How does dynastic cycle work and can a player controlled Chinese dynasty ever be in danger of collapsing?

[ray243]

Well, China is a big and powerful state, but in AUH, we have a new mechanic called dynastic cycles which can represent which stage China is in.

For balance reasons, China should be feeling a threat from falling from a stable and big realm into an era of divisions or an era where old dynasty is overthrown by a new one.

But what are the mechanics to make a big powerful dynasty decline? How long can a dynasty last easily in the hands of a player?

 

[InsidiousMage]

How long can a dynasty last easily in the hands of a player?

Forever, probably. Starting as the Tang and then breaking the dynastic cycle is definitely one of the playthroughs I've got for AUH.

 

[ray243]

Forever, probably. Starting as the Tang and then breaking the dynastic cycle is definitely one of the playthroughs I've got for AUH.

Trying to make a dynasty last forever should be an extremely hard challenge imo.

 

[InsidiousMage]

Trying to make a dynasty last forever should be an extremely hard challenge imo.

I mean, so many things in this game should be an extremely hard challenge but aren't and the idea that AUH will break with this trend seems misguided to me. Like, as soon as they announced AUH, "break the dynastic cycle" was one of the first things that came to mind because the game is pathologically afraid of putting meaning barriers in front of the player.

 

[Silens]

Trying to make a dynasty last forever should be an extremely hard challenge imo.

It will probably be as hard as surviving medieval times as the Byzantines.

 

[ray243]

It will probably be as hard as surviving medieval times as the Byzantines.

Which is probably going to be too easy.

I mean, so many things in this game should be an extremely hard challenge but aren't and the idea that AUH will break with this trend seems misguided to me. Like, as soon as they announced AUH, "break the dynastic cycle" was one of the first things that came to mind because the game is pathologically afraid of putting meaning barriers in front of the player.

They could have made it a challenge for a dynasty to last beyond 200 years. The yuan dynasty is often considered a short lived dynasty because it lasted for a little over a century. This would fit the dynastic gameplay of CK3 and also fit it in historically. Then watch as maybe one of the last few members of the dynasty attempted to restore the dynasty or become an exile or be happy as a courtier in new dynasty.

 

[InsidiousMage]

They could have made it a challenge for a dynasty to last beyond 200 years. The yuan dynasty is often considered a short lived dynasty because it lasted for a little over a century. This would fit the dynastic gameplay of CK3 and also fit it in historically. Then watch as maybe one of the last few members of the dynasty attempted to restore the dynasty or become an exile or be happy as a courtier in new dynasty.

CK3 could have been a lot of things but it is what it is and struggling to maintain a dynasty across centuries just isn't something that CK3 is ever going to be about.

 

[ray243]

CK3 could have been a lot of things but it is what it is and struggling to maintain a dynasty across centuries just isn't something that CK3 is ever going to be about.

It should be if that's what the core gameplay is supposed to be about, especially the dynasty aspect of it. Especially with all sorts of focus like dynastic legacies and so on.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

Shouldn't we wait for the relevant DDs before threads like these, though? We're just closing up on nomads as of now.

 

[Benismann]

Why is this even a question? Ofc daddy paradox will make sure the player is NEVER in danger of collapsing if said player can read, they already said cycles will be reversible, so even if you get into decline phase somehow, you can always just wiggle back out of it, probably with ease.

 

[Woifee]

Trying to make a dynasty last forever should be an extremely hard challenge imo.

Sure. But this is a Game and Players will minmax the challange (and maybe the fun) out of it anyways. 3 days after the launch you propabyl will find a guide on how to "win" China with 87k views.

 

[Delterius]

CK3 could have been a lot of things but it is what it is and struggling to maintain a dynasty across centuries just isn't something that CK3 is ever going to be about.

Some people may be upset at this, but it's the truth. The devs never had any intention of sullying their sandbox by making it interesting like that.

We should be under no impression that maintaining a Chinese dynasty through the entire game with no hiccups whatsoever is gonna be an achievement. Or even that fun. You will get everything you want by 890 and quit the game half way through your second ruler.

This is Sim GSG, but its Sims 3-4 rather than Sims 1-2 or Sim City. There's no destruction to accompany all of the creation involved. There's no crisis and there's no friction. China won't be the exception that confirms the rule. It will follow the rule.

 

[peteoj]

It's ck3 so I can already bet the player will be able to circumvent all collapse with very little real work while the ai will be the ones suffering the most from it as can be seen from stress, legitimacy, tyranny, influence etc etc etc etc

 

[ray243]

Some people may be upset at this, but it's the truth. The devs never had any intention of sullying their sandbox by making it interesting like that.

We should be under no impression that maintaining a Chinese dynasty through the entire game with no hiccups whatsoever is gonna be an achievement. Or even that fun. You will get everything you want by 890 and quit the game half way through your second ruler.

This is Sim GSG, but its Sims 3-4 rather than Sims 1-2 or Sim City. There's no destruction to accompany all of the creation involved. There's no crisis and there's no friction. China won't be the exception that confirms the rule. It will follow the rule.

It could be designed to make a dynasty lasting for a considerable period an in-game achievement. On one hand the devs need to have some mechanics that a good player can prevent a dynasty from collapsing and China splitting apart, but on the other hand it also needs to be really diffculty to save an falling dynasty like the Tang dynasty at the start of the game.

 

[Delterius]

On one hand the devs need to have some mechanics that a good player can prevent a dynasty from collapsing and China splitting apart, but on the other hand it also needs to be really diffculty to save an falling dynasty like the Tang dynasty at the start of the game.

The problem is that the CK3 devs have a history of erring on the side of caution moreso than with any other Paradox game. Nothing will impede the sandbox. If the player wants to save a failing dynasty then they'll just be able to do it. The devs might even acknowledge this dichotomy internally (they do make balance passes some times), but the game will remain as frictionless as can be.

I was always one to say that the CK3 devs were understandably more focused on the sandbox they created and too afraid to introduce some disaster and destruction into the game. I received the conqueror lottery positively even, as it helped the AI to be less passive all the time. But then the Q&A chastised us for learning the basics of the game, and that's when I got over it. Like the other poster said, CK3 is not the sort of game where maintaining a Dynasty is an achievement. It's a vanity project in a game where nothing can inconvenience you.

 

[ray243]

The problem is that the CK3 devs have a history of erring on the side of caution moreso than with any other Paradox game. Nothing will impede the sandbox. If the player wants to save a failing dynasty then they'll just be able to do it. The devs might even acknowledge this dichotomy internally (they do make balance passes some times), but the game will remain as frictionless as can be.

I was always one to say that the CK3 devs were understandably more focused on the sandbox they created and too afraid to introduce some disaster and destruction into the game. I received the conqueror lottery positively even, as it helped the AI to be less passive all the time. But then the Q&A chastised us for learning the basics of the game, and that's when I got over it. Like the other poster said, CK3 is not the sort of game where maintaining a Dynasty is an achievement. It's a vanity project in a game where nothing can inconvenience you.

I mean it should be designed in a manner that is somewhat akin to saving the Byzantine empire in the EU4 startdate. So maybe you can save Constantinople in 1453, but it is extremely, extremely difficult.

It should be more about how you design the challenge of making a dynasty last beyond a certain amount of time. Making a dynasty last to 300 or 400 years should be an achievement that very few players can achieve unless they are really good.

 

[Delterius]

It should be more about how you design the challenge of making a dynasty last beyond a certain amount of time. Making a dynasty last to 300 or 400 years should be an achievement that very few players can achieve unless they are really good.

That would be golden, I just don't think it's a design goal. On the contrary.

 

[Furleppe]

The problem is that the CK3 devs have a history of erring on the side of caution moreso than with any other Paradox game. Nothing will impede the sandbox. If the player wants to save a failing dynasty then they'll just be able to do it. The devs might even acknowledge this dichotomy internally (they do make balance passes some times), but the game will remain as frictionless as can be.

When they did try, for example in CK2's Conclave pretty large portion of the fanbase was upset (when it was released, now it's mostly praise).

Similar with Defensive pact. They got too absurd and annoying at later stages (world spanning coalitions).

Plagues should add some difficulty but are mostly annoying to the players.

Harm events? Too punishing RNG, players didn't like it, so it was toned down.

Legitimacy sounded promising but again gives more bonuses that maluses. Missed opportunity because it's character based instead of title based.

Some DLC practices don't help. They didn't add any maluses to not doing Activities because players without DLC would be punished. No penalties for not doing a Grand Tour for a long time?

Now, maybe the features were badly designed but nevertheless they did (try to) add some friction, internal or external. I feel like they got scarred along the way and are too cautious right now unfortunately. I'm disappointed too, but to be honest I'm sympathetic with the developers, as player feedback to their tries is very mixed.

 

[Bisonmask]

Trying to make a dynasty last forever should be an extremely hard challenge imo.

It won't be, put that out of your mind now

 

[Bisonmask]

When they did try, for example in CK2's Conclave pretty large portion of the fanbase was upset (when it was released, now it's mostly praise).

Similar with Defensive pact. They got too absurd and annoying at later stages (world spanning coalitions).

The average player is too bad at the game to understand when it's well balanced. Imagine if the TW Attila devs listened when people cried about WRE/ERE difficulty or if Civ devs listened to the "no AI cheating" whiners and made Deity the same as Prince

Plagues should add some difficulty but are mostly annoying to the players.

Harm events? Too punishing RNG, players didn't like it, so it was toned down.

The harm events incident annoys me more than the rest because nobody forced people to play on high harm. They could've just turned down the game rule

Legitimacy sounded promising but again gives more bonuses that maluses. Missed opportunity because it's character based instead of title based.

Some DLC practices don't help. They didn't add any maluses to not doing Activities because players without DLC would be punished. No penalties for not doing a Grand Tour for a long time?

Now, maybe the features were badly designed but nevertheless they did (try to) add some friction, internal or external. I feel like they got scarred along the way and are too cautious right now unfortunately. I'm disappointed too, but to be honest I'm sympathetic with the developers, as player feedback to their tries is very mixed.

Games have been solving this issue since the beginning of time, not sure why people still think the fix is impossible