Conclave Dev Diary #1

[Pyoro]

Won't the "less bloodier battles" have a reverse effect, regarding the "hard start, easier mid-game" thing you wanted to improve? It'll imo make playing small realms (at the start of the game) even more difficult: winning one battle against a difficult enemy is often possible, but now you'll have to do it repeatedly? That's easier to do once you're bigger and can absorb some damage. Makes taking on smaller enemies with bigger realms even less of a challenge, I think.

 

[geminus]

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…

I hope this also includes an end to the cultural re-education programme AI lieges impose upon their vassals' heirs as well.

 

[tk421991]

If you're going to reduce positive opinion inflation, shouldn't there also be a fear mechanism? Some rules like Vlad the Impaler or Edward Longshanks ruled through fear. One vassal literally dropped dead from fear in the presence of Longshanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_I_of_England#Character_as_king

 

[LudskyL]

"As you know, most of CK2’s expansions have “widened” the gameplay by unlocking new regions of the map and making various religions playable. "

Wow, i hope is in Africa ^^

 

[Thure]

"As you know, most of CK2’s expansions have “widened” the gameplay by unlocking new regions of the map and making various religions playable. "

Wow, i hope is in Africa ^^

They are just saying, that the LAST DLCs expanded the map. Not that THIS expansion expands the map.

 

[Thragka]

Doomdark,

In the very first developer diary for CKII, you yourself stated that owing to the character-focused nature of the game, infamy or badboy was not a mechanic that you felt would fit.

I mentioned toning down the concept of countries. Here are some highlights: there is no Infamy/Badboy. Neither do characters have "loyalty", and neither is there a persistent relations value between countries. CKII is all about the characters, their opinions of each other, and their clash of interests.

I would like to ask: what about the developers' attitudes has changed between then and now which led you to reconsider this position?

If the use of infamy and coalitions is essentially going to an import of the mechanics in EUIV, it must be addressed that even only in terms of gameplay, the mechanics of war are very different in the two games. In EUIV, starting a war is easy - the casus belli gives you a means of taking your nation to war without suffering massive penalties, but then at the conclusion of hostilities one can effectively ask for anything, regardless of the excuse used. In CKII this is simply not the case - the claim used to start a war defines the possible results at the end of it, and claims can be very difficult to generate, even requiring a generation or two of planning. Furthermore, by this very nature, having a claim in CKII conveys more legitimacy than the late-game "easy" casus belli in EUIV like nationalism and imperialism, but coalitions seem to be modeled on the historical ones that arose in this era.

It should not be the case that a claim legally pressed or even a simple inheritance should immediately cause a polity's neighbours to mobilise against them in the short term but be more accepting in the long term. If anything, it should be the other way around - personal unions were more likely to fracture than endure and so in the short term generate little unease, whereas the longer lasting ones are the ones that spell danger. But if an infamy mechanic is implemented in CKII, it will directly counter-act this: in the time it takes for a personal union to stabilise, and thus become worrisome, infamy may well have decreased to the point where the polity's enemies are no longer justified in doing anything about it!

 

[TheDungen]

If retinues become part of he base game I want back the money I paid for LoR.

Oh get over yourself, you paid to have the feature for years does it bother you that much that it may become free later on. Itäs really no diffrent than games becomming cheaper over time.

If you're going to reduce positive opinion inflation, shouldn't there also be a fear mechanism? Some rules like Vlad the Impaler or Edward Longshanks ruled through fear. One vassal literally dropped dead from fear in the presence of Longshanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_I_of_England#Character_as_king

As I understand it Vlad was mostly just cruel to his enemies. And even that reputation has been greatly exxagerated later.

 

[The kalrSalian]

FINALLY!!!

this is the expansion ive been waiting for.

 

[Lysistrata]

You do know that even the comparably centralized ERE was pretty rife with infighting and uppity vassals? Managing a large empire will still be easier with Imperial administration, just not as easy as before (hopefully).

Of course, but the infighting was generally over the imperial throne itself, rather than over the balance of power between the Emperor and the strategoi. The Byzantines had no problem with the Emperor wielding as much power as he did - they just wanted to replace him. Loads of the factions the Byzantines generally fall prey to in CKII (e.g. lower crown authority, elective monarchy/gavelkind, independence) would never have existed in reality. The ERE had different problems to feudal realms, and I think the devs should look into making non-feudal realms less feudal (making sure the Byzantines don't get events about the droit du seigneur and piepowder courts would be a start).

 

[imperium3]

Won't the "less bloodier battles" have a reverse effect, regarding the "hard start, easier mid-game" thing you wanted to improve? It'll imo make playing small realms (at the start of the game) even more difficult: winning one battle against a difficult enemy is often possible, but now you'll have to do it repeatedly? That's easier to do once you're bigger and can absorb some damage. Makes taking on smaller enemies with bigger realms even less of a challenge, I think.

