Dev Diary #140 - Legacy of Persia & 1.11 'Peacock' Free Update

[HelloFolks]

Great DLC. I hope too see more fixed bugs next months and AI improvements

 

[Genocidalvirus]

I love the content, but why are we not making the game harder.
We need alliance packs against strong players back from Ck2.
We need ways to prevent the stacking of bonuses from all the different sources.
Hopefully making it easier for smaller realms to expand with lower cb costs will help them retain relevance, but this game really needs a balance patch after all this content just keeps making it easier for the player.

 

[riadach]

I really hoped that with the focus on Clan governments, perhaps you finally fixed the bug where Muslim characters marrying members of their dynasties always result in children having a matronymic instead of a patronymic. It's quite disappointing especially that it's been reported so long ago.

Must be all polygamous because this happens with Irish characters too.

 

[Blodhevn]

any way to check out the new artefacts?

 

[Elaugaufein]

The inline comparions not accepting = is probably good from a clarity perspective but it would greatly improve things from an updating mods perspective if there were errog / debug feedback on this (which there doesn't seem to be).

 

[elpibeuruguayo]

Is anyone else bothered by that you can't create a faith that has Communal Possessions? Like you can't select the tenent and if you try to reform Khurramism or Mazdakism the game won't allow you to keep it.

I am saddened for this because I wanted to create a ""socialist""" Persia with which to play but I didn't like how Khurrazism and Mazdakism were both pluralists.

Legacy of Persia is awesome btw, I love the rework of the Zoroastrian faiths, I am just struck aback by this choice.

Adding to this, I checked the code and:

tenet_communal_possessions = {
        icon = core_tenet_communism
        is_shown = {
            always = no
        }
        can_pick = {
            always = yes
        }

        piety_cost = {
            if = {
                limit = {
                    OR = {
                        has_doctrine = tenet_mendicant_preachers
                        has_doctrine = tenet_gnosticism
                        religion_tag = christianity_religion
                        religion_tag = zoroastrianism_religion
                    }
                }
                value = faith_tenet_cost_mid
            }
            else = {
                value = faith_tenet_cost_high
            }

            #Multiplier for keeping same tenet
            if = {
                limit = { has_doctrine = tenet_communal_possessions }
                multiply = faith_unchanged_doctrine_cost_mult
            }
        }

        parameters = {
            piety_from_gifts_active = yes
            piety_from_marrying_lowborn_active = yes
        }

        character_modifier = {
            monthly_county_control_change_factor = -0.2
            build_gold_cost = -0.1
            county_opinion_add = 10
        }

        traits = {
            virtues = { peasant_leader = 2 } #because communism!
            sins = { arrogant }
        }
    }

It seems that in theory all religions could select the tenent, with christians and zoroastrians having a lower cost for it, maybe it is a bug?

 

[Blodhevn]

Adding to this, I checked the code and:

tenet_communal_possessions = {
        icon = core_tenet_communism
        is_shown = {
            always = no
        }
        can_pick = {
            always = yes
        }

        piety_cost = {
            if = {
                limit = {
                    OR = {
                        has_doctrine = tenet_mendicant_preachers
                        has_doctrine = tenet_gnosticism
                        religion_tag = christianity_religion
                        religion_tag = zoroastrianism_religion
                    }
                }
                value = faith_tenet_cost_mid
            }
            else = {
                value = faith_tenet_cost_high
            }

            #Multiplier for keeping same tenet
            if = {
                limit = { has_doctrine = tenet_communal_possessions }
                multiply = faith_unchanged_doctrine_cost_mult
            }
        }

        parameters = {
            piety_from_gifts_active = yes
            piety_from_marrying_lowborn_active = yes
        }

        character_modifier = {
            monthly_county_control_change_factor = -0.2
            build_gold_cost = -0.1
            county_opinion_add = 10
        }

        traits = {
            virtues = { peasant_leader = 2 } #because communism!
            sins = { arrogant }
        }
    }

It seems that in theory all religions could select the tenent, with christians and zoroastrians having a lower cost for it, maybe it is a bug?

I really wish it was possible to keep Tenets from faiths when creating a heresy even if they normally arent allowed to take it. There are a 2 Warmonger muslim faiths but you cannot keep the tenet if you want to create a heresy from them.

