Hi.

I'm Johan, the Manager of the Internal Studio here at Paradox. I'm here to give you a little bonus development diary on a monday afternoon.

We've added in a few new betas in the last weeks, and I thought I'd share some of their posts here with you, and giving you a little screenshot.

There is a thread in the beta forum, called "Nice Little Details", and here are some of the comments from it..

• In the battle results, it also shows which land holders lost their lives in the battle.
• Love how game labels characters in relation to you. Like 'son-in-law' or 'rival'.
• Escheat is also pretty cool, and is an essential part of feudalism.
• When your gold runs out while you have mercenaries, they will/might switch over to the enemy side
• When you receive diplomatic offers or correspondence/messages, the wax seal at the bottom is stamped with the COA of whomever sent it.
• I love how historical the game feels, the atmosphere, the dynamics... Love it.
• I love everything so far, though I do love the ability to name children.
• The 'detail' I'm most excited about is the fact that this game is practically in release-shape already and is going to be by a million miles the most polished release PI has ever done. I don't want to sound condescending but Paradox really learnt their lesson from HoI3.

We also asked the betas to give us some feedback from their playthoughs, and here are a few...

Kingdom of England
"Was rather interesting getting Harold Godwinson to survive - he lived to a very ripe old age and passed England along to his son and then to his great-great-grandson (Godwin I and Godwin II respectively). William the Bastard died in a French prison, although his descendants did hold onto the county of Rouen. Didn't play very aggressively, mostly just tried to manage my dynasty and watch plots. This made the game kind of peaceful although there were a few moments of excitement. I had to throw a couple of nobles into prison for plotting against the throne, and in one case that led to a short war between England and the Duke of Lancaster, who at that time was the most powerful vassal in the realm. Another noble agreed to refrain from assassinating my heir once I asked her politely. "

Duchy of Apulia
"Right after the start my wife tried to poison me - from the three options i choose to kill her and married the Duchess of Toscana (Matilda). I offered Capua to become my vassal and they accepted, short after that i declared war on Messina and Syracuse and won. I created the Kingdom of Sicily and fought back several Muslim attacks.

My first ruler died and through elective law the only son with his second wife (Matilda) become the new King and also the heir of Duchy of Toscana. After that I felt strong enough i claimed the County of Palermo and attacked the Sheikh, and I got his whole Sheikhdom including Salerno, Napoli, Palermo and Trapani as vassals. This was a very bad move, because all the cities and so were still reigned by muslim which hated me of course...

I tried to revoke their titles and fought some wars with them to get the titles and through that my other vassals began to hate me too.

To cap it all, Matilda died and i got the very huge land of her, including Firenze, Spoleto, Brescia, Sardinia, Corsica, Rome, and several other counties...

Matilda was a vassal of the HRE and the Emperor was very upset about the loss, in 1115 he declared war on me and in 1118 several of my vassals declared their independence.

I fought very hard but could not win against them all... "



Here is a screenshot from a game King is currently playing..

 

[unmerged(303218)]

I'd think a bastard should, at least under some circumstances, be able to make a claim for daddy's title even if daddy denies his paternity. Most sons have enough physical resemblance to their fathers to be recognizable, and even if there isn't, it's enough that there are enough people who believe in the claimed descent. Mind you, a claim is not a legal fact implying that a title is objectively, rightfully yours. If it would be, there could be no overlapping claims. A claim is simply the ability to make a somewhat credible case for why you are the rightful holder of that title.

So now all claims of characters should come with an additional factor - I support this idea, but there are a few problems.

• Firstly, I don't know how much more data to process would it mean, but more than on first sight (see below).
• Secondly, claim strength should have effects on game implications. I mean, a 100% claim is an obvious reason to declare war (especially that you would have a higher claim strength than the current holder, thus him being widely recognised as an usurper).
  On the other hand, a 20% claim would be an insufficient reason, as even if you succeed you will still be pretty much an usurper.
• Thirdly, including very weak claims (below 33%) increases the number of claims in the game by far more than 50%, as there are more shaky claims than strong ones (I assume, at least).
• Fourthly, in this system revoking claims of the loser would not remove the claim. Instead:
  • Decrease strength by 40 if you are the current holder
  • Decrease strength by 30 if you are a fellow claimant
  • Decrease strength by 20 if you are unrelated to the claim
• Fifthly, claims could be forged and affected by various events. Thus it would be a target of espionage - both to strengthen yours as well as weaken your rivals'. Furthermore, various other stuff (such as a serious physical injury) could affect claims, such as a blind person (the heir) would not be treated as such a legitimate heir as if he wasn't blind.
• Lastly, if succession laws were changed 'recently' (less than 30 years ago), the previous heirs and pretenders would have a claim, which would slowly decrease in strength as time passes.

