CK2 Dev Diary - The Rules of the Game

[Dracko81]

originally there for balance.

Originally not there at all actually.

Raiding and revolts do not affect realm stability of any player realm or any AI controlled realm of a couple of duchies in size.

Gender equality laws affect nothing, other than having a female ruler. It doesn't open up any exploitation that isn't already within the game.

When you change rules, you need to consider the overall affect on the game mechanics. You haven't considered the exploits that it creates.

You're just being silly at this point since you have not made a single logical argument here on why this shouldn't be added when Doomark specifically says the purpose of this thread is to add variation settings into the game, that can be fundamentally game changing, so that the average player doesn't have to constantly mod the game themselves. Its like you completely ignore the purpose of this thread simply because you have fears that people will play the game they want to instead your way.

For these reasons especially, I think that adding a bunch of Paradox-approved, fully supported in-game rule variations is a good idea.

I think your projecting you views and desires here. The point is to add new rules that are supported variations. Adding a rule that changes the balance of power for exploitation by the player isn't something I can see being added. Because it does just that, allows exploitation beyond just the mechanic in question. Changing marriage rules of landed characters affect succession laws and not just gavelkind. Tanistry too, because you family can be forbidden to marry. Same goes for any succession law really.

So you chose an extremely bad example that makes no sense at all.

Not at all I could of picked any game. Fallout 4, demand that the 10mm pistol to be stronger because you just want it. That game is single player how would that be any different. The game developers set the rules - and now in CK2's case the variation to rules too - not the players. If you want to change the rules beyond that, this is where modding comes into it.

 

[havenost]

Raiding and revolts do not affect realm stability of any player realm or any AI controlled realm of a couple of duchies in size.

Yes they do. You're telling me a giant stacks of 9,000 rebels or even sometimes 24,000 rebels has no affect on the outcome of the game or political stability at all when you're in the middle of fighting a war with someone else and your low on cash.

Gender equality laws affect nothing, other than having a female ruler. It doesn't open up any exploitation that isn't already within the game.

Seriously do you just ignore everything I say and do you ever even bother try changing your government type? It usually requires crown laws increases / favors so that you can enforce a peace long enough to take a vote to change your succession laws. Which you get penalized for. You then have to actually get the succession law change, which you then get penalized for again. Above all of that, you have to play as a particular religion that allows you to even have those rules succession types like Cathars, which is another penalty since most of Europe is going to hate you. With the gender equality option, your basically circumventing the the heretic/different culture penalty, and the law change penalties.

When you change rules, you need to consider the overall affect on the game mechanics. You haven't considered the exploits that it creates.

You're the only one not considering the overall affects on the game mechanics here. Because you act like all the other things don't change anything when they change everything massively. The difference between me and you is I understand the effects of the changes, and I deem them acceptable. Unlike you, who is blindly cherry picking and trying to force your opinion of whats acceptable and unacceptable here.

I think your projecting you views and desires here. The point is to add new rules that are supported variations. Adding a rule that changes the balance of power for exploitation by the player isn't something I can see being added. Because it does just that, allows exploitation beyond just the mechanic in question. Changing marriage rules of landed characters affect succession laws and not just gavelkind. Tanistry too, because you family can be forbidden to marry. Same goes for any succession law really.

You have literally said absolutely nothing. You keep saying its an exploit but yet fail to explain in any which why on how or why it negatively affects the game. Again there is literally nothing negative or gaming breaking about not letting your family members get married. Them getting married causes the same issues that arises as rebellions, which is simply a unnecessary war that wastes time and money. If you don't think being able to completely disable rebellion is any major issue, then there certainly isn't any major problems with having undisputed successions, with a lot less annoying family members.

Not at all I could of picked any game. Fallout 4, demand that the 10mm pistol to be stronger because you just want it. That game is single player how would that be any different. The game developers set the rules - and now in CK2's case the variation to rules too - not the players. If you want to change the rules beyond that, this is where modding comes into it.

