Crusader Kings II

[The Stranger]

In comparison to EU3, yes. In comparison to non-Paradox games (Civilization, Total War, etc), no.

well, those games i would also classify as easy, casual games. unless you perhaps go to play them in the multiplayer mode.

actually anything that is not multiplayer is usually easy or either casual games :P but i guess thats what singleplayer is for, casual gaming haha

[Kekvit Irae]

I actually think EU3 is much simpler than CK2.

EU3: Interest rates, adjustable maintenance, ship-to-ship battles, Terra Incognito, infamy, the entire world, colonization, upgradable units, Centres of Trade, expanded diplomacy options, merchants/colonists/missionaries/etc per year, quests... I could go on and on.

CK2: Playable characters rather than faceless rulers, traits/skills, dynasties, succession laws...

Yep, it sure looks like CK2 is the harder game to learn. :P

[tibilicus]

Got it on the Steam sale. Will post my thoughts tomorrow

[easytarget]

Greater complexity usually just results in a flawed game because the developer can't pull it off. More things they model, the less likely they either got them all to mesh together properly or balanced them correctly. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen one or the other and often both.

As to the underlying suggestion unspoken here that greater complexity somehow is superior and the players who prefer simplicity in design are somehow intellectually inferior along with the games they play.

To this last piece I would respectfully suggest you readjust your attitudes, the idea is fun, not necessarily complexity, further, chess is a very simple game to learn, yet no one in this thread, or in fact, anyone who has ever signed up as a member in the history of this forum, can beat even a mediocre chess software. So much for simplicity of game design having any remote correlation to complexity, and by extension, difficulty.

[Beskar]

Crusader Kings 2, £9 on Steam, including all current DLC.. it is almost a robbery to get it at such a low price.

[Hooahguy]

Ok so Ive been eyeing this game for a bit now. Its at such a low price, should I get it? I wasnt a huge fan of EU3 or Vicky, but then again, I didnt play it much. Im only considering it because its at such a low price.

[Double A]

So... the Golden Horde has eaten Hungary and the southern half of Poland, with a contiguous empire from there, up the Ukraine, and into the big eastern wasteland, but left the 3 blobs of Kiev alone as is. They border the HRE. This could pose a problem, and I need some advice on dealing with the Mongols before they move on west. Also, the only thing standing between me and the Ilkhanate is the Sunni Caliph and his 4 counties. When you get right down to it, there is actually only one county between me and the Ilkhanate.

And all the while, two moderately powerful dukes are gearing up to rebel, so I can't really do anything about it on my lonesome, even though I have more troops than anyone else, although I recently did just worm my dynasty into the French throne. Hm, perhaps I could just DoW the Mongols and get France, my demesne, and my loyalest vassals to do all the fighting while telling everyone not dealing with a peasant rebellion to take it easy.

edit: Ok, I panicked too much about the rebellions. I bribed one duke off and finished a war where I was pressing a claim for another, so now all that's left is a few earls I don't really care about. Still, Mongols, big problem. I've never faced HAs in battle and can only assume they're better than anything I can field, and that the Mongols have a considerably large deathstack of free troops they get for being the Mongols.

And before I forget, I have 0 intrigue and am possessed. I may need help removing the latter (although I'm sure hilarious events will manifest and I can probably deal with it on my own), and definitely need help raising the former.

[Kekvit Irae]

And all the while, two moderately powerful dukes are gearing up to rebel, so I can't really do anything about it on my lonesome

You can preemptively prevent such things from happening by not assigning anyone with the Ambitious trait to the position, and regularly check to see if their heirs have Ambitious (in which case, it's a good time for an assassination). However, vassals rebelling is actually a very good thing. It means you can easily put them down (provided you have more troops than them), and they will be imprisoned if you enforce demands. A single title (best if it's the duchy) can then be revoked with no penalties from the other vassals, allowing you to give it to anyone who likes you. Keep the rebelling vassal locked up (and, if given the option, the oubliette), and they will eventually die. Vassals cant revolt again if they are in prison.

Try these strategies for more ways of preventing an all-out civil war:
http://crusaderkings-two.wikia.com/w...r_Vassals_Weak
http://crusaderkings-two.wikia.com/w...cession_Crisis

[Double A]

Oh, I have more than enough troops to put rebels down, it's just bothersome to have to transport, as I compulsively make fleets as small as possible. My main worry was that my duke of Tripoliantia was getting antsy, and I hate desert attrition rates. Fortunately, he's the guy I fought the claim war over, so now all I have to worry about is one guy in Spain and another in Iceland should their bribe fees become too high. Anyone else who rebels would take a month at the most to lock up. I was commenting on that I will be bogged down with the dukes for a year or so rather than fighting Mongols.

Also, like I said, 0 intrigue, which I predict will be the source of pretty much every problem my current character will face. I suppose it's preferable to the 5 diplomacy my last guy had when you consider I have more than enough gold to assassinate anyone, and that the main source of ire during vassal revolts, opportunistic holy wars, is now a thing of the past because Islam is on its last legs. Tengri, on the other hand...

