Print

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

[Loud Whispers]

Well it lowers the morale of defenders by 100% so that...auto ends the seige...I was doing that last night and thats what the tooltip said. My dragon size was 108 so it might be size = morale damage or something like that

Makes sense, mine's a newly hatched little one.

[dennislp3]

Nah back in 2012 he said he would temporarily retire from acting when GoT was over to go to school. And that happens to be in 2014...not sure if you have any other sources though that explicitly state something like that

[jocan2003]

I also suggest a script made by some followers of AGOT, it allows a *shattered world* style of gameplay where there is no ingdom nothing exept province and then ensuing power grab etc. Basicly everyone starts kinda on the same level exept some province has some very good starting benifits ( dragonstone anyone? )

[Nighthawk]

In news from the modding front, things are gettin' good.

Fixed that for you.

[RedKing]

The problem with the Abbasids is that they're very large, but their ruling dynasty is ridiculously secure because of all the positive opinion bonuses they get (Sayyid, lots of Piety from being Caliph, lots of prestige from inheriting a gigantic empire) and their expansion is quick because of incredibly strong CBs. The only limitation is their military strength and decadence, but decadence vanishes when you're winning holy wars left and right.

The Muslims really aren't balanced at all, and never have been because of their weird mechanics. One patch you have the Fatimids marching through Constantinople, the next all of Africa and the Holy Land is a patchwork of HRE/Castille/Venice colonies. By TOG and CM, I've only seen them ineffectually collapse in on themselves and be pushed back hard (the earlier patches of TOG) or else occupy Turkey, Greece, the lower Balkans and half of France before 1000 (the current state of CM, last time I checked).

They aren't even that fun, because all their neat features carry with them the incredible bore of decadence micromanagement and having to murder all the relatives that slide back into decadence after being convinced to reform, as well as all the relatives that your idiot cousins tried and failed to reform. It's only worse with you basically requiring a full 4 wife harem and not having any Chaste trait, meaning that within a few generations you're combing a family tree of several hundred members for a handful of decadent members ruining things, until it gets to the point that while your vassals are completely loyal and your army can crush all infidels underfoot, you're basically spending 90% of the game dealing with relatives.

There's an easy solution to that -- keep your dynasty small. Parcel out your Emirates (and later Sultanates) to trusted lieutenants rather than family members. Don't allow your sons to marry until you're ready for them to inherit. Keep a small harem, or even just 1 wife. Yes, you'll take a prestige hit from unlanded sons and yes it will take a bit more work to maintain your vassals without the bonuses from family ties, but it's quite doable.

Oh, and it leaves you vulnerable as hell when the Plague arrives. Might want to get freaky deaky sometime in the 1200s, just to boost your family's numbers pre-Plague.

[Dutchling]

Can you still imprison male relatives for free as a Muslim?

I used to make sure all my vassals were family members so I could slowly imprison all of them without the others taking notice. After that you just imprison and execute their sons. Negative vassal opinion doesn't matter when they're all in jail.

[Sheb]

Is the Plague a new thing?

[TripJack]

no

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Man, y'all don't even know. Bad as the plague can be in CKII, it is still nothing compared to the CKI plague. When it says 33% of all Europeans die, it fucking means it. I wish they'd bring it back with that level of severity.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Infant mortality was the absolute worst in CK1. I swear, you were forced to pop out 10 goofy looking tykes just to guarantee a couple would survive till adulthood..

[Dutchling]

Yeah it was pretty brutal. Having a three sons and a married in brother with three sons as well in CK 2 means you have heirs for days.

In CK1 it just means you're gonna lose the game in a few years

[EnigmaticHat]

That... actually sounds interesting.  And realistic.

Although unavoidable losses aren't terribly fun, so maybe the new(er) way is better.  Less prayers to the RNG.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Paradox's obsession with balance and fairness in a historical simulator is a blight on all their games. They didn't use to broke that shit, but now it's all "oh no, we can't possibly let you simply hire assassins, that gives unfair advantages to large powers! Multiplayer comes first! Mana points are the best abstraction of the historical reality! And no Jews! Oh, alright, you can have Jews if you stop whining. But only a little bit.".

Ugh, just ugh. They keep just enough of the good to not become terrible, but only just enough.

[EnigmaticHat]

Eh.  There's balance and then there's fun.  Having the game tell you "nope, don't care how much you did right you're still losing because all your kids died" is lame, especially on your first character when you have no past characters who could have built a dynasty for you.

I agree with you on EU IV but CK 2, at least however many months ago when I played it regularly, never struck me as over-prioritizing balance.  If anything CK 2 has always been a game that managed to be fun despite a critical lack of balance.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

When you choose not to employ a dynastic character, you accept the risk of immediately breaking succession. If that's not your style then there are plenty of dynasties out there. You'd have to try excessively hard to break the larger ones.