This would set the stage for succession wars, often with several sides holding a hardly-valid claim. Which would certainly be interesting, but I have fears that the AI couldn't handle a full-blown system as well as a human player.

Edit: I forgot that claim strength would have effects on treaty effects. That is, were there prestige and infamy, it would matter.
For example, a rather invalid (15%) claim victory would generate almost as much infamy as an agression war, and not give nearly as much prestige as a rightful demand.
And then even peace costs can change depending on it... (an usurper would be more willing to give up to a rightful victor than the other way around)

Generally, I would love to see such a system (in EU4 as well) but I doubt it will make it into the game. :sad:

 

[unmerged(193360)]

IMHO, we only need one numerical value for the strength of a claim: The number of soldiers you have

 

[unmerged(303218)]

IMHO, we only need one numerical value for the strength of a claim: The number of soldiers you have

In the early medieval (dark ages) sure, but even the High Medieval was more sophisticated than that. I mean, even an AI could realize if a player was expanding quickly, by the sword, or reclaiming lost titles that rightfully belonged to him.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

IMHO, we only need one numerical value for the strength of a claim: The number of soldiers you have

In which case the whole claim mechanic goes out of the window. The High and Late Medieval worlds were built on commonly accepted notions of birthright, not just simple might makes right. Legitimacy matters, and one of the things that make Paradox games unique is that they are one of the few games out there that take this very real political fact into account.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

And I wasn't as such suggesting the concept of a numerical scale of claim strength, but it could fit. Or, simpler might be a scale of a few steps: Unquestioned, Strong, Moderate, Weak, Absurd.

The label Absurd would be what you get if you manufacture a claim, since it being manufactured would be obvious to many. But it would allow for simplifying the war system in such a way that you simply cannot wage war without a claim, regardless of what infamy you are willing to incur.

 

[Kaleidoscope]

Do we still get a real DD this month?

 

[Yaromir]

And I wasn't as such suggesting the concept of a numerical scale of claim strength, but it could fit. Or, simpler might be a scale of a few steps: Unquestioned, Strong, Moderate, Weak, Absurd.

I think 3 levels would be clearer. i.e. Solid, Shaky, Absurd. And that would give the game a bit more flavor for sure, but would it be a worthwhile addition (relative to cost)? And if claim strength mostly effects the acceptance of your peers, isn't the relationship rating good enough? i.e. somebody who holds you in high regard is more likely to ignore or support your claim.

 

[Doctor Zoviet]

Well, with a shaky claim, you might get excommunicated by the Pope for warring on your Catholic brothers, neh?

 

[Nick B II]

Well, with a shaky claim, you might get excommunicated by the Pope for warring on your Catholic brothers, neh?

That could happen even with a good claim. The Pope strongly believed the Peace of God meant peace.

IIRC he thought William the Conquerer's claim was so strong that he sent a special Papal banner to bless the invasion, and then condemned the entire army as heretics for invading on a Sunday.

Nick
Nick

 

[Nuril]

IIRC he thought William the Conquerer's claim was so strong that he sent a special Papal banner to bless the invasion, and then condemned the entire army as heretics for invading on a Sunday.

Really? I was under the impression that the reason the Saxons paid William no attention in their dynastic machinations prior to the invasion was that his asserted claim was very much a weak one (and thus only "strengthened" by sheer brute force in killing off the English nobles with much better legitimacy). o_o

 

[vadermath]

Do we still get a real DD this month?

This

 

[.Spartan]

LET ME PRE-ORDER THIS NOW!

No doubt. I'm also very depressed I missed the beta call but maybe it was for the best as I have been extremely active in the TOR beta for a long time and somewhat active in the LotRO one and two others I cant name sadly enough. Nonetheless I would make time for a chance to contribute to CKII. It is without a doubt my most cherished simulation and I say that as a guy who focused on simulations and related theory as an undergrad and graduate student once upon a time.

 

[Nick B II]

Really? I was under the impression that the reason the Saxons paid William no attention in their dynastic machinations prior to the invasion was that his asserted claim was very much a weak one (and thus only "strengthened" by sheer brute force in killing off the English nobles with much better legitimacy). o_o

So?

Doesn't change the fact that the Pope sent the banner, and gave William his blessing.

Nick

 

[Nuril]

So?

Doesn't change the fact that the Pope sent the banner, and gave William his blessing.

Nick

..But you just said he considered it a strong claim, whilst no one in the concerned regions took him for a serious claimant. I'm not disputing him possibly sending a banner or some sort of Papal support (appreciative of help in stomping out simony or the like), but I don't understand how the reason would be that he thought his claim was actually strong - unless under the direct influence of very successful Norman propaganda.

 

[unmerged(303218)]

The Pope sending him a banner meant he (as the Great Power of the era) acknowledged him, and thus actually strengthened his claim. And by no little amount.

Just imagine: if today a country claims ground held by some other, the conflict is pretty much decided by the UN and the US. Without arms and stuff, but simply by stating they support A over B. Thus suddenly the claim of A becomes the legitimate one and country B is just the oppressor. The usurper to the title, right?

 

[Nick B II]

..But you just said he considered it a strong claim, whilst no one in the concerned regions took him for a serious claimant. I'm not disputing him possibly sending a banner or some sort of Papal support (appreciative of help in stomping out simony or the like), but I don't understand how the reason would be that he thought his claim was actually strong - unless under the direct influence of very successful Norman propaganda.

No idea what the Pope actually thought in his head.

But what he said, flat-out, is that William is rightful King and if you Saxons dare support that bigamist Harold you're going to hell. That the Saxons disagreed is proven by the fact pretty much all of them died fighting for Harold.

But the point I'm showing is that the Pope didn't consider claim strength when he excommed people for screwing with him. If he says "You Count of Anjou, will stop fighting the Duke of Brittany until Jerusalem is free," and the Count of Anjou insisted on fighting it wouldn't matter who the Pope agreed with. He'd ex-com the Count.

Nick

 

[Ruwaard]

..But you just said he considered it a strong claim, whilst no one in the concerned regions took him for a serious claimant. I'm not disputing him possibly sending a banner or some sort of Papal support (appreciative of help in stomping out simony or the like), but I don't understand how the reason would be that he thought his claim was actually strong - unless under the direct influence of very successful Norman propaganda.

The strength of claim for a part depends on a later acknowledgment of the new situation by other states; a succession backed by the pope would at least internationally in the Catholic world have been accepted (much more easily).

 

[Nuril]

No idea what the Pope actually thought in his head. But what he said, flat-out, is that William is rightful King and if you Saxons dare support that bigamist Harold you're going to hell. That the Saxons disagreed is proven by the fact pretty much all of them died fighting for Harold.

But the point I'm showing is that the Pope didn't consider claim strength when he excommed people for screwing with him. If he says "You Count of Anjou, will stop fighting the Duke of Brittany until Jerusalem is free," and the Count of Anjou insisted on fighting it wouldn't matter who the Pope agreed with. He'd ex-com the Count.

So then you didn't have a foundation from which you stated that the Pope thought that the validity of William's claim was strong, and instead he just approved of him and threw his weight behind him while simultaneously disliking Harold. Alrighty.

The strength of claim for a part depends on a later acknowledgment of the new situation by other states; a succession backed by the pope would at least internationally in the Catholic world have been accepted (much more easily).

Either you didn't read it or you're okay with incredibly circular logic. Your answer to my inquiry is "The reason the Pope thinks his claim was strong, and therefore support it, is because it's supported by the Pope"? Really?

 

[unmerged(303218)]

Either you didn't read it or you're okay with incredibly circular logic. Your answer to my inquiry is "The reason the Pope thinks his claim was strong, and therefore support it, is because it's supported by the Pope"? Really?

I think he doesn't mean that.
I think he means "Because the Pope backed him (for whatever reasons), his claim was strong." It is like a new state/revolution being acknowledged (or not) by the UN. If the UN acknowledges it as the rightful state, it is. If it doesn't, this petty revolt gets stomped out.

He means that a claim is not supported because it is already strong, but instead that it becomes strong because it is supported.

 

[Nuril]

I think he doesn't mean that.
I think he means "Because the Pope backed him (for whatever reasons), his claim was strong." It is like a new state/revolution being acknowledged (or not) by the UN. If the UN acknowledges it as the rightful state, it is. If it doesn't, this petty revolt gets stomped out.

He means that a claim is not supported because it is already strong, but instead that it becomes strong because it is supported.

Which means that, similar to your earlier response, he didn't actually read what the post he was responding to actually said. Which is the other option I stated in what you're now quoting.

I at no point said that having the Pope back your claim doesn't strengthen it in the Catholic world. Obviously it does. But that has nothing to do with the original question which was why the Pope, UNLIKE EVERYONE IN THE REGION, felt that William had the strongest claim PRIOR (Obviously) to supporting him. I do not understand why this is hard to understand.