Dissolution Factions are kinda ridiculous.

[Arcvalons]

Leaving aside the ahistoricity, it is kinda ridiculous that you can have an empire with a dozen vassals, all pretty happy and all, but just one disgruntled vassal who for a moment has more levies than his liege can demand the freaking DISSOLUTION of the realm. And it's worse that the other vassals would be 'alrighty then'. The game needs a better system for this than that. In fact, does there need to be a system for this at all?

 

[prismaticmarcus]

Does there need to be more jeopardy in CK?

Absolutely.

 

[Trunting]

I have an idea: There could be a new level of crown authority, where the liege has basically no legal rights to hold against his vassals. Thus they would stay inside the realm, but be de facto totally autonomous.

 

[Garbageolopogos]

I have an idea: There could be a new level of crown authority, where the liege has basically no legal rights to hold against his vassals. Thus they would stay inside the realm, but be de facto totally autonomous.

Yeah maybe it could be called 'autonomous vassals'

 

[MatthewP]

You could say something similar about a claimant faction, or foreign wars, etc. the core issue is that a vassal loving you like a brother and a vassal disliking you but not quite being ready to commit treason are identical situations in the game. The only real feedback vassals can give you is rebellion. As long as this is the case a bunch of things won’t make sense.

 

[Arcvalons]

Yeah maybe it could be called 'autonomous vassals'

There should actually be a lower level, maybe called 'nominal vassals' or something like that. The realm would appear divided on the map with just a colored outline, and vassals would be basically independent in most senses (with most "must be independent" actions unlocked) but legally still be part of the realm. Vassals with different culture or religion could then declare independence unilaterally without restrictions. I think this would better represent a decaying realm.

 

[newtlord]

There should actually be a lower level, maybe called 'nominal vassals' or something like that. The realm would appear divided on the map with just a colored outline, and vassals would be basically independent in most senses (with most "must be independent" actions unlocked) but legally still be part of the realm. Vassals with different culture or religion could then declare independence unilaterally without restrictions. I think this would better represent a decaying realm.

I like this idea, but I'd rather have it happen on a per-vassal basis than on a realm-wide basis. It would be cool if an empire could have core lands firmly under control as well as a periphery from which it draws almost no power and to which it can offer very little support.

 

[benthjones]

In most cases I think an Independence faction is more appropriate than dissolution, that way only the disgruntled vassals would leave.

I would prefer only seeing dissolution in extreme cases, but mostly I would expect to see them shortly after a title has been created where there's some question about the legitimacy of the title and therefore the holder's right to rule, rather than with the ruler themselves. This would also mean this isn't targeting your primary title, but a newly created one over recently conquered lands.

Most of the time dissolution leaves everyone weaker and easily picked off, so it rarely seems to make that much sense anyway.

 

[Jaevelklein]

Dissoluting an empire should give everyone who belonged to said empire claims on each other to restore it, including non-dejure vassals.

So many times, an empire, let's say the HRE, just dissolutes. Then it either doesn't conquer anew and remains fractured, or even if does rise again, it doesn't reclaim its lost territories in italy or other non-dejure areas. This would solve the problem with the Abbasid Caliphate shattering as well.

 

[x4077]

Does there need to be more jeopardy in CK?

Absolutely.

Jeopardy for the player, yes. The problem is that all the complications Paradox adds into the game to create issues for the player are easily solved/avoided by humans yet totally wreck the NPC rulers since Paradox doesn't bother adding any AI code to actually deal with the complications they added.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

Dissoluting an empire should give everyone who belonged to said empire claims on each other to restore it, including non-dejure vassals.

So many times, an empire, let's say the HRE, just dissolutes. Then it either doesn't conquer anew and remains fractured, or even if does rise again, it doesn't reclaim its lost territories in italy or other non-dejure areas. This would solve the problem with the Abbasid Caliphate shattering as well.

Sorry, i'm usually Not That Guy, but...

dissolve

 

[Diskianterezh]

The dissolution faction is fine, on paper.
There should totally be a moment where your kingdom doesn't hold together anymore, the vassals are just too disconected from the idea of an unified realm and the thing implode.

The problem rely in *how* the faction is appearing. It should be more linked to the crown authority, with several more laws that could show how people are answering to a central authority. Because in terms of code, the dissolution faction does not appear from nothing, there is condition for the vassals to join/create one, but they are blurry and often it looks like a perfectly fine realm is just imploding on a bad succession without any reason.

There is no surprise though : the internal politics, from factions to laws, need some work (if not an overhaul), but i'm not worried about dissolution however : it only spaws in very diversified realms, where cultural acceptance is exceptionally low- something you can easily avoid with a little bit of management.

