Crusader Kings 2

What they should be doing is picking a better start date for the game.
 
What date did you have in mind and why don't you like 1066?
 
Around 1300, the HRE goes out of Italy, leaving a bunch of counts behind. It's essentially 1066 Ireland.
 
What date did you have in mind and why don't you like 1066?

It's a pretty unbalanced start. The Byzantine Empire, if it survives, become a terrifying blob monster. That's not to mention the blobber that everyone loves to hate, the Fatimids. Among other balance issues.

Funny thing is, I've heard that starting a game even a decade later - around 1077, when the Sultanate of Rum forms, makes the game so much more balanced: the Fatimids for whatever reason don't blob as badly, the Byzantines have been somewhat weakened, Spain is united so it doesn't crumble under Muslim pressure as easily, etc.
 
What date did you have in mind and why don't you like 1066?

I'd rather it be much earlier. Getting to play in the heptarchy, for example, or in the Carolingian/Merovingian periods. Or Germany pre-Otto I.

Failing that I wish they put more elements of this game in EU3.
 
How do you guys manage the inter-personal relationships? I've tried this and simply went back to EU3 because of my lack of knowledge.
 
A bribe here, a bribe there, a minor title or two if possible and liberal use of your spymaster to dissolve the worst factions.
 
I'd rather it be much earlier. Getting to play in the heptarchy, for example, or in the Carolingian/Merovingian periods. Or Germany pre-Otto I.

Failing that I wish they put more elements of this game in EU3.

The problem with the Carolingian/Meroviginian periods is that the game will have gigantic empire-blobs of terror that make the "unbalanced" Fatimids look like a joke in comparison (massive Abbasid Caliphate spanning, literally, half the map, for instance), as well as other balance issues. Another issue would be how to simulate the massive amount of migrations into Europe properly - wave after wave of nomadic groups and the like, which won't be easy to implement using the current game's culture mechanics (which are already screwed up anyways). This is not to mention the great amounts of research necessary for the dev team in terms of character, dynasty, and title history.

In essence, in my opinion, any start before c. 1000 (and the early 900s if I want to be really, really generous) would require an essentially different game with a different focus than what CKII currently offers.
 
It helps to not be a dick whenever possible. If one of your vassals hates you, either kill them if their kid would like you, or push them to rebel and take their crap.
 
I've founded that releasing a few prisoners without ransom works wonders as a temporary quick-fix for other underlying issues with your reputation.
 
Having traits that you get a vassal bonus for - Kind, Brave, Just among others (?) also helps a lot.
 
I've founded that releasing a few prisoners without ransom works wonders as a temporary quick-fix for other underlying issues with your reputation.

Arresting people can still do weird things, though. I once arrested a count for plotting to kill his father, and said father hated me for it. :p
 
I've founded that releasing a few prisoners without ransom works wonders as a temporary quick-fix for other underlying issues with your reputation.

I arrest random courtiers who have been plotting to kill other random courtiers or minor nobles. Unfortunately, I don't think the +10 to +20 (forgot which) from releasing people stacks. Still, it's a big bonus, especially if you release a new guy every time the old bonus runs off.
 
The problem with the Carolingian/Meroviginian periods is that the game will have gigantic empire-blobs of terror that make the "unbalanced" Fatimids look like a joke in comparison (massive Abbasid Caliphate spanning, literally, half the map, for instance), as well as other balance issues. Another issue would be how to simulate the massive amount of migrations into Europe properly - wave after wave of nomadic groups and the like, which won't be easy to implement using the current game's culture mechanics (which are already screwed up anyways). This is not to mention the great amounts of research necessary for the dev team in terms of character, dynasty, and title history.

In essence, in my opinion, any start before c. 1000 (and the early 900s if I want to be really, really generous) would require an essentially different game with a different focus than what CKII currently offers.

Meh. 1066 start is just so...boring.

Anyway EU3 is the period that really could have used a system like CKII's. It's much more relevant to that time period than this one, I think.
 
Meh. 1066 start is just so...boring.

Anyway EU3 is the period that really could have used a system like CKII's. It's much more relevant to that time period than this one, I think.

And that's why I prefer late starts. My favorite games were the ones I started 1307+.

Some people don't like playing that way because they feel like they won't get as fulfilling an experience because the game ends early... but then again most people get bored of games after a century or so anyways. So my suggestion would be to find an interesting date that's at least a decade after 1066... maybe even as late as 1337.
 
I started a Verona game in 1325±1 and I'm having fun. Right after most of Italy is independent and right before Pisa somehow becomes part of the HRE again.

Also for some reason, the Byzie emprah has a county in the piedmont. I checked the province history and he had it before I started playing.
 
Also for some reason, the Byzie emprah has a county in the piedmont. I checked the province history and he had it before I started playing.

Historically a somewhat distant member of the Palaiologan Dynasty (the last Byzantine dynasty) managed to through marriage to inherit a county there so in-game there's a county in Lombardy that is ruled by Palaiologans after 1300 or something. It's possible what happened was that that guy somehow inherited the Byzantine Empire or something.
 
Just started a new game with SoI/LoR, no Aztecs because I'm not buying that yet, as a custom-made Count Aldebert de Saint-Valery in Auxerre, April 1081 start. Managed to get to the Duchy of Burgundy in my first generation, but freakin' Aquitaine is ripping France apart with its faction scheming. I bolted during the n-th civil war to replace the last king favored by Aquitaine with the new king favored by Aquitaine and joined the HRE--will be easier to gobble up the counties and duchies required to form the Kingdom of Burgundy this way.

I do think the 1081 start is generally more balanced and superior to the 1066, but with such a weak France (fully autonomous vassals, losing counties rapidly to England, Frisia, and lacks manpower due to constant in-fighting) and a rapidly-strengthening HRE (already at high authority, crushed the only two civil wars it has had), it's looking like the endgame balance will be even worse than before. I just hope the Duke of Aquitaine takes over France proper so he'll stop overthrowing the king every couple years.
 
New DLC finally announced: so it is Republics (the second most requested after Pagans, I beleive), which is cool and all. Link here: http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/12/08/crusader-kings-iis-next-expansion-announced-the-republic/

Looks to me like it's almost like an entirely new game in a sense, with a wholly completely different gameplay style for Republic/Patrician families (though they didn't explain real well what exactly is happening if you're elected out of power - I think you'll stil keep your unique family holding in the republic). Heck, even the new patrician clothes they wear are enough to make it look interesting. I'm a bit sad pagans won't get fleshed out yet, but from the looks of it this is just as good as SoI. Now I have good reason to personally mod my game to be expanded to the late 1400s.
 
Looks promising. Actually, having read the article, I actually think I prefer this to the idea of a pagan DLC.
 
Back
Top Bottom