Dev Diary 11: Stopping The Snowball

[yourworstnightm]

It makes all the sense in the world. It would be impossible for a king in England to govern land in Jerusalem. They would be de facto independent.

But that shouldn't be handled through loyalty. Just because the King of England doesn't have any influence on Jerusalem doesn't mean his vassals there aren't loyal. They're probably more loyal BECAUSE he has no infuence. It really need a separate mechanic for that.

 

[Jackwagon]

But...we do have all this information on display. Well, except for buildings.

Troops to siege = 1+Garrison (hover over green bar of holding)+Levy (hover over red bar of holding).

Buildings, click on holding picture. It is a different screen, but still there.

Loot, gold/yellow/orange bar in the middle of the province info. If you hover over it it'll tell you all about loot for the province.

Fort/Trade Posts: Click the arrow next to the province info and fort/trade info will 'slide out' so you can see that too.

Wait. Some of this might only be true for CK2+ . Vanilla may gave different fort/trade display methods

You can already see how many troops it takes to siege it down by clicking on it and mousing over the levy/garrison in the castle. Levy + garrison + 1 = troops needed unless levy is empty, then it's just garrison + 1.

Important information should be seen at a glance not hidden in a tool tip -Arumba

I know the info is there but having to check 3 screens to know what is what about a province is a little much you have to admit It small and clutter and could use a face lift

 

[Zooboss]

Important information should be seen at a glance not hidden in a tool tip -Arumba

I know the info is there but having to check 3 screens to know what is what about a province is a little much you have to admit It small and clutter and could use a face lift

I'll agree that it could use a facelift, vut I also think that sometimes there's way too much information in CK2 to be easily displayed.

Do you really need to know which buildings are in each holding of the province (easily, from the province screen)? What would Constantinople look like? 5/6 holdings each with at least 5 buildings after a couple decades. That's at least 25 buildings you want to cram into the province information along with everything that's already there.

 

[Thure]

It makes all the sense in the world. It would be impossible for a king in England to govern land in Jerusalem. They would be de facto independent.

But this don't make them illoyal and rebelious. As I said... Frederick Ii ruled from Sicily. And the vassals in Italy hated him more than his vassals in Germany.
As already said:

But that shouldn't be handled through loyalty. Just because the King of England doesn't have any influence on Jerusalem doesn't mean his vassals there aren't loyal. They're probably more loyal BECAUSE he has no infuence. It really need a separate mechanic for that.

 

[D.PHa]

This mechanics would also have potential for representing the FEAR mechanic of Liege vs. Vassals:
* doing revocations,executions etc affecting the infamy
* vassals would fear infamous liege and do not dare to oppose (now they only like you less and join factions like it would be safe)
* when liege would be weak or vassals got strong enough, they would forcefully remove bad liege.

Yes!
I'm very happy with this DD, it is one of the "small" things that I thought CK2 lacked so much and that fear is another this kind of thing, if we have "dynastic influence", "liege-vassal-neighbour fear modifier" and ending war negotiations (this is bit difficult ) this game would be super awesome, way more better than it is today.

As of coalition feature, it also makes important change in gameplay that most of us might have not yet considered. With new mechanics conquering new land will not be "cheaper"/efficient way of getting stronger, now we will have to focus more on updating and improving existing lands/buildings, it is important and interesting change, in my mind.

 

[Arrowfiend]

Since Paradox doesn't seem to be willing to revert this upcoming change despite the massive uproar, I sincerely hope that we will be able to mod this out.

 

[Dracko81]

the massive uproar

I think you need to check the definition of massive. Then compare this discontent to say, Sunset Invasion.

 

[D.PHa]

I've just read some latest posts...
Why are you talking about "CK2 is about characters" etc. Yes it is about characters, realm and it's ruler where considered as same thing in those times, more than in any other time before or after that.
There where no nations, there where kings and every one of them was wary of neighbouring aggressor/stronger ruler, why does it seems so unnatural or unrealistic?
It is also very natural that son/heir of the conqueror father would also be perceived as threat of same "grade" by other kings, especially when you consider the fact that he has the same military/economic power as his late predecessor enjoyed.
Yes there are lots of details to take into consideration, to make this mechanics good, but coalitions thing is very natural.

 

[Blastaz]

Cross religion infamy doesn't really make sense. Eg burgundy goes on a crusade and takes Jerusalem. Suddenly hre and the pope! Feel threatened and join a coalition against them with the Abbasids.

At the very least you need seperate infamy on a regional/religious basis like euiv.

So how are you going to protect us from the pope excommunicating us from the infamy of gong on crusade?

 

[Arrowfiend]

I've just read some latest posts...
why does it seems so unnatural or unrealistic?

Because rulers were concerned with their realm and keeping their vassals from rebelling rather than global politics. Napoleonic-style coalitions simply didn't exist. The greatest attempt at multiple rulers working together towards a common goal were the Crusades, and even then many rulers were doing so out of self-interest. Not to mention all of said rulers were of the same religion (Catholicism), said religion having a spiritual leader to unify behind (the Pope). In the screenshot, we see rulers from various different religions teaming up together, which simply didn't happen.

 

[TheStrangerOrg]

I've just read some latest posts...
Why are you talking about "CK2 is about characters" etc. Yes it is about characters, realm and it's ruler where considered as same thing in those times, more than in any other time before or after that.
There where no nations, there where kings and every one of them was wary of neighbouring aggressor/stronger ruler, why does it seems so unnatural or unrealistic?
It is also very natural that son/heir of the conqueror father would also be perceived as threat of same "grade" by other kings, especially when you consider the fact that he has the same military/economic power as his late predecessor enjoyed.
Yes there are lots of details to take into consideration, to make this mechanics good, but coalitions thing is very natural.

this is not entirely true to be honest, even though i get the concerns. But this has more to do with the the gamedesign (internal or external restrictions vs blobbing) or the SCALE (geograpically and numerically) on which these coalitions are formed, rather than that they are formed between different religions etc which is perfectly historically accurate. They should for example be restricted to having a border, or being in a dejure regio, or whatever. There should be no coalitions formed across the continent.

For example the Paulician Patriarch Chrysocheir allied with sunni emirs to fight against Basil of the Roman Empire. And the Seljuk sultans of Rum often allied with the Byzantines in matters regarding the region, so much so, that they could actually be considered vassals of the Byzantine Empire at some stages. In fact, Emperor Alexis I allied with Kilij Arslan to defeat Kili's father in law Tzachas (formerly in Byzantine employ) who had declared himself Emperor and plotted to take Constantinople in a coalition with the Pechenegs. Also Muslims and Christians often allied in Medieval Spain when their interests coincided. The Cumans allied with hungary against the mongols (granted this coalition was supposed to be sealed with a marriage, so can be seen as a proper alliance), but the alliance was destroyed by mistrust between the two leaders and after the murder of Kuthen. the tribe deserted. the equivalent of coalitions were formed in late medieval italy by city states trying to gain the upper hand in the status quo, and not all of these were sealed by marriage (afaik). the HRE often interfered with upheaval in italy, often concerning the pope.

So I don't think that such coalitions are really that farfetched, but they should be subject to more variables than just infamy. Getting consessions in terms of trade/wealth or land or protection should also matter. But this would require alot more depth than the current diplomatic system in ck2 can provide.

Also I think having high infamy should just as well be a very good reason for some states NOT to join in a coalition against you, but rather, to join in an alliance with you.

I also think that there should be more internal restrictions to blobbing or what not, because internal restrictions will keep the game interesting when you are huge, while external restrictions will only make it tougher for you to get big, but wont really make it a whole lot tougher to stay big once you are past that critical threshold where you can basically go to war with everyone at the same time and win.

that said, i think this mechanic seems interesting to actually have cross-faith alliances, which now are very hard to come by, if not impossible, but were actually very much a political reality. However these coalitions shouldnt really get too big in participants (2 or 3 participants would be quite realistic though).

 

[The Guru]

Why are you so set against giving internal problems? Those should arguably the biggest reason for empires to be restrained, or for their bloating, weakening, and collapse. The HRE diluted because the Emperors tried to wiggle some concessions from a horde of vassals and ended up giving too much; the ERE started creaking when the old governors lobbied for hereditary rule, and got it; the Anarchy at Samarra, the English Anarchy, the dissolution of Al-Andalus, and the near collapse of France, were all movements that started on the inside. Sometimes they got a final push from outside, but those were pushes that a sane country of their size would have born without difficulties. So, why? Why add coalition, which are iffy but workable in EU4 but make absolutely no sense in CK2?

This post, as I write, got 148(!) Agrees - including mine -and 6(!) Disagrees...

Are the devs going to do something about it?

 

[Thure]

Since Paradox doesn't seem to be willing to revert this upcoming change despite the massive uproar, I sincerely hope that we will be able to mod this out.

Yeah... like With the non-Steam version of CK2? There was an 'massive uproar' in this forum and Paradox released a non-steam version of CK2 which needs a lot of work an support... and actually... less than 3 % of all players used the non-steam version.

 

[CplKatie]

The only thing that concerns me with all these patch dev diaries is the very apparent impending slowdown in game performance that always comes with more bloat. Theres always hoi4 right?

 

[Talq]

So how are you going to protect us from the pope excommunicating us from the infamy of gong on crusade?

How do you know the pope will excommunicate you for winning a crusade?

Don't worry. I'll answer that for you. You don't.

 

[Blastaz]

How do you know the pope will excommunicate you for winning a crusade?

Don't worry. I'll answer that for you. You don't.

If you can guarantee it won't happen then we won't need to worry!

 

[Dracko81]

If you can guarantee it won't happen then we won't need to worry!

You are making up mechanics based on no facts. He doesn't need to guarantee anything, you need to stop trying to make up fake mechanics to make something you have never seen look bad.

 

[brobman22]

If you can guarantee it won't happen then we won't need to worry!

How do you know getting excommunicated will be tied to infamy have the devs said that somewhere?

 

[Blastaz]

You are making up mechanics based on no facts. He doesn't need to guarantee anything, you need to stop trying to make up fake mechanics to make something you have never seen look bad.

Georgia is in the coalition on the front page which suggests it is cross religion. Once that mistake is allowed all others are possible...

 

[TheStrangerOrg]

Georgia is in the coalition on the front page which suggests it is cross religion. Once that mistake is allowed all others are possible...

why is that a mistake? history is full of cross-religion alliances... some sealed by marriage, some by gold, some by fear, some by both.

obviously there should be restrictions in times of religious polarisation between cross religious or cross-cultural alliances, the crusades being an obvious example. (though its not at all farfatched that the byzantine emperor would join in an alliance against a powerful crusader state, such a seed was already been planted by the betrayal at nicaea)

ive always been annoyed by the fact that the Shouldn't Marry Infidel was such a hard barrier in marriage negations, while historically it definitely wasnt the case for many cultures or religions. Many pagan kings converted because they married christians spouses. i mean it should definitely be a huge barrier to take, but not an impossible one, as it is now.