I find that you're grossly ignorant and have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously I don't need to ask Bethesda to buff the 10mm pistol in the game because they give you the Creation Kit to do it yourself from the start which takes 10 seconds to do.

As compared to CK2, currently exactly what I am asking for is not capable of being done at all with the current modability since its HARD CODED mechanic.

Second of all as said before Doomdark literally said

[
Now, of course there is such a thing as “the way the game was meant to be played”. That is, how the designers made the game and like to play it themselves. However, variety is the spice of life, and after 11 Crusader Kings II expansions things are not as clear-cut anymore. It’s actually pretty funny that I’ve been using a small personal mod for CK2 for awhile myself. There are some downsides to modding and using mods though:

• It requires awareness that it’s possible, and where to find existing mods. The modding scene is a jungle.
• It takes a modicum of extra effort and skill.
• It might not feel quite legitimate (it can feel a bit like cheating) and you might not get any Achievements.
• Mods typically do not have the same level of support as the base game. Many become fossilized or are otherwise problematic.

For these reasons especially, I think that adding a bunch of Paradox-approved, fully supported in-game rule variations is a good idea. Thus, when you start a new game, you are now presented with several interesting options. Most of them are simple flavor variations, but some are more fundamental and will disable Achievements in Ironman mode. Here’s the list of options we are currently showing in the new screen (still a work in progress though):

Our new rule system is itself fully moddable, so that modders can use the same system with pretty much any options they might want!

I look forward to your thoughts and comments. Are there any rule variations you think we’ve missed, or that you would really like to see?

Seriously look at the exact reason why they are adding this. I'll even walk you through bullet point for bullet point.

1. It requires awareness that it’s possible, and where to find existing mods. The modding scene is a jungle.

Check my previous response. I already explained how its possible, just not possible for modders.

2. It takes a modicum of extra effort and skill.

Exact reason why I am asking for it to be added, since it would require extra effort to do so... and no small amount either at the moment since it would basically require me to hack and decipher the hard coded files.

3. It might not feel quite legitimate (it can feel a bit like cheating) and you might not get any Achievements.

Huh guess what? I think this completely negates your opinion right here.

4. Mods typically do not have the same level of support as the base game. Many become fossilized or are otherwise problematic.

All I have to say for this point is exactly what I said in point #2. Which is basically its needs to be done by the developers since its physically not possible to do by modders at the moments, and even if were why would they lock something that basic away from most people, when their goal is to save time for the average player so they don't have to go for the mods over something so simply as this. If you literally say exploitation one more time, seriously refer to wait was said in point #3.

 

[BrokenSky]

As I said multiple times (which I have highlighted in green in the quote below) they have to be a subject of your realm and lower title than you. If you and your brother are both Kings, it means that your brother is not in your realm anymore, he has his own realm. If you're an emperor, and he is a king... then you control who he marries given that he is vassal king of your empire, and everyone in your dynasty under him. If it is vice versa, then then you only control who is under you. If he is an independent kingdom, and not part of your empire, then you don't control who marries who in his kingdom.



How this would work is if you're a count, then you can only control people who are in your court. If you're are a duke then you can control everyone who is lower than a duke ranked that is under your vassalage. If you're a king you control everyone that is lower than king ranked that is under your vassalage. Same with emperor, where you control everyone who is part of your empire that has a lower ranked then you. If you are emperor of Britain, and your brother is Emperor of France, you don't control or approve of who marries who in France, only in Britain.

In the case of multiplayer, if one player is lets say a duke in France, and another player is the king of France, and they are both of the same dynasty. Then whenever the duke player tries to arrange a marriage between one of your dynasty members under his control with someone else, then the player who is king gets a pop up asking whether he approves of the marriage or not. If the player who is king arranges a marriage, the duke player has no say in it since he is lower rank. Maybe possibly add in a casus belli for players who disapprove of certain marriages.

