|
On April 20 2012 10:07 Myles wrote:
I always give my relatives land if they're not ambitious. I just like the roleplay of expanding my dynasty and it seems intuitive to me that being related should confer a little more loyalty. And I haven't noticed any big difference between their chance of revolt vs unrelated vassals, so it seems fine to me even if they are a little more likely to be unhappy with you due to claims and such..
It's this plus the small relation bonus that you get for being from the same dynasty, and my bloodline's pretty saturated with geniuses.
I've spent more time plotting to recruit geniuses and marrying them to my family than doing anything else this game.
|
They really should increase the bonus in relations you get from being kin. +5 is just so bad.
"What difference in affection do you have to your father in relation to a complete stranger?" "+5 to dad."
Should be 30 or so imo.
|
United States5162 Posts
On April 20 2012 17:10 Euronyme wrote:
They really should increase the bonus in relations you get from being kin. +5 is just so bad.
"What difference in affection do you have to your father in relation to a complete stranger?" "+5 to dad."
Should be 30 or so imo.
Yea, I definitely agree that close kin should have a better relation bonus. I think right now the only one that does is mother and son, but I'm not positive on that.
|
there's a difference between, say, not giving your dynasty members land, vs. not pressing their claims for them. I pressed a claim on the Byzantine Empire as the Duke of Transylvania once. It was nice to have an Arpad on the throne of the Greeks.
|
Hong Kong9169 Posts
On April 20 2012 21:28 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 17:10 Euronyme wrote:
They really should increase the bonus in relations you get from being kin. +5 is just so bad.
"What difference in affection do you have to your father in relation to a complete stranger?" "+5 to dad."
Should be 30 or so imo. Yea, I definitely agree that close kin should have a better relation bonus. I think right now the only one that does is mother and son, but I'm not positive on that.
I don't know about that. A lot of plots and intrigue historically came from within the family, actually.
|
United States5162 Posts
On April 21 2012 07:34 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 21:28 Myles wrote:On April 20 2012 17:10 Euronyme wrote:
They really should increase the bonus in relations you get from being kin. +5 is just so bad.
"What difference in affection do you have to your father in relation to a complete stranger?" "+5 to dad."
Should be 30 or so imo. Yea, I definitely agree that close kin should have a better relation bonus. I think right now the only one that does is mother and son, but I'm not positive on that. I don't know about that. A lot of plots and intrigue historically came from within the family, actually.
It just seems wrong that you would feel the same way towards a brother as you would a far-flung cousin 6 times removed. In my ideal world parent/child would be +30, sibilings +20, aunts/uncles/1st cousins +10, everyone else +5. That would also go along with events chains that would effect how relationships develop between close kin and forge friendships/rivalries/enemies between characters with mutual/opposing goals. This is already there to an extent, it should just be made more prominent.
|
On April 21 2012 08:18 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 07:34 itsjustatank wrote:On April 20 2012 21:28 Myles wrote:On April 20 2012 17:10 Euronyme wrote:
They really should increase the bonus in relations you get from being kin. +5 is just so bad.
"What difference in affection do you have to your father in relation to a complete stranger?" "+5 to dad."
Should be 30 or so imo. Yea, I definitely agree that close kin should have a better relation bonus. I think right now the only one that does is mother and son, but I'm not positive on that. I don't know about that. A lot of plots and intrigue historically came from within the family, actually. It just seems wrong that you would feel the same way towards a brother as you would a far-flung cousin 6 times removed. In my ideal world parent/child would be +30, sibilings +20, aunts/uncles/1st cousins +10, everyone else +5. That would also go along with events chains that would effect how relationships develop between close kin and forge friendships/rivalries/enemies between characters with mutual/opposing goals. This is already there to an extent, it should just be made more prominent.
I would agree with this, since people who will kill kins for power will probably have even less problems against strangers.
I just recently started playing CK2, this is my first CK game (thought i have been addicted to eu2/3 for along time), what are some tips for preventing revolts after a sucession? I end up giving my vassals/relative lots of title to keep them happy though i think there has to be a better way since they will revolt later on.
|
|
|
On April 21 2012 09:12 godemperor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 08:18 Myles wrote:On April 21 2012 07:34 itsjustatank wrote:On April 20 2012 21:28 Myles wrote:On April 20 2012 17:10 Euronyme wrote:
They really should increase the bonus in relations you get from being kin. +5 is just so bad.
