SouthernKing
crickety cricket
Just from the dev diaries and other such things so far, what do y'all think? Plan on getting it? General discussions and speculation?
Crusader Kings 2
- Thread starter SouthernKing
- Start date
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
Shame on you, yes it is and oh boy saying it is different is an understatement. Forget controlling your nation, that is really a secondary or even tertiary objective. You are controlling your dynasty first, second and foremost. At least that was my biggest hurdle at first (next to figuring out the game mechanics).
I eagerly await CK2
I eagerly await CK2
Winner
Diverse in Unity
CK is a mix of an RPG and a grand strategy game that works surprisingly well. Basically you take control of a dynasty instead of any particular "country", which is of course what feudalism was all about. Then you marry, plot, produce kids, manipulate succession laws, send assassins to other courts, go on a crusade against heathens, and it's a lot of fun 
I watched a friend play CK1, never really got a hang of the game rules and mechanics. I like the concept of putting the "nation", as we would think of it, second to your dynastic objectives. Although you could easily set an objective for yourself that runs along the lines of centralizing France under your control.
I do like some of the ideas in CK1, like having no default "standing army" unless you hang on to a mercenary band. Instead, you have to raise troops from your provinces, which then hurts economic output. Would have been swell if EU3 adopted a similar system.
I do like some of the ideas in CK1, like having no default "standing army" unless you hang on to a mercenary band. Instead, you have to raise troops from your provinces, which then hurts economic output. Would have been swell if EU3 adopted a similar system.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Centralization never works. In CKV, high intrigue characters can directly control more provinces, but never enough to control a kingdom the size of France or England. You have to delegate power to your vassals, and then balance them against each other and yourself to make sure that if they rebel, you'll be able to put them down.
That's one thing I always loved about CK - your power is never safe. In EU3, once you get powerful enough, there is no way you can lose or even be defeated in a war. In CK, all it takes is a stupid illness or something that kills your selected heir, then his idiot insane brother inherits, the vassals revolt, and the whole realm is up for years of bloody civil war, which the foreign rulers of course tend to take as an opportunity to settle their scores with you.
In one of my games, my God-Emperor (very high stats) king died on a campaign. That was bad, but the heir had decent stats, so the succession was relatively safe. Of course then his bastard half brother had him assassinated, after which his 1 year old son became the legal ruler of the realm. The next sixteen years were filled with almost constant rebellions and wars. I cursed the game, but in retrospect, it's the challenge that makes one come back for more
Now, CK2 will offer much more depth than CK1, so it will probably be the most awesome Paradox game ever made.
V, high intrigue characters can directly control more provinces, but never enough to control a kingdom the size of France or England. You have to delegate power to your vassals, and then balance them against each other and yourself to make sure that if they rebel, you'll be able to put them down. That's one thing I always loved about CK - your power is never safe. In EU3, once you get powerful enough, there is no way you can lose or even be defeated in a war. In CK, all it takes is a stupid illness or something that kills your selected heir, then his idiot insane brother inherits, the vassals revolt, and the whole realm is up for years of bloody civil war, which the foreign rulers of course tend to take as an opportunity to settle their scores with you.
In one of my games, my God-Emperor (very high stats) king died on a campaign. That was bad, but the heir had decent stats, so the succession was relatively safe. Of course then his bastard half brother had him assassinated, after which his 1 year old son became the legal ruler of the realm. The next sixteen years were filled with almost constant rebellions and wars. I cursed the game, but in retrospect, it's the challenge that makes one come back for more
Now, CK2 will offer much more depth than CK1, so it will probably be the most awesome Paradox game ever made.
The one time I played as the kingdom of Castille, I tried to put down rebellions against my rule, but apparently winning three against three different rebelling vassals only makes your other vassals less loyal and more rebellious.
That, and conquering a bunch of Muslim provinces (and thus 'winning' crusades against heathens) really increases your infamy, to the point where your formerly loyal Catholic dukes would try to break away, and re-establishing control would further increase infamy, and so on. That made no effing sense.
That, and conquering a bunch of Muslim provinces (and thus 'winning' crusades against heathens) really increases your infamy, to the point where your formerly loyal Catholic dukes would try to break away, and re-establishing control would further increase infamy, and so on. That made no effing sense.
CK2 is looking very promising.
Loved the original CK and this one will be truly great.
Loved the original CK and this one will be truly great.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Yeah, some things in CK don't. First, you need to just re-vassalize rebellious vassals, not take their lands and send them to exile. That indeed makes the others pretty angry. Second, like in EU3, if you expand too fast and too far, it backfires (and badly).
From what I gather, CK2 game mechanics will make a lot more sense, so the feudal experience will really improve
salty mud
Deity
I've never played CK1 but this does look quite interesting. A strategy game with a difference.
Yeah, some things in CK don't. First, you need to just re-vassalize rebellious vassals, not take their lands and send them to exile. That indeed makes the others pretty angry. Second, like in EU3, if you expand too fast and too far, it backfires (and badly).
From what I gather, CK2 game mechanics will make a lot more sense, so the feudal experience will really improve
That's what I started doing, but you still gain infamy where I think you should have a legit CB. From what I gather of the posters on the Paradox boards, they are attacking these problems in CK1, though.
I'm looking forward to the new title--I started playing Paradox games after EU3, so I am much more attached to the new engine and find it difficult to go back to the EU2-style game engines. This will finally put CK on a fair footing to compare to my other Paradox titles.
Turquoiside
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,552
I'm not very excited at this point. CK2 needs to be a massive improvement over the first game in the Interface and Map Controls. From what I've seen so far it's not. Still, there's still plenty of time for them to get it right.
How do you know? Have you played it?
The Clausewitz interfaces are miles better then the old generation.
Turquoiside
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,552
That's not much info to judge how hard a UI is to use...
Winner
Diverse in Unity
I've seen some gameplay videos of it and the one in which Johann introduces the game and answers questions. The UI seems pretty friendly, and there are features which I always missed in CK1 - like FAMILY TREE ( 
), the ability to invite people to your court, arrange betrothals, female inheritance, etc. etc. etc.
I think this game will be huge. Although I am pretty sure I won't be able to play it at a decent speed on my laptop...
), the ability to invite people to your court, arrange betrothals, female inheritance, etc. etc. etc.I think this game will be huge. Although I am pretty sure I won't be able to play it at a decent speed on my laptop...
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
Evenings and weekends.
Similar threads
