Crusader Kings II

[YeOldeFustilarians]

I've logged a good five hundred hours in CK2, most of them using the HIP mod.  I've played with HIP for so long that I don't anticipate ever playing Vanilla again.

I have most of the DLC, but not Sword of Islam (because why would I ever want to play as a Muslim dynasty?) or Rajas of India, or that goofy Sunset Invasion DLC.  I'm also missing a few portrait packs (mainly just those of non-Catholic cultures).  I also play with the BLG mod that adds a lot of nice flavor to the portraits, and relevant quirks depending on traits.  No more innocent looking triple-chinned possessed characters.

Pretty much all of my time playing has been as an earl in England, 867 start (because HIP doesn't have the 769 start).  Typically I unite England, conquer the rest of Britain, get bored as an Emperor, and start over.  I haven't touched my current playthrough in a few weeks.  I started as the earl of Lancaster, then Petty King of Northumberland, eventually King of England, eventually also King of Scotland.  Just conquered Wales and created the title Kingdom of Wales so I'm emperor, and pressed a courtier's claim for Ireland and now the King of Ireland reports to me, too.  Working on expanding into Normandy next.  But I'm getting a bit bored so I might start over.

Anyways, if anyone ever wants to multiplay or needs any tips, I know my way around the game.  At least when playing as a feudal, Catholic lord.  I'd consider multiplayer without HIP if it entices anyone.  And keep in mind that DLC need not match up when multiplaying, everyone uses the host's DLC. 

[Prayerful]

I couldn't consider MP in that sort of game. I'd need five hours. I can play as much or as little. Even starting as a big faction is wonderously hard. An old favourite is starting as an Italian count and offering allegiance to the Byzantines once I reach Duchy size, intriguing for elective, and after a spot of civil war, I've a Catholic Empire.

[YeOldeFustilarians]

I couldn't consider MP in that sort of game. I'd need five hours. I can play as much or as little. Even starting as a big faction is wonderously hard. An old favourite is starting as an Italian count and offering allegiance to the Byzantines once I reach Duchy size, intriguing for elective, and after a spot of civil war, I've a Catholic Empire.

Multi-player doesn't depend on simultaneous activity, although it's more fun if you can have at least a little bit of that.

I've considered a similar playthrough, but I find it difficult to "get into it" when I'm playing as someone who isn't my own culture.  That's why I pretty much only play in England.

Speaking of, as Empire of England in my most recent playthrough, the Duke of Albany inherited the "whatever" of Armenia (I never play in the East, plus HIP provides culturally relevant titles instead of the boilerplate titles in Vanilla, but whatever, it's the equivalent of Kingdom of Armenia) and is no longer my vassal through some strange machination-- he was part of a faction in the East that is currently rebelling against the Byzantine Empire, and they are actually doing REALLY well, have something like 85k troops to the Byzantines 45k.... so, I might lose part of Scotland and have to go to war with the Byzantines to get my lands back, depending on how their rebellion goes.

ETA: I have very little MP experience (really only done it once, and I was teaching someone how to play) but from what I've read, some popular ways to play are to play as relatively equally sized dukes in say, the Holy Roman Empire.  It allows for cooperation or hostility, depending on how the cards fall.  A lot of people set up house rules like no assasinating one another, or no entering into marriages that aren't mutually agreed upon, etc. 

[YeOldeFustilarians]

I am really wanting to get this game, but I don't know if my system will run it.

Is it graphics intensive like MTWII?  My other computer is an XP-era machine that I am saving to get replaced.  I know I ought to wait for the new computer, but it's going to take forever to save for it...  Woe is me!  Not really, but you get the idea.

You don't need graphics at all (i.e., onboard graphics would be fine), but you do need a bit of CPU power.  The database is enormous and constantly runs checks, which become more and more resource intensive as the game plods along.

I was able to play pretty successfully on a cheap ASUS, $200 piece of junk, but once I got a hundred years or so into the game, the lag was pretty noticeable.  This was without the DLC that expands the map, by the way.

On my desktop (i5 quad core) I can run it swimmingly smooth, even at fastforwarded speeds.  One of the later i3 models should probably work just fine.  Not sure that XP is supported though (Windows doesn't support it, so I doubt Paradox would).  But I'd recommend playing on a desktop for another reason: the interface is daunting, and playing on smaller screens is very difficult.  At least for me.

[Prayerful]

If it's sort of turn based, I could consider it.

Weird inheritances can happen, usually through marital based claims.

Another oddity I ended up once with an Empire of Britannia of Ethiopian culture through to a high rate tutor to a child who grew up to have alot of children (I think a lot of that has been nerfed tho).

Marching armies through Europe might mean atrocious attrition. Unless the faction has territory nearby, I'd accept the loss, pocket the claim for later, when you can it some effect. That said, the Byzantines can suffer incessant civil war, so even keeping say an army of 20,000 in being in the region, would mean victory through persistence (civil war conquests need to be completed before the civil war ends obviously). It would be worth it, just for the enjoyment, even if taking the loss might seem more prudent.

