it was powerful, they balanced it with other things in game. I fail to believe they don't at least run a few observe games, so they probably had similar results to what was posted on the forum. The only reason i can see for them changing it, unless there was a bug tied to it that could only be fixed by making the changes(which i never heard about), would be because of the number of complaints on the forum. The dissatisfied shout the loudest and all that, and since most players didn't comment on way or the other....
They also changed coastal cb, taking more options away from me. But as i think i have said(my memory really does suck) my complaints were about their "balancing" taking away player options rather than other things that could have been changed with out taking away options. If it had started that way, i wouldn't mind being restricted in that way. Again, its about taking away my options as a player.
umm.... to the best of my knowledge rulers didn't need CB in real life. It helped, or course. If you had the backing of the pope, people would resent you less. But you didn't HAVE to.
I may not know as much about the history of the in game "pagans" as others, but I'm fairly certain if a Norse ruler wanted someone elses territory, he didn't NEED an offical reason. He didn't need to have a claim, or anything like that. If he thought he had the strength to take it, he would simply raise his army and try to take it. The war in England at the start of 867 wasn't a claim war, it was a revenge war(please correct me if im wrong) It was the sons of a norse leader killed by the "king" of northumbria attacking in revenge, not because they thought they had a rightful claim to northumbria....
Do i think this should be implemented in game... No, just no. While needing a cb can be annoying at times, it is a great mechanic.
i think i answered everything...
Except part of the subjegation nerf is to stop people uniting their faith by taking out each major power at 10 year intervals. They DON'T want a united Norse (or more notably, Tengri) blob.
So explain to me - what is the point of setting the game in medieval Europe instead of fx. Middle Earth or some Calradia? If it is not supposed to reflect medieval times in Europe, why did they even bother with it? Would take far less work and would mean that noone is really complaining about that one thing. Why is historical immersion required for HoI and not for CK2? Because YOU want to play a game of feudal bloodline and don't give crap about anything else but your big easily obtained blob or whatever else you care about? What about those who don't care for that all that much and want to experience historical events? Did they chose a wrong game, even though it is advertised as way to "relive the middle ages"? Should they leave?
Also - I've targeted Romuva because they were the most glowing example of incorrectly applied mechanics, not because it was the only one.
I meant among forum goers who bothered to voice their opinion. I'd also wager the guess that the majority of players in general felt it was like when the republic was released and that they expected a nerf of some sort. That, of course, is pure speculation. Whatever is said in these forums has to be taken on the merit of the logic behind the suggestions not "whatever most people think must be right", I only brought it up because you made it sound like a tiny minority had forced a great majority to suffer a change that would hamper their gameplay.
Are you sure you know what you are talking about? This isn't the only way for the Norse to expand, they have access to the same CBs as the other factions AND this one. How can you compare it to the Christian invasions when they also get to make invasions? It's not like you only get to expand your territory once per lifetime, it only affects this one CB, and it is only for pagans and very strong.
Perfectly true, but this applies for all factions, including the Christians who are far more restricted than the Norse. There were also real world reasons why people didn't just attack their neighbors left and right, the consequences of doing so have been abstracted away to keep the game simple.
Well, while the pagans were less restricted than the other factions they still have to fit within the same game and the argument about "if it had started that way it would have been fine" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You can't expect the game to be perfectly balanced on release, and I suspect Paradox would rather risk making them too strong than too weak, now that they are the new thing, much like when the Republic DLC was released.
Well they DID have a very strong CB, it just isn't part of the game. Revenge against insulted honor. Anyway in history the Norse ultimately lost for a reason, I'm not entirely sure that's properly modeled in the game. I'll agree that messing with CBs isn't the most elegant way to go about fixing the situation, I'd prefer the Norse would simply be too weak to take territories they shouldn't or that complications arose to make it a bad idea. That's hard to model properly so I'll contend myself for less. Balancing Casus Belli is necessary to govern game balance, just because it used to be some way doesn't mean it's optimal.
Well, then i wasn't explaining myself right... it has nothing to do with hampering gameplay. I don't like have options removed from players for seemingly no reason other than a small minority of the game players complained about the a.i. abusing it.
And i don't think I said it was their only way to expand. since i only mention christian invasions cb, did you assume i thought that was the onlu way for christians to expand? If you read what i wrote you might notice that i mentioned the coastal conquest and the prepared invasions cb, and i talked about claim cbs as well... i believe all unreformed pagans can also conquest their neighbors... if I've missed anything please feel free to assume I'm an idiot again....
Prepared invasions are of limited use. Once you reach more than 40 holdings(total not personal) you can no longer use it. So if you have 10 4 holding counties, that are maxed out you are done. You might get to use it twice and probably only on your first ruler, unless gavelkind leaves your primary heir with less than 40 holdings... Now i don't know about you, but it is very easy for me to get 80-100 holdings in 1 leaders lifetime, assuming he lives a full life. It also acts like a christian invasion, in that you only get the holdings you controlled at the end of the war.
The subjugation cb would have been reduced in power greatly just by making it so you only get what you control at the end of the war, instead of whole kingdoms(unless of course you conquered them all). With a limit of 10 years between them that would have been plenty in the way of slowing them down. And it would not have taken away my options.
I compare it to the christian invasions because they are basically the same thing, just with different results. The pope says yes, you declare an invasion, and when you win you gain holdings(and the kingdom i think). As long as you keep on great terms with the pope, you should be able to do this more than once per life time. I also don't think your amount of holdings matters, but i could be wrong. Now look at subjugation. You declare subjugation, your fight and if you win you take the kingdom. The only differences between the two is that you need the popes agreement and the invasion cb only gives you the holdings you conquered. So that is how i compare it.
And my point was, the invasion isn't limited to once a life time, even if it gives you similar results.... and i also talked about a way that the cb could have been nerfed WITHOUT taking away the players options....
This is what I was answering in my post. And the answer, since you apparently missed it, was that they did have the option to do these things. The English took over and created Britan... they had no real claim to Wales, Scotland or Ireland, but the English King wanted them so the English eventually conquered them. There were plenty of civil wars fought simply because one faction thought another was doing things wrong, or wanted the power for themselves. I only used the norse in my first example, because this thread is about the Norse... The Norse had no claims on England, but it didn't stop the invaders from coming. The Anglo-saxons didn't either. They wanted the land so they took it. Rome didn't have a cb for expansion. Neither did Charles the Great. They wanted more land, and they took it, by force when they had too... I said i don't think cb's should be removed. I am not an idiot as you seem to think i am.
The arguement of if it had started that way id be ok with it make perfect sense. If the subjugation cb started only working on your own religion, or culture, then i would be ok with that. It didn't. I know they made the Norse strong to start with. They did it for the reason that the norse WERE strong. If the a.i. raided more and conquered less, this wouldn't have been much of an issue....
Before LoR came out there was a lot of speculation that those who didn't buy LoR would lose the ability to play as orthodox characters. This speculation caused outrage, for the simple fact that people thought paradox would be taking options that they had from the beginning away from them. While this is on a much smaller scale, i feel the same way as i did then. Players options should not be reduced in the name of balance. Players options should not be reduced because some people don't like having the option. If they had nerfed it without taking away my options, i wouldn't be complaining. You may not care, because you thought it was OP. Even if you didn't get the exact nerf you wanted, you still got what you wanted. Since you thought it was OP, you probably didn't use it, and thus don't care that the option isn't there anymore because you wouldn't have used it anyways.
so, to clarify Nerf without taking away my options...i don't care. I love the game, and i want others to love it as well, so if the vocal minority thinks something is OP, then go right ahead and nerf it. But, again, i cant say this enough because people always seem to ignore it, or blow it off as "a small thing"... DONT TAKE AWAY MY OPTIONS.... even if i never use them, they are still there. Make it less powerful by limiting it to duchies, or only gaining what you control. Or making it 15 years instead of ten. That would be slightly annoying but still not as bad as... you can use this once... and then you have to wait till your character dies to use it again. Sure it doesn't sound all that bad, and it isn't really a bad game mechanic. If it had been like that from the start i would have no problem with it. But at the start of TOG pdox said, you have to wait ten years in between... meaning a long lived character COULD use it 6 or 7 times... they dont have to but they CAN... But now i can use it once, and if i have a long lived ruler... ohh well...
I know there are others ways to expand. I know the game mechanic isn't bad. I only dislike the LOSS of OPTIONS....
This is getting too long so rather than quote the last part ill just say this. I was responding to a question about giving leaders options they didn't have in history.
And my point was, paradox wasn't. Leader's didn't have a restrictive system that said, you must do this this this or this to be able to conquer your weak neighbor. Sure, if they didn't have a good enough reason they might be looked at negatively, but... really. "Hey that plot of land over there has a nicer view of the country side than mine... lets come up with a convoluted reason reason why it should be mine instead of whoever owns it...maybe the Pope will help, i did send him that fruit basket recently..."
No, it would be more like " I want that plot of land. I have the strength to take it without weakening my Kingdom. WAR...we can split some of it up for the nobles afterwards if they complain...."
Again, i understand WHY the CB system is in place. I like it. It's necessary for the game. I am not in any way, shape or form saying the cb system is bad. And i dont care if its not bound in history. All i was saying is that they weren't "giving them options that weren't present in real life"
Last edited:
Are you complaining about what Paradox did? You know, only they can change the vanilla and no vocal group, minority or majority (BTW it seems you're the only one who's dissapointed with this), can force them to do so. All we can do is to raise concern about something. So I don't get this hostility towards the "vocal minority" which members are "anti-Norse" and "ignore" some arguments. Maybe you should start a similiar thread ("make the Norse stronger!" or whatever you want) instead of moaning here. And if you don't like the changes, you can do the very thing you said the "vocal minority" should do - mod the game for yourself. Just like you said before, not everyone should be forced to play by what you think should be a rule in the game, am I right?
Well, I can see the concern on the Baltic side, but the Northern France and England they get to a T perfecto in most games. In my current game Its about 970 and My family rules England/Ireland/Wales and a bit of Norway, but I am increasingly thinking that converting is in order. Which is not that historically inaccurate. Though getting the future Dutchess of Normandy and Orleans in a raid and concubine her so that my sons are the future heirs - Priceless.
actually i was having an intelligent debate with someone... you should try it sometimes...
yes, im complaining that paradox took my choices away. They did this because they are a good company that listens to customer feedback. I have to believe that there are more people who bought and play ck2 than there are people who use these forums... the numbers just don't add up otherwise. Based on these two factors i use the phrase vocal minority. You are the ones on the forums complaining about how OP the norse, or at least their cbs, are. I don't believe I ever said anything about you being anti-norse.
I have said you ignore arguments that you disagree with. I know I'm not the only one in this thread who posted their own anecdotal evidence that had the norse not blobbing. But, as it happened to you it must be the norm so it is obviously broken. I will mod what i am able too, but i don't think i told anyone to just go mod it. I did suggest Paradox make things modable so that those who wanted to change things could. I never said that had to be you. To the best of my knowledge i haven't been hostile to anyone, unless you count disagreeing as being hostile.
Why would i make a norse stronger thread? I posted many suggestions in this forum that would nerf the "OP" norse. I am unhappy that they took the easy route of removing choices from players rather than making the a.i. less trigger happy with conquering.
Of course, based off of your post, you have ignored most of what i have written. So telling you this is pointless. And, I am not a hypocrite. I don't want Paradox to force my ideas on other players.. the only real thread I've started about a problem I had basically said what my problem was, asked if it could be changed, or made modable(as it currently is not modable, thus they would have to change it, because i can't) . I have been having a conversation(because really if no one wanted me to voice my opinion anymore they would not have responded to my posts would they?) about my ONE problem with the patch. And that is simply, My choices as a player have been taken away, because a small group of players complained about it on the forums...
Of course maybe yall are right and im wrong. Maybe Paradox doesn't listen to us at all and simply made the changes because they felt like it. I certainly hope not.
I would just like others on the forums to consider the fact that other people play the game as well. Please when you make request of paradox make them suggestions that people would be able to fix with simple moding.
just a comparison
just to compare, this is obviously your opening post....
and this is mine:
now, who is asking for players choices to be removed, and who isn't? of course, im sure you don't see it that way, but oh well... and just so you know, i consider asking for them to take away targets is limiting my choices... even if i dont use it, there is a difference between don't use something and can't use something.
just to compare, this is obviously your opening post....
We all know that playing Norse is a lot of fun but this is also completely OP. It's time to end this "Norse STRONK!" nonsense. First, let's take a look at this screenshot:
Your experience is probably similar - Norse conquer everything what is not Christian (oh irony!) and they usually start by wiping out Pomeranian and Romuva. When you can much more easily survive as a Pomerenian or Romuva ruler starting in 1066 (I've seen AI creating kingdoms of Lithuania and Pomerania in 10-15 years) than in 867 something is really wrong. So this is a bunch of my ideas how to nerf Norse and boost other pagans (not all of them have to be implemented):
1. Conquest CB
*Can't be used against Slav, Romuva and Suomenusko when you have culture or religion Norse
*Every time when using conquest you get -5 opinion to all Christians (Pagan raider) for 20 years
2. Invasion CB
*Can't be used against Slav, Romuva and Suomenusko when you have culture or religion Norse
*Every time when using conquest you get -50 opinion to all Christians (Pagan invader) for 20 years
3. Subjogation CB
*Can be used only against rulers of your own religion
*When subjogated, vassals get only +30 bonus instead of +75 to opinion
4. Norse religion bonus
*+10% levy instead of +30%
5. Looting
*Reduce prestige bonus 5 times
*Chances of getting bad tratis like Greedy, Wroth, Deceitful and so on
*Every time when using looting you get -5 opinion to all Christians (Pagan raider) for 2 years
6. Defensive religion bonus
+120% instead of 80% while defeding in a province of your faith
7. Better missionaries
*Increase the chance of succesful convertion for reformed religions
This should force the Norse to attack the West and increase infighting while leaving alon Eastern Europe. Finally we will be able to play as Romuva or Pomeranians and Suomenusko will stand a chance against Rurik. It's a severe nerf but Norse will still get their loot and when you play them you can use it to buy mercenaries and you are still unstoppable. So this solution forces AI to behave while leaving to a player possibility of world conquest or whatever you want.
