Crusader kings or victoria?

[unmerged(5161)]

Compared to Victoria, CK is elegantly simple. I give you that. But then, compared to Victoria, ACTUALLY RUNNING A COUNTRY IN REAL LIFE is elegantly simple. So that is not a fair comparison. And most of the hell comes out after several successions when you have 100 people milling about your court and lots of vassals, children, and other family.

And I almost forgot, leader attributes are determined randomly. To my knowledge, you cant even design scenarios to have fixed attributes. That would make sense since the marriages are left to you. So when Castile gets 3 successive dipshit kings and England gets 3 successive bad-asses; it doesnt lend itself to balanced gameplay. Especially when (unlike in EU2), monarch values drive large portions of the game engine.

 

[Swuul]

Compared to Victoria, CK is elegantly simple. I give you that. But then, compared to Victoria, ACTUALLY RUNNING A COUNTRY IN REAL LIFE is elegantly simple. So that is not a fair comparison. And most of the hell comes out after several successions when you have 100 people milling about your court and lots of vassals, children, and other family.

The Sunday morning MP has gone through five generations. Not one of the courts have that number of people. In MP that simply won't happen-

And I almost forgot, leader attributes are determined randomly. To my knowledge, you cant even design scenarios to have fixed attributes.

And that shows that you don't know a crap of the game. Perhaps you should play the game a bit, and get familiar with the system? Because apparently you don't have the slightest clue of what you are talking about

 

[unmerged(5161)]

Your scenario? Well excuse me, but I wouldn't touch it with a long stick after you told me to keep away from it

I never told you to stay away from anything. That is a lie.

But you are right. You are a zealot. And you can stand that someone has a different opinion from you and you bash them. Oh, if I just knew what you knew, I wouldnt be so stupid. You are a game-bigot. CK is not good. It is fun for a while, then it sucks. It could be called Sims-EU2 Edition. After a while, arranging marriages and micromanaging vassals and inheritances gets annoying.

I played the Sims for a bit and put it away. It was a novelty. CK is the same.

 

[Swuul]

CK is not good. It is fun for a while, then it sucks.

Well, like I said, let us check the situation next year this date. I am pretty sure I will remember this date next year too, hopefully I am not yet too senile for that

 

[Spinalcurve]

I never told you to stay away from anything. That is a lie.

But you are right. You are a zealot. And you can stand that someone has a different opinion from you and you bash them. Oh, if I just knew what you knew, I wouldnt be so stupid. You are a game-bigot. CK is not good. It is fun for a while, then it sucks. It could be called Sims-EU2 Edition. After a while, arranging marriages and micromanaging vassals and inheritances gets annoying.

I played the Sims for a bit and put it away. It was a novelty. CK is the same.

what is wrong to raise a dynasty from dust to a power then maybe have some times of troubles and managing to become dit or dat and watch back in your dynasty line how your family looked like 100 years ago? Can you do that in EU2, no it is a country you run, in CK you are a family, a family with ups and downs.

EDIT: I forgot the end. That is what I think is fun, to hell with the bugs and crashes. The dynasty is the upside in CK, it is fun in the ending.

 

[unmerged(5161)]

Your scenario? Well excuse me, but I wouldn't touch it with a long stick after you told me to keep away from it

You INSISTED that Portugal was overpowered. You ran your own test in a six hour LAN game. After a couple decades, your Portugal had very large income, but only EIGHT MANPOWER PER YEAR! I said, you can be over-powered with eight manpower. Your test did not have a full player roster and had some flaws. Your response.............

It is sort of hilarious to see that the only comments based on a test are totally ignored for the scenario... Ok, ok, I got the message, I won't meddle in this thread anymore.

Yes, obviously I told you to keep away from it. What a stretch that is! Everyone who plays with my scenarios or in MP games with me (not much anymore since I am working only on my scenario at this time) knows that I ask for input all the time. I want to know people's opinions. That doesnt mean I have to agree with them. There are going to be opinions I disagree with. That doesnt mean I didnt want input or that I hate that person.

