CK2 Dev Diary# 23: More rules, less lunatics

[Aardvark Bellay]

Can someone tell me what this does?

post #192 (found by using "Show only dev responses" option at the top right) :

RULE_TURKIC_INVASIONS_HISTORICAL_DESC;The great Central Asian Turkic conquerors Sabuktigin, Seljuk and Timur will tend to rise in their historical timeframes.
RULE_TURKIC_INVASIONS_RANDOM_DESC;Sabuktigin, Seljuk and Timur can appear in a wider time span.
RULE_TURKIC_INVASIONS_OFF_DESC;The great Turkic conquerors will never rise.

No troop adjustement for the era when they show up and Timur still requires a mongol court.

Also when on "Random":

Looking at it, Sabuktigin and Seljuk can spawn between 809 and 1200 while on random, seems to be no blocker between them but there is none on historical either, and Timur can appear any time after 1200.

 

[0303]

That's actually historically accurate. The overall command will and should default to the commander with the highest title as it did historically. Ever wondered why the French army that massively outnumbered the English at Crecy and Agincourt lost so badly ? Largely due to poor generalship by the ranking French nobility present.

Military command was considered a noble priviledge even as late into the Crimean War - with the Charge of the Light Brigade being one of the most notable examples of what happens when the nobility could purchase officer ranks. (that started to change during the Napoleonic Wars when the common man could easily rise to command as witness a good number of Napoleon's marshals notably the future King of Sweden, Bernadotte. Orignally apprenticed to be an attorney which ended upon his father's death, he joined the French army as a private - the rest is history although he was quite the opportunist such as deliberately withholding his Swedish troops from participating in too much combat at the battle of Leipzig and preferring to let the Russian army in his sector do most of the "work" out of concern of what Swedish casualties might do to his reputation back home !

OK. So, the king assigns a commander. Then, a count comes and kicks out the commander assigned by the king. This is how it worked historically?

 

[0303]

I said you said that it didn't matter. The dead man is "creating" the titles for his sons, his sons get them... since they were created FOR (not BY, reference your own tooltip quote) his sons, certainly THEIR piety should not matter, right? So speaking of not understanding "a simple text" ...

I can't prevent you from interpreting my words at your will. I can only insist that at this point the game's logic is damaged. Do titles have a price? OK, everybody pays. Are titles distributed for free? OK, nobody pays. Nothing more.
After all, I wrote my suggestion in order to draw devs' attention to this lack of logic, not for discussing or proving the obvious things. And I have nothing more to say.

 

[Iron Chariots]

I can't prevent you from interpreting my words at your will. I can only insist that at this point the game's logic is damaged. Do titles have a price? OK, everybody pays. Are titles distributed for free? OK, nobody pays. Nothing more.
After all, I wrote my suggestion in order to draw devs' attention to this lack of logic, not for discussing or proving the obvious things. And I have nothing more to say.

Apparently kingdom creation doesn't always require paying a price.

Another example: Crusades. Winning a Crusade simply creates a kingdom and awards you the territories within it if said title does not currently exist. Why are you not upset about Crusades/other great holy wars?

 

[0303]

Apparently kingdom creation doesn't always require paying a price.

Another example: Crusades. Winning a Crusade simply creates a kingdom and awards you the territories within it if said title does not currently exist. Why are you not upset about Crusades/other great holy wars?

A crusade is a special event, and a kingdom which is created is an award for some heroic deeds and efforts of the best participant. He has paid the title by bringing his army etc.
A ruler's death is not a special event, and to be born a secondary heir under elective gavelkind is not a heroic deed which must be awarded.

 

[Liondrome]

We have added more Game Rules:

• Supernatural events can be set to Unrestricted, allowing the AI to have fun with them too.
• Both Mongol and Aztec invasions can be set to “Delayed Random” where they will show up at random but not before the year 1000 and not before the game has been played for 50 years.
• Turkic Conquerors can be set to Historical/Random/Off.
• Way of Life users can set Dueling to Normal/Restricted/Unrestricted.
• Both Vassal and Demesne limits can be set to Normal/Unlimited/50%/25%
• Grant Independence can be set to Normal/Unrestricted.
• Assassinate plots in MP can be set to Normal/No Players/No Players + Heirs/No Player Dynasty.

Would it be possible to have the game ask you for a new set of rules once the patch hits? Since if I'm understanding correctly if I want to tweak with any of the new possible rules I'd have to start a new game and scrap all the work I put into my current one. Or perhaps an ability to change the game ruleset?

While on the topic of rules. Could we get possibly something to buff the rules instead of either unrestricted or limited. Like for example.

• Both Vassal and Demesne limits can be set to Normal/Unlimited/150%/125%/75%/50%

Basically offering either 50 or 25% buff or debuff. Since if I'm understanding currently its either infinite, normal or hefty limitations. Since it would be nice to play with higher demense & vassal limits but I'm either made to cheat or turn on infinite. :/

 

[huyderman]

A crusade is a special event, and a kingdom which is created is an award for some heroic deeds and efforts of the best participant. He has paid the title by bringing his army etc.
A ruler's death is not a special event, and to be born a secondary heir under elective gavelkind is not a heroic deed which must be awarded.

I think there is a fundamental difference in perspective here. When I play a tribal with elective gavelkind, and my heir splits off into a separate kingdom, I seldom see this as a reward. I usually see it as a pain, something I try to prevent happening until I can create an empire tier title. If I wanted that second kingdom, I usually would have created it. There are few times I want more than one top-level tier title, and If I'm planning to create an empire tier title, the second kingdom title is usually the least of my worries. So odds are I'm stuck with a second title I don't really want, can't destroy due to gavelkind, causing vassal malus ("desires kingdom") and complicates inheritance. And that's assuming I can easily "retake" the new kingdom, which may not always be the case.

So while you see it as a "reward", I see it as a pain in the ass and one of the challenges of playing tribals.

 

[chopak]

I think there is a fundamental difference in perspective here. When I play a tribal with elective gavelkind, and my heir splits off into a separate kingdom, I seldom see this as a reward. I usually see it as a pain, something I try to prevent happening until I can create an empire tier title. If I wanted that second kingdom, I usually would have created it. There are few times I want more than one top-level tier title, and If I'm planning to create an empire tier title, the second kingdom title is usually the least of my worries. So odds are I'm stuck with a second title I don't really want, can't destroy due to gavelkind, causing vassal malus ("desires kingdom") and complicates inheritance. And that's assuming I can easily "retake" the new kingdom, which may not always be the case.

So while you see it as a "reward", I see it as a pain in the ass and one of the challenges of playing tribals.

He means, its a reward for secondary son, not for primary heir or the player.

 

[VoodooEconomist]

He means, its a reward for secondary son, not for primary heir or the player.

Isn't that the point of Gavelkind? To reward all sons? Hence the opinion modifier?

 

[_Perun_]

I wonder if some of the participants of the discussion concerning gavelkind realize that the idea of countries and realms as we know it today was quite abstract in the Middle Ages and the division of lands after a ruler's death was based rather on the similar principles to those of modern civil inheritance when no will has been made prior to death. Ck2 simply covers the timeframe when hereditary titles were seen as simple private possessions and were yet to evolve to nationalism. Wanting the gavelkind to adjust to the later idea of administration is not only pointless but also strips the game down from any early medieval flavour it has.

 

[Urzhail64]

I wonder if some of the participants of the discussion concerning gavelkind realize that the idea of countries and realms as we know it today was quite abstract in the Middle Ages and the division of lands after a ruler's death was based rather on the similar principles to those of modern civil inheritance when no will has been made prior to death. Ck2 simply covers the timeframe when hereditary titles were seen as simple private possessions and were yet to evolve to nationalism. Wanting the gavelkind to adjust to the later idea of administration is not only pointless but also strips the game down from any early medieval flavour it has.

Have to agree with that..most of the modern day nations didn't develop a sense of nationalism until well late into the Middle Ages and even then, some countries notably Germany and Italy wouldn't achieve nationhood until the 1800's. (Prussian unification of Germany under Bismarck and the Risorgimento respectively - although Wittlesbach ruled Bavaria was notably reluctant to join Bismarck's unification process)

 

[Sunspawn]

Have to agree with that..most of the modern day nations didn't develop a sense of nationalism until well late into the Middle Ages and even then, some countries notably Germany and Italy wouldn't achieve nationhood until the 1800's. (Prussian unification of Germany under Bismarck and the Risorgimento respectively - although Wittlesbach ruled Bavaria was notably reluctant to join Bismarck's unification process)

Well, Bavaria was a fairly large and strong state both in the HRE and post-HRE Europe, so it makes sense for them not to want to bow down to someone else.

On the topic of gavelkind, I hope sometime down the line Paradox will finally rewrite the algorithm that decides how to parcel out land and maybe even allows player involvement in the inheritance. And not only land, but maybe even EG-style kingdom (only titular) creation and allocation of vassals in the general geographic location of the son's lands might be good.