Admin empires are OP and performance killer

[Alexairo]

I have had a couple of runs now in January 2025 having Roads to Power (and all other DLCs as well) enabled.

In the first run I have also enabled Arabic empire to be admin govt (which was kind of historical as per game settings hint). In the second run only Byzantine empire was admin.

In both runs these admin empires ended up being huge ahistorical unstoppable blobs. I remember seeing in one of the dev diaries that admin govt type has less factions, rebellions, etc - which might explain why these empires are incredibly stable and not having a risk to fall apart.

I would not have problem with admin govt if AI would blob responsibly, but having Byzantium taking over Germany and encroaching Denmark & France or Arabian empire taking over the entirety of India by 1200 is too much (see attached). And there is nothing stopping them to take more, not even Mongols. Which of course fundamentally ruins balance and simulation in all other parts of the map, affecting religion distribution and more.

Somehow historically the world was not conquered by the Byzantine, so I believe there is something fundamentally overpowered with the admin govt. The moment I console-changed govt to feudal - both empires collapsed within a single generation.

One of the reasons for doing so was huge lagging issues and after swapping Arabian empire to feudal the game immediately returned to normal performance. So apart from power balancing also performance balancing needs to happen around admin govts.

 

[Alexairo]

What's your conquerors setting? And have you checked whether conquerors were involved in the blobbing? Default setting is a nightmare and it's very blobby factor...

Yes, conquerors were another reason for disastrous blobs so I disabled them altogether - no bonuses, no inheritance, cannot appear. So the above screenshots were generated without having any conquerors.

 

[Viridianus]

Yes, conquerors were another reason for disastrous blobs so I disabled them altogether - no bonuses, no inheritance, cannot appear. So the above screenshots were generated without having any conquerors.

And then you're surprised why Byzantium and Arabic empire, which historically fell to such conquerors, expanded? Come on.

I should just put in my signature "blobbing isn't ahistorical", I guess.

 

[Alexairo]

And then you're surprised why Byzantium and Arabic empire, which historically fell to such conquerors, expanded? Come on.

I should just put in my signature "blobbing isn't ahistorical", I guess.

With conquerors enabled you get a huge Scandinavian empire instead, taking over Central Europe, Balkans and Russia with Norse being the dominant faith in the world and other domino effects.

I understand both conquerors and admin empires were introduced with the Roads to Power DLC and both fundamentally ruined the balance. All those years since CK3 release I have seen Arabic & Byzantium perfectly falling without having any conquerors around. Sometimes they survived, taking some additional lands gracefully, which is the amount of historical variation that I would expect from AI.

The screenshots in my post were shot ca 1200 and problem that I'm seeing is that letting it run for another 244 years will just mean they will complete a world conquest which is not fun at all to see.

 

[klopkr]

And then you're surprised why Byzantium and Arabic empire, which historically fell to such conquerors, expanded? Come on.

I should just put in my signature "blobbing isn't ahistorical", I guess.

OMG it's like two paths leading to the same damn dismissive argument. "They blobbed because they're conquerors!1!" well actually conquerors are off "They blobbed because no conquerors!!1!!"

Blobbing is literally ahistoircal for many regions of the world at this time. The historicity is also very dependant on the timeline of blobbing and the stability of these blobbed realms. Stability and expansion of realms in this game are dependant on a lot more game mechanics than just conquerors.

OP is absolutely right that these empires are given too much stability and ability to easily control lands they really shouldn't be able to easily control.

 

[Scyobi_Empire]

the issue is that Admin Realms are immune to independence and dissolution factions, no regions will ever leave (unless conquered) and the main title will never be destroyed by a faction

if admin govs could have these 2 types of factions in them, massive superblobs wouldn't be as common

 

[Viridianus]

OMG it's like two paths leading to the same damn dismissive argument. "They blobbed because they're conquerors!1!" well actually conquerors are off "They blobbed because no conquerors!!1!!"

Yes. What part of "someone will always blob, conquerors if they are on, preexisting blobs otherwise" is difficult to understand? Blobbing is the default outcome.

 

[klopkr]

Yes. What part of "someone will always blob, conquerors if they are on, preexisting blobs otherwise" is difficult to understand? Blobbing is the default outcome.

Congratulations, welcome to the topic of the thread. To bring you up to speed with everyone else, this is bad.

 

[Viridianus]

Congratulations, welcome to the topic of the thread. To bring you up to speed with everyone else, this is bad.

No, that's the point of the disagreement. This is not bad. This is normal.

 

[klopkr]

No, that's the point of the disagreement. This is not bad. This is normal.

