Is the existence of the Extra Administrative Realms category of Game Rules Paradox admitting the current situation of those realms is not ideal?

[Arcvalons]

For Egypt, Abbasids, etc. the tooltip text reads something like "we know this realm was not feudal/clan so have a band-aid for now". Is this Paradox admitting the current situation of those realms is not ideal?

Not super familiar with the historicity of it all but the impression I had is that the Abbasids were in fact something we'd call "administrative" and it's until Seljuk came with his Turkish ways that west asia became something we'd recognize as Clan/Feudal.

 

[BrotherJonathan]

For Egypt, Abbasids, etc. the tooltip text reads something like "we know this realm was not feudal/clan so have a band-aid for now". Is this Paradox admitting the current situation of those realms is not ideal?

Not super familiar with the historicity of it all but the impression I had is that the Abbasids were in fact something we'd call "administrative" and it's until Seljuk came with his Turkish ways that west asia became something we'd recognize as Clan/Feudal.

AFAIK it's moreso that the devs recognize that, although the Administrative government is mostly modeled on Byzantium, there are several other medieval realms that arguably had similar systems (i.e. Abbasids). But the devs didn't want to make this government type the default for them, both for gameplay balance reasons, and to prevent half a dozen long-winded historical argument threads from popping up here about whether or not X kingdom should be considered Administrative or not. So, they made it optional as a compromise.

 

[DeanTheDull]

For Egypt, Abbasids, etc. the tooltip text reads something like "we know this realm was not feudal/clan so have a band-aid for now". Is this Paradox admitting the current situation of those realms is not ideal?

Has Paradox ever claimed any current situation for any realm is ideal?

 

[Rubidium]

And of course the current administrative government that is loosely based on Byzantium is massively inappropriate for most of those realms as well.

In particular, the lack of independence or dissolution factions is obviously going to cause problems (even more than it already does for Byzantium), as a quick comparison between 867 and 1066 will demonstrate.

But the feudal system used in CK also doesn't really model anywhere either (even western Europe). All systems in-game are kind of a kludge by necessity.

 

[Arcvalons]

So, they made it optional as a compromise.

Of course, this contributed to Game Rule bloat, which is starting to get out of control at this point.

 

[Arcvalons]

I think perhaps the best solution would be to have these realms use a variant of Administrative by default, with some minor changes, mainly flavor/localization and in general some mechanic that allows independence of the frontiers.

 

[heliostellar]

Of course, this contributed to Game Rule bloat, which is starting to get out of control at this point.

Game rule bloat? How is this even possible? If you don't like game rules, then just keep the default rules? I thought customizing your gaming experience was a good thing. I cannot possibly think of any scenario where there are "too many" rules, except if they start interfering with each other and causing bugs.

EDIT: I think the idea is that you can try out different combinations to suit what you feel would be a plausible alternate history given your goals for the playthrough, especially if you are getting annoyed by either: a. constant implaccable blobs OR b. extremely weak pagans.

 

[le cur]

What I got from the dev diaries is mostly that they wanted to create a very specific focused government type for Byzantine governance in the same way the current Clan system is noticeably tailored for Persia towards and after the end of the Intermezzo, and so they didn't include other Admin realms as default because it would lead to inaccurate governance in a different way. To me that's a sign of future government types being much more purpose-built for the different realms; I wouldn't be surprised if the Feudalism overhaul is a multi-stage process including new systems for Asian and possibly African "Feudal" rulers before tackling the rule of Europe proper.

Likewise, I could envision a Caliphate-centric DLC where they create a dedicated non-Clan system which covers Abbasid, Fatimid and Ayyubid governance which is quite similar to Administrative rule but with more of an emphasis on dynastic territorial rule. One of the major issues with the current Admin model, and (I suspect) a key reason they don't expand it to other states, is that not only do governors not seek independence, but they also don't feudalise. That's justifiable for the Byzantines but the decline of the Abbasids and Fatimids saw local authorities forming de facto dynastic states, which in my view is a process that should begin before they secede.

