CK2 Dev Diary #52: Rhythm is a Lancer

[Balesir]

Exactly this. Fabricated claims are fundamentally important for player freedom and enjoyment.

IF they want to play a conquest game, sure. I don't get the impression they are going away, though.

 

[pacja]

Greetings all!
On a related note, the time it takes to siege down Holdings is also being tweaked, to make it quicker overall but also making the Fort Level matter more.

Would it be doable to give more siege-related choices to the defending liege? Like mutually excluding buildings in the castle that will either provide a larger levy or improve fortress ability to withstand long sieges (granaries, cisterns, things like this), a realm law that will switch taxes from gold to "in kind" tithes that (in rpg terms) will be stored in the fortress and will give a bonus to resist sieges. This of course could be balanced by shortening the standard siege time, so the player would have to choice between a more powerful army and greater income versus more resilient strongholds.

On the attacker side, could we have HYW's chevauchée style actions? In this way, an attacker could fight a turtled defender by scorching his/her lands, a policy that should cost prestige to the passive defender and destabilize his/her realm, since vassals and the people will think he's not a worth lord (causing negative opinion malus, reduced taxes and levies and so on). This should prevent players from just entrenching and watching paint dry till the attacker will sign a white peace.

Together, these features should compensate each other, but would provide players more options about waging wars.

 

[TheDungen]

Agreed. I've played EUIV...the coalitions in that game are ridiculous compared to CK2. I once took a HRE core province as Flanders while trying to form the Dutch Republic in EUIV. Bam. Ever single frigging country in Europe joined in an coalition against me and I got squashed in no time flat. I just could click through all those country pop ups of them joining the coalition fast enough.

Though that's not actually what I said I said the ck2 ones are better because they form more often. My guess is that you tried the eu4 ones back before they were nerfed basically out of existance. Under the current system AE per province caps at 40, the least required to create a coalition is 50.

 

[Balesir]

Would it be doable to give more siege-related choices to the defending liege? Like mutually excluding buildings in the castle that will either provide a larger levy or improve fortress ability to withstand long sieges (granaries, cisterns, things like this),

Or maybe an alternative would be to increase the cost of such improvements if the other exists, to cover the cost of building the extra granaries required for the bigger garrison? I don't see that they would be mutually exclusive, per se.

a realm law that will switch taxes from gold to "in kind" tithes that (in rpg terms) will be stored in the fortress and will give a bonus to resist sieges. This of course could be balanced by shortening the standard siege time, so the player would have to choice between a more powerful army and greater income versus more resilient strongholds.

Hmm, the game covers higher lords (Count/Earl and above) rather than enfeoffed knights, so I think the "tax" collected could be assumed to be only aids, reliefs, scutage and rents received in cash already, the "in kind" elements already being used to feed and clothe the lord's household and retinue (not to mention the sustenance of the feudal troops in the field). I'm not sure that a "switch" would add much, to be honest; keeping the granaries filled was a given except in times of famine or in cases of corruption or ineptitude. Events might be a better way to handle such things, actually. For example, an event for "bad harvest" giving options for "distribute from the granaries" (reducing the castle's resilience in a siege for several months) or "we must keep the castle victualled!" (giving an event "Famine" with resulting devastation/rebellion/lost manpower/etc.) might be good.

On the attacker side, could we have HYW's chevauchée style actions? In this way, an attacker could fight a turtled defender by scorching his/her lands, a policy that should cost prestige to the passive defender and destabilize his/her realm, since vassals and the people will think he's not a worth lord (causing negative opinion malus, reduced taxes and levies and so on). This should prevent players from just entrenching and watching paint dry till the attacker will sign a white peace.

I agree with this! A "raid" option while actually at war, looting anything not covered by a fortress but not investing any settlement in a siege, would be useful for all cultures and religions. As a way of waging war and (trying) to bring an enemy army out to fight this was absolutely endemic more-or-less throughout the medieval period. There is even an argument that the viking raids were part of a "holy war" that was effectively declared by Charlemagne when he attacked the pagans in Saxony and Jutland, but there's no real need to include that in the game, I don't think! Some "wars" were even waged basically to get loot with which to pay the warriors/soldiers!