 

[pengoyo]

Adding to this, I checked the code and:

tenet_communal_possessions = {
        icon = core_tenet_communism
        is_shown = {
            always = no
        }
        can_pick = {
            always = yes
        }

        piety_cost = {
            if = {
                limit = {
                    OR = {
                        has_doctrine = tenet_mendicant_preachers
                        has_doctrine = tenet_gnosticism
                        religion_tag = christianity_religion
                        religion_tag = zoroastrianism_religion
                    }
                }
                value = faith_tenet_cost_mid
            }
            else = {
                value = faith_tenet_cost_high
            }

            #Multiplier for keeping same tenet
            if = {
                limit = { has_doctrine = tenet_communal_possessions }
                multiply = faith_unchanged_doctrine_cost_mult
            }
        }

        parameters = {
            piety_from_gifts_active = yes
            piety_from_marrying_lowborn_active = yes
        }

        character_modifier = {
            monthly_county_control_change_factor = -0.2
            build_gold_cost = -0.1
            county_opinion_add = 10
        }

        traits = {
            virtues = { peasant_leader = 2 } #because communism!
            sins = { arrogant }
        }
    }

It seems that in theory all religions could select the tenent, with christians and zoroastrians having a lower cost for it, maybe it is a bug?

Don't now if this is WAI. But the culprit is the is_shown with the always = no. A tenet is only valid if both the is_shown and can_pick are true (the difference between the two is the former hides it in the list of tenets, while the later greys it out).

If you change it to always = yes for the is_shown then you'll be able to pick it.

Personally, I'd also like to see this tenet available for custom faiths (especially for Zoroastrian faiths)

Edit: word

 

[Idle America]

Man, harm events got nerfed heavily. I know, I shouldn't knock something without trying it (and you can probably turn harm events back on for the player), but I think it was a little heavy-handed. (I'm not a huge fan of the harm events but I see them a necessary evil considering rulers much longer natural lifespans in CK3 compared to CKII...at least until map-wide disease outbreaks come back. But even then, death via old age in your late thirties solely because RNG hated you was possible in II if you were very unlucky.)

I like them myself, given they're not guaranteed to amount to anything while also adding a dose of realism. Not every king will die in battle or by assassination, nor live to a ripe old age. Sometimes, people just die.

And it is good fun when you spend a year or so plotting to assassinate your nemesis, only to find out he died by falling down the stairs or something.

 

[Scanz]

Should i start a new campaign?)

 

[Troyen]

Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts and experience on this, it's really nice of you to take the time to reply to us, and it's good to know that you are looking into this! I'm confident that you'll eventually find a solution to this issue that everyone can agree on.

Now I can't help but wonder, were sudden player deaths generally better received in CK2? And if so, why? Unless it's a case of rose-tinted glasses, I seem to remember that CK2 was a fair bit more lethal than CK3, or at least that's the impression I had.

The audience has probably changed since CK2 and CK3 and games in general these days aren't as punishing as those 10 or 15 years ago. I'd bet a lot of players that started with 3 are less tolerant of the random deaths.

I don't know if the CK3 team has shared data on game rules people run with, but I know the easier difficulties on Stellaris are way more popular than the harder ones, even though the forums would have you assume the opposite. To the extent they even went so far as to add a new, easier default difficulty a year or so ago. So I suspect the majority of the playerbase doesn't want harsher challenges (there's already a hefty learning curve for new players) so making the difficulty opt-in seems like a sound strategy. The forums (and your typical social hubs like reddit communities) tend to have a high over-representation of expert players which are the ones demanding harder options.

 

[MoeinSS]

• Merged Abbasids back into the Hashimid dynasty.

What about Fatimids ?

 

[raven63]

What about Fatimids ?

Fatimids claimed to be descendants of Fatima for religious/political purposes, but that claim was made such a long time after her death, and they inhabited a region so far from Arabia, that it is considered dubious at best.

Regardless, unlike the Umyyad and Abbasids, the Fatimids did not constitute a tribal branch of the Hashimids or of Quraysh for that matter.

 

[Commander Flazgar]

While I like some of the new content for the new pack, there are a few things I'd like to address.

1. Starting as Ya'qub ibn al-Layth is pretty much broken, and not in a good way. All my vassals hate me right off the bat, and roughly around the time I finish ripping the Tahirids a new one, I already got 5 new rivals itching to claim my throne and eventually assassinate me. It'd be one thing if it were tied to negative clan unity, but this is happening at neutral levels. It's just so aggravating that it stops being fun to play.

2. Bit of a minor gripe, but shouldn't the Mashriqi culture also get the "Beacon of Learning" tradition? It seems a bit jarring to do an Abbasid playthrough and not being able to hire a court scholar to complete the Islamic Golden Age roleplay. They have the "Philosopher Culture" tradition too, so the groundwork is already laid out for them. On a similar note, it's kinda weird "Futuwaa" and "Mubarizun" didn't get their own unique artwork while their respective units did.

3. Lastly, no polo as tournament event. 0/10 refunding now. (just kidding, but still a missed opportunity, especially for cultures that can't joust)

All in all, I really want to enjoy this pack. I'm a huge fan of Persian history and culture, and the Saffarids have been one of my most preferred starts for a while. But that was before the new mechanics made it basically impossible to play. It's honestly more of an impediment to new players than harm events and the fact that those got nerfed while this was able to slip by is frankly not the best look, and looking at some of the negative reviews on the pack's Steam page, I'm definitely not the only one having this problem.

 

[PDXOxycoon]

Do you know where this is the game files (allied AI not accounting player strength for war) I'd like to make a mod disabling this.

Provided I understand your intention correctly: you want to mod it such that the AI does take player strength into account for offensive war? This is, I'm afraid, something you cannot mod, as it the evaluation is on the code side. There are a lot of calculations going on here, and doing it in script would be much too slow.

View attachment 1045029
He was just unlanded and not properly put in the Abbasid courts. I would guess.

The interesting thing is: most of the characters that you see in the game are generated on game start and they are based on a seed that is static between game versions. I cannot quite remember what it is based on, but I believe it based on the checksum. A notable example is Dietwin Royalsbane. He was a character that was randomly generated in 1.8.2 in the 867 starting date, and when Tours and Tournaments was released, the seed changed and he vanished. People were quite distraught, and he was manually readded as an easter egg character. This is not something you can expect us to do on a regular though

Thanks for the update. Let me add my voice to the multitude that is saddened by the Harm event changes. I’ve really enjoyed them and they captured a bit of the randomness that a medieval ruler could be expected to face. They weren’t perfect, but perhaps instead of removing and/or neutering them, there could’ve been more options to survive if you have certain attributes or court positions filled.

I like the intent of the harm events and how they force you to adapt, but I also get the frustrations of those who don't like control being taken from them. We got a bunch of feed back, especially from new players, that the harm events were ruining their experience, as they don't really got grips of the game itself. CK3 does not really cultivate the "you will lose a lot when you're new, but this is not necessarily a bad thing" experience in the same way say Dwarf Fortress and Rimworld does, which embrace the notion of the player losing. I personally want to cultivate this, but I am also not entirely sure how to do so in CK3.

Still, we ever experiment with ways to hinder the player with ways that aren't directly out of their hands. I think harm events was a good thing in terms of our intent, but the execution of it probably was not ideal.

 

[Voy]

The interesting thing is: most of the characters that you see in the game are generated on game start and they are based on a seed that is static between game versions. I cannot quite remember what it is based on, but I believe it based on the checksum. A notable example is Dietwin Royalsbane. He was a character that was randomly generated in 1.8.2 in the 867 starting date, and when Tours and Tournaments was released, the seed changed and he vanished. People were quite distraught, and he was manually readded as an easter egg character. This is not something you can expect us to do on a regular though

Absolutely, but this guy is historical. It's Mu'nis al-Muzaffar, a harem Eunuch slave turned military commander, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu'nis_al-Muzaffar

So he ought to be in the court of the Abbasids.

 

[PDXOxycoon]

Absolutely, but this guy is historical. It's Mu'nis al-Muzaffar, a harem Eunuch slave turned military commander, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu'nis_al-Muzaffar

Ah. My bad

 

[Kainser]

They're materially unpopular with most players, something reflected in a lot of the feedback we've had since Tours & Tournaments launched: I frequently see them described as misguided at best, often lazy or badly designed, sometimes as just a plaster over deeper gameplay problems or as a rush job thrown in with no real care, and worst of all, as a huge source of quit moments for new players. Though I don't really agree with the harsher criticisms, they definitely ended up a markedly larger pain point than the one they were trying to solve, and for many more people.

No offense but how exactly did you survey 'most' players for their opinion on harm events? These forums are obviously not representative but even on more 'casual' platforms (reddit/steam etc.) so was every complaint against the feature met by the same amount of support in the responses in my experience. I genuinely feel that if you made the starting ruler immune to the harm events (or a 50 year immunity etc.) it would fix most complaints.

Anyway, I actually personally agree that harm events are "misguided, lazy and a plaster over deeper gameplay problems" but I still enjoyed having them in the game since the issue they solved (boredom from rulers always reigning for 40+ years) was far worse. I agree with the sentiments that others in this thread have expressed that this is a concerning change since the 'default' ruleset is the one that the developers balance around. Add a different more relaxed 'beginner' ruleset with harm events turned off and various other options set to the easier variant for newer players if you are terrified of them being scared away.

e; actually a 'training wheels' ruleset might be a good idea in general in my experience from reading posts made by new players.

 

[HelloFolks]

Worth more than a gold event has the first choice description void. Currently, I dont undestant the 3rd choice for clan chief request.

"I would like to remain an advisor" looks not having consequences.

3rd, please again current feud design doesnt make any sense. Please try to find a refinement according to new beatiful clan structure

 

[Wixelt]

"to bug" means to pester
"to bugger" means to sodomize rectally

all things considered i think not responding is the reasonable reaction here

Good point