Hey all!

So today I felt that I was going to spoil some of the bigger stuff we are working on with the new patch, I thought Birken was a bit too mean keeping you guys on edge for so long. As several of you have noted we now have a Pacts tab in the character screen and I am going to tell you guys what it is all about.

So why it was changed is because we decided that we wanted to rewrite a bit how alliances worked in Crusader Kings making it much more predictable who will be in your war. No, as some of you tried to guess we have not made it no longer required to marry other rulers to forge an alliance, that is still a very big part of the core gameplay in the game. What we have done is that we have divided it up in two steps, Non-Aggression Pacts and Alliances.

Now now, don’t fetch your pitchforks yet! The idea we have is to make the marriage much more focused on its strategical nature than just finding your “soulmate” with impressive tracts of land.

Now when you first marry off your daughter or son you will be figuratively negotiating an agreement with the other ruler to come to terms over your issues with each other, resulting in a Non-Aggression Pact between your two mighty realms. This can later can be improved into a proper Alliance. This is an action done separately after the marriage as been finalized. You don’t have to wait until your family members have grown up however as betrothals also counts when formalizing these pacts.

This does mean that you do not have a Non-Aggression Pact with your close kins but they can still be made into allies without a marriage. Meaning you no longer get the penalties of attacking close kin unless you choose to make your them your ally.

Picture has been censored to not reveal undisclosed features​

With these changes the AI has also been changed a bit to be more capable in recognizing Realpolitik instead of purely going on opinions. It is not much but the AI is now capable of properly identifying threats and will try to form Non-Aggression pacts with these, or if they refuse, ally someone else with a common interest to contain the threat. The idea is also that the AI no longer wants to aid these threats, but instead only preserve the status quo and keep them off their back. They will refuse to ally these threats most of the time in order to not help them become stronger.

Since we now have a distinct action you can perform to ally someone we have also changed how they relate to wars to make it less of a guessing game.

Allies for both sides will be shown in the Declare War screen showing who will join the war on what side. Also important to know with these changes is that allies are now required to honor their alliance, meaning they can not refuse a call to arms. So now you know exactly who you can count on when the war starts. However if your ally is starting an offensive war against someone you have a Non-Aggression Pact with you have to stand out.

All of this is in the Free Patch that will be coming with the next expansion.

 

[SilentN4saken]

Allies for both sides will be shown in the Declare War screen showing who will join the war on what side. Also important to know with these changes is that allies are now required to honor their alliance, meaning they can not refuse a call to arms. So now you know exactly who you can count on when the war starts. However if your ally is starting an offensive war against someone you have a Non-Aggression Pact with you have to stand out.

Honestly I kind of hate the idea of being forced to join the ai,s sometimes suicidal wars but what im really worried about is what if I just finished my own offensive war an all my vassals are mad from me having there levies raised, an then the ai calls me into one of there offensive wars. Now I have to join so I cant hold a feast or do anything to appease my vassals. ( Yes I know I could lower the levies to make them happy buut that takes longer an im not being a very good ally if I don't send any troops to help am I? )

Also is there anyway to break a non agro pact? So if someone else (not an ally) declares on them I can be an opportunist an grab some land?

 

[theStormWeaver]

Honestly I kind of hate the idea of being forced to join the ai,s sometimes suicidal wars but what im really worried about is what if I just finished my own offensive war an all my vassals are mad from me having there levies raised, an then the ai calls me into one of there offensive wars. Now I have to join so I cant hold a feast or do anything to appease my vassals. ( Yes I know I could lower the levies to make them happy buut that takes longer an im not being a very good ally if I don't send any troops to help am I? )

Also is there anyway to break a non agro pact? So if someone else (not an ally) declares on them I can be an opportunist an grab some land?

All of that just means you should actually be careful who you make an alliance with. It means it's actually a meaningful decision, instead of just a quick and easy way to maybe get help from an AI for who knows what reason.

 

[TheDungen]

Why not Bavarian or Alemanian while we're at it ? "German" culture in 769 ? PUHHH - leez !

Well it wouldn't be so bad but for the fact that dutch is considered a separate culture when say saxon is not (post 769).