"What difference in affection do you have to your father in relation to a complete stranger?" "+5 to dad."
Should be 30 or so imo. Yea, I definitely agree that close kin should have a better relation bonus. I think right now the only one that does is mother and son, but I'm not positive on that. I don't know about that. A lot of plots and intrigue historically came from within the family, actually. It just seems wrong that you would feel the same way towards a brother as you would a far-flung cousin 6 times removed. In my ideal world parent/child would be +30, sibilings +20, aunts/uncles/1st cousins +10, everyone else +5. That would also go along with events chains that would effect how relationships develop between close kin and forge friendships/rivalries/enemies between characters with mutual/opposing goals. This is already there to an extent, it should just be made more prominent. I would agree with this, since people who will kill kins for power will probably have even less problems against strangers. I just recently started playing CK2, this is my first CK game (thought i have been addicted to eu2/3 for along time), what are some tips for preventing revolts after a sucession? I end up giving my vassals/relative lots of title to keep them happy though i think there has to be a better way since they will revolt later on.
I systematically raised new counts (and sometimes dukes) from lesser nobility in newly conquered muslim territory. It 1. Gives them extreme loyalty to you. 2. Makes them not revolt due to successioncrisis' and such. 3. Lets you choose good stats for the ruler (High learning for the churches, etc). 4. Creating one count per province, and splitting up duchies between many counts makes it less likely that you'll have any serious powerhouse rallying agianst you.
The biggest problem I've had is that they all marry into eachother quite well after a time and then they just call their allies into any eventual civil war against me, but I would assume this kind of happens any way you do it.
Anyway, use the character list search (your realm), non-ruler, non-great family, same religion/ethnicity (unless other is desired obviously) and then sort for relevant characteristics. Ez countcreation.
|
Hong Kong9169 Posts
On April 21 2012 09:12 godemperor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 08:18 Myles wrote:On April 21 2012 07:34 itsjustatank wrote:On April 20 2012 21:28 Myles wrote:On April 20 2012 17:10 Euronyme wrote:
They really should increase the bonus in relations you get from being kin. +5 is just so bad.
"What difference in affection do you have to your father in relation to a complete stranger?" "+5 to dad."
Should be 30 or so imo. Yea, I definitely agree that close kin should have a better relation bonus. I think right now the only one that does is mother and son, but I'm not positive on that. I don't know about that. A lot of plots and intrigue historically came from within the family, actually. It just seems wrong that you would feel the same way towards a brother as you would a far-flung cousin 6 times removed. In my ideal world parent/child would be +30, sibilings +20, aunts/uncles/1st cousins +10, everyone else +5. That would also go along with events chains that would effect how relationships develop between close kin and forge friendships/rivalries/enemies between characters with mutual/opposing goals. This is already there to an extent, it should just be made more prominent. I would agree with this, since people who will kill kins for power will probably have even less problems against strangers. I just recently started playing CK2, this is my first CK game (thought i have been addicted to eu2/3 for along time), what are some tips for preventing revolts after a sucession? I end up giving my vassals/relative lots of title to keep them happy though i think there has to be a better way since they will revolt later on.
- Never give your family landed titles.
This is because you lose control of them in terms of breeding them. Intrigue events against them can mess up your future succession plans as well. Also, handling an intra-dynasty revolt is always messy.
- Never give any landed titles to anyone who is part of a Great House
This is to help ensure that your vassal's titles do not pass outside of your realm. This also avoids them calling in large allies during their inevitable civil war against you.
- Never give landed titles to anyone who already has a landed title or is in a position to inherit one.
This is to help mitigate against vassals getting larger and stronger on their own within your realm.
- Never give out landed titles to females.
This is also to help mitigate against vassal expansion as well as titles passing outside of your realm.
- Do give out, strategically, your honorary titles as well as bribes to vassals as needed to keep them happy.
Should be self-evident.
- Try to run Great Hunts and Grand Tournaments to raise your vassal's opinion of you.
These, more than the other events, change your vassal's opinion of you for the better, sometimes drastically so.
Those are the immediate points of advice, there are others that you will end up learning as part of the procedure to prevent or to be able to safely weather revolts in the first place. This list also assumes that you are at Medium Crown Authority.
