CKII is released.

[Average Manatee]

Not in the sense of CK2. When I walk down the street and see someone I mildly dislike, I don't roll vs. flipping out of control and beating them to a pulp with a 1% chance. CK2 leaders make that roll every day. Hell, they make that roll even against people they DO like.

Chaos Theory doesn't make things non-deterministic. It says that the complex interactions of individually deterministic systems become exponentially hard to predict over time. Put another way, God doesn't play dice*.

*irony here.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Alright, finally remembering about the play [ID] cheat command considerably sped up my Operation Unfuck The AI For Glorious EU4 Start. Miaphysite Egypt and Nubia have been set up to mix up the scheme of things, Empire of Mali is reformed and there for fun and profit, Hungary has been set up, Tartaria is stabilized further, Basque Hispania has been formed, and there's been lots of enrichment going around (generally aimed just at making the large cultural areas more distinct instead of endless Frankish; I probably should set up a unique culture for Burgundy-Italy).

 

[IDtenT]

Uh. It's a simulation. If you don't want RNG, then why are you playing a simulation? RNG is the most entertaining part of the game.

What does being a simulation have to do with having an RNG? Shouldn't it actually be the other way around? Real life is deterministic.

Another moron who doesn't understand how statistics work. Even though "real life" is deterministic, it behaves in a stochastic manner in the abstract sense. Chaos theory is quite rightly a good example of this.

Furthermore, there is good RNG and bad RNG. Good RNG is when something happens and you are forced to react to it. Bad RNG is starting up the game and a week later dying because you rolled a critical failure walking down the stairs and fell on your face.

I don't see how falling down a set of stairs is bad RNG. It's an example of something that has some statistical likelihood. If it happened too often to be realistic then that would be a case of bad statistics, not bad RNG.

There's no skill or player interaction in that, you just up and die because the dice that are rolled every day came up badly once.

Hurp derp. Player skill. RPGwatch might be more your speed. I prefer my simulations to have as little human input as possible, beyond the abstract.

Sorry, CKII is as LARP as you're going to get with PDS.

 

[Average Manatee]

Uh. It's a simulation. If you don't want RNG, then why are you playing a simulation? RNG is the most entertaining part of the game.

What does being a simulation have to do with having an RNG? Shouldn't it actually be the other way around? Real life is deterministic.

Another moron who doesn't understand how statistics work. Even though "real life" is deterministic, it behaves in a stochastic manner in the abstract sense. Chaos theory is quite rightly a good example of this.

No, they are entirely different. Chaos theory says that, while big things will come quite suddenly out of little changes, said changes must definitively happen, they aren't random chance.

A good example of chaos theory is when a ruler marries their daughters out to a 5th son of a king and through a series of unlikely events their dynasty inherits the kingdom. But RNG is not chaos theory. Just because we use the words "likely" or "unlikely" to decide a series of events does not mean they came out of random chance.

Furthermore, there is good RNG and bad RNG. Good RNG is when something happens and you are forced to react to it. Bad RNG is starting up the game and a week later dying because you rolled a critical failure walking down the stairs and fell on your face.

I don't see how falling down a set of stairs is bad RNG. It's an example of something that has some statistical likelihood. If it happened too often to be realistic then that would be a case of bad statistics, not bad RNG.

Do you want to play a D&D game where every step you take the DM decides you must roll 1d1000 to avoid breaking your leg?

There's no skill or player interaction in that, you just up and die because the dice that are rolled every day came up badly once.

Hurp derp. Player skill. RPGwatch might be more your style. I prefer my simulations to have as little human input as possible, beyond the abstract.

Sounds like you don't even want to play a game then. If there is no player skill involvement, there is no game. You may be better off yourself at RPGwatch. Watching games instead of playing them.

 

[IDtenT]

Uh. It's a simulation. If you don't want RNG, then why are you playing a simulation? RNG is the most entertaining part of the game.

What does being a simulation have to do with having an RNG? Shouldn't it actually be the other way around? Real life is deterministic.

Another moron who doesn't understand how statistics work. Even though "real life" is deterministic, it behaves in a stochastic manner in the abstract sense. Chaos theory is quite rightly a good example of this.

