I was considering the purchase of Conclave, a DLC expansion for Crusader Kings 2.
I am a real old fag, so please forgive my banter, but I cannot help noticing that since CK2 became a thing, a lot of history graduate seem to have spawned on Steam, Paradox forums, etc.
Yes... Apparently there's been an increase in the number of non-STEM graduates in the community.
All these entitled fellows write horrible reviews of Conclave, and although I agree some of them highlight interesting points, I am still triggered by:
>OMG Conclave makes CK2 so unrealistic
>Now all monarchies are elective
>OMG an alliance between X and Y shouldn't be possible
>OMG the new education system causes bad kids to spawn everywhere.
I understand the butthurt, but ***welcome to reality***.
For all those of you kids who do not visit /his/, please take note of the fact an elective monarchy requires a constitution, a parliament, etc.
But this doesn't dispense with the fact that all Feudal monarchies were FAR from being absolute.
>Law Codices from the Roman age were around up until the 16th Century and later.
>Monarchs didn't have to deal with the people's parliament, but most of them were bound by duties toward conclaves of all sorts of individuals
>the Church was a lobby
>every vassal could lobby
>Burghers could lobby too
>Even your own court clerks could raise issues
>>337684824
lmao lad i'm not reading all that
Regardless of its historical accuracy, Conclave is a terrible DLC and it actively detracts from the game.
Well said my man
>>337684824
So, yes, pretty much: Medieval history is not the history of individual leaders followed by a "band of brothers" carefully chosen by an external player.
To truly be a king meant to be born with rights but also duties towards others who enforced the existence of the crown on a fucking daily basis.
Do you think a Jarl could organize a raid without the approval of the Thing? Do you think the King of France could alienate some land without triggering an intricate network of IOUs, duties, and birthrights?
I mean: why the fuck do you think Crusades happened? Because at some point Europe was so fucking fragmented and saturated, that in order to rule and provide your supporters with lands and wealth, you had to organize some shitty Middle-Eastern adventure... just to justify the status quo.
Kids might be pissed off by the idea that they cannot choose what they want regardless of the fact their main character is wearing a crown. But guess what? That's exactly how you feel when you are a real king:
>Frustrated
Yes. Fucking frustrated. Because they tell you you are sovereign and rule, but in the end it is all about appeasing the right people to get something right. And maybe just right for yourself.
>Do you want to improve agriculture in the Gevaudan?
>Fuck no, because Duke Jean le Cuck might be butthurt by how your cheap broccoli kill the market in Forez.
>Do you want to change a law to optimize its enforcement?
>Fuck no, because Duilius the Clerk, who has dodgy ties with Vatica spies keeps saying that there are legal impediments to do so.
>Do you want to fire him? Very well, but be prepared when the Vatican refuses you the divorce.
>>337684897
>lmao lad i'm not reading all that
>lmao, I'm 13 y.o. if you don't talk to me with memes I'm not gonna interact with you... but I'm gonna let you know anyway because muh privilege to make you notice I don't give a fuck
>>337685018
Okay, I agree that it is wrong when it cuts DOWN your options.
Some reviewers are right: you should have the possibility to act tyrannical. Just don't expect anybody to act accordingly.
The problem is:
>I am a whimsical king
>I wanna behead X and Y
>Will the guards follow my lead?
>Maybe they don't fear me
>Maybe the council opposes me
>If I insist they will let me do that
>But then they will start getting a bit less cooperative
>Until I find poison in my glass
So yeah... I mean, you don't need fucking GoT to understand that true rulership means:
>compromise
>compromise
>compromise
Occasionally, a lucky king with a good education and strategical thinking will be able to gather a decent group of men who will help him advance his dreams of conquest and glory.
But how often does it happen, given 60% of aristocracy is made of spoiled brat, and the other 40% are just bloodthirsty illiterate barbarians?
>>337684897
It ain't even 20 lines you faggot. Or do you have the memory of a goldfish?
>>337684824
>For all those of you kids who do not visit /his/
>implying /his is for non-kids
/his/ is for all you younglings. i dont need to go to /his/ to relieve past memories
t. immortal demigod aka turkslayer
>>337684824
The only problem I had with conclave was my Christian neighbors joining a Muslim defensive war against me because I was fucking crusading and taking back Spain because the threat system was retarded.
>>337686817
Came in here to post this, completely retarded shit like Pagans allying with Catholics is ridiculous.
>>337685646
The AI in CK2 does not understand compromise. The only thing it understands is "my way or the highway."
Conclave was a good idea in theory, utterly awful in execution.
>>337684824
A U T I S M
U
T
I
S
M
The problem with Conclave is shattered retreat and coalitions.
>>337686817
>>337686979
You people know NOTHING of history.
You are all locked in your own America-induced narrowness.
If you had read jack shit about the Reconquista you would know for sure that in the border areas of Andalusia it was very common to find Christian rulers going hand in hand with Muslim ones.
All of you kids imagine Spain like this kind of China Wall between Christianity and Islam.
This is bullshit from the start to the end. Spain was much more multicultural than expected and actually you should see even more Islamic rulers with Christian counsellors, and Jews, etc.
Actually, the other thing that is fucking broken is the idea things such as "Tolerance" grow in time. Fuck no. It goes up and down throughout history. Same goes with legalism.
The idea all technologies progress equally is simply ridiculous, as ridiculous as you guys when you say "Islamic leaders allied with Christian ones just because another Christian leader is a threat?" Guess what: Americans are allied with the Saudis nowadays.
Religion has always been a good excuse for genocide. I don't deny this. Actually, the genocide button is missing from Crusader Kings 2: I agree in some occasions you should be able to wipe out entire people and make them either move or die (as Charlemagne did with the Pagans).
But also the opposite is true: things were much more murky than you kids think.
>>337688351
>autism
Fucking idiots screaming autism whenever they are faced with something they don't understand.
>>337688506
Your blasted booty pleases me
Please proceed to write another wall of text out of your ass about shut that is not even slightly accurate
>>337687272
>>337688482
>The problem with Conclave is shattered retreat and coalitions
Please explain me this, because I am playing CK2 without Conclave and I do have shattered retreats and also there are some Alliances I cannot opt out from.
Apparently, this is not Conclave, but a patch. And it is bad in itself, even though I kinda understand that alliances based on blood ties are harder to break than, say the agreements between Italy and Iran.
So this is something you have to explain: is this an issue specific to Conclave or to the DLCs in general?
>>337688506
I haven't played CK2 in a while but it's still possible to transition to a more authoritarian regime through crown laws with conclave, right?
>>337688673
>Please proceed to write another wall of text out of your ass about shut that is not even slightly accurate
So you are denying that things such as religious tolerance are subject to variability throughout history and it is not like pic related?
You must be very clever if you object without providing evidence.
>>337688920
No I'm just baiting your dumb ass into giving me free (you)s and savoring your yummy yum tears
Feed me more autismo-chan I'm still hungry
You must be very clever reading few articles about some shit that you even don't slightly understand and making a whole thread dedicated to spreging autism about "history"
>>337688883
>I haven't played CK2 in a while but it's still possible to transition to a more authoritarian regime through crown laws with conclave, right?
Yes. It's just a pain in the ass. As it should be.
The reason I wrote OP is not to complain of gameplay difficulties, but to complain about people who think such difficulties are unrealistic.
For example people complain a lot about the fact that either you have high taxes or you have high levies.
In my opinion, this trade off is correct:
>if you tax somebody too much, they won't be able to arm their men on request
However, the problem is that the incompatibility between high taxes and high levies should be an incompatibility of outcomes... not an incompatibility of law.
That is, the problem of Conclave is that you are not allowed to set the two parameters to "max"... My opinion is that you should be able to set them both to "max" (like a tyrant), but the overall result should be crappy -- e.g. you cause a famine, or you cause a revolt, or your levies are simply shit.
>>337688506
>No sources
>Full of shit
Nice one kid, come back when you've actually read some history.
>>337689290
Alright thanks for the information I'll probably buy Conclave and see if I like the end result.
>>337684897
>>337688673
>>337688351
>>337689238
Please don't listen to trolls. OP sounds a bit eccentric, but his objections are spot-on: customers demanded both realism & alternate history, and now they are complaining things are unreal whereas, in fact, they are even more realistic.
>>337689453
It's not, he actually knows jack shit about history and is just being autistic.
>>337689453
t.obviously not op samefagging hard
I think the DLC is a really cool idea. Anything to make the game a bit harder and more interesting to play without warfare.
>>337684824
While historically acurate in many situations (For example try A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century - read your own fucking sources, but that's a great book) there does come a point when a game has to be pleasant to play, and watching some A.I. characters make decisions every five minutes that can make no sense from ANY perspective that wreck your game, sure isn't fun.
Conclave: just say no
>>337684824
>For all those of you kids who do not visit /his/,
Are you actually implying /his/ knows anything about history?
>>337690181
He's a highschool """history buff"""", of course he thinks that.
>>337690181
Its just like saying /v/ plays vidya
Or /pol/ is actually about politics
>>337689704
>watching some A.I. characters make decisions every five minutes that can make no sense from ANY perspective that wreck your game, sure isn't fun.
I thought foreign leaders were given character traits that made them be consistent for at least some periods.
Moreover, don't you think this might be a problem of perspective? When you fast-forward the game you play what? One generation in one hour?
Maybe the AI characters should be given a plan to randomly choose from... or an "attitude" (content, expansionist, diplomat, etc.). Such attitude can change because of important life events.
In addition to this, the Council game (i.e. the Sandbox game) should make these AI character interact and see who gets it his way: e.g. if there are 5 expansionists in the council, they might end up agreeing even if the hate each other, etc.
On the contrary, diverging views should make it harder to govern even if everyone is friendly.
The result of all this sandbox shit should be consistent over reasonable time frames: 5-7 years, maybe.
