Damn, I missed that. Anyone have link of second stream? Want to see how civil wars looks in practice.
War against the Tyranny of King Alfonso VI
- Thread starter Austregisel
- 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.
Here's the link to the twitch page where you'll be able to find all of the streams they do. You can also find the links on the right side of the forums unless you're hiding that twitch section in your preferences.
- 1
I think if you win the holy war you get back the piety it cost to start it, similarly to how they paid renown to declare for Navarra and got a bunch back for winning. Basically, this forces you to be at least a little pious if you want to claim to be fighting in the name of God, but you should still be able to chain the wars if you can keep winning them.
- 1
I didn't watch closely enough to the renown use and reward in that war, but if it's anything like CK2, the cost is usually going to be more than the reward, so chaining them like you suggest won't work without at least pauses between to recover some of the lost piety (or renown) if you're that low. There is a ranking system as well and if I remember correctly, you can use up a rank to cover the cost, but they were at the minimum rank (sinner), so couldn't do that.
The main problem seemed to be that their Devotion level was actually negative, so even just getting some piety from a pilgrimage wasn't enough to immediately let them declare a holy war again. They could actually cover the piety cost, but their "permanent" level of piety had already gotten too low. It seems that fame/devotion aren't so easily recovered, even if you gain a decent amount of prestige/piety all at once. But, on the flip side, if they'd never let it get negative in the first place it probably would not have been a problem.
- 1
I think it's already been mentioned by others, but I'm definitely not a fan at how easy it appears to carry out a lot of these schemes. Base % seems too high, and getting other people involved also seems too easy. On top of that, these schemes come to fruition far too quickly.
Everything looks like 'easy mode' so far, and combined with how many wars of expansion there seem to be you get a slight 'arcade' feel to things despite the obvious attention to detail.
The coats of arms look fantastic, though!
Everything looks like 'easy mode' so far, and combined with how many wars of expansion there seem to be you get a slight 'arcade' feel to things despite the obvious attention to detail.
The coats of arms look fantastic, though!
- 8
- 1
Yes but you have to remember that the character that they are playing is probably the best intrigue character in the entire game. Aswell as he has a VERY good spymaster. Most characters you play wont have the same power in terms of plots.
- 9
- 1
- 1
It was their fault - they tried to revoke Santiago instead of Corunna, which was the title they had a claim on. If they'd revoked Corunna there probably wouldn't have been a revolt.
- 4
- 2
The tooltip suggests there still would've been a revolt, it was just a 7% chance the kid accepted instead of 2%. Though I don't know of the tyranny penalty pushed more vassals into joining the revolt or not, don't know how that breaks down.
- 1
Yeah, there are multiple things at play here:
- Your own intrigue. In the stream, they had very good intrigue, which usually won't be the case unless you work on building that through your heirs for later in the game.
- Your spymaster's intrigue. In the stream, their spymaster has very good intrigue, which usually won't be the case, at least not until much later in the game.
- The intrigue of the person you are targeting. In the stream, their targets had horrible intrigue. In the later game, when you're more likely to have great intrigue and a good spymaster, your opponents will also have a much better chance of having good intrigue.
- The intrigue of the spymaster of the person you're targeting (if they are landed). In the stream, I don't know if any of the tooltips that were shown happened to display the opponent's spymaster's intrigue, but I'm pretty sure it was very low. Again, in the later game, this will likely not be true.
- The ability to gain agents. Anytime you can get a lot of agents, you increase your chances regardless of all other factors. You could see that they had difficulty getting agents for the murders (except for the child, who would have had low opinion for short reign). For the king, they had multiple agents, which most likely shows that the king was not well-liked. What that means for you is that getting agents will be more difficult against well-liked characters and easier for disliked or hated characters, which makes sense. In CK2, it was usually very easy to get a lot of agents for your plots unless the plot target was a long way away from you. It appears that in CK3, this will not always be the case, which is a good thing.
Watching the videos, it does seem very easy to do the plots. But if you consider CK2 for a minute, you'll realize that it was also very easy to do the plots in CK2. You could start a plot with very low chance of success and it just wouldn't trigger until there was a good chance of success (not sure the actual percentages involved). You'd still had a decent chance of failure and of getting caught, but it was still much more possible than it should have been, imo. It might take longer, but your percentage of success never went up (unless stats changed or you got more agents,etc). So if you started with 30% chance, once it triggered, it was still at 30% chance and I am pretty sure (I could be wrong) that your chance of success when it finally triggered wasn't 30%, but a higher number and perhaps even the same percent chance as if you tried at 100%. There was also the issue that if you had a really high percentage (something like 170%, for example), the even would trigger in close succession until it was successful and the success rate seemed to be very good. In CK3, you max at 95%. In CK2, it was over 100%, but the actual math was done differently, so it's hard to say if the max chance is any different in CK3 once all is said and done.
- 1
Well a "revolt" of just one vassal isn't much of a revolt, even if the name still technically applies. If CK2 rules apply here, it is even more desirable as they could have revoked the county they wanted for the law breaking and then also taken their claimed counties, perhaps removing the boy as a landed character. Probably a good idea to kidnap him after that or maybe drop him into a barony so that he doesn't go wandering into a vengeful French court.
I think the tyranny penalty absolutely played a role here, even if we don't count a tyrannical action gathering more rebellious vassals by itself. That faction, which the boy was in, was basically disappearing when they ditched that opinion malus from the crown laws. When they take the tyrannical action, however, they lose and additional 20 opinion with all of their vassals, so I think this probably is the reason so many of them joined in.
- 1
I should note the tooltip did specify that other disgruntled vassals would join in the rebellion, that part was not specific to revoking with tyranny. It seems very unlikely that only that single vassal would've rebelled either way.
- 1
Without the tyranny, it is likely a lot less vassals would have been angry enough to join the revolt. However, we already knew from earlier that vassals weren't happy, so there was still a possibility that some people would have join anyway. Still, probably less so than what ended up happening, thanks to the tyranny penalty.
- 1