Crusader Kings II - Paradox Entertainement (02/12)

[Cambyses The Mad]

Originally Posted by Yorel

Question from a newbie: if the Pope declares a Crusade, do I have to take part in it?

No, but not doing so makes church-types dislike you.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Participating and winning gives you huge bonuses, but so far Crusades feel quite disjointed and futile.

[Cambyses The Mad]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

Participating and winning gives you huge bonuses, but so far Crusades feel quite disjointed and futile.

Not to mention that starting in 1066 usually makes crusades a pretty difficult proposition. The caliphate rarely fragments.

[Nekromans]

Originally Posted by Cambyses The Mad

Not to mention that starting in 1066 usually makes crusades a pretty difficult proposition. The caliphate rarely fragments.

Doesn't help when all your counts immediately decide to declare war on their own initiative. Individually.

[Zioneer]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

Heh, I would disagree with you.

I played the Doux of Achaia (Alexios I, currently on Alexios III) and Byzantium had seven civil wars. There is a Turkish Empress, Berjouhi "the Noble", and even though she is a Doukas, her son is not. Byzantium might have expanded in the Causcaus, but it failed to expand south.

Well, like I said, there's plenty of rebellions to topple the Emperor, but usually in mine they're disjointed and individual plots. Not even the AI can make sense of how to get people to join their plots.

It's really hit-and-miss; the actual civil wars have only happened when I'm a Byzantine vassal myself (and never when I'm not), and is always a Doukas replacing another Doukas. The Komneos (and Diogenes, Angelos, etc) either never give a peep or give the same disjointed resistance.

Is there a new patch or something that fixes this?

[Nietzsche]

I'm not sure if this has been asked, or answered, but how does one fix the Dynasty Pack bug?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by Cambyses The Mad

Not to mention that starting in 1066 usually makes crusades a pretty difficult proposition. The caliphate rarely fragments.

And when they do it's because the Il-Khanate is crushing them.

I managed to capture Jerusalem from the Il-Khanate in 1380 with a 65-year old drunkard king of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. It took me quite a few reloads but it felt awesome. They were at war with Byzantium, France and the Timurids and they still found a few 20k doomstacks to send after me... I wouldn't have even bothered if they were at peace.

[Cambyses The Mad]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

And when they do it's because the Il-Khanate is crushing them.

I managed to capture Jerusalem from the Il-Khanate in 1380 with a 65-year old drunkard king of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. It took me quite a few reloads but it felt awesome. They were at war with Byzantium, France and the Timurids and they still found a few 20k doomstacks to send after me... I wouldn't have even bothered if they were at peace.

It's pretty dumb considering the sorry state the Fatmids were in during the late 11th century.

[Nekromans]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

I'm not sure if this has been asked, or answered, but how does one fix the Dynasty Pack bug?

What is the Dynasty Pack bug?

[Space Oddity]

I'm pretty much agreed on what I shall henceforth dub 'the Imperial Trouble'--the HRE, Byzantium, and the Fatimid Caliphate are all much too stable. It's amazing to say this, but Crusader Kings 1 actually handled this better, with all three almost inevitably breaking up into a mass of warring successor states early on. (Admittedly, as a side-effect of that, you tended to see the Byzantines lose Constantinople pretty early, but that doesn't seem like it would be that big a problem here.)

My recomendation--right off the start, bigger penalties to vassal loyalties for Empires. Keeping something that big together should be tough.

[Nietzsche]

Originally Posted by Nekromans

What is the Dynasty Pack bug?

The historical coats of arms of the more famous Dynasties, such as the Hapsburgs, Hohenstauffens, Wittelbachs, Hohenzollerns, ect. They don't show up properly, at all.

[Cambyses The Mad]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

The historical coats of arms of the more famous Dynasties, such as the Hapsburgs, Hohenstauffens, Wittelbachs, Hohenzollerns, ect. They don't show up properly, at all.

Even if you pay for them?

[Prem_Rack]

Originally Posted by Space Oddity

I'm pretty much agreed on what I shall henceforth dub 'the Imperial Trouble'--the HRE, Byzantium, and the Fatimid Caliphate are all much too stable. It's amazing to say this, but Crusader Kings 1 actually handled this better, with all three almost inevitably breaking up into a mass of warring successor states early on. (Admittedly, as a side-effect of that, you tended to see the Byzantines lose Constantinople pretty early, but that doesn't seem like it would be that big a problem here.)

My recomendation--right off the start, bigger penalties to vassal loyalties for Empires. Keeping something that big together should be tough.

CK DV had the empires disappearing within 10 years of the start of the game. No, that was not better.

[Space Oddity]

Originally Posted by Prem_Rack

CK DV had the empires disappearing within 10 years of the start of the game. No, that was not better.

Yes, it was definitely better than having the Doukasi ruling a constantly expanding BE, the Fatimids ruling the grand Shia Caliphate and crushing Ethiopia to death and the Salians running a graveyard of nations HRE until the end of time--which in this case is 1425. (Admittedly, the Byzantium collapse in CKDV tended to go overboard, as I freely admitted.) That's the problem with CK2--the empires are too stable. (Assuming a Grand Campaign start point.) Dynasties are unseated once in a blue moon--if then. As I noted--in one of my Italy games, I've watched a newly born, legitimized bastard Salian ascend to the Imperial throne--with nary a peep from the vassals.

Also, I assume by 'disappear' you mean 'muddle through massive civil wars, breakaway states, and opportunistic land grabs by neighbors', as the only time I've ever saw those nations vanish in my games was when I did the vanishing. (Well, the Fatimids did tend to get killed to death in the Crusades, because, let's be honest, you did NOT want to be a Muslim in CKDV. But Byzantium and *KG* both tended to keep on, with the latter regularly falling apart and reconstituting itself.)

[Kome]

I feel guilty for helping the Byzants win their civil war right now then.

[Pischinovski]

I stared as a swedish Duke, fought my way up to the swedish throne, conquered after several generations Denmark and Norway. I owned land in Lithuania and Finland and conqured recently parts of England. For a short time i made some relative of mine King of Wales.
I decided to invade England and reorder the British Isles but the world wasn't ready for a mighty giant swedish emipre yet. So I died. My son inherited all Kingdoms but because he was a gay sinful coward my vassals revolted. I fought 8 years of civil war. When one duke was defeded another one tried to depose me.
I decided to surrender and give my revolting nephew what he desires, the Kingdom of Sweden. I kept Denmark, Norway and my private swedish holdings south of Stockholm.
I moved my capital to Denmark and made it my primary title. As i tried to depose the Duke of Sleswig, I died and my 15 year old daughter became Queen of Denmark ... not of Norway. Norway went to my uncle. So i also lost my Norwegian and English holdings to my uncle. While my cousin is controlling Sweden. He just declared war on me claiming the Danish throne and my uncle is not willing to help me in the war.

...and thats how i went from a Swedish duke, to the ruler of Scandinavia, to a danish Duchess

[Janprimus]

Originally Posted by Prem_Rack

CK DV had the empires disappearing within 10 years of the start of the game. No, that was not better.

Originally Posted by Space Oddity

Yes, it was definitely better than having the Doukasi ruling a constantly expanding BE, the Fatimids ruling the grand Shia Caliphate and crushing Ethiopia to death and the Salians running a graveyard of nations HRE until the end of time--which in this case is 1425. (Admittedly, the Byzantium collapse in CKDV tended to go overboard, as I freely admitted.) That's the problem with CK2--the empires are too stable. (Assuming a Grand Campaign start point.) Dynasties are unseated once in a blue moon--if then. As I noted--in one of my Italy games, I've watched a newly born, legitimized bastard Salian ascend to the Imperial throne--with nary a peep from the vassals.

Also, I assume by 'disappear' you mean 'muddle through massive civil wars, breakaway states, and opportunistic land grabs by neighbors', as the only time I've ever saw those nations vanish in my games was when I did the vanishing. (Well, the Fatimids did tend to get killed to death in the Crusades, because, let's be honest, you did NOT want to be a Muslim in CKDV. But Byzantium and *KG* both tended to keep on, with the latter regularly falling apart and reconstituting itself.)

I tend to agree more with Prem_Rack; in CK 1 the empires were ridiculously unstable, but and Space Oddity has a point there in CK 2 the empires might be a bit too stable.
'Byzantium' gradually declined, OTOH the HRE did not live up to its potential, but even as a confederation it was relatively stable in the areas, which in CK 2 are a part of the 'de jure' HRE (so without Italy and Burgundy) and it even expanded in the east. However it was quite decentralized, but even in times of an interregnum or civil war, the concept of the empire was alive (though admittedly quite decentralized).

[Nietzsche]

Originally Posted by Cambyses The Mad

Even if you pay for them?

..err, yes I paid for them, as they're DLC. The problem is that the thing doesn't want to work properly, and I'm trying to find a fix.

[Cambyses The Mad]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

..err, yes I paid for them, as they're DLC. The problem is that the thing doesn't want to work properly, and I'm trying to find a fix.

Bugger that then. I was going to buy the DLC. Now I'll wait till someone mods it in and spend the money on a sandwich.

[Janprimus]

Originally Posted by Cambyses The Mad

Bugger that then. I was going to buy the DLC. Now I'll wait till someone mods it in and spend the money on a sandwich.

Strange, I've paid for the same DLC, but I never encountered such issues.
It shouldn't matter, but it might depend on which version (online or hard copy) and where you bought it.