 

[Yazman]

hedgehog= {
        graphical_cultures = { hedgehoggfx }
  
        color = { 0.8 0.2 0.2 }
  
        male_names = { Harry Spike Nick Ruffles Pointdexter Sharpie Needles "Mister Snuffles" Groogy etc }
        female_names = { Harriette Spikina Nicola Ruffles Pointsettia Sharperella Needelia "Miss Snuffles" Groogerella etc }
        from_dynasty_prefix = "the "
        bastard_dynasty_prefix = "Spits"

       allow_looting = yes
       seafarer = no   # Are you serious ?!

        modifier = default_culture_modifier
        # Chance of male children being named after their paternal or maternal grandfather, or their father. Sum must not exceed 100.
        pat_grf_name_chance = 30
        mat_grf_name_chance = 10
        father_name_chance = 25
  
        # Chance of female children being named after their paternal or maternal grandmother, or their mother. Sum must not exceed 100.
        pat_grm_name_chance = 20
        mat_grm_name_chance = 40
        mother_name_chance = 5

        tribal_name = "TRIBAL_NAME_PROV_HEDGEHOG"
        founder_named_dynasties = yes
}

You're welcome.

Needs "Sonic" in the male names!

 

[Thanat0S]

Any chance in having alliance (or NAP) not related to Royal Marriages, Same Dynasties or Friendship?

The Iberian Christian States allied themselves many times to the Moors during the Reconquista (using the muslim inner wars to take advantages), like the Crusaders States that allied themselves to the Mongols to counter the Mamluks

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

Any chance in having alliance (or NAP) not related to Royal Marriages, Same Dynasties or Friendship?

The Iberian Christian States allied themselves many times to the Moors during the Reconquista (using the muslim inner wars to take advantages), like the Crusaders States that allied themselves to the Mongols to counter the Mamluks

With directly bordering realms then or some kind of distance limit ? Sounds interesting.

 

[NewbieOne]

So why it was changed is because we decided that we wanted to rewrite a bit how alliances worked in Crusader Kings making it much more predictable who will be in your war. No, as some of you tried to guess we have not made it no longer required to marry other rulers to forge an alliance, that is still a very big part of the core gameplay in the game. What we have done is that we have divided it up in two steps, Non-Aggression Pacts and Alliances.

That sounds interesting, but from a realism point of view the previous system was actually better. Marriage generally was regarded as alliance of families, and while promises not to attack someone's holdings certainly existed before, 'non-aggression pact' is modern vocabulary, basically a modern concept, and it's hard to mentally associate with marriage.

Marriage in the middle ages really was about calling the banners with your in-laws, not just about not attacking them.

There are some other things that you have a bit backwards in this patch idea, and such changes are what I consider to be detrimental to the game, where a change is also detrimental if it doesn't have a clear benefit, as then it's unnecessary nuisance. On a related note, previously one needed to consider only whether one liked the game or not the way it was designed on release. With the approach taken by Paradox to CK2, it becomes a real possibility that a P-dox game you buy will be brought to a much different state, with no way of opting out for you (other than cutting off your access to bug fixes and new DLC support by rolling down to a previous patch), after you've spent something like €/$200 on the game along with the DLCs. The same as for your uncertain monetary investment also goes for your time investment in learning the game and developing strategies for it.

Please also note that that predictability you are speaking about will be somewhat limited as long as it remains possible to upgrade someone to a full ally and *then* call him into a war when the war is already in progress (which should not be removed, because looking for allies when already participating in a war is quite reasonable).

​

Now now, don’t fetch your pitchforks yet! The idea we have is to make the marriage much more focused on its strategical nature

I honestly can't see how adding a non-agression pact as an intermediate step before alliance is going to make marriage focused more on in its strategic nature, particularly versus marrying for land. If anything, making marriage no longer a surefire alliance, it will make it a less rational decision to marry for the hope of an alliance as opposed to finding someone with tracts of land. I'm sorry, but your logic looks irrational to me here.

You don’t have to wait until your family members have grown up however as betrothals also counts when formalizing these pacts.

That's a nice one, actually.

Meaning you no longer get the penalties of attacking close kin unless you choose to make your them your ally.

That's not rational either. Perhaps it achieves a gameplay goal in the form of making war easier to wage, but it goes against realism. Just like Kinslayer is worse than Known Murderer, attacking close kin is not the same as attacking just about everyone else. Simply read your own description of the Kinslayer trait. This going back and forth, making U-turns on previous design decisions & concepts without a solid rationale is what's making me feel that this game is being developed for the worse as opposed to for the better.

I also can't see it as rational to, say, get penalties for attacking my sister's husband (made into an ally) where I wouldn't get penalties for attacking my sister, if she was landed (but not specifically made into a proper ally).

With these changes the AI has also been changed a bit to be more capable in recognizing Realpolitik instead of purely going on opinions. It is not much but the AI is now capable of properly identifying threats and will try to form Non-Aggression pacts with these, or if they refuse, ally someone else with a common interest to contain the threat. The idea is also that the AI no longer wants to aid these threats, but instead only preserve the status quo and keep them off their back. They will refuse to ally these threats most of the time in order to not help them become stronger.

