Latest topics
» Match proposal format - please read
by Blead Bloodaxe Mon May 15, 2017 9:23 pm

» God morgon.
by Valtýr Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:30 am

» Vikingr-mod
by Grytvarg Mon Dec 02, 2013 12:42 am

» Rome:TW latest addon for free until the 29th of November
by Amon Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:37 pm

» Europa Universalis IV
by Erilaz Sun Oct 06, 2013 12:32 pm

» Application by Fiducia
by Varsung Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:03 pm

» VERY IMPORTANT NEWS
by Blead Bloodaxe Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:03 pm

» Eirik Raude's application
by Broomstick Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:56 pm

» Sacratus application
by Blead Bloodaxe Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:16 am

September 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Calendar Calendar


Rule discussion thread

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Rule discussion thread

Post  Jur on Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:54 am

Gule wrote:I agree to all the rules except rule "g", I can't see how that rule can lead to anything but confusion and annoying arguments, and I therefore think it should be excluded until we have played at least one session together. After that, we may decide upon which specific mechanics are allowed and which are not.

Take this into advicement, if you all still think the rules should be left unchanged I will simply have to agree with them all as well.

I will be playing as ...

I agree with you on the g) rule


Last edited by Jur on Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:01 pm; edited 2 times in total
avatar
Jur
Admin

Posts : 671
Join date : 2011-09-09

View user profile http://einherjarshieldings.forumr.net

Back to top Go down

Rule G thread

Post  Harkon on Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:54 am

The g) rule is necessary and mostly common-sense. Refer to issues that me and Amon discussed in the other Crusader Kings II thread for examples.

But of course, I'm sure exact details will be given after we all get to test the release version.

Amon cryed that he want's "offtopic" in the other thread. So my and this posts were moved from Sing up thread.With reagards Jur
avatar
Harkon
Muted

Posts : 881
Join date : 2011-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Krax on Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:17 pm

you allways need that rule when Jur and harkon is playing.... if i where playing he prolly have one about bots too...
avatar
Krax

Posts : 441
Join date : 2011-09-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Harkon on Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:25 pm

Krax wrote:you allways need that rule when Jur and harkon is playing....


Laughing
avatar
Harkon
Muted

Posts : 881
Join date : 2011-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Jur on Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:41 am

Harkon wrote:
Krax wrote:you allways need that rule when Jur and harkon is playing....


Laughing
avatar
Jur
Admin

Posts : 671
Join date : 2011-09-09

View user profile http://einherjarshieldings.forumr.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Amon on Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:45 am

Rule G is against exploiting. I dont see an issue here. We dont need to test all the exploits to see that they are exploits.

So for instance they didnt change squat about Merc mechanics. So in this case the exploit will be prevented by:
1. One mercenary band of any type at any given time per ruler maximum.
2. Mercs must be in one of your provinces before you start a war.

Marriages
Matrilinial marriages are only allowed for women of noble birth. Like in history.
avatar
Amon
You never get to pick your own rank
You never get to pick your own rank

Posts : 398
Join date : 2011-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Harkon on Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:58 am

Oh boy, Jur somehow posted a gif that does sound in a forum... Sad

Trolliest admin ever, bad Jur!
avatar
Harkon
Muted

Posts : 881
Join date : 2011-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Jur on Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:21 am

I work day and night to keep this forum running,organized,user firedly,stoping amon from deleting all people post that are a little offtopic and this are the thanks that I get???? confused
avatar
Jur
Admin

Posts : 671
Join date : 2011-09-09

View user profile http://einherjarshieldings.forumr.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Amon on Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:34 am

Rule G clearified even more. Those things listed are real issues, test them in singleplayer if you dont believe me.

Some mechanics are simply unbalanced as of yet. Think of Rhodok xbow spam. The Enherjar&Shieldings never lowered themselves to that level of easy mode.

