Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Kings, Emperors, and Statesmen: A Saga 1066-1920

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.
binTravkin said:
Sander, try France and Apulia first - see if you like them.
The first one is a very strong nation, but lacks adjacent lands to easily expand into.
The second one is not so strong, but has a good opportunity to expand into Sicily to create Kingdom of 2 Sicilies alas Naples.

If you dont like any of these, you can pick any other place which is not picked.
Note that Pereyaslavl is actually free, so it, Polock and Pronsk could be good options.

EDIT:
We should vote about the rule change but I think that allowing to annex vassals would be suicide and even the best players will time from time get pretty irritated when someone manages to snag a vassal while you're not looking at that part of your realm.
In other words - that would require a lot more micromanagement to defend your vassals and therefore should be avoided as CK is complex enough as-is.
Sterk, please remove Pereyaslavl title from in first post - I'll be most probably picking other nationif I see a place to be filled somewhere, just as I did with Pereyalv in GG2, which I think saved that entire area from Polish regime..;)
Click to expand...

Ah well I have played apulia before and kinda liked it so ill take that one ;)
 
Sterkarm said:
For about 10 seconds there I was wondering when I had posted this... then I realized that there are some others out there with a Poland flag avatar.
Click to expand...
Same here. :eek:o
Anyway, I haven't been following (nor posting in) this thread for the most part, so.... Question: are we near settling the "personal demesne to be taken to force peace" issue? It would be good if the various parties posted their final proposals in the next few days on the matter so that it's settled by a vote (or are bin&CSK running a co-dictatorship? ;) ). JMO Whilst thinking about it, it dawned on me that putting a minimum on "personal demesne to be controlled to force peace" would mean I'd have to peace should I get beaten bloody again like in the last game, barely holding on to any provinces. Or would the rule only apply to PvP wars?
 
1.No, CSK/binTravkin are not running dictatorship :p
2.Yes, it's only about PvP wars.
3.We should vote on this, available options are:
A: no change (you must take all opponents demesne to force a peace)
B: slight change (you must take a percentage (50% or 75% - to be devised afterwards)
C: change in type - you must take all demesne provinces that belong to primary title, or next title (but only one), if the target owns less than 2 provinces in primary title.
D: you can force peace with vassals whenever you want and force peace with ruler when controlling all demesne - the default SP mode.

I propose C because I dislike any number rulings. Game has set it's own scaling (tiers and their territory), lets use it to avoid any squabbles over exact numbers.
To explain why there's condition not les than 2 provinces as if the target had only 1 province, it would be too easy.
Also 'next' in the condition means next what shows up in character screen for host (to avoid any misunderstandings with commonly swapping titles in MP, as it is for me) , e.g King of England, Scotland and... would have to watch for his sole demesne province in England and all the provinces in Scotland.
 
1: No, I have no power, it's binTravkin who runs this dictatorship. :p

I am for B. The thing with the primary title is that it would force one to run a huge distance just to take the lands their and not to take the ones in the area one is fighting for.

An example: A King of Bulgaria manages somehow to inherit Byzantium. Now he fights with Georgia for Armenia. Let's say the King of Georgia is winning, maybe because the realm of the Bulgarian is instable. The King of Bulgaria has demesne in Bulgaria, Constantinople, but also lands in Anatolia. All in all it would be enough to get the Anatolian lands to get more than 50% of the Bulgarian personal demesne. With C the Georgian player would have to run all the way to Bulgaria to get the title.
 
If we're only counting demesne, couldn't that be abused? For instance, the losing player could 'abandon' demesne by handing it out to vassals before they become sieged by the attacker.

CSK said:
I am for B. The thing with the primary title is that it would force one to run a huge distance just to take the lands their and not to take the ones in the area one is fighting for.

An example: A King of Bulgaria manages somehow to inherit Byzantium. Now he fights with Georgia for Armenia. Let's say the King of Georgia is winning, maybe because the realm of the Bulgarian is instable. The King of Bulgaria has demesne in Bulgaria, Constantinople, but also lands in Anatolia. All in all it would be enough to get the Anatolian lands to get more than 50% of the Bulgarian personal demesne. With C the Georgian player would have to run all the way to Bulgaria to get the title.
Click to expand...

