Hi folks!

It's been a while, and I bet you're all wondering what we've been up to... Now, I can't reveal anything about the upcoming expansion quite yet, but, to tide you over, I thought I'd talk a bit about our other efforts. As you know, with every expansion comes a slew of free improvements and fixes. This time the focus has been on the latter; clearing up old bugs and issues (the change log is currently 620 lines long). Sometimes, that has required us to do some fairly major code rewrites. For example, we got rid of the rule that your 'government type' was determined by the type of your Capital Holding. (You know how it was game over when you got a Temple Holding as a capital, even for a tiny period? Well, now that kind of thing cannot happen anymore.) The government form is now something more persistent, and can have various rules that override those of your religion (whether you can raid, take concubines, etc.) To go along with this change, we also reworked the portrait frames to clearly distinguish between the various government forms.

In a similar vein, almost since release we've been plagued by bugs with characters leading multiple regiments and/or flanks, which could even cause crashes. Part of the problem was that the whole system was rather strange, so we decided to consolidate it in the following way: only the ruler, the Marshal and characters you have appointed Commander (a new title) can lead flanks or your own demesne and retinue regiments. Vassal levy regiments can still be led by your loyal vassals, but a character can never both lead a flank and a regiment. Mercenaries become more useful because they come with their own, good, leaders. Flank leaders apply their martial bonus to all regiments in the flank. Oh, and the combat system has been updated under the hood to correct various quirks that few people ever noticed, but which could sometimes cause never-ending battles and such.

In the process of implementing the new Commander title, we decided we might as well throw in a more convenient Honorary Title view. This is a perfect example of how what starts as a simple bug fix can turn into a whole new little quality-of-life feature. In this whole house cleaning process, we've also made some serious optimizations to the speed and memory usage of the game.

To finish off, here are some random snippets from the change log:

Spoiler

- Revised the pagan Subjugation CB so that it completely subjugates the target but no Holdings ever change hands
- Added "Stop Seduction" and "Stop Spying" decisions
- Failing to imprison vassals of vassals now correctly forces them to abdicate and flee the realm
- AI will not join wars against spouse
- When your heir has an equal tier title to yours, _your_ laws are now copied to his primary title on succession
- Character Finder: The 'Married' filter now excludes concubines too
- Character Finder: Councillors now correctly show up too!
- Fixed a problem with allies of vassals staying in the war when the vassals's liege joins the other side
- Fixed some cases of ANY_ALL in location tooltips
- Duels now potentially give the Kinslayer trait
- The Yazidi Sheikh and Hurufi Caliph now have access to the Muslim subjugation CB and the Jihad CB
- The Paulician faith can now properly mend the schism
- The Hashshashins can now resurface after being scattered
- Fixed some issues with 'excommunication' for Yazidis
- Sons with traits blocking them from inheritance no longer count as "unlanded sons", causing prestige loss
- AI: Toned down seduction by characters with many children
- AI: Toned down impregnation chances for seduction affairs with characters with many children
- Handsome and lustful men now also populate the cabins in the wild for the pleasures of people who find them attractive

That's all for now, but from now on, we plan to post a dev diary every Tuesday, even if it's a short one!

 

[DevilSauron]

Another good thing could be an option to say "yes or no" when you are asked to lead an army or receiving a commander title

Feudal vassals didn't really have choice. It was their obligation to lead an army. But I suppose AI will only appoint commanders with good martial score.

 

[matissvein]

Feudal vassals didn't really have choice. It was their obligation to lead an army. But I suppose AI will only appoint commanders with good martial score.

Well, you could refuse and receive an opinion penalty or negative modifier, that would decrease your prestige, or you could have a new mechanic, where you could "check" yourself or you sons (or daughters if it allows) for army leading.
If you "checked" this option, you:
Will honor commnader positions
Will instantly lead an army
Will not suffer prestige loss in times of war.

If you dont check:

You will be asked to lead an army
Will suffer prestige loss in times of war
Have option for liege to lead your sons instead of you.

 

[Thure]

Well, you could refuse and receive an opinion penalty or negative modifier, that would decrease your prestige, or you could have a new mechanic, where you could "check" yourself or you sons (or daughters if it allows) for army leading.
If you "checked" this option, you:
Will honor commnader positions
Will instantly lead an army
Will not suffer prestige loss in times of war.

If you dont check:

You will be asked to lead an army
Will suffer prestige loss in times of war
Have option for liege to lead your sons instead of you.

Opinion penalty or negative modifier? Decreased prestige? That would be easy... Henry the Lion did it. And he was a powerful vassal with two large duchies (ingame the Kingdoms of Bavaria and Saxony). Most likely more powerful as the Emperor. And he refuse to lead his army for the Emperor. The result? He was banished by the court. It was a legal banishment, because he didn't do his job and didn't even appeare at the court.

It's a hard crime to refuse something like this. As small Baron you would have no chance to survive if you refuse the kings authority.

