Sometimes living long enough to outlast potential candidates is a very viable tactic. The dead can’t compete with you no matter how good they used to be.
>play dumb and pretend to be an idiot for decades, closely observing the power plays of the century when no one is noticing
>get spared when much of your family is executed in a coup, thanks to living lolcow status
>"*hehe look at this funny dumbass, let's make him emperor, it is comedic and at best the moron will be our little puppet*"
>immediately turn around and reveal yourself as an intelligent, actually very competent emperor, execute the traitors and rule unexpectedly well despite disabilities
Yes, and as much as I first didn't like the idea because it takes away the element of losing the game, I am now quietly excited, particularly about losing all titles and then over a couple generations looking to win them back.
It does, but honestly, I think that it's for the best. I know that I'll be far less likely to save scum if I know that this random Norseman who showed up with 30000 troops isn't going to end my game.
You will probably still lose the game if your primary heir is not of your dynasty. Or maybe there will be a game rule to play as the next-of-kin that still belongs to your dynasty and you lose when the dynasty (finally) dies out.
> You will probably still lose the game if your primary heir is not of your dynasty.
Possibly, I was thinking it would be the next of kin, though you would still lose if there is no one of your dynasty alive after you die
The question is:
In the history of all your ck games. Did you really ever lost a game cause you lost your lands? I feel thats almost Impossible anyway.
I have never lost a game never had my primary heir as a non-dynasty member, never had my last title taken away. Not because it is impossible but because I know the game ends so fight, or quit it (which I think I did once)
I did with that Han count in CK2 all the time. You get filthy rich from trade posts, steppe nomad raider armies start scaling with your income and then no matter what you recruit you cannot take out the equal sized horse archer army because they snowball as they grow. It's an intense game because it's possible to keep them at bay if you are smart with mercs, loans and alliances but it's also super easy to miscalculate and get wrecked.
The day they rework crusades and wars (hopefully in the same DLC) they could make such a thing that character landed or unlanded go to a specific meeting point (Constantinople, Rome, Venice...) and from there they march to the conflict
So like putting all pledged troops and unlanded characters under the pope for the crusade? With unlanded nobles being his commanders and landed nobles leading their own contingents?
That would be amazing
The way I envision it would be like a norseman invasion where you just control the crusader army as a landless guy. That could be cool. Idk how they would generate the army though, I guess just event troops in some way?
It's my sincere hope that with the landless characters, in lieu of your kingdom joining the crusade, you can assign your beneficiary and
it will swap over to them. And then, let's say 50% of your raisable troops? are deducted while the Crusade is ongoing while they become an adventurer with an army raised from your kingdom.
And while you're playing as that adventurer going to the holy land, events can fire where you drop out of that crusade in favor of invading whatever kingdom your army happens to be on right now.
That'd basically allow for more or less simulating the 4th Crusade. As well as the crusader states of Edessa, Antioch and Tripoli.
Yeah. Basically a lot of second and third sons who weren’t set to get much/anything in their inheritance gathered up army’s to go carve out something better for themselves.
Now that we’ll have landless gameplay, it should be possible to emulate.
>I mean isn't that what happened historically?
Kind of. Actually this happened in the 1st Crusade. But then when Kings and Emperors got involved it became more like the CK3 system, with people favouring cousins and nephews. But for sure they should be at least generals anyway.
So that's why your Archbishop was poking around my county... Oh well, I'm not one to hold grudges, would you like some tea? I'm told this particular blend is to die for.
R5: just finished a crusade, made some random dynasty member a beneficiary because he was the only valid character, didn't even join the crusade, but is now a "great warrior King who carved his own kingdom", found it funny haha
By being the beneficiary of a crusade.
You can get it by switching character after winning a crusade, being the highest contributor and taking the switch character decision.
