Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries
Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Crusader Kings II 69947 Bug Reports 19719 User Modifications 10606 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6376 After Action Reports
Previous dev diary Next dev diary
Show only dev responses

Dev Diary 11: Stopping The Snowball

Hey! So today we will talk about some mechanics we’ve added to make other rulers react to what happens in the world. We want to slow down the snowball and prolong the time it takes to conquer the world, so it shouldn’t be as easy to do. Snowballs are pretty evil, just like medieval rulers.

Just as with the shattered retreat mechanic we took inspiration from Europa Universalis 4 in our decision to add Coalitions. Our coalitions however are based on an Infamy value instead of Aggressive Expansion. You might recognize the name Infamy from our old games, but even though it shares the name it will work quite differently.

Infamy is limited to be within the range of 0 to 100% and will slowly decay over time based on how strong your max military potential is. When you hit 25% infamy, coalitions will be unlocked and AIs will start joining them based on how threatened they feel.Your infamy will serve as a hint on how aggressive and dangerous other rulers think your realm is. You gain infamy primarily by conquering land through war or by inheriting a fair maidens huge tracts of land.

The amount of Infamy you gain is based on the action you do, how much land you take and how large your realm already is. So for instance the Kaiser of the HRE declaring a war for Flanders and taking it is going to make the neighbours more worried than if Pomerania manages to take Mecklenburg.
capture(56).png


Coalitions themselves are mostly defensive in Crusader Kings, if any member gets attacked by the target of the coalition they will automatically be called into the war. If a member starts a war against the target they only get a normal call to arms which they can choose to decline.

For an AI to join a coalition they will consider the relative strength between the target and themselves, how threatened they think they are and how much infamy the target has accrued. You can view the current coalition someone has against them by the diplomacy field on the character screen.

capture(54).png


But it might not be the easiest way to view it so we also added a mapmode to more easily visualize Coalitions. A nation which turns up white is the nation you have currently selected, blue will be targetable for coalitions, yellow means they have a coalition against them and Red means they are members of the coalition against the currently selected one.

capture(55).jpg
 
  • 310
  • 230
  • 40
Reactions:
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
ZechsMerquise73 said:
Wait, what's this a dev diary for? Is there a free update, or a new expansion that's not listed anywhere I can see?
Click to expand...

As far as I know this is part of the free patch coming with the next DLC (which probably will be announced before Christmas).
 
So, blobbing will be a little harder and actually now takes time...? I'm fine with that...
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
LordDamien said:
Well I do not agree with this. Why would what my vassals do effect me ?. Yes I am their King and what not. But they should be the one targeted fully and It should not have anything to do with me unless they are family.

Also what does my Grandfathers actions have to do with mine.. I hightly doubt people would remember what your grandfather did when you become King and even if you did.. what if you are not the same as he was or you became a more friendly person. Having infamy last though generations is also something I do not agree with. because my Grandfathers actions should not really effect how people view me. Yeah he was a Ass.. But what if i am not the same type of person. Why would everyone remember the bad and not have a way to forget ?

in the case of it lasting generations..maybe a event could fire that allows everything to be forgiven so you can start over ?
Click to expand...


This illustrates the problem with naming the feature 'infamy'. The name implies some sort of moral wrongdoing, when it has nothing to do with bad morals. The infamy value is simply a red flag to the realms around you that you could be a threat to them. If you are a stronger realm and has recently expanded, you could be a danger and neighbours might seek alliances for protection. The new king can be friendly and peaceful, and the infamy value will disappear over time, but you might excuse your neighbours for being cautious for a while.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Kollatius said:
So, blobbing will be a little harder and actually now takes time...? I'm fine with that...
Click to expand...
I think the main complaint featured here is that blobbing is being addressed in the wrong way.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
They couldn't and still haven't got seduction and a host of other features to work properly. I have no faith in them to get an idea as big as defensive coalitions to work properly. Placing this idea on top of the existing and very complex world of CK2 is a disaster in the making.
I don't entirely blame Paradox for this either. It seems to me that they've caved in to pressure from map painters who use every exploit possible to conquere the world in the fastest possible time and then complain that the game is too easy.
I may be wrong, but yet again, as with the last two expansions, I'll wait and see what shit it throws up before buying. I still haven't bought those two expansions and to be honest I have less faith in this next one being ok than I held for those two.
 
Last edited:
  • 12
Reactions:
D.PHa said:
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.
Click to expand...
I can only buy into coalitions if they're personal, i.e. based on characters, not Realms. So I don't like the idea at all that infamy would pass down to the next ruler. And even less that it's tied to Realms. In the Middle Ages the person you worried about wasn't necessary a sovereign ruler, he could we ll be someone's vassal, and the people you ganged up with to contain him weren't necessary sovereign rulers either, but could well be vassals of some other ruler.
 
King Dave said:
They couldn't and still haven't got seduction and a host of other features to work properly. I have no faith in them to get an idea as big as defensive coalitions to work properly. Placing this idea on top of the exsisting and very complex world of CK2 is a disaster in the making.
I don't entirely blame Paradox for this either. It seems to me that they've caved in to pressure from map painters who use every exploit possible to conquere the world in the fastest possible time and then complain that the game is too easy.
I may be wrong, but yet again, as with the last two expansions, I'll wait and see what shit it throws up before buying. I still haven't bought those two expansions and to be honest I have less faith in this next one being ok than I held for those two.
Click to expand...
Couldn't they tie seduction to infamy now and scale it to what rank the husband is so if you seduce an emperors wife you get quite a bit of infamy.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Hector of Troy said:
Another reason why I believe strengthening factions would be the natural anti blob mechanics. Dangerous factions are fun. You have to check on wrong vassals' religion and culture, give titles away, arrange marriages, bribe, send children to be educated, use your spymaster wisely, etc.

It certainly passes the time. Moreover, there is always the prospect of a rebellion on the horizon, which is always reason enough to get prepared and rethink buildings and military within the realm.
Click to expand...

That only impacts Christian Empires honestly. Maybe Muslim but I can't say for certain as I've yet to try them. The different cultures of different vassals almost disappear when playing as Pagans. "It's not Norse sire." "Is it Saxon?" "No." "Then it's not Germanic either, Holy War it into the ground and put a vassal of our culture in charge — problem solved." Playing as the Glorious Empire of Zunistan the only vassals I had that weren't Afghan was an old Baloch Lord Mayor whose city kept populating with more Balochs and a single Sindhi vassal along the Indus because generations earlier I'd had the Count tried by Zun, converted and then Vassalized when I got near him.

My Ikea Republic has gone moreorless the same way. Slavics are bound to with how few people can be Slav to start off. So it only tends to impact Christians and maybe Muslims when you do that.

Hell the only game I've had where I've had an abundance of cultures serving under me is my current campaign in Elder Kings where the Kinlord of Vulkhel & Southisle aims to create an Empire of All Elves under Auri-el and thus intentionally has only one Culture per Province.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Faerillis said:
That only impacts Christian Empires honestly. Maybe Muslim but I can't say for certain as I've yet to try them. The different cultures of different vassals almost disappear when playing as Pagans.
Click to expand...

I never said, though, wrong culture and religion would be the decisive and only factor to be taken into consideration when strengthening factions.
 
yourworstnightm said:
I can only buy into coalitions if they're personal, i.e. based on characters, not Realms. So I don't like the idea at all that infamy would pass down to the next ruler. And even less that it's tied to Realms. In the Middle Ages the person you worried about wasn't necessary a sovereign ruler, he could we ll be someone's vassal, and the people you ganged up with to contain him weren't necessary sovereign rulers either, but could well be vassals of some other ruler.
Click to expand...

