Crusader Kings II

[Keyrock]

CK2 is a lot more about macro managing than micro managing.

[melkathi]

First impression of the game isn't all that positive.

The ridiculous tutorial that states: "These are the additions since the previous game" does not help to improve my mood. Making a tutorial and then aim it at the people who already know the series

It took a  couple of minutes for me to break the tutorial; take it and run it against a wall, causing it such severe blunt trauma that it had to be taken to hospital with a severe concussion. After it got patched up (alt ctrl delete) I was nice to it and decided to avoid breaking it again. Not that it did much more than saying "Hi! This button here is called that" yay. Those tooltips I can get during the normal game...

The game started and I was greeted by message spam: 30 messages on who supports who as heir to the Holy Roman Empire. Then armies started to move all over the place. Of course there were no messages about what my direct neighbours were up to. One province bordering to mine turned red. I would assume that meant we were at war, but who knows. At the same time, an army moved towards the province of a vassal of mine. I decided to raise my levies and send them there. My brother in law apparently did the same and we slaughtered the invaders. The provinces that army came from turned red as well with a note "holy war". Yay! I said to myself and send my armies on. One to aid a neighbouring province that was under siege by the pagans and one for a counterattack. My armies just stood there. Apparently I too had to declare war, it wasn't enough that they had attacked me. I tried to declare war but could not. The reason? I was not allowed to declare war while having raised my levies. So if I get attacked, I must raise my armies to defend, but to then press the enemy back I have to disband my armies to declare war? Errrrrrr.... this sounds as if something went seriously wrong with the game.

I'll leave it for now and will give it another go at a later point.

[Keyrock]

While it's one of Paradox's "most accessible" titles, it's still not for the faint of heart.  The game seems to go in spurts.  You'll be cruising along having a quiet, relatively boring game.  Everything is peaceful, you're gaining wealth, researching, etc.  Then all of a sudden someone plots murder against you, a neighboring country declares war on you, your spymaster turns on you, an epidemic hits, and the pope threatens to excommunicate you and you're scrambling just to hold on to any power you can.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Keyrock

[Zoraptor]

Paradox tutorials are always terrible. They just cannot do them. The one for HoI3 manages to be both terrible and in hilariously bad taste. That for CK2 is orders of magnitude better than for CK1 though, which was a single startup 'page', and that game's learning curve was near vertical even if I do prefer it markedly to its flashier, shallower successor.

 

No declaring of war with raised levies is because pretty much the entirety of combat is determined by who has most troops- still, it was far, far worse nearer release. If you could declare war with raised levies you'd either park your troops on top of the provinces you wanted to siege or take the enemy armies out piecemeal before they can unite, making war (even more) trivial (than it is).

[BruceVC]

Guys would you recommend playing CK1 before this game, or just start on CK2?

[Keyrock]

Guys would you recommend playing CK1 before this game, or just start on CK2?

Either or.  CK2 has a slightly less brutal learning curve, if that does anything for you.  Both games are self contained so it really doesn't matter.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Keyrock

[BruceVC]

 

Guys would you recommend playing CK1 before this game, or just start on CK2?

Either or.  CK2 has a slightly less brutal learning curve, if that does anything for you.

 

 

Okay thanks, I have only ever played one RTS before and that was HOMM 6, I kept getting defeated in the second chapter. I got frustrated and gave up so I'm clearly not very good at RTS   But I want to get into the genre as most of you guys seem to really enjoy them and I feel I'm missing out in someway?

Edited June 22, 2013 by BruceVC

[Keyrock]

 

 

Guys would you recommend playing CK1 before this game, or just start on CK2?

Either or.  CK2 has a slightly less brutal learning curve, if that does anything for you.

 

 

Okay thanks, I have only ever played one RTS before and that was HOMM 6, I kept getting defeated in the second chapter. I got frustrated and gave up so I'm clearly not very good at RTS   But I want to get into the genre as most of you guys seem to really enjoy them and I feel I'm missing out in someway?

