Inheritance and educator shenanigans aside. How historically accurate is this game?

Fuck, that sounds way more interesting than CK2's strict vassalage.

In short there weren't really countries in the modern sense just people and families owning stuff and having all sorts of oaths and pacts with each other regarding those posessed lands.

how can you put that in place gameplay wise though

OP, no game can be accurate in any subject. Never. Because games are.interested in entertainment and not history or science or math. The other main reason is balance, you need characters to offer a proper challenge , if one is overpowered then you'll have players claiming "nerf X now!!" "The game is broken!!" and it won't matter if it's accurate.

Reality cannot be put in a game, the gaming mechanic simply won't allow it. Even game lore cannot be applied because it breaks game balance.

Giving you the option to collect taxes from someone owning your de jure lands and not your direct vassal, with war as an option if they refuse.
First, like a decision, send your demands to the king of England, if they accept they pay taxes for any French holdings, and levy too. If they refuse you get a casus belli.

very accurate

I might say something stupid, but wouldn't the game have serious issues with lag? Every character would have decisions making the game super slow. Kinda like late-game with the byzantines

>For example in Eastern Europe every nobleman and city was (on paper at least) the vassal of the king, there was no feudal chain of command.
>there was no feudal chain of command.

So this is the power of Veeky Forums. This one comment invalidates the integrity of this entire board, and certainly this thread.

That might be an issue, so just get rid of India

>someone dies
>"Don't bother me with such details!"
Love it. The show must go on.

Very

This, along with masochists
>Daughter
>Daughter
>Daughter
>Daughter
>Daughter
>Gay son
>Daughter

>Joke-DLC about unbelievable Alt-History is ahistoric
Colour me surprised.

I want off Kaiser Bones Wild Tourney

I would say the book marks are decent starting points for "who's who" of any given period.

I also wonder about that. Wouldn't that make it an absolute monarchy or something?

CK2 is the least historical of any paradox games, including stellaris. It steers from the path of history in just few months. It has no mechanics able to facilitate the historical developements that took place.

They should have made it more realm-based, rather than focusing on the dynastic aspects (aka kinslaying simulator). In that era everyone is tied to land, from nobles who name themselves after their origins to lowly serfs. Blood and lineages only have a meaning insofar as it's related to land, economy and power.

I don't know EU III and now IV are pretty bad. EUIII ended way too often with massive blobbing and now IV either does the same or stagnates in the starting positions. I haven't played in a month or two, but after the one update the ottomans never went past like 5 provinces.

CK2 is where the "believable worlds" meme started, IIRC.

Absolute monarchies still had subordinates, the highest ranking noble just didn't have restrictions on authority.

>including stellaris

It's simply the most realistic simulator out there bar none.

So what is the most accurate Paradox game?

For the Glory

>They should have made it more realm-based, rather than focusing on the dynastic aspects (aka kinslaying simulator). In that era everyone is tied to land, from nobles who name themselves after their origins to lowly serfs. Blood and lineages only have a meaning insofar as it's related to land, economy and power.
>>>
> Anonymous 02/08/18(Thu)10:18:02 No.4106719▶
>
Stellaris, but we're an uncontacted species

Had the same fucking glitch twice. It was around the Old Gods.

Fucking Paradox. They release overpriced DLCs, yet completely neglect most obvious bugs for months to no end.

It was good, but as the DLC's just kept coming the game turned into a LARP rpg rather than a simulator. Makes it more entertaining - if you find disappointment and shenanigans entertaining - but took away the realism. hit it right on the head: the vast distances people go to marry one another in-game almost never happened historically.

At the start of this campaign, I will say that nothing but sheer political conniving and intrigue saved my nation from this war. So many Islamic hordes unified against me that it took the Roman Empire to save my ass

It was always meant to be a LARP rpg

If anything, the newer plague and council dlc and patches have done a lot of constrain lords and dynasties, making the game a lot more realistic. Still, its a far cry from the medieval europe do they highly simplified vassalage system and the vertical count duke king arrangement of nobility

It's a great game but you need to play it with half the DLCs disabled. The magic one and especially the Aztec shit for example.