 

[BrotherJonathan]

And of course the current administrative government that is loosely based on Byzantium is massively inappropriate for most of those realms as well.

In particular, the lack of independence or dissolution factions is obviously going to cause problems (even more than it already does for Byzantium), as a quick comparison between 867 and 1066 will demonstrate.

But the feudal system used in CK also doesn't really model anywhere either (even western Europe). All systems in-game are kind of a kludge by necessity.

Exactly, The current system is a little simplistic by nature, but the alternatives also have their own problems:

- Having governments be modular, like cultures and religions, could allow for more flexibility in government types. But, if not balanced properly, could also lead to the creation of a handful of blatantly OP "meta-governments" that everyone just rushes to from the start of the game.
- Having unique fixed governments dependent on culture, geography, and religion would avoid the above issue, but would create its own issues with players essentially having to learn a different set of special rules each time they try a new start. See all of the threads in the HOI and EU forums complaining about this phenomenon.

Overall the current way governments work does have issues, but I also feel that the main alternatives have enough issues of their own that there is no real reason to change things right now.

 

[Arcvalons]

Game rule bloat? How is this even possible? If you don't like game rules, then just keep the default rules? I thought customizing your gaming experience was a good thing. I cannot possibly think of any scenario where there are "too many" rules, except if they start interfering with each other and causing bugs.

EDIT: I think the idea is that you can try out different combinations to suit what you feel would be a plausible alternate history given your goals for the playthrough, especially if you are getting annoyed by either: a. constant implaccable blobs OR b. extremely weak pagans.

Having to scroll through dozens upon dozens of game rules whenever you start a new game is just not ideal.

 

[vandevere]

Having to scroll through dozens upon dozens of game rules whenever you start a new game is just not ideal.

It's more ideal than having what we had in the early days of CK2, when the Nerfit Crowd demanded nerf after nerf, all of which was forced upon the entire Gaming Population whether they wanted it or not. It also had the unintended effect of virtually driving the entire game right into the basement.

Game Rules make it so pretty much everyone can have the game they want without adversely affecting anyone else's game.

 

[Citizen Caen]

Having to scroll through dozens upon dozens of game rules whenever you start a new game is just not ideal.

You can literally save the rules you like one time and never have to touch it again. What are you talking about?

 

[le cur]

Having to scroll through dozens upon dozens of game rules whenever you start a new game is just not ideal.

You don't, though? Just stick to a default set of game rules, or go to the category you want changed, and leave the rest be.

 

[DeanTheDull]

Game rule bloat? How is this even possible? If you don't like game rules, then just keep the default rules? I thought customizing your gaming experience was a good thing. I cannot possibly think of any scenario where there are "too many" rules, except if they start interfering with each other and causing bugs.

EDIT: I think the idea is that you can try out different combinations to suit what you feel would be a plausible alternate history given your goals for the playthrough, especially if you are getting annoyed by either: a. constant implaccable blobs OR b. extremely weak pagans.

One of the funner rule-specific runs is a strategy that only works with Apocalytpic Varangian Adventures.

In short- starting as one of the viking bros in Scandinavia (like Sigurdr), your goal is to matrimonially marry all your daughters to commoner norse and then land them in conquered Scandi duchies. Due to the general rank difference, the marriage will give their husbands something like 1600 prestige iirc, which is enough for some MAA and then the Varangian Adventure casus belli, which the rule-change relaxes the conditions of. Because you landed the son-in-law yourself, it's a free marriage alliance, meaning they'll factor your strength in for war declarations, and you can join their wars even without them asking.

When you get this going- especially if you nab a culture hybrdiziation to get siege weapons- you can basically just be landing a steady stream of Varangian-adventuring son-in-laws across the map for the first century or so. Because the daughters are matri-married, your dynasty gets into places you wouldn't expect.

 

[Bisonmask]

Game rule bloat? How is this even possible? If you don't like game rules, then just keep the default rules? I thought customizing your gaming experience was a good thing. I cannot possibly think of any scenario where there are "too many" rules, except if they start interfering with each other and causing bugs.

EDIT: I think the idea is that you can try out different combinations to suit what you feel would be a plausible alternate history given your goals for the playthrough, especially if you are getting annoyed by either: a. constant implaccable blobs OR b. extremely weak pagans.

It makes gameplay balance terrible because the devs are balancing for an average rule setup. If, for example, most people play with the default of limited exclave independence except for players that makes it vanishingly unlikely that the devs will ever properly set up exclaves so they become independent/under someone else's control under certain circumstances but not others. So if you play on the game rule that sets it to off you can't really ask for systemic changes or expect them because it would be a massive waste of dev time to impact only the people not using the default role

There are many other examples, like religious and cultural conversion speeds being ridiculously fast in most situations, where you'll be met with "just play on slowest" which doesn't actually solve the problem. It's basically the regular problem of difficulty levels but repeated for every single rule

 

[Bisonmask]

You can literally save the rules you like one time and never have to touch it again. What are you talking about?

You don't, though? Just stick to a default set of game rules, or go to the category you want changed, and leave the rest be.

This works until the game is updated with new ones/you play a mod/you want to test rules/rules are rebalanced

(Sorry for double posting)

 

[heliostellar]

It's more ideal than having what we had in the early days of CK2, when the Nerfit Crowd demanded nerf after nerf, all of which was forced upon the entire Gaming Population whether they wanted it or not. It also had the unintended effect of virtually driving the entire game right into the basement.

Game Rules make it so pretty much everyone can have the game they want without adversely affecting anyone else's game.

This. And it was mostly because of their multiplayer games, and did not take into consideration that some of us never play multiplayer.

 

[an_squirrel]

This works until the game is updated with new ones/you play a mod/you want to test rules/rules are rebalanced

(Sorry for double posting)

This is confusing (and off topic but), if you want to test rules, you want them there, and rules can't be rebalanced, if they didn't exist, and if you're adding a mod that adds game rules, you're literally adding those extra game rules.

I am quite picky about my game rules (I try to make it "realistic" and have everything affect the player also, e.g. de jure rules, diseases, etc). I am also going for enabling most of admin realms because it gives a lot of states legs, that are otherwise pushovers. So I basically tweak every rule imaginable. It takes a minute or two to do, and save. This is not an issue.

 

[Bisonmask]

This is confusing (and off topic but), if you want to test rules, you want them there, and rules can't be rebalanced, if they didn't exist, and if you're adding a mod that adds game rules, you're literally adding those extra game rules.

I am quite picky about my game rules (I try to make it "realistic" and have everything affect the player also, e.g. de jure rules, diseases, etc). I am also going for enabling most of admin realms because it gives a lot of states legs, that are otherwise pushovers. So I basically tweak every rule imaginable. It takes a minute or two to do, and save. This is not an issue.

I think it's on topic given game rule issues are the topic

When I say test I mean test the balance. There are a lot of people complaining on here that allowing conqueror inheritance just leads to enormous blobs, if I don't want that in my games I might check to see if that rule makes sense. If the rule wasn't there I wouldn't have to do this and the design of conquerors would necessarily have to reflect the fact that people who don't like them can just turn them off. That is the lack of the rule would be more likely to create well designed features

And when I say mod I mean playing mods. If you regularly play TC mods especially every game start involves scrolling down the list to enable disable or correct a bunch of game rules because every update seems to break the save function

Again imo that's just how the game should work but because the game doesn't work like that the developers don't design around the game working like that and any feedback to improve that play experience is less useful to pdx because you could be playing on any number of game rule setups

 

[Arcvalons]

I'd rather have the game be balanced by the devs, and then have development and updates around that balance, than never balance it because "there's a game rule for that".