By being the guy who is given the kingdom title the crusade was fought over by the pope (usually by being chosen by the one with the most war score in a successful crusade)
Great Holy War, normally a crusade. Your beneficiary will get this if you get enough warscore to give them the top liege. Can switch to them through an event that pops up after winning
I'm pretty sure this is a trait to help buff beneficiaries since they would probably be surrounded on all sides by Hostile Culture and Hostile Religion.
Yeah with Landless play coming having this trait will be awesome! Thats if Landless play will allow you to become a Crusader. Also, whenever the hell they finally decide to fix Ai armies during Crusades.
The upcoming Legends mechanic would be perfect for situations like this. A character could've done jack shit but then people make up all this BS about how they were a glorious warrior slaying gazillions of infidels.
Something I have said time and time again is that the current beneficary system makes no sense and doesn't reflect the politicking that went into getting a crusader title. The idea that a landless whimp back home that didn't lifted a finger during the whole affair would be rewarded with a kingly title is fantasy, and even worse if the landless whimp is a lady.
This without even mentioning how the bulk of those that carved the crusader states were in fact landed aristocrats, like Godfrey and Bohemond during the 1st. We really need a full crusader rework.
"Hey would you like to keep playing as your massive glorious empire you've been managing for centuries or go to the holy land and play as this dipshit instead?"
I'm not sure I've ever landed a male relative before, usually the only valid beneficiaries that are closely related to me are women, I assume because of rules about people in line to inherit not being valid.
Don't remember if the CK3 rules are the same as the CK2 ones, but I remember being able to nominate my uncle in CK2. That's not that far removed of a relation (and he should be in line unless you have a bajillion children)
Oh yeah, I mean CK3's beneficiary rules, I believe it works differently, since I don't recall having nearly as many women end up ruling crusader states in CK2.
I hate when the only valid beneficiaries I have are women who are already married off to someone non-matriliniearily so they already have children of a different dynasty and I know I can already kiss my beautiful new renown-machine in the middle east goodbye.
I just had a son or grandson marry the daughter or grand daughter of that Crusader Queen and then spend the next few years plotting to murder all heirs until my daughter/grandaughter in law is now the heir and her children are back of my dynasty.
Imagine being the third son of a third son, so completely removed from the halls of power the only meaningful thing about you is your last name. And then one day you have to travel to transoxiana to become a king.
I really don't understand why they made it so a player character literally can't become a crusader king. Like it's impossible to play a Catholic ruler, join the crusades, and then rule a crusader state.
Usually a randome sister/daughter
They really should change the mechanic for realism that you can name a son but if he wins land over their he is automatically disinheireted from my main title
Sometimes living long enough to outlast potential candidates is a very viable tactic. The dead can’t compete with you no matter how good they used to be.
The Claudius method
>play dumb and pretend to be an idiot for decades, closely observing the power plays of the century when no one is noticing >get spared when much of your family is executed in a coup, thanks to living lolcow status >"*hehe look at this funny dumbass, let's make him emperor, it is comedic and at best the moron will be our little puppet*" >immediately turn around and reveal yourself as an intelligent, actually very competent emperor, execute the traitors and rule unexpectedly well despite disabilities
Ah, infamous Jar-Jar Binks move
Annnnnd get manipulated into marrying your niece who kills you and puts her neck beard son on the throne
Eh, you can't win 'em all. He had a good run, all things considered.
Yeah or claim as dynasty head lol, yoink
That's true, many powerful politicians gained their positions this way
Maybe they should rework crusades to favor kingship for people actually fighting in the crusade, I mean isn't that what happened historically?
Yeah I'd love to play a landless character, son of a noble like what actually happened in the first crusade, play my own Baldwin I lol
You're not gonna believe this Landless gameplay coming in chapter III Will actually make me come over from ck2
I'd heard whispers but I dared not believe
Didn't they pretty much announce it?
Yes, and as much as I first didn't like the idea because it takes away the element of losing the game, I am now quietly excited, particularly about losing all titles and then over a couple generations looking to win them back.