If you agree with this proposals (nerfing Norse) please post as a sign of your support.
and this is mine:
now, who is asking for players choices to be removed, and who isn't? of course, im sure you don't see it that way, but oh well... and just so you know, i consider asking for them to take away targets is limiting my choices... even if i dont use it, there is a difference between don't use something and can't use something.
Limiting gains to what you control at the end of the war means nothing to a player who could just delay accepting the surrender until he had everything, and an AI would just get funky borders. Ten years is very little waiting time for pretty much anything in this game and this CB is very powerful, while I wouldn't necessarily have made it once pr lifetime, I'm not unhappy with it either.
People were advocating changes to the overall situation, not the specific change that Paradox made.
Yes, if the AI raided more and conquered less I'd be happy too. The Norse really were no way near as powerful historically as they are portrayed in the game however.
I don't think you are an idiot, I just think your focus on options to the exclusion of all else is foolish. Most game mechanics are already set in stone, if they want to change things altering CBs is a way to do it that affects the players who want strong Norse the least. If you want no changes from the initial vanilla version then you'd be unhappy with pretty much any change.
Fine then focus on that instead of complaining about the nerf. Say it was stupidly handled and could have been done in a better way. I'm only arguing because you've so far seemed opposed to any change at all in the balancing, if it affected your options in the least. I'd have nothing against if they said 25 years instead of pr lifetime, and the loud minority you seem so angry at didn't ask for the specific changes Paradox made. If you want to be angry, be angry at Paradox for that then.
Well, all I can say is that I don't understand your priorities. Having as many meaningful options as possible is a good goal when designing and balancing the game, but it really is not the only criteria that matters.
This a thousand times over. I tried playing as Rennes and within 2 years I completely controlled Brittany and Cornwall. It actually isn't just Norse. I was playing as the Tavastians in Finland and got the Kingdom of Finland in about 10 years. I think that the Casus Belli needs to be nerfed badly for pagans. I was playing as Flanders, trying to form Frisia and it had already somehow formed (A random noble who got the title "The Liberator), and it all of the sudden, at one time, turned red as it was conquered by Denmark. Conquering an entire kingdom with one CB is way OP. I like the way Norse operate, just fix what they can and can't attack and I'll sign on to this petition.
For the same reason that people watched movies Braveheart, Robinhood, or Kingdom of Heaven. They're not about actual history, but they are set in a historical setting, during legendary events, but are dramatized for the entertainment of the viewer, because frankly, no matter the historical importance the real truth usually isn't as fun as the movie.
People play Crusader Kings not because they want to history play out around them in their game, but because they want to be the ones rewriting history themselves. They want to play William the Conqueror and take the whole of the British Isles. Or maybe they'll be Harold, and defend the kingdom against the invaders. Or maybe they'll play a pagan lord and push the Christians out of Europe entirely! And only two out of three of those is historically accurate. But if we force the game to have too much historical inertia, to ensure that is follows a very close path as to actual history, well then what's the point of playing the underdog ever when the intertia of the entire game is against you because it's trying to recreate the events of history? Hard mode? I don't need difficulty to be based upon something like religion or culture (or the specific character I play, past their noble rank), since I like others may choose a specific religion or culture for reasons drastically different than the amount of difficulty they have. Especially when the same criteria can easily be filled by playing a Count, or even the occasional duke (if your liege is powerful). You also misunderstand things completely, HoI is no longer as historically immersive as it once was. As they went from 1 to 3, they took out a lot of the railroading, just like they did in other games. But It's still essentially about WW2 because it takes place in a historic window of only about 10 freaking years! CK2 is the most different because it depends so much on the characters as it does the nations. And once you add in all that random chance, mixing of bloodlines, and that the game has a system for character genetics!, trying to keep the game along any vein of history is a fool's hope. And that's what CK2 is at its heart, a noble bloodline simulator set in a historical setting. As soon as you hit the play button upon choosing your start date, any pretence of remaining on the same track as history took in real life is a farce of your own making, and a naive belief as best.