General preference to avoid allowing threats to grow sounds smart, but an overly strong emphasis could make the AI artificially cut itself off from military assistance. (Or that realms in certain locations will be left without allies.)

Allies for both sides will be shown in the Declare War screen showing who will join the war on what side. Also important to know with these changes is that allies are now required to honor their alliance, meaning they can not refuse a call to arms.

That's a dumbing down of the existing system. The guessing game had its own disadvantages, but high opinion was usually a good-enough clue. That, or liking you more than your enemy, as per the tip on the loading screen. Being unable to dishonour your alliances (for an appropriate penalty to prestige and opinion) is a step back on the path of development. It's also removing a unique CK mechanic in favour of making it more of an EU clone.

Part of the bad consequences you might not be seeing clearly right now is how it's going to affect law changes and cut you off from certain decisions (pilgrimages, hunts, duels etc.), as well as breaking your feasts and tournaments.

It will also lead to faux wars for human players, when they just won't participate actively, unless their own holdings are sieged, in such a forced war.

So now you know exactly who you can count on when the war starts. However if your ally is starting an offensive war against someone you have a Non-Aggression Pact with you have to stand out.

That doesn't make sense, as long as the ability to violate a non-aggression pact exists for wars you declare. There is no good reason to make ally-declared wars work differently.

All of this is in the Free Patch that will be coming with the next expansion.

And that's not necessarily a good thing when you come up with controversial changes or ones that haven't been thought out well.

 

[SilentN4saken]

All of that just means you should actually be careful who you make an alliance with. It means it's actually a meaningful decision, instead of just a quick and easy way to maybe get help from an AI for who knows what reason.

I'm always very careful who I ally, but even if for some reason I wasn't careful what does being careful who my ally's are have to do with there bad timing an dragging me into a war I'm not at all ready to fight cause my vassals are mad from there levies being up. They could be the strongest ally in the world, but if my vassals are mad at me from having there levies up I'm not going to send troops to help I'm just going to lower my levies till my vassals aren't mad. Compared to now where I could decline the call to arms lower levies hold a feast an cause my vassals are happier cause of the feast I can offer to join war an send my troops in sooner then I would if I have to slowly wait for the raised levies opinion modifier to go away entirely. ( if I help at all since you know forcing people to do things doesn't incline most people to be helpful )

Also what if I'm in an civil war or any other kind of rebellion why for any reason would I honour any alliance when I'm trying to keep my crown, I wouldn't mind them maybe increasing the prestige cost for declining calls to arms or increasing the opinion penalty. ( still wouldn't like it but I wouldn't complain if its reasonable )

Or maybe do what they do in eu4 if you decline a defensive call you lose the alliance/ it turns back into a non agro pact an have to renegotiate the alliance after the war. But eh that's kind of dumb to cause then I wont offer to join there war since they might not be willing to re ally after the war since I declined to join an they will have a lower opinion. < ( this last idea is so dumb I keep debating whether or not to keep it in but its still better then auto joining wars so I guess it stays). Anyway I'm really focusing on this one issue cause auto joining wars will make me quit the game. Besides I hate the idea of taking away players choice/ability to make intelligent ( or dumb/fun ) decisions.

On a more positive note I do like the idea of none agro packs not sure about them being a intermediate step before an alliance though, and I like the changes to the ai but I do prefer not being sure if my allies will join my wars, it makes me expand slightly slower an makes the risk that they refuse more fun.

 

[SilentN4saken]

That sounds interesting, but from a realism point of view the previous system was actually better. Marriage generally was regarded as alliance of families, and while promises not to attack someone's holdings certainly existed before, 'non-aggression pact' is modern vocabulary, basically a modern concept, and it's hard to mentally associate with marriage.

Marriage in the middle ages really was about calling the banners with your in-laws, not just about not attacking them.

There are some other things that you have a bit backwards in this patch idea, and such changes are what I consider to be detrimental to the game, where a change is also detrimental if it doesn't have a clear benefit, as then it's unnecessary nuisance. On a related note, previously one needed to consider only whether one liked the game or not the way it was designed on release. With the approach taken by Paradox to CK2, it becomes a real possibility that a P-dox game you buy will be brought to a much different state, with no way of opting out for you (other than cutting off your access to bug fixes and new DLC support by rolling down to a previous patch), after you've spent something like €/$200 on the game along with the DLCs. The same as for your uncertain monetary investment also goes for your time investment in learning the game and developing strategies for it.

