Print

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

[Duuvian]

As a King or above it makes great sense to make at least one or two of your Duchies into merchant republics, as it seems it gives you 100 free galleys you can call up to sail wherever. They don't like feudal lords, so after the initial granter of titles dies they won't offer as many troops as a castle holder would due to the deteriorating relationship. However Mayor Princes or what-not do seem to have large numbers of troops available once you are pals with them.

[majikero]

Then you'll have 2 powerful vassals constantly forming factions against you.

[Duuvian]

Then you'll have 2 powerful vassals constantly forming factions against you.

Factions aren't a terrible thing, they let you cherry pick who gets titles revoked and who gets executed and who gets to rot in jail. I sort of view it like an extra tax on nobles when I loot my own holdings.

Sure, when they surprise a new ruler with 60% -80% of troop count it's kind of bad, but that's why you should befriend the HRE.

That said I play it with a lot of reloads. Ck2 has too many random stuffs to not reloads like I might in a story driven game of plot discovery. I'm in it to see how far I can expand within the rules if things work out in my favor I guess.

In multiplayer or no reloads I'd do much, much worse of course. Basically I abuse the crap out of the save mechanics to maximize my opportunities to further my video game megalomaniacal desires.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

Vassal merchant republics are a double edged sword. While they do give you a ton of gold and a boatload of ... boats, they will however almost always hate you guts and start some annoying factions.
Relying on vassal republics or not really depends on where my capital is. If it's costal with a bunch of holding slots for cities I generally don't bother as they tend to produce more than enough. If I'm inland or stuck with crappy provinces then I'll start forming republic(s).

True power gaming still seems to be abusing prince-bishops. They'll always vote for your chosen heir in elective, they get no wrong government malus, they rarely expand, they can't expand/lose through marriage, free investiture gives them a massive opinion bonus towards you, vassalising the pope/anti-pope will insure you won't lose much gold if they like him better.

Another tactic seems to be tanistry while landing your dynasty with every holding possible. You'll get a massive bonus with your vassal family and your dynasty can never be out-voted. You might end up with a crappy heir though and handing over all your titles to dynasty members can cause a major inbreeding problem.

[Wiles]

I just had the sunset invasion happen to me - apparently the Aztecs emperor didn't bother bringing any heirs along. He conquered out from under my nose before I could stop him. His heir ended up being a distant cousin of mine so I sent off some assassins to insure inheritance. Now the Aztec emperor is norse and his daughter is betrothed to my heir. I'm hoping I can inherit an Aztec doomstack.

[Micro102]

Were those Aztec invasions actually historical? I find it very odd that they tried to colonize Europe before Europe tried to colonize them.

[Teneb]

Were those Aztec invasions actually historical? I find it very odd that they tried to colonize Europe before Europe tried to colonize them.

Obviously not. It's an alternate history scenario. I personaly like it, but I know many do not.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

The Mesoamericans had no seafaring vessels let alone something that could make the enormous trip from the Americas to Europe. They also had no knowledge of any other continents. 

The alt-history backstory is that the Aztecs somehow got in contact with the Vinlander (norse colonists in America) population which taught them seafaring and the concept of Europe. This prompted the Aztecs to scuttle aboard ships so they could enslave a whole continent.
The Inca civilisation was apparently visited by the Chinese for some reason and were given the technology of gunpowder. I got a feeling Paradox wants to expand on this concept, perhaps for EUIV.

The DLC is an obvious jab at early European colonialism and offers a scenario where the tables are turned. I'm personally not a fan but I heard there's some fun events every now and again.

[krisslanza]

The biggest downside to the Aztec DLC is it's actually random if it'll happen or not. And you won't know unless you play a pretty long time into the game to see if they even crop up or not.

My opinion anyway. I'm not a history buff, and I think people who want intense historical realism shouldn't play games - because you're all messing with any historical accuracy as soon as you unpause the darn game.

[Nirur Torir]

I decided to fire this up again. I picked a two-province duke of Scotland expecting something fairly leisurely.

Not even twenty years in and England (minus Wales) is now owned by Norway. I may have slightly upset The Pope and now the duke of the Orkney Isles has had me, as king, excommunicated. This it not leisurely.

[scriver]

The biggest downside to the Aztec DLC is it's actually random if it'll happen or not. And you won't know unless you play a pretty long time into the game to see if they even crop up or not.

My opinion anyway. I'm not a history buff, and I think people who want intense historical realism shouldn't play games - because you're all messing with any historical accuracy as soon as you unpause the darn game.

That argument only works if you're willing to mischaracterise the "accuracists" position from "wants a realistic experience" to "wants to completely replay real history".

[Eagle_eye]

Yep. The game is set in the middle ages: yes, it's theoretically possible that the Aztecs could have made advances in shipbuilding that took Eurasia well over a thousand years, but it's also possible that a meteor falls and destroys Spain, or that the Cathars invent the steam engine and defeat the Albigensian crusade with Gatling guns. I want the game to represent what could have plausibly happened had my actions been applied to actual history.

[Neonivek]

I want the game to represent what could have plausibly happened had my actions been applied to actual history

And DAAAANG does Crusader Kings love to try to make it as impossible for that to happen.

[majikero]

In Crusader Kings, you're not the only actor affecting history. No matter what you do, someone else is going to mess everything you did.

Technically, you will NEVER see the effects of your actions because there are other actors doing their thing. You can't really say that this event happened because of something you did. You can equally say that that event happened because of the other guy.

[Neonivek]

In Crusader Kings, you're not the only actor affecting history

And sometimes you aren't even that.

"I want to do this"
"Do you have the prestige?"
"Why would I need that?"
"Because we need to make sure you don't actually do things in order to make sure changes occur slowly"
"Well whatever I do"
"Do you have a contract?"
"Why do I need that?"
"Because many wars at the time were a deeply political and beaurocratic system"
"No I mean why do I need that? I am part of a tribal totalitarian society"
"Ohhh, because we need to make sure you don't actually do things in order to make sure changes occur slowly"
"So, basically Gengis Kahn didn't exist in this universe?"
"Basically"
"Thought so"

A lot in this game feels very artificial and only there to slow the game down. Which is especially odd given how much they will relax some aspects of the gameplay.