Crusader Kings II

[Tagaziel]

Have you ever lost a war through inaction though? I think I may have lost maybe a couple- and those I was thinking of were in desert and basically impossible to win due to attrition reducing besieging troop numbers so much that the timer ran out before sieges completed, and it was impossible to defeat the enemy Stacks of Doom with attrited stacks. The AI, of course, lost extensively through inaction.

Actually, I did. One of my exercises for the megagame ended in a huge defeat, as the Mongols invaded the Kingdom of Ruthenia while my armies were engaged in France, helping the ruler resolve a succession crisis in return for their aid.

 

I couldn't get back fast enough and the Mongols reached 100% in a very short amount of time. Of course, I learned my lesson and used that strategy against my enemies down the road (reading Clausewitz helped too).

 

Trouble is that as I described, while the war in CK2 looks a lot more complicated it actually isn't- eg everyone of size having brilliant generals to pick from means there is no practical difference- and is retrograde in many ways. It still uses timed sieges with troop numbers- and has some events that may change time taken by insignificant amounts. But most of all the whole system is geared to make sure there is very little to no consequence for war, or anything really. In CK1 continuous war would destroy your empire even if you were technically winning every time because you'd be penniless and destitute living in a hovel and in shtuck to every money lender in Europe with your provinces looted and depopulated; and that simply does not happen in CK2, everything is pretty much back to normal within a year or so. Same with disease- I didn't even notice having Bubonic Plague in CK2 because it was just another green fog on the map and made little difference from Consumption or The Pox when in reality and in CK1 it was absolutely brutal and ruined and depopulated entire regions.

I'm not sure, but I don't think I noticed the effects you mention in CK1. Plagues and province status were a minor nuisance in CK1, since with SuperBaby UltraSteward you were swimming in cash and could afford pretty much any army and improvement (seriously, by 1215 as Kingdom of Poland I have some 15,000 gold and a monthly surplus between 200 and 400). You're making out CK1 to be some kind of grand, in-depth simulation, when it's actually a good game, but boiling down to one point: have money for war.

 

In CK2 the focus is different. Having money for war is important as well (otherwise you have to deal with mercenaries turning on you, heavy morale penalties, disbanding troops), but the game's overall focus switches to maintaining vassal loyalty, including limiting the amount of time their levies are raised. In CK1 it's simple: raise vassal levy, send him money to get loyalty 100, case closed. In CK2, the negative relations modifier persists until it naturally decays and can go as as -99.

 

Which, in turn, may come to bite you in the ass when that King whose 25,000+ levy joins a faction and presents you an ultimatum just as you are narrowly beating back the Mongol invasion or the Holy Roman Empire that really wants your county.

 

On the other counts, I noticed that plagues and characters do have an effect on military performance. Tailoring leaders (traits, specifically) and placing them on the correct flanks is essential, as is using the terrain to your advantage, and avoiding diseased regions like the, well, plague, as attrition skyrockets.

 

I don't recall there ever being a penalty for forcing amphibious landings in CK1 or crossing rivers. Meanwhile, I used rivers more than once to defeat a superior enemy force and push them back.

 

Yeah, I just found the intrigue stupid in the end. Set up plot, check list and find green ticks, repeat until you reach 100+ or whatever then murder/ set up/ whatever some random guy or gal. It's theoretically a very good system and has great potential, but in practice it isn't very good at all and tends towards being used totally randomly by the AI for more make work squashing them.

I found it extremely useful for keeping the Ilkhanate in check (succession crises are oh-so-fun when you're not on the receiving end). I don't really notice the randomness in the plots, though maybe that's because I'm at medium crown authority and the vassals can wage their wars. Leads to pretty spectacular rises to power, to be honest.

 

The example I had was of a courtier who murdered the king and was caught doing it. You didn't get away with that any time by Perry Masoning "but m'lud I haven't tried to murder you, only the last guy", you got hanged by the neck until stretchy, your nethers removed and burnt with your entrails before your eyes then chopped into bits and distributed around the kingdom pour decourager les autres. And there wouldn't be a nobleman to raise issue because murdering the king was a crime against God- and if someone got away with that publicly then any nobleman might be next. Bill II catching an arrow 'accidentally' while hunting, fine. But when Ted II had an unfortunate accident with a heated domestic implement while in custody, and having abdicated? Ted III chopped noble Mortimer's head off anyway a couple of years later, to a stunning lack of acrimony.