No, they are entirely different. Chaos theory says that, while big things will come quite suddenly out of little changes, said changes must definitively happen, they aren't random chance.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=chaos theory and random number generation

A good example of chaos theory is when a ruler marries their daughters out to a 5th son of a king and through a series of unlikely events their dynasty inherits the kingdom. But RNG is not chaos theory. Just because we use the words "likely" or "unlikely" to decide a series of events does not mean they came out of random chance.

Here you're just complaining about the level of complexity. A ruler for X exists and is simulated within the game. The game could just as well not have simulated the title at all and have it be an off-map empire that gets randomly inherent. The outcome is indistinguishable from one another and could be set equally likely. All that differs is the complexity. Would you rather have the computer waste resources to generate actual staircases and let you character walk up and down them until his Achilles tendon gets torn randomly or would you rather it just happen randomly. It's not a difficult question. Neither has any human input and both can be set to be equally likely in reality.

Statistics exist because it works. It works because you require less information to assign likelihoods. It's the only reason why the field exists at all.

Furthermore, there is good RNG and bad RNG. Good RNG is when something happens and you are forced to react to it. Bad RNG is starting up the game and a week later dying because you rolled a critical failure walking down the stairs and fell on your face.

I don't see how falling down a set of stairs is bad RNG. It's an example of something that has some statistical likelihood. If it happened too often to be realistic then that would be a case of bad statistics, not bad RNG.

Do you want to play a D&D game where every step you take the DM decides you must roll 1d1000 to avoid breaking your leg?

If you're arguing time, then this is a red herring as you're actually calling for more (useless) complexity. The DM doing so in a timely manner (i.e. immediate) would create no problem for me personally.

There's no skill or player interaction in that, you just up and die because the dice that are rolled every day came up badly once.

Hurp derp. Player skill. RPGwatch might be more your style. I prefer my simulations to have as little human input as possible, beyond the abstract.

Sounds like you don't even want to play a game then. If there is no player skill involvement, there is no game.

The level of abstraction is up to the developer. If you don't like how abstract PDS make their games, then there is always tactical larping just around the corner in Total War. I like the abstraction, thanks. Not to mention I consider simulations much more game-worthy than scripted play.

 

[Trash]

You know, the only reason why I'm so adverse to the whole map painting aspect here is because every other Paradox game is about it. Crusader Kings was always about trying to keep a dynasty alive through the ages and if possibly make it prosper. My aversion to the increased prevalence of map painting in Crusader Kings 2 bothers me and is why I bitch about it. They had something fresh, something new and something good and instead of expanding on it they watered it down to the level of everything else they peddle.

 

[Average Manatee]

Uh. It's a simulation. If you don't want RNG, then why are you playing a simulation? RNG is the most entertaining part of the game.

What does being a simulation have to do with having an RNG? Shouldn't it actually be the other way around? Real life is deterministic.

Another moron who doesn't understand how statistics work. Even though "real life" is deterministic, it behaves in a stochastic manner in the abstract sense. Chaos theory is quite rightly a good example of this.

No, they are entirely different. Chaos theory says that, while big things will come quite suddenly out of little changes, said changes must definitively happen, they aren't random chance.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=chaos theory and random number generation

Completely irrelevant. RNG are dependent on chaos theory, but chaos theory is itself not about randomness, though randomness can approximate it.

A good example of chaos theory is when a ruler marries their daughters out to a 5th son of a king and through a series of unlikely events their dynasty inherits the kingdom. But RNG is not chaos theory. Just because we use the words "likely" or "unlikely" to decide a series of events does not mean they came out of random chance.

Here you're just complaining about the level of complexity. A ruler for X exists and is simulated within the game. The game could just as well not have simulated the title at all and have it be an off-map empire that gets randomly inherent. The outcome is indistinguishable from one another and could be set equally likely. All that differs is the complexity. Would you rather have the computer waste resources to generate actual staircases and let you character walk up and down them until his Achilles tendon gets torn randomly or would you rather it just happen randomly. It's not a difficult question. Neither has any human input and both can be set to be equally likely in reality.

Yes. If you aren't simulating something, you handle it with an RNG. That's besides the point. You said simulation = RNG. This is entirely wrong. Simulation = deterministic. This is the definition of simulation, that you have an input, which goes through a function, and produces a result. Any time you attach a RNG to the function you are left with something that isn't a simulation.