I think it depends on the situation. If wars take longer, then that also means there's more time for allies to march to your aid, or for you to hastily marry off your eldest daughter to anyone who'll bail you out.

Too many wars in CK2 end with the small party being roflstomped before its powerful allies can make any meaningful contribution.

 

[TheDungen]

Of course, but the infighting was generally over the imperial throne itself, rather than over the balance of power between the Emperor and the strategoi. The Byzantines had no problem with the Emperor wielding as much power as he did - they just wanted to replace him. Loads of the factions the Byzantines generally fall prey to in CKII (e.g. lower crown authority, elective monarchy) would never have existed in reality. The ERE had different problems to feudal realms, and I think the devs should look into making non-feudal realms less feudal.

Well I could see them go elective actually. Makes more sense than inependence factions at least.

 

[Asiak]

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…

Although I'm really excited by the improvements to the education and what looks like children's focuses.

I don't think education as it stands was a weakness. The player had his options, give the child to a vassal for some opinion, possibly at the expense of the child if the vassal had a poor education / traits. Give the child to a good tutor if you want him to get a good education, with good traits if you want good traits, a churchman if you want a churchman. It isn't the fleshed out system that it sounds like your creating but it was logical and it worked.

Just please, pleeeeaaasse don't take away my ability to raise my heir. The one thing in this game that I can actually, and need to, control is that little boy or girl. To pull him close and raise him into someone who I will survive as. Especially if your halving positive opinion modifiers.

 

[jorishilhorst]

If retinues become part of he base game I want back the money I paid for LoR.

there's always one

 

[th3freakie]

With the new Marriage Mechanic, can you PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF SWEET BABY LENIN allow for inter-religious marriages?

 

[Will Steel]

I hope they get infamy right this time. In many cases it was botched previously, because it had internal consequences and not just diplomatic...in places where it should not.

I mean, sure, Mongols would we swimming in infamy after all that alarmingly fast expansion but did you ever see entire Mongol Empire, and all the counts, dukes and Khans in it, rebelling against Genghis Khan just because they were winning every battle and territory that stood in their path?

 

[Fjoel]

• 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.)

Contains a lot of good stuff esp the council stuff and the highlighting of powerful vassals. I'm still not entirely sure if Coalitions are the best (sole) way to handle the problems with blobs.
They hardly ever take great risks declaring one war after another and expanding slowly therefore probably not incurring much infamy.
Personally I have no prob with them as long as they're dynamic (mongols conquering everything from asia to poland = fun) I merely dislike them if they're static (too big to fail) so that you can annihilate their armies multiple times and they just shrug it off. But it seems like some work has gone into that too (oppinion inflation, mercenaries (Mamluks?), combat mechanics).

If you're going to reduce positive opinion inflation, shouldn't there also be a fear mechanism? Some rules like Vlad the Impaler or Edward Longshanks ruled through fear. One vassal literally dropped dead from fear in the presence of Longshank

It kind of makes sense that your vassals are more obedient and careful after you execute a dissident or put down a revolt instead of liking you more/less. I'd prefer something like dependency though which would allow for a whole set of different relations such as allies who also compete with each other and rulers depending on poweful but ambitious vassals.
Then again this could simply be too much for ck at least for now. So maybe a modifier that increases the requirements for faction demands?

 

[DàbiànLājīdàrén]

How will this work for nomads? Will my subordinate Khans also want a seat on the council similar to regular vassals?

 

[Slayen]

I hope they get infamy right this time. In many cases it was botched previously, because it had internal consequences and not just diplomatic...in places where it should not.

I mean, sure, Mongols would we swimming in infamy after all that alarmingly fast expansion but did you ever see entire Mongol Empire, and all the counts, dukes and Khans in it, rebelling against Genghis Khan just because they were winning every battle and territory that stood in their path?

Names the same, mechanics are different.

The Infamy that ck2 is getting is more closely related to eu4's AE. So far as we've seen, the mechanic has no impact on vassal-liege opinion.

Basically, on those outside your realm will care. Even if you haven't so much as sneezed in their general direction.

 

[Olligarchy]

I do have to admit I am a bit worried by this... namely on how to keep realms that are already fracturing way too easily together!

Namely France. An entity that despite its historical significance shatters into a million pieces with alarming frequency.

 

[Ruwaard]

I really like the plan behind Conclave. The more you're worried about your vassals rather than other realms (except when blobs are involved), the more feudal-ish it'll be.

I'm looking forward to improving and developing factions... and I love new interface windows and tabs

Why can't it more complex? A vassal in a border region might be concerned about vassals in a neighbouring realm, other vassals in his own realm, his own liege and the neighbouring liege. Someone in the middle of the realm probably has less concerns about a neighbouring realm. Even on liege level it will involve staying alert internally and externally.