I think it would be good if you could arrange the marriage of your landed children and maybe veto them marrying some courtier with no claims and no skills for "love" (Disgusting, I know). Outside of this, no.

 

[Dracko81]

Yes they do. You're telling me a giant stacks of 9,000 rebels or even sometimes 24,000 rebels has no affect on the outcome of the game or political stability at all when you're in the middle of fighting a war with someone else and your low on cash.

What game are you playing where you 9k to 24k stacks of rebels. Rebellions have never been a major issue in any release of CK2.

Seriously do you just ignore everything I say and do you ever even bother try changing your government type? It usually requires crown laws increases / favors so that you can enforce a peace long enough to take a vote to change your succession laws. Which you get penalized for. You then have to actually get the succession law change, which you then get penalized for again. Above all of that, you have to play as a particular religion that allows you to even have those rules succession types like Cathars, which is another penalty since most of Europe is going to hate you. With the gender equality option, your basically circumventing the the heretic/different culture penalty, and the law change penalties.

I disagree with your opinion therefore I am being ignorant, please. Gender laws will not circumvent succession like agnatic, you still need to change the law. It just allows you and the AI to have access to more people to do things. It doesn't create a way for the player to profit in some way.

You're the only one not considering the overall affects on the game mechanics here. Because you act like all the other things don't change anything when they change everything massively. The difference between me and you is I understand the effects of the changes, and I deem them acceptable. Unlike you, who is blindly cherry picking and trying to force your opinion of whats acceptable and unacceptable here.

I'm not forcing my opinion, I voicing my opinion and backing it with actual effects that will result in game from exploiting the suggested change. You however are becoming quite hostile because someone disagrees and finds your suggestion to be lacking.

You have literally said absolutely nothing. You keep saying its an exploit but yet fail to explain in any which why on how or why it negatively affects the game. Again there is literally nothing negative or gaming breaking about not letting your family members get married. Them getting married causes the same issues that arises as rebellions, which is simply a unnecessary war that wastes time and money. If you don't think being able to completely disable rebellion is any major issue, then there certainly isn't any major problems with having undisputed successions, with a lot less annoying family members.

No negative to stopping family members from marrying? Do you have no idea how succession works. Forcing landed members of you family to not marry, means that when they die all land granted to them returns to you. As a result - under any succession law - you can keep several lines of your dynasty active to hold lands and re-grant to another when their line dies out. Resulting in always having direct control over the entire realm. This means factions will never form and faction revolts will never trigger. This also means that all holding taxes will return to you completely each generation, allowing for large sums to money to be amassed.

There are so many actual things that can be exploited by stopping dynastic marriages to any degree, especially landed characters.

3. It might not feel quite legitimate (it can feel a bit like cheating) and you might not get any Achievements.

Huh guess what? I think this completely negates your opinion right here.

Feeling like cheating is not actually cheating, which is what your suggestion actually is.

This is criticism of your idea, not you, stop taking it so personally. If you can't take criticism about an idea, you're really better off not responding. You're clearly not taking the exploitations can bring into consideration at all. In the long run the devs might like the idea and add it. But I doubt that anything like this will be or should be added purely on basis that is creates a cheat in game creation.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Don't see how that is an issue when I said in the original post that this would be for the AI only.

The paragraph I'm referring to :

In the case of multiplayer, if one player is lets say a duke in France, and another player is the king of France, and they are both of the same dynasty. Then whenever the duke player tries to arrange a marriage between one of your dynasty members under his control with someone else, then the player who is king gets a pop up asking whether he approves of the marriage or not. If the player who is king arranges a marriage, the duke player has no say in it since he is lower rank. Maybe possibly add in a casus belli for players who disapprove of certain marriages.

Secondly in multiplayer
1. You have the option to refuse to play with that setting on.
2. Don't marry or play someone who is blood related to another player.
3. As I suggested, add a casus belli in case you're being forced to marry a character that you don't want to marry or having a marriage turned down by your Dynasty head when your potential spouse's lord agrees.

1). Only if I'm aware that setting has been changed before the game starts

2) That's a good general point, but doesn't in the slightest change that giving yet another way to screw with a player - without ejecting them from the game entirely - isn't a good idea.

3) That still doesn't help, as adding a CB is only of any use if you can apply it.

It isn't all that hard to not get screwed over if you put a single bit of time thinking about it. You act like you're forced to play certain characters and have no agency of your own. You can always chose not to play a character that can easily be screwed over. Like someone from a different realm, or different dynasty.

Different dynasty yes, different realm though... Never inherited into someone unusual with elective, seniority, or tanistry? Never pressed a relative's claim and forced them to become your vassal?

Especially with the fact that any player can play as another player's vassal at the start of the game and get immediately screwed over if they chose to imprison you and execute you immediately.

Also that option teaches you 3 things in the game.

1. How to not make stupid decisions such play someone else underling.
2. If you for some reason make the stupid decision to play as someone else underling, don't play with untrustworthy players who will screw you over.
3. How to "Git Gud"... it adds a a competitive drive between players to dominate their realm and climb the political ladder quicker, otherwise you're at the complete mercy of a more powerful player who is the same dynasty as you since they can essentially destroy your line by refusing to let you marry anyone. (Which is exactly the purpose of the option, to prevent cadet branches.) So learn how to screw the other player over before they screw you over.

1) It isn't necessarily a choice - as I said before, you can have a claim pressed and become someone's vassal. You can even lose an election or have a faction hit you when you can't resist.

2) Again, no decision is required to end up in the situation.

3) Ah yes. Revert to that tired old saw when someone points out a possible flaw/exploit in the suggestion you make.


Preventing cadet dynasties is a reasonable idea, but doing it this way and having one player being able to totally block another's marriage options (or force a bad marriage onto them) strikes me as being a bad idea.

 

[PK_AZ]

Gender laws will not circumvent succession like agnatic, you still need to change the law. It just allows you and the AI to have access to more people to do things. It doesn't create a way for the player to profit in some way.

Well, it creates. More woman-ruled subrealms means more possibilities to take some counties or duchies through marriage game.

 

[Dracko81]

Well, it creates. More woman-ruled subrealms means more possibilities to take some counties or duchies through marriage game.

Considering the AI doesn't use the gender laws, it makes little difference. It only opens it up to players.

 

[_Perun_]

Considering the AI doesn't use the gender laws, it makes little difference. It only opens it up to players.

You are wrong good sir.
More women ruled realms = marriages of two landed people occur more often = more kids with double claims = more bordergore, more everything, definetely not of a little difference.

 

[Dracko81]

You are wrong good sir.
More women ruled realms = marriages of two landed people occur more often = more kids with double claims = more bordergore, more everything, definetely not of a little difference.

The AI has not been reworked to make the AI use the gender rules. The AI will behave exactly the same as always. It only allows you to do things, if you play as an agnatic realm you won't see a difference. It only allows you to have access to things typically not available.

 

[SnowHawkKiller]

All I request is that turning Defensive Pacts off wouldn't disable achievements. I really enjoy getting achievements and currently CK2 is dead to me and literally everyone that owns it on my friends list. I think being able to disable Defensive Pacts and still get achievements would be great and be a huge revival for people including myself.

 

[havenost]

What game are you playing where you 9k to 24k stacks of rebels. Rebellions have never been a major issue in any release of CK2.

If you mod your game to allow you to have more demesnes, the amount of rebels that spawn in game usually scale to a certain percentage of your overall strength.

Also I frequently get rebellions because I either play a modded character, or characters that are created through the character creation DLC, which cause tons of religious/cultural peasant rebellions.

Thus you might have a stack of like 12,000 troops from your personal levies, or even 30,000 troops, but they still spawn like anyways between 50-90% of your strength. Thus even hiring mercenaries and retinues can't save you cause you're going to go broke paying from your personal levies, and the amount of mercenaries you need to win.

 

[havenost]

The paragraph I'm referring to :

Preventing cadet dynasties is a reasonable idea, but doing it this way and having one player being able to totally block another's marriage options (or force a bad marriage onto them) strikes me as being a bad idea.

The reason I mentioned multiplayer is because I am not sure how the setting menu would work and how they chose to implement such a suggestion. Whether or not they would make it for the marriage AI only or whether they want the rules to apply to players also. If they chose to implement that option, and if they chose it to make the rules applicable to players also then that is how the logic would work. Though obviously I would prefer it on apply to the AI.

The main point of the suggestion is to prevent the AI (not players) from making marriage decisions since they chose to marry terrible people and to prevent them from making uncontrollable cadet branches.

I am not going to lie or hide the fact that I mainly play CK2 as an incestuous eugenics bastard filled seduction simulator. Thus I want to be able to give members of my dynasty land without having them going off and marrying the first gluttonous slothful wench/bastard that says yes to them.

"Different dynasty yes, different realm though... Never inherited into someone unusual with elective, seniority, or tanistry? Never pressed a relative's claim and forced them to become your vassal?"

Yes I have, but I would simply say that is you being out played by either the AI or the other player.

No negative to stopping family members from marrying? Do you have no idea how succession works. Forcing landed members of you family to not marry, means that when they die all land granted to them returns to you. As a result - under any succession law - you can keep several lines of your dynasty active to hold lands and re-grant to another when their line dies out. Resulting in always having direct control over the entire realm. This means factions will never form and faction revolts will never trigger. This also means that all holding taxes will return to you completely each generation, allowing for large sums to money to be amassed.

There are so many actual things that can be exploited by stopping dynastic marriages to any degree, especially landed characters.

Literally read what you just said. Then think about the options to completely turn off provincial revolts, regencies, raiding, and defensive pacts.

All of those things serve the purpose of hindering you and to help reduce you from amassing money and power without disruption. All of these things happen more often then faction revolts. But yet you have no issue with having an option to turn these things off. Talk about double standards.

Plus I don't see any reason why there would be an issue with gravelkind when everything falls back to you when there already is demesne limit which forces you to give your holdings to someone else already. Also by limiting members of your dynasty, you're actually increasing the chance of that you would lose the game since you have less family members to fall back upon if your character dies unexpectedly. It also means that you have less alliances that you can rely on and people that you can land that likes you.

Also if anything this means that you have more powerful relatives, and more powerful means they are more likely to start a faction against you when you're higher up then since more of them would have a claim on your titles and have the power to back them compared to when they were all divide up in god knows how many ways.

And there is nothing wrong with having direct control of your realm. I find it odd that you play a game about feudalism and dynastic power, yet you for some reason want restrict the main point of feudalism which is the dynastic cronyism and stability it brings due to being able to directly influence who your vassals are and how you rule them.

CK2 should be about a dynasty's struggle against other dynasties (hence the whole ending score thing), with some in fighting in your the beginning between your own family members to consolidate your power. But after a while you should be internally (dynastically) stable so that you can take the fight to another dynasty. Not a bunch of pointless in fighting between cousins 5 times removed who have no claim over anything that should not even be alive if the AI was even remotely competent at consolidating power.

Otherwise you might as well just play a peaceful content 1 county/barony count for the entire game since there is absolutely no point in gaining power if you can't really control anything.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Plus I don't see any reason why there would be an issue with gravelkind when everything falls back to you when there already is demesne limit which forces you to give your holdings to someone else already. Also by limiting members of your dynasty, you're actually increasing the chance of that you would lose the game since you have less family members to fall back upon if your character dies unexpectedly. It also means that you have less alliances that you can rely on and people that you can land that likes you.

It's gavelkind, and what you're missing here is the abuse possible with being able to grant land to someone with no real heirs and prevent them marrying. Thus that land reverts back to you.

Meanwhile you've got non-granted families that you're using to spawn lots of potential people to do this again in the next generation.

Also if anything this means that you have more powerful relatives, and more powerful means they are more likely to start a faction against you when you're higher up then since more of them would have a claim on your titles and have the power to back them compared to when they were all divide up in god knows how many ways.

Unless they're on the council. No factions then.
Or the fact that you're only having to deal with a much smaller pool of relatives than you would otherwise, and you can simply arrange to not give the titles to anyone who has a claim on you.

And there is nothing wrong with having direct control of your realm. I find it odd that you play a game about feudalism and dynastic power, yet you for some reason want restrict the main point of feudalism which is the dynastic cronyism and stability it brings due to being able to directly influence who your vassals are and how you rule them.

Whereas you seem to be wanting to remove the entire intra-dynastic struggle.

CK2 should be about a dynasty's struggle against other dynasties (hence the whole ending score thing), with some in fighting in your the beginning between your own family members to consolidate your power. But after a while you should be internally (dynastically) stable so that you can take the fight to another dynasty. Not a bunch of pointless in fighting between cousins 5 times removed who have no claim over anything that should not even be alive if the AI was even remotely competent at consolidating power.

Otherwise you might as well just play a peaceful content 1 county/barony count for the entire game since there is absolutely no point in gaining power if you can't really control anything.

Lets take some examples from English history shall we?

Around 100 years after the conquest, Stephen and Matilda disputing the throne.

2 generations later, Henry II disputing against his sons for control of the country.

1399, the displacement of the Yorkist branch of the Plantagenets by the Lancastrian branch, and nearly 100 years of intra-dynastic war (since both would be de Normandie/Plantagenet under CKII rules).

Hardly "dynastically stable"...

 

[Dracko81]

Literally read what you just said.

You clearly just want a system where you can do whatever you want. That's not how game design works.

 

[havenost]

Lets take some examples from English history shall we?

Around 100 years after the conquest, Stephen and Matilda disputing the throne.

2 generations later, Henry II disputing against his sons for control of the country.

1399, the displacement of the Yorkist branch of the Plantagenets by the Lancastrian branch, and nearly 100 years of intra-dynastic war (since both would be de Normandie/Plantagenet under CKII rules).

Hardly "dynastically stable"...

Dynastically stable as in the dynasty stays in control and holds on to titles. As in not granting titles to people not of your family.

Whereas you seem to be wanting to remove the entire intra-dynastic struggle.

Hardly. You can't control how many kids you have (unless you assassinate your wife). Thus you will still have to fight your siblings for complete control if they inherit any. Plus you still have to distribute demesnes to other people already.

It's gavelkind, and what you're missing here is the abuse possible with being able to grant land to someone with no real heirs and prevent them marrying. Thus that land reverts back to you.

Again I don't see how that is a problem at all when you consider the demesne limit. It is not like you're permanently holding onto the land yourself, and if you are holding everything by yourself then you actually lose quite a bit of man power and taxes due to the hard coded penalties for being over the demesne limit.

Meanwhile you've got non-granted families that you're using to spawn lots of potential people to do this again in the next generation.

I don't know what you mean by this. Are you're talking about your character's children?

If that is what you mean, obviously in gravelkind they will inherit something on your death. Which means the only thing happening here is you're preventing the existence of cadet branches.

Unless they're on the council. No factions then.

Is that a Conclave thing?

Cause I don't have Conclave. From what I am aware you still get factions for anyone who is in your family that has a claim your titles as long as they are well liked enough.

Or the fact that you're only having to deal with a much smaller pool of relatives than you would otherwise, and you can simply arrange to not give the titles to anyone who has a claim on you.