 

[Djaevlenselv]

If you're going to implement an "Unjustified War" CB, I think in addition to the prestige/piety/gold cost and increased threat, it should also result in a temporal but cumulative general opinion penalty for every time a character uses it. That would be a good check to unrestrained use, I feel.

 

[pacja]

Or maybe an alternative would be to increase the cost of such improvements if the other exists, to cover the cost of building the extra granaries required for the bigger garrison? I don't see that they would be mutually exclusive, per se.

They should be mutually exclusive to provide a choice to the player and a way to differentiate between "manpower" castles and march/border fortresses more defense-oriented. Being able to build everything, just at an increased cost, will mean that everything will be built anyway, thus making it pointless on the long term.

For example, an event for "bad harvest" giving options for "distribute from the granaries" (reducing the castle's resilience in a siege for several months) or "we must keep the castle victualled!" (giving an event "Famine" with resulting devastation/rebellion/lost manpower/etc.) might be good.

But you can control a policy/slider, while you cannot control events. Again, imho waging war should be more a matter of planning and choosing.

I agree with this! A "raid" option while actually at war, looting anything not covered by a fortress but not investing any settlement in a siege, would be useful for all cultures and religions. As a way of waging war and (trying) to bring an enemy army out to fight this was absolutely endemic more-or-less throughout the medieval period.

Well, I'd like to keep them different from pagan raiding. Resources should be destroyed rather than looted. The point should be weakening the defender's credibility as a liege, rather than filling coffers. Otherwise this would undermine the pagans/norse gameplay making raids de facto available to everyone.

 

[james24eagle]

I really dislike this idea. Relative stability is one of the defining features of playing in a Christian realm. Restricted warfare isn't a drawback. It's a feature that makes the playing Christians interesting. Allowing unjustified wars will fundamentally change the flavor of the game, and not for the better.

I'm cautious about this non-CB. Could it at least be tied to the moral authority of the religion? If there is sufficiently high moral authority then the non-CB isn't available. Only when moral authority breaks down will the non-CB become available.

 

[Zsrai]

My one suggestion has absolutely nothing to do with wars and more about the UI of the Game Rule system, since a lot of people want different things to be added as game rules.

How about separating them into subject groups and making them collapsible, making it easier to navigate?

I.E. groups about general warfare, invasions, specific DLC, etc

There is a tab on the top left where you can change which section of Game Rules are displayed. Religion, Diplomacy, etc. Some rules are in multiple groups, and I'm not sure if it's intentional though.

 

[Balesir]

They should be mutually exclusive to provide a choice to the player and a way to differentiate between "manpower" castles and march/border fortresses more defense-oriented. Being able to build everything, just at an increased cost, will mean that everything will be built anyway, thus making it pointless on the long term.

But such a distinction did not really exist, that's my issue, here. If you don't want "every improvement to every castle eventually" then a better option might be to have many improvements reduce county tax. This would represent the additional "in kind" dues that would be needed to sustain the larger garrison and so on. Making rules of exclusivity where none existed just seems like restricting player options for no very good reason.

But you can control a policy/slider, while you cannot control events. Again, imho waging war should be more a matter of planning and choosing.

I'm all for the game reflecting the choices and options that faced medieval lords, be that with respect to war or anything else, but this particular aspect was never really an option for them. The "in kind" feudal dues owed to a lord were determined by tradition and negotiated changes over periods of years or decades - the options to change them in the short term were restricted to say the least. The real options were:

1) Giving away the grain from the granaries (etc.). No real point in doing this unless people are suffering for want of food (i.e. after a bad harvest). Doing so under such circumstances would gain credit with the church (add generosity trait, gain piety) and make the local fortification(s) less resilient until the next harvest.

2) Sell grain from the granaries (etc.). There would be little point in doing this in normal times, since grain prices were low enough that you would get little gain for a serious compromise of the fortress' resilience. During famine, doing this would get some cash and would otherwise be like the previous option, but without the piety gain or the generosity trait.