All right
I have a challenge for yall
Come up with a semi historical way to play theologies while keeping the dynastic gameplay somewhat intact

theocracies*

Anyone who defends the sunset inavsion is a fucking shill
Also fuck paradoxs dlc policy

Thank you based grammaticaly correct user

Well don't blame me, I never bought a single Paradox game ever. I'm not that dumb.

just doing my job B)

It's "Baby's First HRTS", honestly.

It's a game. You can only have so much structure and coherency for entertainment's sake before you might as well be writing an outright educational walkthrough of a period.

It makes many assumptions about the systems in place for the 'countries' of the period.

That said, fuck yeah it's fun to rise your way to King of England and conquer not just the potatoniggers but all the cultures from the turkroaches to the frog people of Calais. 9/10 breddy goo

You can disable those in game nowadays.

its bizarre how CK2 has the least flavour out of any paradox game

starting as a duke in Kiev and Galway feel exacly the same.

None of your points is true, tho. The English king IS still a vassal of the French, but only when acting as duke of Normandy: It is the laws the French kings have chosen that apply in Normandy, not the laws passed in England, so it is not true that all your holdings are considered part of your kingdom.

Theologies are unplayable, the best you can do is make a new government type under "feudalism" that can only hold temples, then give it something like seniority or heir designation to get round the inheritance thing.

>two christian dukes play similarly!
Try playing as a musilm, a tribal, or a nomad. Very different playstyles.

Honestly, from a balance perspective, the Ottomans seriously needed a nerf and they got the most reasonable one to where they're still powerful enough to be relevant, but not overwhelmingly so to the point where they own the Mediterranean and the Middle East, but large parts of Europe and Australia.

>꧁꧂

you genocide other religions. Not convert, but literally scorch the earth, make them revolt, kill their soldiers, scoure their coutnries etc.

I would say Hearts of Iron series, because they focus on just WW2, and a timescale that includes just the 1930s and 40s (maybe the early 50s too, but that would be end-game stuff).

Prove me wrong, etc etc

You play as something of an order, let’s say comprising of 3 families from which you can acquire bishops, women and other men can marry and hold titles if elegible.
Titles are elective, you need to curry the favour of king and head of religion to increase the chances of you or someone in your family/order inheriting a bishopric or even the papacy.
Head of the order goes sort of like seniority/republican election.

But you can't play as a bishop by any means, its hardcoded out, so if your heir is a priest its game over.

What would be the bonus for becoming the head of the holy order?
Could you say, branch off of the holy order and found a new one if you where not head of the order?
Can the king of a area said holy order operates in do a mass lynch like the king of framce did to the knights templar?
What would the type of buffs would playing a holy order give you when compared to feudalism? Nomad style retinues?

Only marginally, but it's meant more for shenanigans than accuracy. I particularly like advancing obscure religions, pic related. In this run the Catholic church's authority dropped down to 0 early in the game. Heresies have broken out to the point where there are more Waldensian and Cathar provinces then Catholic, hence the deliciously autistic borders in Western Europe.

>expanding westward instead of eastward
>destroying catholicism instead of letting it build up so you can destroy it in a series of great holy wars
pleb

I don't think you read the post that user made. You basically repeated what he said.

It just felt wrong to turn on my Slavic brothers. Had control of Lithuania at for a while but that branch of the family converted to Catholicism, so I had to deal with them.

I like it this way, crusades aren't a problem.

Your not turning on your slavic brothers. You're protecting them from the Catholic and Tengri horse lord threats. Kiev(Base Game's called Ruthenia) and Rus are fucking plagued by nordic shitlords and Tengri horse fuckers. Become the protector of the slavs and their slavic faith. I'm currently doing it as a Turov Russian Empire.

>Rus are fucking plagued by nordic shitlords and Tengri horse fuckers
Kek, if they ever manage to make any real gains they'll just be easier targets. Meanwhile I just wrested Hungary and most of Romania and Bulgaria from the Tengri and the Nords are still nowhere near having their shit together..