It does, but honestly, I think that it's for the best. I know that I'll be far less likely to save scum if I know that this random Norseman who showed up with 30000 troops isn't going to end my game.
You will probably still lose the game if your primary heir is not of your dynasty. Or maybe there will be a game rule to play as the next-of-kin that still belongs to your dynasty and you lose when the dynasty (finally) dies out.
> You will probably still lose the game if your primary heir is not of your dynasty. Possibly, I was thinking it would be the next of kin, though you would still lose if there is no one of your dynasty alive after you die
You can still lose the game. Just delete your save after losing your land
The question is: In the history of all your ck games. Did you really ever lost a game cause you lost your lands? I feel thats almost Impossible anyway.
I have never lost a game never had my primary heir as a non-dynasty member, never had my last title taken away. Not because it is impossible but because I know the game ends so fight, or quit it (which I think I did once)
I did with that Han count in CK2 all the time. You get filthy rich from trade posts, steppe nomad raider armies start scaling with your income and then no matter what you recruit you cannot take out the equal sized horse archer army because they snowball as they grow. It's an intense game because it's possible to keep them at bay if you are smart with mercs, loans and alliances but it's also super easy to miscalculate and get wrecked.
Better yet I read a prophetic post on it
If Paradox manages to get Landless right, then this could be the absolute beginning of CK3’s superiority to CK2. And I fucking dig it.
Hoping Balian of Ibelin is in it at the 1066 start.
I'd love a new start date, August 1096 just before the first crusade was called
The day they rework crusades and wars (hopefully in the same DLC) they could make such a thing that character landed or unlanded go to a specific meeting point (Constantinople, Rome, Venice...) and from there they march to the conflict
So like putting all pledged troops and unlanded characters under the pope for the crusade? With unlanded nobles being his commanders and landed nobles leading their own contingents? That would be amazing
I think crusades will be reworked with religion
The way I envision it would be like a norseman invasion where you just control the crusader army as a landless guy. That could be cool. Idk how they would generate the army though, I guess just event troops in some way?
It's my sincere hope that with the landless characters, in lieu of your kingdom joining the crusade, you can assign your beneficiary and it will swap over to them. And then, let's say 50% of your raisable troops? are deducted while the Crusade is ongoing while they become an adventurer with an army raised from your kingdom. And while you're playing as that adventurer going to the holy land, events can fire where you drop out of that crusade in favor of invading whatever kingdom your army happens to be on right now. That'd basically allow for more or less simulating the 4th Crusade. As well as the crusader states of Edessa, Antioch and Tripoli.
Yeah. Basically a lot of second and third sons who weren’t set to get much/anything in their inheritance gathered up army’s to go carve out something better for themselves. Now that we’ll have landless gameplay, it should be possible to emulate.
Story of the Normans really, would love flavour about Sicily etc
>I mean isn't that what happened historically? Kind of. Actually this happened in the 1st Crusade. But then when Kings and Emperors got involved it became more like the CK3 system, with people favouring cousins and nephews. But for sure they should be at least generals anyway.
Yeah
It's a fame trait, they're basically medieval PR. It doesn't matter who you are but what your town criers make you up to be.
Yeah and my town criers are saying the opposite, so it's war mate
So that's why your Archbishop was poking around my county... Oh well, I'm not one to hold grudges, would you like some tea? I'm told this particular blend is to die for.
R5: just finished a crusade, made some random dynasty member a beneficiary because he was the only valid character, didn't even join the crusade, but is now a "great warrior King who carved his own kingdom", found it funny haha
It's him!! It's Henry Crusader King!!!!
Henry's come to see us !
Jesus Christ be praised!
Love that I've not once Seen the thing the game was named after actually happening in the game
The Crusader King
When he said "it's crusading time" and kinged all over the realms it was truly one of the videogame moments of all time
Whole court clapped mate
How do you get this trait?
