• 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:
  • 8
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
I can't see many cases where increasing noble tax obligations and bourgeoisie levy obligations would be preferable to the opposite. It's a bit of a clunky change in the system. You could have made it so both provided an unchangeable amount of their lesser resource and a changeable amount of their greater, made both ends possible with tribes, and done something opinion or succession based with church vassals. As it stands, I think it's a bit dull and one dimensional. When am I ever gonna forsake city taxes for city levies? C'mon now.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Not sure if that is worth $15. I might have to wait and see on this DLC.

Do we have any set pricing on this yet? $15 seems to be the price for major expansions (TOG, RoI, Charlemagne, etc) while the minor ones (WOL, etc) are usually $8-10. I certainly don't feel like the additions I've seen are worth anywhere close to $15, but I'll probably be a day-one purchaser just because I like the game and want to support PDX.
 
So does that mean we'll be able to give council seats to women? After all, the most powerful vassal in a realm could easily be a countess, duchess or even a queen.

I think there will be a law for this.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes actually, playing as a vassal is fun only if your liege is just big enough to be a challenge and a long term goal. But if he does too good the game is juts going to be boring because you'll quickly be locked down and at the mercy of events.
What we need is proper AI realm management, because there's no denying the AI can't play this game, they can't handle succession at all and usually all the do is declare wars on easy target and retarding around, marrying his sons matrilinearly and getting fucked by gavelkind.

And then we need good vassal, and internal realm management mechanics, which seems this DLC is all about.
Vassals (right now) have little to no power game, they have no way to play in the big dog court untill they become top liege, and that's boring, even inside of the realm, best they can do is try to slowly eat your neighbors and consolidate power while being a bitch to your liege and not getting caught.
There could be much more than that.

But fortunately this DLC sounds good for now so let's pray it'll not be as broken as the previous ones on launch.
Oh yeah very much, in the game I mentioned the emperor of the HRE kept waging a trubutary war on the same OPM count in anatolia over and over while ignoring to expand to the baltic coast. In fact now that there's a century left he still has one port at the baltic but pretty much contolls all of anatolia for some reason.
Fortunatly for him the seljuks fractured and the mongols decided that they wanted to build a feudal empire out on the steppes instead of invading.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
THIS! So this! But then by that reasoning wouldn't the player also need a regent if they are leading armies outside of their demense?

No, not this. It don't make any sense for a ruler to send his most powerful vassal away to spy in Baghdad and force him into regency.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
No, not this. It don't make any sense for a ruler to send his most powerful vassal away to spy in Baghdad and force him into regency.
The vassal should have a reagent of sort when he's at the rulers court too. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm playing at Time EU4 ...
Coalitions in CK2 - OK, but for a CK2-Issue, the Coalitions should fight against the Character (not against the Empire, Kingdom, Duchy, County) ...
So in the Case, that the (aggressive) Conquerer is dead, the Coalition-Penalty is over and the Coalition dissolves itself ...
Or we have a Worst-Case-Scenario with the intern Conflicts after a Succession in your Empire/Kingdom/Duchy/County and the extern War against a Coalition.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Gotta hand it to you, its pretty bold to admit from the get-go the expansion is mainly about making the game harder from day zero. The majority of players do not want to see their neat empires crumble too easily. But I could use the challenge.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
No, not this. It don't make any sense for a ruler to send his most powerful vassal away to spy in Baghdad and force him into regency.

I thought that we were talking about regencies while leading armies outside if demesnes, not if they're members of the council.

If vassals wouldn't be able to lead stacks that lack any of their own levies, which would mean that if you want send powerful vassal to Baghdad you would have to use his own levies which would gradually decreases his opinion of you (raised levies), which would make a revolt even more likely.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm still not liking that colaitions are formed against Realms. If the King of Bohemia, a HRE vassal is on a conquest Spree shouoldn't the coalition form against him, not the HRE. And tying it to Realm means vassals have no part of it, while on the contrary vassals would very much like to try to contain Rising Powers (within and outside the Realm) they worry about.
I suppose you could grant Bohemia its independence.
 
Yes. He would do the job as Steward. But he wouldn't go on the missions on his own. But not allways. In the HRE the jobs were pretty much titular to the prince electors.
There's an idea in that.

Councillors only have regencies when they go on a mission and when you send them on a mission they hate you for it.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
As so many others have said, I would be fine with making Retinues a "Free" part of the base game if it would allow the devs to improve retinues. LoR has been out for years. And, if making them "Free" allows the Devs to actually do the unthinkable, and actually...improve them, as opposed to the unending cycle of Nerf after Nerf after Nerf that we've been seeing, then I'm all for making them a free part of the Base Game

Surely us LoR owners have gotten our money's worth by now..?
 
  • 15
Reactions:
Not even than... That would make no sense at all. Your vassals are still rulers. They don't do such missions on their own.
Rather than having a regent, which in this game is somewhat disastrous right now, vassals should just be more "rambunctious" when their liege is not physically within the realm for extended periods, whether on council missions for his liege, leading troops, on pilgrimage, etc. For example, a crusading king should be more susceptible to problems back home, like Prince John trying to consolidate his own power in King Richard's long-term absence. The difference between a pilgrimage (regent assigned) and crusading (no regent) is an odd contradiction, but should be resolved in favor of fewer regencies, not more.

I also think it is kind of silly that councilors are physically located where the mission is being performed like they are some kind of lackey or messenger boy. Maybe they should just be physically located in their liege's capital when they are on missions, especially now that the council will have a more substantial role. Which in the scheme I suggested would mean that the councilor's own vassals would be more difficult to manage during those times since a councilor in his liege's capital would not be in his own realm.
 
  • 8
Reactions: