• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Conclave Dev Diary #1

Hi folks, I hope you have all had a nice and relaxing holiday! However, just in case you didn’t, let me take the edge off your existential angst with some soothing talk about the next expansion for Crusader Kings II; a little thing we eventually decided to call Conclave...

As you know, most of CK2’s expansions have “widened” the gameplay by unlocking new regions of the map and making various religions playable. You can now start the game in widely different cultural spheres for a great variety of different experiences; “Fifty Shades of Dark”, if you will. Meanwhile, we have gradually improved the core gameplay in patches (e.g. the technology system), but rarely in any radical way. Whenever we did try to “deepen” the core gameplay in an expansion, it often turned out to be a mistake: The Retinue mechanic of Legacy of Rome should, for example, have been a part of the base game so we could have kept building upon it.

Even so, it is high time that we addressed some of the major shortcomings of the strategy game that underpins the RPG experience. In particular, CK2 suffers from a kind of inverse difficulty progression; it is hard in the beginning and easy in the mid-to-late game. This is a great shame, because one of the main points of the whole feudal hierarchy mechanic - the need to rely on vassals - was to make it hard to maintain stable large Realms. So, my first and foremost intention with Conclave was to increase the challenge of the mid-to-late game. This was the general plan of action:

  • Reduce the “positive opinion inflation” of vassals vs their liege. (We ended up cutting many important positive opinion modifiers in half.)
  • Highlight the most powerful vassals by making them strongly desire a Council seat.
  • Give the Council more power without reducing player agency. (You are free to disregard the Council’s suggestions, but this will have ramifications on Factions. More on this later...)
  • Introduce Infamy and Coalitions against aggressively expanding Realms.
  • Improve the alliance mechanic to make it a more intentional choice. (A royal marriage is now simply a non-aggression pact. Alliance is the second step, but still requires a marriage.)
  • Improve the diplomatic AI in order to contain “blobs” (with the help of the above Alliance and Coalition systems.)
  • Bring the military AI to a whole new level.
  • Make it harder to quickly win wars through one or two major engagements. (Hence, we reduced the bloodiness of battles overall, introduced “shattered retreats” and made armies reinforce in friendly territory.)
Crusader Kings II - Conclave - Obligations.jpg


Thus, the features of Conclave and the accompanying patch are a combination of internal and external measures to make blobbing harder. This intention had ripple effects on other mechanics. For example, malcontents now tend to gang up into fewer but more powerful Factions, and we reworked the Law Screen while we were adding the new Council Power laws.

Crusader Kings II - Conclave - Council.jpg


We also took this opportunity to address an unrelated weakness in the game, namely the education of children. If you have the expansion, that whole experience should now be more interesting…

That’s all for now, stay tuned for the details!
 
  • 193
  • 50
  • 12
Reactions:
My moaning is about the fact that literally no blob vanished while it was healthy and fit, and at the same time no blob was healthy and fit for long. Coalitions are useless in this regard because it misses the point by a mile or so: we don't need external restraints, blobs evaporated even without external influence. We need internal restraints. Will The Conclave fit this role? Maybe. EU4 wasted a lot of nice opportunities that looked awesome on paper, so I'm considerably more sedate. But the possibilities are there: we just need the devs to not tone down stuff beyond the reasonable when someone gets a 0/0/0/0/0 to the throne of the European Empire and complains because it's collapsing.
I think you fail to realise the role of the mechanic. It isn't designed to destroy blobs, where does it say it is designed to destroy blobs?
 
Will the Conclave patch include some of the recent EUIV improvements?
It would be nice if CK2 would also have the improved launcher, battle indicator and skip song button added to it.
As long as there's no music in the new CK2 launcher...
 
  • 2
Reactions:
As long as there's no music in the new CK2 launcher...
Why? Seems like a pure boost, and for those who don't want it,you can turn it off.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I agree on blobs being too stable, but a smart solution needs to address the causes, not only the symptoms of the problem. A purely reactive, fully transparent anti-blobbing device (such as all neighbours uniting against a blob and ignoring all of their own differences) would be too much meta and not enough roleplaying on AI's part, it would also be even more duct tape in the game than it already contains. In my opinion, more elegant, more permanent solutions are needed and duct tape needs to be phased out eventually after doing its limited task of urgently addressing a pressing problem.

Regarding blobs more specifically, what's needed is to find out and address why superstable blobs are so easy to form and keep — if they are, because opinions differ as to whether they really are. I believe the problem lies in such factors as: 1) more opportunities to earn opinion bonuses than maluses; 2) disproportionately small reaction to concerns that realistically ought to be much larger (e.g. ruler is a Known Murderer or Kinslayer, or — not putting it on the same level — a (public) Adulteress); 3) factions firing off prematurely.

And a real solution would address these and other concerns, not simply deliver a blow to stability or whatever and hope that things are somehow going to cancel themselves out and fall back into balance.

For the record, I don't think superstable blobs are always ahistorical. And where they are not unrealistic, IMHO it means they simple are a challenge, which may well be a difficult challenge. Not all challenges are meant to be easy.

Perhaps the real problem is not blob stability but the user experience relating to it, e.g. the perceived lack of sense in how the game handles them. For example the Abbassids appear too resilient in the light of how much punishment the player or AI can inflict on them and they'll jump back in shape within a couple of years. I remember moving my armies throughout their entire territory and keeping them near 0 troops after defeating them, long after 100% war score for me, simply because I wanted them to lose their other wars (e.g. lose occupations and run out of clock time in aggressive wars vs Abyssinia etc.). Even delivering multiple such blows to them, they could still be back in great shape within several years.

… Worse still, with the high tech and developed holdings etc. the vassals end up with no opportunities to spend all their money, so when each and every emir or sheikh has 5–10K gold, situations result like an entire series of 20–40K worth of mercs duking it out each time. For example some months ago I went in with almost 40K soldiers as a smaller European kingdom to help out the crusader states vs such emirs and sheikhs. I didn't lose a single battle, but simply due to relatively small losses in battles I won, I still went down to about 3K within 2 years or so. At the same time their joint ultimate overlord the caliph was definitely not a threat any more and not a very difficult crusade target.

Hence, I think the problem is bigger than just opinion. It has something to do with how holdings are structured, along with tech and spending and everything else. Which would be very difficult to diagnose and fix. But still, duct-tape solutions aren't really gonna work.
 
  • 9
  • 3
Reactions:
I still say a distnce to capital malus may be the way to go. Would result in less stable realms while not being as prone to add to the bordergore.
Cultures could do this too but the problem is that the AI is a little to good at changing culture.
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
Honestly speaking nothing is going to stop people from going on world conquest sprees if they wish, they will simply find their way around any new deterrents like they did before and precede to do the same thing as before then complain about the game being too easy to expand.

I'd think it would be better to expand the peacetime game more and make it more interesting so people have something else to interest them besides take over the world and general warfare. The relationships between church and state, between nobles, with their lieges and subjects as well as amoungst the court all use some serious expansion on.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
I still say a distnce to capital malus may be the way to go. Would result in less stable realms while not being as prone to add to the bordergore.
Cultures could do this too but the problem is that the AI is a little to good at changing culture.

Bordergore and too stable realms are at times related, but not always the same. Moreover bordergore needs to be defined, since in certain cases it's, because sadly the game can't handle multiple lieges or a liege being a vassal in another (like William the Conqueror). OTOH I agree, that in certain cases it is more extreme, so any distance malus needs to be balanced (obviously).
Yet realms itself tended to be quite stable, even when a king and vassals were at odds, the realm rarely was threatened (more like civil wars than wars of independence).

As for cultures balance can be hard, it should not be set in stone, but at times it may be too fluid. It also is broader than language, though it's hard to separate.
 