3) Keep the stores in the castle. This might actually involve a reduction in taxes, since a bad harvest would affect the lord's lands as well as everyone else's, meaning that keeping the granaries fully stocked would require the purchase of some grain. Maybe a further option could be to simply take what stores the lands produced, leaving the fortifications with a slightly reduced resilience - less than that of the first two options, but still a slight reduction.

Well, I'd like to keep them different from pagan raiding. Resources should be destroyed rather than looted. The point should be weakening the defender's credibility as a liege, rather than filling coffers. Otherwise this would undermine the pagans/norse gameplay making raids de facto available to everyone.

Pagan raiding is different in that it can be done outside of war. That in itself seems to me to be a major distinguishing feature, and can represent the almost constant raiding that went on in "tribal" societies both throughout and long before the medieval period. I could argue that it went on in feudal societies for much of the period, as well, but in as much as that could bring consequences with liege lords that could be regarded as a rather different situation.

 

[pacja]

But such a distinction did not really exist, that's my issue, here. If you don't want "every improvement to every castle eventually" then a better option might be to have many improvements reduce county tax. This would represent the additional "in kind" dues that would be needed to sustain the larger garrison and so on. Making rules of exclusivity where none existed just seems like restricting player options for no very good reason.

Neither existed a "slot" limit to build castles and churches/monasteries in a given zone, but it has been implemented for evident balance reasons.
When developers look at the siege mechanics to shorten them and make them more meaningful, imho every addition that could buff castles should come at the expenses of something else or it would work against their scope. I know that having to choose between a cistern or more archers it's not realistic, but – for me – in this case gameplay and balance come a long way before realism.

 

[Israel Hands]

Paradox getting rid of CBs - every day we move further away from God's light.

 

[Balesir]

Neither existed a "slot" limit to build castles and churches/monasteries in a given zone, but it has been implemented for evident balance reasons.

Actually, such "slots" did (and do) exist. To quote Mark Twain, "I'm investing in land. I hear they're not making it any more." A certain minimum amount of "usable" (with the technology of the time) land must be available for any settlement to be feasible.

When developers look at the siege mechanics to shorten them and make them more meaningful, imho every addition that could buff castles should come at the expenses of something else or it would work against their scope. I know that having to choose between a cistern or more archers it's not realistic, but – for me – in this case gameplay and balance come a long way before realism.

I hear what you are saying, from a game-balance point of view, but I have a simple philosophy for approaching such issues while still keeping the link to the (supposed) thematic background. Did the "balance issue" happen in real history? If yes, then maybe some sort of "meta-fix" is a good idea, but if no, then let's look at why the issue did not arise historically. Once you understand why it wasn't a problem historically, you will probably have some good ideas about how to stop it being a problem in the game. Note that you don't need to - in fact, it's seldom a good idea to - replicate all the processes of the historical situation. Youi just use the history to give inspiration about how to give the players the same (hard) choices that the real feudal lords (etc.) had to make.

 

[pacja]

Actually, such "slots" did (and do) exist. To quote Mark Twain, "I'm investing in land. I hear they're not making it any more." A certain minimum amount of "usable" (with the technology of the time) land must be available for any settlement to be feasible.

Slots are much more an abstraction of how developed a province was (thus even intrinsically accounting for commercial and political reasons of its prosperity) than an actual representation of the available land, unless you're going to tell me that the little Venice and its tiny minor islands (7 slots) have more usable land than the surrounding plains (4-5 slots each).
Anyway imho this is going OT, so I see no reason to debate it further. Hope devs will develop the siege mechanics in a way that will satisfy us both.

 

[Captain Frakas]

Ideally, I’d also like to replace the “Fabricate Claim” job with something else (maybe something to do with foreign embassies and arranging marriages, or something to do with Laws. Suggestions are welcome!) However, we might decide leave it there as it is (it does still have some uses.)

Rather than creating ex-nihilo a new claim, as it currently does, the fabricate claim mission might instead trigger events:
- transforming one ruler's weak claim on one of the titles related to the targeted province (baronies and county of the province, but also duchy, kingdom and empire the province is part of) into strong claims;
- transforming one ruler's non-inheritable claim on one of the titles related to the targeted province (baronies and county of the province, but also duchy, kingdom and empire the province is part of) into inheritable claims;
-do the same for ruler's courtiers' claims on one of the concerned titles;
-do the same for ruler's direct vassals' claims on one of the concerned titles;
-do the same for ruler's dynasty members' claims on one of the concerned title.
Fabricate claim mission might also set a modifier which make easier to invite a courtier who have a claim on one of the concerned title and, why not, allow to use the "unjustified war" cb over the targeted province's county in a limited game rule of the unjustified war cb.

 

[Drazer]

I am sure a lot of people have suggested this. Just create a "fabricate Claim" plot that becomes available once you order your Chancellor to fabricate claims.

If you have supporters in the target realm, it increases the chance to fabricate claims. That´s a lot better than simply create "no cb" casus belli. This game was about characters and politics, right?

 

[killerbee256]

If you're going to implement an "Unjustified War" CB, I think in addition to the prestige/piety/gold cost and increased threat, it should also result in a temporal but cumulative general opinion penalty for every time a character uses it. That would be a good check to unrestrained use, I feel.

So like Eu4 then?

 

[wam-mnebu]

The main problem with the Fabricate claims option, is that it has almost no connection to the rest of the game. It feel anachronistic as the Chancellor appears to be spreading propaganda like the 11th century equivalent of Tokyo Rose. The Game of Crusader Kings is all about personal disputes and as such, its war needs to show more personal involvement. You almost never see stories like Robert Guiscard against Nicophorus Botientis as you do in history

You can come up with as many pieces of paper as you want, but that's just the cover-up. People need to be willing to make you a ruler before you start.

Im going to suggest one two things.
1. Create a "Causus Belli" system for fabricating claims.
Rather than just declare war, you can assert claim over a region based on circumstantial events. (Similar to the justify war in victoria 2) This can include but not limited to:

• The Ruler is a tyrant/insane/incapable/imprisoned/young/female
• The Ruler is a heretic
• The Ruler is excommunicated
• Territory was held by a family member
• Territory was promised in marriage (betrothal was cancelled, woman died childless)
• Territory has population X (I am king of the French, this Frisian province is populated by people under my dominion)

These press claims will have a chance of success (some having higher chances than others). If you receive your justification, you will gain a strong or temporary weak claim, that can be lost on event. The fabricate claim option for the chancellor would then be similar to the spymaster, in that it boosts your speed/likelihood of claim fabrication for as long as he is in the province.

2. Turn Fabricate claim into an "build spy network" and a plot chain.
Let's think about the idea of Fabricate Claim: When a ruler wants to fabricate a claim, who does he need to convince?

• the people themselves: to some small extent
• The minor nobles of the region who would need to be convinced you would be a better liege than their current
• The other nobility and church officials who would have to be convinced to look the other way.

So when he sends a chancellor over, perhaps he is going around to local nobles asking them if they would consider changing lieges. That sounds like a plot to me.
When you send you character over to a province to Fabricate Claim, you have the option to create a plot as long as he is there.
You will then have an option to "Recognize my claim" in the intrigue window, and see all of the relevant plotters.
Reasons they might flat out join (or would be more easily convinced):

• They feel underappreciated (denied council position, won't press claim, no marriage ties with liege)
• feel mistreated by their liege (had title revoked, liege executed family member/friend, liege befriended rival)
• Different culture, religion, sex than liege
• They are scheming and deceitful by nature
• Prefer your legal system to liege's (liege has high levies, you have low levies)
• Your prestige (if honorable) or piety (if zealous) is higher than liege's
• Your Capitol is closer to him/her than liege is
• member of same secret society
• You are honorable, or liege is deceitful
• Friend or loved one is held hostage in your kingdom

but the others will agree for something in return, such things you can promise include.

