As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Crusader Kings III: Sex cults can make inheritance a bit messy

1858687888991»

Posts

  • FiskebentFiskebent Registered User regular
    Garthor wrote: »
    Fiskebent wrote: »
    It's so hard to get primogeniture in CK3. I've never had it in 200 hours of play time. Is there a trick to speeding up cultural advances? AFAIK, it's based on your learning skill and the average development of counties of the culture.

    You can pick a culture with little map presence, get a ton of learning, juice your capital to ridiculous development levels, and just zoom your way through cultural developments.

    That way you hit the hard time limit on advancing eras.

    Yes, but that limits you to playing 'tall' games. In CK2 you could get it relatively easy in 1066 start games. I miss that a little.

    steam_sig.png
  • AspectVoidAspectVoid Registered User regular
    Fiskebent wrote: »
    Garthor wrote: »
    Fiskebent wrote: »
    It's so hard to get primogeniture in CK3. I've never had it in 200 hours of play time. Is there a trick to speeding up cultural advances? AFAIK, it's based on your learning skill and the average development of counties of the culture.

    You can pick a culture with little map presence, get a ton of learning, juice your capital to ridiculous development levels, and just zoom your way through cultural developments.

    That way you hit the hard time limit on advancing eras.

    Yes, but that limits you to playing 'tall' games. In CK2 you could get it relatively easy in 1066 start games. I miss that a little.

    Yeah, but the thing is that Paradox considered that a bad thing. They didn't want people to be able to get primogeniture easily in CK3. They want players to have to deal with the complexities and threats of realm divide from partition, and primogeniture to be the reward for managing to survive it for so long.

    PSN|AspectVoid
  • RuldarRuldar Registered User regular
    The trick for dealing with the lack of early game primogeniture is extensive use of elective inheritance (including on your duchies), getting away from the partition that creates titles ASAP, and constant blobbing so that you always have enough land to hand out to your kids that it satisfies the partition rules.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Then theres cultures with concubines where you end up with 15 kids

  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    the learning perk to speed up cultural fascination progress is really early in the tree, you can just pick it with every ruler. it still takes forever to get there

    Ruldar
  • Steel AngelSteel Angel Registered User regular
    edited October 1
    the learning perk to speed up cultural fascination progress is really early in the tree, you can just pick it with every ruler. it still takes forever to get there

    You also can pick up the ability to declare celibacy while you're learning focused too which helps a lot when you're in partitioning inheritance laws.

    Steel Angel on
    Big Dookie wrote: »
    I found that tilting it doesn't work very well, and once I started jerking it, I got much better results.

    Steam Profile
    3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
  • GarthorGarthor Registered User regular
    the learning perk to speed up cultural fascination progress is really early in the tree, you can just pick it with every ruler. it still takes forever to get there

    You also can pick up the ability to declare celibacy while you're learning focused too which helps a lot when you're in partitioning inheritance laws.

    Unless your only child mysteriously dies and now Random McFuckstick (who, interestingly, seems to have the "familial kinslayer" secret...) inherits.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    It is always funny when you take over an an heir and find out they've murdered 15 people.

    AxenDarkewolfeElvenshaeGiantGeek2020Shadowhope
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    It is always funny when you take over an an heir and find out they've murdered 15 people.

    I know right! It's like, "Jesus! How lazy can you be!?"

    A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
  • Steel AngelSteel Angel Registered User regular
    Garthor wrote: »
    the learning perk to speed up cultural fascination progress is really early in the tree, you can just pick it with every ruler. it still takes forever to get there

    You also can pick up the ability to declare celibacy while you're learning focused too which helps a lot when you're in partitioning inheritance laws.

    Unless your only child mysteriously dies and now Random McFuckstick (who, interestingly, seems to have the "familial kinslayer" secret...) inherits.

    That's when the ability to renounce celibacy in CK3 becomes handy. Then take it up again when you have a new heir.

    Big Dookie wrote: »
    I found that tilting it doesn't work very well, and once I started jerking it, I got much better results.

    Steam Profile
    3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
  • Steel AngelSteel Angel Registered User regular
    I do realize that my use of revolving door celibacy may not quite be in the spirit of the trait, especially since I've only really played Pagan rulers in CK3 so if I suddenly need an heir than renouncing celibacy is often accompanied by maxing out my concubines. And that I'll offer concubines to dukes that are getting stronger to increase how many heirs they need to split their realm between, effectively using their horniness as a management tool.