 

[matissvein]

Ok, i just quickly read a wikipedia article about this and i can say this : wasnt Italy part of the empire?

 

[Thure]

Ok, i just quickly read a wikipedia article about this and i can say this : wasnt Italy part of the empire?

Yes, Northern Italy was. But the Northern Italian cities often revolted against the empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombard_League

 

[matissvein]

That explains it all then.

Any way, i still want the system i just tought up, but, as you said, with a lot more harsher penalties.

Also, in wikipedia i read that refused to brin in his army not to lead one, so your objection only influenced me to think harsher.

 

[Pyoro]

As I've often complaint about the state of the game in therms of bugs and glitches and the DLC/patch policy I feel it's my duty to point out that I fully approve of this current development ... so far

 

[Lord_P]

On the subject of Noble Republic, I would make it similar to the Merchant Republic but with the following differences:

- Names and titles are changed accordingly
- You can hold feudal titles, only the Republic leader can hold a city holding (the republic capital)
- You do not need to pay a bridal price (as you are a noble, unlike those dirty burghers in their cities)

 

[Voy]

On the subject of Noble Republic, I would make it similar to the Merchant Republic but with the following differences:

- Names and titles are changed accordingly
- You can hold feudal titles, only the Republic leader can hold a city holding (the republic capital)
- You do not need to pay a bridal price (as you are a noble, unlike those dirty burghers in their cities)

Referring to the Novgorod Republic? Would love to see that.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

I hope in time you add new/unique goverment forms for those countries which handled feudalism diffrently. Like england (who went with parliament instead),the HRE (who had it more than anyone else) and the byzantines (who wasn't feudal).

Partly because england needs something else to focus on besides eating scotland and ireland five hundred years early (and culture converting them).

The game already simulates feudalism, and the Byzantine's thema system is already represented through the viceroys and Imperial Administration law...

 

[sreckom92]

The game already simulates feudalism, and the Byzantine's thema system is already represented through the viceroys and Imperial Administration law...

I believe that Byzantines need Count-level Viceroys if we want to see a more proper themata system.
Also, feudalism is all nice and good, but it wasn't really the same in all parts of Europe. Like TheDungen said, it would be nice to have English Parliament.

 

[Zolotaya]

I believe that Byzantines need Count-level Viceroys if we want to see a more proper themata system.

From a game-play perspective, Count-level viceroys might be too micro-orientated.

 

[Carmilla]

From a game-play perspective, Count-level viceroys might be too micro-orientated.

Couldn't that be solved by simply making a version of the command that assigns provinces to random people that instead of making them feudal, simply makes them county-viceroys? Or by making it so that when any viceroyalty is granted, the AI will get the entire area belonging to the title and assign provinces only as viceroyalties whenever it goes over its limits?

 

[Dark Kain]

Happy to see this dev diary, can't wait to see more!

 

[TheDungen]

The game already simulates feudalism, and the Byzantine's thema system is already represented through the viceroys and Imperial Administration law...

Yeah, the game doesn't the the byzantines well. And it doesnt show the individual problems/solutions that the countries had with feudalism. Centralising power is a tad bit to easy I might add.
Also sucession needs to be more flexible, but I have discussed that in a suggestions thread.

 

[TheDungen]

The ideal solution would be to have a character that works like a major hold castles in the empire but that would make every role in the empire aside from emperor unplayable. Count viceroyalities might work, remeber as soon as you hand a duchy away until that vice duke dies he handles all the counts below him.

But i prefer the following three step solution:

• Free revocation of counties with imperial administration (as well as the vice royality titles).
• The ability to give viceroyalities to bishops and majors. It's not a noble title anyway, it's an administrative one.
• No more top holdings in a county, all holdings are baronies. The count hold a barony (the former top holding) as well as the county. This would mean that you could revoke a county wihtout revoking the 'top holding' barony. This change should be for everyone (though only imperial administration would allow free revokation of those countries).

These three changes should give you between 3-7 choices for a county every time it's my direct vassal. I think that's fair.

Oh and on an entirly diffrent note disable the AI's desire for the capital county/duchy if they hold a viceroy title.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Count level viceroys could be handled by having the ducal viceroys appoint them. I don't know if that's accurate, but it would work well from a gameplay perspective.

 

[Thure]

Even Charlemagne's empire had county level viceroys. counties were appointed at his era

 

[sreckom92]

From a game-play perspective, Count-level viceroys might be too micro-orientated.

I can understand that. It can be a nightmare to micro-manage even Duke-level Viceroys in a large realm, let alone Count-level ones.

Count level viceroys could be handled by having the ducal viceroys appoint them. I don't know if that's accurate, but it would work well from a gameplay perspective.

That would be nice.

 

[DevilSauron]

I think that byzantium should have special government with free revocation of counties and duchy and kingdom viceroyalties. But to counter that powerful vassals should get claim on the empire.