-
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.
- Status
It ain't about blobbing. The rest of what you've said is opinion.
It all comes down to money - to have chance for obtaining an office (and thus influence) you needed throw money around. Once you obtained said office you used your newfound influence to squeeze provinces through taxes to pay off your debtors. On the contrary to what you've said ealier characters would fit well into the game. It only requires good political gameplay as base for everything else.
That has nothing to do with how the provinces were given, and it makes little sense when playing a kingdom.
And yes, CK2 is blobbing
Can you elaborate? I am not quite sure what do you mean.
You can play it like EU4 - which comes down to blobbing, yes - but CK2 is about dynasty. You don't have to own much (or even rule as king or emperor) as long as you're cunning enough to place your kin within the holds of various lands of Europe.
You (usually) didn't buy post. And even when you did, ruling a province was not something that easy to buy. Also, in the Seleucid empire, to name one example, you simply couldn't do that.
Dynasty to blob. You have to take a lots of lands to be able to do that, a OPM Count simply can't. And once you have your relatives in all of Europe, you will have to conquer them or to fight them off because of claims. Much fun
You don't have to take lots of land to get your dynasty into places, use marriages and assassinations to get your members in place. Yeah if your a count your probably not going to be able to get your cousin on an emperor's throne, but you can get him on a king's.
The problem remains. Have fun fighting against two thousand wars because of claims
And yeah, get the money and power without conquering.
I simplified the whole process, because I didn't want to get into needless details. In order to rise in ranks of officials you needed to be elected. You needed to run a campaign and this costed money. People could get themselves into debt and debts needed to be paid (click to read how it worked). I've found an interesting theory that Caesar needed to conquer the Gaul only to get access to gold mines and other resources he could then use to pay off his debts (and serves as proof that the whole currency system in effect caused huge economic crisis in Rome). Once patricians gained an office of the governor they used huge incomes to fill their own pockets (for pleasure or politics), or pay their debts. Politics could be used as money sink, aside from anything else.
I managed - as OPM - to field two grandsons into two most powerful dukedoms of England. I also had kin of various rank (ranging from barons to counts). With my allies it was enough to plot and claim the throne of England. All this is a single lifetime (my count was Saxon who's goal was to reclaim the throne for Saxons). You don't need to take land in order to be able to secure some holdings for your kin. I know this, I've done it many times. In most cases these kin only had to watch themselves against plots rather than military assault. We all were subjects of the king. I didn't have trouble in rasing money or seeing my other kin ruling their spots for quite some time. The only real danger is when some outside force (like Holy Roman Empire or Eastern Roman Empire) is attacking the whole realm to get some parts. Pretenders might be a problem, but only when you're not making sure your family is [mostly] on your side.
Holy.Death;17779448I managed - as OPM - to field two grandsons into two most powerful dukedoms of England. I also had kin of various rank (ranging from barons to counts). With my allies it was enough to plot and claim the throne of England. All this is a single lifetime (my count was Saxon who's goal was to reclaim the throne for Saxons). You don't need to take land in order to be able to secure some holdings for your kin. I know this said:
What does this have to do with a Roman era game? Nothing similar applies.
But only within one country, try to get your kin all over the map
And that's a boring game once a couple of generations have passed
Landing your kin is - in general - easier than you think.
For you, perhaps. I've always found it fun when my kins gained higher social standing that I expected of them. Maybe you should look into different Paradox title?
If you don't like blobbing and you enjoy family stuff, play a RPG
I stopped playing EU quite some time ago and I can play CK2 for family stuff.If you don't like blobbing and you enjoy family stuff, play a RPG
But you have provinces that distract you!
And armies, and wars!
That might distract you from doing nothing but marriages and plots.
Hey, if you want to be rude and tell me go do smth else, I can play that game too.
1. Not really. I use active pause to plan marriages and if there is no one suitable enough I simply check out later if something opened up. I spend less time on war that way, because I am not needing to fight my way in order to land my kin or that kin usually isn't in position to threaten me. CK2 is great, because it allows you to pick your own style of playing and isn't strictly about wars or blobbing, like you suggest it is.
2. You read it wrong. I didn't tell you to play something else. There was a question mark at the end of the sentence. I said that CK2 has different gameplay focus than what you expect of it, so maybe that ain't your cup of tea. There are other Paradox titles which focus on what you might find more fun (since managing your dynasty clearly ain't it). You say that CK2 is not fun, but that's your opinion, which reinforces my claim that this isn't kind of the game you should be playing. At least I wouldn't play game that I don't find fun.
2. You read it wrong. I didn't tell you to play something else. There was a question mark at the end of the sentence. I said that CK2 has different gameplay focus than what you expect of it, so maybe that ain't your cup of tea. There are other Paradox titles which focus on what you might find more fun (since managing your dynasty clearly ain't it). You say that CK2 is not fun, but that's your opinion, which reinforces my claim that this isn't kind of the game you should be playing. At least I wouldn't play game that I don't find fun.
Why does Rome 2 need to use claims??
Ultimately, if your kid wasn't up to the task, he'd be ousted by someone who felt themselves stronger and that was pretty much that. So you can only rule the faction you are a member of or declare independence; you won't be able to "press a claim". Si vis pace para belum: In the Roman world, might was pretty much all that mattered, and if you wanted a throne, you could simply try and take it, provided you had the skill and backing. Clearly the son of a king would have a lot of support, but if they didn't have at least enough personal skill to retain support of the military alongside the rest of the aristocracy, they would simply be ousted in a coup or civil war.
And there's no pope to tell you off for attacking fellow Christians. This is Roman vs tribe or Sparta vs Athens without some central laissez-faire authority (which the pope was).
Feudalism doesn't exist ergo claims don't exist. Just conquest, internal and external in a world where might made right.
- Status