StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Figured we could probably get a constructive thread going.

Remarks: Crusader King's is probably a game I would never have paid for it if wasn't for the fact that registering for Deus Vult is required to get into tech support forums, and that I needed it for a multiplayer grand campaign going through all 4 games.

Otherwise I found the game so be at times so mind numblingly boring that I am surprised that I have never killed myself during a session, there are only TWO!!!!! Areas that you can play in and have an interesting time, somewhere in Russia and Byzantium.

Anywhere else you will need to have a tolerance of tedius thumb twidling and a hardon for eugenics and flow charts understanding how family trees work to actually have a good time only partially aliviated in multiplayer where you can take on you fucking frustrations on other players.

The game is not really a game, its one giant Dynastic Dark Age Europe history generator that can probably simulate a very decent and accurate dynamic of European history but was a game that aside from one or two play throughs I never found to be very fun and only did it because a) nerd cred, b) Pdox cred because simply participating in the First Great Game's CK era made me famous on the Pdox boards as part of the group of players who go through the entire 900+ year period and finally c) because EU was next inline and you need to play CK to setup your ahistorical start in EU.

If you really like the concept of controlling a ruling family/dynasty through the ages (which I kinda do) the concept is intellectually interesting in engaging but 90% of my fun in the game is actually the meta-game of writing my webcomic nation-tan AARs for it.

Counties: Boring never play one unless your a masochist or really like plotting the death of your virtual family members to raise to a duke level.

Dukes/Principalities: Arguably where the remaining fun in the game lies as you have decent goals, survival and elevation to King of whateverland.

King titles: Byzantium is the most fun and Germany the most nerve wracking (could be fun for some people), but mostly boring as expansion leads to a graphically intense game of whack a mole as you keep in line rebelling dukes with armies capable of crushing you.

Muslems: Almost all dissappear each playthough with humans, each game is not so much a question of "How do we beat Seljuks" but "How do we keep ourselves from beating Seljuks?"

Marriage/Eugenics: Very indepth with alot of nifty consequences I just wish you had some control over naming, as it is you can only sorta guide how it goes.

Other issues with the game, next post I'll work on UI what I didn't like and maybe with Spoonist we ca brainstorm what in CK-2 would be nice.

First things first, fix the gawddamn graphics, tabbing from the game fucks up my resolution that even rebooting doesn't fix.

You're Sid on the p-dox forums?

Things that make the game fun (for me):

-AARs: Writing long indepth make believe stories of interpreting your ingame clicking to epic tales of bravery and backstabbery which I do in the form of a webcomic series (currently in the process of making templates for the new game starting up in a few weeks) in Oots style.

Others tend to use dubbed over youtube videos or write short stories with quality ranging from Awesome (search for King of Men) and meh (search for the posts involving a badger fetish).

-Player Interaction: Gets really funny, with two players (Germany and Norway) playing a 2 session game of vassal sniping while they had non aggression pacts assassinating heirs and sick counts to force the line of succession to pass from one country to the other, hilarious.

-Wars goes without sayin'

-Playing in Russia or Byzantium

-roleplaying: the more we put in it the more immersive it becomes and the less coffee I need to stay awake.

Newest rule we introduced are immortals, basically the peanut gallery (forum posters watching but not playing and doing a whole lot of commenting) now get to have an avatar ingame, basically a person is creating from thin air with a name their desire as a comination of Immortal X the Y or X the Immortal etc.

They are given immortality (if their asassinated they are revived the week after via edit) and can through an AAR reward given a permament stats boost so after 400 years these individuals become godly.

The Immortals controllers can decide where they go and which player they help or hinder, they can also vote as a bloc to excommunicate a player who dows another player.

I'm currently seeing who I can bribe to stay in my camp atm. Whats useful about this is I can keep a few characters consistent through my aars (which i write week by week) allowing for a constant.

