Why my cataphract retinue uses Gray Wall tactic all the time now?
Why my cataphract retinue uses Gray Wall tactic all the time now?
One of the many bugs RoI introduced, should be fixed in the beta patch. It does explain why my third khazaria game went to pieces when i lost a battle with a lot of horse archers
I found the solution: change the tactic so it requires Indian culture commanders.
Rise of the ghaznavids, suddenly we have a 5region independent realm who has according to the ledger 80k troops....
I'll wait until this patch is patched properly.
Another invasion I can deal with, if it's historical.
Stable blobs I'm actually happy about. Especially in the late game because having to fight 6 or 7 internal wars during your reign just because the AI are too faction happy was just ridiculously annoying. However, I hear the stability comes from claimant wars not working properly any more so that's just a bug that highlights another bug.
The buffed adventures is the one I really don't get. There's nothing more immersion breaking than seeing some random character amass a larger army than one of the strongest kingdoms in the world. It just doesn't make any sense. Some people reported adventurers and claimants with 200k man armies.
I mean the forums have been calling out for them to be nerfed and Paradox go and do the opposite. Almost sounds like they did it by accident. Thankfully I didn't upgrade to 2.1.1
I think its because they nerfed levies in 2.0, but didn't change adventurers to compensate. The fact it's still there is pretty ridiculous, though.
Paradox has done pretty crappy with these last couple of DLCs, which I believe have been worked on by new Devs. Don't go the CA route, Paradox. I was just beginning to like you guys and you're getting dangerously close to breaking my heart like CA did.
Well yeah Ghaznavids are historical, but its not fun to see a ticking timebomb you can basicly do nothing about, even when you have 100k troops from all your conquering, cause the attirition kills you. But apparently you can stop it, just like the seljuks, by killing the courtier that will later become the horde leader.
And yes, adventurers are pretty OP and insane. And barely any claimants, i was wondering why i only got lower CA and independence factions.
I'll probably restart my abbasid game, cause you cant get achievements without RoI, and i've got a huge tyrant penalty cause i have to imprison distant relatives who are decadent who arent in my court so i cant ask them to straighten up
Last edited by eXistenZ; April 08, 2014 at 04:26 AM.
Do you guys think CK would be more popular if it was like EU, but in the M Ages time frame? The whole game is based on personal dynasties and characters, you cant even ally yourself unless there are blood ties.
Rep me and leave your name in the comment and I'll be sure to rep you back
This game is hilarious.
I was playing King of Castille after I won it as a minor French Duke in a Crusade. He had a son, whom I educated as Castillian. Then my king gets assassinated by an unknown culprit, and that 10 year old son becomes king. After coming of age and staying unmarried for 2 years, he somehow becomes fascinated with his own mother and gives her a good tumble.
A 'daughter' is born, who is actually his own sister in a sense. Things go on smoothly for around 20 years, he marries and has kids, but suddenly he becomes fascinated with his 'sister-daughter'. After some incest, another daughter is born, this time by his 'sister-daughter', who is not inbred. I laugh at the screen, hoping someone to die to fix the family tree. His 'sister-daughter' is married off to some Italian Duke where she dies after illness in an year or so. But her daughter remained in my court.
It was all going great, I conquered more than half of Iberian peninsula. Then it turns out that that 63 year old king becomes fascinated with his own 17 year old daughter/niece from that 'sister-daughter'.
This time I facepalm at the screen, but play on to see results. She gives out an inbred, weak son who dies in infancy. I marry her off to a count of mine where she dies in infancy. Then my king dies from an illness. I quitted that incestous game.
I don't have any mods or modified files, but it seems weird.
not weird , just another day in CK world
Strange, cause normally sibling incest doesnt happen in vanilla CK2, unless you are zoroastrian or messalian (heresy who marry close kin). I just managed to get my inbred achievement after a lot of niece/nephew marrying as abbasids. Check the show your realm thread for that.
A friend fired up CK2 the first time to get the steam cards, and the poor guy started as england. Got thrown into the dungeon by william, then he died, then a revolt to put him/his son on the throne failed, got thrown in the dungeon again :p I told him he should have gone with ireland :p
Also found a way to stop the seljuks and ghaznavids from appearing.
I'm new to Paradox games and I first tried EU4 about a week ago. interestingly I found EU4 too hard and complex and was close to decided maybe Paradox's games are not my taste (despite being an old school total war fan). but one of my friend told Me CKII is easier and I should try it instead ! I think CKII is a bit easier so kind of surprised you guys said the opposite !?Originally Posted by Diamat
^^ i would also say CK2 is easier than EU4, and therefore it has more appeal, along with its roleplay ability. CK2 is a lot about managing relations, where the numbers in EU4 are way more complex
EDIT: decadence revolt, 500k troops, it was 100% before i could even move two provinces closer
Last edited by eXistenZ; April 16, 2014 at 10:34 AM.
Well yeah they are annoying (they ruined my first Nantes game when i had a revolt in cornwall and i couldnt get over cause i had no ships left when my regent disbanded them), but in terms of actual gameplay and what you need to understand, CK2 is much easier. You mainly need to know about how to keep vassals (nd relations in general) in check, and how to find and work claims. Once you figured that out, you have grasped most of the game. While in EU4 there are so many variables and other side activities, like economy, internal politics, technology, investments,....
Gonna learn it one day though :p
I'm getting the sense those stupidly dangerous liberation revolts (where the winner gets the title "The Liberator") are caused specifically when a country controls an area which A. has no de jure holder of the local kingdom title, and B. if the culture and religion is different from the occupier. Hence, why I've never seen a scottish liberation revolt since the title is held and can't be usurped by a pagan until the king no longer holds titles/vassals in that realm.
Although to be fair the purely religious revolts are really dangerous too. Capitalizing on Zoroastrian revolts in muslim states are one of the few strategies I've been able to use as a zoroastrian ruler.
The adventurers on the other hand are a real, nonsensical problem. I think most recently I got hit by an adventurer who spawned with more troops than the byzantine empire. Good thing his adventure was for the one province in brittany I held.
Last edited by John I Tzimisces; April 17, 2014 at 12:37 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)