 

This game is VERY different from a traditional RTS, partly why I like it (I suck at traditional RTS too).  CK2 is about macro managing.  It's about selecting the right people to fill you council positions and letting them do their job.  It's about arranging marriages so that your children, and ultimately your family, wind up in the best position possible.  It's about appeasing those more powerful than you while taking advantage of those less powerful than you.  It's about being diplomatic when it suits the situation and conniving when you see an opportunity.

[Zoraptor]

Guys would you recommend playing CK1 before this game, or just start on CK2?

While I prefer CK1 I wouldn't recommend it unless the person I was recommending it to has very high tolerance for the learning curve and was able to cope with frustration. It's a brutal, unforgiving game that makes CK2 look like a walk in an age restricted park with an escort of heavily armed special forces by comparison. Closest RPG equivalent would be something like Gothic (CK1) vs RIsen (CK2). There's certainly no need to play CK1 first.

[BruceVC]

 

Guys would you recommend playing CK1 before this game, or just start on CK2?

While I prefer CK1 I wouldn't recommend it unless the person I was recommending it to has very high tolerance for the learning curve and was able to cope with frustration. It's a brutal, unforgiving game that makes CK2 look like a walk in an age restricted park with an escort of heavily armed special forces by comparison. Closest RPG equivalent would be something like Gothic (CK1) vs RIsen (CK2). There's certainly no need to play CK1 first.

 

 

Okay that's an appropriate analogy, I'll stick to CK2

[Keyrock]

 

 

Okay that's an appropriate analogy, I'll stick to CK2

 

Good call.  CK2 is a good introduction into what Paradox strategy games are like.  Once you know what you're in for, CK 1 and other title are there for you r purchasing enjoyment.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Okay that's an appropriate analogy, I'll stick to CK2

 

Good call.  CK2 is a good introduction into what Paradox strategy games are like.  Once you know what you're in for, CK 1 and other title are there for you r purchasing enjoyment.

 

 

That's exactly how I see it, I'll get use to these types of games through CK2 before I try something too ambitious

[Tagaziel]

Paradox tutorials are always terrible. They just cannot do them. The one for HoI3 manages to be both terrible and in hilariously bad taste. That for CK2 is orders of magnitude better than for CK1 though, which was a single startup 'page', and that game's learning curve was near vertical even if I do prefer it markedly to its flashier, shallower successor.

 

In what way is CK2 more shallow? My impression is the other way round (I played CK1 extensively right before switching to CK2). No intrigue mechanics, a hilarious claim system, extremely easy power gaming... CK2 is an improvement in every aspect.

 

No declaring of war with raised levies is because pretty much the entirety of combat is determined by who has most troops- still, it was far, far worse nearer release. If you could declare war with raised levies you'd either park your troops on top of the provinces you wanted to siege or take the enemy armies out piecemeal before they can unite, making war (even more) trivial (than it is).

So, basically, CK1?

[Bos_hybrid]

Do Sword of Islam or the Republic add anything to the game besides the obvious(control Islamic and merchant rulers). Like Legacy of Rome and retinues?

[ShadySands]

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

[Cultist]

The trick with Paradox Grand strategy games - you understand one - you'll understand every other Grand strategy from Paradox.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Cultist

[Cultist]

First impression of the game isn't all that positive.

The ridiculous tutorial that states: "These are the additions since the previous game" does not help to improve my mood. Making a tutorial and then aim it at the people who already know the series

It took a  couple of minutes for me to break the tutorial; take it and run it against a wall, causing it such severe blunt trauma that it had to be taken to hospital with a severe concussion. After it got patched up (alt ctrl delete) I was nice to it and decided to avoid breaking it again. Not that it did much more than saying "Hi! This button here is called that" yay. Those tooltips I can get during the normal game...

The game started and I was greeted by message spam: 30 messages on who supports who as heir to the Holy Roman Empire. Then armies started to move all over the place. Of course there were no messages about what my direct neighbours were up to. One province bordering to mine turned red. I would assume that meant we were at war, but who knows. At the same time, an army moved towards the province of a vassal of mine. I decided to raise my levies and send them there. My brother in law apparently did the same and we slaughtered the invaders. The provinces that army came from turned red as well with a note "holy war". Yay! I said to myself and send my armies on. One to aid a neighbouring province that was under siege by the pagans and one for a counterattack. My armies just stood there. Apparently I too had to declare war, it wasn't enough that they had attacked me. I tried to declare war but could not. The reason? I was not allowed to declare war while having raised my levies. So if I get attacked, I must raise my armies to defend, but to then press the enemy back I have to disband my armies to declare war? Errrrrrr.... this sounds as if something went seriously wrong with the game.