• want a landed title (usually a specific one such as the county in which they are a part)
• want an honorary title/council position
• wants a title/position for a relative or friend (i will recognize you as my liege, but only if you make my son a commander)
• want gold
• wants your concubine
• want you to build something in their land (an improvement, a holding)
• want a favor
• want you to release one of their friends/loved ones from captivity, or at least put them under house arrest
• want you to nominate specific person for cardinal
• want you to press claim
• want you to promise never to perform action X (no executions, no torture, no blinding/castrating, no changing tax laws for burghers, etc)
• want you to convert to x
• want you to imprison/execute someone
• want you to arrange a marriage/education
• want to join that super secret clubhouse that doesnt exist, and you have no idea what he is talking about

This is where the real fun and scheming begins, when you talk to leaders and ask them to join some may flat out recognize you, but most want either something up front or a promise. You can then choose which promises to make, and which ones to keep. If they do join your realm you will have reputation boost that will turn negative the longer you have failed to keep your promise. If you don't keep enough promises you will lose the honest trait and gain the deceitful trait (thus making it easier for other rulers to plot this same way with you)

The plot will take no more than 2 years, and what you get out of the plot will then depend on your plot power and how close you are to the minimum threashold of pp by the end:

1. (lowest) chancellor imprisoned, you lose prestige and piety [ie you were laughed out]
2. (close, but below threshold) an outraged king gets a causus belli against you, gets justified imprisonment on conspirators [ie failed but actual conspiracy]
3. (at threshold) a weak claim on county
4. (over) a strong claim on county
5. (well over) province declares independence and calls you in as ally
6. (really high plot power) the province defects to your realm, the enemy liege can declare war to get it back but the problem is you are now fighting a defensive war, with all the benefits that entails (opponent gets infamy, you get levy boost, allies called in, lower warscore needs)

If you invite foreign rulers or your religious head in the plot, with their own favors expected. If they join it will significantly reduce your Infamy for a claim war, and if the religious head likes you enough, he might just give you are free invasion.

I think something like either of these two options would fix the fabrication problem because it would tie the action back in with your social interactions with the other rulers. It also would incentivize you to deal with your vassals/neighbors honorably, as being seen as a just ruler would help protect you from the scheming of others, while expanding tyrants lose their empire as quickly as they gained it.

 

[C Struggs]

How about fabricating claims work similar to ploting to revoke? Right click on target titles and plot to fabricate claim... Harder to get that plot to revoke and a chance of failure?

Perhaps a cost of gold, prestige, and piety. As well as 150% plot power, and only 50% chance success rate - upon failure the ruler can choose to imprison his subjects who were in the plot

 

[Viridianus]

Fabricate Claim is useful. Do I really have to remind that it can provide claims for duchies not only for counties? Making Chancellor work for your laws would be strange if (s)he doesn't support them him/herself - i.e. most of the time.
Unjustified War Casus Belli, teaser of the next expansion... you guys really are trying to remove the need for CB altogether. Why bother and not make the EUIV system when victorious guy can take more than (s)he fought for, then? That said, it is fun - but it really destroys the whole cuteness of Pagan Conquest.

 

[Silversweeeper]

I agree with what others have said about Fabricate Claim being possible to improve by adding more events and/or making it clearer that there's some progress going on, and that more character interaction could be included (the claimer, target, claimer's chancellor, target's spymaster, and relevant vassals of the target could all matter more), and as it can be used inside your own realm and can give you claims on provinces that otherwise would be out of range (e.g. claiming the Maldives from Oman so that you can use it as a forward base to wage holy wars into the southern part of the subcontinent) it is rather useful.

Unjustified wars seem a bit unnecessary to me, as inviting claimants or marrying for claims is an option (though the AI doesn't really do the former) and you tend to have a CB at all times vs. other religions (or at least vs. heretics and heathens), with the main exception being the Jain (who in my book really shouldn't be waging unjust wars because of the whole pacifism thing). It also seems like it will end up making certain blobs (especially the HRE and ERE) able to keep blobbing even more easily due to having a CB (as blobs tend to get prestige/gold and piety relatively easily), and I'm not sure it is something I'd trust the AI to use responsibly. However, given that I'd be able to disable it (unless it for some reason is impossible to mod) I'm less bothered by it than fabricating claims possibly being removed (especially if the AI logic for using that would end up removed).