    Big Dookie wrote: »
    I found that tilting it doesn't work very well, and once I started jerking it, I got much better results.

    Steam Profile
    3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
    GiantGeek2020MancingtomCasual Eddy
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    One of my first games had my heir, my first born son, sleep with my wife, also his mother.

    My first reaction was "what kind of game of thrones shit is this?"

  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    I had an heir who was fucking his sister. Then when I played the heir, the sister had been systematically murdering all other family members.

    In a way it worked out, really trimmed the family tree and then I blood eagled her for a quick boost starting the heir out.

    What is this I don't even.
    GiantGeek2020Commander Zoom
  • MassenaMassena Registered User regular
    Has anyone heard of Crusader Blade yet? It claims to take the strategic layer of CK3 and use the combat layer of Bannerlord. I am skeptical..... but I am also pretty hyped....

    https://crusaderblade.itch.io/crusaderblade

    Wondering if this actually works, etc.

  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    edited November 3
    So, Total War but more management? Could be neat but could also just be way too much. Sometimes it's good if a game knows what it wants to be good at.

    Darkewolfe on
    What is this I don't even.
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited November 3
    One of my first games had my heir, my first born son, sleep with my wife, also his mother.

    My first reaction was "what kind of game of thrones shit is this?"

    It's The Aristocrats with less piss and shit (but not none).

    The number of daughters I had to refuse advances from is kind of crazy, and while messing with the king of England (I couldn't win a war with him but I already had Ireland, Wales, and Scotland) I killed his sons and seduced first his wife and then all his daughters and then noticed (in the last panel of seducing her) that his youngest daughter had the only dark hair in a castle of blondes and I'm not sure how the game does that but yeah she was definitely mine. Oopsie daisy!

    Hevach on
    Commander ZoomKreutzKristmas KthulhuGiantGeek2020stopgap
  • MassenaMassena Registered User regular
    Been having fun with that mod. Fired it up, basically zero issues, works exactly as intended. Even if it's just a distraction, its fun to load up a battle have to fight it. Like a mini-game that's actually good.

    GokerzElvenshae
  • Sir CarcassSir Carcass I have been shown the end of my world Round Rock, TXRegistered User regular
    Looks like we finally have a release date for Royal Court: February 8th.

    ShadowhopeRuldar
  • ZavianZavian universal peace sounds better than forever war Registered User regular
    new feature video breakdown too

    WotanAnubisElvenshaeRuldar
  • FiskebentFiskebent Registered User regular
    The main things I like about the CK games are the systems that simulate history and also the interactions between people - which I guess has also been very important historically.

    I don't see grandeur and artifacts being as important, so I'm not really sold on that aspect of the expansion.

    The reworking of the culture system sounds great and I'm looking forward to playing with that.

    steam_sig.png
    Mr Ray
  • ZavianZavian universal peace sounds better than forever war Registered User regular
    personally I want to see more wacky supernatural events and animal kingdoms from CK2 finally make their appearance. While I love the historical stuff, the flavor quest lines and stories are what really enhance the RPG at the core of CK games IMO

    AxenShadowhopeGaddezFiatilRuldar
  • FiskebentFiskebent Registered User regular
    More events are definitely always welcome

    steam_sig.png
  • WotanAnubisWotanAnubis Registered User regular
    Fiskebent wrote: »
    The main things I like about the CK games are the systems that simulate history and also the interactions between people - which I guess has also been very important historically.

    I don't see grandeur and artifacts being as important, so I'm not really sold on that aspect of the expansion.

    The reworking of the culture system sounds great and I'm looking forward to playing with that.

    Pomp and circumstance are important parts of feudalism, I think. Pledging your allegiance to the crown is a lot more understandable if that crown is made of gold and set with jewels and its wearer lives in a grand palace. On the other hand, why would any vassal pledge their allegiance to a crown that doesn't actually exist and a king that lives in a shack?

    Status symbols are important and expensive shiny things are the most straightforward kind of status symbol.

    ElvenshaeFiatil
  • FiskebentFiskebent Registered User regular
    Fiskebent wrote: »
    The main things I like about the CK games are the systems that simulate history and also the interactions between people - which I guess has also been very important historically.

    I don't see grandeur and artifacts being as important, so I'm not really sold on that aspect of the expansion.