it should be both to be honest. Ofcourse the ruler should be very important, probably the most important. But it should be a double edged sword. A weak ruler of a powerful realm should not mean that no coalitions are formed against him, in fact, that is exactly the time coalitions should be formed i think. Thats the moment you want to take out your regional rival. At the same time, when he is strong enough to get an edge over you, but not yet strong enough to crush you if you bring a friend, thats also when coalitions should be started. But when you are so super duper strong and powerful and awesome that you can win anyway, then coalitions should only be started in caution by the desperate. However, I think coalitions should mainly be around all the time, and alliagiances vary all the time depending on who is gaining an upper hand in that regio, because thats how it went historically as well, and thats what makes sense. Anyone who ever played Risk knows this damn well. If you upset the balance and gain 1 county too much to get too close to conquering the USA, you can garantuee yourself that the entire board will gang up on you (if it suits their interests, and thats the crucial thing, they may very well like a strong usa, so nobody notices that they are actually gonna get all those sweet undermanned 1 army countries in Asia in a blitz and play out their assignment)
 
brobman22 said:
Couldn't they tie seduction to infamy now and scale it to what rank the husband is so if you seduce an emperors wife you get quite a bit of infamy.
Click to expand...

They really shouldn't have called it infamy, because it leads to misunderstandings like this. Other countries aren't going to form a defensive alliance against you because you bonked someone's wife. If they'd called it "Threat" like suggested above, I think that things would be somewhat clearer.
 
  • 14
Reactions:
yourworstnightm said:
I can only buy into coalitions if they're personal, i.e. based on characters, not Realms. So I don't like the idea at all that infamy would pass down to the next ruler. And even less that it's tied to Realms. In the Middle Ages the person you worried about wasn't necessary a sovereign ruler, he could we ll be someone's vassal, and the people you ganged up with to contain him weren't necessary sovereign rulers either, but could well be vassals of some other ruler.
Click to expand...

If your dear old dad conquers half a continent his neighbours are still going to be nervous after you inherit his titles. The idea that infamy should disappear after death is nonsensical.
 
  • 12
  • 5
Reactions:
I see a potential North korea mode in this new setup. Simply save up a buttload of gold, declare 20 wars at once or back to back to generate crazy infamy and simply snowball out defeating alliance wars and then redeclaring back on said alliance members for their lands all the while funding your 20 merc armies off the money of your enemies who repeatedly declare upon you cause they fail to calculate the fact that you are the Donald Trump of CK2.

I really wish they had gone internal with blob smashing instead of external.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
When are you guys going to add naval warfare to this game, rather than unneccessary mechanics like this? Being a Mediterranean power should be about naval power, I want ships to matter!
 
  • 13
  • 5
Reactions:
Kenlin said:
They really shouldn't have called it infamy, because it leads to misunderstandings like this. Other countries aren't going to form a defensive alliance against you because you bonked someone's wife. If they'd called it "Threat" like suggested above, I think that things would be somewhat clearer.
Click to expand...
Yeah but you would be pretty infamous if you banged your lieges wife which could give him cause to slap your little seducing ass back to the roman times and also is threat really a better name cause your liege isn't going to be threatened by you seducing his wife just angry but I can't think of a different name for it right now so whatever.
 
I have been calling for an addition of fear factor for a long time. Currently tiny, one-province poor count in some forgotten corner of an empire is overly happy to bang the Empress of a powerful and cruel emperor and also his daughter, completely disregarding all logic and fear of how extreme the consequences are going to be. This is crap.

If a huge and overly powerful duke was seducing the wife of a weak, craven king with no power, that would be reasonable because he has little to fear. But as of right now the system is illogical.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
My questions is whether saves will be backwards compatible. With the coalition, my Empire of Britannia (which could form the Holy Roman Empire, except I keep handing out the Kingdom of Italy to my heir to keep me under the vassal limit) would have a harder time expanding. Does that mean that the AI will form coalitions once the new patch starts, or will I have to start a whole new game?

Also, will my infamy negatively affect me in terms of negotiating? "Normally, I'd be okay with this marriage, but this dude is too infamous."

Seems to me that infamy would be a good reason for a nation to form a marriage-based non-aggression pact, if not an actual alliance.

EDIT: That said, I think it's too early to condemn or embrace the aspects of the patch. I want to see how it plays out in actual game play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back