[The Stranger]

Greater complexity usually just results in a flawed game because the developer can't pull it off. More things they model, the less likely they either got them all to mesh together properly or balanced them correctly. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen one or the other and often both.

As to the underlying suggestion unspoken here that greater complexity somehow is superior and the players who prefer simplicity in design are somehow intellectually inferior along with the games they play.

To this last piece I would respectfully suggest you readjust your attitudes, the idea is fun, not necessarily complexity, further, chess is a very simple game to learn, yet no one in this thread, or in fact, anyone who has ever signed up as a member in the history of this forum, can beat even a mediocre chess software. So much for simplicity of game design having any remote correlation to complexity, and by extension, difficulty.

I don't know who your post adresses, but for me I wasnt talking about complexity but about difficulty to master and the needed "skill" to play the game at a "high" level.

[Hooahguy]

So is this game closer to TW or EU3? I mean, in going to guess that the game mechanics are similar to EU, but in the trailer I saw troops moving like they do in TW, as in actually moving. Still not sure whether to get this game.

[johnhughthom]

Not like Total War at all. Not sure what video you saw, but battles are like EU.

[Hooahguy]

Well when I said like TW I meant more in simplicity.

[Kekvit Irae]

So is this game closer to TW or EU3? I mean, in going to guess that the game mechanics are similar to EU, but in the trailer I saw troops moving like they do in TW, as in actually moving. Still not sure whether to get this game.

The game is very much like EU3, though many of the game mechanics from EU3 were taken out.
Battles are still EU3-styled, though you can now instantly levy armies. How much of the army you can levy is based on factors like your vassals liking you, if you personally control a territory, etc.

[Hooahguy]

I'm just trying to figure out if I should get this. Is the learning curve as high as it is for most of these kinds of games?
EDIT: Went ahead and bought it. Carpe Diem, right? Also the sale is almost over and I have class in an hour or so.

[Kekvit Irae]

I'm just trying to figure out if I should get this. Is the learning curve as high as it is for most of these kinds of games?
EDIT: Went ahead and bought it. Carpe Diem, right? Also the sale is almost over and I have class in an hour or so.

The learning curve is actually pretty easy, especially in comparison to EU3. All you really need to do is focus on the people and not the country. Watch a few LPs of the game to get yourself adjusted quickly, though.

[tibilicus]

I'd describe myself as in EU3 pro, in my last game alone I swallowed Europe with my greater Serbia. Regarding CK2 though, one question- What am I supposed to be doing? The problem so far after an hour or so of game time is because it lacks a real economic feature like EU3, I've just spent the best part of that time sat there doing nothing. I made a couple of diplomatic decisions and law changes but what's the purpose of this all if I don't want to purely war? Also currently playing Croatia so tips are welcome.

[Kekvit Irae]

Regarding CK2 though, one question- What am I supposed to be doing?

The question is something you should ask yourself. What should you be doing? There are no set goals. The only goal in the game is "get score" and "make sure your dynasty survives."
I really like marrying your daughter to a princess, and then murdering everyone in that family once she gives birth to an heir. The grandchild will now rule the kingdom.

[Hooahguy]

Alright, first campaign as Nassau. Savoy declared war on me. Vassals joined to help me, many got whipped when they pitted 40 men against 400, even though my personal army is strong, over 600+. Now my war status is something like -20%. This cant be good. 3 other countries (small ones) declared war against me, so Im in a bit of a pickle.

[Beskar]

I'd describe myself as in EU3 pro, in my last game alone I swallowed Europe with my greater Serbia. Regarding CK2 though, one question- What am I supposed to be doing? The problem so far after an hour or so of game time is because it lacks a real economic feature like EU3, I've just spent the best part of that time sat there doing nothing. I made a couple of diplomatic decisions and law changes but what's the purpose of this all if I don't want to purely war? Also currently playing Croatia so tips are welcome.

For a start, don't play as a Kingdom, play as a count or something more minor. Makes the game far more fun, especially when you are not some where like Crotia who starts the game already in charge of their own territory.

Also, oddly enough, there are far more things to do outside of War than EU3. There are far more buildings, different types, managing vassals, culture and religion playing a bigger part.

[The Stranger]

buildings are kinda useless. because you can only build in your own demesne and that doesnt play a role when you get a sizeable empire and buildings are too expensive to play a role when you dont have a sizeable empire. because culture only really influences what specific military building you have, it is actually the same story as with buildings, so culture doesnt really play a role. which is too bad :S

religion does play a big role and crusades are quite fun :P holy wars are a nice way to gain land, the best actually :P

[rickinator9]

Crusades aren't fun if the crusaders need to go through your lands to reach the destination...

