CK2 Dev Diary #19 The End is Nigh

[Meneth]

Also, when you say code, do you mean it has been hardcoded? If it is, may I request a define to set the penalty that being bankrupt will apply (where setting it to zero will turn it off)?

The effect is a static modifier, so you can change the actual effect of it arbitrarily.
You just can't change when it is applied.

 

[rageair]

As I've said before, I'm just somewhat concerned with the addition of new sources for health, as it reminds me of how positive opinion inflated over time as more modifiers were added, and how the same happened with stats as more traits were added, to the point where the nerfs in the 2.5.X patch were pretty much nessessary. (I'm counting te new education system as a stat nerf, as by taking precise control over traits away, it had that effect.)

The main difference here is that diseases are more deadly now. There might be more sources of health indeed, but there's also more significant debuffs to health.

 

[rageair]

Regarding the tribalization of nomadic land upon it being conquered by a non-nomad, which of the following happens at the end of the war:

1. If the defender was a nomad, fire the moddable script (which checks the holdings and adds a tribal holding if there are no holdings and the attacker isn't a nomad),
2. If the attacker isn't a nomad and the defender was a nomad, fire the moddable script (which checks the holdings and adds a tribal holding if there are no holdings), or
3. If the attacker isn't a nomad, the defender was a nomad, and the province lacks holdings, fire the moddable script (which adds a tribal holding if there are no holdings)?

Or, to put it another way, can we mod the conditions for tribalization (e.g. "If there is a temple but no other holdings, turn that into a tribe", "If there is a well developed tribal holding, turn it into a castle right away if the attacker is non-tribal", or "If the attacker was a nomad, create a tribe/temple so that the defender's culture sticks around") as well as the actual tribalization?

It doesn't check attacker/defender, it's an event triggered on the on_new_holder 'on action' pulse. It checks if the new holder is nomad or not, and if the province is empty (or only has a temple) it adds a tribe. It's fully moddable, you can change any aspect of this behavior easily.

 

[Moah]

Looking through the rest of the patch notes I think the following is set too low:
- AI no longer calls all allies into war, but only tries to get more than 1.25 times the opponent's strength
Sure a human would win with that sort of advantage but I'm not sure this is enough for the AI because it's not as efficient at gathering up its forces such as using ships to shuttle around and such.

This is a define, though: DESIRED_ALLIANCE_MULTIPLIER_STRENGTH_IN_WARS, so you can set it up at a higher value if you so desire.
And after double checking, it is now at 1.5 in the defines file.

 

[Darkrenown]

religious control mandate should be reworked somehow. i don't have a good idea on how, but it is clearly overpowered and you shouldn't be in a better situation when you as the ruler have the aberrant faith.

There was a note about this, but vassals of the same faith will now be upset about religious title revocation. E.g. If you are a Sunni ruling all Catholics you can revoke a Catholic title but it will make your other Catholic vassals mad.

@Darkrenown, you said a while back that you were looking into reintroducing Crown Authority into Conclave as well as more laws to allow something like The King's Peace that banned vassal-wars between vassals as well as even unilateral wars outside the realm without permission.

Has this been introduced, or is the system still the same with vassals under Conclave, with no way to centralize realms like Byzantium and the HRE, so as to strengthen the crown and the state?

Also, a while ago I asked about the moddability of the game being improved by adding into the Law files the free_revoke_barony/county/kingdom modifiers to the already existing free_revoke_duchy modifier, to allow modders to implement more realistic Imperial realms with Laws and Law triggers.

Has this been implemented or can it be added easily?

I don't think I ever mentioned re-adding CA, just adding some new laws relating to vassal warring. It will not be in for 2.6, the decisions to end individual vassal wars made it a bit less vital, but I have a half working system I hope to finish for the first post release patch (the actual effects aren't hard, just making vassal react well takes time).

I don't think free_revoke things have changed, I'd ask @Divine but he's on vacation at the moment.

more info pleas

From the Pagan DD:
"Norse Culture will no longer split into into Swedish/Danish etc when it’s part of a powerful Norse realm (which I seem to remember was said to be the case long ago but doesn’t seem to have been implemented) where the ruler either has 2 kingdom tiles or an empire title, or if the faith has been reformed and the Fylkir is Norse. On a related note, Pictish, Old Saxon, and Visigothic cultures will also no longer split/change when part of a powerful realm or their head of religion is of their culture."

So... immortal characters, as that appears to be A Thing... (I mean, I'm nearly sold on Reaper's due just on that and potential Undead events...!)

Are they actually properly immortal (as in "will not die of old age" (presumably, disease/assassination/death inc combat are all still on) or is it just increased longevity?

And, because I'm thinking long-term here, how is this likely to interact with exported saves to EUIV (or is that not something anyone will know at this point until the patch is out)?

'Cos bein' of a lichly bend myself, the idea of a permeant immortal ruler is kind of appealing... But seems a bit unlikely in the context of the main game ('cos it'd be, like, CRAZY-good). I mean, I am ALL for that is so, but...!

Immortals do not die of old age at all, and they have some extra health so disease is less likely to be deadly to them, but violence can still kill them.

I have asked Jake about letting it transfer to EU4 and he is provisionally ok with it if we can add it, but I'm not sure if it'll take too much work. We are doing some Converted updates soon so we'll have a look then.

Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but...

Isn't this something of a band aid solution? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for France staying united in 1066 and later starts. But the problem is that the AI loves to create every single title it can instead of thinking ahead on the effects it could have on the stability of the realm (or indeed on the size of their treasury). Making an exception for Aquitaine won't solve any underlying issues. It won't even solve all issues with Aquitaine; the English will probably still try to create the title in the Third Crusade start date.

Yes, it is a band aid, but this was one of the most complained about examples so it seemed reasonable to quickfix it until when/if we have a broader solution.

Finally, someone who I forgot to quote asked about seeing the other gamerules, they are mostly listed here:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/ck2-dev-diary-the-rules-of-the-game.923570/
(I think we added one since writing that, but I'm not 100%)

 

[Darkrenown]

I am not sure what marketing is doing with the announce. I'll ask again.

Oh yeah, this too. Latest word is it'll be announced early next week.

 

[Deleted member 471407]

I was talking about your comments in the stream announcement thread. Although reading it again you didn't specifically say there would be news, just that the content would be in the stream. Although I wasn't the only one to read it that way. Sorry.

Here you go guys! The Content pack!

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/ckii-reaper’s-due-content-pack-renders.963250/

 

[Darkrenown]

Wait, you're trying to say that turning off the defensive pacts in options will disable achivements?

That's the case, yes.

Actually this was changed and turning off pacts no longer disabled cheevos.

 

[Darkrenown]

That's the case, yes.

Actually this was changed and turning off pacts no longer disabled cheevos.

Self-quoting for viability.

 

[Darkrenown]

@Darkrenown, Are barons being blocked from using Agnatic-Cognatic moddable? I'm asking because in my personal mod have realms that use the female friendly gender laws (Absolute Cognatic, Enatic-Cognatic, and Enatic), and thus those realms have a need for baronesses. Also is it too late to include modding support for matronymics in the Cultures file / folder?

The baron-block is just a trigger in the law potential, so entirely moddable.

It's certainly too late to add matronymics for 2.6, but you could always ask Divine in the modding forum how plausible adding it in general is.

As wonderful as the introduction of options is, it does worry me a bit. I fear that present, and maybe future, "unpopular" and divisive features will simply have an off button, rather than spending more time improving the new feature. I personally like the introduction of defensive pacts but I wish the scaling was better and that opinion and diplomacy played a part in who joins, now I fear it will just stay as it is.

Well we don't particularly like to add things we think will just be disabled by most people, so in general we'll be assuming people use the default settings and try to make sure those features are good enough people want to use them.

 

[Darkrenown]

I get that, and The Reaper's Due and it's patch looks great and fixes or improves many of my long - term pet peeves, but is that it for defensive pacts? they stay as they are?

Not entirely, there's at least one more change I want to make but it wasn't done yet for 2.6. I'm being vague as I'm not sure when or if it'll be added yet.

Never noticed it. How could it be a mess?

Shouldn't Elusive Shadows get the improved chances as well?

Buffed or nerfed?

It lead to people inheriting little baronies all over the place via their wives.

Possibly thematically, but Master Schemer is the trait that levels up via so you need to invest some time in the focus while the Elusive Shadows would be able to have the full effect instantly.

Bastard got changed from -30 to -25, husband from -100 to -50

 

[Divine]

@Darkrenown I know a while back @Divine had said they would attempt to include an event function to call an explicit tactic from a combat pulse event. Did this function every exactly make it into the game? OR is it still on the drawing boards.

@Darkrenown, you said a while back that you were looking into reintroducing Crown Authority into Conclave as well as more laws to allow something like The King's Peace that banned vassal-wars between vassals as well as even unilateral wars outside the realm without permission.

Has this been introduced, or is the system still the same with vassals under Conclave, with no way to centralize realms like Byzantium and the HRE, so as to strengthen the crown and the state?

Also, a while ago I asked about the moddability of the game being improved by adding into the Law files the free_revoke_barony/county/kingdom modifiers to the already existing free_revoke_duchy modifier, to allow modders to implement more realistic Imperial realms with Laws and Law triggers.

Has this been implemented or can it be added easily?

IIRC I neither had time to implement the tactics effect nor the free_revoke_tier modifier during the summer.

@Darkrenown, Are barons being blocked from using Agnatic-Cognatic moddable? I'm asking because in my personal mod have realms that use the female friendly gender laws (Absolute Cognatic, Enatic-Cognatic, and Enatic), and thus those realms have a need for baronesses. Also is it too late to include modding support for matronymics in the Cultures file / folder?

Sounds like a great suggestion, I like it and with limited knowledge I still think it was not totally unheard of during the time if the woman was significantly more powerful than her husband. Please make sure it's on the suggestion thread in the mod forums. Unfortunately it might require a bit of code rework (we don't have any matronymics at all right now in game?).