Crusader Kings 2 Redux

[ulmont]

Am I correct that the Medium Crown Authority's "no wars inside the realm" restriction does not apply to wars started by plots (of particular note, the "gain duchy X" plot)?  I seem to be seeing more wars inside my realm than I thought would be allowed (i.e., 0).

It just means that dukes and counts don't fight each other... they just fight the king.

0 points for reading comprehension there, Viking.  I am seeing counts fighting their duke on a pretty regular basis.  I assume this is plot driven, but wanted to confirm.

[Maximus]

Do they hold territory outside the de jure kingdom? If so, the crown authority may not apply.

[JonasSalk]

So what's the advantage of playing a Duke over a King or a Count over a Duke? Less responsibility, smaller kingdom to deal with, potential of usurping your king?

[ulmont]

Do they hold territory outside the de jure kingdom? If so, the crown authority may not apply.

In at least three instances I noticed, the answer was no, no territory outside the de jure kingdoms, all of which are running Medium Crown authority.

[Valmy]

So what's the advantage of playing a Duke over a King or a Count over a Duke? Less responsibility, smaller kingdom to deal with, potential of usurping your king?

I have thought I should just be king of Navarra with no vassals and rule it as a centralized dictatorship.

But I guess I have to have mayors and bishops and crap....also the Muslims would conquer me a decade in.

[Ideologue]

So what's the advantage of playing a Duke over a King or a Count over a Duke? Less responsibility, smaller kingdom to deal with, potential of usurping your king?

I have thought I should just be king of Navarra with no vassals and rule it as a centralized dictatorship.

But I guess I have to have mayors and bishops and crap....also the Muslims would conquer me a decade in.

That's what I tried with Portugal, and you can't beat or even hold back the Muslims without major growth, and you can't grow if you don't decentralize, and when you decentralize your asshole vassals declare war on you, and when you turn around to fight them the Muslims fuck you in the ass.

I hate Mauretania.

[MadImmortalMan]

Is it a bad idea to leave your heir unlanded while giving titles to his younger siblings? I did that and when he came to the throne, all his younger brothers who I had made into dukes hated his guts.

[garbon]

Is it a bad idea to leave your heir unlanded while giving titles to his younger siblings? I did that and when he came to the throne, all his younger brothers who I had made into dukes hated his guts.

It is a bad idea really to give any potential heirs/title claimants land.

[Valmy]

Is it a bad idea to leave your heir unlanded while giving titles to his younger siblings? I did that and when he came to the throne, all his younger brothers who I had made into dukes hated his guts.

It is a bad idea really to give any potential heirs/title claimants land.

Unless you have election succession.

[jimmy olsen]

So what's the advantage of playing a Duke over a King or a Count over a Duke? Less responsibility, smaller kingdom to deal with, potential of usurping your king?

I have thought I should just be king of Navarra with no vassals and rule it as a centralized dictatorship.

But I guess I have to have mayors and bishops and crap....also the Muslims would conquer me a decade in.

I don't know if this works in CK2, but in CK1 Navarra was in a good position because it started with a claim on the crown of Aragon and you have one province and one vassal to their one province. Take them out ASAP and then start expanding, then vassalize Barcelona.

[JonasSalk]

So what's the advantage of playing a Duke over a King or a Count over a Duke? Less responsibility, smaller kingdom to deal with, potential of usurping your king?

I have thought I should just be king of Navarra with no vassals and rule it as a centralized dictatorship.

But I guess I have to have mayors and bishops and crap....also the Muslims would conquer me a decade in.

That's what I tried with Portugal, and you can't beat or even hold back the Muslims without major growth, and you can't grow if you don't decentralize, and when you decentralize your asshole vassals declare war on you, and when you turn around to fight them the Muslims fuck you in the ass.

I hate Mauretania.

I'm actually going pretty damn well as Portugal now. I have 1/5th of France due to an inheritance of Toulouse, all of Portugal, Santiago, and most of what was Granada. I had a lot of problems with the Mauretanians, but thanks to alliances with Castille, I was able to win, very slowly. It takes diligence.

Also, what's best, owning a lot of Counties yourself, or divvying them out to people and owning only Duchies?

[Valmy]

Also, what's best, owning a lot of Counties yourself, or divvying them out to people and owning only Duchies?

The last one is really bad because the more duchal titles you own the more unhappy your counts will be at not getting said titles (generally they are fine with you having 2 or 3 though)...

at least that is how it works when you are a king, I think you can get away with that if you are a duke.

Owning lots of counties can be tricky as well but it is better than owning lots of duchal titles. 

[JonasSalk]

Makes sense, but then I have a lot of City/Bishophric vassals. Bleh.

Okay, wtf is the deal. Why can't I change my generals when I'm doing a siege? I've noticed a lot of small UI problems like this and it's starting to get really annoying. If somebody attacks my siege, I want the 15+ Martial skill generals, not whatever random crap they throw in.

[jimmy olsen]

In my Duke of Mesopotamia game an Austrian count (of Bohemian ethnicity) inherited a strong Kingdom of Poland and has stayed loyal to the Emperor. The HRE which has been quite stable this game is an absolute beast and is currently fighting the Cumans for Crimea.

[Tonitrus]

When I have the rare chance to play these day, I've been dabbling with a "fun" game (yes, my AAR game is thus suffering, but not yet dead) as Abyssinia.  I wanted to see the challenge Valmy has had with them, but I got lucky.

Axum started a war with Harer, and I jumped in and ganked them after their armies beat the snot out of each other...got Axum to vassalize to me after the Shia beat the snot of out them...then when the Shia went after me...they fell into a nasty succession fight, allowing me to manage to take over Aden on the other side of the Red Sea (After they tried to pile on).  Once I regained enough of Axum, it seems that the low-supply desert provinces of northern Axum were a good place to wear down (with attrition) the Shia doom-stacks before knocking them off.  Then their conquest would always falter when a civil war came up, or would allow to me to eat some chunks off them (I know have all of Abyssina, Aden, Axum, and just managed to grab Alexandria during a timely civil war + Euro-Crusade.  It also helps that the Byzantines seem to be a roaring powerhouse in this game (they own much of Syria and the Ukraine).

Also:

- HRE is dominating Spain, while France sits it out.
- Scotland controls Ireland
- Poland somehow inherited Novgorod and is struggling to control much of northern Russia (lots of civil wars) in competition with a rather successful Finnish kingdom that rose out of Denmark's ashes.
- Besides what the HRE grabbed, England took over a large area around Gibraltar and a good chunk of Morocco. 

Been also finding in this game that I like having an elected monarchy...it's nice being able to put very strong Queens onto the throne when they happen to come around.  My current Abyssian Queen is an uber-lesbian who is the "Hammer of the Shia".