|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:So do event hordes suck now or something? Groogy just posted a thread on the official boards about how he fixed this for the next patch with a screenshot of the mongols subjugating the king of Poland.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Sindai posted:In the current patch their AI is broken and almost totally passive. I also don't have horse lords so maybe that's related as well? IDK
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:So do event hordes suck now or something? There's apparently a bug with horde invaders that's making them too passive (IMO this is a more common issue than that - for example CK2+ recently had to include events that literally force Charlemagne to declare claim wars when he has enough troops because otherwise the Carolingian Empire/HRE would almost never form) - before the holidays Groogy made some noises about buffing their aggression in 2.5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Is AI more timid in general? My Lollard England is a pretty easy crusade target, but the one crusade called against me was super weak with a bunch of dukes and little else. Catholic MA is low, obviously, but it can't be that low. I'm literally all alone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
I've found AI responses to crusades pretty weak too. Jihads are full of dozens of dukes and such dogpiling on the byzantines but only a few irish minors and a king or two ever joins a crusade in my games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
The Muslims are usually pretty close to the action if a jihad targets the Byzantines, while most Catholics usually need boats to reach a crusade target. With the drastic maintenance increase for ships, that maybe discourages the AI from joining crusades?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
That makes sense for the muslims, there's a land connection to most jihad targets except for maybe sicily. I'm not even sure if the AI pays for it's boats. It might be like EU4 where trying to get them to be smart with their boats is unfeasible so they make them cost nothing and/or take no attrition. Even so, you only pay for your boats from your demesne counties, vassal's boats are free and medium/large kingdoms are in no short supply of them. By the time crusades are unlocked the tech has allowed for shipbuilding to become widespread enough for it not to be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:The Muslims are usually pretty close to the action if a jihad targets the Byzantines, while most Catholics usually need boats to reach a crusade target. With the drastic maintenance increase for ships, that maybe discourages the AI from joining crusades? It's not only discouragement - even if the AI joins it tends to be really bad at transporting large numbers of troops by sea. So you'll see a ton of dukes and kings sign up for the crusade, and then send a token force that gets smashed by the Muslim blob as soon as it arrives because the AI also doesn't know how to coordinate their arrival timing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Has anyone ever seen a Crusade succeed without the player doing most of the work? I think I did once, like six or seven patches ago. That's about it. 98% of the time Crusades get summarily crushed for the reasons we've been talking about. Kinda weird that the crusades mechanic long ago became a minor afterthought in a game called Crusader Kings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
depends - if they are called early they usually dominate pretty handily thanks to the holy orders tipping the scales I can't think of a crusade that didn't fail without me crippling the top contributor for my own nefarious purposes you want to know the mechanic that really needs a revamping, one that could easily be used to make theocracies relevant again? Excommunication.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Has anyone ever seen a Crusade succeed without the player doing most of the work? I think I did once, like six or seven patches ago. That's about it. 98% of the time Crusades get summarily crushed for the reasons we've been talking about. Kinda weird that the crusades mechanic long ago became a minor afterthought in a game called Crusader Kings. I've seen quite a bunch. In a recent game (post HL), the Byzantine empire somehow turned Sunni (apparently conquered by some khan from khazaria), triggering a crusade for Greece that succeed easily, won by Frisia. Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Jan 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Has anyone ever seen a Crusade succeed without the player doing most of the work? I think I did once, like six or seven patches ago. That's about it. 98% of the time Crusades get summarily crushed for the reasons we've been talking about. Kinda weird that the crusades mechanic long ago became a minor afterthought in a game called Crusader Kings. It really depends on your start date. I've seen the post-1066 HRE win or ensure the victory of a fuckload of Crusades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:I've seen quite a bunch. The Horde Subjugation CB is the dumbest thing. Automatically conquers any size target and causes all kinds of title screw-up. I think the subjugation CB should just be a free, once in a life time CB that lets you have one kingdom. Then we could have something like the Sultanate of Rum form instead of Khazar Sunni Byzantium. AI hordes never get the opportunity to use the Tribal Invasion CB anyways, it seems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Mr.Morgenstern posted:The Horde Subjugation CB is the dumbest thing. Automatically conquers any size target and causes all kinds of title screw-up. I think the subjugation CB should just be a free, once in a life time CB that lets you have one kingdom. Then we could have something like the Sultanate of Rum form instead of Khazar Sunni Byzantium. AI hordes never get the opportunity to use the Tribal Invasion CB anyways, it seems. That was probably it. What I never understood is how in the hell a mere vassal khan in Khazaria had enough troops to conquer the Byzantines, when the khagan himself was a lot weaker than the empire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Has anyone ever seen a Crusade succeed without the player doing most of the work? I think I did once, like six or seven patches ago. That's about it. 98% of the time Crusades get summarily crushed for the reasons we've been talking about. Kinda weird that the crusades mechanic long ago became a minor afterthought in a game called Crusader Kings. Middle Eastern crusades? They fall flat, yeah. But if there's one called against Muslim Iberia or something like that, it's usually successful. The boats really seem to have a lot to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
so does the intrigue focus thing where you make another vassal join your faction not work or are these guys just lying to me
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:Middle Eastern crusades? They fall flat, yeah. But if there's one called against Muslim Iberia or something like that, it's usually successful. The boats really seem to have a lot to do with it. Hell, even middle eastern ones sometimes succeed, due to the Sunni/Shiite difference probably for the main part. Versus the Shiites it succeeded once, at around 1080 or such and the entirety of Jerusalem became Scotland. Granted, the Shiites quickly Jihaded it back, but still. ˇ My apologies for sucking.  I seem to fail at quoting about as much as Lowtax is with the forums recently.
CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Jan 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:Hell, even middle eastern ones sometimes succeed, due to the Sunni/Shiite difference probably for the main part. Versus the Shiites it succeeded once, at around 1080 or such and the entirety of Jerusalem became Scotland. Granted, the Shiites quickly Jihaded it back, but still. Ah, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:Hell, even middle eastern ones sometimes succeed, due to the Sunni/Shiite difference probably for the main part. Versus the Shiites it succeeded once, at around 1080 or such and the entirety of Jerusalem became Scotland. Granted, the Shiites quickly Jihaded it back, but still. Im my experience, it depends on the state of the Abbasid blob: if it broke somehow, then there is a chance for crusades in ME (Ive seem some succeed). If it didnt, no way. A huge empire is always more effective than a lot of small duchies and kingdoms. EDIT: a few times Ive saw the Byzantines turn catholic, which makes crusades in ME and North Africa basically unstoppable. Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jan 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
I see most crusades succeed, honestly. However, it is always the Knights Hospitaller that win them. So I end up with multiple kingdoms ruled by a single monastic order. I'd even be fine with that if there was more variance in which order got it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Crusade mechanics should work more like how CK2+ did it, with the handing off of the land to unlanded folks and cadet branches. If there's a lot of realms joining in, they would get pretty pissed if the Holy Land gets handed over to one kingdom that nebulously did "the most".
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Mr.Morgenstern posted:The Horde Subjugation CB is the dumbest thing. Automatically conquers any size target and causes all kinds of title screw-up. I think the subjugation CB should just be a free, once in a life time CB that lets you have one kingdom. Then we could have something like the Sultanate of Rum form instead of Khazar Sunni Byzantium. AI hordes never get the opportunity to use the Tribal Invasion CB anyways, it seems. I feel like there should be some kind of automatic "imperial collapse" destruction of empire level titles if certain conditions are met, like they lose a certain percentage of the de jure territory, or maybe there could be a "dismantle empire" CB like in EU/Victoria. It's kind of weird how you can end up with Byzantine "emperors" with all of one duchy left in their empire, but nobody can usurp the title because no individual actually controls enough of the de jure empire to claim it. Actually adding more unique mechanics to empires in general would be an interesting focus for an expansion or mod. Managing an empire should be more than just "like a kingdom, but bigger".
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I feel like there should be some kind of automatic "imperial collapse" destruction of empire level titles if certain conditions are met, like they lose a certain percentage of the de jure territory, or maybe there could be a "dismantle empire" CB like in EU/Victoria. It's kind of weird how you can end up with Byzantine "emperors" with all of one duchy left in their empire, but nobody can usurp the title because no individual actually controls enough of the de jure empire to claim it. But the Byzantine Empire is actually the one empire where it's historically accurate for it to not dissolve simply because it lost a lot of it's core territory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Is there any way to destroy your top title? Like, using console magic and stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
pwnyXpress posted:Is there any way to destroy your top title? Like, using console magic and stuff? I don't think so. You could probably do a complicated workaround by first consoling the title away, declare an independent war, get all your former vassals back under your control and then have the new titleholder lose all his territory in a holy war, but that would be an enormous amount of work. Anyway, new dev diary! https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/conclave-dev-diary-1.902002/ It seems that vassals can either pay high taxes, give you a lot of troops or give you a balanced amount of both. Basically a sliding scale, instead of the current separate levy and tax laws.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
People really should not be allowed to call themselves emperors or kings if they lose enough land to no longer meet the minimum requirements to form those titles in the first place. I don't quite understand why the game allows it to be otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:People really should not be allowed to call themselves emperors or kings if they lose enough land to no longer meet the minimum requirements to form those titles in the first place. I don't quite understand why the game allows it to be otherwise. There's no start date where the Byzantines control 80% of their de jure lands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:People really should not be allowed to call themselves emperors or kings if they lose enough land to no longer meet the minimum requirements to form those titles in the first place. I don't quite understand why the game allows it to be otherwise. *forms empire at min requirements* *vassal rebels/loses war for a county* *empire title destroyed* This is both poo poo gameplay and poo poo history
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Fair points but there's a reasonable middle ground somewhere between "lose one county and instantly lose empire title" and "can go all the way down to one county and still call yourself an emperor with a straight face."
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Maybe you lose enough and it becomes a titular title or something? Still gives you cassus belli, but doesn't give other benefits?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Nah, titles being destroyed is dumb. If your empire is weak, you already aren't a proper empire anyway, no need to model it further. The real problem is that you can't have conflicting titles, when this was a pretty big part of the whole feudal equation; this would help solve the title forming stuff, would make for more interesting vassal game (having two conflicting lieges for instance) but I imagine it would be a massive pain to do, or they probs woulda done it already.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Playing as Norse, just about to reform the faith. I have what I need: just got piety to 750, moral authority through the roof, etc. All that's left is the third holy site in Denmark. With over 2000 prestige banked, the war goes smoothly. I reach 98% warscore and am hunting down the last few stragglers when suddenly, my ruler dies of natural causes. The heir is assassinated in less than 2 weeks. Game over 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
I did a charlamagne start with pictland. I want to be scottish for the cheesy retinues. Is there something I am missing for whatever happens to cause scottish culture to spontaneously appear? Something about non celtic culture leader ruling pictish provinces?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:I did a charlamagne start with pictland. I want to be scottish for the cheesy retinues. Is there something I am missing for whatever happens to cause scottish culture to spontaneously appear? Something about non celtic culture leader ruling pictish provinces? Get some Welsh people into your kingdom and that should trigger the change. The Project Augustus team has abandoned their mod in favor of modding EUIV so there goes the last chance to properly make an early timeline mod for CKII.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:The Project Augustus team has abandoned their mod in favor of modding EUIV so there goes the last chance to properly make an early timeline mod for CKII. I was never quite sure what was going on with that mod. Wasn't Project Augustus a bunch of Roman/Byzantine stuff? And then it and a bunch of other mods got together into a super mod or something? And then did that fall apart or something? I thought I saw that. When did they decide to start working on an early timeline thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Fair points but there's a reasonable middle ground somewhere between "lose one county and instantly lose empire title" and "can go all the way down to one county and still call yourself an emperor with a straight face." The HRE historically had very little power over their vassals, but they kept their empire title. Neither holy nor Roman nor empire...
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
catlord posted:I was never quite sure what was going on with that mod. Wasn't Project Augustus a bunch of Roman/Byzantine stuff? And then it and a bunch of other mods got together into a super mod or something? And then did that fall apart or something? I thought I saw that. When did they decide to start working on an early timeline thing? Honestly looking at it now, I'm surprised it took so long for it to fall apart. That one user, starwarsfan, was making a bunch of early bookmarks that they decided to combine into Augustus. I was looking forward to seeing how he had set up areas like eastern Europe and Scandinavia for that era.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Fair points but there's a reasonable middle ground somewhere between "lose one county and instantly lose empire title" and "can go all the way down to one county and still call yourself an emperor with a straight face." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_XI_Palaiologos Deceitful Penguin posted:The real problem is that you can't have conflicting titles, when this was a pretty big part of the whole feudal equation; this would help solve the title forming stuff, would make for more interesting vassal game (having two conflicting lieges for instance) but I imagine it would be a massive pain to do, or they probs woulda done it already. That would be a really elegant way to solve the issue but I honestly doubt the CK2 engine could support it. It appears to be a binary arrangement whether it's owned or not. Rebellions appear to just create a new titular title on the fly until it's conclusion. This would have to be one of those things brought up in CK3. Internal mechanics within realms should include a huge amount of horse jumping between the various ranks on who is their immediate liege lord or if they even have one at all. To elaborate, what I'm saying is the Counts should be provided a mechanic to instantly switch out from underneath a Duke to another one or just remain under the King alone, or try going independent. The Duke should then be given a CB to fight the Count and the Duke protecting them. Ditto for the King vs Duke. Internal fights honestly should be more time consuming than external expansion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Honestly looking at it now, I'm surprised it took so long for it to fall apart. That one user, starwarsfan, was making a bunch of early bookmarks that they decided to combine into Augustus. I was looking forward to seeing how he had set up areas like eastern Europe and Scandinavia for that era. Oh, those ones. I looked at those. Egypt looked hideous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Famethrowa posted:The HRE historically had very little power over their vassals, but they kept their empire title. Yeah but the HRE is kind of a special case, historically. Also in-game that's just having "autonomous vassals" crown authority. It's different than losing control of a title completely. The main thing about empires to me is that they aren't really any more difficult to manage than kingdoms. They used to be if you had vassal kings because of the opinion penalty, but they took that out for some reason (I guess they didn't want people to feel like they were forced to buy Charlemange for viceroyalties). Real historical empires were so rare because of the logistical issues in managing such huge territories and vastly different people within them. Except for the Mongols who basically just conquered a load of people and then essentially left them to their own devices so long as they acknowledged the khan as their leader (which I think is actually fairly well represented in-game now with the tributary system from Horse Lords). The Romans had a really good system of integrating conquered people as proper "Roman" citizens, and even they eventually split into two because managing such a vast empire was just impossible to do from Rome alone. I honestly don't really know how I would make empires more interesting. I'd just like to see them be something that's a significant challenge to maintain - the game is called Crusader KINGS, not Crusader Emperors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 19:49
|
|