One of our beta testers tested how Charlemagne(AI) was doing after these changes and the results are:
Charlemagne - 3
Heathens - 0
-
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.
Charlemagne - 3
Heathens - 0
I've found that the bigger problem for AI Charly is actually surviving, never mind warring.
Will the effects of the Carolingian Renaissance be represented in Frankish tech?
Is it possible to tie creation of titles to the level of technology, for example Legalism?
I have been thinking recently when playing how easily we (both player and AI) can sometimes create Kingdoms and Empires... isn't it a bit too easy?
How many new Kingdoms appeared in Europe after the start date and under which circumstances? I was in particular thinking of Eastern Europe here, Kingdoms didn't appear out of a thin air, in fact until very, very long time they didn't appear and instead there were Grand Duchies and unions of many duchies, ruled by Grand Duke. Both Rus before Kievan Rus, Kievan Rus itself, Grand Duchy of Lithuania and even Muscovy at that time. Surely, you can say attribute it to Lestva (rota) system of inheritance that was a cause of it, but on the other side we saw a definite lack of creation of central governments in these lands and a lack of a stable King-like authority.
So, if we think about it, then for the Europe-centered view Kingdoms appeared with 2 conditions: either they had enough "culture" (tech) or... like many other Kings, they received Crown from Pope, Church in a more general abstraction. It does not apply to petty kings for being petty and for most advanced realms, but for example for other realms like Poland, Galicia-Volhnia, Lithuania the religious authority compensated the lacking "tech"/institution to make a Kingdom. I trivialize a bit, but before embracing Catholicism there was no Polish Kingdom and it was closer to Kievan Rus, being a band of duchies under what could be called a Grand Duke.
This bring us to the main point: Church, primarily Catholicism, played the hugest role in Kingdoms and Empires in start and middle games. HRE had no tech to count as Emperors by themselves, they critically were dependant on Pope. Many Kings had to seek Churches loyalty and approval... or, if they are strong enough, install loyal Antipopes. Thus, a player can't simply create with gold and prestige a Kingdom - he needs either a tech or Church giving him "Divine Right" to rule, enabling him as a king. It is a thing that should be comparable with most religions and regions, with major exception being Islam as I have little knowledge how it should translate into it. For Empires, including Byzantine Empire, it would mean that creation of Kingdoms within it's realm by vassals would be possible only if they are advanced enough (Greece, Thrace and maybe others like Georgia, but a freshly-conquered Alania).
How do I see it in gameplay?
I hope that such idea, about changing the way Kingdom and Empire titles are handed, is interesting and can find a way into the game.
I'll post it in suggestiong later.
I have been thinking recently when playing how easily we (both player and AI) can sometimes create Kingdoms and Empires... isn't it a bit too easy?
How many new Kingdoms appeared in Europe after the start date and under which circumstances? I was in particular thinking of Eastern Europe here, Kingdoms didn't appear out of a thin air, in fact until very, very long time they didn't appear and instead there were Grand Duchies and unions of many duchies, ruled by Grand Duke. Both Rus before Kievan Rus, Kievan Rus itself, Grand Duchy of Lithuania and even Muscovy at that time. Surely, you can say attribute it to Lestva (rota) system of inheritance that was a cause of it, but on the other side we saw a definite lack of creation of central governments in these lands and a lack of a stable King-like authority.
So, if we think about it, then for the Europe-centered view Kingdoms appeared with 2 conditions: either they had enough "culture" (tech) or... like many other Kings, they received Crown from Pope, Church in a more general abstraction. It does not apply to petty kings for being petty and for most advanced realms, but for example for other realms like Poland, Galicia-Volhnia, Lithuania the religious authority compensated the lacking "tech"/institution to make a Kingdom. I trivialize a bit, but before embracing Catholicism there was no Polish Kingdom and it was closer to Kievan Rus, being a band of duchies under what could be called a Grand Duke.
This bring us to the main point: Church, primarily Catholicism, played the hugest role in Kingdoms and Empires in start and middle games. HRE had no tech to count as Emperors by themselves, they critically were dependant on Pope. Many Kings had to seek Churches loyalty and approval... or, if they are strong enough, install loyal Antipopes. Thus, a player can't simply create with gold and prestige a Kingdom - he needs either a tech or Church giving him "Divine Right" to rule, enabling him as a king. It is a thing that should be comparable with most religions and regions, with major exception being Islam as I have little knowledge how it should translate into it. For Empires, including Byzantine Empire, it would mean that creation of Kingdoms within it's realm by vassals would be possible only if they are advanced enough (Greece, Thrace and maybe others like Georgia, but a freshly-conquered Alania).
How do I see it in gameplay?
- When inheriting Kingdom, you undergo relations check (with maybe some extra), in some casss Pope will make you pay money/install needed laws
- Creating a Kingdom is possible only with Religious authority approval (religious institution of monarchy, Divine Right) or with enough tech
- Antitpopes become more vital for countries like France
- Eastern and Central Europe is more dependent on Catholicism as a result
- More crucial role of (reformed) religions in creating Kingdoms
- Popes can give you another boon - they can motivate your expansion with by giving strong claims in foreign kingdoms/duchies which have no Catholic ruler (debatable point, but it shows what could be done)
- You're way more motivated to see Pope as Religious Authority, as it should be, and makes you want to either evolve to bypass it, become devout Catholic or try heresy/other religion in worst case.
I hope that such idea, about changing the way Kingdom and Empire titles are handed, is interesting and can find a way into the game.
I'll post it in suggestiong later.
1. Please get rid of the feeling that "biggest army wins." History is full of fantastic upsets and the game would feel far more meaningful if there was more RNG in the outcome of a battle. As it stands now, if I have 20pct more boots on the ground with levies I expect to win, and I nearly always will.
2. Please fix the Byzantine retinue. It is currently useless due to the bad tactics for Horse Archers.
3. Please make Knights more powerful and impactful. They are currently rather lackluster due to poor retinue combinations and mediocre tactics. This can be done by changing the Knight retinue to all Heavy Cavalry. This will also be fun because Knights are cool. Id like to see the presence of Heavy Cavalry being more impactful to battles via tactics.
4. Please fix how technology spreads to islands.
I love CK2. Keep up the great work! But please see point number 1!
2. Please fix the Byzantine retinue. It is currently useless due to the bad tactics for Horse Archers.
3. Please make Knights more powerful and impactful. They are currently rather lackluster due to poor retinue combinations and mediocre tactics. This can be done by changing the Knight retinue to all Heavy Cavalry. This will also be fun because Knights are cool. Id like to see the presence of Heavy Cavalry being more impactful to battles via tactics.
4. Please fix how technology spreads to islands.
I love CK2. Keep up the great work! But please see point number 1!
Numerical upsets by RNG and not by superior technology, tactics, leadership, logistics, willpower and so forth as it went historically would be worse than bigger always winning.
Yes.
Coronation itself is nice right now, what I suggest is possibly make it somewhat more impactful.
And definitely make harder creation of titles beyond duchy level. There were many Grand Dukes, who united quite a few realms but failed to create a Kingdom due to the lack institutions needed for that. Kingdoms (outside of petty ones) were rarely created as easily as they are now even if you conquered most of realm, Eastern Europe being a prime example as it simply lacked Kingdoms.
This would not harm other Europe. Most Kingdoms exist and can be usurped instead... Or capture a developed capital to get needed tech. Or get a Kingdom from religious CB (approved by Church). Or set up Antipope who will agree to most of things... or just be buddies with Pope. It could also allow creation of Kingdoms even if you're under requirement for creating them, including custom ones. These are my thoughts.
Translated using google translator
Wars are part of the diplomatic and intrigue game, from the time of claiming, either by the pope or by marriages and inheritance.
I think the system is very complex, it would be much more interesting to be able to control the composition of our armies and thus influence the tactics, which we could only choose if we were one of the commanders.
From the organization of which troops go on each flank, their amount and so on.
This would also require a revision of the constructions, which troops they provide and in what quantities.
Another interesting thing is also to avoid armies running like crazy around the world, to increase the friction often according to the distance of his kingdom, also to consider a declaration of war or penalty of opinion if his army exceeds the borders of kingdoms (ruler ) who are not at war with you.
It would be interesting to have the ability to control how our foreheads were if our ruler is as commander.
Prior choice of tactics.
Traduzido usando o google tradutor
As guerras fazem parte do jogo diplomático e de intriga, desde a obtenção de uma claim, seja pelo papa ou por casamentos e herança.
Acho o sistema muito complexo, seria muito mais interessante podermos controlar a composição de nossos exércitos e com isso influenciar as táticas, essas quais só poderiamos escolher se fossemos um dos comandantes.
Desde a organização de quais tropas vão em cada flanco, a sua quantidade e etc.
Para isso séria necessário também uma revisão das construções, quais tropas elas proporcionam e em quais quantidades.
Outra coisa interessante também é evitar exércitos correndo como loucos por todo o mundo, aumentar por muitas vezes o atrito de acordo com a distancia do seu reino, também considerar uma declaração de guerra ou penalidade de opinião se seu exército ultrapassar as fronteiras de reinos(ruler) que não estão em guerra com você.
Seria interessante termos a possibilidade de controlar como ficaram nossos frontes, se nosso ruler estiver como comandante.
Escolha prévia de táticas.
Wars are part of the diplomatic and intrigue game, from the time of claiming, either by the pope or by marriages and inheritance.
I think the system is very complex, it would be much more interesting to be able to control the composition of our armies and thus influence the tactics, which we could only choose if we were one of the commanders.
From the organization of which troops go on each flank, their amount and so on.
This would also require a revision of the constructions, which troops they provide and in what quantities.
Another interesting thing is also to avoid armies running like crazy around the world, to increase the friction often according to the distance of his kingdom, also to consider a declaration of war or penalty of opinion if his army exceeds the borders of kingdoms (ruler ) who are not at war with you.
It would be interesting to have the ability to control how our foreheads were if our ruler is as commander.
Prior choice of tactics.
Traduzido usando o google tradutor
As guerras fazem parte do jogo diplomático e de intriga, desde a obtenção de uma claim, seja pelo papa ou por casamentos e herança.
Acho o sistema muito complexo, seria muito mais interessante podermos controlar a composição de nossos exércitos e com isso influenciar as táticas, essas quais só poderiamos escolher se fossemos um dos comandantes.
Desde a organização de quais tropas vão em cada flanco, a sua quantidade e etc.
Para isso séria necessário também uma revisão das construções, quais tropas elas proporcionam e em quais quantidades.
Outra coisa interessante também é evitar exércitos correndo como loucos por todo o mundo, aumentar por muitas vezes o atrito de acordo com a distancia do seu reino, também considerar uma declaração de guerra ou penalidade de opinião se seu exército ultrapassar as fronteiras de reinos(ruler) que não estão em guerra com você.
Seria interessante termos a possibilidade de controlar como ficaram nossos frontes, se nosso ruler estiver como comandante.
Escolha prévia de táticas.
Maybe for the Charley Start, you could have Charlemagne and Karloman both start already crowned. It's the never-ending Uncrowned Malus that hurts most...
Those units are not specialized in either skirmish or melee. That is what we meant. The meaning is now clarified in the original post, thank you.
Any hints on possible changes to do with tactics? Specifically, preventing flanks from being sabotaged by the addition of units? Also anything about potentially more customization of levies rather than having every castle give 90% the same stuff?
The tactics and commander trait system is already exceedingly strong and allows for this, the issue is that 99% of armies are full of levies which heavily dilutes their impact. Unless the player specifically min-maxes things.
The tactics and commander trait system is already exceedingly strong and allows for this, the issue is that 99% of armies are full of levies which heavily dilutes their impact. Unless the player specifically min-maxes things.
Code:
war_elephants = {
morale = 15
maintenance = 20
phase_skirmish_attack = 0.25
phase_melee_attack = 25
phase_pursue_attack = 0.25
phase_skirmish_defense = 5
phase_melee_defense = 15
phase_pursue_defense = 2
base_type = heavy_cavalry
}
Also, how is "heavy_cavalry" defined? I'm not trying to be cheeky here and suggest that it implies that Elephants are melee troops. I'm genuinely curious about how it differs from "knights".
Could you guys take a look at horse archers? Theyre really really bad right now. The cataphract retinue doesnt work at all and the meta for steppe nomads says to not build a single one, which is super anachronistic.
.png){kind=avatar}