Crusader Kings 2 Redux

[Drakken]

OTOH - from the several games I've played there is a strong feeling of places/realms being pretty generic. eg the base level of tax for each castle is the same as any other castle. Saxon England seemed to be the same as Poland........and so on. Perhaps there are events later on that will make Lombardy very different to England, but atm I don't see that being the case 

How exactly could they make them different in the interface, other than by changing the settlement layout and mod the graphics?

[garbon]

OTOH - from the several games I've played there is a strong feeling of places/realms being pretty generic. eg the base level of tax for each castle is the same as any other castle. Saxon England seemed to be the same as Poland........and so on. Perhaps there are events later on that will make Lombardy very different to England, but atm I don't see that being the case 

How exactly could they make them different in the interface, other than by changing the settlement layout and mod the graphics?

Different types of events for different locales.  It wasn't the case that being an earl in Scotland was an identical experience to a count in Naples. Sort of like flavor stuff.

[Fireblade]

There is actually now an exe file which you put in your CK folder and run it and it changes everything you need.

Okay first off: What the FUCK is going on with the Paradox forum?

Second: Where's the .exe crack?

[Richard Hakluyt]

@Drakken - I think you are not getting my point. To conquer England in-game it seems the Norwegians/Normans have to besiege a load of fortified points. Historically it seems that the crucial thing was to destroy the King's warband (huscarles), Saxon England had no fortifications that posed any problems to the Normans. Conversely, a few years after the conquest the country was covered with basic, but efficient, motte-and-bailey castles.

It seems to me that Christendom, in the game, is run as an ideal of the feudal system. In reality there were all sorts of local peculiarities, so Saxon England does not play "right" it has the feel of the later Norman kingdom.

There is always a conflict between scripting for a simulation and making a good game; I get the impression that CK2 is on the "good game" side, ie more like EUIII than EUI.

[Richard Hakluyt]

@Minsky - the mercenaries are half-price in the demo. I also experimented with lavishing money on a particular barony and the levy got a lot more impressive. Taken together, I think these factors will prevent the mercenaries being overpowered.

I don't know. I mean even if price were doubled.  As the Earl of Gwent, I paid 60 to get a force of 1100 to help me capture the Earldom of Glamorgan. Even if the price was 120 it still would have been worth it as Glamorgan and myself could only raise forces of 250.  Was trivially easy to assault all 3 holdings and then disband Mercs before the monthly price would have screwed me.

I am trying a game with good old Boleslaw to see how I get on without hiring mercenaries. He is in a pretty safe spot I grant you, but relying on levies is making a lot of infrastructure improvements possible.

[Fireblade]

@Drakken - I think you are not getting my point. To conquer England in-game it seems the Norwegians/Normans have to besiege a load of fortified points. Historically it seems that the crucial thing was to destroy the King's warband (huscarles), Saxon England had no fortifications that posed any problems to the Normans. Conversely, a few years after the conquest the country was covered with basic, but efficient, motte-and-bailey castles.

It seems to me that Christendom, in the game, is run as an ideal of the feudal system. In reality there were all sorts of local peculiarities, so Saxon England does not play "right" it has the feel of the later Norman kingdom.

There is always a conflict between scripting for a simulation and making a good game; I get the impression that CK2 is on the "good game" side, ie more like EUIII than EUI.

Just wait until William dies and your retarded, fatass son inherits. That's when the "fun" begins.

[Grallon]

Second: Where's the .exe crack?

http://www.crocko.com/48E06B860DB740...imemod_1.1.exe

For those of you who REALLY can't wait until it's released in a couple of days,
I compiled an executable changing the timestamps to -400 years.

EDIT 2: The bug with Matilda being unplayable has been resolved, it turned out some original dates were getting calculated to a negative year which the engine didnt like.

USAGE:
Put the .exe file in your root CK II demo dir, f.ex. "C:\Program files\Paradox Interactive\Crusader Kings II Demo\" and run it once.
Running it more than once will further remove 400 years from the dates which is not what you want.

DOWNLOAD:
http://www.crocko.com/48E06B860DB740...imemod_1.1.exe (version 1.1)

ISSUES:
Some people have issues with writing permissions, you can bypass this by running the executable as administrator.
IF you ran the old ck timemod (1.0) you will need to reinstall the demo before applying this mod.

[Grallon]

Well so much for that - game crashed on 1st day...  The other method is complicated so I'll wait.



G.

[crazy canuck]

OH man, are you guys really going to talk me into buying this on release?

[Ed Anger]

OH man, are you guys really going to talk me into buying this on release?

That damn demo did it to me. And I swore after Dicktoria II and Pus of Nations I was swearing off Paradox games at full price.

[Ideologue]

I never even played CK 1.  I assume the map sucks, right?

[sbr]

OH man, are you guys really going to talk me into buying this on release?

That damn demo did it to me. And I swore after Dicktoria II and Pus of Nations I was swearing off Paradox games at full price.

Yeah me too.

[Ed Anger]

I never even played CK 1.  I assume the map sucks, right?

CK1's? Sorta.

CK2? Assuming you have a decent computer, no.

[Habbaku]

CK1's map was functional when in political mode, terrible in terrain.

CK2's map is actually rather impressive.

[Josquius]

B. Number of troops is heavily weighted by the opinion of the vassal towards you. If he doesn't like you chances are that he will send next to no troops with his bodily presence.

That doesn't entirely make sense- so a guy you don't like but is your boss has called you off to war....and you decide to take only a handful of men with you, knowing full well that your boss is an idiot and you need all the protection you can get.

C. When you levy troops only garrison remain in the province. So if you levy the troops, send them elsewhere and get besieged in the province only the standing garrison will try to fend off the siege. Hence why it is a good idea NOT to levy troops from a province which will assuredly become a battlefield.

When you dismiss levies do they not return home?