    The reworking of the culture system sounds great and I'm looking forward to playing with that.

    Pomp and circumstance are important parts of feudalism, I think. Pledging your allegiance to the crown is a lot more understandable if that crown is made of gold and set with jewels and its wearer lives in a grand palace. On the other hand, why would any vassal pledge their allegiance to a crown that doesn't actually exist and a king that lives in a shack?

    Status symbols are important and expensive shiny things are the most straightforward kind of status symbol.

    I agree. I just have a hard time seeing artifacts, and the ownership of them, playing a major part in history.

    One of the things I *really* like about CK3 is how I play a game in a region of the world and then go to Wikipedia and read about it. A lot of the things that happened in history are modeled in the game. Off the top of my head I can't recall anything from actual history revolving around artifacts.

    I'm not mad that they're putting it in there or anything. To me it just feels like it's an insignificant part of history and I worry a little that it'll get too prominent a spot in the game. But I'll keep an open mind and I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays. And maybe it'll lead me to wikipedia pages that showcase how artifacts were more important in history than I thought they were :)

    steam_sig.png
    Axen
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Fiskebent wrote: »
    Fiskebent wrote: »
    The main things I like about the CK games are the systems that simulate history and also the interactions between people - which I guess has also been very important historically.

    I don't see grandeur and artifacts being as important, so I'm not really sold on that aspect of the expansion.

    The reworking of the culture system sounds great and I'm looking forward to playing with that.

    Pomp and circumstance are important parts of feudalism, I think. Pledging your allegiance to the crown is a lot more understandable if that crown is made of gold and set with jewels and its wearer lives in a grand palace. On the other hand, why would any vassal pledge their allegiance to a crown that doesn't actually exist and a king that lives in a shack?

    Status symbols are important and expensive shiny things are the most straightforward kind of status symbol.

    I agree. I just have a hard time seeing artifacts, and the ownership of them, playing a major part in history.

    One of the things I *really* like about CK3 is how I play a game in a region of the world and then go to Wikipedia and read about it. A lot of the things that happened in history are modeled in the game. Off the top of my head I can't recall anything from actual history revolving around artifacts.

    I'm not mad that they're putting it in there or anything. To me it just feels like it's an insignificant part of history and I worry a little that it'll get too prominent a spot in the game. But I'll keep an open mind and I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays. And maybe it'll lead me to wikipedia pages that showcase how artifacts were more important in history than I thought they were :)

    Literal wars have been fought over relics. The medieval world was nuts for stuff owned by Jesus.

    Just heard a podcast about Sigurd III the Crusader (King of Norway 1103–1130) who led the Norwegian Crusade (1107–1110). One of the Big Things for his contemporaries was that he brought home a piece of the True Cross, a personal gift from the King of Crusader Jerusalem Baldwin I.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    FiskebentDracomicronElvenshaeFiatilGiantGeek2020Ruldar
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    Fiskebent wrote: »
    Fiskebent wrote: »
    The main things I like about the CK games are the systems that simulate history and also the interactions between people - which I guess has also been very important historically.

    I don't see grandeur and artifacts being as important, so I'm not really sold on that aspect of the expansion.

    The reworking of the culture system sounds great and I'm looking forward to playing with that.

    Pomp and circumstance are important parts of feudalism, I think. Pledging your allegiance to the crown is a lot more understandable if that crown is made of gold and set with jewels and its wearer lives in a grand palace. On the other hand, why would any vassal pledge their allegiance to a crown that doesn't actually exist and a king that lives in a shack?

    Status symbols are important and expensive shiny things are the most straightforward kind of status symbol.

    I agree. I just have a hard time seeing artifacts, and the ownership of them, playing a major part in history.

    One of the things I *really* like about CK3 is how I play a game in a region of the world and then go to Wikipedia and read about it. A lot of the things that happened in history are modeled in the game. Off the top of my head I can't recall anything from actual history revolving around artifacts.

    I'm not mad that they're putting it in there or anything. To me it just feels like it's an insignificant part of history and I worry a little that it'll get too prominent a spot in the game. But I'll keep an open mind and I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays. And maybe it'll lead me to wikipedia pages that showcase how artifacts were more important in history than I thought they were :)

    I remember in CK2 I was starting a new game and moving through the timeline an- wait what the fuck? Was that a Norse territory in the middle of friggin Turkey? Hold on what is this all about?