Again don't see how having to deal with a smaller pool of relatives is a problem (exploit) whatsoever. And considering the fact that it is gravelkind, what you're saying makes no sense since your children all get a claim on each others' inheritances as soon as your character dies.

I honestly don't see the fuss here. At best you sit around for a few years and assassinate your siblings or uncle/aunts... or wait a generation or two for them to die gain back land that you would of otherwise gotten back rather quickly and easily due to the fact that you automatically inherited a claim on their lands. And not to sound like a broken record, but how and why does it matter in a single player game? Especially one where you can save game edit, or other extreme hack and slash modding methods to cheat?

For instance you can literally just go into the defines file and set your demesne limit to 10,000, then change the negative opinion modifiers for elective/tanistry succession to 0. Then save game edit your government type to elective. Which is a perfectly easy way to completely ignore the nonsense that you're complaining about already.

Or you can literally just use the consoles to constantly take back titles.

So I honestly don't see how my suggestion is a terrible exploit or major cheat that wasn't possible before. Especially when it is the only way of keeping gravelkind functional, least annoying way to so, and least immersion breaking method to the largest extent compared any other method possible way to cheat the system if you so desired to do so. Which is all the more reason on why it should be added as setting since your objections are completely pointless since you act like it is some massive exploit that wasn't able to be done before. Its just that this is the most graceful way to do it without having to compley break gravelkind entirely, and least time consuming method to do so.

 

[havenost]

You clearly just want a system where you can do whatever you want. That's not how game design works.

Apparently you're ignorant of the console, and how and why this game's designed to be modular.

Especially when you can simply use console commands to do the exploit you're worried about.

Or hell simply opening a save game file using notepad, and pressing control+r and replacing gravelkind with elective or tanistry.

You can literally mod the game with simply 10 lines of codes to inherit every single title in your realm or even the entire world if you want.

But simply asking to ability to kill off cadet branches without having to absolutely destroy the gravelkind succession or completely cheating, is what you're worried about. Jeeze talk about being ignorant of what is possible and what is not possible.

What is not possible at the moment is being able to mod in my suggestion since the necessary triggers are hardcoded. What is possible in almost hundreds of different ways is to do the exact exploit that you're worried about, just in very ungraceful ways.

 

[Dracko81]

Apparently you're ignorant of the console, and how and why this game's designed to be modular.

The game isn't meant to be played with the console, but if you want to use it to cheat keep doing that. That does mean the developers should make it an easy option for you to cheat in the game rules though. They are after all rules, and using the console is actually circumventing the rules.

This thread is about game rules. What you are suggesting is cheating, if you want to cheat that is fine. But a cheat in the rules is not, which is why I think you suggestion will never be added as you suggested.

 

[havenost]

The game isn't meant to be played with the console, but if you want to use it to cheat keep doing that. That does mean the developers should make it an easy option for you to cheat in the game rules though. They are after all rules, and using the console is actually circumventing the rules.

This thread is about game rules. What you are suggesting is cheating, if you want to cheat that is fine. But a cheat in the rules is not, which is why I think you suggestion will never be added as you suggested.

Again its not cheating. Because it does not break any of the rules. Gravelkind still works exactly the way its intended to. So does every other succession type. All it does is give a bit more control over your experience, without completely breaking or circumventing vital game mechanics just like all the other settings.

What you consider cheating is completely arbitrary considering the fact that all the other settings you can toggle have the same level of importance as this one.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Again its not cheating. Because it does not break any of the rules. Gravelkind still works exactly the way its intended to. So does every other succession type. All it does is give a bit more control over your experience, without completely breaking or circumventing vital game mechanics just like all the other settings.

What you consider cheating is completely arbitrary considering the fact that all the other settings you can toggle have the same level of importance as this one.

It's *GAVELKIND* not *GRAVELKIND*.

But yeah, you're absolutely right. You can completely circumvent the entire ruleset of the game with the console and savegame edits. Well done.

 

[corny.1234]

Please add an option to deactivate India.

For performance reasons