There's no skill or player interaction in that, you just up and die because the dice that are rolled every day came up badly once.

Hurp derp. Player skill. RPGwatch might be more your style. I prefer my simulations to have as little human input as possible, beyond the abstract.

Sounds like you don't even want to play a game then. If there is no player skill involvement, there is no game.

The level of abstraction is up to the developer. If you don't like how abstract PDS make their games, then there is always tactical larping just around the corner in Total War. I like the abstraction, thanks. Not to mention I consider simulations much more game-worthy than scripted play.

No, Paradox makes their games quite well. They are generally deterministic, and where they aren't, the non-deterministic parts are not gameplay-disruptive and can be handled within the rules of gameplay. It's mods which think adding more uncontrollable and uncounterable randomness that make things bad.

 

[IDtenT]

Uh. It's a simulation. If you don't want RNG, then why are you playing a simulation? RNG is the most entertaining part of the game.

What does being a simulation have to do with having an RNG? Shouldn't it actually be the other way around? Real life is deterministic.

Another moron who doesn't understand how statistics work. Even though "real life" is deterministic, it behaves in a stochastic manner in the abstract sense. Chaos theory is quite rightly a good example of this.

No, they are entirely different. Chaos theory says that, while big things will come quite suddenly out of little changes, said changes must definitively happen, they aren't random chance.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=chaos theory and random number generation

Completely irrelevant. RNG are dependent on chaos theory, but chaos theory is itself not about randomness, though randomness can approximate it.

That went completely over your head. I never said chaos theory was not deterministic. I said that although real life (and in this case chaos theory) is deterministic it behaves stochastically in the abstract sense. I then went forth to prove this by showing that random numbers are simulated by chaos theory.

A good example of chaos theory is when a ruler marries their daughters out to a 5th son of a king and through a series of unlikely events their dynasty inherits the kingdom. But RNG is not chaos theory. Just because we use the words "likely" or "unlikely" to decide a series of events does not mean they came out of random chance.

Here you're just complaining about the level of complexity. A ruler for X exists and is simulated within the game. The game could just as well not have simulated the title at all and have it be an off-map empire that gets randomly inherent. The outcome is indistinguishable from one another and could be set equally likely. All that differs is the complexity. Would you rather have the computer waste resources to generate actual staircases and let you character walk up and down them until his Achilles tendon gets torn randomly or would you rather it just happen randomly. It's not a difficult question. Neither has any human input and both can be set to be equally likely in reality.

Yes. If you aren't simulating something, you handle it with an RNG. That's besides the point. You said simulation = RNG. This is entirely wrong. Simulation = deterministic. This is the definition of simulation, that you have an input, which goes through a function, and produces a result. Any time you attach a RNG to the function you are left with something that isn't a simulation.

Oh God. Apart from saying I said something that I didn't...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_simulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method

As an aside deterministic simulations are God awfully boring because then the game would always have the same result sans human intervention. Kill me now. You'd do a better job just scripting it all.

There's no skill or player interaction in that, you just up and die because the dice that are rolled every day came up badly once.

Hurp derp. Player skill. RPGwatch might be more your style. I prefer my simulations to have as little human input as possible, beyond the abstract.

Sounds like you don't even want to play a game then. If there is no player skill involvement, there is no game.

The level of abstraction is up to the developer. If you don't like how abstract PDS make their games, then there is always tactical larping just around the corner in Total War. I like the abstraction, thanks. Not to mention I consider simulations much more game-worthy than scripted play.

No, Paradox makes their games quite well. They are generally deterministic. It's mods which think adding more uncontrollable and uncounterable randomness that make things bad.

Generally deterministic? Oh wow. What do you think the AI don't always make the same decisions? Deterministic. Hilarious.

 

[Average Manatee]

Completely irrelevant. RNG are dependent on chaos theory, but chaos theory is itself not about randomness, though randomness can approximate it.

That went completely over your head. I never said chaos theory was not deterministic. I said that although real life (and in this case chaos theory) is deterministic it behaves stochastically in the abstract sense. I then went forth to prove this by showing that random numbers are simulated by chaos theory.

I know exactly what you said. The problem is that everything you said is entirely inconsequential and irrelevant to the discussion, because you are trying to prove something backwards. Chaos theory is not random numbers, though it can be used to create them if you do not know the input. Proving the latter does not prove the former.

Oh God. Apart from saying I said something that I didn't...

If you don't want RNG, then why are you playing a simulation?

You said it. Shut up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_simulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method

Those are simulations that take a range of input to give a range of output. They are deterministic. You clearly should learn a bit more about statistics rather than parading about your faux-knowledge. Even reading the first damn section shows that you are wrong:

Monte Carlo methods vary, but tend to follow a particular pattern:

Define a domain of possible inputs.
Generate inputs randomly from a probability distribution over the domain.
Perform a deterministic computation on the inputs.
Aggregate the results.

As an aside deterministic simulations are God awfully boring because then the game would always have the same result sans human intervention. Kill me now. You'd do a better job just scripting it all.

The game isn't simulating everything you retard. That which is abstracted (character thoughts, decisions, genetic inheritance, ect) all work to change the result.

The level of abstraction is up to the developer. If you don't like how abstract PDS make their games, then there is always tactical larping just around the corner in Total War. I like the abstraction, thanks. Not to mention I consider simulations much more game-worthy than scripted play.

No, Paradox makes their games quite well. They are generally deterministic. It's mods which think adding more uncontrollable and uncounterable randomness that make things bad.

Generally deterministic? Oh wow. What do you think the AI don't always make the same decisions? Deterministic. Hilarious.

Because those parts aren't being simulated, are they?

There is a high level of determinism coupled with small but frequent randomness that add variety and challenge, which is circumvented and dealt with through player initiative.

 

[IDtenT]

I know exactly what you said. The problem is that everything you said is entirely inconsequential and irrelevant to the discussion, because you are trying to prove something backwards. Chaos theory is not random numbers, though it can be used to create them if you do not know the input. Proving the latter does not prove the former.

Of course it doesn't. Logic and all that. Fact is I never said that chaos theory is random. I never proved the latter to prove the former. I merely proved the latter to show that the former can be true, and is true when abstracted in a certain way. Which is logically sound.

Oh God. Apart from saying I said something that I didn't...

If you don't want RNG, then why are you playing a simulation?

You said it. Shut up.

That's just me saying that stochastic simulations are the only thing that makes sense for games.

Those are simulations that take a range of input to give a range of output. They are deterministic. You clearly should learn a bit more about statistics rather than parading about your faux-knowledge. Even reading the first damn section shows that you are wrong:

Monte Carlo methods vary, but tend to follow a particular pattern:

Define a domain of possible inputs.
Generate inputs randomly from a probability distribution over the domain.
Perform a deterministic computation on the inputs.
Aggregate the results.

God you're a moron. Of course the computation is deterministic. How else could it happen? The simulation is however not. The inputs as defined by the user (and not the RNG) does not have a unique solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system
"In mathematics and physics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state."

This is not true for stochastic simulations.

You should probably attend some computational physics classes or some other class that deals with simulations.

The game isn't simulating everything you retard. That which is abstracted (character thoughts, decisions, genetic inheritance, ect) all work to change the result.

Christ. You're fixed in on this deterministic thing, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation
"Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time. The act of simulating something first requires that a model be developed; this model represents the key characteristics or behaviors/functions of the selected physical or abstract system or process. The model represents the system itself, whereas the simulation represents the operation of the system over time."

The simulation is simulating dynasties on the map of Europe over time. Some Most inputs in the simulation are driven by RNGs, therefore the simulation is not deterministic.

Because those parts aren't being simulated, are they?

They form part of the overall simulation. The AI is also being simulated in one way or another.

 

[Country_Gravy]

Uh. It's a simulation. If you don't want RNG, then why are you playing a simulation? RNG is the most entertaining part of the game.

What does being a simulation have to do with having an RNG? Shouldn't it actually be the other way around? Real life is deterministic.

Furthermore, there is good RNG and bad RNG. Good RNG is when something happens and you are forced to react to it. Bad RNG is starting up the game and a week later dying because you rolled a critical failure walking down the stairs and fell on your face. There's no skill or player interaction in that, you just up and die because the dice that are rolled every day came up badly once.