Justify it then. We all know that it happens. Explain in your words why you think ahistorical blobbing is good.

 

[Viridianus]

Justify it then. We all know that it happens. Explain in your words why you think ahistorical blobbing is good.

1. In terms of historicity, it is simply not really ahistorical. Much of the later Middle Ages history - i.e. CK3 timeline - is consolidating - i.e. "blobbing" - under bigger and bigger banners. And these blobs, once they have survived more than one generation (thus Charlemagne's Francia or Muhammad's caliphate are not counterexamples), usually only fall to other blobs, Holy Roman Empire is seemingly the sole outlier at least in northwestern quarter of the map. I don't know how one can, knowing that the titles went from, say, "Seven Petty Kingdoms of England" to "King of England, Scotland, and Wales", or from five-ish small kingdoms of northern Spain with Al-Andalus in the South to Catholic Monarchs of Castille and Aragon, or more than a dozen of East Slavic principalities to Moscovia vs. Lithuania, or Lombard duchies to Kingdom of Two Sicilies, come away with the idea that blobbing is somehow ahistorical.
2. In terms of gameplay, this provides with a clear and eminently reachable goal - and with enemies of fitting caliber once you do reach it (and yes, an empire of 150 counties is enemy of fitting caliber to an empire of 2000 counties, the numbers are very much not hypothetical, I have lost such wars in CK3).

 

[klopkr]

1. In terms of historicity, it is simply not really ahistorical. Much of the later Middle Ages history - i.e. CK3 timeline - is consolidating - i.e. "blobbing" - under bigger and bigger banners. And these blobs, once they have survived more than one generation (thus Charlemagne's Francia or Muhammad's caliphate are not counterexamples), usually only fall to other blobs, Holy Roman Empire is seemingly the sole outlier at least in northwestern quarter of the map. I don't know how one can, knowing that the titles went from, say, "Seven Petty Kingdoms of England" to "King of England, Scotland, and Wales", or from five-ish small kingdoms of northern Spain with Al-Andalus in the South to Catholic Monarchs of Castille and Aragon, or more than a dozen of East Slavic principalities to Moscovia vs. Lithuania, or Lombard duchies to Kingdom of Two Sicilies, come away with the idea that blobbing is somehow ahistorical.
2. In terms of gameplay, this provides with a clear and eminently reachable goal - and with enemies of fitting caliber once you do reach it (and yes, an empire of 150 counties is enemy of fitting caliber to an empire of 2000 counties, the numbers are very much not hypothetical, I have lost such wars in CK3).

OP posted pictures of Empires owning half the game map and you're talking about Spain and England being a blob? You're talking about realms the size of one de jure kingdom or one de jure empire as blobs? And you think that justifies OP's pictures?

You think Chalrmeagne and the Umayyads Caliphate are the only examples of blobs falling apart during this period of history? Two examples outside of the games timeframe even? What are you on about?

 

[Viridianus]

You think Chalrmeagne and the Umayyads Caliphate are the only examples of blobs falling apart during this period of history?

No, I listed them as examples of what wouldn't count - because of not surviving for longer than a generation; the list of such examples was never meant to be exhaustive (Kievan Rus could be another example). To my knowledge, there is NO example of a blob falling apart to internal pressures (rather than being consumed by another blobbing power) after surviving for several generations in CK3 timeframe. (Don't say Al-Andalus.)

The rest is about speed and extent, and this is a debate to be had, but... yeah, no, I do think that the outcome we actually got in history is somewhat ahistorical (and if you think this is inherently contradictory, think again), just like the modal outcome for invasions of England was obviously Norway domination and real-world Normans just got incredibly lucky at Hastings.

 

[apollo1989vieten]

1. In terms of historicity, it is simply not really ahistorical. Much of the later Middle Ages history - i.e. CK3 timeline - is consolidating - i.e. "blobbing" - under bigger and bigger banners. And these blobs, once they have survived more than one generation (thus Charlemagne's Francia or Muhammad's caliphate are not counterexamples), usually only fall to other blobs, Holy Roman Empire is seemingly the sole outlier at least in northwestern quarter of the map. I don't know how one can, knowing that the titles went from, say, "Seven Petty Kingdoms of England" to "King of England, Scotland, and Wales", or from five-ish small kingdoms of northern Spain with Al-Andalus in the South to Catholic Monarchs of Castille and Aragon, or more than a dozen of East Slavic principalities to Moscovia vs. Lithuania, or Lombard duchies to Kingdom of Two Sicilies, come away with the idea that blobbing is somehow ahistorical.
2. In terms of gameplay, this provides with a clear and eminently reachable goal - and with enemies of fitting caliber once you do reach it (and yes, an empire of 150 counties is enemy of fitting caliber to an empire of 2000 counties, the numbers are very much not hypothetical, I have lost such wars in CK3).

Some big reasons why realms fell apart.

Overextension. The realm cannot provide enough troops to defend all fronts while also being able to subdue internal revolts. Constant blobbing leads to overextension because the new territories aren’t integrated.

Internal friction. This can take the form of ethnic and/or religious conflicts or friction between major power players of the realm.

Committing too many resources to a failed campaign, especially a major one. This weakens the power of the state and decreases the perception of the ones at top. A Pyrrhic victory could also be very harmful.

Weakness at the top. If the people at the top aren’t capable, governors at the fringes of the realm might break off (this includes over extension for this case). Usurpation and civil wars might happen depending on how legitimate the rulers, no matter how incompetent, are perceived.

The administrative government type in game doesn’t have the problems irl realms had to deal with.

 

[Viridianus]

@apollo1989vieten - a very useful theoretical write-up. Doesn't refute my claim that in CK3 timeline, actual blobs either triggered one of these near-immediately (cf. Mongol Empire falling apart - in-game, it is also scripted to do so, but the intended effect is definitely overextension) or, effectively, not at all. And, in particular, none of these happened to the flagship administrative gov of Byzantium, despite multiple "claimant" revolts that definitely weakened it to be "for the taking" of Muslims and Fourth Crusade.

 

[apollo1989vieten]

@apollo1989vieten - a very useful theoretical write-up. Doesn't refute my claim that in CK3 timeline, actual blobs either triggered one of these near-immediately (cf. Mongol Empire falling apart - in-game, it is also scripted to do so, but the intended effect is definitely overextension) or, effectively, not at all. And, in particular, none of these happened to the flagship administrative gov of Byzantium, despite multiple "claimant" revolts that definitely weakened it to be "for the taking" of Muslims and Fourth Crusade.

By the time of CK3’s first start date, the caliphate was breaking apart. Turmoil at the top led to nobles outside the Levant to start to break away. The caliphate was already overextended, it just needed a push to start falling apart, something that occurred when the Mamluk slave soldiers decided to puppet the caliph.

The Byzantines never blobbed back. But the strengths of the administrative government type allows it to blob back in game.

 

[GhostDanny]

Every government can be OP.
I could take over the entirety of the map as an unreformed tribal, WITHOUT conqueror trait, if I wanted to.
Already did it with Africa in a Daurama Daura run.

 

[RJ7]

the issue is that Admin Realms are immune to independence and dissolution factions, no regions will ever leave (unless conquered) and the main title will never be destroyed by a faction

if admin govs could have these 2 types of factions in them, massive superblobs wouldn't be as common

This is the correct answer as to why Admin Empires are so durable now. The Emperor can and does lose faction wars. But cannot collapse/splinter any more.

Furthermore, when faced with a Liberty faction, the AI sneakily increases the Admin authority level by 1, just before the Liberty Faction triggers, so even if the Faction win, they are no better off than they were before.

Only the fringe non-Admin counties of an Admin Empire can break away via Independence faction. But when the Admin Empire acquires new Duchies they can get added to the unbreakable Province/Theme mass.

The Frontier and Naval Theme Administrations allow Province Duchies to expand outwards (multiple, simultaneous), but neighbours trying to chip away at a border Admin Province have to take down the entire Admin Empire army to get anywhere.

Maybe the fix (if one is needed) is some code for Province Governors or the Emperor, to start selling their army units to raise cash for Influence or Intrigue schemes. Corruption on a grand scale.

Alternatively, add a new Faction type for Admin realms, which is Convert to Feudal, where a successful Faction converts the Provinces of the participants to Feudal ownership, but with the Emperor still as their Liege.

 

[brasesco]

Alternatively, add a new Faction type for Admin realms, which is Convert to Feudal, where a successful Faction converts the Provinces of the participants to Feudal ownership, but with the Emperor still as their Liege.

After seeing the soryo vs. ritsuryo vassal types in Japan, it does seem like admin realms in general should have a push-pull conflict between admin/feudal vassals as powerful vassals try to entrench their dynasties in hereditary fiefdoms and the central government tries to push back. This would also allow serious independence factions to develop over time as feudal vassals then sought more autonomy or eventual independence from the central government.

 

[Muezzahan]

What's your conquerors setting? And have you checked whether conquerors were involved in the blobbing? Default setting is a nightmare and it's very blobby factor...

Blobs formed by conquerors tend to explode after they die. Admin realms, however, slowly but surely grow without exploding.