Dev Diary 11: Stopping The Snowball

[macd21]

Not sure what to think of this. Was anyone asking for this?

*Raises hand*

Always thought the AI needed some way to recognise a mutual threat and form alliances against it beyond the normal marriage mechanics.

 

[mosepp]

I dislike that infamy level is unchanged by succession. I think at least a reduction of the level on inheritance would be in order.

It would also be interesting if there would be some way of having liberation wars that reduces infamy as well as getting blessing/crowning by the Pope to reduce it.

 

[Lord_P]

1. The thing about AE or Aggressive Expansion in EU4 is that it's applied nation specific. If you annex a deal of HRE nations, Ming won't suddenly start hating you. Will there be mechanics like this to stop, e.g. HRE from joining a coalition against France if France decides to conquer Algiers?
2. Do different CBs create differing amounts of Infamy? The Catholic world shouldn't mind if you Crusaded someone's hat off, but the Muslims would feel severely threatened. Likewise, a Papal sanctioned invasion is just and legitimate (by medieval standards), and shouldn't generate as much infamy with your Catholic brethren.

 

[Arko]

Is the title a reference of Snowball studios ? (previous CK1 dev)

 

[Zoob]

I dislike that infamy level is unchanged by succession. I think at least a reduction of the level on inheritance would be in order.

It would also be interesting if there would be some way of having liberation wars that reduces infamy as well as getting blessing/crowning by the Pope to reduce it.

THe Great Khan of Khans takes all of mesopotamia and anatolia. Dies, his son MASSIVE Khan of Khan of Khans inherits, and everyone's like, yeah well he's not his dad, he's probably no threat.

 

[Will Steel]

The irony in threads right next to each other:

 

[No idea]

It has been a long time since I have played CK 2, but making expansion far more difficult is something I have asked many times (my games always ended, after 150 years or so, like some kind of HoI factions total war among two powerful empires that had gobbled up everything). I think it might make for a good gameplay.

By the way, I hope you dont get the same Infamy from grabbing your peaceful neighbours land than getting that same land via marriage or after a crusade, right?

 

[Summercat]

It has been a long time since I have played CK 2, but making expansion far more difficult is something I have asked many times (my games always ended, after 150 years or so, like some kind of HoI factions total war among two powerful empires that had gobbled up everything). I think it might make for a good gameplay.

By the way, I hope you dont get the same Infamy from grabbing your peaceful neighbours land than getting that same land via marriage or after a crusade, right?

You might, albiet at a lesser rate than being a warmonger I should think.

I mean, look at the frantic wars of containment France went through - albiet outside of the scope of CK2 - to contain the Hapsburgs to prevent that very thing from happening.

 

[nOxr]

*Raises hand*

Always thought the AI needed some way to recognise a mutual threat and form alliances against it beyond the normal marriage mechanics.

Exactly, I primarily view the infamy feature as a way to help the AI get a bit smarter about its own survival. The AI can act a bit like mindless zombies sometimes, but with Infamy at least they will be scared zombies when a threat appears and band together against a common enemy.

 

[harasai]

a question just popped into mind
what will happen if a non dynastic heir inherits a realm or if 2 existing realms merge ?

 

[Ptolemix]

When it comes to historicity, I accept a level of abstraction that's at work with coalitions (as previewed). Obviously they're a bit implausible, but the concept of rulers pouncing on distracted powers is still valid. So I wouldn't interpret them as all being literal coalitions, but also representing the willingness of rulers to skirmish with dangerous neighbours. That's how I explain the Caliph allying with both Georgia and Khiva.

 

[Hector of Troy]

Another reason I could give why I feel the snowballing effect would have been better dealt with internally, mainly through stronger and more organized factions, and not externally, is the fact it would give the player more stuff to do during peace time. Managing factions can be fun. Infamy, on the other hand, basically means waiting without anything to do.

Furthermore, mods out there have already proved that dealing with the snowballing incredibly annoying and game breaking issue can be successfully handled this way. Instead of creating a new uncertain mechanic (coalitions), why not expanding on already existing ones, such as more interesting and demanding factions, and adding some administrative and military penalties?

Anyway, at least it's good to know the developers are aware about how awful the snowballing effect can be to this game, and are trying to find a solution to the problem.

 

[jorishilhorst]

And no, Infamy stays over generations. You can't be a dick then die and think you will get away with it.

Technically, I can think it. I just can't actually do the getting away with it part.

 

[redsimonDE]

I am for more internal mechanics to combat blobs and against this CKII-style aggressive expansion (this would also give players more to do, especially during peace time). The relevant points have already been mentioned before. Let me show you a collage of the most important points.