But apparently not being cut off at the knees just because you want to make a different thematic and flavour choice (ie: play Zoroastrian/Basque/whatever culture) equates wanting to have a big easily obtained blob, because we just suck like that, and don't want to deal with a game trying to crush us for defying its attempts to recreate history. Unless you're the Romuva, the only ones who'd actually benefit from your obsession with the game's historical accuracy.
And yes. If you wanted a perfect simulation of history, you chose the wrong game. Romuva even isn't special in how they get gobbled up, as far as the game is concerned, and it doesn't happen anywhere near as frequently as claimed, even before this patch. But the game, and PI, is not going to bend itself over backwards to code in all this special treatment for the Romuva or anyone else, just because they hit the lottery irl and managed to survive in dense woodlands and other rough terrain that helped make them more trouble than they were worth to conquer, while every other pagan religion in Europe was pushed out by Christianity.
Also... everyone... this thread has gotten way too contentious and vitriolic.
Last edited:
Just to clarify, a Christian invasion (Muslims work differently) requires the Pope's consent (which frequently requires assassinating the king until you get one he doesn't like) and for one of the following to be true:
1) You have a claim on the target's primary title
OR
2) You have a smaller realm than he does.
And it only works on rulers with the same religious head (i.e. fellow Catholics).
Most of the coplaints i read were about the a.i. not player blobs. Of course the player could wait, just like a christian invader can just hold out till he has everything and then end the war.... as for the a.i. well yes they would have strange borders... but they wouldn't blob quite as bad, and they place they tried to subjugate would have 10 years before the a.i. could use it again... its not a long time, but it is time...
I am not actually angry at anyone. I am a bit upset at the situation, but meh... i still seem to not be getting my point across.. you seem to think i just want to have everything as an option. I don't not really. What upsets me about the change they made was that it took the option away. Meaning, i had the option, and then they changed it so i didn't. Because it's such a small thing most people won't care.
I do get a bit defensive when i feel as if im being personally attacked, if thats what your talking about... i apologize for the comments about you calling me an idiot... its clear now that you weren't but, on first read through thats what it felt like and i got defensive.
And I'm fairly certain i HAVE been focusing on that. If taking the option away was the ONLY way to fix it so people could be happy, i'd be ok with it, but myself and others in this thread(on both sides of the original arguement) had many ideas which might( since i can't be 100 % positive) have brought about the balance being asked for without removing options. And since they messed with the levy size and attrition, some of those suggestions might have been possible, but probably would take more work on their part...heck even the OP had ideas that i would have been ok with... not everything but...
1. Conquest CB
*Every time when using conquest you get -5 opinion to everyone of the faith you attacked (Pagan raider) for 20 years
2. Invasion CB
*Every time when using conquest you get -50 opinion to everyone of the faith you attacked (Pagan invader) for 20 years
3. Subjogation CB
*When subjogated, vassals get only +30 bonus instead of +75 to opinion
4. Norse religion bonus
*+10% levy instead of +30%
5. Looting
*Reduce prestige bonus 5 times
*Chances of getting bad tratis like Greedy, Wroth, Deceitful and so on(edit by me: i'm iffy on this one but i'll leave it)
*Every time when using looting you get -5 opinion to everyone of the faith you attacked (Pagan raider) for 2 years
6. Defensive religion bonus
+120% instead of 80% while defeding in a province of your faith
7. Better missionaries
*Increase the chance of succesful convertion for reformed religions
All of those might have been possible to implement, and best of all, they wouldn't take away my choices...
Seriously, its like giving someone a candy bar letting him/her take a bite and then taking it away from them because someone said eating chocolate was bad.
Rather than let the person make their own decision you do it for them...
Ok... i really do hate the way my mind works cause on rereading most of my posts i can see that im not doing the best at getting my point across.... you know when you have something important to say, but you just cant find the right words to use... maybe thats just me...
Last edited:
ahh i knew you needed the popes permission, but i didnt know about the smaller size....
was the muslim one closer to what i was talking about? maybe thats what was thinking of, i dont know, the cb file confuses me, so i usually just use what options i have available to me in the game, rather than knowing, if i do this, i will have this cb....
Thanks for the info... hard to have intelligent debates with incorrect info...
I completely disagree. Braveheart, Robin Hood (no matter which one you're talking about) and Kingdom of Heaven were all terrible movies.
If you don't like it, disable Old Gods in the launcher. This isn't a multiplayer game where balance is needed. War is unfair.