[YeOldeFustilarians]

If it's sort of turn based, I could consider it.

Weird inheritances can happen, usually through marital based claims.

Another oddity I ended up once with an Empire of Britannia of Ethiopian culture through to a high rate tutor to a child who grew up to have alot of children (I think a lot of that has been nerfed tho).

Marching armies through Europe might mean atrocious attrition. Unless the faction has territory nearby, I'd accept the loss, pocket the claim for later, when you can it some effect. That said, the Byzantines can suffer incessant civil war, so even keeping say an army of 20,000 in being in the region, would mean victory through persistence (civil war conquests need to be completed before the civil war ends obviously). It would be worth it, just for the enjoyment, even if taking the loss might seem more prudent.

With conclave, the educations system is different.  I only just bought conclave a month or so ago (~6 months after it's release) and don't fully understand all the changes. But before conclave, if you tutored someone with a diligent educator, you were pretty much guaranteed that the educator would pass their culture and religion (plus other traits) to their student.

Now education is a lot more nuanced, you choose an education "focus" (sort of like the foci in the "Way of Life" DLC) and you're guaranteed that the child will develop according to the focus you've chosen.  For instance, one focus is "thrift" which will eventually develop into traits like diligent, cynical, and something else.  If you want to educate a child to change their religion or culture, there is a focus for that-- but that child will not receive any other traits through their education, only a possible change to culture/religion.  They'll still develop traits, you just have no real control over what they are.  I'm not sure exactly how the AI is coded, but however it's coded, it seems to educate its heirs in courtiers much more logically than before. 

I know all about attrition.  The pesky King of Navarre was a distant relative of mine and kept somehow inheriting lands in Mercia... for a generation or two I was constantly sacking a city in Mercia and then loading 10k troops onto ships to head to southern France/Northern Spain.  With the Umayyads on his front doorstep I don't know why he couldn't back off, but whatever. 

I'm a complete stickler for de jure lands and titles.  When I play the game, my chief goal is to make sure that all de facto lands belong to their de jure titles.  I will imprudently risk civil war to ensure that this is the case.  I'm not sure why I play this way, it might just be me imposing difficulty on myself.  But it is what it is, and if the Byzantines end up usurping Albany, I have no choice but to get it back, so that the Kingdom of Scotland is whole again.  My conscience requires it

[Jacob]

You don't need graphics at all (i.e., onboard graphics would be fine), but you do need a bit of CPU power.  The database is enormous and constantly runs checks, which become more and more resource intensive as the game plods along.

I was able to play pretty successfully on a cheap ASUS, $200 piece of junk, but once I got a hundred years or so into the game, the lag was pretty noticeable.  This was without the DLC that expands the map, by the way.

On my desktop (i5 quad core) I can run it swimmingly smooth, even at fastforwarded speeds.  One of the later i3 models should probably work just fine.  Not sure that XP is supported though (Windows doesn't support it, so I doubt Paradox would).  But I'd recommend playing on a desktop for another reason: the interface is daunting, and playing on smaller screens is very difficult.  At least for me.

My desktop computer is from 2007 with a AMD processor and 1 Gb of RAM.  I always put off buying a new computer because I tend to fall into paralysis by analysis as I compare.  Your advice offers some nice benchmarks, thank you.

I'm also looking at Linux for my next machine, so supporting Steam is important to me as well.

[Prayerful]

If it's sort of turn based, I could consider it.

Weird inheritances can happen, usually through marital based claims.

Another oddity I ended up once with an Empire of Britannia of Ethiopian culture through to a high rate tutor to a child who grew up to have alot of children (I think a lot of that has been nerfed tho).

Marching armies through Europe might mean atrocious attrition. Unless the faction has territory nearby, I'd accept the loss, pocket the claim for later, when you can it some effect. That said, the Byzantines can suffer incessant civil war, so even keeping say an army of 20,000 in being in the region, would mean victory through persistence (civil war conquests need to be completed before the civil war ends obviously). It would be worth it, just for the enjoyment, even if taking the loss might seem more prudent.

With conclave, the educations system is different.  I only just bought conclave a month or so ago (~6 months after it's release) and don't fully understand all the changes. But before conclave, if you tutored someone with a diligent educator, you were pretty much guaranteed that the educator would pass their culture and religion (plus other traits) to their student.

Now education is a lot more nuanced, you choose an education "focus" (sort of like the foci in the "Way of Life" DLC) and you're guaranteed that the child will develop according to the focus you've chosen.  For instance, one focus is "thrift" which will eventually develop into traits like diligent, cynical, and something else.  If you want to educate a child to change their religion or culture, there is a focus for that-- but that child will not receive any other traits through their education, only a possible change to culture/religion.  They'll still develop traits, you just have no real control over what they are.  I'm not sure exactly how the AI is coded, but however it's coded, it seems to educate its heirs in courtiers much more logically than before. 

I know all about attrition.  The pesky King of Navarre was a distant relative of mine and kept somehow inheriting lands in Mercia... for a generation or two I was constantly sacking a city in Mercia and then loading 10k troops onto ships to head to southern France/Northern Spain.  With the Umayyads on his front doorstep I don't know why he couldn't back off, but whatever. 

I'm a complete stickler for de jure lands and titles.  When I play the game, my chief goal is to make sure that all de facto lands belong to their de jure titles.  I will imprudently risk civil war to ensure that this is the case.  I'm not sure why I play this way, it might just be me imposing difficulty on myself.  But it is what it is, and if the Byzantines end up usurping Albany, I have no choice but to get it back, so that the Kingdom of Scotland is whole again.  My conscience requires it

Conclave and focus does change a lot and it works nicely. A medieval lord could own a town tenement, but could also own the next county. I try to neaten titles, but if I just try to maintain loyalty, and not have any vassal who is too strong, and try get primogeniture.

There are lower cost gfx cards which make a lot of games accessible. Later a person can improve the card if they want.

[attiret]

I'm resurrecting this thread to discuss the new expansion. Prayerful, Trogfecta, Bl. Karl Hapsburg, & YeOldeFustilarians, have any of you purchased Monks and Mystics yet? Or anyone else?

[Bernadette]

Is this a computer game? Or some kind of online thing? There might be enough history involved for me to be fairly interested. 

[attiret]

Is this a computer game? Or some kind of online thing? There might be enough history involved for me to be fairly interested. 

Yep it's a game! It's addicting. Here is a little blurb from the Crusader Kings subreddit sidebar:

"Crusader Kings II is an historical grand strategy video game for PC and Mac published by Paradox Interactive. Engage in courtly intrigue, dynastic struggles, and holy warfare in medićval Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and India. Can you achieve fame and fortune for your noble family, or will your names be forgotten to history?"

[Bernadette]

I just want to be a landowner so that I can observe the daily life of my peasants; or a monk/nun.  So probably not for me. 

Wait...crusader?! That is appealing!  Vive le Bon Dieu!

[YeOldeFustilarians]

I'm resurrecting this thread to discuss the new expansion. Prayerful, Trogfecta, Bl. Karl Hapsburg, & YeOldeFustilarians, have any of you purchased Monks and Mystics yet? Or anyone else?

I play CK2 exclusively through HIP, and HIP has not updated for 2.7 or MnM yet, so no.  Plus it's Lent, and I won't be playing at all until after Easter.  I plan to purchase it once HIP is updated for it.

I am very excited about the potential of MnM in the hands of the HIP team; I am somewhat excited about the introduction of secret societies and of orders, although I think what makes the DLC really interesting is the introduction of hidden (but revealable) traits.  I would like to see HIP use this to simulate a more realistic experience with homosexual characters who currently are, for game purposes, public sodomites and who suffer only a -15 opinion malus and a mild fertility hit. 

I would like to see all members of faggotry have a secret trait that gives, say, a -15 malus and a fertility hit.  That simply represents the fact that the people who've met this person know that "something's off" about him.  But then you could use intrigue to spy on, and if you find out he's a dyed in the wool homo, opinion malus of like -75. 

Judging by the Paradox forums, it seems that currently MnM (like WoL back in the day) has enormously OP powers viz. Satanism.  Evidently some are excited about the prospect of taking of the world while ruling a Luciferian Cabal, I am not.  I like the flavor and I like the idea of sending my Anglo-Saxon bishops to find Satanists and root them out of the countryside, but aside from that, the Satanism aspect (as hopefully could be anticipated on a Catholic forum!) does nothing for me, and I'm a bit disturbed at how flippantly people are treating it, but I suppose that's the modern world for you.

Anyways, short story is no; I don't have MnM yet.  Once HIP is updated for it I will purchase it and play, but not until after Easter.  I am very excited about its potential in the hands of the HIP team, who have elevated this game to a level of depth, detail, and realism that incalculably surpasses the vanilla effort (which itself is by no means shoddy at all).

[YeOldeFustilarians]

Is this a computer game? Or some kind of online thing? There might be enough history involved for me to be fairly interested. 

Yep it's a game! It's addicting.

This isn't untrue, but to extrapolate: it's not addicting like sunflower seeds or something that you just compulsively do to kill time (it's not Angry Birds).  It's an incredibly detailed and enormously deep grand strategy game that, though a "computer game" is really more like the world's most complicated board game.  It is CPU (rather than GPU-- in other words, it doesn't really have "grapics," it has a map and some figures on it; the game is played primarily through interface controls and text) intensive and at it's heart it's a relationship management simulator; you play as a medieval character of a Dynasty of your choosing (could be as prestigious as a Karling, insignificant, or even fictional) and there are no proper "goals" to the game except those you set for yourself.  You are a landowner and you have to manage vassals, religious and secular relations, family relations, and so on.  Being "good" at the game means knowing who in your realm is important and who isn't, and treating them accordingly.  And even doing that is no guarantee against dying unexpectedly in a drunken stupor at the bottom of the stairs before you have a chance to secure an heir.

Obviously you know this because you've played it, just saying the above for those who are curious. 

[Kaesekopf]

I can't play ck2.  I can't afford the time sink, lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk