Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries
Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Crusader Kings II 69946 Bug Reports 19719 User Modifications 10605 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6374 After Action Reports
Previous dev diary Next dev diary
Show only dev responses

Dev Diary 11: Stopping The Snowball

Hey! So today we will talk about some mechanics we’ve added to make other rulers react to what happens in the world. We want to slow down the snowball and prolong the time it takes to conquer the world, so it shouldn’t be as easy to do. Snowballs are pretty evil, just like medieval rulers.

Just as with the shattered retreat mechanic we took inspiration from Europa Universalis 4 in our decision to add Coalitions. Our coalitions however are based on an Infamy value instead of Aggressive Expansion. You might recognize the name Infamy from our old games, but even though it shares the name it will work quite differently.

Infamy is limited to be within the range of 0 to 100% and will slowly decay over time based on how strong your max military potential is. When you hit 25% infamy, coalitions will be unlocked and AIs will start joining them based on how threatened they feel.Your infamy will serve as a hint on how aggressive and dangerous other rulers think your realm is. You gain infamy primarily by conquering land through war or by inheriting a fair maidens huge tracts of land.

The amount of Infamy you gain is based on the action you do, how much land you take and how large your realm already is. So for instance the Kaiser of the HRE declaring a war for Flanders and taking it is going to make the neighbours more worried than if Pomerania manages to take Mecklenburg.
capture(56).png


Coalitions themselves are mostly defensive in Crusader Kings, if any member gets attacked by the target of the coalition they will automatically be called into the war. If a member starts a war against the target they only get a normal call to arms which they can choose to decline.

For an AI to join a coalition they will consider the relative strength between the target and themselves, how threatened they think they are and how much infamy the target has accrued. You can view the current coalition someone has against them by the diplomacy field on the character screen.

capture(54).png


But it might not be the easiest way to view it so we also added a mapmode to more easily visualize Coalitions. A nation which turns up white is the nation you have currently selected, blue will be targetable for coalitions, yellow means they have a coalition against them and Red means they are members of the coalition against the currently selected one.

capture(55).jpg
 
  • 310
  • 230
  • 40
Reactions:
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
King Dave said:
Role play & Map painter?
Click to expand...
Can we add in a "simulation mode" where I can actually "explore one of the defining periods in world history" and see why Paradox are "the masters of Grand Strategy"? It seems that fell by the wayside a long time ago if the only strategic challenge they can come up with for "stopping the snowball" is a Red Light, Green Light minigame.
 
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
GC13 said:
Can we add in a "simulation mode" where I can actually "explore one of the defining periods in world history" and see why Paradox are "the masters of Grand Strategy"? It seems that fell by the wayside a long time ago if the only strategic challenge they can come up with for "stopping the snowball" is a Red Light, Green Light minigame.
Click to expand...
The sad thing is that they're genuinely still the masters of GS, because the competition is just much worse.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
VoodooEconomist said:
You should find the Sunset Invasion posts, that was entertaining!
Click to expand...

I think has become a bigger controversy, because with SI everyone knew you could just turn it off or not buy it without that affecting the rest of the game, so people were only cross at Paradox for wasting dev resources. If you turn this next DLC off, you miss some otherwise good features, so you're stuck with it.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Personally, I'm going to wait until the next update is rolled out before I make any judgement as to whether the system will be good or bad. If it's good, it'll make the game more fun. If it's bad, I'll look around for a mod to remove it (either way, someone is going to make a mod to get rid of infamy).
 
CrabHelmet said:
I think has become a bigger controversy, because with SI everyone knew you could just turn it off or not buy it without that affecting the rest of the game, so people were only cross at Paradox for wasting dev resources. If you turn this next DLC off, you miss some otherwise good features, so you're stuck with it.
Click to expand...

Actually, the problem here is that turning off the next DLC will not do anything, since infamy is part of the free patch (base game).
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
King Dave said:
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.
Click to expand...
They have people with a lot of expertise providing research in various forms and means. I can attest to at least one University level professor from personal experience.

Snarky only works when you are knowledgeable about what you are being "funny" about.

Konair0s said:
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.
Click to expand...

As far as you, no, you don't get it or there would be no ignorant postings like the one I replied to and you inserted yourself into. This is not about me.. it is squarely about idiots, and ignoramus ... is this plain enough for you?
 
  • 9
  • 5
Reactions:
Terh Rumnatarn said:
I don't write a lot on these forums, but for this issue I will make an exception.
You have to imagine that in the time of Charlemagne "Emperors" had to walk the land to secure their dominion (capitals were some kind of retirement plans for old farts). Now you come with the premise that they had means to communicate with Arabs or other African pop. etc. (through embassies I presume and walkie-talkies) across the sea to prevent Byzantium expending? What's next, "A.I. entered 'big daddy' as command because you have x provinces"? It doesn't matter that it's from another age, have fun with tanks (and the supporters+- some undercover devs will just get on board, because it's fun, and CK 2 is no historical simulator, and they are bored, and look at this new world which no one uses, and random nations which is used only by devs etc).
Please don't reproduce mechanics just because it's balancing the game. Make them simulate the world and time we play in.
Thx Paradox for delivering great games. Please let CK 2 remain a somewhat historical (sope opera) simulator.
Even though some mechanics make sense revamping, other are just lazy solutions. You are great, because you are innovative and intelligent as a dev team. That's why i spend my precious free time playing your games (those over 1000 hours could of been useful developing a cure for cancer, or helping others... DAMN you Paradox, you just killed thousands).
Click to expand...

This is a bit naive. You know it actually happened historically right? Throughout all of history. They did not call them "coalitions" but it happened. I am really tired of reading people say it didn't happen or it isn't feasible. It is.

The question here, which we won't know the answer to until release, is how well they are controlling the forming of coalitions in the code (or if it is moddable). This is really the key.
 
  • 9
  • 4
Reactions:
So if i were for instance to take Muslim lands as a Christian ruler, will infamy only apply to the nearby Islamic nations or will fellow Christians also feel threatened?
 
SpartanV15 said:
So if i were for instance to take Muslim lands as a Christian ruler, will infamy only apply to the nearby Islamic nations or will fellow Christians also feel threatened?
Click to expand...

All signs point to Infamy being a global value.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
SpartanV15 said:
So if i were for instance to take Muslim lands as a Christian ruler, will infamy only apply to the nearby Islamic nations or will fellow Christians also feel threatened?
Click to expand...

This is the biggest thing I worry about. They need to be really cautious with this particular aspect.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
mjohnson85 said:
This is a bit naive. You know it actually happened historically right? Throughout all of history. They did not call them "coalitions" but it happened. I am really tired of reading people say it didn't happen or it isn't feasible. It is.

The question here, which we won't know the answer to until release, is how well they are controlling the forming of coalitions in the code (or if it is moddable). This is really the key.
Click to expand...
Let's look at the Seljuk example given in the first post. Has any coalition like that ever happened against the Seljuks? I looked it up and couldn't find one, even though the Seljuks took more territory than this in real life. The Crusades don't count, because they're obviously a very different situation and mechanic.

Coalitions in real life existed to some extent, but I'm willing to bet that it's going to be completely nonsensical and overdone in CK2.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
mjohnson85 said:
This is the biggest thing I worry about. They need to be really cautious with this particular aspect.
Click to expand...

Why? Leon did expand into Muslim lands. What happened? Burgos/Castille startet to ally with Muslim nations to stop the expansions.

And also the other way arround. Muslim Egypt often try to ally with the Crusaders to act against Muslim Persia.

Ilyasviel said:
Let's look at the Seljuk example given in the first post. Has any coalition like that ever happened against the Seljuks? I looked it up and couldn't find one, even though the Seljuks took more territory than this in real life. The Crusades don't count, because they're obviously a very different situation and mechanic.
Click to expand...

Egypt did try to ally with the Crusaders against the Seljuks ;)
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
Silversweeeper said:
All signs point to Infamy being a global value.
Click to expand...

Im not too fond of this system particularly for that reason. Another example , Me playing Castile and suddenly Andalusia breaks up into small Taifas. Naturally id seize this opportunity to initiate the Reconquista and take what i can. With France breathing down my neck and friendly Christian Iberian kingdoms to my side id assume with the infamy from conquering these lands would have them form against me . I dont feel that when fighting another nation that follows another religion that you should acquire infamy from those of the same faith.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Thure said:
Why? Leon did expand into Muslim lands. What happened? Burgos/Castille startet to ally with Muslim nations to stop the expansions.

And also the other way arround. Muslim Egypt often try to ally with the Crusaders to act against Muslim Persia.



Egypt did try to ally with the Crusaders against the Seljuks ;)
Click to expand...

What I'm referring to is the weight of infamy gain in religious wars (not cross religious coalitions). IMO at least I think it needs a different ratio than straight out conquest. The problem is that infamy is global. So the religion who just got religious CB'd would actually be MORE worried, whereas the same religion rulers of the initial attacker might be slightly worried. Its really....muddled.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
(through embassies I presume and walkie-talkies)
Click to expand...
Through letters, couriers, and yes, embassies. The old Roman road network did not instantly disappear, and large states maintained systems not unlike the pony express, allowing relatively fast communication within the state.
 
SpartanV15 said:
Im not too fond of this system particularly for that reason. Another example , Me playing Castile and suddenly Andalusia breaks up into small Taifas. Naturally id seize this opportunity to initiate the Reconquista and take what i can. With France breathing down my neck and friendly Christian Iberian kingdoms to my side id assume with the infamy from conquering these lands would have them form against me . I dont feel that when fighting another nation that follows another religion that you should acquire infamy from those of the same faith.
Click to expand...

That's my concern as well. If that's how the system works, I'm not buying the DLC (because I'll probably stop playing the game).
 
  • 3
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back