To be honest, not only does it mean you have to run a huge distance, but also it means that you're forced to take more than you need, sort of. I wouldn't mind an addition of sorts which would balance the responsibilities of the attacker and the defender. To develop the example above, suppose Georgia controls a set of Armenian provinces that it has claims on. If we establish a time limit, say 3 years, after which Georgia is free to annex these provinces, it would pressure the defender to liberate those provinces instead of hiding in western Anatolia preparing for a counter-attack once the Georgians show up, while at the same time relieving the attacker from the burden of crossing half of Europe to gain a mere handful of border provinces. The only important thing is to make sure that the time limit is long enough for the defender to gather most of his forces, so as to give him a fair chance.

Regardless if we adopt such an addition or not, I support alternative B as outlined by BinTravkin. +50% sounds reasonable, but I'd like to include a 'minimum' of provinces that an attacker should control. 3 ought to be enough.
 
bagdadboblarge4tx.gif

"There is no dictatorship here"


:D
 
Varyar said:
If we're only counting demesne, couldn't that be abused? For instance, the losing player could 'abandon' demesne by handing it out to vassals before they become sieged by the attacker.



To be honest, not only does it mean you have to run a huge distance, but also it means that you're forced to take more than you need, sort of. I wouldn't mind an addition of sorts which would balance the responsibilities of the attacker and the defender. To develop the example above, suppose Georgia controls a set of Armenian provinces that it has claims on. If we establish a time limit, say 3 years, after which Georgia is free to annex these provinces, it would pressure the defender to liberate those provinces instead of hiding in western Anatolia preparing for a counter-attack once the Georgians show up, while at the same time relieving the attacker from the burden of crossing half of Europe to gain a mere handful of border provinces. The only important thing is to make sure that the time limit is long enough for the defender to gather most of his forces, so as to give him a fair chance.

Regardless if we adopt such an addition or not, I support alternative B as outlined by BinTravkin. +50% sounds reasonable, but I'd like to include a 'minimum' of provinces that an attacker should control. 3 ought to be enough.
Click to expand...

The possible exploit you mention isn't really effective because it just means less provinces for the other player to siege.
 
Sterkarm said:
The possible exploit you mention isn't really effective because it just means less provinces for the other player to siege.
Click to expand...

Well, the extension of the same exploit would be to revoke a count title at the other end of the kingdom.
 
I say go for B, 50%. Been following the discussion and i think is the best option. the option C seems to be to complicated, at least for me.
 
I would go for B, however I would like to point out that I would also prefer to see good statemansship in negotiating peace with other players. So we would take one more step from the total war, which was in MTT.

In the future the CKMP might devise their own peace rule, which the EU2MP has currently.
 
count me in as a possible sub for CK/EU2
 
Fnuco said:
count me in as a possible sub for CK/EU2
Click to expand...

Do you have an ICQ or an AIM?
 
Sterkarm said:
Do you have an ICQ or an AIM?
Click to expand...

328-460-388

note to self: put icq no. back in sig
 
I think I'll be Kyiv. So are we playing on the 16th?
 
So, what's left?
It will be interesting to see the Kiev-Novgorod inheritance dispute btw..:D
 
Bah! The Catholic Bulkwark will claim Kiev.

Oh. And I am considering leaving Germany for something else.
 
That would be a bold move Lurken.
As of now, Germany's geopolitical situation is neither the easiest nor best understood, thus leading to misconceptions..;)

It seems that Scandinavia is the emptiest place right now..
Im also worried about places like Pereyaslavl and Pronsk - they're two very strong russian principalities, but still can be easily rampaged by cumans/whatnot, if AI
I wonder how many of the people signed here are serious about participating - I remember that guy from other thread who seemingly messed Bulgar with Bolgar - he hasn't showed up since then.
That's also the main reason Im gonna pick country at first session.

Bah! The Catholic Bulkwark will claim Kiev.
Click to expand...
Dont worry, If I see a place needing to be filled I'll take it..;)
 
I elected for Balkan Bulgaria...Khan Krum defeated the Byzantines sometime in the 6th century (I think?)...I've been having trouble with the stability of CK...that said I have downloaded the scenairo and will hopefully be ready in time...however Bulgaria is still open for other players until I can confirm that I will be able to play...
 
binTravkin said:
That would be a bold move Lurken.
As of now, Germany's geopolitical situation is neither the easiest nor best understood, thus leading to misconceptions..;)
Click to expand...
Germany is hard, first of, the only "real" place of expansion is Helvetia and Pommern. After that...not much...just fiddle my thumbs.

Though it would be fun to have a human vassal, trying to get out under my thumb...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back