Crusader Kings 2 Redux

[garbon]

I like this game. I take Sengoku for what it was stated it was : a winner-takes-all board game with roleplay elements

Where did they state that?

[Josquius]

No said it was supposed to be CK1 in Japan. 

I like this game. I take Sengoku for what it was stated it was : a winner-takes-all board game with roleplay elements, not a daimyo simulator.

The pre game buzz did very much suggest it was CK in Japan, a sneak peak at CK2 somewhat.
I just hope they were going for the board game thing and it wasn't a spectacular failure.

[szmik]

Adding in plots does seem a backwards step if they are as exciting as the one's in Sengoku.

I like the idea of plots, but they just don't work in Sengoku. I managed to get an ally for plot once, but he soon quit. More like MP feature.

That's what I mean - not that the idea is bad (could have been great for an rp aspect), but that they seem poorly implemented.

And people trust Paradox to implement the idea well?  Paradox can't even implement producing an accurate map right anymore.

yes, the last time I've seen accurate map was Crown of the North.

[szmik]

I like this game. I take Sengoku for what it was stated it was : a winner-takes-all board game with roleplay elements, not a daimyo simulator.

it's very shallow even for that = teh boring 

I find CK great fun and don't think CK2 needs anything more, but revamp of the map.

[Habbaku]

A pile of bug-fixes and adjustment to make the stupid shit go away would be nice...

[Tamas]

There was plenty wrong with CK1 beside the map (actually, the map was the least of my problems - perhaps I am not nerdie enough). Still one of my all time favourites.

Rome already showcased a better inter-character system than CK1, but you played a country not a family so you were pretty detached from it especially in a republic.

Sengoku does showcase CK2 somewhat. You may very well think plots are hard to get (there has been a patch btw, and a new one coming next week to fix a couple of new bugs ), but they are there and working.
And they will be great once properly balanced. Why? OFFENSIVE DIPLOMATIC PLANNING WITH THE AI. People. That's cool, you have to admit it.

[Viking]

It's not offensive planning with the A.I. It's a different word for alliance. They had that in EU

[Tamas]

It's not offensive planning with the A.I. It's a different word for alliance. They had that in EU

Well, maybe. But you can do it with enemy vassals, which will be great for CK2.

Listen, I am just saying it's a good step forward. Especially since the plot system apparently will be extended for CK2

[garbon]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/content.php?694-Crusader-Kings-II-Dev-Diary-16-Technology

Not that it really matters, but why'd they choose to keep tech the same? It was largely pointless last time around.

[HisMajestyBOB]

I liked the way CK did tech. No need to bother with tech teams or micromanage investment sliders. It fit the time period well, too.

[Viking]

I liked the way CK did tech. No need to bother with tech teams or micromanage investment sliders. It fit the time period well, too.

It's historical, in that period technology was barely considered to values and money was land and investment didn't exist as an idea.

[garbon]

Which seems to support the notion that the concept should be scrapped, no?

[Viking]

Which seems to support the notion that the concept should be scrapped, no?

Well, not completely. The thing is that the technology that was available to a medieval was the technology of the farm, the church, the village, the town or even the monastery that was in his area. If he wanted any special technology he had to hire specialists either priests like Anselm (of St Anselm of Canterbury fame) or specialists like Urban (of walls of byzantium fame).

So, if you need peasants or knights you go to your vassals and demand levies. If you need pikemen or crossbowmen you go to your vassals demand scutage and go hire mercenaries. If you need catapults and ballistas you borrow money from the j00s, hire siege specialists and, depending on if you win or lose your war, you either pay the j00s back or expel them from your kingdom.

So, yes and no, the concept should and should not be scrapped. I don't think there should be any form of focus and a technology should be invented and then spread either through having that tech used against you in war and/or a progressive lord hiring a foreign specialist.

The three big stories of the CK era were

- militarily a strong progression from feudal levies of peasants with sticks and knights to profession armies of crossbowmen, pikemen with cannon support

- economically a strong progression from purely rural agricultural economy to a complex stratified economy with manufacture and trade in cities and towns relying on the raw materials from the countryside

- culturally a strong progression from pagan like religion to an organized and independent catholic church with its own power base own dogma and own organization which is involved in philosophy and thought

the lords which adapted their military, were able to manage and tax their economy and able to use the church effectively created strong independent kingdoms, the ones that did not were meat for conquest by others. You need all three to get into the western tech group in EU3.

[Josquius]

I liked CK's tech too.
It gave the player some small feeling of control to keep the conquer 'em up kiddies quiet but overall was quite slow and plodding and random.

[Tamas]

I didn't make it to the beta! 

edit: I should had mentioned to them that my beta AAR was the one which got published for CK1. The propaganda arm could perhaps still use me.