Grand Strategy Crusader Kings III

[Axioms]

So is this game jumping on the bandwagon civ5 started - autogenerating transports when your troops reach water?

Filthy casual. I know you meant to say "bandwagon Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom(2002) started".

Wait. I can't remember too well, but where was there even water in that game?

Yes. Rivers mostly but some lakes and stuff. Units would transform into boats to cross it.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Wait, no navy improvements again? Lol, imagine making a medieval life simulator and not having navigable rivers being your most vital economic artery.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Wait, no navy improvements again? Lol, imagine making a medieval life simulator and not having navigable rivers being your most vital economic artery.

You still have the same system as CK3 with Norsemen and the like having access to navigable rivers.

Tradewise though, still nothing. We'll probably have to wait for the expansion which brings merchant republics to see an improvement to trade.

 

[thesecret1]

Just make a mechanic where ships can be levied/taken from merchants and the like

But that's exactly what CK2 has. There are no standing fleets, you levy them always.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Just make a mechanic where ships can be levied/taken from merchants and the like

But that's exactly what CK2 has. There are no standing fleets, you levy them always.

And consequently you get such silly and historically inaccurate situations as landlocked realms sending crusaders on foot to the Holy Land.

 

[thesecret1]

And consequently you get such silly and historically inaccurate situations as landlocked realms sending crusaders on foot to the Holy Land.

Which is shit Paradox should fix, instead of axing the whole mechanic

 

[Heroic Liberator]

And consequently you get such silly and historically inaccurate situations as landlocked realms sending crusaders on foot to the Holy Land.

Which is shit Paradox should fix, instead of axing the whole mechanic

Between the two, I prefer having it scrapped altogether rather than poorly implemented. Though they might touch upon it in one of the expansions (guessing one centered around merchant republics).

 

[Preben]

Just make a mechanic where ships can be levied/taken from merchants and the like

But that's exactly what CK2 has. There are no standing fleets, you levy them always.

And consequently you get such silly and historically inaccurate situations as landlocked realms sending crusaders on foot to the Holy Land.

Like the fucking First Crusade or the Frederick Barbarossa's part of the Third Crusade?

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Just make a mechanic where ships can be levied/taken from merchants and the like

But that's exactly what CK2 has. There are no standing fleets, you levy them always.

And consequently you get such silly and historically inaccurate situations as landlocked realms sending crusaders on foot to the Holy Land.

Like the fucking First Crusade or the Frederick Barbarossa's part of the Third Crusade?

Some does not equal all and the landlocked AI did not make use properly of the mercenary fleets in CK2. At the end of the day, the fleet system was lackluster at best and it's better for it to be streamlined like this than kept as it was (with the possibility of further expansion later down the line).

 

[Heroic Liberator]

New dev diary showcasing the different legacies.

And a video overview of it by One Proud Bavarian on YT:

 

[Heroic Liberator]

 

[Chaosdwarft]

 

[Thorakitai]

From the Paradox twitch stream, there's a confirmation that the Muwallad strain of Islam in CK3 is, by default, accepting of gay and lesbian relationships.

I mean Crusader Kings has unrealistic elements like the Sunset Invasion, that subplot about a demon possesion and witches and being able to achieve women's rights through the Conclave DLC but this is pushing it.

The above is like saying Ancient Greece and Rome is tolerant of homesexuality. Not to mention the above would increase your chances of being overthrown in CK2 due to the decadence mechanic.

 

[Hace El Oso]

No surprise, they also call Islamic polygamy "polyamory".

 

[IDtenT]

From the Paradox twitch stream, there's a confirmation that the Muwallad strain of Islam in CK3 is, by default, accepting of gay and lesbian relationships.

I mean Crusader Kings has unrealistic elements like the Sunset Invasion, that subplot about a demon possesion and witches and being able to achieve women's rights through the Conclave DLC but this is pushing it.

The above is like saying Ancient Greece and Rome is tolerant of homesexuality. Not to mention the above would increase your chances of being overthrown in CK2 due to the decadence mechanic.

I don't know about you by homesexuality sounds comfy.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

 

[Lawntoilet]

The above is like saying Ancient Greece... is tolerant of homesexuality.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

The ancients knew what's up:
"Who would not fall in love with such a youth? Whose eyesight could be so blind, whose mental processes so stunted? How could one fail to love him who is a Hermes in the wrestling-school, an Apollo with the lyre, a horseman to rival Castor, and one who strives after the virtues of the gods with a mortal body? [...] For, when the honourable love inbred in us from childhood matures to the manly age that is now capable of reason, the object of our longstanding affection gives love in return and it's difficult to detect which is the lover of which, since the image of the lover's tenderness has been reflected from the loved one as though from a mirror. Why then do you censure this as being an exotic indulgence of our times, though it is an ordinance enacted by divine laws and a heritage that has come down to us? We have been glad to receive it and we tend its shrine with a pure heart. [...] Marriage is a boon and a blessing to men when it meets with good fortune, while the love of boys, that pays court to the hallowed dues of friendship, I consider to be the privilege only of philosophy. Therefore all men should marry, but let only the wise be permitted to love boys, for perfect virtue grows least of all among women."

 

[Lawntoilet]

The ancients knew what's up:
"Who would not fall in love with such a youth? Whose eyesight could be so blind, whose mental processes so stunted? How could one fail to love him who is a Hermes in the wrestling-school, an Apollo with the lyre, a horseman to rival Castor, and one who strives after the virtues of the gods with a mortal body? [...] For, when the honourable love inbred in us from childhood matures to the manly age that is now capable of reason, the object of our longstanding affection gives love in return and it's difficult to detect which is the lover of which, since the image of the lover's tenderness has been reflected from the loved one as though from a mirror. Why then do you censure this as being an exotic indulgence of our times, though it is an ordinance enacted by divine laws and a heritage that has come down to us? We have been glad to receive it and we tend its shrine with a pure heart. [...] Marriage is a boon and a blessing to men when it meets with good fortune, while the love of boys, that pays court to the hallowed dues of friendship, I consider to be the privilege only of philosophy. Therefore all men should marry, but let only the wise be permitted to love boys, for perfect virtue grows least of all among women."

TemplarGR , comment?

 

[Preben]

The ancients knew what's up:
"Who would not fall in love with such a youth? Whose eyesight could be so blind, whose mental processes so stunted? How could one fail to love him who is a Hermes in the wrestling-school, an Apollo with the lyre, a horseman to rival Castor, and one who strives after the virtues of the gods with a mortal body? [...] For, when the honourable love inbred in us from childhood matures to the manly age that is now capable of reason, the object of our longstanding affection gives love in return and it's difficult to detect which is the lover of which, since the image of the lover's tenderness has been reflected from the loved one as though from a mirror. Why then do you censure this as being an exotic indulgence of our times, though it is an ordinance enacted by divine laws and a heritage that has come down to us? We have been glad to receive it and we tend its shrine with a pure heart. [...] Marriage is a boon and a blessing to men when it meets with good fortune, while the love of boys, that pays court to the hallowed dues of friendship, I consider to be the privilege only of philosophy. Therefore all men should marry, but let only the wise be permitted to love boys, for perfect virtue grows least of all among women."

This is not homosexuality (at least in the modern sense). That's pederasty, ie. relationship between grown-up men and young boys. The Ancients had much more nuanced view of what was acceptable and what wasn't. It was, for instance, absolutely below the dignity of any free adult man to be a bottom penetrated by another man. Such man was considered to be lacking any dignity. In Athens, for instance, a man with such a past was ineligible to stand for public office. It was, however, socially acceptable for a man to be a top in a homosexual relationship. It was also acceptable to be the receptive partner while still a prepubescent boy. Even for a royal, since future Philip II of Macedon was a youthful lover of one Theban statesman.

 

[Lawntoilet]

This is not homosexuality (at least in the modern sense). That's pederasty, ie. relationship between grown-up men and young boys.

It is a same-sex relationship so yes it is homosexuality. Being homosexual and being a pedophile are not mutually exclusive (if anything, just the opposite).
Perhaps this will clarify:

 

[Tigranes]

Of course there was boy on boy action aplenty in ancient Greece. Who cares, really?

 

[Lawntoilet]

Of course there was boy on boy action aplenty in ancient Greece. Who cares, really?

TemplarGR gets pretty mad when you bring it up

 

[Tigranes]

Who?

Oh.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

The ancients knew what's up:
"Who would not fall in love with such a youth? Whose eyesight could be so blind, whose mental processes so stunted? How could one fail to love him who is a Hermes in the wrestling-school, an Apollo with the lyre, a horseman to rival Castor, and one who strives after the virtues of the gods with a mortal body? [...] For, when the honourable love inbred in us from childhood matures to the manly age that is now capable of reason, the object of our longstanding affection gives love in return and it's difficult to detect which is the lover of which, since the image of the lover's tenderness has been reflected from the loved one as though from a mirror. Why then do you censure this as being an exotic indulgence of our times, though it is an ordinance enacted by divine laws and a heritage that has come down to us? We have been glad to receive it and we tend its shrine with a pure heart. [...] Marriage is a boon and a blessing to men when it meets with good fortune, while the love of boys, that pays court to the hallowed dues of friendship, I consider to be the privilege only of philosophy. Therefore all men should marry, but let only the wise be permitted to love boys, for perfect virtue grows least of all among women."

This is not homosexuality (at least in the modern sense). That's pederasty, ie. relationship between grown-up men and young boys.

It's not as simple as that though. The text points towards it being akin to men today who take a lass much younger as to groom her - it's the difference in age which defines the relationship, not the age itself. And the lover is not to be discarded once he becomes mature ergo the mentions of Achilles and Patroclus & Orestes and Pylades among others in the text.

 

[CaffeineConquistador]

The ancients knew what's up:
"Who would not fall in love with such a youth? Whose eyesight could be so blind, whose mental processes so stunted? How could one fail to love him who is a Hermes in the wrestling-school, an Apollo with the lyre, a horseman to rival Castor, and one who strives after the virtues of the gods with a mortal body? [...] For, when the honourable love inbred in us from childhood matures to the manly age that is now capable of reason, the object of our longstanding affection gives love in return and it's difficult to detect which is the lover of which, since the image of the lover's tenderness has been reflected from the loved one as though from a mirror. Why then do you censure this as being an exotic indulgence of our times, though it is an ordinance enacted by divine laws and a heritage that has come down to us? We have been glad to receive it and we tend its shrine with a pure heart. [...] Marriage is a boon and a blessing to men when it meets with good fortune, while the love of boys, that pays court to the hallowed dues of friendship, I consider to be the privilege only of philosophy. Therefore all men should marry, but let only the wise be permitted to love boys, for perfect virtue grows least of all among women."

This is not homosexuality (at least in the modern sense). That's pederasty, ie. relationship between grown-up men and young boys.

It's not as simple as that though. The text points towards it being akin to men today who take a lass much younger as to groom her - it's the difference in age which defines the relationship, not the age itself. And the lover is not to be discarded once he becomes mature ergo the mentions of Achilles and Patroclus & Orestes and Pylades among others in the text.

Whatever excuse you want to give it, still deserves to suck a bullet.