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.

 

[Greybeard0815]

Yeah, think about it, if your friends, then you're probably past hating each other based on religious views.

While I really like this, from a Realpolitik perspective this should have repercussions however. Maybe bad modifiers like:
Married kin to a heretic -10 same religion opinion
Married kin to a heathen -20 same religion opinion

If the Sultan of Egypt marries off one of his daughters to the King of Jerusalem it will be well known and I'm pretty sure that there will be vassals and rulers in both religions who would disapprove. Especially in those times.

 

[Metz]

Can we get more elaborate relative descriptions? Maternal Grandfather's Brother, Paternal Second-Cousin, etc.. Would really help role play and I don't think it would be that hard to implement. The reward here would trump the effort of making it by far.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Can you abuse an alliance so that one ally is constantly going to war on your behalf over and over again without giving them a chance to actually pull you into one of their wars? Say after answering an offensive call to arms, you can't actually call an ally into another offensive war for 2-5 years. That way they get the chance to declare war too, without you being forced to join their wars over and over again too.

 

[takedown47]

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.

View attachment 142435​

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.

View attachment 142436
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.

this is all very nice but where is the economy trade goods DLC? or the Crusades/Holy Wars DLC? Can we do something to fix the lack of coordination during Crusades? Can we make buildings and province trade goods more interesting? My two cents

 

[luxfelix]

Can non-aggression pacts/alliances be arranged between independent lieges and their vassals and/or the vassals of other independent lieges? Can a vassal of one liege form non-aggression pacts/alliances with a vassal from another realm?

 

[grisamentum]

While I really like this, from a Realpolitik perspective this should have repercussions however. Maybe bad modifiers like:
Married kin to a heretic -10 same religion opinion
Married kin to a heathen -20 same religion opinion

If the Sultan of Egypt marries off one of his daughters to the King of Jerusalem it will be well known and I'm pretty sure that there will be vassals and rulers in both religions who would disapprove. Especially in those times.

You say "realpolitik" but I don't think you understand what it means. The point of "realpolitik" is that ruler don't care about religious or ethnic allegiances, but rather their own best interests - even if it means allying with heathens. Like, you know, almost all of ERE history where ERE princesses married Tengri Cumans.

(also, Muslim rulers didn't have "vassals")

 

[Axe99]

Cheers for the DD Groogy . Extra depth to relationships and diplomatic model is good, and the AI actually having some kind of geopolitical sense, no matter how limited, is excellent.

 

[KelrynGrey]

Regarding the new ability to improve fonts. I wonder if perhaps the addition of upgrades to forts might also indicate that we're going to have the ability to burn the supply lines in some manner - not literally, as we don't have a system for actual lines, but in some form of scorched earth action to take on our own holdings, increasing the amount of attrition enemies take.

 

[Talq]

Regarding the new ability to improve fonts. I wonder if perhaps the addition of upgrades to forts might also indicate that we're going to have the ability to burn the supply lines in some manner - not literally, as we don't have a system for actual lines, but in some form of scorched earth action to take on our own holdings, increasing the amount of attrition enemies take.

That was for modding

 

[TheDungen]

Long-term alliances between strong and weak powers should have the option to transform into tribute-vassalage. Like external march vassals in EU4, which could lead to integration. Alliances weren't always so solidified IRL, sometimes it was just a vaguely diplomatic blob of tribes that banded together during wartime, and eventually turned into kingdoms.

Persnal unions, make sure you inherit the throne of that weaker neighbour who married you so that they'd be protected by the NAP.

Will an alliance persist if the marriage ends? It appears that the actual alliance will now be a relationship directly between rulers, while the NAP will depend on the marriage/betrothal/(other conditions that we will hopefully be able to mod in), so it seems possible that the alliance could still exist even if the relationship that was used as the basis for the NAP does not.

I was thinking this too, perhaps alliances could have a decay that started with the end of the marriage and of you didn't get a new marrige before the end of it then it fails.

If Paradox were to decide to implement a system like I suggested they would of course have to figure out how to balance it, just like they do for any other mechanic they add to their games. I'm not a game designer so I don't know what that balance would be. What I posted was just an idea about how to deal with one of, for me anyway, the biggest problems with the game, the ease with which you can abuse alliances. I don't find there's ever really any reason to actually help an ally, and I think a system like this might provide one.

Make the diffrence the diffrence in their number of troops at the begining of the war. Or well within a certain intervall thereof.

 

[Blackwolfpt]

If we are punished for not participating on our allies wars, what about wars that last 1 week? If a count rebels against the HRE, the war will be over before I'm even able to assemble my troops. Am I going to be punished regardless?

 

[Pyramid_Head]

Well, now it'll took twice as long to kill constantly adulterous wives. Yet there's hope Way of Life willl be at least somehow fixed to not break the game completely.

 

[TheWolfe]

If we are punished for not participating on our allies wars, what about wars that last 1 week? If a count rebels against the HRE, the war will be over before I'm even able to assemble my troops. Am I going to be punished regardless?

The kind of war could also be taken in to account, so that typically shorter wars, like de jure claims would have a smaller impact on relations, but typically longer ones, like kingdom or empire claims would have a larger impact if the ai didn't think you were pulling your weight.

