Print

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

[Zangi]

Well, I am throwing in the broken part to the complete gavelkind package... 

Reckon it is a problem that never occurred before since typically only 1 place of equal level had de jure claim over a province.

[pisskop]

Gavelkind, noone ever plays it.  Now players are stuck in gavelkind past the first generation.  Actually worse then everyone thought it was. (And broken too, putting into existence premade de jure duchies/kingdoms that cost more then the freeform duchies/kingdoms, for free.  Also, the premades have de jure claims, while the freeforms do not.)

I've been checking out the CK2 forums.

Gravelkin's not as terrible as it seems at first glance.  Sure its annoying, and you can negotiate who will get what, but if you can incite rebellion and use your sweet, sweet inheritance to buy mercs or be lucky enough to crush them without it you can take it all back, with interest.

Soo, I dont have time to play, but really excited to see it.

[Aklyon]

This gavelkind complainitude reminds me what happened when the old gods came out.

[Shadowlord]

I'm not even sure what's being complained about.

[Wiles]

 I spend a whole lifetime upgrading my main tribal holding and when I die I lose all the progress I made and get stuck with the worst province in my kingdom while my other son gets what should be my capital duchy. I don't mind my kingdom being broken up among my sons, but the way it's being split up now is just plain stupid.

[Descan]

It'd be better if you could designate which heir gets what, like what most kings who split their kingdom did.

Just make it so you can only give your main heir 2 or 3x as good provinces as your second heir and third heir, so you can't just load your main guy with all the best provinces.

Edit: Better yet, be able to designate provinces/duchies/kingdoms as the "Central Kingdom."* So they *have* to go to your main guy. Then add whatever is left for your main guy and the game autos the rest for your other heirs...?

*Also have the "Heir Apparent" kingdom, like "Prince of Wales" style holding?

[Dutchling]

De jure capitals are already exactly that. You can find out what they are by making the game focus on a title and see if it brings the screen to the same location as focusing on the county which you think is the capital (yeah it really needs a better system >.>).

I remember a thread on the pdox forums which explained Gavelking succession. It's actually fairly logical.

[Wiles]

I don't mind how it worked before, but with the new titular kingdoms it seems pretty random who gets what. It's almost like Paradox didn't even bother testing their new system.   

[pisskop]

I spend a whole lifetime upgrading my main tribal holding and when I die I lose all the progress I made and get stuck with the worst province in my kingdom while my other son gets what should be my capital duchy. I don't mind my kingdom being broken up among my sons, but the way it's being split up now is just plain stupid.

From my experience without the update it doesnt go by any 'worst' title.  Your heir gets your highest title, and assuming you dont have two of them, the game starts handing out 'equal power' realms out, with the margin of error always going to the second in line or the ones higher in line.

So you have three baddass sites, and a duchy (for simplicity), and good sites without upgrades, and 3 nasty poor sites.

The game gives you the duchy, which is worth some percentage of all the land in it.  Once you reach that threshold, then you can inherit other landed titles, but otherwise you only get the duchy and the poorest title (because you have to hold land).  The game will error to every other character before the first heir in terms of giving extra to, and place heirs 2- x before your main heir.  Give your other sons land, or take them to battle, or send them off to die in other ways (spymaster) (chaplain).

The game can be manipulated into letting you keep more of the good land by giving out your land carefully, and it helps to try to stick the sons into awkward spots (like having everyone in their court hate them or giving them the wrong types of governments to watch over), but it does also strengthen your top three heirs specifically.

I wish you could plot on their lives . . .

[Dutchling]

Actually the game does not care about how rich or poor a county or title is. All it cares about it is which title is your primary title, the rank of a title, and whether or not some of the titles you own are de jure vassals and/or de jure capitals of others.

So if you have 2 sons, 2 duchies, and 2 counties (a county in each duchy) and your rich as fuck capital is NOT the de jure vassal of your main title, then your son will inherit you main title and it's county, while your second son will inherit the second duchy and your former capital.

[pisskop]

Actually the game does not care about how rich or poor a county or title is. All it cares about it is which title is your primary title, the rank of a title, and whether or not some of the titles you own are de jure vassals and/or de jure capitals of others.

So if you have 2 sons, 2 duchies, and 2 counties (a county in each duchy) and your rich as fuck capital is NOT the de jure vassal of your main title, then your son will inherit you main title and it's county, while your second son will inherit the second duchy and your former capital.

:/  Ive definitely played about with building up a few counties to test out how the inheritance works.  Ive been the Duke of one county and had all the land from it given to other sons while I ve kept my original capital.  Ive even neglected to create my original duchy to test this.

You sure it isnt how built u these counties are?

[umiman]

It's always wise to give Paradox games (and DLC ) a few patches worth of berth before you get invested.

[RedKing]

Started a game in 769 as King of Pictland, which is set up in a weird way. You're the king, but your only real vassal (the High Chief of Fortriu) controls most of the kingdom, other than Fib/Fife. Which, of course, means you're looking at a rebellion within months. Thankfully, some strategic marriages to Mercia and Kent gave me the allied troops to whomp up on said High Chief and start transferring away his vassals each time he rebels and loses. Then brought Dal Riada back into the Pictish fold, and eliminated the Welsh petty kingdom in Strathclyde.

Combine that with frequent unrest in Northumbria, and I'm well on my way to extending Pictland all the way down to Hadrian's Wall. As long as the Vikings don't decide to make my life a living hell, which if history is any guide, they will.

I was a bit disappointed to find the Picts already converted to Catholicism, but that is apparently historically accurate. Various saints had converted most of them in the 500s and 600s.

[Glloyd]

I was a bit disappointed to find the Picts already converted to Catholicism, but that is apparently historically accurate. Various saints had converted most of them in the 500s and 600s.

I was more disappointed about the southern tip of Greece not adhering to Greco-Roman paganism, but Paradox is never super accurate with that stuff anyways so I shouldn't be surprised.

[Shadowlord]

It's always wise to give Paradox games (and DLC ) a few patches worth of berth before you get invested.

Yeah, but it was working just fine when they snuck* this patch out and broke stuff even if you don't buy the DLC.

* It snuck up on me anyways. I was vaguely aware they were working on a new DLC, but had no idea when it was coming out or what it was going to include.