In any event, I wasnt even talking about that scenario. I was talking about my new one; Ryoken's Event Overhaul (link in my signature). So......

apparently you don't have the slightest clue of what you are talking about

And you misinterpreted me. I am not talking about starting attributes. I am talking about attributes over time and a large part of that is luck. Your kids education turns out good and he gets a 10 stewardship. Bad military training? Take a lovely 3. It just isnt balanced when so much rides on those values.

 

[unmerged(5161)]

what is wrong to raise a dynasty from dust to a power then maybe have some times of troubles and managing to become dit or dat and watch back in your dynasty line how your family looked like 100 years ago? Can you do that in EU2, no it is a country you run, in CK you are a family, a family with ups and downs.

Nothing is wrong with it, per se. It just isnt a balanced competitive MP game.

 

[Spinalcurve]

Nothing is wrong with it, per se. It just isnt a balanced competitive MP game.

but recently you said Crusader Kings was boring now you complain about the balance, ONLY.

 

[Swuul]

And you misinterpreted me. I am not talking about starting attributes. I am talking about attributes over time and a large part of that is luck. Your kids education turns out good and he gets a 10 stewardship. Bad military training? Take a lovely 3. It just isnt balanced when so much rides on those values.

Errr... You do know you can influence what results children get from education too, don't you? So far your comments have been very much on the lines of the person who did watch a chess game "I saw a friend play it, I didn't like it cause there are no dice and yet the pieces are moved in a random way, and then all of the sudden one of the players is declared the victor."

 

[Spinalcurve]

Errr... You do know you can influence what results children get from education too, don't you? So far your comments have been very much on the lines of the person who did watch a chess game "I saw a friend play it, I didn't like it cause there are no dice and yet the pieces are moved in a random way, and then all of the sudden one of the players is declared the victor."

and you can a lot of kids in CK, i repeat, A LOT.

 

[Hive]

Ryo... you can't blame Jarkko for not being able to keep up with all your many scenarios, it's hard for the rest of us too...

 

[Hive]

Errr... You do know you can influence what results children get from education too, don't you? So far your comments have been very much on the lines of the person who did watch a chess game "I saw a friend play it, I didn't like it cause there are no dice and yet the pieces are moved in a random way, and then all of the sudden one of the players is declared the victor."

How do you affect the results they get?

 

[unmerged(5161)]

but recently you said Crusader Kings was boring now you complain about the balance, ONLY.

It is boring to me after an hour or so. But CK being boring is an opinion and cannot be effectively argued against another person. There is no "proof" or "support" for the boring thesis. It is pure opinion. So I stated it and moved on. I contested Jarkko on the point that it makes for good MP.

 

[unmerged(5161)]

Errr... You do know you can influence what results children get from education too, don't you? So far your comments have been very much on the lines of the person who did watch a chess game "I saw a friend play it, I didn't like it cause there are no dice and yet the pieces are moved in a random way, and then all of the sudden one of the players is declared the victor."

You know I didnt mean it was ENTIRELY RANDOM. Jeez, get a grip. I am talking about there being a large element of chance. You keep nit-picking on some tiny factoid like "Nuh uh! There are not 100 courtiers!" instead of attacking the concept I was introducing; that there are lots of courtiers and that micromanaging them is a pain.

I have made a case that the game is imbalanced for a variety of reasons. None of the primary points have really been contested. You dont have your own counter-theory as to why CK is good. Your argument boils down to this: "You havent played MP, so you are dumb". That is not a good argument. Sorry, it just isnt.

Present to me a case for CK MP. Tell me about how it is a balanced competitive environment and how it is better than EU2. Because I just see you nit-picking crappy defensive arguments because you cannot contest my primary points.

 

[unmerged(5161)]

Ryo... you can't blame Jarkko for not being able to keep up with all your many scenarios, it's hard for the rest of us too...