I'll leave it for now and will give it another go at a later point.

Try some duchy for starters - Empires are rife with intrigue and everyone wants to kill everyone, and in case of muslims - it's mostly your family wants to kill each other. Simple tips that'll help to avoid a lot of crap:

1. NEVER upgrade anything that is not your demense.

2. ALWAYS upgrade income buildings first

3. Your culture retinue have full bonuses no matter what tech level you are. that means Heavy infantry cultural retinue will have +60% defence, for example.

4. If you want to storm astles easily - stick with archer retinue - archers have high Skirmish value and only skirmish is counted in castle assault. 6000 archer retinue can storm 2k garrison with ease.

5. proper eugenics is the key. Stay away from lisp, hapelip, hunchbacks, imbeciles and other people with such traits even if they are heirs to the empire - that trails will plague your dinasty for generations.

6. At first it may seem that stewardsip is the most important education, but in fact Diplomacy is the most powerful of all. it will help you to screw your dumb vassals that wiull pester you with their retared requests and demands with no cost. Otherwise, you'll have to bribe them - and only if have high intrigue.

7. RAPE AND PILLAGE!

8. Only Elective Monarchy allows you to choose heirs. I STRONGLY recommend you to change to EM, bcause otherwise you can end up with Inbred, hunchback, lisp, imbecile homosexual heir. And if you are Zoroastrian and screwing your sister daily, or a big fan of Game of Thrones, Inbred trait will plague you constantly.

9. Do NOT give your heir a fief to govern - once a ruler, he'll start to go hunting, have feasts and spawn bastards. It seems like AI tends to take most dumb choices and your  Brave Gregarious Charitable heir can end up as Maimed Craven Gluttonous slob.

[melkathi]

I started with a duchy (Saxony). I'd prefer to start as tiny as possible to truly manage to rise to power from humble-ish beginnings. Though at the moment I am more inclined to just start a new dynasty in The Guild. At least that game I understand what is going on

[Cultist]

Lowest playable title is a count, which means a long tongue to lick ducke's ass. Duke is the most optimal. Plus, CK2 have a thing called UberDukes or SuperDukes. At some point dukes can grow much more powerful than a King or even emperor. But if you become Emperor then you an have a lot of Casus bellis and can create king vassals so they can deal with all micromanagement for you. Downside - if king joins a Faction you are in a lot of trouble. So vote Crown Authority as low as possible in vassal kingdoms because once Faction members get ~30% of liege's forces they will present an ultimatum, and you refuse - enjoy your civil war. Sometimes they are unspeakable devastating.

[Zoraptor]

 

Paradox tutorials are always terrible. They just cannot do them. The one for HoI3 manages to be both terrible and in hilariously bad taste. That for CK2 is orders of magnitude better than for CK1 though, which was a single startup 'page', and that game's learning curve was near vertical even if I do prefer it markedly to its flashier, shallower successor.

 

In what way is CK2 more shallow?

Pretty much every way. Been through it all before here previous- CK2 has a lot of apparent depth, amounting to nothing.

 

The battle system still comes down to who has the most troops most of the time because while there are talented leaders and the like you can guarantee that any large nation (and most duchies) will have 1, 2, 3+ leaders with high martial to pick from and there's no obligation (as there would have been in reality) to have that dim wit but powerful duke lead over the highly talented lowborn. So while it may appear more complicated and deep than CK1 it's just make work to get back to the same state as before. And the retinues recharge really quickly, so you frequently end up with the hilarity of wiping out (Fatimid, Byzant, HRE) stack of doom number 8 of a series of several hundred only to find that a new set of stacks o' doom are already trundling their way towards you. In CK1 if you lose your retinues you're stuffed, so you have to be very careful about picking battles. Have a bad king in CK2? Don't worry overly, you'll still have all your retinues and the like to fight the civil war- in CK1 if you have a zero martial king you will have problems because your retinues will be almost non existent. And if you try to fight wars, constant wars in CK1 you'll bankrupt yourself and have to sell all your buildings. While this has changed a bit in CK2 with TOG it's very difficult to lose money, and was impossible (now only rare/ difficult) to lose holdings or buildings. Oh, and the the blobs in CK2, the huge, immovable blobs. I could go on all day. No really, I could.