But when your ruler dies, the game doesn't end. You play the heir. It's like something happens and you are forced to react to it. They must be using one of those good RNGs.

 

[JarlFrank]

I am now playing a EU4 savegame conversion preparation game with Old Gods as Scandinavia. Started as Norway (that's where the gay nigger king screenshot is from), then founded Scandinavia and reformed the Norse religion. I founded some republics as vassals cause they give tons of money, but I underestimated how fucking expansive they get... they conquered lots of coastal areas and increased my empire size significantly - so I revoked three republics and split their lands among normal noble vassal lords, and released some into independence - cause I want an EU IV game that is interesting. I enacted maximum crown authority so my vassals cannot conquer other lands on their own anymore.

So right now I'm trying to maintain an interesting balance of power on the continent - Scandinavia is mine and will stay mine, Ireland too, but England and Scotland came to me through inheritance so I guess I'll keep those too. But with the rest of the map, I'm trying to act as a balancer of countries and religions. Byzantines in trouble from Muslims? Going to holy war the muslims, give the lands to an Orthodox courtier of mine and give him independence. Spain used to be fully controlled by Muslims - now it's one third Norse Pagans, one third Christians and one third Muslims and they're all fighting each other.

Interestingly, in this game there were many unusual developments even without my intervention. Mali still exists and is still African Pagan. Abyssinia still exists, too, and is completely Monophysite, without a single Muslim province remaining. Tengriism has been reformed and there's a strong Tengriist Cumania in the east, Hungary is Tengriist too. I'm hoping for Romuva and Slavic religions to reform too for maximum variety when I port to EU IV.

 

[JarlFrank]

I can't wait for 1178 when reformed pagans can do Great Holy Wars, so I can grab huge areas of land and then give them to courtiers of a specific religion to create an interesting map. I could take Mauretania from the Muslims and give it to some West African Pagan nigger bloke so they can reform their faith, I could finally give the Catholics a secure foothold in Spain which is currently fought over by Muslims and Norse Pagans (I didn't expect them to do *that* well when I gave them freedom). I could relieve the troubles of Byzantium by creating an Orthodox kingdom in Muslim-occupied Anatolia. I could give the Muslims a better chance against the Tengriist Cumans in the east...

Heck, this approach of creating a huge powerful Empire, and then just sitting back, watching events unfold and intervening whenever you feel like it is the most fun I've ever had with CK2.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Heck, this approach of creating a huge powerful Empire, and then just sitting back, watching events unfold and intervening whenever you feel like it is the most fun I've ever had with CK2.

When it gets to the point your worst enemy is AI incompetence it's not so fun.

 

[mondblut]

I got it, CK2 is The Elder Scrolls of grand strategy. A larpers' beachhead in the genre.

Don't mind it really, except for the constant whining of bawwww, blobs, map painting, how dare you not to stick to your one-barony county of Shittistan and enjoy the events randomly rolling, and why don't you wear a curtain-made cloak and a paper crown while doing that.

Meanwhile, I conquered the entire map. Cry me a river in middle english, lol.

edit: after the first charm passes, it becomes obvious Hearts of Iron is still by far the best PDX series. Everything else is a highly dumbed down version of it with a lot superficious crap tacked upon it. The world belongs to my Denmark-cum-HRE now, but I think I'll go schedule another CV/CL fleet instead.

 

[Average Manatee]

snip

God, you aren't even trying to argue for or against the gameplay anymore. You're just trying to look like a fool in the meaningless tangent you've created for yourself. Not even going to waste my time now.

Uh. It's a simulation. If you don't want RNG, then why are you playing a simulation? RNG is the most entertaining part of the game.

What does being a simulation have to do with having an RNG? Shouldn't it actually be the other way around? Real life is deterministic.

Furthermore, there is good RNG and bad RNG. Good RNG is when something happens and you are forced to react to it. Bad RNG is starting up the game and a week later dying because you rolled a critical failure walking down the stairs and fell on your face. There's no skill or player interaction in that, you just up and die because the dice that are rolled every day came up badly once.

But when your ruler dies, the game doesn't end. You play the heir. It's like something happens and you are forced to react to it. They must be using one of those good RNGs.

It is. But when you massively ratchet up the chances of random death, you get to the point where surviving goes beyond player skill and enters the domain of being heavily dependent on luck. Which is quite ridiculous both from a historical and gameplay perspective. As it is in the vanilla game random death is quite rare and only deaths due to player mishaps can be common, which is a sensible arrangement.

edit: after the first charm passes, it becomes obvious Hearts of Iron is still by far the best PDX series. Everything else is a highly dumbed down version of it with a lot superficious crap tacked upon it. The world belongs to my Denmark-cum-HRE now, but I think I'll go schedule another CV/CL fleet instead.

Haha, mondblut uses CLs.

 

[mondblut]

Haha, mondblut uses CLs.

Destroyers aren't epic enough for the mighty Reich. Not to mention they require an entirely different doctrine tree to research. And have shit range.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Haha, mondblut uses CLs.

Destroyers aren't epic enough for the mighty Reich. Not to mention they require an entirely different doctrine tree to research. And have shit range.

Not to mention you need to replace the Destroyers all the goddamn time due to them sinking in droves even when you're the one kicking ass. Light Cruiser is the ideal screen ship.

 

[Trash]

Meanwhile, I conquered the entire map. Cry me a river in middle english, lol.

I'd rather see you patch Eador to something less shit than it is now but whatever floats your boat.

Spoiler

 

[mondblut]

Spoiler

I don't do patches, I am mostly involved with localization editing, and there were hardly any complaints concerning it

 

[Average Manatee]

Haha, mondblut uses CLs.

Destroyers aren't epic enough for the mighty Reich. Not to mention they require an entirely different doctrine tree to research. And have shit range.

Not to mention you need to replace the Destroyers all the goddamn time due to them sinking in droves even when you're the one kicking ass. Light Cruiser is the ideal screen ship.

Destroyers are faster, being faster lets your whole fleet escape from enemy groups since in-battle movement is averaged, and if your average speed is greater than enemy battleships they can't even touch you. Plus better for sub/convoy destroying. Range is irrelevant for both of them, neither will get a chance to fire in 95% of battles (carriers don't close in enough to shoot, battleships will only close in to their range, which is longer than screen ships). Destroyers even have the same hull IIRC. And if you are playing god damned Germany research costs are no obstacle, they'll have 50+ leadership and won't give a damn.

Also if you want to be uber-gamey you shouldn't make screen ships anyway. 30 carrier deathstacks is where it's at. Gotta abuse dem practicals, soon enough carriers will cost less than destroyers.

 

[IDtenT]

God, you aren't even trying to argue for or against the gameplay anymore. You're just trying to look like a fool in the meaningless tangent you've created for yourself. Not even going to waste my time now.

Cool bro. I didn't create the tangent, but whatever makes you sleep at night.

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

Anyone thinking they're going to make another expansion after EUIV launches?

 

[mondblut]

Destroyers are faster, being faster lets your whole fleet escape from enemy groups since in-battle movement is averaged, and if your average speed is greater than enemy battleships they can't even touch you.

It's not like CVs or CLs themselves are slower than BBs. No reasonable squadron of artillery-based capitals has a chance to catch up with them either way, unless you stuff 100 DDs with your BB, but AI never does that, and I don't play with meatbags

Range is irrelevant for both of them, neither will get a chance to fire in 95% of battles

Traveling range. When you're blockading the entire american east coast out from Brest, it matters, and building a beefed up naval base in the middle of freshly captured amazonian jungles from scratch takes a lot of time.

And if you are playing god damned Germany research costs are no obstacle, they'll have 50+ leadership and won't give a damn.

Those are still leadership points that could be spent elsewhere instead.

Also if you want to be uber-gamey you shouldn't make screen ships anyway. 30 carrier deathstacks is where it's at. Gotta abuse dem practicals, soon enough carriers will cost less than destroyers.

A 30-carrier deathstack cannot be in all naval regions at once. Six 5-carrier deathstacks, on the other hand...

 

[suejak]

I need somebody to tell me which mod makes the game most like CK DVIP...

I love CKDV a lot, but it is flawed in a number of very boring ways. I recently found the time to really sink my teeth into ck2, but I'm ready to set up the next step after my first vanilla playthrough...