EDIT:

One of the other multiplayer games even dissallows assasination of members of a player dynasty completely. It is simply too easy to kill off like father + son and end the game for a particular player. Hmm maybe I am still to lenient!
avatar
Amon
You never get to pick your own rank
You never get to pick your own rank

Posts : 398
Join date : 2011-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

test

Post  Lord_T on Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:33 pm

If you are like godnoken... You can just launch the Crusade Kings 2 launcher and update the game from there.

With the new patch I suppose we could fix the rules a little bit?


EDIT BY AMON

The signup thread is not for discussion. We have this one for that. Downloading via launcher or direct link is the same, the launcher helps you click on the link...that is all.
avatar
Lord_T
Fake Jarl

Posts : 522
Join date : 2011-09-12
Age : 22
Location : Infront of the computer

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Amon on Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:06 pm

We can probably drop the merc and matrilinial marriage rules. Depends on how well the changes work.

I am glad Paradox saw these issues for what they were. We haven't discussed the assasinations though.


Shall player character or player dynasty or player court assasination be limited in any way? Have you guys tried the assasination feature?
avatar
Amon
You never get to pick your own rank
You never get to pick your own rank

Posts : 398
Join date : 2011-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Barabas on Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:18 pm

I have not really tried assasination outside the 'plot' feature. I did a few times, but it all failed because my court is full of nubs. Neutral
avatar
Barabas

Posts : 49
Join date : 2012-02-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Amon on Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:41 pm

I guess it is best to refrain from player family assasination. Especially since we dont start on the same terms and a rich player could kill off multiple others whithout too much hassle and cost .

Let's limit player character/family assasination to plots. Plots are a balanced game feature and you as player have some influence on how hard it will be to kill you. Unlike the arbitary assasination for 50 gold.
avatar
Amon
You never get to pick your own rank
You never get to pick your own rank

Posts : 398
Join date : 2011-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Barabas on Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:55 pm

Sounds good!
avatar
Barabas

Posts : 49
Join date : 2012-02-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Amon on Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:00 pm

After me and Lord T being subjected to spamassasination by the AI I can say for my part that I am glad we dissallow players to do it. Sometimes the perpetrator is send to jail, but he can buy himself out again or dont get into jail at all if independant.

So I guess we keep the no assasination of player family thing in. Especially after seeing how frustrating the Game over for Bas and Corsair have been yesterday.

About the mercs. After testing the new cost (+25%) and efficiency of them I agree we can drop the rule. Especially if looking at an Jihad army of levy with 6000 elite troops I see now that you need to be able to muster more. The problem of snatching the cheapest stacks for 75 all away by 1-2 people is persistant though. In my eyes the 75 ducat mercs are still the best and between me and lord T we have two of them and one stack of 130 (2250 soldiers). Otherwise we couldnt match the french armies after both loosing our levy and some merc armies before. Still since we both deplete those mercs atm others wont be able to get them in full strength.

Thoughts?

avatar
Amon
You never get to pick your own rank
You never get to pick your own rank

Posts : 398
Join date : 2011-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Barabas on Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:55 pm

I can see how one could abuse the system by buying all 75 cost ones instead of one 350, so the other one can't buy them. Plus I think it's better to have multiple regiments in one army instead of a signle huge one.

But generally it's ok to use mercs. And most of the time you have to, even against the AI, cause he too will use them.
avatar
Barabas

Posts : 49
Join date : 2012-02-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Jur on Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:11 pm

I haven't played with you but it sounds logical that there is not enough merc for all. But can you afford to have so much mercs for a long time?
avatar
Jur
Admin

Posts : 671
Join date : 2011-09-09

View user profile http://einherjarshieldings.forumr.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Amon on Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:48 pm

I get a rediculously big warchest just for that and try to use the same mercs in 2-3 wars so their initial pay is worked for.

The upkeep is very steep. Thus you have to overpower your enemies main army as soon as possible to be able to reduce forces. I do that with a combination of levy and mercs. The cheap mercs are better suited for sieging than battle - exactly like early levy which has too much weak troops.

