Dev Diary 11: Stopping The Snowball

[Dracko81]

Overall.. I swear CK2 team is just running out of ideas for the game and trying to do what EU4 has done. We the HARDCORE fans dont like that. (You know.. The ones who buy nearly every DLC, owned the game since release, have nearly 1000 hours played? Yeah your most loyal fans)

If you want to do something new. How about adding a new trading system? With trade goods and merchant republics serving a bigger purpose.

The devs aren't adding what I want into the game, they should add what I want. They typically never add anything I want and I have more hours and also have bought all the DLC. But I am sure the devs will stop adding this and add trade because you are hardcore.

Was that before factions were utterly gimped in RoI? Then it's a question of fine-tuning, faction strength isn't a boolean value.

Doesn't really matter. They have been changed numerous times since introduction, and at every iteration someone complains. They are too hard, they are too easy. Regardless of what the devs do someone will complain.

Presently a lot of people are complaining that empires are too stable and at the same time have people complain that they are always over vassal limit. The sooner people get over it, the better it will be for all of us.

 

[Lysistrata]

Nice to finally see the devs making at least some effort to make the game less of a messy, hideous free-for-all. I imagine it won't be perfect, hell, I expect it not to be, but it's better than having the player and the usual AI suspects freely blobbing without a care in the world.

So what do I think we need? Well, better province conversion dynamics (for culture and religion, since at the moment, it's possible for a province to spontaneously convert at any time from the day after you acquire it, up until 1453, or never, with no apparent logic behind it) and modifiers to prevent the AI from being a pushover about letting their liege convert them via education would do wonders in improving the game. Also, EU4-style disasters and a bit more railroading in general, just enough to make the historical outcomes of some events at least somewhat possible, something which the game still fails at terribly ATM.

For example, depending on when you start, by the end of the game, Italians will almost certainly no longer exist (if you start in or after 1066, and even in 867 there tends to be a 50/50 chance of Louis II being overthrown or francofying all of his vassals) or will never have existed (if you start in 769, mostly due to the poorly made CM melting pots), Spain will still be in Muslim hands, maybe even Aquitaine, or at least parts of it (in 769 and 867), Italians, Normans, Hungarians and Englishmen will never have existed...and on and on. Not to mention, several important events like the Investiture Crisis and the Guelph-Ghibelline conflict in Italy are completely unrepresented.

In fact, virtually everything after 1066 has been ignored by the devs for a good year or two now in favour of making big flashy expansions like CM. This game is supposed to be focused on the High and Late Middle Ages, but instead, these have become the game's weakest points. Don't get me wrong, I greatly enjoyed the Old Gods, and to a lesser extent CM (even though I still maintain it shouldn't have existed until the late game is improved), and most of the DLCs in fact, but I still can't help but feel that, lately, CK2 is going the way of the History Channel and being sold to the lowest common denominator. Although we've seen little of what's coming in the dev diaries so far, it still looks like this next DLC is going to be a welcome step away from that. I hope it stays that way, too.

 

[Khanwulf]

I'm actually screaming:

The real problem is that BLOBS ARE TOO STABLE!

Great, so now blobs will expand more slowly. That's boring. What we need are for big blobs to be more likely to EXPLODE due to religious/cultural/political strife. Tweaking that system would address the problem AND be far more interesting than, "Oh, guess I'll twiddle my thumbs for a while until people forget I'm huge... then I bash their stupid forgetful heads!"

Infamy is a dumb idea. Taking land doesn't make a nation scary. Being huge and powerful does. All the little countries around Charlemagne/Byzantium/Abbasids should ALWAYS be terrified, not just after a big conquest. When there's an active CB for a behemoth, the AI should be marrying for alliances, offering vassalage, converting religion, etc... anything to prevent war. NOT ignoring the situation unless you take X other land, then forming the United Nations.

I've played the game a ton. If they want to implement a system where Christians -dislike- you for taking Muslim land (and vice versa), I can stop playing. I won't be angry, and I'll have gotten more than my money's worth. But the system they're describing sounds tedious and most importantly, it doesn't address the actual problem. I'm just hoping that someone who works on the game realizes that before this patch hits.

I think these are all excellent points, and pretty well sum things up on this subject.

Think about it this way: when you are playing a smaller country next to a big one your calculus is simply "can I take him? No? Then mollify him while I seek allies!" The allies the player seeks are intended to provide the appearance of strength so said big neighbor will do something other than comment on the player's low character and Greek plays.