Please also note that that predictability you are speaking about will be somewhat limited as long as it remains possible to upgrade someone to a full ally and *then* call him into a war when the war is already in progress (which should not be removed, because looking for allies when already participating in a war is quite reasonable).

​

I honestly can't see how adding a non-agression pact as an intermediate step before alliance is going to make marriage focused more on in its strategic nature, particularly versus marrying for land. If anything, making marriage no longer a surefire alliance, it will make it a less rational decision to marry for the hope of an alliance as opposed to finding someone with tracts of land. I'm sorry, but your logic looks irrational to me here.



That's a nice one, actually.



That's not rational either. Perhaps it achieves a gameplay goal in the form of making war easier to wage, but it goes against realism. Just like Kinslayer is worse than Known Murderer, attacking close kin is not the same as attacking just about everyone else. Simply read your own description of the Kinslayer trait. This going back and forth, making U-turns on previous design decisions & concepts without a solid rationale is what's making me feel that this game is being developed for the worse as opposed to for the better.

I also can't see it as rational to, say, get penalties for attacking my sister's husband (made into an ally) where I wouldn't get penalties for attacking my sister, if she was landed (but not specifically made into a proper ally).



General preference to avoid allowing threats to grow sounds smart, but an overly strong emphasis could make the AI artificially cut itself off from military assistance. (Or that realms in certain locations will be left without allies.)



That's a dumbing down of the existing system. The guessing game had its own disadvantages, but high opinion was usually a good-enough clue. That, or liking you more than your enemy, as per the tip on the loading screen. Being unable to dishonour your alliances (for an appropriate penalty to prestige and opinion) is a step back on the path of development. It's also removing a unique CK mechanic in favour of making it more of an EU clone.

Part of the bad consequences you might not be seeing clearly right now is how it's going to affect law changes and cut you off from certain decisions (pilgrimages, hunts, duels etc.), as well as breaking your feasts and tournaments.

It will also lead to faux wars for human players, when they just won't participate actively, unless their own holdings are sieged, in such a forced war.



That doesn't make sense, as long as the ability to violate a non-aggression pact exists for wars you declare. There is no good reason to make ally-declared wars work differently.



And that's not necessarily a good thing when you come up with controversial changes or ones that haven't been thought out well.

yeah basically this

 

[Majorbookworm]

It will also lead to faux wars for human players, when they just won't participate actively, unless their own holdings are sieged, in such a forced war.

Perhaps adding an opinion modifier depending on whether the character that called you thinks you contributed properly (if you contribute more than them in a victory they will like you for saving them, and if they feel you didn't help enough in the case of a defeat then they will dislike you for abandoning would help. It would need to somehow take the contribution percentage and your available levies at the start of the war though when calculating that.

 

[NewbieOne]

Perhaps adding an opinion modifier depending on whether the character that called you thinks you contributed properly (if you contribute more than them in a victory they will like you for saving them, and if they feel you didn't help enough in the case of a defeat then they will dislike you for abandoning would help. It would need to somehow take the contribution percentage and your available levies at the start of the war though when calculating that.

Yes, precisely, your contribution to the war should not be judged without regard to your size, from the perspective of the smaller ally. For example if you're an independent duke somehow allied to the Holy Roman Emperor you shouldn't even really be expected to pull too much weight. Even making a token appearance shouldn't really be required if it would be too costly for you, unless your numbers made a difference to your larger ally (e.g. if facing a Jihad or something).

Generally, the mechanic should also make some allowance for your ability (e.g. landlocked or negligible fleet size) and cost (e.g. supporting 200 ships from a ducal income over several months) to help.

Plus, it would be absolutely necessary to prevent the AI from calling you into something like French War to Revoke Dax (as attacker) or Cornish War Against the Tyranny of King William the Conqueror (as defender).

Speaking of which:

@Groogy, even if you won't listen to me about the other points, would you guys at least make sure that my Holy Roman Great Hunt/Tournament/Feast in Nassau won't be interrupted just because some 3000 peasants declared war on my Basileus-in-law over in Chaldea?

It's really gonna be hard to have a complete feast, tournament, hunt or whatever with non-refusable calls to war.

 

[NewbieOne]

Perhaps adding an opinion modifier depending on whether the character that called you thinks you contributed properly (if you contribute more than them in a victory they will like you for saving them, and if they feel you didn't help enough in the case of a defeat then they will dislike you for abandoning would help. It would need to somehow take the contribution percentage and your available levies at the start of the war though when calculating that.