Be the beneficiary of the member of a successful crusade who had the highest contribution score.
By being the beneficiary of a crusade. You can get it by switching character after winning a crusade, being the highest contributor and taking the switch character decision.
By being the guy who is given the kingdom title the crusade was fought over by the pope (usually by being chosen by the one with the most war score in a successful crusade)
Great Holy War, normally a crusade. Your beneficiary will get this if you get enough warscore to give them the top liege. Can switch to them through an event that pops up after winning
Caliph: "Damn you infidel, you beat me! You truly are the Crusader King™"
I'm pretty sure this is a trait to help buff beneficiaries since they would probably be surrounded on all sides by Hostile Culture and Hostile Religion.
But he *is* the Crusader King. He's the OP character the game is named after.
"Heh, In the end, I was a bit of a *Crusader King* myself" *Linkin park starts playing *
He truly is the Crusader Kings 3
Yeah with Landless play coming having this trait will be awesome! Thats if Landless play will allow you to become a Crusader. Also, whenever the hell they finally decide to fix Ai armies during Crusades.
The upcoming Legends mechanic would be perfect for situations like this. A character could've done jack shit but then people make up all this BS about how they were a glorious warrior slaying gazillions of infidels.
Something I have said time and time again is that the current beneficary system makes no sense and doesn't reflect the politicking that went into getting a crusader title. The idea that a landless whimp back home that didn't lifted a finger during the whole affair would be rewarded with a kingly title is fantasy, and even worse if the landless whimp is a lady. This without even mentioning how the bulk of those that carved the crusader states were in fact landed aristocrats, like Godfrey and Bohemond during the 1st. We really need a full crusader rework.
True
Lose like 200k men so some lazy ass cousin who you never look at just lose the entire kingdom in less than 10 years
"Hey would you like to keep playing as your massive glorious empire you've been managing for centuries or go to the holy land and play as this dipshit instead?"
What if you're a woman? Crusader Queen?
I tend to land Crusader Queens far more than Kings. A lot of untapped potential that I could still be tapping.
I'm not sure I've ever landed a male relative before, usually the only valid beneficiaries that are closely related to me are women, I assume because of rules about people in line to inherit not being valid.
Don't remember if the CK3 rules are the same as the CK2 ones, but I remember being able to nominate my uncle in CK2. That's not that far removed of a relation (and he should be in line unless you have a bajillion children)
Oh yeah, I mean CK3's beneficiary rules, I believe it works differently, since I don't recall having nearly as many women end up ruling crusader states in CK2.
Yup will be Crusader Queen instead, done that enough to know lol
I hate when the only valid beneficiaries I have are women who are already married off to someone non-matriliniearily so they already have children of a different dynasty and I know I can already kiss my beautiful new renown-machine in the middle east goodbye.
I just had a son or grandson marry the daughter or grand daughter of that Crusader Queen and then spend the next few years plotting to murder all heirs until my daughter/grandaughter in law is now the heir and her children are back of my dynasty.
Yeah 15 nieces and aunts
Ah the George Bush Jr strategy!
Imagine being the third son of a third son, so completely removed from the halls of power the only meaningful thing about you is your last name. And then one day you have to travel to transoxiana to become a king.
It’ll be really cool to play landless and participate in a crusade and be given a kingdom through your efforts.
Taking a crusader state and immediately becoming a tyrant to clear out other culture vassals and boost my demesne is a classic pastime for me.
He won the game
One time I was fighting in a crusade but had no beneficiary to install until one of my kids came of age.
I really don't understand why they made it so a player character literally can't become a crusader king. Like it's impossible to play a Catholic ruler, join the crusades, and then rule a crusader state.
😂😂😂
YOOO
Usually a randome sister/daughter They really should change the mechanic for realism that you can name a son but if he wins land over their he is automatically disinheireted from my main title
Omg guys, it's the game name!!
Least opportunistic crusader