Oh. I do believe you can imprison them for acting dishonorably, assassinating them on their own, or excommunicating and then imprisoning. The game's system is decent, but in your example it clearly comes short of reaching its goal.

 

Then again, how often do you get courtiers who murder kings?

 

The added blob stability makes it harder, at least peripherally, but once you've got an advantage you'll win every war against a given enemy. It's far easier to maintain a large empire in CK2, and CK1 has better mechanisms for preventing unfettered expansions- badboy and realm duress.

The advantage is a historical thing. Few could hold their own against an Empire.

 

About badboy and realm duress: the former is easily managed by vassalizing people and recognizing claims (cheap way to get free vassals) in CK1, the latter seems pretty random. Oh, have one disgruntled count in an obscure part of your vast empire? REALM DURESS, REALM DURESS, ENJOY YOUR POX.

 

The faction system that replaced realm duress is better in my opinion. You can actually manage problems, instead of being at the mercy of the unholy RNG.

 

I've got Byzants back to near their historical height (only missing Baetica, I think) in about a century starting from Alex Komnemus, using CK2+ which is harder than vanilla.

Didn't history prove that reliable?

[Bos_hybrid]

Muslim rulers have a decadence mechanic that they need to manage but it's specific to them and they also get to be polygamous. Unless you want to play as a Muslim you can easily pass on it.

 

The Republic you can probably pass on too but I really like playing Republics but they are a bit overpowered. You get a family palace to upgrade and trade posts you can build and upgrade as well

 

Cheers, given neither do anything for Pagans, I'll pass for now. Enjoying Vikings/Byzantium too much.

[Rostere]

Grabbing titles is far too easy in CK1. I've also found that mechanics for handing out Prestige after peace deals are completely broken.

 

With the exception of Intrigue, CK2 might not be much more complex than CK1, but they've certainly fixed a lot of issues.

 

Maintaining a large empire in CK1 was trivial, it just took a lot of time to bribe all your vassals once a new king was on the throne.

 

Republics in CK2 are very different from kingdoms/duchies/counties. You can afford anything that can be bought directly, but your holdings typically have negligible static defenses.

[melkathi]

Didn't know if anyone saw it or for how long it is, but the latest DLC of CK2 is 50% off at Gamestop and is a steam key.

 

It wasn't on sale when I checked. :/

[Tagaziel]

Republics in CK2 are very different from kingdoms/duchies/counties. You can afford anything that can be bought directly, but your holdings typically have negligible static defenses.

Which makes them juicy sources of revenue.

[Zoraptor]

In CK1 it's simple: raise vassal levy, send him money to get loyalty 100, case closed. In CK2, the negative relations modifier persists until it naturally decays and can go as as -99.

 

You only get negs for raising levies if you've declared the war though, if it's defensive there's no raise cost. It's one of the slightly broken things about the wargoals system, since you can occupy the entire holy land as a Christian in a defensive war, then have to walk back out and return it to the infidel once their war score reaches -100. I far prefer the old badboy system for managing such things, while clunky for something like EU it was fine in a more limited setting.

 

Grabbing titles is far too easy in CK1. I've also found that mechanics for handing out Prestige after peace deals are completely broken.

I don't grab titles- it ruins score since I use Dynastic Glory, one thing that CK2 certainly does do better- and I don't bribe nobles as generally I don't have the money to. I always use DVIP though, which I think significantly ups the costs and badboy for grabbing titles anyway. Having said that though, I'm less than convinced that the claims fabrication system in CK2 is much better, given that it's a straight random chance from a chancellor mission.

[melkathi]

Started a game.

Shorty McLeod, Earl of Artholl.

Shortly after the game began, the Duke of Moray, my direct neighbour, created a faction in favour of eclectic monarchy and before hardly anyone had time to join, presented an ultimatum and declared war on the king of Scottland. The king called the levies and went to subjugate Ross, while the Duke of Moray let his army south to lay siege to me.

the earl of Fife created a faction in support of Moray and declared war on Scotland, but as Moray had already rebelled and wasn't part of Scotland, the Casus Beli was invalidated right away so Fife could revolt - for no lack of trying - he declared war 5 times, each invalidated right away.