The Immortal idea is stupid, and most of the suggestions being thrown around in the mega-campaign thread equally so. Even if the time wasn't so completely awful I'd hesitate at this point to join.

I actually have very little to say about Crusader Kings. It has the same brain-dead AI of every Paradox game, and you need to be at least in the general proximity of non-Christian states so you don't die from boredom bashing down the same rebellious count a hundred times or waiting to get enough prestige to get a claim on a Christian province.

Frankly, it's also probably the worst of Paradox's games, except for maybe Rome and even though I prefer it to EU3. There's just not that much to it.

How can you consistently spell the name wrong if the box is right in from of you?

I found CK a really poor attempt at covering an interesting period where every system implemented to reflect the politics either does nothing or is cundersome and boring. It's so unnecesarily ugly and has such horrid AI there's no point to play it beyond 'wow I won again' and TW games do that better.

Some parts of the immortal idea are questionable but giving the peanut gallery some additional form of participation is genius as it a) gives them participation and b) makes them more willing subs later on and c) more willing perms later on.

The gist of having an immortal character named after you that you can put anywhere I feel adds a good deal of immersion.

Its kinda like naming your first seven dwarves in DF and protecting them, though more like watching a DF game someone else plays and having him name several dwarves after you and other people watching and choosing their profession and stuff.

Even if the time wasn't so completely awful I'd hesitate at this point to join.

The chances of godawful decisions decreases when the number of people objecting to them increases.

Blayne wrote:The gist of having an immortal character named after you that you can put anywhere I feel adds a good deal of immersion.

So a group of ageless, undying, itinerant ne'er-do-wells with the power to excommunicate the nobility of the European continent at will is your idea of immersion into the Middle Ages? Why should there even be any concern about observers? It's multiplayer, not an AAR.

The chances of godawful decisions decreases when the number of people objecting to them increases.

I doubt the word of someone fourteenth in line and with no interest in playing at the designated time will carry much weight. Beyond the regular core of players, though, I wouldn't put too much stock in the people posting. The CK forum has always been something of the short bus of the lot. Push the time slot up three or four hours and then we'll talk.

I say just play the game as-is and let things develop as they will. If someone conquers the whole continent in a century or two, so be it.

Or, better yet, just skip CK altogether and start in EU2 or FTG.

The game path is CK-EU3:HTTT-Victoria2-Hoi3

The excommunicate at will part is what I find questionable but doesn't effect me being Greek/Russian Orthodox.

of immersion into the Middle Ages?

Have you seen our AARs from the previous game? I and a few others seriously played the game from the perspective of time travelers from the future fighting out a time war to gain the preferable future and synched our aars accordingly.

Its not immersion in the Middle Ages its immersion in a fantasy ahistorical middle aged look alike.

"Why should there even be any concern about observers?"

Because the consensus is that it would be neat to include them some of them have been watching and commenting since the first Great Game 6 years ago, they deserve a bit of a reward.

"I doubt the word of someone fourteenth in line and with no interest in playing at the designated time will carry much weight."

In theory only a few of us I think actually have any real experiance with the game aside from a few play throughs, logical and rational argument would be considered and debating regardless if your a perm, sub, or peanut.

"Push the time slot up three or four hours and then we'll talk. "

Maybe the Sunday slot might work for you, that ones time is more flexible.

"I say just play the game as-is and let things develop as they will. If someone conquers the whole continent in a century or two, so be it."

The closest was Fasquardon when he commited a vile mating ritual with mongols and gained their gawdawful bonuses. However logistics, diplomacy, and the uncertainty of his own allies prevented him from going on a possible rampage.

Generally though none of us are powergamey enough to try a WC this early, hegemony is one thing but BoP politics while broken between a small sample size do kinda work.

When one nation becomes strong enough to threaten the rest the rest will band together to stop, contain and rollback to restore the system to a equilibrium.