>What would be the bonus for becoming the head of the holy order?
Opinion boost with all order members and head of religion, piety boost and all bishops from the order pay taxes to you instead of say, only those in your family.
>Could you say, branch off of the holy order and found a new one if you where not head of the order?
Possibly, though it would cost either/both prestige and piety and the head wouldn’t like it, it’s be like a patrician declaring his own independent Republic
>Can the king of a area said holy order operates in do a mass lynch like the king of framce did to the knights templar?
It could be a risk, seizing the wealth of your bishoprics and monasteries, he’d anger the pope possibly, and you’d get a chance to go to war against said king. One of the order things would be to be in several kingdoms.
>What would the type of buffs would playing a holy order give you when compared to feudalism? Nomad style retinues?
Chance to acquire a military Holy order, like the templars, if you become Pope then you get excommunion and crusade powers, you can work as a bank, loaning and collecting interest or helping a pious in his war against infidels or the less pious, maybe get the chance to join a king in war in exchange for someone of your order getting any conquered bishoprics.

Depending on the opinion difference that your bishops have of you and the Pope you both gain proportional amounts of gold, Pope may not like it if you get much more money than him. If your bishops like a king more than the pope they automatically pay most of their tax to the king. You could possible get the chance to become anti-pope or swear allegiance to one. Go full heretic and be the head of some heresy. Support, through decisions and whatnot, a realm’s distancing from the pope to the point of schism.

The church did a lot of stuff during medieval times, but as the other user said, it’s hard coded and might be too heavy to implement most changes.

Explain what's wrong. He should be right in some cases, or you just don't like generalization(every) or EE in medieval period?

You can adopt someone to be your heir and they would become part of your dynasty, theocracies would also work like republics but you spend piety instead of gold to get your heir elected

Can someone explain cadet dynasties to me? People seem to have a weird boner over them when it comes to seeing them implemented in Ck2.

A cadet branch is a line descended from the younger sons of a lord in primogeniture succession. To make it work in CKII they'd have to redo the whole system. Personally if I were a dev I'd think it's more trouble than it's worth.

For example
Philippe IV was king of France of the Capet dynasty
He had a younger brother, Charles duke of Valois
After Philippe’s three sons died without issue, all of them being kings, his nephew, Philippe duke of Valois, was elected king
Still a Capet, but from the Valois branch, he ruled as Philippe VI

The Capets have a lot of cadet branches, the current king of Spain is from the Bourbon branch of the Capet dynasty.

the existence of that dlc is a thorn in my eye

>Black, Breton, Yezidi, Roman Emperor

Playing as a republic and buying church offices for your extra sons is the most historically accurate part of the game.

That gate to hell event is actually derived from a real place in turkey I think.
Its basically a hole in the ground filled with natural gas which is constantly ignited so it looks like a literal portal to hell.

How historically accurate is this game?

It's already been nerfed since the latest patch

Pretty much this. The same reason people complaining about Ottoman being OP in eu4.

Generally getting better. Sometimes Paradox fucks up something and you get Otto's being overrun by the Mamluk's every game but the dynamic event system and missions nudge things in the right direction. Everything is very simplified, though, especially the HRE.

I do miss Long Korea, though.

Long Korea?

There was a perfect storm of AI priorities in EU3 that resulted in Korea taking a thin strip of provinces from steppe nomads and using that to reach all the way across Asia and contact Europe in order to westernize. Presumably any country in Asia could do that, but the strength of non-nomad countries meant that only China and Korea had a real chance at it, and China prioritized internal development.

Pretty bad unless you MEIOU

I know of a place like that in Uzbekistan but it was ignited by scientists in the 20th century

t. never played earlier games

this the problem, stupid retards whining and "costumer always right" retarded american attitude changes the game to earn more shekels, fucking annoying

holy shit

Latest update fixed that. Now you have a decade after giving one of your children a title to arrange a marriage for them, or you can still let them find someone on their own.

IMO, I don't know how historically accurate mechanics in the game are, but it, EU4 and Vicky 2 can make you appreciate why certain rulers and countries made decisions they did.

How exactly?

Yeah, but they don't sacrifice cows and it stops do they?

That map is Eu3 in a nutshell
>Ottomans die in the 1400s because Venice/Castille
>France gets messy because Burgundy
>Austria/Bohemia expands into poland and farther
>Hansa colonies over the whole world
>When Russia eventually makes it east, it gets fucked with constant rebellions after one war
>Every country has some weirdly placed colony in the Americas

CK2 is pretty fun. Almost 1000h on it

Exactly. And for example Hungarian nobles didn't even pay taxes so the whole levy-income mechanic is inaccurate there

Its in Turkmenistan

i'd really love to play this but the ui makes my eyes hurt with its 90's sized font

there are mods to fix that