Meanwhile I was under siege. I couldn't actually do anything. I couldn't join the rebelion as I couldn't swear allegiance to Moray, being a de jure vassal of someone else. I could also not try a counter-attack, as I had no Casus Beli - being under siege by a rebel army during a civil war not being reason for hostilities apparently.

This whole situation produced a realistic response in my character and he became "stressed".

 

I seriously don't see how this game can be getting so much praise.

Edited June 24, 2013 by melkathi

[Rosbjerg]

Crusader Kings II - The Process.

 

Well yeah that does sound quite annoying - the game is certainly not without fault or weird moments, but for me all the great intrigues and moments where cool plots within plots unfold really make me forgive those few stupid ones.

[Keyrock]

I do enjoy the wacky moments that happen out of the blue, like the Pope becoming Cathar, which, as you can imagine, causes all types of unrest and craziness to spread across the land.  The thing about a game that includes so much randomness, is that sometimes you're going to get dealt a really ****** hand.  Other times things will fall right into your lap.

[melkathi]

I now know how Stannis must have felt.

 

As I mentioned, when Duke Moray rebelled against the crown, I spend the whole rebellion holding out in my keep, under siege. Now I'm not going to start a discussion on how realistic it is that 1400 attackers laying siege to 1300 defenders have only 100 casualties while the defenders are decimated...

But the rebellion was put down. Of all the king's vassals, I was the one who suffered the most from the rebellion. What does the git do? A few years later he starts a plot to assassinate me...

Serves him right that he was then overthrown by the Duchess Moray...

First thing that happens after? The old king's son, now Duke of Albany, appoints me his chancelor and upon his death I am appointed regent for his son.

 

Now to figure out what I can do as Regent.

I now feel like Tyrion btw...

[Cultist]

Enjoy your medieval feudalism. At least be happy you are in Europe. Byzantine rulers have option to blind or castrate you if their imaginary friends whisper them that you may pose a threat.

[melkathi]

Well, I died.

One of the earls tried to overthrow our duke, whose regent I was, to replace him with the duke's older cousin, my chancelor. As regent I called the levies. I hired some mercenaries to be certain of victory and laid siege to the rebel stronghold. Where I promptly died of camp fever.

My 4 year old daughter has taken over now, quickly subdued the revolt with three quick, decisive victories... now she is betrothed to the duke's twin brother (9 years old). It's a matrimonal betrothal so I hope to get a good claim out of it.

[melkathi]

Giving up.

1200 attacker besiege 1100 defenders. I am the defender. Outcome: within 3 months we are at 770 attackers vs 650 defenders. Another month and I have lost.

4150 attackers besiege 1300 defenders. I am the attacker. Outcome after 1.5 years attacker morale is so low I have to give up.

Every 6 months my neighbour could raise about 2000 fresh troops. That is after he had been weakened in a war with a third party and I had gone in to mop up the stragglers.... yeah right...

[Rostere]

I don't grab titles- it ruins score since I use Dynastic Glory, one thing that CK2 certainly does do better- and I don't bribe nobles as generally I don't have the money to. I always use DVIP though, which I think significantly ups the costs and badboy for grabbing titles anyway. Having said that though, I'm less than convinced that the claims fabrication system in CK2 is much better, given that it's a straight random chance from a chancellor mission.

 

I don't know if it's a bug or a feature, but the Prestige earned from winning civil wars when you already have a lot of territory (where the opposing side has a claim on your title) covers that loss of Prestige very easily.

[Cultist]

If you are besieger then your morale will lower only after failed assaults. And you should assault ONLY if you have much more troops or archers is a big chunk of your army. Plus if you want to beat them in open battle, then take notes about terrain - crossing river imposes huge penalties. Plus, remember to assign leaders with highest Martial for center and flanks of your army.

[BruceVC]

Giving up.

1200 attacker besiege 1100 defenders. I am the defender. Outcome: within 3 months we are at 770 attackers vs 650 defenders. Another month and I have lost.

4150 attackers besiege 1300 defenders. I am the attacker. Outcome after 1.5 years attacker morale is so low I have to give up.