Blayne wrote:The game path is CK-EU3:HTTT-Victoria2-Hoi3

I know, and I think that's stupid as well. Besides EU3 and HoI3 completely blowing, Vicky 2 isn't even out yet.

Its not immersion in the Middle Ages its immersion in a fantasy ahistorical middle aged look alike.

With undying supermen?

Because the consensus is that it would be neat to include them some of them have been watching and commenting since the first Great Game 6 years ago, they deserve a bit of a reward.

I'll repeat: why?

Maybe the Sunday slot might work for you, that ones time is more flexible.

Flexible by three or four hours? Of course, I'm also not going to waste my money on crap like EU3 and HoI3, so it's probably a moot point.

"I say just play the game as-is and let things develop as they will. If someone conquers the whole continent in a century or two, so be it."

The closest was Fasquardon when he commited a vile mating ritual with mongols and gained their gawdawful bonuses. However logistics, diplomacy, and the uncertainty of his own allies prevented him from going on a possible rampage.

[/quote]

Then you shouldn't be fiddling with fundamental rules of the game.

Gods I wish there was a "respond to individual quotes" button.

1. We suspect that Victoria 2 will be released (and patched) by the time we finish 400 years of crusader kings which ranks below victoria in stability.

1. b) I like Hoi3 better then Hoi2 because it has more provinces and most of us have decent computers so lag isn't an issue, also EU3 is arguably better then EU2 or at least much more gameplay features and customability that are far more useable for an ahistorical grand campaign (since the events are dynamic and not country specific).

2. Why not? Rule of fun and doesn't really effect gameplay except to have a bunch of Highlanders wandering around and benefits me to have Rasputin and Koschei.

3. Why not and rule of fun.

4. "I say just play the game as-is and let things develop as they will. If someone conquers the whole continent in a century or two, so be it."

Relevent how? I already said that WC is unlikely in a mp game with a full roster and a longterm game mentality.

5. What fundamental rules! None exist! House rules exist because whatever basic rules that do exist aren't sufficient.

Thankyou for providing a link so that we can figure out WTF you are arguing over...

You sarcasm has been rewarded:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/sho ... p?t=458067

Of course assuming you haven't played Crusader King's you probably won't understand but the gist of it is that we already in theory played through two whol grand campaigns through every single paradox game (CK-EU-Vic-Hoi) twice over and each time we discuss the house rules and adjust them accordingly to provide either more balance, flavour, fun or a combination.

TC Pilot however is just sniping snidely from another forum where only I presumably can see his comments presumably because he's unable to join because of a) the timezone doesn't suit him and b) because the slots are already taken up by either regulars from the previous 6 years of games who have proven reliability and thus given precedent and c) feels that the house rules and modding have gotten out of control.

I am not impressed, as complaining about a social group doing their own private activities who do so on a completely different public I might add forum community when you have every ability to raise concerns there and not here doesn't seem very constructive and kinda off topic.

Blayne wrote:Gods I wish there was a "respond to individual quotes" button.

There is.

2. Why not? Rule of fun and doesn't really effect gameplay except to have a bunch of Highlanders wandering around and benefits me to have Rasputin and Koschei.

So you're "reward" for loyal fans is to give them something worthless?

5. What fundamental rules!

Troop recruitment, province tax, war declaration, events, provinces-per-kingdom, playable countries, etc. You know, all that rampant modding your GM is trying to push through.

"There is."

*Jedi mind trick* you will show me.

"So you're "reward" for loyal fans is to give them something worthless? "

Its like the AAR rewards and ontime cookies, they are treats, something fun, something nice and puts their foot in the door.

"Troop recruitment, province tax, war declaration, events, provinces-per-kingdom, playable countries, etc. You know, all that rampant modding your GM is trying to push through."

Thats nothing fundamental, we found that armies were extremely large and wars cumbersome and always TO THE DEATH and that even the poorest nations could accumilate an absurd amount of gold.