 

[Choombi]

Hedgehog DLC Confirmed! Our Prayers have been answered at last, Praise the devs!

 

[Voy]

I wonder how often the AI will marry lowborn then, if it's still too much or if they look more actively for alliance material.

 

[Greybeard0815]

You say "realpolitik" but I don't think you understand what it means. The point of "realpolitik" is that ruler don't care about religious or ethnic allegiances, but rather their own best interests - even if it means allying with heathens. Like, you know, almost all of ERE history where ERE princesses married Tengri Cumans.

(also, Muslim rulers didn't have "vassals")

Maybe I used a poor choice of words, maybe not. The term Realpolitik is used differently in different parts of the world.

In the U.S. the term is often analogous to power politics, while in Germany Realpolitik has a somewhat less negative connotation, referring to realistic politics in opposition to idealistic (unrealistic) politics.

As a German I'm using the German version.
Hence in a Catholic world, where heathens are being regarded as less than human (that WAS the Zeitgeist back then during the Crusades) I would argue that vassals and especially the Holy See wouldn't be happy to see for example the Holy Roman Emperor marrying a Muslim woman.
The Emperor would then have to decide, would he be willing to risk Excommunication and maybe even vassals revolting to marry that woman? That is Realpolitik the way I understand it and the way it was taught to me in school.

On the other hand, a King of Jerusalem, having the choice of risking Excommunication or securing an Alliance with one of his strongest opponents, would be an entirely different matter. In the first case with the HRE I personally would lean towards not marrying the woman, but as King of Jerusalem things could be very different.

Also ERE doesn't matter, since the views of the Orthodox and the Catholic church regarding heathens and Crusades in General were very different.

I'm just asking for consequences instead of the game being fine with whatever I do.

 

[The Guru]

↑
BTW, I still have a problem with the ability to wage aggressive wars and having most- if not all - the killing and dying done by one or more potent allies, who in the end hand over to you to fruits of their endeavour without getting anything in return but the satisfaction of complying to their alliances term.

It is not uncommon to be able to call an ally to some big warlike enterprise while not even bothering to raise your own levies, and then just be given the crown at the end of the bloodbath. Whatever strong the ties, I doubt that rulers would engage in long and costly wars (in gold and blood) started by some ally that could even not show up on the battlefield, without any perspective of gain whatsoever.

I have managed to carve kingdoms through this - unsatisfyingly easy - method

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

the problem is not that must be forced to participate, the problem is that sometimes they do participate and they totally shouldn't!

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

Maybe I used a poor choice of words, maybe not. The term Realpolitik is used differently in different parts of the world.

As a German...

As a german as well i have to say, no it's not differently used in other countries.
Realpolitik means exactly to ignore artifical limits as religion would be one.
A more pragmatic approach which might betray ideals or moral/religious dogmas to a certain extent, but will cause a higher gain in the end.

That it has a better ring to it in germany is another matter.

 

[Greybeard0815]

As a german as well i have to say, no it's not differently used in other countries.
Realpolitik means exactly to ignore artifical limits as religion would be one.
A more pragmatic approach which might betray ideals or moral/religious dogmas to a certain extent, but will cause a higher gain in the end.

That it has a better ring to it in germany is another matter.

We are reaching a point of arguing semantics. Feel free to comment the content of my post, rather than the meaning of one damn word. Seriously.

 

[Thure]

Maybe I used a poor choice of words, maybe not. The term Realpolitik is used differently in different parts of the world.

As a German I'm using the German version.
Hence in a Catholic world, where heathens are being regarded as less than human (that WAS the Zeitgeist back then during the Crusades) I would argue that vassals and especially the Holy See wouldn't be happy to see for example the Holy Roman Emperor marrying a Muslim woman.
The Emperor would then have to decide, would he be willing to risk Excommunication and maybe even vassals revolting to marry that woman? That is Realpolitik the way I understand it and the way it was taught to me in school.

On the other hand, a King of Jerusalem, having the choice of risking Excommunication or securing an Alliance with one of his strongest opponents, would be an entirely different matter. In the first case with the HRE I personally would lean towards not marrying the woman, but as King of Jerusalem things could be very different.

Also ERE doesn't matter, since the views of the Orthodox and the Catholic church regarding heathens and Crusades in General were very different.

I'm just asking for consequences instead of the game being fine with whatever I do.

In Iberia marriage between Christian und Muslim nobles did happen very commonly. And noone was excommunicated for this. Look at Inigo Arista of Pamplona.

'The name of Íñigo's mother is unknown (she is sometimes called Onneca, without foundation) but it is known that she also married local muwallad lord Musa ibn Fortun ibn Qasi, by him having son Musa ibn Musa ibn Qasi. This younger Musa would become head of the Banu Qasi, ruler of Tudela and one of the chief lords of Ebro Valley. Due to this relationship, Íñigo and his kin frequently acted in alliance with Musa ibn Musa and this relationship allowed Íñigo to extend his influence over large territories in the Pyrenean valleys, and was also instrumental in the rebellions that would lead to Pamplona breaking with the Emirate.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Íñigo_Arista_of_Pamplona

There are more exemples in his family and whole Iberian history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_ibn_Muhammad_al-Umawi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruela_II_of_Asturias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almanzor

etc

All of this had no consequences for the Catholic rulers.[/B]