Every 6 months my neighbour could raise about 2000 fresh troops. That is after he had been weakened in a war with a third party and I had gone in to mop up the stragglers.... yeah right...

 

 

"giving up" that's normally my decision when I get frustrated. But I want to give RTS another go so I will try CK2 as well

 

[melkathi]

If you are besieger then your morale will lower only after failed assaults. And you should assault ONLY if you have much more troops or archers is a big chunk of your army. Plus if you want to beat them in open battle, then take notes about terrain - crossing river imposes huge penalties. Plus, remember to assign leaders with highest Martial for center and flanks of your army.

 

Nah, started at no moral whatsoever while the defender started at full. It filled up at first and then started going down. You kow those little events about raiders, sallies etc? Not a single one of them happppened in over a year.

The moment I was the defender, four treacheries happened in four days.

[melkathi]

 

 

 

"giving up" that's normally my decision when I get frustrated. But I want to give RTS another go so I will try CK2 as well

 

 

 

If I could I'd give you my copy

We play to have fun. If there is no fun, people should stop playing, right? The "mature" thing to do and all that

[Cultist]

Nah, started at no moral whatsoever while the defender started at full. It filled up at first and then started going down. You kow those little events about raiders, sallies etc? Not a single one of them happppened in over a year.

The moment I was the defender, four treacheries happened in four days.

 

Events are dependant on Attacker-Defender skills. So if your attacker have Intrigue of 20+ then expect to see treacheries, same goes for Martial. So, don't expect poor commanders to fare well against skilled opponent.

[Tagaziel]

Events are dependant on Attacker-Defender skills. So if your attacker have Intrigue of 20+ then expect to see treacheries, same goes for Martial. So, don't expect poor commanders to fare well against skilled opponent.

Ha! Didn't know that. Will sure come in useful the next time I'm working sieges.

[melkathi]

 

Nah, started at no moral whatsoever while the defender started at full. It filled up at first and then started going down. You kow those little events about raiders, sallies etc? Not a single one of them happppened in over a year.

The moment I was the defender, four treacheries happened in four days.

 

Events are dependant on Attacker-Defender skills. So if your attacker have Intrigue of 20+ then expect to see treacheries, same goes for Martial. So, don't expect poor commanders to fare well against skilled opponent.

 

The only thing I expect is the rules to apply to the computer and a certain bit of reason to be behind things and not a complete and utter random mess to everything. Which is what I experienced.

[Rosbjerg]

It's not, it may seem that way but there are rules governing and the computer is subject to them just as you. Coming in to the series for the first time it takes a few weeks to learn how to play properly. Some will never like them and others will hardly play other games after that.

 

But you gave it a good shot and maybe in a year or so you might give it another go and end up loving it. That's how it went for me with Europa Universalis II.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Nah, started at no moral whatsoever while the defender started at full. It filled up at first and then started going down. You kow those little events about raiders, sallies etc? Not a single one of them happppened in over a year.

The moment I was the defender, four treacheries happened in four days.

 

Events are dependant on Attacker-Defender skills. So if your attacker have Intrigue of 20+ then expect to see treacheries, same goes for Martial. So, don't expect poor commanders to fare well against skilled opponent.

 

The only thing I expect is the rules to apply to the computer and a certain bit of reason to be behind things and not a complete and utter random mess to everything. Which is what I experienced.

 

 

 

It's not, it may seem that way but there are rules governing and the computer is subject to them just as you. Coming in to the series for the first time it takes a few weeks to learn how to play properly. Some will never like them and others will hardly play other games after that.

 

But you gave it a good shot and maybe in a year or so you might give it another go and end up loving it. That's how it went for me with Europa Universalis II.

 

@ Ros

 

Is it possible that in Melk's game a virus effected the software code and the AI and that's why it seemed like the game was a mess? You never know.....

[Tagaziel]

It's a factor of the learning curve, not the game's bugginess. I've invested some 80 hours in the game and I still find new features and doodads.

[Rosbjerg]

No Bruce, it's just that when you don't know the game a lot of things can seem random and/or unfair. I remember thinking the same a lot of times in EUII, until I slowly understood the features of the game and saw that I had acted prematurely or had misunderstood how something worked and so on.