Crusader Kings 2

Almost everything you suggested could be done with the current mod tools if anyone wanted to go to the trouble of writing the events, traits, ambitions, and decisions for it.

The only way to help the game is to add more systems. CK2+ tried to slow down conquest, but that just made the game tedious. Instead of lessening the amount you can do and making you spend more time at 5 speed, its better to add more stuff to fill time.

I know some mods are trying to add resources and trading. They also try to add some events but those aren't as useful. It would also be good to add more choices. Just is often one lousy event. What if you had a score for each trait and actions added or subtracted points. You would need like 3 choices each with a different trade off.

In Monster Rancher for Gameboy they had a system for training where you had regular training and then you had a 2x version with a 1x bonus to another stat and a -1bonus to another stat, but also the amount extra you got was based on coaches. That last part doesn't have to be there, except perhaps for childhood mentoring. But each stat had 2 secondary bonuses each with a secondary loss.

So you could have events like that, with varying downsides and secondary upsides. And then you could pick what you wanted. So you might have 4 choices, say for the Just trait. 2 choices would raise just, but lower something else, if you had a certain amount of some stat a third choice might raise just, raise kind, and lower something, or have a justice boost with no loss. And since you have 5 stats, you wouldn't always have a choice that had no loss, unless you were a 20 20 20 20 20, but that's not so common without cheating.

So you would have to make a series of 5-10 decisions depending on the values for just from each event, to reach just, and you might push towards kindless also. Or you might push towards cruel instead.

The other 2 decisions would increase some other trait at the cost of justice, possibly with other bonuses, and you would again have possible bonus options based on stats.

This would do a lot of stuff. You could have way more events and decisions to make, especially for roleplay, and you wouldn't become OP too easily like with 1 decision per trait events.

Possible? Absolutely. Easy? No. Low-overhead? No. I'll point you towards, for example, the warrior skill trait group in The Prince and the Thane (I'm not sure if that mod was the first to use it; it's just the first mod I played and saw it in). You can be a lousy warrior, trained, skilled, or masterful; events can cause you to gain or lose a level of warrior skill. Under the hood, it's run like this: there isn't one "gain warrior skill" event. Instead, there's one for each potential level you could be at. They all have the same text, but different effects - e.g., a Trained Warrior who gets a gain-skill event will lose Trained and gain Skilled. It's a pretty simple and straightforward system for having a tier-based trait group, and there's nothing stopping anyone from expanding from there. If you wanted, you could write a whole series of traits and events giving tiers to Just/Arbitrary, Cruel/Kind, Content/Ambitious, and so forth. You'd have to rewrite just about all the current events in the game - and copy them several times over - so the overhead on the game engine would balloon dramatically and it would probably be unplayable on a slow computer. It'd also be an extremely large undertaking in terms of man-hours. But it could be done.

And you could bulk up most of the systems this way. Buildings could be quicker to build, with smaller bonuses, sort of like Lux Invicta but not so damn many. You do not need effectively 42 structures per building type.

This is a change that is extremely easy to do with the game as it stands now. It's just a matter of adding the extra levels of buildings to the files.

You could also add alternate costs to them. So you could build a dungeon, and upgrade it, for a limited tyranny bonus, plus a fear bonus, because this game badly needs to fear on top of opinion, but then you can catch prisoners easier and have more torture options. Then you could also add plots to free prisoners, and better dungeons make them less effective.

Starting to get tricky to do. "Fear" isn't an element of the game, and any attempt to simulate it would be a clumsy hack at best (e.g., you could add a "Frightening" trait that gives an opinion bonus with vassals, and make most tyranny-granting actions also give that trait). Plots to free prisoners can already be added - I think a few mods have them. Tying success rate in to dungeon quality would be moderately tricky, because you'd have to decide on which dungeon improvement to use - Patricians are the only ones who really have a "capital" holding, rather than just a capital county. But there's nothing in the game preventing you from using the capital holding of the capital county; the triggers are all there. Similarly with more torture options.

CK2 is incredibly bare bones IMO, with lots of room for improvement in all its systems.
Disagree with the first, agree with the second. It's actually got a very impressive scope; it's just that real life has an even more impressive scope.

Marriages could have stuff, like if you try to marry a higher class girl, if you are rich and her family is poor they are more likely to accept. Culture bonus, religion bonus, buying council positions or trading money for marriage and so forth.
Impacting AI willingness to marry based on wealth... first truly impossible suggestion for modders I think. I can't even think of a way of hacking it. Diplomacy as a two-way trade instead of one-sided deals is another thing that (I believe) can't really be done in the game now - but you could certainly add a decision to Offer Bribe for <Council position>, which would cause the liege to either accept the bribe and you get the position, or decline the bribe and you don't get the position.
 
My game crashes every time I savescum, but I haven't tried playing not Lux Invicta lately, and I haven't downloaded the most recent patch yet to prevent save sabotage (I know it's save compatible, but I'm not taking any chances with mods).

Also, I'm finally playing as my first female character. The only differences I've noticed are I can't lead armies, I can't have any kids after 45, and weak claims are even weaker. Oh well, at least all my stats are over 15 and I'm pretty sure I've made genius a hereditary trait for my dynasty.
 
And Republics have now been officially nerfed! 1.092 patch is out.

Much harder to end up controlling all the trade posts in a Republic with your family; trade post limit; more limited holy war, seize city, and seize county CBs; breaking truces much more costly and painful; a bunch of bugs patched and minor annoyances tweaked; tutorial updated.

Looking over the full change list, there is only one change that doesn't strike me as 100% a great update.
"Doges can no longer use the Seize Trade Post plot" - I'm not convinced this is necessary, with all the other changes to TPs they made as well. If a Patrician can seize a TP, let a Doge seize one too.

Do republics still end up with huge parts of lands? In my last game, genoa has south-east of spain, and venice is building up land along the balkans...
 
My game crashes every time I savescum, but I haven't tried playing not Lux Invicta lately, and I haven't downloaded the most recent patch yet to prevent save sabotage (I know it's save compatible, but I'm not taking any chances with mods).

Also, I'm finally playing as my first female character. The only differences I've noticed are I can't lead armies, I can't have any kids after 45, and weak claims are even weaker. Oh well, at least all my stats are over 15 and I'm pretty sure I've made genius a hereditary trait for my dynasty.

If your female character's hot, you get an instant +30 relations with most of your vassals (those that are dudes) and can probably keep most of them placated and obedient. You should make sure you're playing a hot female character - it has some very practical uses!
 
:cry::cry::cry:

new patch broke my CK2+ game.

Most of the major mods will need some updating (I think the only major mod with a fully updated version is Project Balance), but I would suggest removing the defines.lua and seeing if that works - apparently the defines.lua is what's causing most of th eissues.
 
Has the patch done anything noteworthy besides nerfing patricians?
 
That's why I turned autoupdates off until I finish this campaign, Glassmage.

If you are far enough into the game you have to reload the whole game if you want to load a save. It got quite annoying in games where I did a lot of fiddling.

Would I be better off if I deleted some of my now broken saves?

If your female character's hot, you get an instant +30 relations with most of your vassals (those that are dudes) and can probably keep most of them placated and obedient. You should make sure you're playing a hot female character - it has some very practical uses!

Sadly she isn't hot, but she has 21 diplomacy. She kinda looks like Princess Leia, though.
 
Has the patch done anything noteworthy besides nerfing patricians?

Two other significant changes to gameplay.

Range restriction on Holy Wars - you must directly border the target, share an ocean tile with the target, or border an ocean tile that borders an ocean tile that directly borders the target. Sicily can still invade Mauretania, but the HRE no longer can... and France can't start taking over Portugal without going through some of the land in between any more.

Increased penalty for breaking truces. Used to be lose 200 prestige, and -15 opinion with all others of the same faith. Now I believe it is: lose 50% of your total prestige, then lose 200 prestige, -5 with all others regardless of faith, and -15 with others of same faith.

Most of the rest of the patch is bugfixes, minor gameplay adjustments to remove annoyances, and making some stuff modder-friendly.

I can't speak for all mods, but most mods seem to be fairly stable if you take the time to merge over all the new entries in defines.lua into your mod's defines.lua file as well. There's about a dozen new entries; you can do it by hand in less than five minutes, or in seconds if you have a good merging tool.
 
There is now 0 value in breaking truces. Seriously 50%? WTH...

The only use it now has is if you just died, your kid wins the war in very little time and has at most the same amount prestige he would get from winning the war. If they're going to make breaking truces The Worst Thing Ever™, they shouldn't make them ten friggin years long.
 
Two other significant changes to gameplay.

Range restriction on Holy Wars - you must directly border the target, share an ocean tile with the target, or border an ocean tile that borders an ocean tile that directly borders the target. Sicily can still invade Mauretania, but the HRE no longer can... and France can't start taking over Portugal without going through some of the land in between any more.

Increased penalty for breaking truces. Used to be lose 200 prestige, and -15 opinion with all others of the same faith. Now I believe it is: lose 50% of your total prestige, then lose 200 prestige, -5 with all others regardless of faith, and -15 with others of same faith.

Damn I always used to break truces with different faiths.
 
The patrician nerfing may have gone overboard; I do think it's pretty clear that Republics needed some nerfing before 1.092.

Holy war restriction is actually aimed more at AIs than humans - lots of players were complaining about unsightly conquests of Portugal by France, Mauretania by HRE, Andalusia by Genoa, and so forth; this change should address that pretty directly.

The truce-breaking I just think was a good move. 50% prestige loss is quite harsh, but it should be harsh - the AI never breaks truces, there are lots of ways to get around truces, and sometimes losing 50% prestige is still worth it. The harder hit, to be honest, is the -5 opinion with all. That means you can just fight beat some infidel's army once, then fight 10 wars in a row before they get a chance to rebuild that army. Try that now, all your vassals will be pissed with you, as will all your neighbors and your religious head.
 
Why would your neighbors, vassals, and especially religious head ever give a crap about you beating the infidel into a bloody pulp?
 
Why would your neighbors, vassals, and especially religious head ever give a crap about you beating the infidel into a bloody pulp?

With regards to the neighbours, they might want to keep a balance of power and the player annihilating the infidels can lead to that. I mean, you had worse in real life, you had Catholic Castilian soldiers reinforcing Moorish towns so that those didn't feel to the Portuguese.

As for vassals, consider it war weariness. There's already the raised levies but it's understandable why they'd be upset if you were constantly breaking truces and disrupting their lives, heck, back then there was also trade and such even among people of different faiths.
 
I could make up some arbitrary justification for why an opinion penalty for breaking truces is "historically realistic," but I'm not going to bother. I'm just going to say that given the war / truce mechanics in the game, you need such a penalty. It's far too easy to run the war score up to 100% if you start a second war immediately after winning a first, so you can force a fast second (third, fourth) surrender right after the first. If you really wanted to make that an option, you might as well just remove the whole one-war one-CB mechanic entirely and let players pile on as many war goals as they want all in one war.
 
If you really wanted to make that an option, you might as well just remove the whole one-war one-CB mechanic entirely and let players pile on as many war goals as they want all in one war.

Okay.
 
Back
Top Bottom