Please don't do this. The idea should stay in EU4 where it belongs, in a context where more centralised nation states and the idea of the balance of power makes sense.

Blobs in CK2 should be punished by things that make sense for the time period - increased corruption, difficulty of administration for large realms, that kind of thing. Make there be some actual difficulties inherent to being a blob, rather than punishing people for expansion.

This would also be a good way to moderate the effects of this nerf, in that-once again-I'm afraid of heavy-handed, ham-fisted nerfs coring gameplay for small realms, while leaving Empires-the true targets of these nerfs-relatively untouched.

The small fry, vassals and small kingdoms, shouldn't face the exact same penalties that Empires face.

[...]It would simply punish those players who prefer the county-to-empire game, while rewarding those who start out with an empire that's already very large and strong.

So basically, it would work exactly like Infamy already does in EU4: A mild obstacle to player expansion that's there to be gamed to hell.

Another reason I could give why I feel the snowballing effect would have been better dealt with internally, mainly through stronger and more organized factions, and not externally, is the fact it would give the player more stuff to do during peace time. Managing factions can be fun. Infamy, on the other hand, basically means waiting without anything to do.

Furthermore, mods out there have already proved that dealing with the snowballing incredibly annoying and game breaking issue can be successfully handled this way. Instead of creating a new uncertain mechanic (coalitions), why not expanding on already existing ones, such as more interesting and demanding factions, and adding some administrative and military penalties?

Please don't do this, Paradox.

 

[nOxr]

Another reason I could give why I feel the snowballing effect would have been better dealt with internally, mainly through stronger and more organized factions, and not externally, is the fact it would give the player more stuff to do during peace time. Managing factions can be fun. Infamy, on the other hand, basically means waiting without anything to do.

Furthermore, mods out there have already proved that dealing with the snowballing incredibly annoying and game breaking issue can be successfully handled this way. Instead of creating a new uncertain mechanic (coalitions), why not expanding on already existing ones, such as more interesting and demanding factions, and adding some administrative and military penalties?

Anyway, at least it's good to know the developers are aware about how awful the snowballing effect can be to this game, and are trying to find a solution to the problem.

This is just one feature in a long list of things that will come in the patch+DLC. Hopefully we will get internal mechanics to curb snowballing as well. The snowballing effect is a fundamental problem, and the fact that they have started to address this with the defensive coalition feature makes me optimistic for further additions.

 

[Lord_P]

The irony in threads right next to each other:

LOL, look how many times I'm featured!

 

[The Great Bear]

*Raises hand*

Always thought the AI needed some way to recognise a mutual threat and form alliances against it beyond the normal marriage mechanics.

Yeah, the AI virtually denied the existence of everything outside their realm until it was time to declare war.

 

[yourworstnightm]

Will there be internal coalitions inside the Realm. Like if the duke of Bavaria go on a expansion streak within the HRE, will other HRE vassals form a coalition against him?

 

[Jamey]

Just because you switch to your heir doesn't mean that suddenly all the conquests the father did magically disappears. Neighbors would still be worried about you even if you are a 18 year King.

Does infamy instantly reduce if you lose land upon death (e.g. Gavelkind)?

Does infamy scale with the CB used (e.g. Strong claim gives less than weak)?

 

[Cu Chulainn]

At launch, the game seemed a lot harder to blob. Considering I played CK1, I don't think its just the fact I've gotten better at the game. I think the expansions have just made certain things overpowered. Stopping the snowball *is* an important, on this I agree. But I agree with many people here who say that internal stability is the real problem. When you are successful and expanding, internal stability should be pretty solid as you give lands to your trusted commanders. When you have a horrible, low prestige, low diplomacy heir rise to the throne who cannot hold together the massive realm you've built, things should get very rowdy. You might be afraid to declare war, because your vassal levies are minimal. Then, this stagnation of a large realm should lead to intrigue. When your vassals have nothing to do, they should be plotting to raise their standing. If you have low intrigue yourself, there should be a serious threat of being deposed and losing it all. A well timed feast or tournament might be the perfect solution to distract them. As things are now, its simplistic to weather the storm for a few years, waiting for the malus to wear off, and then things are back to normal no matter how unfit you are to be king.

So much of CK2 is about the relationships between you and your vassals. I'd rather have this part of the game fleshed out more than EU code inserted. It feels as if CK2 is already getting too similar to EU4 as things stand. In addition to stability, the snowball problem is really fueled by the fact we are drowning in CB and gold that seem to be added almost every expansion. Adding infamy just gives us an artificial numerical cap to slow expansion down, but doesn't do anything to actually stop how easy it is to hold together a large empire and add to it. It's effectively a speed limit.

I'm interested in seeing how this works out, but I feel there has to have been a better way.