Yes it is true. I do so much for the community it is hard to keep track of all the good works

 

[Spinalcurve]

hey Ryoken, EU2 vanilla is not so well balanced either so do a CK MP scenario and you will love it

 

[unmerged(5161)]

hey Ryoken, EU2 vanilla is not so well balanced either so do a CK MP scenario and you will love it

EU2 is not an imbalanced game engine, which was my point. Scenario setup is maleable. Hell, I am trying to build better scenarios for EU2 right now! But the game engine is good. I think that the CK engine is crappy. That is the difference

 

[Chaingun]

I find that CK's current status is 'good', but I expect it if Paradox bothers to fix the AI and UI issues to become 'great'. Also, I do find CK should be somewhat more balanced among human players in MP if they choose approximately the same starting conditions. The fact that any MP in 1.03b without house rules will be a rush for Jerusalem does not mean that players can't compete at approximately equal odds (they each possess about the same capabilities to get to Jerusalem). This is very different from EU2 with its historical events, leaders & monarchs and explorers (not to mention terra incognita).

I do agree that after a couple of games CK will have a more generic feel to it than EU2 though, but that should only allow for better MP competition since power will mostly be based upon skill for the first time. The 'mostly' here comes from the random events that are a major part of CK. However, unlike in EU2 most random events in CK feel plausable or justified (even predictable). In EU2 it's more like "fucking hell, I got a political crisis worth -4 stability" for no apparent reason. Even if I during SP in CK have my main and favourite character die at the age of 20 I can accept it, and there usually are warning signs leading up to it like illness or related disease traits.

Oh: I'm not trying to say that you aren't allowed to think that CK is boring. I rather try to present my own optimism for what Crusader Kings already is and may become.

 

[arcorelli]

And you misinterpreted me. I am not talking about starting attributes. I am talking about attributes over time and a large part of that is luck. Your kids education turns out good and he gets a 10 stewardship. Bad military training? Take a lovely 3. It just isnt balanced when so much rides on those values.

Actually, that is precisely why I like it. You don't control everything (as it was for rulers). Some important things are out of your control, so you need to be good at how adapt your actions to an environment essentially non controlable. You got a very bad military ruler? well, you need to see what you can do with it.

(And I doubt that Jarkko will be back, he likes to RP and that is a thing certainly a lot more easy to do in CK that in EU2. For myself I guess I will play both, but I am leaning to CK for different reasons: right now, without players knowing that well what are good decisiones or not, there are more funny things happening in the game).

 

[unmerged(5161)]

I find that CK's current status is 'good', but I expect it if Paradox bothers to fix the AI and UI issues to become 'great'. Also, I do find CK should be somewhat more balanced among human players in MP if they choose approximately the same starting conditions. The fact that any MP in 1.03b without house rules will be a rush for Jerusalem does not mean that players can't compete at approximately equal odds (they each possess about the same capabilities to get to Jerusalem). This is very different from EU2 with its historical events, leaders & monarchs and explorers (not to mention terra incognita).

I do agree that after a couple of games CK will have a more generic feel to it than EU2 though, but that should only allow for better MP competition since power will mostly be based upon skill for the first time. The 'mostly' here comes from the random events that are a major part of CK. However, unlike in EU2 most random events in CK feel plausable or justified (even predictable). In EU2 it's more like "fucking hell, I got a political crisis worth -4 stability" for no apparent reason. Even if I during SP in CK have my main and favourite character die at the age of 20 I can accept it, and there usually are warning signs leading up to it like illness or related disease traits.

Oh: I'm not trying to say that you aren't allowed to think that CK is boring. I rather try to present my own optimism for what Crusader Kings already is and may become.

Finally, a good argument. Kudos. Alright, I agree that CK has the potential to be fairly good. But I know that it wont get there because of Paradox. The problems with CK are in the engine, not the setup. Those random events, leaders, and other complaints about EU2 are valid. That is why I build scenarios, to fix those things. For example, using random events with complex triggers.

And there is a huge swath of terra incognita in CK. It is called the rest of the world.