Yes, precisely, your contribution to the war should not be judged without regard to your size, from the perspective of the smaller ally. For example if you're an independent duke somehow allied to the Holy Roman Emperor you shouldn't even really be expected to pull too much weight. Even making a token appearance shouldn't really be required if it would be too costly for you, unless your numbers made a difference to your larger ally (e.g. if facing a Jihad or something).

Generally, the mechanic should also make some allowance for your ability (e.g. landlocked or negligible fleet size) and cost (e.g. supporting 200 ships from a ducal income over several months) to help.

Plus, it would be absolutely necessary to prevent the AI from calling you into something like French War to Revoke Dax (as attacker) or Cornish War Against the Tyranny of King William the Conqueror (as defender).

Speaking of which:

@Groogy, even if you won't listen to me about the other points, would you guys at least make sure that my Holy Roman Great Hunt/Tournament/Feast in Nassau won't be interrupted just because some 3000 peasants declared war on my Basileus-in-law over in Chaldea?

It's really gonna be hard to have a complete feast, tournament, hunt or whatever with non-refusable calls to war.

[If this post gets duplicated, moderator please delete it. I'm having timeouts again, so I don't know if it gets posted or not when I click the button.]

 

[Red Earth]

I am going to miss automatic dynasty alliances. Not so much for myself, but for my vassals. I've often not done holy wars due to the unholy can of worms it would open up on me, but a few times a vassal declared a holy war and brought all my vassals along with him because they're all of the same dynasty. Resulting in most of my realm being in the war but none of the consequences of failure are on me.

 

[TheDungen]

I am going to miss automatic dynasty alliances. Not so much for myself, but for my vassals. I've often not done holy wars due to the unholy can of worms it would open up on me, but a few times a vassal declared a holy war and brought all my vassals along with him because they're all of the same dynasty. Resulting in most of my realm being in the war but none of the consequences of failure are on me.

I really hate when that happens.

 

[NewbieOne]

I am going to miss automatic dynasty alliances. Not so much for myself, but for my vassals. I've often not done holy wars due to the unholy can of worms it would open up on me, but a few times a vassal declared a holy war and brought all my vassals along with him because they're all of the same dynasty. Resulting in most of my realm being in the war but none of the consequences of failure are on me.

Interestingly, Red Earth, I've been on both sides of that mechanic and found it really much less rewarding on the receiving end. One of my games got to the point were Catholic crusades against the Caliph were autowins, but so were the holy wars of all the extremely cash-rich (frequently 5K or more gp in treasury) and fully upgraded sheikhs and emirs. A full-sized Catholic k_Jerusalem could disappear within months of appearing. Fighting them all off from the position of a helpful ally of k_Jerusalem was capable of making me go down from 30K (if not 40K) soldiers to only a 2–3K remnant over a short time like 1–2 years, without losing a single battle or suffering attrition, simply from deaths in battles I won. But this, of course, is going to remain in the game. Only simply being a fellow Abbassid or Karling or Borjigid or whoever will not do it.

 

[theStormWeaver]

Perhaps adding an opinion modifier depending on whether the character that called you thinks you contributed properly (if you contribute more than them in a victory they will like you for saving them, and if they feel you didn't help enough in the case of a defeat then they will dislike you for abandoning would help. It would need to somehow take the contribution percentage and your available levies at the start of the war though when calculating that.

Groogy has already indicated this will be the case. The current state of players being able to accept the call for aid and then completely ignore the war without a meaningful consequence will not be possible.

 

[sbalani]

What would be nice is having Multiple Levels of Alliance

1. Alliance by pact - breakable - (nice fix on the family issue btw)
2. Alliance by marriage - more gravity, actions impact more, breaking creates larger consequences or not breakable


Another thing i'd like to know is if a group of nations are all allied amongst each other, can some sort of alliance group be created? Like a coalition? But instead bound together beyond just protecting each other, perhaps there could be trade bonuses and the like or free borders, etc, kind of like an HRE but without a leader.

 

[Zooboss]

A question just occurred to me. Let's assume there's four rulers (A,B,C,D) and A has a non aggression pact with B, but is allies with C and B is allied with D.

Two scenarios:
1) D declares war on A, can B join the war?
2) D declares war on C. Can both A and B be called into war at the same time despite their non aggression pact?

 

[Dirt McStain]

I kind of hope that the raid toggle button goes away. Instead, you just default to being hostile/raiding in foreign territory unless you have a non-aggression pact.

 

[Azarias59]

There'll be events that make sure allies participate, else they'll suffer consequences.


You can no longer form alliances with friends directly. Though, friends will always consider marriage offers you send their way, making them easier to form NAPs/Alliances with!

Please reconsider!