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 69943 Bug Reports 19717 User Modifications 10604 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6374 After Action Reports
Previous dev diary Next dev diary
Show only dev responses

CK2 Dev Diary - The Rules of the Game

Well people, what do you know? I needed a break from the Stellaris crunch, so here’s an unscheduled dev diary! All the hubbub about Defensive Pacts and Shattered Retreats got me thinking about an old ambition I’ve had to improve the game set-up screens in order to allow players to customize their experience without having to resort to modding. The idea is inspired by games like Civilization and the Second Wave DLC for XCOM: Enemy Unknown, which allow players to change various advanced options and settings for a different experience in the game. I really like such options and typically make good use of them myself.

Now, of course there is such a thing as “the way the game was meant to be played”. That is, how the designers made the game and like to play it themselves. However, variety is the spice of life, and after 11 Crusader Kings II expansions things are not as clear-cut anymore. It’s actually pretty funny that I’ve been using a small personal mod for CK2 for awhile myself. There are some downsides to modding and using mods though:
  • It requires awareness that it’s possible, and where to find existing mods. The modding scene is a jungle.
  • It takes a modicum of extra effort and skill.
  • It might not feel quite legitimate (it can feel a bit like cheating) and you might not get any Achievements.
  • Mods typically do not have the same level of support as the base game. Many become fossilized or are otherwise problematic.
For these reasons especially, I think that adding a bunch of Paradox-approved, fully supported in-game rule variations is a good idea. Thus, when you start a new game, you are now presented with several interesting options. Most of them are simple flavor variations, but some are more fundamental and will disable Achievements in Ironman mode. Here’s the list of options we are currently showing in the new screen (still a work in progress though):
  • Sandbox vs Ironman
  • Shattered Retreats: On/Off
  • Defensive Pacts: On/Off
  • Gender Equality: Default/Historical/All/Players
  • Sunset Invasion: 13th Century/Random/Off
  • Mongol Invasion: Historical/Random/Off
  • Raiding: Historical/Unrestricted/None
  • Epidemics: Dynamic/Historical/Deadly
  • “Supernatural” Events: On/Off
  • Adventurers: Normal/Rare/None
  • Provincial Revolts: Normal/Rare/None
  • Regencies: On/Off
  • De Jure Drift: Default/Restricted/Off
  • Dynamic Kingdoms and Empires: On/Off
  • Diplomatic Range: On/Off
Red options disable Achievements.

Crusader Kings II - Rules 01.jpg


Our new rule system is itself fully moddable, so that modders can use the same system with pretty much any options they might want!

Crusader Kings II - Rules 02.jpg


I look forward to your thoughts and comments. Are there any rule variations you think we’ve missed, or that you would really like to see?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 578
  • 70
  • 3
Reactions:
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
The real issue is that disabling Defensive Pacts, a completely a-historical mechanic once religious pacts start banding together, disables achievements.
I want to play the game as historically accurate as possible while getting achievements. Why should I deal with Britain, The Pope, and the Abbasid Empire banding together when it would have NEVER happened?

Come to think of it, has anyone restored the Roman Imperial borders Acheivment without disabling Defensive Pacts? What about 'Go West, Young Mongol'?
At the very least, Threat needs to be changed a lot. I should not gain 5% Threat for claiming a de-jure county, and I shouldn't gain any threat for doing a holy war against the Muslims if I am a Christian, and I should not only lose 2.1% threat per year. That's 40 years before I get to normal threat levels if I'm at max.

At least give me a way to get rid of Threat without giving up my land or waiting obscene amounts of time.
 
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions:
If you're getting enough threat to cause Britain, the Pope, and the Abbasids to band together, then you're probably expanding in a completely a-historic fashion.

40 years isn't an obscene length of time to wait to get rid of threat levels either - that's basically one reasonably long-lived king.

As for the Roman Imperial Border achievement - have you considered kingdom claims, or maybe you getting claims on a neighbouring empire? You get a maximum of 50% threat for any one conquest.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
DreadLindwyrm said:
If you're getting enough threat to cause Britain, the Pope, and the Abbasids to band together, then you're probably expanding in a completely a-historic fashion.

40 years isn't an obscene length of time to wait to get rid of threat levels either - that's basically one reasonably long-lived king.

As for the Roman Imperial Border achievement - have you considered kingdom claims, or maybe you getting claims on a neighbouring empire? You get a maximum of 50% threat for any one conquest.
Click to expand...
It would probably be completely ahistorical expansion in the late medieval period, but not during the early medieval period. During the Charlemagne and Old Gods starts, rapidly expanding empires were fairly common, and there never was any major effort to shut them down by mixed religious groups unless there were cultural or regional ties. However, once you get to the era of the crusades and later medieval periods, the only rapidly growing empire or kingdom is the Mongol horde. A big part of this was a difference in development and population. During the early medieval period, much of Europe was tribes and nomadic people. Come the later periods, you have far more towns, cities, and almost all territory has now been claimed and "civilized" by some aristocrat or another that has regular contact with their neighbors.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
DreadLindwyrm said:
If you're getting enough threat to cause Britain, the Pope, and the Abbasids to band together, then you're probably expanding in a completely a-historic fashion.

40 years isn't an obscene length of time to wait to get rid of threat levels either - that's basically one reasonably long-lived king.

As for the Roman Imperial Border achievement - have you considered kingdom claims, or maybe you getting claims on a neighbouring empire? You get a maximum of 50% threat for any one conquest.
Click to expand...
I don't think the Muslims would have ever agreed to fight with the Christians to deal with a rapidly expanding empire in the 1200's. A maximum of 50% threat is still enough to get Abassid to band up with all the other Muslims, regardless of the fact some were of different sects and there was a heretic duchy. I don't think Christian rulers would care if there was a holy war against the Muslims.

The threat system needs to be removed so you have a separate threat meter for different religious groups (Christians, Muslims, etc.), and holy wars against one religion won't effect the other, de-jure claims will be capped at 2% threat, and you would lose at least .5% threat a month, a little less than 20 years to get rid of all your threat.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Polyester said:
I don't think the Muslims would have ever agreed to fight with the Christians to deal with a rapidly expanding empire in the 1200's. A maximum of 50% threat is still enough to get Abassid to band up with all the other Muslims, regardless of the fact some were of different sects and there was a heretic duchy. I don't think Christian rulers would care if there was a holy war against the Muslims.

The threat system needs to be removed so you have a separate threat meter for different religious groups (Christians, Muslims, etc.), and holy wars against one religion won't effect the other, de-jure claims will be capped at 2% threat, and you would lose at least .5% threat a month, a little less than 20 years to get rid of all your threat.
Click to expand...
I'm must be in some sort of time loop, or be suffering from dementia, because in my plane of existence they did just that.
I mean Ive been away from home and a computer for two months but I'm pretty sure this is the case.
I'll be back home soon so I guess I'll check then.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Defensive Pacts option for "Off" is not colored red. How would turning them (the Pacts) off disable achievements? Is the first post a lie? :eek:
 
RagingJaws said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Defensive Pacts option for "Off" is not colored red. How would turning them (the Pacts) off disable achievements? Is the first post a lie? :eek:
Click to expand...

Turning off DPs no longer disable achievements. @Darkrenown said so in another thread.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Oh my god. Turning off DF's wont turn off achievements?
PRAISE THE LORD!
 
  • 5
Reactions:
emperor12 said:
I wish I could turn off tribal government
Click to expand...

I wish I could turn off the new education system without losing Conclave's other features.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
SnowHawkKiller said:
I wish Paradox would just admit that the patch introduced alongside Conclave was a flop.
Click to expand...
What would be the point?
The mere fact that they put shattered retreat and defensive pacts as game rules which does not disable achievements, shows that they acknowledge that these features divide the community. This is sufficient to address these major concerns (even if the next step would be to improve defensive pacts but this is another story).
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back