    So I looked it up and sure enough the ruler of the time hired some Viking mercenaries and gave them land. They set up a small piece of Nordic culture in the middle of Anatolia. Super neat!

    A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
    FiskebentElvenshaeMr RayGiantGeek2020stopgap
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Axen wrote: »
    Fiskebent wrote: »
    Fiskebent wrote: »
    The main things I like about the CK games are the systems that simulate history and also the interactions between people - which I guess has also been very important historically.

    I don't see grandeur and artifacts being as important, so I'm not really sold on that aspect of the expansion.

    The reworking of the culture system sounds great and I'm looking forward to playing with that.

    Pomp and circumstance are important parts of feudalism, I think. Pledging your allegiance to the crown is a lot more understandable if that crown is made of gold and set with jewels and its wearer lives in a grand palace. On the other hand, why would any vassal pledge their allegiance to a crown that doesn't actually exist and a king that lives in a shack?

    Status symbols are important and expensive shiny things are the most straightforward kind of status symbol.

    I agree. I just have a hard time seeing artifacts, and the ownership of them, playing a major part in history.

    One of the things I *really* like about CK3 is how I play a game in a region of the world and then go to Wikipedia and read about it. A lot of the things that happened in history are modeled in the game. Off the top of my head I can't recall anything from actual history revolving around artifacts.

    I'm not mad that they're putting it in there or anything. To me it just feels like it's an insignificant part of history and I worry a little that it'll get too prominent a spot in the game. But I'll keep an open mind and I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays. And maybe it'll lead me to wikipedia pages that showcase how artifacts were more important in history than I thought they were :)

    I remember in CK2 I was starting a new game and moving through the timeline an- wait what the fuck? Was that a Norse territory in the middle of friggin Turkey? Hold on what is this all about?

    So I looked it up and sure enough the ruler of the time hired some Viking mercenaries and gave them land. They set up a small piece of Nordic culture in the middle of Anatolia. Super neat!

    Nothing better then vassalizing your goons :)

    Elvenshae
  • FiskebentFiskebent Registered User regular
    edited November 24
    I remember being on vacation in Spain and realising that a lot of the place names that start with 'Al' have those names because they once spoke arabic in that area. I don't think I would have realised that without the CK games.

    Fiskebent on
    steam_sig.png
    WotanAnubisElvenshae
  • WotanAnubisWotanAnubis Registered User regular
    edited November 24
    Fiskebent wrote: »
    I remember being on vacation in Spain and realising that a lot of the place names that start with 'Al' have those names because they once spoke arabic in that area. I don't think I would have realised that without the CK games.

    Yeah. Growing up, I knew about the Reconquista of course, but I somehow never quite realized the Reconquista was only ever a thing because a large part of the Iberian peninsula had been under Muslim rule for literal centuries.

    Crusader Kings also really drives home the point that states are run by people. Fallible people. Who don't necessarily care about the greater good of whatever state they happen to be a part of.

    WotanAnubis on
    ElvenshaeFiskebentMr RayGiantGeek2020
  • SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    Got back into this game last night. It's still really good.

    Playing as the Irish Emperor of Britannia, tried to press a few claimant claims to random counties in France and Norway only to have the old geezer fucks keel over in the middle of the war, invalidating the casus belli. So went and found a young guy with a claim to a whole duchy in Norway and went after that. The CK3 AI did what it does and the kingdom of Aquitaine decided now was a good time to declare war for one French county they wanted. Kept my Men at Arms in Norway to finish sieging the castles I was claiming and shipped all the levies and knights down to France to fight them off. I was rusty so I ended up losing the first battle to them, so I hired a holy order (France is Muslim) and tried again. Somehow lost again, probably because they had their Men at Arms at the fight and mine were in Norway. So lost that French county but gained the whole Duchy in Norway.

    Later my ruler died and a faction forced me to grant the kingdom of Alba to a powerful vassal. Whatever, was probably going to have to do that eventually. Took part in a crusade in Lollard Germany, where the AI left my army out to dry and I got crushed but apparently did enough that my brother is now king of a Crusader kingdom over there. Hope that doesn't come back to bite me. The plan now is to get really pious and take France in a holy war. The king of France is a Muslim heretic, so he shouldn't get any help from other regular Muslims.

    WotanAnubisElvenshae
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    Fiskebent wrote: »
    The main things I like about the CK games are the systems that simulate history and also the interactions between people - which I guess has also been very important historically.

    I don't see grandeur and artifacts being as important, so I'm not really sold on that aspect of the expansion.

    The reworking of the culture system sounds great and I'm looking forward to playing with that.

    Pomp and circumstance are important parts of feudalism, I think. Pledging your allegiance to the crown is a lot more understandable if that crown is made of gold and set with jewels and its wearer lives in a grand palace. On the other hand, why would any vassal pledge their allegiance to a crown that doesn't actually exist and a king that lives in a shack?

    Status symbols are important and expensive shiny things are the most straightforward kind of status symbol.

    Yeah, and this goes back pretty much all through human history. In modern times we think of status symbols as being decadent but back in the day they were critical, because having shit as a king represented power - even if you were just nomadic barbarian raiders having nice things showed that you were at least good nomadic barbarian raiders.

    This is one reason the dothraki were so stupid (and lets be honest, the dothraki were SO FUCKING STUPID as a portrayal of anything).

    So the dothraki raid, but they don’t take anything from the people they raid but slaves and possibly basic food and supplies. Its said they leave behind armor and luxury goods, and even slaughter livestock and leave it to rot. Meanwhile dothraki warriors run around in horsehair pants with no shirts which is basically the real life steppe equivalent of hobo gear.

    So why is this stupid? Well lets day you are Khal Drogo and someone from another clan is impinging on your turf. You ride out to meet them with a group of warriors. At first you are going to go talk to them because why risk a conflict if you don’t have to, right (and if your first resort anytime there is friction is to have an all-out pitched battle to the death with thousands of warriors on each side… well you aren’t Orks, you are going to run out of warriors pretty quickly).

    So you go up, and you tell them “I am the great Khal Drogo, lord of the dothraki horde, you all need to fuck off somewhere else.” Here’s the thing… No one knows what you look like that hasn’t met you before. So no matter how badass your reputation is, you have to convince them you are who you are.

    So who are they going to take seriously? Khal Drogo and his band that are wearing badass armor they raided or traded for, gold chains, fancy well crafted bows and weapons (possibly with some decoration on them, even if it is just a well made leather scabbard with some jewels or fine braiding or whatever), awesome fancy well made saddles and colorful horse quilting, a big ass gold crown with jewels in it, etc? Or Khal Drogo and his band of warriors that are wearing shitty pants it looks like they made themselves at home, no shirts, no armor, and the same basic gear everyone else uses?

    This isn’t just a matter of showing off for ego, this is the kind of thing that might end up making the difference between having to fight or not, which could determine whether your people lived or died.

    Even in places where they didn’t have access to fancy metalwork or jewel crafting they still made an effort.

    WotanAnubisCorsini
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited November 24
    FWIW Dothraki measured that kind of thing through hair length/bells in hair, Martin did think about it a little.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    schuss
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited November 24
    FWIW Dothraki measured that kind of thing through hair length/bells in hair, Martin did think about it a little.

    Yeah but even that is really sparse by real life standards.

    If you ask the question “what did leaders of real life nomadic wear that didn’t have as much access to fancy metal or jewelled luxury goods (or silks, etc) you get something like this:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Red_Cloud.JPG

    Red Cloud of the Ogala

    Now this is obviously ceremonial and not everyday gear, but notice how elaborate and well made everything is? This is a guy whose people put a lot of effort into making sure he looked good to represent them. Not just something that is arbitrary like hair length or bells but something that actually had real life man (or woman)hours put into it because his people were proud and wanted their leader to be impressive.

    Jealous Deva on
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    “Oh Glorious Overlord please tell me you're not going to meet the defeated King in that?”

    “In what? My armor?”

    “You’re a Conqueror and this just screams hill folk! I'm thinking a polished breastplate with gold eagles inlayed.”

    "Oh can it have rubies!"

    "There is a fine line between impressive and gaudy my Overlord, let us not cross it. And what is that on your back?"

    "My fur cloak?"

    "Fur? What is it, rat fur? No, no, no! We need a grey wolf- no a white wolf pelt. It will bring out your eyes."

    A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
    Commander ZoomGiantGeek2020ElvenshaeRuldar
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Really not that far off reality of you loon up how intricate some rulers armors were

  • schussschuss Registered User regular
    Also they had that central sacred city place so they trued up accomplishments every year in general.

    Elvenshae
Sign In or Register to comment.