Print

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

[Johnfalcon99977]

The fuck is up with this? I was playing a tolerant ruler (IE. I had the Trait "Tolerant") in the Prince and the Thane mod, and then an event came up where this Jewish lady came to me with this sob story. Sounds fine enough, up till the point where my only option is to fuck her over and become antisemitic.

How the hell does this make sense?

[Catastrophic lolcats]

You're tolerant of everyone but the Jewish community? I'm not sure I like how that mod handles the Jewish population, it's almost always a positive thing (with quite decent rewards) to drive them off your lands. Also like your example some of the traits really don't make sense and have little effect.

[Descan]

Saxon + Norman = English, basically, is one of if not the only cultural melting pot event in the base game. So it expands that to other cultural mixes, presumably.

Cultural melting pots during the time period I can think of are Sicilian, Maghreb.. I'm sure there's others.

Kay. I said in the base game, not in history.

Unless you meant they added those ones. In which case, kay.

Saxon + Norman = English, basically, is one of if not the only cultural melting pot event in the base game. So it expands that to other cultural mixes, presumably.

Really? When I open the culture events folder it seems there is only Saxon + Norman.

You mean in the mod? Then I don't know.

[Neonivek]

The fuck is up with this? I was playing a tolerant ruler (IE. I had the Trait "Tolerant") in the Prince and the Thane mod, and then an event came up where this Jewish lady came to me with this sob story. Sounds fine enough, up till the point where my only option is to fuck her over and become antisemitic.

How the hell does this make sense?

Hey Tollerance is tollerance but those Jews are just the scum of the earth.

terrible joke aside... It is one thing to be tollerant it is another to have the level of tollerance to defy the setting.

That would take a particularly heroic individual in this kind of setting.

[Tarran]

Woah, the HRE just ate up what was France, minus the parts I had under my control. Here's what I think happened:

The king to France had some relation to the king of Burgundy, which set them up to inherit it.

The king of Burgundy was then imprisoned and then something happened to make France inherit Burgundy without the death of the previous ruler... while Burgundy was in the middle of an independence war.

France then whitepeaced after some fighting, then wham they are inside the HRE. Somehow.

Damn, there goes my Holy War target until they choose to rebel. Oh well, managed to snag three counties before that.

[Cheese]

I just won a crusade with the highest war contribution  . I've found that sieging stuff on your own gives the crusader trait and big nice prestige and piety boosts, along with war contribution.

Now, give the lands to a distant relative or keep them for myself? I'm really tempted by the latter, though the former would mean a load less work. But would I give up the opportunity to rise from duke of Provence to king of Egypt?

Edit: Taken them for myself anyway.

[Tarran]

Depends on how distant the land is. If the land is halfway across the world, you might not want to due to distance revolt modifiers. Otherwise, why not?

[Neonivek]

*Hits head on wall* even though I said it as a way of explaining the setting I still feel guilty for that joke I made... ohh well...

So do people die like crazy in Crusader Kings 2 like they did in the first where you could expect up to a 50% fatality rate?

[Korbac]

So do people die like crazy in Crusader Kings 2 like they did in the first where you could expect up to a 50% fatality rate?

So far in human history, I'm pretty sure there's a 100% mortality rate.

[Neonivek]

So do people die like crazy in Crusader Kings 2 like they did in the first where you could expect up to a 50% fatality rate?

So far in human history, I'm pretty sure there's a 100% mortality rate.

I said Fatality >_>... as in from not age.

[Tarran]

Depends. If nothing bad is happening to the country, and nobody is assassinating another, I'd say 80% of the people will make it into old age while the remaining 20% will die to random bad events/health traits.

If war is happening, expect the chances of dying to something other than old age to raise by... 10-60% for anyone in the army depending on how often the bad wounding/maiming/incapacitating/killing events strike.

If a plague comes, it all depends on the disease. If it's minor, expect a raise of death before old age of maybe 20% or higher or lower. If it's major, maybe up to 60% or more.

If people are assassinating another, then it's unknowable.

In general, though, my leaders seem to live to ripe old ages as long as I keep them out of the army.

[Neonivek]

Ok so they decreased the mortality rate significantly from the first Crusader Kings.

[Lightning4]

As lethal as smallpox is supposed to be, I've had it kill next to nobody. I've lost more to tuberculosis and typhus.

I even had one character shrug off smallpox twice in short succession.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

Most of the time I heal up from small pox really quickly and often become "scarred" which is a nice little trait. I remember looking at a mod that tried to make the game's mortality a little like the first, can't remember the name though.

[Pnx]

As lethal as smallpox is supposed to be, I've had it kill next to nobody. I've lost more to tuberculosis and typhus.

I even had one character shrug off smallpox twice in short succession.

Well TB is actually generally more lethal than smallpox, and so are some types of typhus (typhus actually covers several disease which vary heavily in lethality).

But we're generally more scared of smallpox because A) the symptoms are a lot more hellish (I wouldn't advise you to look at the pictures on the wikipedia page), and B) as a virus it's much more difficult to treat.