Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries
Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Crusader Kings II 69939 Bug Reports 19717 User Modifications 10604 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6373 After Action Reports
Previous dev diary Next dev diary
Show only dev responses
Second week and a second dev diary! We will continue for this week as well to discuss new patch features and changes.

I'll start with some more quality of life changes we've done with the right-click menu to make interactions with various entities in the game even more smooth. For starters we've finally removed the capital letters in the tooltip to hint about how to now interact with characters, but that's not really a big deal. We have also extended the menu to now include actions such as plot to kill in this menu to make life a little bit easier.

DD_2.jpg


But we didn't end there because we also felt that you should be able to interact more with holdings and titles so we added it to them as well, including a decision to switch what you want as your capital holding. Obviously the bishopric of Uppsala should be the capital of Sweden now that the capital holding type doesn't matter for government anymore.

DD_1.jpg


There's also a thing that has been very difficult to do in Crusader Kings 2 is to get a visual overview of your realm and its hierarchy which is why we have merged the Independent Realms mapmode and Direct Vassals mapmode into one superior mapmode which combine the both plus some more. Let's have a look at the Holy Roman Empire and his realm.

DD_3.jpg


To now see the breakdown of this realm you Ctrl+Left Click on a province on the map belonging to the Empire and it will break up in-front of you to show you what hides within. Showing you the various duchies and counts beneath the Emperor. Pretty standard to how the Direct Vassal mapmode works but you can isolate it to one realm at a time.

DD_4.jpg


But let's say you want to look deeper into the hierarchy and break up the Kingdom of Bohemia to view what duchies and counties that it contains? You just click it again and this sub realm will also be broken apart to reveal the King's own direct vassals letting you examine your vassals vassals.

DD_5.jpg


And like Doomdark did last week I'll finish up with some random snippets from our huge Changelog

- Several Lovers events now checks that ruler/spouse/lover isn't incapable/imprisoned
- Rügen, Öland and Djerba are no longer considered to be ocean terrain provinces.
- You'll no longer try to talk to your dead children when you have the family focus.
- It is now possible to gain the Crusader/Mujahid trait as a character of any religion participating in a Crusade/Jihad.
- To become a cardinal you have to be within the pope's diplomatic range
- Can no longer enforce plot to take vassal land if he is in revolt.
- Go tiger hunting no longer disappears after creating a custom Empire in India.
- Fixed get married ambition for homosexuals.
- Now we have visual indicator when settlement slots are being used by tribals
- Paranoid parents should no longer worry about potential plots against dead children.
- Lovers in prison can no longer get impregnated normally
- Anglo-Saxons are now also allowed to create the Kingdom of Saxony
 
Last edited:
Click to expand...
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
KestrelGirl said:
@Wiz You're awesome.

But let me try to smash the woman-haters
...
Boom. Headshot.
Click to expand...

I really don't know why I am bothering if this is the calibre of post that Paradox encourage and people find helpful.

Sichelgaita is the only one of that list with a credible source and would apply to the CK2 game mechanic in discussion, i.e. that of a character commanding a flank or centre (CK2 doesnt have a character leading a siege defence).

Do I need to list every single instance covering the CK2 period where a woman did NOT occupy a commanding position on the field of battle? No, because it was 99.99% of cases. The distorting of history to the current fahsionable anachronistic agenda (quoting wikipedia and pseudo-historians and then requesting PI censor and infract us nasty "women-haters") is pretty sad.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
Grell74 said:
I really don't know why I am bothering if this is the calibre of post that Paradox encourage and people find helpful.

Sichelgaita is the only one of that list with a credible source and would apply to the CK2 game mechanic in discussion, i.e. that of a character commanding a flank or centre (CK2 doesnt have a character leading a siege defence).

Do I need to list every single instance covering the CK2 period where a woman did NOT occupy a commanding position on the field of battle? No, because it was 99.99% of cases. The distorting of history to the current fahsionable anachronistic agenda (supported by pseudo-historians and then requesting PI censor and infract us nasty "women-haters") is pretty sad.
Click to expand...

This. Nobody is saying there are no examples of women ACTUALLY FIGHTING AND LEADING TROOPS INTO BATTLE(there are certainly 2 or 3 + the very known Jeanne of Arc), but most examples on that list do not apply.

Also, what is up with the liberal use of the terms "woman-haters" and "sexists"? I hope they don't refer to me. I love women. I even married one.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
SirRitter said:
This. Nobody is saying there are no examples of women ACTUALLY FIGHTING AND LEADING TROOPS INTO BATTLE(there are certainly 2 or 3 + the very known Jeanne of Arc), but most examples on that list do not apply.

Also, what is up with the liberal use of the terms "woman-haters" and "sexists"? I hope they don't refer to me. I love women. I even married one.
Click to expand...

then stay away from the term sjw in future. Thats flamebait.

In any event, this thread was unsalvagable a couple of pages ago.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
Let me put it another way, Stay On Topic.

I'll now backtrack and takecare of people that were flaming / trolling
 
Thanks for this patch. I can't believe we're this far out and you still have a team working on my favorite game.

Between the convenience stuff in this dev diary, and the more in depth gov't scripting from #1. I'm pretty stoked. I really can't wait for the DLC reveal.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Can we be expecting any flavor events for rulers whose capital doesn't match their government type, such as a king ruling from a city?
 
Emren said:
The philosophical reply would be that no limits, or no rules, is the same as removing characteristics. If you can do anything with any religion in the game, they lose identity, and there's then little point to choosing one over the other. This is not very good game design.
Click to expand...
Inital conditions. Any religion can become anything but they start out at a certain time and place and with a certain belief system.... kind of sounds like reality doesn't it.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
This expansion looks exciting!

So is China going to be Theocracy only? Are the Theocracies only going to be playable in China, or can I also play a female Catholic pope who commands her own armies?
 
  • 7
Reactions:
TheDungen said:
Inital conditions. Any religion can become anything but they start out at a certain time and place and with a certain belief system.... kind of sounds like reality doesn't it.
Click to expand...

Any religion becoming anything doesn't sound like reality, no.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Emren said:
Any religion becoming anything doesn't sound like reality, no.
Click to expand...
Well that really depends on if we subscibe to the sensitive dependence on initial conditions based on quantum randomness or view the world as a deterministic conclusion based on the initial state.

But as for this game we are constantly messign with the initial conditions thus the latter really won't work.

The only thing you can really say for certain is that any religion didn't become anything. It's impossible to conclude what might have been.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Modmilai said:
Oh oh oh, gavelkind... the ability to choose which heir gets which provinces, for the sake of contiguity, realism... has this been fixed? Cause it should be...
Click to expand...

I consider Gavelkind the most broken part of CK2
I've seen kingdoms explode too many times because the main heir doesn't get a single provence and everyone goes independent.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
TheDungen said:
Well that really depends on if we subscibe to the sensitive dependence on initial conditions based on quantum randomness or view the world as a deterministic conclusion based on the initial state.

But as for this game we are constantly messign with the initial conditions thus the latter really won't work.

The only thing you can really say for certain is that any religion didn't become anything. It's impossible to conclude what might have been.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But if CK2 develops along the path of EU4, and any realm is flexible to the point where we can no longer recognize anything in its character other than its name, I think I shall soon enough tire of playing it. In CK1, if you ever played it, we often had to deal with muslim Ireland, Scotland and other stupidities. This was rectified exactly because players tired of playing such an implausible state of Europe. But we'll just have to wait and see what the devs come up with.
 
The Great Bear said:
I consider Gavelkind the most broken part of CK2
I've seen kingdoms explode too many times because the main heir doesn't get a single provence and everyone goes independent.
Click to expand...
Not entirly unprededented in reality. Though granted they'd more likely take his throne than declare themselves indapendant. But the idea that a single dynasty would remain on a throne for 500 years is much more unheard of.
 
Emren said:
Indeed. But if CK2 develops along the path of EU4, and any realm is flexible to the point where we can no longer recognize anything in its character other than its name, I think I shall soon enough tire of playing it. In CK1, if you ever played it, we often had to deal with muslim Ireland, Scotland and other stupidities. This was rectified exactly because players tired of playing such an implausible state of Europe. But we'll just have to wait and see what the devs come up with.
Click to expand...
Ah but implausibilities aren't impossibilities.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
TheDungen said:
Ah but implausibilities aren't impossibilities.
Click to expand...
I don't think I have ever claimed that it was. It is not impossible in CK2 to have a muslim Emerald isle, so no change needed to accommodate. It is just much, much harder, and the AI could probably never manage to do it, only the human player. In CK1 the AI routinely did it, and therin lies the difference. The probabilities have been greatly diminished, and that was a smart move.

A move towards more flexible religions - how should the AI cope? And what is the gain - that the human player has even MORE control of the realm he is playing? More control is not always good.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I disagree. More controll means that it feels more like you're commanding a nation limited by your vassals and enemies and the consequences of your actions. And less like playing a game and being limited by hardcoded arbitrary rules.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back