 

In summary, CK2's complexity is smoke and mirrors designed to give an illusion of complexity. There's very little actual complexity, just a lot of make work interspersed with Oooh Quirky! Hahaha So Funny!! and Reality Breaking Facepalm moments. Courtier kills father, everyone knows she did it. Execution? Tyranny penalty. Imprisonment? Tyranny, as she has no exposed plot. Sense Making? Not a skerrick detected. It's mainly the consequence of designing a game and wanting the player to have lots of bail outs so it isn't Hard and lots of stuff to do so it isn't Boring, but also not to have any Exploits even if they were completely realistic. In CK1 if a duke rebelled and I disliked his traits I'd strip him of his titles and give them to his son, which could be done for no real penalty if done properly. In CK2 that realistic (and more merciful than often) approach results in everyone hating you, because it would be prone to exploits.

[Tagaziel]

I don't see how CK1 is mechanically superior to CK2. For instance, wars in CK1 were more primitive. Fixed siege lengths, ability to instagrab land (park your 20,000 army on top of a county and go wild), strange war resolution mechanics, simplistic battle resolution and more. Sure, losing stacks was a bigger penalty, but the game didn't have CK2's war score mechanic. Which is an improvement in every way, as it introduces a lot more consequence to your strategy and makes it possible to lose a war through inaction.

 

Then there's the phenomenal intrigue, which was practically non-existent in CK1.

 

I'm not sure why you're railing that imprisoning and executing people that don't like you is in accordance with the reality of medieval times. It isn't. The ruler and nobility always existed in a state of uneasy balance; tyrannical actions could and did trigger a crisis. For example, Bolesław the Bold, Polish King of the 11th century, was forced to flee the country after he sentenced a traitorous bishop to death. The sentence was carried out and the nobility rebelled.

 

Besides, I've been able to stretch the Kingdom of Poland from Baltic to the Mediterranean by gobbling up the lands of the Byzantine Empire, Seljuk Turks, Cuman tribes, all before 1215. That's impossible in CK2 as you just get your ass handed to you.

[Tigranes]

I never got into CK1 so can't compare, but it is true that CK2 is a pretty simple and easy game. I found it was a very boring game if you tried to 'win', it's fun if you play with house rules and create stories of hilarious failure around the WTF events and go on weird campaigns. It's far too easy to create an iron-rule empire where you're in control of everything and you can conquer anybody you want, but it is interesting if you decide to larp Kings who refuse to assassinate / imprison anyone, embrace the Bogomilist heresy and try to convert the entire realm, Gavelkind, and so forth.

[Leferd]

I've always wanted to get into CK2. Like others I bought this and Rome on Steam a while ago but couldn't get into it because It's pretty daunting to start and the learning curve appears to be too steep.

[Zoraptor]

I don't see how CK1 is mechanically superior to CK2. For instance, wars in CK1 were more primitive. Fixed siege lengths, ability to instagrab land (park your 20,000 army on top of a county and go wild), strange war resolution mechanics, simplistic battle resolution and more. Sure, losing stacks was a bigger penalty, but the game didn't have CK2's war score mechanic. Which is an improvement in every way, as it introduces a lot more consequence to your strategy and makes it possible to lose a war through inaction.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Then there's the phenomenal intrigue, which was practically non-existent in CK1.

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'm not sure why you're railing that imprisoning and executing people that don't like you is in accordance with the reality of medieval times. It isn't.

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.

 

Besides, I've been able to stretch the Kingdom of Poland from Baltic to the Mediterranean by gobbling up the lands of the Byzantine Empire, Seljuk Turks, Cuman tribes, all before 1215. That's impossible in CK2 as you just get your ass handed to you.

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.

 

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.

[SadExchange]

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.