Crusader Kings 2

[sophie]

Spoiler :

Haha yeeee. Though I'd never in good faith take any provinces south of Monterey. BURN SOCAL TO THE GROUND

 

[cybrxkhan]

Haha yeeee. Though I'd never in good faith take any provinces south of Monterey. BURN SOCAL TO THE GROUND

We will defend the hedonistic OC lifestyle with our very lives!

 

[madviking]

 

[Civ'ed]

they added the west coast to after the end?

 

[madviking]

just california. the devs say they're gonna add oregon, washington, and bc later, and possibly idaho.

 

[Double A]

brb manifesting my destiny

 

[Sonereal]

Forming Russia with gavelkind elective took more effort than it should have.

Spoiler :

 

[Civ'ed]

and possibly idaho.

The War changed everything... except how much people care about idaho.

 

[Double A]

dirt for the dirt god
potatoes for the potato throne

 

[cain3456]

- To become a cardinal you have to be within the pope's diplomatic range

What does this mean? If you're a bishop in Iceland or India you can't become Cardinal anymore? Kinda makes the St. Thomas cheevo useless if a catholic Indian can't become Cardinal.

 

[Arakhor]

I assume that you can increase your diplo range with technology.

 

[Antilogic]

If they use it to restrict the cardinals (and thus the candidates for the papacy) to Italy I'll be happy. There are wayyy too many non-Italian popes in regular CK2.

 

[Arakhor]

There were non-Italian popes in history, including one notable Englishman who became Adrian IV.

 

[Antilogic]

There were non-Italian popes in history, including one notable Englishman who became Adrian IV.

Not saying there were not, but the frequency is all out of whack.

At least from this wiki link, the overwhelming majority were Italians, and many of the non-Italian ones like the ones from Africa, Greece, and the Middle East were from the early period in the church's history that is outside of the game's time period.

I think non-Italian popes should be correspondingly rare, and they should be older than the young 20 to 30-something whippersnappers the game randomly creates. The recent shift to the cardinal system is helping this a bit, but it's still off.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, some of the early popes were a good deal younger than the current crop, especially when the Bishopric of Rome was a hereditary title.

 

[cybrxkhan]

On the forums the devs offhandedly mentioned that female rulers will now be able to lead armies in the upcoming patch, and this has unsurprisingly caused your typical PI forum fistfights, with those in favor calling those against it woman-hating sexists who ignore real history with their narrow-minded worldview, and those against it saying those in favor are supporting some radical feminist fantasy of history based on cherry picked examples. Though I am slightly leaning towards the anti camp, what do the more civilized and rational posters here think?

I'm fine if women are allowed to lead armies in special circumstances (like if they have 16+ martial or a special Amazon trait or something), or help in commanding defense of sieges, but I am not quite sure about letting every female ruler be able to basically fight in battles.

 

[Sonereal]

Why not just give women a penalty when commanding (like craven-level) until they gain a "respect of the troops" trait or something unless she has a T3/T4 martial trait?

 

[Evie]

The middle ages were a lot more favorable to women than we tend to think. Not saying women going into battle was *common* (though far more so than people think), but our modern perception of women's place in the medieval world has more to do with the Renaissance.

 

[Antilogic]

Well, some of the early popes were a good deal younger than the current crop, especially when the Bishopric of Rome was a hereditary title.

Definitely true, the conclave system has/had only been used for approximately half of the time. But the default in the old game was to have a series of incredibly young popes from 1066 all the way up to the 1450s, each one reigning 40-50 years if nobody killed them.

On the forums the devs offhandedly mentioned that female rulers will now be able to lead armies in the upcoming patch, and this has unsurprisingly caused your typical PI forum fistfights, with those in favor calling those against it woman-hating sexists who ignore real history with their narrow-minded worldview, and those against it saying those in favor are supporting some radical feminist fantasy of history based on cherry picked examples. Though I am slightly leaning towards the anti camp, what do the more civilized and rational posters here think?

I'm fine if women are allowed to lead armies in special circumstances (like if they have 16+ martial or a special Amazon trait or something), or help in commanding defense of sieges, but I am not quite sure about letting every female ruler be able to basically fight in battles.

Support for it could be used to replicate some of the legendary figures (i.e. Joan d'Arc). I would allow a select few to lead based on an acquired trait, with an additional command line for particular religions enabling lady commanders (useful for modders, maybe the Cathars would have it enabled by default since they had much more... enlightened views on the subject).

I would not enable every single woman as a commander, though, I think that would ruin the immersion quite a bit. They should be fairly rare by default but a playground for modders.

 

[Evie]

Well, seeing as it's rulers-only to begin with, I doubt you'd see that many women commanders. And frankly, reigning women leading armies is not particularly unusual for the era (the examples are relatively few, but that's out of a small sample size to begin with - not that many reigning queens and female regents). Wives of rulers sometime did it, too.