Heavy troops really make a difference in battle. Cheap mercs dont have much cav which is important there.
avatar
Amon
You never get to pick your own rank
You never get to pick your own rank

Posts : 398
Join date : 2011-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Amon on Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:10 pm

Changed the rules to reflect our recent findings. In case you dont like something about them feel free to discuss here.
avatar
Amon
You never get to pick your own rank
You never get to pick your own rank

Posts : 398
Join date : 2011-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Fennris on Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:59 pm

About "No assasination of player character families. Includes player character, spouse, kids AND THE HEIR."

Is this limited to character, spouse and heir only, or is it the entire dynasty?

I would agree to only character, spouse and heir, but disagree with entire dynasty.

Fennris

Posts : 55
Join date : 2011-11-17
Age : 26
Location : The mighty Kingdom of Denmark

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Barabas on Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:28 pm

I'm not sure about the assasination thing...
Spam-assasination definitly not, but not at all? I also see no reason to disallow assasination of the spouse. You can easily get a new one and it doesn't affect your dynasty. (apart from a slight delay in making even more kids)
avatar
Barabas

Posts : 49
Join date : 2012-02-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Fennris on Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:07 pm

Barabas wrote:I'm not sure about the assasination thing...
Spam-assasination definitly not, but not at all? I also see no reason to disallow assasination of the spouse. You can easily get a new one and it doesn't affect your dynasty. (apart from a slight delay in making even more kids)

If your character is really old and might die soon it can be a problem, but else I agree.

Fennris

Posts : 55
Join date : 2011-11-17
Age : 26
Location : The mighty Kingdom of Denmark

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Amon on Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:36 pm

I have found a way to exploit the invite a claimant mechanic. You can invite even close relatives like the brother of another ruler as long as they are UNLANDED. You then can press his/her claims.

This is how it is supposed to work. Family member left without land heading for foreign rulers to be instated as rulers of their own.



However since we humans actually have plans for those landless relatives this is a very strong mechanic. It can be prevented by granting land, but that has other limitations like loosing control over said character (eg marriage).

This is even more powerful since you can marry your courtiers to whoever you want without them having a say. You can do this matrilinially as well. Thus you can incorperate these claims into your own dynasty. You can also imprison and kill said courtier in many ways.

I think that no one but the most hopelessly disinherited who came to your court looking for help to press his claims would agree to such a marriage. Or to such a state in general.


What do you guys think about this? In my opinion that mechanic is too strong, especially with regard to the marriage part. Yesterday I couldve gained claims on all of Erilaz land and incorporate it into my dynasty, exactly how he does it marrying my daughters at the moment....wait a minute...
avatar
Amon
You never get to pick your own rank
You never get to pick your own rank

Posts : 398
Join date : 2011-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Erilaz on Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:27 pm

Yes, I think we should leave each other's close relatives be, just like not assassinating them. I'm not sure whether we should be able to invite them to court, but marrying them off matrilinially afterwards is just wrong.

In my case, Amon took my only brother and heir before I had chosen a bride for him - I always wait with giving land (if I ever do) until after I've chosen a bride for the family member. Luckily Amon agreed to marry him regularly to his daughter, and we might be able to come to an agreement where I can get him back.

About the marriage to your daughters, Amon, those were not suggested with any malicious thoughts in mind - rather, I wanted an alliance with you, making sure we could help each other in times of need and not fight over the scraps of northern Italy. Also, I try to keep as far away from inbreeding as possible, thus making my choice of eligible and favourable brides slimmer. Your daughters were the highest ranking eligible brides for me, when using the "bride-search."
avatar
Erilaz

Posts : 65
Join date : 2011-10-20
Age : 27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Amon on Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:47 pm

I would never accuse you of malignent intentions my (2nd) dearest (out of 7) son in law!

I know your intentions are pure and so are mine. Now hand me over your land and enlist with the holy church!


Last edited by Amon on Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Amon
You never get to pick your own rank
You never get to pick your own rank

Posts : 398
Join date : 2011-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule discussion thread

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum