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

CK2 Dev Diary #52: Rhythm is a Lancer

Greetings all!

One of the great things about meeting our dear players - you folks - in real life (such as at PDXCON) is getting to hear such a lot of constructive, persuasive suggestions for improvements. For example, two things that were brought up last week were how annoying the “Fabricate Claim” job is, and the fact that Siege Assaults are rather overpowered when you have the numbers to just blitz down even heavily fortified Holdings. So, we decided to experiment with some changes…

First off, we’re going to deemphasize the “Fabricate Claim” job by giving all playable entities (including Christians) a form of “Unjustified War” Casus Belli that will allow you to seize a single County for an upfront cost of Piety, Prestige or Gold (depending on your Religion and Government Form.) 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.)

Next, we’re adding a Game Rule for Siege Assaults. The options are “Unlimited”, which works like before, “On”, which disables Assaults against Holdings at Fort Level 6 or above, and “Off”, which disables Assaults entirely. We’re currently playing around with these changes, so the exact rules for the “On” setting might change. 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.

CK2 - Siege Assault Rule.png


When we sat down and talked about the above tweaks, we also decided to (rather dramatically) increase the “Ticking Warscore” rate for the attackers in wars. This necessitated splitting some defines (CONTESTED_TITLE_OCCUPIED_WARSCORE_BONUS, etc) into defender and attacker versions.

We are still evaluating how well these changes turned out. It’s likely we’ll tweak some numbers (or even backtrack on something.) So far though, it appears quite promising, positively altering the “rhythm” of warfare!

CK2 - Defender Morale.png


That’s all for now, stay tuned for the CK2 livestream, starting at 16:00 CET today. Until next time!
 
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Doomdark said:
Next, we’re adding a Game Rule for Siege Assaults. The options are “Unlimited”, which works like before, “On”, which disables Assaults against Holdings at Fort Level 6 or above, and “Off”, which disables Assaults entirely. We’re currently playing around with these changes, so the exact rules for the “On” setting might change. 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.

View attachment 268105
Click to expand...

Maybe an idea could be to tie what Fortlevel you can assault to the Siege technology, making it a bit more important? Something like you can only assault fortifications of your Siege technology +1

As historical example of this could be how when the Mongols first attacked they absolutely devestated the plentiful wooden castles of Hungary and Poland, but not a single of the few stone castles the two kingdoms had fell, they didn't have high enough siege technology to assault them and the Tributary wars ended before they were starved out
 
It's perfectly okay to make changes that make blobs even blobbier, AS LONG AS other changes are made which deblobify to a greater degree, such as:

  • allow all vassals a long way away from the capital or whom border other realms the ability to join independence factions
  • vassals that really hate they liege should ignore his attempts to blackmail them out of factions
  • have peasant/religious/liberation revolts become more likely if others have already fired, actually giving them a decent shot at succeeding against a powerful ruler (would require significant fine tuning, but could have great benefit)
  • make the AI often break NAPs with people it doesn't like
  • increase the likelihood that unhappy vassals will join independence factions (vassals with little chance to get on the council should almost never join "increase council power" factions)
  • zealous vassals should be upset significantly if heathens or heretics are on the council, disincentivising players from keeping their most trouble inclined vassals close
  • make powerful vassals that dislike their liege sometime choose to join factions instead of the council, or resign from the council to make factions
 
Why not make an event/decision to allow people from your kingdom to legally or illegally settle in a neighboring kingdom. Then, you claim their rights are being infringed upon and you gain a Casus Belli.
 
just_a_beaver said:
Why not make an event/decision to allow people from your kingdom to legally or illegally settle in a neighboring kingdom. Then, you claim their rights are being infringed upon and you gain a Casus Belli.
Click to expand...
Because if people in a medieval kingdom moved to a different kingdom, they became people of the kingdom they moved to. The paraphenalia and claptrap surrounding "nations" and nationalism is something that postdated the medieval era. That kind of finagling would simply not have worked, then.
 
BeyondExpectation said:
I don't know; my list was inspired by Silversweeeper's post here (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/is-muslim-states-is-too-stable.977929/), but he could be wrong I suppose.
Click to expand...

I knew that list was awfully close to my ideas!

Tavior said:
I thought they already do that in current version?
Click to expand...

When it comes to the Scheme-based blackmail out of factions, there's no option to refuse when it comes to blackmail (see event 9002 in job_spymaster.txt), both options have a 50 % chance of being picked when asking nicely (event 9003, ditto), there's no option to refuse if legalism is used (event 9005, ditto), and no chance to refuse if you threaten them (event 9008, ditto). The same is the case for the different Scheme-based ways to get someone into a faction (events 9022, 9023, and 9028, in the same file). The overall opinion of liege/faction leader/claimant (where relevant) is utterly irrelevant, as is specific opinion modifiers ("Castrated me", "Abducted close relative", "Lover," "Friend", "Rival", "Attempted murder", etc.).

When it comes to Intrigue focus, only the traits of the target matters when blackmailing someone out of or into factions (events WoL.2086 and WoL.2089, in wol_intrigue_events.txt). Again, the overall opinion of the relevant parties and specific opinion modifiers towards them are all ignored.

Finally, Favors are Favors and can never be refused if used to get someone out of/into a faction (or in general). I'd personally love for that to be an option (obviously penalized if it is done without a good reason), but it isn't an option at the moment (unless you are prepared to mod in a very messy workaround).
 
Balesir said:
Because if people in a medieval kingdom moved to a different kingdom, they became people of the kingdom they moved to. The paraphenalia and claptrap surrounding "nations" and nationalism is something that postdated the medieval era. That kind of finagling would simply not have worked, then.
Click to expand...
Thanks for educating me on the topic, I appreciate it.
 
To be honest, i don't think Spanish Christians should have holy war CB (or at least not for an entire duchy), seeing as in real life the Reconquista took nearly 800 years, while in the game it either happens within 50 or it doesn't happen at all. Maybe a CB could be added as a single-county conquest, much like the Muslims have to show the fact the Spanish kings usually ventured to conquer one or two cities every campaign they went on. (Also i know this is a little off-topic)
 
thekaje said:
It's so interesting how modern Paradox prefers to change working things rather than add new things.
Click to expand...
You know we are still before first The Next DLC Dev Diary? I.e. all new content is still to be revealed? Just asking.
 
BeyondExpectation said:
It's perfectly okay to make changes that make blobs even blobbier, AS LONG AS other changes are made which deblobify to a greater degree, such as:

  • allow all vassals a long way away from the capital or whom border other realms the ability to join independence factions
  • vassals that really hate they liege should ignore his attempts to blackmail them out of factions
  • have peasant/religious/liberation revolts become more likely if others have already fired, actually giving them a decent shot at succeeding against a powerful ruler (would require significant fine tuning, but could have great benefit)
  • make the AI often break NAPs with people it doesn't like
  • increase the likelihood that unhappy vassals will join independence factions (vassals with little chance to get on the council should almost never join "increase council power" factions)
  • zealous vassals should be upset significantly if heathens or heretics are on the council, disincentivising players from keeping their most trouble inclined vassals close
  • make powerful vassals that dislike their liege sometime choose to join factions instead of the council, or resign from the council to make factions
Click to expand...
These are of course great ideas but it makes me wonder why we still do not have a game rule for vassals loyalty? There are already ones for demesne size and number of vassals, so why not make it possible to set at which opinion threshold vassals join factions?
There could be of course default, double (for smooth playthroughs) and half for all those people finding vassals management too easy.
 
Completely against the removal of "Fabricate a claim", and addition of Unjust CB.
All the "Fabricate a claim" task needs is more transparency and less randomness. Maybe adda progress bar and an event chain making you able to pick options that can either speed up the process or slow it down.
One thing I really want to see overhauled is the wars. When a war with more than one participant on the enemy side occurs, upon winning the war, you only get things from the country you declared a war to. However its allies slip without getting penalties for interfering in my wars. I think you should be able to knock-out each participant separately and demand stuff from them too - similar to EU4.
Right now wars feel extremely boring, unlike the wars that were real in the medieval times.
Another thing that can make things more "alive" are letting a 3rd or 4th side join.
 
Making assault-limits just a flat number seams arbitrary and gives me a -5 opinion malus. Especially if there is such a wonderful "siege" technology.

I don't know, why you forgot how good it was in EU3: Every siege-tick, there is a random change that a breach is created and that upgrades the assault-odds from "suicide at any rate" to "doable with a lot of troops".

I can see the option of "breeches" being a thing for higher siege-technology, too. Catapults didn't really break down walls in the early medieval times, however trebuchets did.

Summed up, I think this would be best:
- for high fortress levels, the force multiplication for the defender rises exponentially.
- The attacker can (and unless the fortress is only maned by like a dozen people should) wait for a breech, which will usually come faster the higher the attacker's siege technology is. This breech tones the force multiplication down to the geometrical curve.

Optionally, breeches could reduce the fort level for the remainder of the siege and stack, so for example:
You are sieging a level 6 fort. You have 20 times the defenders troops. Assaulting the walls would be suicide at such fortifications.
You have siege technology 5, thus every 12 days, there is a 10% chance for a breech, after about 2 month you are lucky.
The fort level is 5 now, you could assault the walls but you would probably loose around 10% of your troops and since the enemy's army is still waiting somewhere and only slightly smaller then yours, you don't want to afford it.
After another 3 month, another breech is created and the fort level is down to 4. Also the defender moral is at 70% already and you can seize the castle in exchange for the lives of just about a thousand soldiers
 
I love the idea mentioned earlier by a few people of seige tech deciding whether or not you can assult a certain seige level. I think the last levwl of tech can kind of recreate the new technology of the canon that made its debute in the east at the very end of the timeline. They would represent the sudden ability for armies to siege anything down including the theodesian walls.
 
klopkr said:
I love the idea mentioned earlier by a few people of seige tech deciding whether or not you can assult a certain seige level. I think the last levwl of tech can kind of recreate the new technology of the canon that made its debute in the east at the very end of the timeline. They would represent the sudden ability for armies to siege anything down including the theodesian walls.
Click to expand...
I don't know what year your game ends, but crude canon were used in europe from around 1320 or so (1280s in Asia), so thay have been around for a while by the time my game runs out of timeline! :D
 
Education focus for barony-level vassals!
Or at least some other simple mechanism to avoid them getting always a level 1 education trait
Also, rhytm is a dancer wasnt that dance theme for when I started going out with my school buddies in the 90s?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back