 

[WestuHal]

I have to say, I did find it jarring on my recent play through that, having just assisted my liege, the Caliph, to take the ‘Renewed Caliphate’ ending to the Iranian struggle, within a year the Caliph’s new Seljuk vassal had launched a dissolution war; the Seljuks ultimately won and the empire, which should have been at its strongest in decades, was shattered into many tiny statelets…many game years on, the empire still hasn’t arisen from the ashes…

 

[Eltener]

There's just very few ways for the game to destroy someone's primary title. There's very very few ways outside of a dissolution faction for a county to enter a warlord era or otherwise collapse/implode.

Maybe the more historical way of doing it would be removing dissolution as a faction and having dissolution be a possible result if a civil war fulfills certain conditions like going on for too long.

You'd probs want war exhaustion and ally unhappiness mechanics in that case though to prevent players from gaming the system too easily. Maybe even something like if the realm is nearing collapse, vassals who like the ruler actively join the civil war on their side instead of just passively continuing to provide tax and levies.

 

[Tuo]

What I dislike the most about Dissolution factions is the fallout - namely, that following the dissolution, it's as if the title never existed in the first place. The claims for it do nothing, and the now independent rulers act like that had been status quo for centuries. What I'd like to see is drama, reunification attempts, a warlord era - through the use of modifiers and making use of existing claims. Encourage aggression, give characters with the modifier given out on dissolution a free alliance between them, stuff like that - make the fallout resolve over the next 50 years or so, until things calm down, one way or another.

 

[Tschobo]

My takeaway is that dissolution happens too fast and is often a popular choice if the empire is on the verge of breaking apart through a tyranny or claimant faction. It should basically not fire if such a war is fought as there is already an attempt to change the situation.

Many contenders of the dissolution faction fit in an independence faction better and should join them instead if it means the fragmentation of the realm and afterwards maybe the stabilization of it afterwards.

The Dissolution factions should only happen in specific requirments:

• Tribal large Kindoms/Empires with low authority or many cultures (Samos Kingdom, some of the Steppe Kingdoms etc.)
• Kingdoms and Empires if a ruler of foreign faith and culture takes over and both discontent of the realm and his holdings is high.
• Death of a Dynasty or no stability or cohesion in a realm (Italy after Louis the Youngers Death and the factions being torn over who will rule)

 

[gamerk2]

The game really needs to separate opinion into two:

• How much a character likes you personally
• Why a character is doing X for/against you

You get into these weird situations where a vassal has +61 opinion but eagerly joins into some hostile faction, with no real explanation why. The information should be given in clear terms to the player why each character is acting the way they are.

And maybe while at it, factions could use a bit of re-work. For example, why do I instantly know who is in every faction? Shouldn't that require, I don't know, your spymaster to do some work to uncover? And shouldn't I, as Liege, have the ability to threaten/bribe specific vassals of a faction in order to get them to leave (or give up the ringleaders to face justice)?.

EDIT

One final point: I hate the concept of Dissolution factions; Independence factions already did the same thing. I'm tired of seeing France explode every playthrough.

 

[Ecclesiasdeez__nutz]

My problem with dissolution factions is that it almost always ends up harming the AI more than the player. I don't think I have ever lost to one, so in practice it only ends up destroying the only rival empires that are strong enough to challenge me.

 

[heliostellar]

I wouldn't mind them if a claimant to the broken title had an easier time reconstructing it. As in, if you got a vassalization CB on all the de jure vassals and the ability to reconstruct the title without gamey limits like truces. Not every dissolution should be permanent. The Crisis of the 3rd Century would be my Exhibit A.

EDIT: Actually, one thing that might be cool is if it kicked off a mini-struggle to give you a timer by which you have to reconstruct the title, or else the title gets destroyed.

Spoiler

Call it the Diocletian CB if you'd like:

Spoiler

 

[The Norman Yoke]

I wouldn't mind them if a claimant to the broken title had an easier time reconstructing it. As in, if you got a vassalization CB on all the de jure vassals and the ability to reconstruct the title without gamey limits like truces. Not every dissolution should be permanent. The Crisis of the 3rd Century would be my Exhibit A.

EDIT: Actually, one thing that might be cool is if it kicked off a mini-struggle to give you a timer by which you have to reconstruct the title, or else the title gets destroyed.

Spoiler

View attachment 1074737

Call it the Diocletian CB if you'd like:

Spoiler

View attachment 1074738

Crisis of the 3rd century had a cavalcade of imperial usurpers, gallic empire definetly shouldnt be seen as its own thing but a half hearted claim to the throne, palymerene mightve been the beginning of a new eastern state but with how quickly it collapsed, we dont know.
Diocletian divided the empire, but you still had the concept of it as a single state and a most senior emperor among them, with it then quickly being divided among 2 instead of 4 then just 1 then 2 off and on again