In addition to the rules above, I always make sure that I give my landed titles out to high stewardship characters who are of the same culture and religion as me. I also make sure they do not have the 'ambitious' trait as well as any negative hereditary traits such as 'stutter.'
|
Ok, so I just grabbed this game, opened it up, read a few tutorials, started a game as the holy roman empire, and looked at the map... I had no idea whatsoever what i should be doing from there on out lol. I have literally no concept of how to actually play this game from the beginning.
|
Yeah, I just played it for a couple hours and it seems like one of those games that you have to spend the first 10 hours epic failing at until you actually know how stuff works.
|
someone wants to play multiplayer? seems like that game must be more fun if your enemys are plotting like humans would do 
|
I agree about kin. It's really odd that when you pass from father to son, all your close kin start to get mad but your other vassels stay fine.
I understand that every once in a while a brother or uncle should get really mad because he has the ambitious trait and he believes he should be successor. But all of them doing this eventhough it's pointless because they will get crushed?
Also, I think long term vassal families should be more important. Long term hereditary vassals should be more loyal. Often a ruler had to balance well having really skilled people as new vassals while keeping the generally les competent but loyal hereditary vassals happy.
I still miss the way you can work on the vassals of enemies. AI can start all kinds of plots, but you can't really. Why did they make it more limited compared to Sengoku? It worked fine there. You could start whatever plot you wanted. Most wars you started you started through plots. That worked a lot better than the claims system.
Also, I think the game should respect more who has force on the ground. When you are in a war with someone that is also in war with some other people and you occupy and capture a castle, when the enemy surrenders to your opponent, you never get that castle. Your soldiers just leave the castle and give it to the other ruler for free.
You should have the option to not give it up and then the other side should have the option to start a war over it.
|
Jesus, I just tried playing as georgia. Things were going relatively well for a while. I managed to conquer a few pieces of land. I had trouble getting an heir, but the worst part was that both the turks and azerbaijan decided they wanted a piece of my land... at the same time.... And I couldn't field nearly enough army. Nor could I afford enough mercs to get out of it. I could possibly have taken on the turks and won in a single war, but fighting two fronts at once just felt impossible. I would have been left with nearly nothing.
What do you guys do in a situation like that? I just hit alt+F4, lol.
|
On April 26 2012 22:36 Bobbias wrote:
Jesus, I just tried playing as georgia. Things were going relatively well for a while. I managed to conquer a few pieces of land. I had trouble getting an heir, but the worst part was that both the turks and azerbaijan decided they wanted a piece of my land... at the same time.... And I couldn't field nearly enough army. Nor could I afford enough mercs to get out of it. I could possibly have taken on the turks and won in a single war, but fighting two fronts at once just felt impossible. I would have been left with nearly nothing.
What do you guys do in a situation like that? I just hit alt+F4, lol.
/swear fealty to byzantine empire
|
United States5162 Posts
On April 27 2012 00:28 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 22:36 Bobbias wrote:
Jesus, I just tried playing as georgia. Things were going relatively well for a while. I managed to conquer a few pieces of land. I had trouble getting an heir, but the worst part was that both the turks and azerbaijan decided they wanted a piece of my land... at the same time.... And I couldn't field nearly enough army. Nor could I afford enough mercs to get out of it. I could possibly have taken on the turks and won in a single war, but fighting two fronts at once just felt impossible. I would have been left with nearly nothing.
What do you guys do in a situation like that? I just hit alt+F4, lol. /swear fealty to byzantine empire
I would agree with this. Staying independant against the ERE, Turks, Cumans, and eventually the Mongols makes Georgia one of the hardest places to play imo.
|
So basically I'd give up being completely independent in order to actually survive... Would it then be possible to end up as emperor of the byzantine empire?
|
On April 27 2012 18:53 Bobbias wrote:
So basically I'd give up being completely independent in order to actually survive... Would it then be possible to end up as emperor of the byzantine empire?
sure
|
Well, now I've got a goal 
Of course, I need to get over the idea that every single time someone decides to become independent I need to crush them immediately. Sometimes it's just not possible to raise enough levies to do that :/
Quick question though. I've noticed that most of
Novgorod is unplayable, but there is one count you can play. How the hell does that work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