Not that I have my own objections to some of the proposals though and I am beginning to feel that it is starting to get out of hand.

Blayne wrote:*Jedi mind trick* you will show me.

Well, first off, you could just write [*quote*] [*/quote*] minus the * signs.

There's also a "Quote" button on the list of forum functions in the reply screen.

Did you suddenly suffer amnesia since you got HoSed?

Does aren't convenient and still require either alot of copypasting or editing of existing tags, either of which gets frustrating when responding to 3000 word essay sized posts.

Blayne wrote:Does aren't convenient and still require either alot of copypasting or editing of existing tags, either of which gets frustrating when responding to 3000 word essay sized posts.

Or you could just highlight the desired text and click the "Quote" button, like I said. So either you're pathetically lazy or too stupid to read.

Jesus Christ. This "I am too dumb to find the quote function" really takes the cake.

The rest of this thread better be composed of rational arguing instead of your usual dishonest debate tactics, Blayne, or I will dump it in the HoS and advocate your immediate banning due to your rampant stupidity.

I never had dishonest debating tactics, and there's plenty of rational arguing here and good job ignoring my statements.

Blayne wrote:I never had dishonest debating tactics, and there's plenty of rational arguing here and good job ignoring my statements.

Your statements would be a lot easier to read and harder to ignore if you used the frickin' quote tags properly. When you're typing up a post in response to an existing thread, just go down to the darn summary window (the one below your text interface), highlight what you want to respond to, and then hit the "quote" button to the top right of the damn window. You can also use the copy-paste "trick" that was pointed out to you, earlier, and that the rest of us old-timers have used since the Stone Age to make our posts legible.

I don't advocate banning people for idiocy, but if your level of discourse doesn't rise above "I'm too lazy to have this conversation at anything approaching board standards" then you should be getting a very special custom title.

Master of Ossus wrote:
I don't advocate banning people for idiocy, but if your level of discourse doesn't rise above "I'm too lazy to have this conversation at anything approaching board standards" then you should be getting a very special custom title.

He already has one.

Master of Ossus wrote:

Blayne wrote:I never had dishonest debating tactics, and there's plenty of rational arguing here and good job ignoring my statements.

Your statements would be a lot easier to read and harder to ignore if you used the frickin' quote tags properly. When you're typing up a post in response to an existing thread, just go down to the darn summary window (the one below your text interface), highlight what you want to respond to, and then hit the "quote" button to the top right of the damn window. You can also use the copy-paste "trick" that was pointed out to you, earlier, and that the rest of us old-timers have used since the Stone Age to make our posts legible.

I don't advocate banning people for idiocy, but if your level of discourse doesn't rise above "I'm too lazy to have this conversation at anything approaching board standards" then you should be getting a very special custom title.

When I'm spending close to an hour writing a response to someones mega post and spent 15 minutes setting all the tags I thought at the time I would be given a little leeway for when I don't use quote tags for the whole thing, especially when some paragraphs have to be broken up into several smaller bits to properly respond to, so far I've been trying to use quote tags predominantly but sometimes I don't use them its a judgement call I thought I could make depending on context and the size of the post. Didn't know it was a board standard that I had to follow absolutely, I will be more careful in the future.

Nobody else gets any slack on that, so why should you?

Blayne wrote:I never had dishonest debating tactics,

A quick read through your massive stonewalling in the other threads says otherwise. You are the reason those threads of yours end up in the HoS all the time. You. Not Coffee, not Stark, not me, not the magical tooth fairy, you.

and there's plenty of rational arguing here and good job ignoring my statements.

Be sure to tell you that, I am sure wishing it will make it so. After all, wishes are magical.

Edi wrote:Nobody else gets any slack on that, so why should you?

I dunno, I never seen anyone get slack or not get slack, how would I know? The rules certainly don't say anything about it, nor could I find a link on "board standards" separate from the rules. Since it seems to be something I should be following I will go through the effort to meet these requirements.