Hello again folks, I do believe it is time for another dev diary!

We've basically covered most of the features in the game by now, so I thought I'd change tack and talk a bit about what we've been up to in the last week. Much of the focus lately has been on war and peace, both the rules and the AI behaviour. I am pleased to report that we've now got vassals within the same realm fighting each other like the vicious bastards they are.

We have also changed the rules a bit - vassals are now allowed to declare war on independent rulers, but independent rulers still cannot declare war on vassals. Thus, we now have William of Normandy as a vassal of France while invading England on his own. An unforeseen consequence of this is that he now tends to call in his father-in-law, another French vassal, Duke Boudewijn of Flandres to help him out. Marriage matters folks, and don't you forget it!

On a related note, Duchess Matilde of Tuscany, vassal of the Holy Roman Emperor (and the most eligible bride in Europe), tends to open the game in 1066 with a rather bad move, attacking the Pope to seize Orvieto (which is de jure part of her Duchy of Spoleto.) Other times, the Pope usurps the title Duke of Spoleto, and then Matilde feels obliged to attempt to take it back.

Either way, the unfortunate Duchess tends to get a rather nasty surprise. She has forgotten an important lesson that you might remember from an earlier diary - the Pope gets taxes from loyal bishops around Europe, making him a very, very rich man. So, while he has few levies of his own to raise, he can basically afford to hire every mercenary company in Europe! Even the mighty Holy Roman Emperor sometimes loses to the might of the Vatican.



...and there was much balancing.

Until next time!

 

[Darkrenown]

The simplest way would probably be to make her a Papal ally at the start of the game, thus preventing her from going after the Pope every single time.

You want her to marry the Pope?

Perhaps if you get attacked by two allied counties, if you win, can you force them to dissolve their alliance?

I guess some people have missed it, but we did say you're only allied via marriage or dynastic ties in CK2, it's not really something you can split up.

 

[ramblymanguthri]

You want her to marry the Pope?

I guess some people have missed it, but we did say you're only allied via marriage or dynastic ties in CK2, it's not really something you can split up.

Can you not have any corresponding agreements with non-relatives/in-laws? Or if you, say, want help attacking the king of Castille, is all "allies" acquired through plots or something like that?

 

[Orinsul]

You want her to marry the Pope?



I guess some people have missed it, but we did say you're only allied via marriage or dynastic ties in CK2, it's not really something you can split up.

so theres no room for a way for event or history file to set up alliances which are exceptions to the rule?
what if you break an alliance? does it break the marriage? and can you reform the alliance without needed a second marriage? or is it just the previous existence of a marriage that allows it, like needed a marriage before vassaling in EU3.

 

[Darkrenown]

You can't break an alliance...well I suppose you could kill your spouse. You can fail to honour a call, but the alliance remains.

 

[Alastor]

You can't break an alliance...well I suppose you could kill your spouse. You can fail to honour a call, but the alliance remains.

That just doesn't seem right to me, its alliances that were followed(or sealed if you wish) by marriages, not the other way around. Locking yourself in an alliance just because of a marriage simply doesn't make sense.

 

[Orinsul]

You can't break an alliance...well I suppose you could kill your spouse. You can fail to honour a call, but the alliance remains.

so rather than solve CK's problem of giving the player incentives to kill his spouse, you have strengthened it tenfold.
theres no annulment then? dishonouring calls to arms have no consequences? you cant marry and not be allied? not even if its a seventh daughter to a third son? or never go to war with your sisters husband or your father-in-law? If it was requirement of creating an alliance it might be reasonable but for them to be one and the same?
thats seriously limiting, not to mention damning on the whole moral highground and historical side of things.
The best strategy in any game should not be kill your wife

 

[Chipster]

The best strategy in any game should not be kill your wife

Now, I don't have any inside information on this, but I imagine that there would be some sort of consequence if you decided to murder your spouse. At the very least, her family may have something to say about that.

 

[Orinsul]

still its not something the game should incentivise or drive the player the to. it was bad enough in CK where there was no way to annul a marriage with a celibate/infertile wife, and to take it further than that is inexcusable

 

[Darkrenown]

so rather than solve CK's problem of giving the player incentives to kill his spouse, you have strengthened it tenfold.
theres no annulment then? dishonouring calls to arms have no consequences? you cant marry and not be allied? not even if its a seventh daughter to a third son? or never go to war with your sisters husband or your father-in-law? If it was requirement of creating an alliance it might be reasonable but for them to be one and the same?
thats seriously limiting, not to mention damning on the whole moral highground and historical side of things.
The best strategy in any game should not be kill your wife

You can get a divorce if the Pope oks it...How does this make killing your wife the best strategy in the game?
1) Get married, get ally.
2) Kill wife.
3) ????
4) Profit!
?

I have to say, it really puts us off revealing features when the first response is almost always a rant that assumes we are idiots and whatever feature we just mentioned will ruin the game. How about we keep calm and ask questions in a reasonable manner?

 

[Alastor]

You can get a divorce if the Pope oks it...How does this make killing your wife the best strategy in the game?
1) Get married, get ally.
2) Kill wife.
3) ????
4) Profit!

Its:
1)Get married, get ally that at that moment you need.
2)Kill wife, get rid of ally whose lands now that the situation has changed covet.
3)Attack your former ally, conquer and pillage his lands.
4)Profit!
That forfeiting your alliance with someone, whoever that may be, would require either divorcing, or killing your wife is a problem.

 

[Pallen]

You can get a divorce if the Pope oks it...How does this make killing your wife the best strategy in the game?
1) Get married, get ally.
2) Kill wife.
3) ????
4) Profit!
?

I have to say, it really puts us off revealing features when the first response is almost always a rant that assumes we are idiots and whatever feature we just mentioned will ruin the game. How about we keep calm and ask questions in a reasonable manner?

It is understandable, but you have to remember that people who arent happy about something are the ones who often will post about it while many - like myself, will read, get wood, then go to knock it off at the bathroom for the next hours, while we probably should post something.

But I'd say I am still intrigued, and since it is beta I try not to worry about "what could happen" and Il indstead focus on how it is supposed to work. I think its cool that the pope can hire so many mercenaries, and that you need to ask him to get a divorce, then we can all pull a Henry 8th

 

[Romtos]

I have to say, it really puts us off revealing features when the first response is almost always a rant that assumes we are idiots and whatever feature we just mentioned will ruin the game. How about we keep calm and ask questions in a reasonable manner?

Doesn't the enthusiasm of the majority compensate for that by some margin? I'd say it should.

 

[Darkrenown]

Its:
1)Get married, get ally that at that moment you need.
2)Kill wife, get rid of ally whose lands now that the situation has changed covet.
3)Attack your former ally, conquer and pillage his lands.
4)Profit!
That forfeiting your alliance with someone, whoever that may be, would require either divorcing, or killing your wife is a problem.

So if instead of a wife it was just an alliance offer, how would that be different? It's handy that your temp ally has a daughter of marrying age...And good luck getting a heir from your dead wives, plus I am sure there will be no problems coming from killing you wife or upsetting her family, nor will your vassals mind that their liege is a wife slaying, ally-attacking monster. Also, how much help was your ally if you can conquer him so easily?

 

[mp84]

and interesting idea with Marriages.. Question though..

When the spouse of that Dynasty you allied with dies, does the alliance also dissolve too? Or does it remain if there are still ties to the spouse via children still?

Example.. Say I marry my Daughter to the King of France, thus create an alliance with them through dynastic ties.. My Daughter passes away, but before she passes away has a son..

Thus, will the alliance still remain because of the "son" she had with King of France, or will the alliance dissolve because naturally my Daughter is now dead?

Hopefully you won't mind answering this question

thanks,

MP

 

[Captain Gars]

Lets keep the discussion here a bit more friendly and mature, thank you.

 

[Alastor]

So if instead of a wife it was just an alliance offer, how would that be different? It's handy that your temp ally has a daughter of marrying age...And good luck getting a heir from your dead wives, plus I am sure there will be no problems coming from killing you wife or upsetting her family, nor will your vassals mind that their liege is a wife slaying, ally-attacking monster. Also, how much help was your ally if you can conquer him so easily?

It would be different because I could end such an alliance without the need to get an annulment, or kill the wife. I don't think people back then divorced/killed their wives every time they wanted to stop being allied to their in-laws.
And I don't mean total conquest, perhaps he has a province I like and perhaps I have reached an understanding with our former common enemy who is now a better prospective ally for me, many times in history have alliances shifted like that, just because I marry someone's daughter I shouldn't be locked in an alliance with him.

 

[vadermath]

I suppose that marital alliances should be breakable via plots, seems quite reasonable; one would rarely move against one's medieval in-law openly and without preparation, but I imagine there was plenty of plotting to do so going 'round Europe.

 

[Drakken]

Its:
1)Get married, get ally that at that moment you need.
2)Kill wife, get rid of ally whose lands now that the situation has changed covet.
3)Attack your former ally, conquer and pillage his lands.
4)Profit!
That forfeiting your alliance with someone, whoever that may be, would require either divorcing, or killing your wife is a problem.

Then maybe you should choose your brides better, rather than choose any random young girl reaching 16, from anywhere from Ireland to Cathay, to marry her and she becomes a baby machine. This time, the player must weight his choice of possible brides according to political expendiencies, which is good, because with that marriage comes a whole dynasty behind that can help you - and expect you help it back.

I don't get why murdering/divorcing a wife because she can't produce kids, like people did in CK, and murdering/divorcing a wife because the alliance has become inconvenient, is any different from one another. Both were an issue in medieval times. Besides, alliances doesn't mean that call to arms are automated. As Darkrenown said you can still refuse a call to arms without breaking the alliance. Don't want the alliance? Don't accept their call to arms and plot invites... but you shouldn't be expecting the other side to accept their call to arms to help you either.

You seem to forget that in CK1, and even more in CK2 from what we know from the game, messing with other people and pissing them off will have consequences that can quickly become deadly.

 

[Drakken]

That just doesn't seem right to me, its alliances that were followed(or sealed if you wish) by marriages, not the other way around. Locking yourself in an alliance just because of a marriage simply doesn't make sense.

Maybe in 16th century Europe, but not in 11th century Europe. Marriage was entering family, and family-members were expected to support each other in times of need. Being the brother-in-law of King or Duke so and so meant as much as he were related to him by blood. So alliance followed marriage; the latter was expected to be an alliance. You didn't need any contract to state it clearly, as it was well-understood it came with it.

Remember, in Middle Ages dynasties remain effectively largely-extended clans, and politics are a familial, private, and personal matter.

 

[Tegus]

It should be noted that an alliance in CK2 is not equivalent to an alliance in our other games.

First of all, when someone is attacked, allies are not automatically called into the war.
Second, as of now, there is _no_ restriction that prohibits you from attacking an ally. This needs to be balanced of course, but I think it's likely that the only limiting factor when attacking an ally will be relation and prestige penalties(there are certain other limits though, for instance you cannot attack your wife directly). There's certainly no need to kill your wife just because you want to attack her brother, but you will probably have to watch your back after doing so...

So, what are allies in CK2 then? Allies are simply characters which you can call into a war. This includes members of you dynasty and your siblings, as well as people close connected through marriages.

Also, if you don't have strong enough allies when you want to take someone down, you might want to consider plotting against them instead. Certain plots will allow you to invite people, and once the plot is executed, these people will join your side in the war.