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.

 

[Prince Ire]

So not only were ways to form alliances without marriage not added in, but forming alliances via friendship was removed? Not liking these decisions at all.

 

[Greybeard0815]

@Thure
Those links are very interesting, thank you. However all of them are about people from the 9th or 10th century which was long before the Crusades.
I don't think I have to tell you that during the Crusades the Zeitgeist changed, otherwise events like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma'arra or this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099) wouldn't have happened. Something must have changed among the Catholics to do things like that.
In such a climate I just don't find it believable that as King you would be able to marry a Muslim woman without consequences.
I'd just like to have events for this, even if they only fire when the Crusades start. I could mod this myself of course, I'd rather have it in vanilla however.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

..., but forming alliances via friendship was removed? Not liking these decisions at all.

No, well not completely.

..

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!

I bolded "directly" for a reason.




edited to prevent misunderstanding.

 

[klopkr]

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.'

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

The funny things about this is that it says really clearly not to intermarry with non muslims unless they'll convert in Koran. It's the muslims that I figured would be getting the most flak for the marriages. Of course people are never 100% devout and abide every single religious teaching. Especially when they're massive delicious tracks of land at stake.

No

You still have to wed their children. If neither of you have children available to wed then you can't get an alliance.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

You still have to wed their children. If neither of you have children available to wed then you can't get an alliance.

True, but friendships make marriages and alliances more likely and, going by what rageair said, it may be even possible to marry heathens.
Basically i put more weight on the "alliances via friendship" part of the sentence, than on "alliances without marriage".
That's why i bolded "directly" in the quote.

I admit that my simple "No" opens the gates for a possible misunderstanding.

Now slightly edited.

 

[Thure]

The funny things about this is that it says really clearly not to intermarry with non muslims unless they'll convert in Koran. It's the muslims that I figured would be getting the most flak for the marriages. Of course people are never 100% devout and abide every single religious teaching. Especially when they're massive delicious tracks of land at stake.

Yes. But this was allways the case with interreligious marriages. Mostly the woman was the one who converted at the marriage. Sadly... this isn't represented ingame... :/

 

[Ruwaard]

Not having alliances with close kin is going to make the pre-1066 starts a lot more interesting. Especially the Viking age might see some fun times with the Karlings not backing each other up all of the time. It might become quite a bit easier to start a Karling blob wipe-out game now... Looking forward to that!

OTOH stabbing your own kin in the back definitely should make own less popular, of course that doesn't mean it should be possible. As for the Carolingian example, that may and IMHO should depend on which member of the dynasty you're attacking, some will be more popular than others; not to mention infighting, most famously the alliance between Louis 'the German'* and Charles the Bald against their elder brother Lothar. It can even become and maybe should become less likely, when the degree of kinship becomes more distant (it may still be a positive factor, amongst a number of factors used to decide).

(*= anachronistic)

@Aardvark Bellay: there's also the marriage to settle a conflict or dispute or for other strategic reasons.

 

[Mixxer5]

Now You should add a state opinion as a variable. It wouldn't refer to any specific characters (although should be modified by average vassal opinion about given state), Instead, it'd increase or decrease chance of political action success. Making an alliance with state that is universally hated among subjects, would cause quite a stir (in certain cases even lead to rebellion). Right now states are nothing more than a bunch of titles being over other titles. Sure, feudalism could be- in extreme cases- very decentralized, but local rulers always had big interest in having protection from state and cooperating with each other.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

@Aardvark Bellay: there's also the marriage to settle a conflict or dispute or for other strategic reasons.

Err...sure, but...*slightly confused*....

What do you refer to or which post ?

 

[Ruwaard]

Err...sure, but...*slightly confused*....

What do you refer to or which post ?

Post #125. Sometimes political marriages were arranged due to a lack or at least not so warm friendship.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

Post #125. Sometimes political marriages were arranged due to a lack or at least not so warm friendship.

I was talking about game mechanics, not real life/history, ya know.
Now we had a misunderstanding.
.
.
.
.

...how is Ajax doing ?



Oops, slightly offtopic.

...(later)....what the.. , they are first in the table before Eindhoven ? Scandalous !

 

[Talq]

Yes. But this was allways the case with interreligious marriages. Mostly the woman was the one who converted at the marriage. Sadly... this isn't represented ingame... :/

... but not always.

There is, of course, a convert religion action.

 

[Atlantians]

And yet there were several byzantine emperors who married heathens.
Not to mention that roman noble woman who amrried atilla.

You and the other fellow have completely missed my point.

I did not say it didn't happen.

I did not say not to allow it.

I said there should be game-play consequences such as a loss in opinion with the characters same-faith family, religious heads, and a piety drop.

Just like other actions have such consequences.

 

[Atlantians]

The ability of some posters in these forums to blatantly ignore what you are actually saying and argue against something you are not remotely implying is astounding.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

The ability of some posters in these forums to blatantly ignore what you are actually saying and argue against something you are not remotely implying is astounding.

Only that nobody missed your point.

A piety drop though is new and....hmm...don't know. No opinion on that suggestion.

 

[Atlantians]

Only that nobody missed your point.

A piety drop though is new and....hmm...don't know. No opinion on that suggestion.

Several people missed my point entirely, actually.


Me: Certain faiths disapproved of marrying outside the faith; characters of those faiths should receive opinion penalties/piety loss when they marry outside their faith.

Other poster: But Christians married outside the faith in history!

Me: I didn't say that didn't happen, I said that it was not approved of by others.

Other poster: But Christians married outside the faith in history!

Me: Yes, I know, and my point is that when that happens in game there should be reasonable consequences.

Other poster: But that ignores that there were Byzantine Emperors who married heathens!

Me: Are you even reading what I am saying?

 

[RhaegarTelcontarTargaryen]

I am a bit late, but I would love to add myself to the army of people who would still think that alliances between friends should be possible, without any marriage required. Or at least an option to join war, and much more likely to happen, for AI, as well as AI to call in human players.

Apart from that, great update, great news.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

Several people missed my point entirely, actually.
Me: Certain faiths disapproved of marrying outside the faith; characters of those faiths should receive opinion penalties/piety loss when they marry outside their faith.

Other poster: But Christians married outside the faith in history!
...........

Err....i think that everyone also ment to imply, if not even wrote, but i'm not going to reread all the conversation, that marrying a heathen didn't
cause serious opinion maluses so to speak, as long as they converted, which they did. No matter which faith.
Neither towards the ruler nor the spouse.

No opinion maluses at least that would have the consequences as they might have ingame and they will already, in most cases, get the wrong culture malus.
A piety malus is another matter. Though i think that would be covered by culture malus regarding the foreign spouse.
A piety malus for the ruler or worse relation with the religious head ? Hmm...nah. Your links were irrelevant and had nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Either way, i think we simply dont share your opinion on the issue.

 

[Atlantians]

Err....i think that everyone also ment to imply, if not even wrote, but i'm not going to reread all the conversation, that marrying a heathen didn't cause serious opinion maluses so to speak, as long as they converted, which they did. No matter which faith.
Neither towards the ruler nor the spouse.

Not all interfaith marriages involve the spouse converting. That is entirely ahistorical.

An opinion malus for wrong-faith marriages would tick down over time.

Converting might remove them instantly, I would be ok with that, but it wouldn't be necessary.

No opinion maluses at least that would have the consequences as they might have ingame and they will already, in most cases, get the wrong culture malus.
A piety malus is another matter. Though i think that would be covered by culture malus regarding the foreign spouse.
A piety malus for the ruler or worse relation with the religious head ? Hmm...nah.

Either way, i think we simply dont share your opinion on the issue.

Foreign spouses were extremely common historically, and were the whole point of many royal marriages.

Advocating for a wrong culture spouse malus instead of a wrong religion spouse malus is inconsistent and incoherent.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

Foreign spouses were extremely common historically, and were the whole point of many royal marriages.

Advocating for a wrong culture spouse malus instead of a wrong religion spouse malus is inconsistent and incoherent.

I'm not advocating it. They already get it.
Anyway, good night. Tired.
Cheers