Well it's not so much the aggressiveness that I have a problem with, although I imagine that'd help, I think it's more importantly a question of focus.
-
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.
- Status
Well it's not so much the aggressiveness that I have a problem with, although I imagine that'd help, I think it's more importantly a question of focus.
.png){kind=avatar}
aggressiness of the AI with CK engine is probably a reason of the situation you described... AI is quite stupid he
Again, look at Henry the Younger, Geoffrey of Brittany and Richard the Lionheart, or Louis the Lion, son of King Philippe of France. Even the male children of James I of Aragon. All of them were addicted to tournaments, and fought them personally.
It is true that first born heirs were married when they were young. Henry the Young King was wandering with his household knights and the fighters of his private tournament team while married, which was exceptional, due to his condition of... well, he was already co-king with Henry II.
I didn't say any of that. But now that you bring that on, there's something the devs should consider: heiresses as rewards.
In England, the orphan heiresses or rich widows were kept by the King, who administrated their lands and used them as reward to their best collaborators, vassals or "friends", in the Feudal meaning of the word (that is: loyal, true servants of their lord). Henry II rewarded William Marshal with Isabelle de Claire, one of the richest ladies in England, who gave the Marshal a quarter of Ireland, the Earldom of Pembroke, lands in Normandy, England, the Welsh March... this way William became one of the most powerful men under the Crown of England.
This "royal tutory" of heiresses gave them the power to set a complex web of alliances, fielties and loyalties that went far away from the typical feudal relationship of lord>vassal.
Speaking of heiresses, dowries and other sordid land dealings; I'd like to see more depth to the feudal land system. I'd like to see lesser titles, for secular leaders and clergy, as well as smaller units of land below the county level, such as manors and castles.
Yes, of course. That would be a great improvement.
There is also another thing: before the mid-XIIIth Century, it was the man who gave dowry to the wife as a guarantee of loyalty and also as an insurance for in case she was left widow or divorced. This was a Germanic thing, so in lands where the Roman law survived prevalent (the Empire of the Romans, some parts of Italy, etc) it was still the man who recieved dowry.
This is because, for the Germanic peoples, women were somehow mystical and dangerous, but they could also be of great help for their husbands.
For the Romans, on the contrary, women were molest, a charge for their husbands, and they had to pay for this disturbance they represented.
I'd like it there was a system similar to Vicky 2's Great Powers and spheres of interest. So, for example, as King of England I should be able to get the Kings of Wales and Scotland in my back pocket - whether by diplomacy or outright war.
England and France were constantly squabbling over Scotland throughout the Hundred Years War, and Vicky 2's system of gaining influence (and attempting to reduce the influence of rivals) would work perfectly.
England and France were constantly squabbling over Scotland throughout the Hundred Years War, and Vicky 2's system of gaining influence (and attempting to reduce the influence of rivals) would work perfectly.
I haven't read all 44 pages of this thread, so sorry if this has been said before; I am sure there are already a few posts asking for 'better AI' as this is a perennial request in strategy games.
However, what I would be interested is not just 'better' AI (ie an AI that plays more like a human or is more efficient at expanding its territory, making war etc,) but a more interesting AI with more personality.
Basically what I mean is that rather than all AI leaders being essentially identical in the way they play, there should be differences between them; for example, some might want to expand their realms as much as possible, while others might value stability above expansion.
This could make the game a lot more interesting and variable, as for example, you could get used to dealing with one King of France, who is honest, honours his alliances and vassals and is generally easy to get along with, but then when he dies, his successor could have a completely different personality and you would suddenly have to worry about him grabbing your titles or making plots against you.
However, what I would be interested is not just 'better' AI (ie an AI that plays more like a human or is more efficient at expanding its territory, making war etc,) but a more interesting AI with more personality.
Basically what I mean is that rather than all AI leaders being essentially identical in the way they play, there should be differences between them; for example, some might want to expand their realms as much as possible, while others might value stability above expansion.
This could make the game a lot more interesting and variable, as for example, you could get used to dealing with one King of France, who is honest, honours his alliances and vassals and is generally easy to get along with, but then when he dies, his successor could have a completely different personality and you would suddenly have to worry about him grabbing your titles or making plots against you.
Less excommunications for no reason. I like the event ones but it is a bit ridiculous that the player is always excommunicated when the new papal controller is from a nearby province.
I hope CK2 stays with the 2d campaign map and portraits. Rome portraits lack the awesome and innovative DNA structure CK1 had, yet it also maintained the ugliness of CK1 - a step backwards.
The completely hideous box art image is a worry, it looks like someone pasted their face onto some armour and added a gaussian blur effect - a step backwards from the gorgeous and evocative CK1 art
In my opinion the campaign map in EU3 is also a step backwards, clunky blocky borders with huge faux-3d army icons. The MTW series also made the same mistake, MTW1 had a beautiful looking atmospheric map (which moreover the ai could easily work out), in MTW2 they went 3d without also creating an AI capeable of dealing with the vast open spaces and strategic points.
In terms of gameplay, I would like to see:
-marriages linking to alliances
-portrait sets for more than just 2 "races"
-some more map interaction, resources, trade routes etc
-4th Emperor teir
-The introduction of Historical or Scenario type victory conditions woudl add a nice layer of depth. e.g. Duke of Normandy conquer England and Brittany.
-no ugly faux-3d
The completely hideous box art image is a worry, it looks like someone pasted their face onto some armour and added a gaussian blur effect - a step backwards from the gorgeous and evocative CK1 art
In my opinion the campaign map in EU3 is also a step backwards, clunky blocky borders with huge faux-3d army icons. The MTW series also made the same mistake, MTW1 had a beautiful looking atmospheric map (which moreover the ai could easily work out), in MTW2 they went 3d without also creating an AI capeable of dealing with the vast open spaces and strategic points.
In terms of gameplay, I would like to see:
-marriages linking to alliances
-portrait sets for more than just 2 "races"
-some more map interaction, resources, trade routes etc
-4th Emperor teir
-The introduction of Historical or Scenario type victory conditions woudl add a nice layer of depth. e.g. Duke of Normandy conquer England and Brittany.
-no ugly faux-3d
Last edited:
- Status