Dev Diary 11: Stopping The Snowball

[Audoucet]

Most mechanics in Paradox games add complexity rather than meaningful difficulty. Infamy may not be an ideal solution. But it does solve a recurring problem with the game: the bigger you are, the faster you grow.

As I said, it will not stop the hardcore players, they will just roll over the coalitions. And for everybody else, it will just slow the game.

 

[King Dave]

We can thank the map painters for this. They use ever exploit in the game to gain an advantage over the ai and justify it by saying "Well it's in the game so I should be able to use it." Then, when the poor old ai just isn't upto coping with their uber gaming, they complain that the game is too easy.
Now Paradox have caved in and given them another feature designed to spin their games out a little longer, well at least until they find a way to circumvent it. Unfortunately, the rest of us who are happy to find our own ways to make the game more difficult or longer are also lumbered with this feature, whether we like it or not.
I've held off buying the last two DLC and been glad I did. This new DLC sounds more controversial and potentially problematic than either of those two, so once more I'll be waiting until the dust settles before putting my hand in my pocket or not as the case may be.

 

[TheStrangerOrg]

lol the ai is just really poor even if you don't ubergame... yesterday i quit a game in frustration because the AI is completely uncapable of waging war. The pope declared a crusade, first on a revolt title all the time. (Then i modded the files to make sure that he wouldnt) and when the crusade finally started, the entire force of crusaders was about 45k men, 30k by the AI and I could bring about 15k to the field. by the time i reached the holy land from across the world, the pope already lost his 8 k stack, and the rest of the crusaders started trickling in their army and were defeated in 3k-5k stacks by a huge 25k fatimid doomstack that was waiting for them on the shore... it was just completely terrible. no way to win that crusade unless i can bring 30k to the field. I could do 25 with mercs at most, and i would be bankrupt before they'd reach the holy land.

and because the ck2 battle system is such that if you have 2k more men, you might as well have 1 million more, you wont really lose a battle, or take casualties, ofcourse i was steamrolled with my 15k vs 25k, even though realistically, it wouldve been possible to win such a battle in reality (equally i couldve been smashed, as happened ofcourse)

the ai is also completely incapable of marrying properly, but if we can believe the DD they will now do better at that. so i hope we will no longer see christian kings marry lowborn muslim nubiles, or queens marry themselves non-matrilineally do some petty noble courtier or some random baron's son...

 

[Konair0s]

I think you'd be surprised to find out how research is handled. Perhaps there will be a DD which will go into details (no doubt one which people would criticize) so that ignorance would no longer be an excuse to criticize.

Yes yes, you worked with PDX as a tester for a while or something, we get it. You know it doesn't really add much when you write something obscure in "enlightened mystic insider" style.

 

[King Dave]

lol the ai is just really poor even if you don't ubergame................

I agree, the ai is poor to start off with, so ubergaming is going to completly leave it for dead. I know this isn't what a lot guys here will want to hear but the way to make the game more challenging is not to get Paradox to bring in more and more restriction on what the game will allow us to do, but rather to use self imposed rules or different ways of playing that make the game more difficult for ourselves.
The ai and the game, any game for that matter, will never be able to outwit human ingenuity. We may find them challenging for a while when they are new to us but eventually we work out how to beat them and either come to a forum to moan about them being too easy, move on to pastures new or occasionally put aside thoughts of high scores and world domination in favour of enjoyment. This later option is how I now play games and I'm having more fun with them now than ever.
With CK2 I'm playing games where when I get too powerful I'll reload as some no mark, sometimes in the empire I've just built. Doing so means I'm never going to unrealistically conquer the world or build a massive score but who cares about that? Anyone with half a brain could do that against computer ai. The pluses are I get to experience an alternate history play out over the entire time frame of the game and it's not boring because I'm not spending a large part of the game on an inevitable march to victory.

 

[King Dave]

Yes yes, you worked with PDX as a tester for a while or something, we get it. You know it doesn't really add much when you write something obscure in "enlightened mystic insider" style.

He said we would be "surprised" by how they do historical research. Well I would be surprised if it didn't involve some kind of reading. Maybe they do it through a medium who talks directly to historical figures.

 

[TheStrangerOrg]

I agree, the ai is poor to start off with, so ubergaming is going to completly leave it for dead. I know this isn't what a lot guys here will want to hear but the way to make the game more challenging is not to get Paradox to bring in more and more restriction on what the game will allow us to do, but rather to use self imposed rules or different ways of playing that make the game more difficult for ourselves.
The ai and the game, any game for that matter, will never be able to outwit human ingenuity. We may find them challenging for a while when they are new to us but eventually we work out how to beat them and either come to a forum to moan about them being too easy, move on to pastures new or occasionally put aside thoughts of high scores and world domination in favour of enjoyment. This later option is how I now play games and I'm having more fun with them now than ever.
With CK2 I'm playing games where when I get too powerful I'll reload as some no mark, sometimes in the empire I've just built. Doing so means I'm never going to unrealistically conquer the world or build a massive score but who cares about that? Anyone with half a brain could do that against computer ai. The pluses are I get to experience an alternate history play out over the entire time frame of the game and it's not boring because I'm not spending a large part of the game on an inevitable march to victory.

(sadly) you cant reload in ironman. and even in some of the hardest starts its easy to go from count to emperor in ironman without ubergaming, but by just seizing oppurtunity such as attacking your enemy when he is weakened by revolts

 

[raven63]

I agree, the ai is poor to start off with, so ubergaming is going to completly leave it for dead. I know this isn't what a lot guys here will want to hear but the way to make the game more challenging is not to get Paradox to bring in more and more restriction on what the game will allow us to do, but rather to use self imposed rules or different ways of playing that make the game more difficult for ourselves.
The ai and the game, any game for that matter, will never be able to outwit human ingenuity. We may find them challenging for a while when they are new to us but eventually we work out how to beat them and either come to a forum to moan about them being too easy, move on to pastures new or occasionally put aside thoughts of high scores and world domination in favour of enjoyment. This later option is how I now play games and I'm having more fun with them now than ever.
With CK2 I'm playing games where when I get too powerful I'll reload as some no mark, sometimes in the empire I've just built. Doing so means I'm never going to unrealistically conquer the world or build a massive score but who cares about that? Anyone with half a brain could do that against computer ai. The pluses are I get to experience an alternate history play out over the entire time frame of the game and it's not boring because I'm not spending a large part of the game on an inevitable march to victory.

I agree. For the AI in a strategy game to offer a long-lasting challenge to human players, we need to wait at least a few decades as the technology isn't there yet. I would fantasize about Paradox becoming a world leader in strategy game AI development, but that's not too realistic since academic research in that field is pretty intense and expensive.

Until the day comes when strategy game AI is capable of coping with humans, I think the way to go for game makers is to develop a myriad of complications which the human player need to navigate, but the AI doesn't (or is simply pretty good at). These complications need to be fun and challenging. To navigate them, players should have to use logic. That's how the game can challenging and rewarding at the same time.

 

[King Dave]

(sadly) you cant reload in ironman. and even in some of the hardest starts its easy to go from count to emperor in ironman without ubergaming, but by just seizing oppurtunity such as attacking your enemy when he is weakened by revolts

Why bother with ironman? It's just a pile of boxes to tick and a restraint for those with no willpower to stop themselves reloading. The achivements you can do anyway, albeit without the box ticking and I find the best (and more enjoyable) way of stopping myself reloading is when such temptation arises I walk away from the game, get myself a beer and sit down and think about it. After a minute I'm back at the game, accepting of what misfortune has befallen me and planning my way back.

 

[TheStrangerOrg]

(not that it should matter to anyone why i play ironman, but i play it because it makes my game less likely to crash somehow)

not everyone plays like you do. and its really easy to just say go roleplay your own game, when major aspects of the game which should support rolelpaying are broken. otherwise they might as well just give you a map, and say, here, imagine your dynasty from 800 ad till 1400 ad. thats 40$ and dont forget to have fun!

 

[Michaeldsuarez]

Just to get the facts out: cross-religion coalitions did exist during CK2's time frame, although they were usually against existential threats such as the Mongols (Battle of the Kalka River).

Okay, now for my complaint / suggestion: I think that adopting EU 4's manpower feature would be a better solution than adopting the coalition feature. The solution to the problem should be to make wars more costly, not to increase the likelihood of war. Wars being costly is the reason diplomacy exists. One of the things I like about EU 4 is that war is costly: I have to worry about my manpower depleting, trade being disrupted, and inflation. In CK2, I don't have worry about the costs of war. Levies replenish incredibly fast, and money to easy to generate once you possess a kingdom.

 

[legoboss9]

Nice

 

[raven63]

Just to get the facts out: cross-religion coalitions did exist during CK2's time frame, although they were usually against existential threats such as the Mongols (Battle of the Kalka River) and Timur (Battle of Ankara).

Okay, now for my complaint / suggestion: I think that adopting EU 4's manpower feature would be a better solution than adopting the coalition feature. The solution to the problem should be to make wars more costly, not to increase the likelihood of war. Wars being costly is the reason diplomacy exists. One of the things I like about EU 4 is that war is costly: I have to worry about my manpower depleting, trade being disrupted, and inflation. In CK2, I don't have worry about the costs of war. Levies replenish incredibly fast, and money to easy to generate once you possess a kingdom.

Good point imo. Manpower is definitely something ck2 lack. Cross-religion coalitions happening in some instances and them being the diplomatic norm are different beasts though.

The more I read this thread, the more I feel inclined to just wait and see what the devs have in store for us (not that I actually have any other option..). Remember that this new feature is to be complemented by a whole new expansion, so who knows what other new features or mechanics it will be part of.

 

[Konair0s]

Just to get the facts out: cross-religion coalitions did exist during CK2's time frame, although they were usually against existential threats such as the Mongols (Battle of the Kalka River).

Russians made alliances with steppe people before that, also some joint campaigns. Plus it wasn't out of the blue, Cumans ("Polovtsy" how they are called here) had some marriage connections to Russians. It looks more like traditional "call to arms". Or possibly "call to arms extended".

It would be possible if PDX finally has lifted the restriction on inter-religious marriages.

 

[Steel_atlas]

Coalitions sound good, but Im not sure how they will play out in reality. Nomads, Ummayyads and Abbablob seems lke they will be too strong even for big coalitions especially if the Allies behave like they do now.

The HRE and ERE might be contaible with it.

 

[Ilyasviel]

Just to get the facts out: cross-religion coalitions did exist during CK2's time frame, although they were usually against existential threats such as the Mongols (Battle of the Kalka River).

Okay, now for my complaint / suggestion: I think that adopting EU 4's manpower feature would be a better solution than adopting the coalition feature. The solution to the problem should be to make wars more costly, not to increase the likelihood of war. Wars being costly is the reason diplomacy exists. One of the things I like about EU 4 is that war is costly: I have to worry about my manpower depleting, trade being disrupted, and inflation. In CK2, I don't have worry about the costs of war. Levies replenish incredibly fast, and money to easy to generate once you possess a kingdom.

I agree that war should be more costly, but I'm completely against adopting EU4's manpower system. The CK2 one is better, because it's holding-based, which fits the feudal system more. Also, I like how the levy size can vary so much depending on so many factors, like the stats of your character.

 

[Khanwulf]

This is a very interesting development, this infamy thing. I say so with the observation that it could, in effect, model the kind of more developed interaction between cross-culture and religion leaders that would go a long way to making CK2 more realistic in realpolitik.

So I'll just jump to follow-up:

0. I'm assuming that infamy is gained on conquering territory only. It is not (yet!) obtained by attempting assassinations, declaring war, and the like (things that have a negative opinion modifier anyway). It is purely a factor of "so-and-so has more pointy sticks than before, oh nos!"

1. If your neighbor really likes you, or if he is an ally otherwise, will they tend not to join a coalition against you just because you crossed 25%? How does the opinion score relate to infamy to determine at what point someone joins the coalition?

2. If Charlemagne conquers Iberia for 300% infamy, yes that would alarm his Christian neighbors due to his "increased power", but might they not instead of joining the Mussel-man in coalition against his further expansion in... any direction... instead seek to mollify the conquering king with gifts and bribes and the like, at least until the next aggressive move against Christendom? Screw those heathen Moors, after all?

--Basically I can see the benefits of coalitions cutting across religious and cultural divides in the face of an expansionary power, but at the same time it is a bit unrealistic to see mortal enemies conspiring across great distances in defensive alliances.

--At the same time, if we consider coalitions to be a convergence of opportunistic influences, it just makes them a convenient way of signaling "attack while Bad-Boy is distracted!" In a CB-based aggression system something like this is needed.

3. What happens to coalition membership when a member (leader) dies? Is his heir automatically invited to the coalition or does it need to wait for the next instance of aggression to trigger that? If we make our neighbor like us alot, will they drop out of coalition against us?


Groogy, might you comment on a few things peripheral to this system:

A. If we make territory independent it reduces infamy. Could you pretty-please give us a way to grant land to any ruler, not just members of our court?

B. Could you please give us a way to demand prisoners from our vassals?

Thanks,

--Khanwulf

 

[Audoucet]

A. If we make territory independent it reduces infamy. Could you pretty-please give us a way to grant land to any ruler, not just members of our court?

And a way to negotiate independence. I would appreciate it to be able to give his independence to my vassal king of Scotland, in exchange of his renunciation of his Duchy of Cordoba.

(Yes, it happens a lot to me, because I mostly play Pagans)

 

[The Great Bear]

If I'm playing a Castile game and the Umayyads are going crazy then I don't see what is so unrealistic about me fighting along with some other Muslims to try and halt their expansions.
Actually I think Charlemagne himself was 'allied' with a great Islamic Empire in order to better protect himself against another expanding Islamic power.

 

[Finnway]

As I said, it will not stop the hardcore players, they will just roll over the coalitions. And for everybody else, it will just slow the game.

What makes you think it won't slow the game down for Hardcore players?