[Chaotix]

buildings are kinda useless. because you can only build in your own demesne and that doesnt play a role when you get a sizeable empire and buildings are too expensive to play a role when you dont have a sizeable empire. because culture only really influences what specific military building you have, it is actually the same story as with buildings, so culture doesnt really play a role. which is too bad :S

religion does play a big role and crusades are quite fun :P holy wars are a nice way to gain land, the best actually :P

On the contrary, I've found that by investing in new cities and making sure they all have ports and markets, I can pretty much double my income. After building the first tier, the Mayors will usually build the rest themselves as well, so you just have to get them started.

At the Count/Duke level, they are expensive, but the right military buildings could mean the difference between a loss and a victory against a rival count, as they might change the size of your army from say 300 to 400.

Military buildings are less useful at King/Emperor level, but they're good to have in the event of a succession crisis or a multitude of rebellions.

[Beskar]

Also, I actually tested a county with 5 cities, 1 temple, 1 fort, all fully upgraded, here is the breakdown.

Income: 459.1
Army: 17.57k
Navy: 161

So yes, fully upgraded county could take out a starting Kingdom.

[Double A]

I currently have the lists as a building so I have nice heavy cavalry deathstacks. They're worth 3 guys each.

The question is something you should ask yourself. What should you be doing? There are no set goals. The only goal in the game is "get score" and "make sure your dynasty survives."
I really like marrying your daughter to a princess, and then murdering everyone in that family once she gives birth to an heir. The grandchild will now rule the kingdom.

It's more fun when you get a matrilineal marriage with the 4th prince in line for the throne and then murder his brothers, uncles, and cousins. Now France is my eternal ally.

[The Stranger]

Crusades aren't fun if the crusaders need to go through your lands to reach the destination...

well thats quite historical then XD

[The Stranger]

Also, I actually tested a county with 5 cities, 1 temple, 1 fort, all fully upgraded, here is the breakdown.

Income: 459.1
Army: 17.57k
Navy: 161

So yes, fully upgraded county could take out a starting Kingdom.

1) that is a 7 slot county, which are rare
2) it will take you way too long too make it even viable in a game if you have to build it up from scratch. by the time you get 17k in a county, kingdoms will have 100k+ easily.

ofcourse building cities in your counties does pay off, but usually the mayors will invest themself so you dont have to. i mean when you have excess cash, what else will you do with it anyway. but it doesnt really matter if you do thats my point. buildings really dont have much influence on the game, and culture specific buildings maybe least of all.

[Kekvit Irae]

Don't forget the age-old question of Castles vs Cities.

Cities:
+ Plenty of income coming your way.
+ Naval ships to transport troops.
+ Mayors don't auto-marry, spreading an unknown dynasty.
- Cant personally hold a city without penalties.
- Some counties have a city as their top holding.

Castles:
+ Plenty of high-quality troops.
+ Can personally hold any number of castles, within your demesne limit, without penalties.
+/- No navies. (will not matter on a land-locked county)
+/- Counts marry and have appropriate heirs. (can spread your dynasty or someone else's)
- Low income.
- Counties can potentially pass from your realm on Medium Crown Authority due to succession.


If you're just going for income in a far-away county that isn't going to see a lot of fighting, go all-in with the cities. If you plan on using the county for troops, going all-in on personally-owned castles isn't a bad idea, since you get 100% of the levies. If you're a duke or a king, then the question becomes, "should I spread out my demesne, or should I clump them all together in one county?"
There's quite a bit more strategy in CK2 than what some people give it credit for.

[Double A]

I have two clumps (Ulster and Jerusalem) and cherry-picked a few places in Spain and one in the Crimea. Best of both worlds.

Oh, by the way, I have 95,000 levies, with a max of 130,000. Transporting them is going to be a nightmare. Didn't bother with 22k because Jerusalem probably needs the extra protection.

[The Stranger]

Don't forget the age-old question of Castles vs Cities.

Cities:
+ Plenty of income coming your way.
+ Naval ships to transport troops.
+ Mayors don't auto-marry, spreading an unknown dynasty.
- Cant personally hold a city without penalties.
- Some counties have a city as their top holding.

Castles:
+ Plenty of high-quality troops.
+ Can personally hold any number of castles, within your demesne limit, without penalties.
+/- No navies. (will not matter on a land-locked county)
+/- Counts marry and have appropriate heirs. (can spread your dynasty or someone else's)
- Low income.
- Counties can potentially pass from your realm on Medium Crown Authority due to succession.


If you're just going for income in a far-away county that isn't going to see a lot of fighting, go all-in with the cities. If you plan on using the county for troops, going all-in on personally-owned castles isn't a bad idea, since you get 100% of the levies. If you're a duke or a king, then the question becomes, "should I spread out my demesne, or should I clump them all together in one county?"
There's quite a bit more strategy in CK2 than what some people give it credit for.

well the status quo is

cities on coastal areas
castles on landlocked areas
churches only to make more of the other 2 :P