I still say a distnce to capital malus may be the way to go. Would result in less stable realms while not being as prone to add to the bordergore.
Cultures could do this too but the problem is that the AI is a little to good at changing culture.

It would be interesting if such exclaves became independent on the death of a ruler (provided they weren't connected by sea or part of the de jure kingdom). You could excuse it by saying it's hard to give homage over such a distance.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
It would be interesting if such exclaves became independent on the death of a ruler (provided they weren't connected by sea or part of the de jure kingdom). You could excuse it by saying it's hard to give homage over such a distance.

That IMHO would totally depend on distance. IMHO neighbouring regions shouldn't be a problem, but I wouldn't mind greater distances.
 
That IMHO would totally depend on distance. IMHO neighbouring regions shouldn't be a problem, but I wouldn't mind greater distances.

But what about cases like the HRE? I think Northern Germany was very much stable during the rule in Sicily (but very autonomous). But Northern Italy was messy as allways...
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Of course major wars likely would play a factor. Poland gained its independence from the HRE not because it was winning against the Empire but the empire determined it couldn't spend men and resources to subjugate the poles and fight a major war against the Byzathine empire at the same time while the byzathines were pretty much forced to fight a major war against the HRE and the Normans over southern italy and fight off a major invasion by the the turks in asia minor which did not go well.
 
But what about cases like the HRE? I think Northern Germany was very much stable during the rule in Sicily (but very autonomous). But Northern Italy was messy as allways...
Well no mechanic is perfect Thure, and for most part a distance to capital is a fairly good representation.
 
  • 7
  • 2
Reactions:
But what about cases like the HRE? I think Northern Germany was very much stable during the rule in Sicily (but very autonomous). But Northern Italy was messy as allways...

First of all it appears I meant parent regions and not sub-regions. Stable in return for autonomy seems a legitimate trade off, whereas Northern Italy basically had a long lasting feud between Papal and Imperial supporters.
 
Well no mechanic is perfect Thure, and for most part a distance to capital is a fairly good representation.

But distance was never a good point for rebellions. Mostly the more distant regions were the most stable ones because the ruler is often away and you can do what you want without him. Distance alone isn't a good reason to revolt.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
But distance was never a good point for rebellions. Mostly the more distant regions were the most stable ones because the ruler is often away and you can do what you want without him. Distance alone isn't a good reason to revolt.
No reason it couldn't be a contributing factor though.
 
But distance was never a good point for rebellions. Mostly the more distant regions were the most stable ones because the ruler is often away and you can do what you want without him. Distance alone isn't a good reason to revolt.
No but since the game does not accuratly show that it's harder to excert your control over distant areas (because it let's you walk your armies everywhere) it's a fair abstraction.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
THIS, how hard would it be to add a few buttons. media players are not exactly state-of-the-art tech.
type in nextsong in the console, and that kids is why you don't play ironman.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Distant realms like the Germans of the HRE were not rebellious cause they were autonomous in game terms. So in the game there should be a relation penalty from the capital that you should overcome by not pressing your control more to them and/or having a good ruler like Frederick. When the distance penalty existed the game made you to think if you wanted to hold a kingdom like Jerusalem and trying all the time to hold it as the king of England especcialy if the famous ruler died, or give to a son or relative. Now it's the same to control a duke with absolute authority neighboring your capital in England or beeing in india:p. (I am not saying it should'nt be possible but it should be difficult and not with high authority) It's not artificial and it's also very very historical, there were not and they couldnt be, cause of technology, "colonies" in the middle ages.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Idea: have the distance modifier be dependent on the diplomacy of the liege, the laws, and a technology, probably Legalism (though not a perfect fit). If you have Autonomous Vassals law, level 8 legalism, and 30 diplomacy, you will be much more able to rule Jerusalem from Brugge, and in the reverse case even vassals relatively close-by will get rowdy.
 
  • 1
Reactions: