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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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!
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.
+2
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
Looks like we finally have a release date for Royal Court: February 8th.
+2
Zavianuniversal peace sounds better than forever warRegistered Userregular
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.
+1
Zavianuniversal peace sounds better than forever warRegistered Userregular
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
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.
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
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.
+7
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
0
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
“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.
I'll be honest, I don't care about modding. I care about this.
Same-Sex Marriage
Coming with 1.5 is support for same-sex marriage, not only just in mods either but as a new game rule alongside the Same-Sex relations game rule so you can use it in un-modded games too. We've updated a variety of AI logic and interactions and content to take that into account when playing.
Mods are of course able to implement this into their different worlds without it having to be a game rule, it can be based on different cultures or anything in the game world at all.
This is something that we’re very happy to be able to put into the game and have support in the game rules for unmodded games too, it is something that a lot of the team and community wanted and we are glad it is finally going to be shipped in 1.5.
The only question remains - if I set up the rules so that the majority of the world is queer and same-sex marriage is a thing, do I still need to make my own religion where that's all allowed, or will I end up with a world full of openly gay Catholics? I'm gonna guess I'll have to set up my own faith, but we'll see.
They could tie acceptance to the sexuality/gender/religious acceptance options like they do for relationships or female leaders, so you can toggle a setting that makes everyone just automatically ok with it, but in default settings probably need to create/reform a religion, or just live with excommunication (you can already do just about whatever regardless of your religion as long as you don't need to beg money off the pope or something).
But what really stood out to me here is how custom characters are used. You can create one and still get achievements. But you don't have to play as the one you created. Instead you can just take your greatest nemesis and replace them with a complete failure of a person to make the game a little easier on yourself. Feels like kind of an exploit, but it does work.
Posts
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.
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.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
Unless your only child mysteriously dies and now Random McFuckstick (who, interestingly, seems to have the "familial kinslayer" secret...) inherits.
I know right! It's like, "Jesus! How lazy can you be!?"
That's when the ability to renounce celibacy in CK3 becomes handy. Then take it up again when you have a new heir.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
My first reaction was "what kind of game of thrones shit is this?"
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.
https://crusaderblade.itch.io/crusaderblade
Wondering if this actually works, etc.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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."
I'll be honest, I don't care about modding. I care about this.
The only question remains - if I set up the rules so that the majority of the world is queer and same-sex marriage is a thing, do I still need to make my own religion where that's all allowed, or will I end up with a world full of openly gay Catholics? I'm gonna guess I'll have to set up my own faith, but we'll see.
But what really stood out to me here is how custom characters are used. You can create one and still get achievements. But you don't have to play as the one you created. Instead you can just take your greatest nemesis and replace them with a complete failure of a person to make the game a little easier on yourself. Feels like kind of an exploit, but it does work.