Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cerapa]

E: Interesting...muslims need four wives otherwise they get a relatively *huge* prestige drain.

Am I correct that this would result in a crapton of children, all of which would then fight over who gets the lands?

Sounds fun.

[Descan]

It'll probably show the succession cluster-fuck that WAS Muslim Empire successions better than what they've got now, especially with the "Weak and Strong" claims thing.

[Dutchling]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/content.php?981-1.06-Information-First-Expansion
E: Interesting...muslims need four wives otherwise they get a relatively *huge* prestige drain.

As the 'unlanded sons' prestige penalty scales with the tier of a ruler, I assume dukes need 3 wives, counts 2 and barons 1 in order to avoid prestige penalty.

Also: Islamic nations now have the dynasty name of the highest liege as their name! How awesome is that? No more uncreatable kingdoms because of wrong religion as names only matter for Christians. (all assumptions from the screenshot of course)

edit: I assume some Muslim states need different names though, as Rum should surely not be called 'Seljuk' and if you out put  a fellow Fatamid on the French throne it should probably have a different name than the country you are ruling yourself.

[micelus]

Perhaps the dynasty name=country name is a moddable option for titles...Dunno. Or perhaps its similar to a titular title, which would make some kind of sense, that way only one person could hold the dynasty name.

*sigh* Why can't it be Friday already...

[Dutchling]

Titular titles still wouldn't make Iberian Islamic duchies capable of forming sultanates though, which is something I really want to see happen.

الموت لمن قرر أن يوم الجمعة هو ليس اليوم الذي يأتي بعد يوم الثلاثاء!

[scriver]

E: Interesting...muslims need four wives otherwise they get a relatively *huge* prestige drain.

Am I correct that this would result in a crapton of children, all of which would then fight over who gets the lands?

Sounds fun.

Unfortunately, they'll probably have the same kind of "the more children you have the smaller the chance of having new one gets" mechanic as everybody already has. Still, I guess they'll probably have more children than the AI currently gets, even if it doesn't end up being a crapload

I'm also happy to see the price isn't very high. After the character editor, I feared they would be completely unbalanced.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

Looking good. Hopefully this will also put in the ground works for pagans, republics and theocracies.
Makes me wonder just how far they're willing to expand the game. If we get something like Europa where they slowly opened up the east bit by bit that would be great.

It's a shame they didn't go with my naming suggestion, "I'm Bringin' Sufi Back". Can't win 'em all though.

[Rilder]

republics

I doubt they could make playable republics work without completely changing the game for the very few republics.

I mean how do you make a republic playable in a game that's entirely centric on the gameplay element of you playing a character in a dynasty.  The only way you have the power to control a country is if your character is in a position of power.

No, maybe make republics more realistic in future patches but don't make them playable.

Now stuff like Elective Monarchy laws and the Holy Roman Empire, they could use some work to get right, and Pagans definitely could use an expansion.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

I wasn't thinking all that much when I wrote it. However I still think it could still work.

As far as I know Noble Republics almost always voted in an elective of a handful of the most powerful families in the country.
However as far as I think republics would function in the game, becoming an elective head of the republic wouldn't be the main focus. Sure it might give you a nice prestiage bonus but the real power would come in forming voting blocks, grooming puppets, enacting favourable laws and gaining more land for your dynasty.

I guess it would be a little like the Imperial Politics, but the main goal wouldn't be taking the head postion. Playing as a wealthy land owner who has his tendrils in all political decissions and is able to change laws on a whim, able to easily vote in a puppet who will blindy follow his orders, fighting in the crusade to gain some favour, all while filling his own coffers would be the real goal. I imagine it would be pretty brutal at times with all the amount of intrigue.
 

Republics would play very differently, which to me is always a good thing. However the main problem would be the handful of republic that existed at this time were heavily focused on trading or were trading republics. Playing Venice without trade, which Crusader Kings II does lack, seems rather odd and almost pointless to me.
Not to mention the mechanics would be rather tricky to iron out, plus you have to get the AI to work rather smart so it feels like your dealing with real humans.

Due to the amount of work required I don't really see republics being playable in any future expansion however.

[Rakonas]

The thing is that if they made republics just have simple election mechanics then they would be perfectly playable. You'd just have to be sure to get someone of your dynasty elected as your heir. Personally I believe there should never be a limit to what you can and cannot play, and effort should thus be placed in making republics and theocracies possible, if not entirely interesting in vanilla, to play. So long as a mechanic exists there will surely be mods to make it more interesting.

[Dutchling]

They could just make whoever succeeds you your new character. This would obviously just be a placeholder, just a how non-catholic feudal characters are right now, but a playable placeholder is better than nothing.

[Toady Two]

I think the way the AI currently handles the republics is pretty ok. They get a tremendous income and army boost for controlling coastal cities and it takes a very powerful feudal lord to take land from them.

If similar bonuses were give to player controlled countries it would be overpowered. Currently the main Italian republics are a force to be reckoned with but of limited territorial reach. Anything else would feel unrealistic.

I would like the next expansions to flesh out Pagans and Theocracies. The apart from being more fleshed out the Eastern European Pagans need a fighting chance at defending their lands. Currently they get curb stomped by Poland, Russians and the HRE within a few years of game start.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

It is fairly depressing to see YOU CAN'T PLAY AS X on the world map.

I'm reminded of EU3 with the New World/Sub-Saharan tribes. They're not really that fun to play and their mechanics not that interesting, but the freedom to be able to play them is nice.

I would like the next expansions to flesh out Pagans and Theocracies. The apart from being more fleshed out the Eastern European Pagans need a fighting chance at defending their lands. Currently they get curb stomped by Poland, Russians and the HRE within a few years of game start.

God, when the hordes start arriving to the East and the various "Russian states" haven't got their shit into order they just get mowed down. It would be a terrible place to play. Western powers on your arse and Hordes appear out of no-where to wheck what ever shit you have left.

[scriver]

I think a republican overhaul might be combined with a fleshing out of the economy mechanics, something I think is what the game is in most need of at the moment. It actually ties in with the survival of the outlying pagan states - they should be lasting longer because just like in real life, the Christian shouldn't want to conquer those lands, it wasn't a good move economics-wise. Most of the Northern Crusades were more like great raiding parties attacking the closer, more prosperous lands that in many cases had already been christened. Every time I see Poland all up in the Kola peninsula I shake my head in disbelief.

[ConscriptFive]

E: Interesting...muslims need four wives otherwise they get a relatively *huge* prestige drain.

Am I correct that this would result in a crapton of children, all of which would then fight over who gets the lands?

Sounds fun.

Actually the historical Muslim successions really were that brutal for precisely that reason.  Straight hereditary succession was a Shia thing, while the Sunni tradition was much more political.  As soon as the Sultan died, all his relatives would race to the Capitol to try to claim the title before the others.  It was a predictable bloodbath every damn time, with every son, brother, cousin, and in-law coming out the woodwork looking for a once-in-a-lifetime chance at the throne.  By the 1600's, the politically strongest heir would pre-emptively put all his relatives under house arrest in anticipation of the ruler's death, hence the term "Golden Cage."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Harem#Golden_Cage and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafes