Dev Diary 11: Stopping The Snowball

[Pellaken]

Don't listen to the whiners, and keep up the good work.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

Don't listen to the whiners, and keep up the good work.

Seconded.

 

[Boucicaut]

Yeah, anti-bobbing mechanics are needed. This may not be the best option for that, but it is a decent one.

Also, are some people actually complaining because they like to blob easily? Sheesh.

 

[Andrzej I]

My main concern with this is how it is treating the various counties, duchies, etc. as fully fledged states, with infamy being given to the state as a whole rather than focusing it upon the infamous figure in specific. The idea of coalitions in of themselves is not a bad idea, but utilizing it as the primary method to limit blobbing feels anachronistic for an era that, to me, seems so much more about the centralization and creation of states. As WeissRaben posted earlier, I think that internal strife would be a much better focus for methods to limit blobbing, with vassals moving against their liege should he try to impose upon their "rights".

After all, successful rebellions by vassals would break up blobs into smaller states, whereas a successful coalition against a blob only imposes a truce and a loss of gold and prestige, which hardly hampers the blob from expanding when all the coalition members are tied up with other wars, etc.

This all being said, coalitions as non-marriage alliances against particularly infamous individuals sounds wonderful, but I do think having it as the focused method to hamper blobbing is not the right direction. Coalitions should be a rare thing, I think, only against someone who has proven to be an ambitious warmonger and liable to turn against multiple targets with little discrimination. It should apply to an individual in specific, and perhaps be inherited in part by heirs, but to have it be passed down (nearly) in full to whomever heads the state, and for coalitions to form based upon any sort of gain in land past a certain point feels flawed to me. I can't say I'm too optimistic of this mechanic from what I read.

 

[vandevere]

My main concern with this is how it is treating the various counties, duchies, etc. as fully fledged states, with infamy being given to the state as a whole rather than focusing it upon the infamous figure in specific. The idea of coalitions in of themselves is not a bad idea, but utilizing it as the primary method to limit blobbing feels anachronistic for an era that, to me, seems so much more about the centralization and creation of states. As WeissRaben posted earlier, I think that internal strife would be a much better focus for methods to limit blobbing, with vassals moving against their liege should he try to impose upon their "rights".

After all, successful rebellions by vassals would break up blobs into smaller states, whereas a successful coalition against a blob only imposes a truce and a loss of gold and prestige, which hardly hampers the blob from expanding when all the coalition members are tied up with other wars, etc.

This all being said, coalitions as non-marriage alliances against particularly infamous individuals sounds wonderful, but I do think having it as the focused method to hamper blobbing is not the right direction. Coalitions should be a rare thing, I think, only against someone who has proven to be an ambitious warmonger and liable to turn against multiple targets with little discrimination. It should apply to an individual in specific, and perhaps be inherited in part by heirs, but to have it be passed down (nearly) in full to whomever heads the state, and for coalitions to form based upon any sort of gain in land past a certain point feels flawed to me. I can't say I'm too optimistic of this mechanic from what I read.

Especially since said infamy will also be earned by things which don't really merit infamy; such as "Inheriting a fair damsel's land"...

Lawfully inheriting lands should not earn infamy. Only warmongering, and provable murder to inherit should merit infamy.

 

[TheRealAlu]

This doesn't seem like the best idea. I'd rather have a bigger punishment for failing agressive wars, like losing land. Or have some more stuff to do during peacetimes. Because of course the game is going to end up with every player snowballing into a giant blob when the only thing we can really do (that we have control over) is declare wars. Way of Life was a decent start at giving us things to do. But it's still very restrictive. I can't seduce someone, study in an observatory, hunt, or throw parties at the same time. I'm forced to wait 5 whole years before I can unlock new actions to do.

Like how is that realistic at all? I can't throw a party, seduce a girl in the party, and then decide to go on a hunting trip the week after? Why make me wait 5 years before I can actually do each thing? If I can't do things that I want to do, and I can't have internal pet projects like building trade routes, or maybe taking a stab at building one of the future wonders of the world's... then I'll be forced to declare wars to pass the time.

 

[Resistance0108]

I agree to stop blobbing, but it's not exactly proper way.
Eating small states is too easy and not costly now, so I think you should tackle this problem rather than making coalition.
Also, I think losing a war should cause instability. Currently, it causes only small prestige loss and short period of debt.
And rebels(both faction rebels and event popped rebels) should be deadlier. For example, increased war score for occupation, faster sieging speed drawing other vassals.
Extinction of dynasty due to lack of "legitimate" heir may be good. When Umayyad and Rum Seljuk died from this while CK2 muslim dynasties rarely go extinct.

 

[ninoallen]

after reading alot of these comments i believe thiswas actually a bad idea

 

[MeteorPhoenix]

Throwing my opinion out there too, I'm not a fan of this change. I'm not playing CK2 for the difficulty or achievements; I'm playing it to tell a story, and this makes it harder to tell that story in exchange for no fun new mechanic or feature.

So I respectfully disagree with this change.

 

[Talq]

Wait, does legitimately (through normal inheritance or undetected assassination) gaining land through peaceful means produce Infamy?

Think about it this way. If the ERE inherited the HRE or vice versa, and you were not playing either (and reasonably nearby), what would your reaction be?

Hint: it probably would not be much different to one conquering the other.

 

[cluesagi]

Just please tell me this isn't going to be game-breaking.

 

[Andrzej I]

Especially since said infamy will also be earned by things which don't really merit infamy; such as "Inheriting a fair damsel's land"...

Lawfully inheriting lands should not earn infamy. Only warmongering, and provable murder to inherit should merit infamy.

I think it might be better if Infamy was perhaps renamed to be something like Threat, and in which case I could see how lawfully inheriting lands would earn it. That being said, though, I still maintain that high levels of Infamy (or whatever name one would use for it) should be the only time EU4-style coalitions should form, and lawfully gaining lands through inheritance, etc. should be dwarfed by warmongering and intrigue in the gain of said statistic.

Furthermore, I think threat should be generated differently for different characters. I can't see why fellow Christians would feel 300% Infamy for Charlemagne conquering Iberia, to use a developer's previous example. Rival states like the Lombards might feel more threatened, but I don't see why, say, the King of Wessex would feel as threatened as the Sheik of Sicily for the sudden conquest of Muslim Spain.

 

[prithupaul]

Especially since said infamy will also be earned by things which don't really merit infamy; such as "Inheriting a fair damsel's land"...

Lawfully inheriting lands should not earn infamy. Only warmongering, and provable murder to inherit should merit infamy.

Indeed, infamy for warmongering I can still accept. Its absolutely nonsensical that lawfully inheriting lands or actions of your vassals increase your infamy. Its worse than nonsensical - its gamey. This was designed like an artificial game-play tool to balance powerful realms, as opposed to realistically simulate "threat". Its against the spirit of what made CK a special game.

I am with many others here in suggesting internal strife to be the biggest problem for growing empires, as opposed nonsensical and unhistorical medieval grand alliances.

I miss the days when Paradox used to make historically unbalanced games.

 

[Darsara]

While I'm willing to wait and see, I am in the camp that believe that the largest roadblock to the success of a player's realm should be internal politics, rather than relying on letting foreign power team up on the big guy.

I especially dislike the idea of penalising the player for their vassals being aggressive, unless we're getting more ways to reign them in than having to get crown authority up high enough to stop them from fighting. The vassals being aggressive should be the punishment itself, rather than just provoking it from someone else.

 

[mjohnson85]

Indeed, infamy for warmongering I can still accept. Its absolutely nonsensical that lawfully inheriting lands or actions of your vassals increase your infamy. Its worse than nonsensical - its gamey. This was designed like an artificial game-play tool to balance powerful realms, as opposed to realistically simulate "threat". Its against the spirit of what made CK a special game.

I miss the days when Paradox used to make historically unbalanced games.

If you are France and the HRE just inherited all of Iberia, would you not feel threatened?

 

[prithupaul]

If you are France and the HRE just inherited all of Iberia, would you not feel threatened?

Not unless they have a bloodthirsty ruler at their head who is eyeing lands for whatever reasons. And I would definitely NOT automatically start forming a coalition against them.

I would in fact also strongly consider strengthening my diplomatic ties with them.

Just look through medieval history. How many coalitions / grand alliances were formed outside of religious conflicts?

 

[Slayen]

If you are France and the HRE just inherited all of Iberia, would you not feel threatened?

Examples like this keep coming up and for me, the answer is pretty much always, no.

Unless they are a kingdom/empire/dynasty that I've been actively antagonistic against, or it was clay that I had been maneuvering to inherit myself, I really REALLY don't care.

And in the case of the latter, I'm just annoyed that the A.I. beat me to the punch. And would likely be followed by me muttering something along the lines of "fracking Karlings". Cause I know it would be them. IT'S ALWAYS THEM!

 

[Calad]

If you are France and the HRE just inherited all of Iberia, would you not feel threatened?

These systems always works out very poorly and they only set up artificial barriers to players.

Also it is super fun that all nations around you are ganging you up. Best feature ever.

 

[Sanny]

These systems always works out very poorly and they only set up artificial barriers to players.

Also it is super fun that all nations around you are ganging you up. Best feature ever.

But CK2 is not about "nations" it's about the characters of your Dynasty. This is where the devs have lost sight.

And to say that infamy carries down through generations is preposterous. There must be dozens of historical examples of Kings who have been power-hungry for titles and land and their heir's turns out completely different but yet their father's infamy represents the way themselves are seen by the world? Absolute rubbish.

 

[Dracko81]

There must be dozens of examples of Kings who have been power-hungry for titles and land and their heir's turn out completely different but yet their father's infamy represents the way they themselves are seen by the world?

In which case, inheriting his infamy wouldn't cause any issue. If however he was as warmongering, then his going to have issues.

But you are all basing this on having never played with the mechanic.