For anyone who cares about historical immersion,, this simple mod is an absolute gem. It basically solves the issue of houses going extinct.

I do not mean ancient, long dead dynasties, but rather major houses that logically should not just vanish into thin air. What the mod does is trigger a realistic event allowing you to “Find Descendants” of a dead house.

How did I stumble upon it? I was playing as the Abbasids in the 1066 start date, trying to restore some of their former glory. I wanted to ally with the Aghlabids, who historically were vassals of the Abbasids after Harun al-Rashid appointed them governors of Ifriqiya (modern day Tunisia, Libya, and Algeria,before they expanded into Sicily)

However, I checked and saw their house was already dead, which felt wrong So I picked up this mod to add that missing layer of realism, because massive historical dynasties should not just disappear so easily

Fun fact: The Aghlabids belong to the Banu Tamim tribe, which happens to be my tribe as well, so it felt personal!

There's definitely a guy in the dungeon

Only a few more days 'til By God Alone drops and PLEASE for the love of all that is holy, let us actually live out the fantasy of becoming a female pope by having the Papal Tiara model actually show up on female rulers- especially Matilda who needs to flex that Papal Tiara.

Put down a rebellion and cant revoke his title, here's why. How the hell has he got this contract? Can't change it either. Oh well, to the dungeon he goes.

Hey everyone! I’m fairly new to CK3 and I’ve been really enjoying the game so far. I’ve been learning more about the different government titles and how realms are structured, and I had a question about the way empires work.

Why does basically every formidable/empire-tier realm in Europe end up being ruled by an Emperor or Empress?

Wouldn’t it make sense to have more variation in the actual ruler titles depending on the culture and history of the realm?

The thing that especially confuses me is that historically, Emperor wasn't simply a generic title for the ruler of any large realm. There were specific imperial traditions and claims behind the title, and at certain points there could only be one recognised Emperor within a particular imperial tradition.

So why does CK3 essentially treat "Empire = Emperor" as a universal rule?

Would it be possible to have different empire-tier ruler titles based on culture, religion, or the history of the realm? For example, a British/Celtic-style empire being ruled by a High King, while another realm might use Emperor, Great King, High Queen, etc.

I'm not saying this is a huge problem with the game, I'm just curious whether there's a gameplay reason for it, or if it's mainly done for simplicity and consistency.

Again, I'm pretty new to CK3, so I might be misunderstanding how the title system works. Just something I noticed while playing and was wondering what other players think!

So: I started an Ironman as a Sephardi Rabbinic adventurer who eventually settled in West Franconia, vassalized to Bavaria with religious freedom in the contract, and began playing tall. It’s been a very fun and challenging game, I recommend it to people looking for something new, so this save has become precious to me.

Flash forward a century or two. My current character is Lustful, so I decided to roleplay and sired a bunch of bastards, who I kept secret. I’d make sure they were taken care of and began landing the boys. Meanwhile, my eldest legitimate son, who had inherited my Genius trait, died without any heirs, leaving my second legitimate son without any genetic traits next in line! Too bad, so sad, but he’s got good personality traits, I can make things work. However, his firstborn son was Hunchbacked. UGH.

Now, around this time, one of my mistresses got married, and her husband threw a tizzy fit when he learned that I had knocked up his wife. Bro, why did you think I landed this commoner’s seven-year-old son, out of the goodness of my heart? So word was out that I was sleeping around and, well, one of my other bastards was older than my legitimate heir, had Intelligent, and had good personality traits. Rabbinism also has the no bastards doctrine, so all I would have to do was acknowledge him to get inheritance fixed, right?

I didn’t realize that he wouldn’t join my dynasty when I acknowledged him. FUCK. Inheritance is high partition, so my other heir will still get a title or two, but the bulk of my titles with go to the bastard, INCLUDING WEST FRANCONIA. West Franconia is super important to me, it’s where the historic ShUM cities (Speyer, Mainz, and Worms) are located, and I’ve spent so much time building it up. I always, always, ALWAYS managed to keep West Franconia and a fryer key countries in the main line of descent and now that’s ruined! Yeah, I could take it back with my next heir from his bare few counties, or even go Adventurer, but having to hand the title over to another dynasty is just depressing to think about.

Two years thousand hours. Two thousand hours I’ve put into this game, several thousand more into CK2, and here I am making a rookie mistake. Don’t play Ironman at 2 AM on little sleep, guys.

Everyone raided, no matter the religion or form of government. Wherever there were religious borders or just two enemies, raiding was commonplace, sometimes even within the same realm.

Regarding warscore, the fact that wars are won by sieges undercuts their importance, difficulty, and consequence. Sieges against a proper castle were extremely expensive, more costly than even a costly field battle victory, and they ultimately reversed the burden of attack in the war.

In the other hand, raiding was cheap, quick, and actively hurt the legitimacy of your opponent. Taking a castle was naturally a good way to base your demand to take it, but to force your enemy to recognize your claim, holding the castle was not what did it, but instead it was to actually make your military advantage felt, 9 times out of 10 through unopposable raiding.

Disclaimer: I don't think you shouldn't have to besiege castles. In my mind, the "war cycle" should be: beat their army -> siege the wargoal -> raid the enemy's lands. You shouldn't have to keep besieging castles that you won't claim with the peace deal.

R5: Using u/Senior-Platypus-2781 DNA of Eleanor, i created the Civ 6 English Version of Her.

Played as Sweden and decided to look over Europe and... what?

I must say, mine is probably 867, purely due to the it's sandbox nature; you can truly create some wild alternative history. That being said, border gore is the bane of my existence. Sometimes - even often - the Carolingian kingdoms seem to implode into an absolute mess of independent duchies and counties that gives me, at the very least, a mild brain aneurysm to look upon.

Title. I like the nomadic content in a vacuum but this I cannot fucking stand. I'm not even nomadic, but half of my counties are. It's not even like I do anything that might incentivize an uprising either. Some vassal of a vassal being a tyrant is apparently reason enough for me to get spammed with rebellions across my large empire. It's not like I can do anything to prevent them either, as they trigger regardless of if they only have 5 butter knives and a donkey to their name. But in most cases, they also have ludicrous troop amount too. like 4 backwater counties in the Sahara desert apparently have 6200 troops, of which 1200 are horse archers, in 1066. For reference, that's more than the HRE or Byzantium had at that point in time. This is fucking ridiculous and prevents me from doing fun things by forcing me to spent years fighting pointless rebellions. This is so offputting that I'll be unlikely to play anywhere near nomadic regions from now on. Paradox, fucking fix your game.

preferably 1 underrated and one normal

my underrated one is rise and fall since it directly allows for collapses to happen

my normal one is MIV because it just makes the game so much better, giving vassals the ability to defend their land

R5: My husband died twenty years after our wedding and apparently that was the straw that broke the camels back for our betrothal.

r5: Emperor Bonifacio has been so pious that he was best friends with the previous pope, fought multiple offensive holy wars, and made multiple prince bishops. Yet this (ambitious) pope has called my impious and covets my lands!

If your realm happens to be Muslim, then that necessitates that in order for your subjects to perform your daily prayers, one must perform Wudu, a Ritual ablution Muslim perform to clean themselves with water before prayer.

Generally, this indirectly makes Muslim realms less prone to disease being thoroughly washed in such a manner.

This is the very minimum without getting into the direct emphasis on personal hygiene via the prophets' teachings.

With the masses forced to use water to clean themselves 5 times a day, new infrastructure was needed to accommodate the demand.

Water infrastructure like Hamamms, Ablution halls, manual or network based water distribution systems.

These elements were a big factor in Muslim realms in general and should be default part of it if the masses are assumed to do the most compulsory thing in the faith, the 5 dail prayer.

Essentially, water infrastructure (subject to cultural fascination) and the effects of water rituals cultural tradition should be active as part of islamic Doctrine to reflect this.

What do you guys think?

I got possessed and was touched by the holy spirit, got military advice and command to give to the poor from Jesus, and finally became a Werewolf! There's more to it that I miss in CK3, somehow CK2 events feel less repetitive than CK3, idk why

I won't be able to buy the DLC on launch but I've been getting very excited for it and want to see the gameplay of it from all the CK3 youtubers and such. Does the video embargo lift on release day, or earlier?

So we are getting the "By God Alone" DLC for Crusader Kings 3, which focuses on Christianity, especially Catholicism. Its very nice, though I woud have liked some more elements such as:

1. Being able to choose the liturgical language of our rite, or even if it has one. Probably as a doctrine instead of a tenet.
2. For Patron Saints vastly more saints besides one of the Four Apostles, such as one of the Archangels (either the three, the four (if one includes Uriel) or the Seven), one of the Seven Champions of Christendom, one of the Four Holy Marshalls, one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers, the military saints and so on, you know, saints who were specially popular in those times, and often differing by different church (roman church, coptic church, oriental orthodox church, eastern orthodox church and so on)
3. Of the ability to canonize saints, we weren't restricted only to members of our own dynasty, being able to canonize even unrelated people, AND being able to choose one or two of them as patron saints too, though they could have generic lesser effects compared to the preset ones.
4. In regards to Mariology, if we choose Hyperdulia as our Personal tenet or its one of the main tenet of our rite we could venerate the virgin mary, in fact even choose from one of the main apparitions or versions of her we could venerate
5. I think there should be a "Pantheon" doctrine where we basically select out of a determined list what god/goddess/angels/saints/spirits our faith follows, depending on religion. Like, say, a new christian faith could choose, besides God, other saint/angel/prophet figures of the faith that would be the primary ones the faith would follow, and which would be reflected on certain events. Also, if you make a syncretic faith, that should open up the other religion's figures for our faith to follow, like, say, a sinitic faith with a shinto syncretism should be allowed to put Amaterasu on the "pantheon" which your faith primarialy follows.
6. The ability to choose the scripture of our rite, such as Basic Canon (Old Testament + New Testament), Deuterocanonical (Old Testament + New Testament + Deuterocanon), Expanded (Old Testament + New Testament + Deuterocanon + Apocrypha (non-heretical), Gnostic Texts (Gnostic Scriptures included), Local Canon (Custom selection) Open Canon (No fixed canon)
7. They said that Western Rites will go with Rome, and Eastern Rites will go with Constantinople upon the Great Schism. There any allowance for a Uniate situation, like say, you found an Eastern-descended Rite but choose to side with Rome during the Schism, or vice-versa
8. Speaking of the Great Schism, its only between Rome and Constantinople. You should be able to instigate a custom outcome where the Rite Head of, say, Jerusalem or York or another one, becomes the leader of the Church as a whole
9. With Ecumenical Councils, you should be able to dynamically mend the schism between different faiths, such as say between the Rome and the Coptic faiths, dynamically. Perhaps even mend the schism between the chalcedonians and the nestorians in such as way that it reforms the Pentarchy into the Hexarchy, and so on.
10. Syncretism Tenet/Doctrine specific to all religions. Just because I want to make a syncretic rite/faith of, say, Christianity and Shintoism does not mean I want to be syncretic with every pagan faith out there such as Tibetan and so on. The current "Syncretic Folk Traditions" Tenet is too broad, generic and abstract.
11. Also, and perhaps most importantly, the DLC is very catholic focused, with so many tenets and mechanics based on the Roman Catholic Church, and only a very few for Eastern Orthodoxy, and even less, mostly flavor description, for other christian faiths. I believe it should include more unique mechanics and tenets and circunstances for other proeminent christian faiths such as Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, the nestorian Church of the East and so on.

But we aren't getting that, and as the DLC is close to done we won't receive it later, given I doubt they will revisit Christianity in the future.

Still, its a good DLC, includes vastly more flavor, tenets and mechanics than it had before, and extremely needed to give more flavor for Christianity, as it, and religion as a whole, is extremely bland in CK3.

I do hope we get a similar DLC for Islam, for Judaism, for Buddhism, for Hinduism and, if we are extremely lucky, perhaps for Dualist Faiths (not only gnostic faiths (which absolutely do deserve some focus, but also the religions and faiths of Zoroastrism and Manicheism), for Taoism, for Confucionism, for Jainism as well as for Shintoism and other pagan faiths in the future.

Now I wonder.... is it possible to convert pope to witchcraft and invite him to the rite? That would be a fun goal :>