As soon as the big neighbor hits a rough spot you're all over him for the chance to break it up--by seizing small bits of territory, supporting independence factions (I suppose we can give them cash...), and etc. You might even declare outright war if the CB are right, and kick them when they're down.

What I wish for is NOT a mechanic that automatically calls a Security Council meeting every time I inherit a duchy, but something that DOES give the AI a bit of smarts on who to target and/or ally with. The infamy mechanic as noted so far is a crude, blunt instrument where something with more finesse is needed.

Should coalitions be possible? Yes--I think so. There are historical examples of this even from the time-period. Were they extraordinary measures called out of desperation? Yes, by and large.

But more clever would be a "threat list" ala Hearts of Iron more than EU, in which each country has identified national rivals and seeks naturally to build a network of defensive measures to combat them, approaches them with mollifying gestures (trade pacts, bribes, marriages, invitations to social events--things to increase bonds between people so they don't just go to war), and supports actively others who combat such rivals or the factions that divide them.

So assuming Egypt has identified Seljuks as a country rival (independent of ruler), they might:
1. Identify the factions within the Seljuks as being hostile to Seljuks and thus worth supporting (depending on personal opinion score)
2. Identify other countries that also have Seljuks as a rival, and increase ties with them (again depending on personal opinion score) up to and including defensive alliance
3. Mollify the Seljuk ruler in various ways, up to and including alliances ("Repeat 'nice doggie' until a stick can be found!")
4. Identify its (Egypt's) other rivals and consider if no other option exists, to pick one or more of them for allying with in order to counter-balance the Seljuks.
5. Prioritize the rival country's territory for raiding or conquest when the opportunity presents (and not pursuing a mollifying strategy).

Taking territory would cause all neighbors (new and old) of a kingdom to reconsider priorities. If--in our example--the new Kingdom of Jerusalem pops up and suddenly a much larger threat then that would be worth immediately shopping around for a defensive alliance option, no?

--Khanwulf

 

[Pitrkck]

It very bad decision, CKII can be difficult now so...

 

[Xykon]

Can we wait and see the infamy in action before complaining about it? There's a large difference between theory and practice, and all we really have going into this is theory. I'm going to actually wait until the update is rolled out before making any judgement about the system.

 

[yezhanquan]

Can we wait and see the infamy in action before complaining about it? There's a large difference between theory and practice, and all we really have going into this is theory. I'm going to actually wait until the update is rolled out before making any judgement about the system.

I'll also wait and see if modders can fine-tune it even further, just like how they weave their magic whenever possible.

 

[Audoucet]

There's a number: don't install the new patch. If you do, revert to old version. If you like some of the patch stuff but not others, mod the game.

I, for one, will wait to criticise the implementation of this new idea when it will be, how to put it, implemented?

I have a better idea, mod the game yourself for you.

 

[Audoucet]

Presently a lot of people are complaining that empires are too stable and at the same time have people complain that they are always over vassal limit.

Make it easier to offer their independence to vassals without them taking with them three island territories in the middle of the Empire, maybe people will complain less. I would like it to be able to give its independence to England without giving them two counties in the middle of Auvergne, and one in Provence.

 

[Rostan]

@srcoca: after reading those threads you might come to the conclusion that 2 possible game modes isn't enough.

Well, other games have come up with this magical solution called "gameplay settings", in which controversial options can be turned on and off via the flick of a button, sans mods. Take Nobunaga´s Ambition (which, unlike EU4, actually does get Coalitions right). You can set the level of bellicose behaviour among the AI, and you might (or might not) opt to use quests to guide your game progress (while not being railroaded into either or).

 

[Dracko81]

Make it easier to offer their independence to vassals without them taking with them three island territories in the middle of the Empire, maybe people will complain less. I would like it to be able to give its independence to England without giving them two counties in the middle of Auvergne, and one in Provence.

Or you could revoke some titles and grant them independence. You can do pretty much whatever you want. But it is too hard? Just stop and play the game.

 

[Audoucet]

Or you could revoke some titles and grant them independence. You can do pretty much whatever you want. But it is too hard? Just stop and play the game.

it isn't too hard, it is stupid. You should be able to negotiate independence.

And I'm not the one complaining about blobs. Do you always try to force people to shut-up, or do you just do it on the Internet ?

 

[Nameless_Ensign]

Were you around when people were complaining that factions were too strong. Regardless of what happens people will complain.

I'm aware. I have a screenshot of a 140K Ethiopian rebellion, but you have to admit that it was challenging.

 

[Dracko81]

I'm aware. I have a screenshot of a 140K Ethiopian rebellion, but you have to admit that it was challenging.

But back in those days 140k troops wasn't really that big an issue, everyone had 100k troops.

 

[Zolotaya]

But back in those days 140k troops wasn't really that big an issue, everyone had 100k troops.

True. I remember my retinue reached 750,000 men in my one and only "Restore the Roman Empire" campaign I completed.

 

[Kayden_II]

I like CK2 for the Feudal-System (Great Idea to avoid stupid Micro-Management) and the Title-Character-Connection ...

Instead of the Infamy (I don't like it, too) ...
Is it possible to strenghten the DeJure-Structure to handle Major-Problems with the Game ? ...
A new Relation-Malus for those Vassals, which are not under their DIRECT DeJure-Liege, which is bigger than the Relation-Malus to want the Title ("desire Title XYZ") ...
A new Faction for Vassals, which are not under their DIRECT DeJure-Liege (Title-Character-Connection) with the Possibility to call their direct DeJure-Liege into the Faction-War and after a succesful Faction-War, the Realm gets the DeJure-Reorganisation ...

I don't know, what Others feel, but sometimes I hate the fragmented (DeFacto) World after a couple of Years.

 

[Hector of Troy]

Were you around when people were complaining that factions were too strong. Regardless of what happens people will complain.

You're absolutely right.

That's why it's time for the developers to make up their minds on what CK2 is really all about.

Is it a Medieval Total War game wherein you mindless raise troops and conquer, raise and conquer, until you're finally done and have conquered it all?

Or is it a mature and more realistic medieval game wherein vassals are capable of disintegrating empires from within?

If it's the former, then there is nothing to be changed. If not, then they'd better start boosting factions in large empires, and at least make vassals be the reasonable threat they were in reality.

Strengthening factions would not only represent a gain from a more realistic perspective. It would also enhance game-play (at least for me), since I would finally experience some late game fun and threatening mechanics, instead of plain boredom.

 

[Lysistrata]

Strengthening factions would not only represent a gain from a more realistic perspective. It would also enhance game-play (at least for me), since I would finally experience some late game fun and threatening mechanics, instead of plain boredom.

I agree, but there needs to be more done than that. Playing rebel whack-a-mole on it's own isn't incentive to keep playing beyond the end of the century you started in.

That's why it's time for the developers to make up their minds on what CK2 is really all about.

Is it a Medieval Total War game wherein you mindless raise troops and conquer, raise and conquer, until you're finally done and have conquered it all?

Or is it a mature and more realistic medieval game wherein vassals are capable of disintegrating empires from within?

I might just add this little gem to my sig.

 

[Sabotage13]

That's why it's time for the developers to make up their minds on what CK2 is really all about.

Is it a Medieval Total War game wherein you mindless raise troops and conquer, raise and conquer, until you're finally done and have conquered it all?

Or is it a mature and more realistic medieval game wherein vassals are capable of disintegrating empires from within?

Trick question, it's neither of the two.

 

[Hector of Troy]

Trick question, it's neither of the two.

I know it. Just to make myself clear, my point is that, in both games, once you form the larger empire on the campaign map, you are then left with ZERO challenge, either quitting the game out of boredom from there on, or else tediously moving forward and steamrolling everything around you.

Of course there are always those few who are miraculously capable of role-playing the game and carrying it on for another 300 in-game years, despite how huge their realm might have become, but I suspect they are a minority.

In regard to Total War games, it's understandable that the lacking of any meaningful or complex mechanics would inevitably lead to that. Not the same with CK2, though.

 

[alfian]

Please add new Law or Government Presiding Princes just like Viceroy, example: Principality of Wallachia or Russian Principalities. Emirate of Arminiya was rule by Emir or Ostikan and there's also a Prince or Ishkhan (Presiding Prince) below the Emir or Ostikan. There's Prince of Armenia, Prince of Iberia (Kartli), and Prince of Albania (Derbent). I think it would best if on the future patch add this stuff.

Additional: And also Croatian Bans like I mentioned on previous post.