• 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.
Regency would work a lot better if Paradox copied the AGOT Mod Devs and made regencies trigger when you are leading armies. They never have enough time to entrench when it's just you going on a travel or being sick or whatever.

And personally, I tend to make warlike leaders a lot, so I'm often leading my armies. It would be fun to come back from a long war and find my brother or regent or wutvr entrenched doin his own thing. This is what often made Medieval leaders fear to stray too far from home on campaigns, I could list so many examples of English Monarchs or Royal Dukes worrying over this when campaigning in the Low Countries or France. While im on this thought train, it would be cool to see regencies expand at somepoint into regency councils, another fun point of historical tension in many English and French monarchies.
For that there should be some very important reason to lead armies in the first place instead of just putting first or second best commander. Like some massive penalty for opinion if you aren't, but the problem is it wasn't like this in every system/culture/situation and you can stack opinion modifiers too easily so most likely the players would rather eat the penalty than to deal with hassle of regencies
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Frankly I think succession could use a rework.

Domain and herd should be divided up among all the male relatives upon death. Succession should almost always be somewhat chaotic/violent. Bring back elective tanistry to determine where the primary titles go with male relatives that have high prestige/dread/piety getting the most score. The current ruler should be able to “nudge” succession towards his preferred heir while they are alive. Give the player more choice to decide which male heir they want to play as.

I don’t really see the need for the obedience disobedience mechanic at least for succession tbh.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
It’s same with everything - take regents for instance, they were labeled as potential threat but is it for anyone?
funny that even when u do somehow end up with an hard entrenched regency (that means it went past the point where u can spam "ask to leave" button to annihilate regents power, that's like lvl 4 i think) - AI just doesnt do anything. It just sits there being an annoying lvl 6 regency that makes u waste bazillion prestige on doing mundane things. It doesnt overthrow u, it still needs ur approval on doing anything (which means u always refuse and they dont get to do anything lol).

Just... why.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Even then, they should only be fast-growing under a narrow set of circumstances. It was (and is) easy to grow a massive herd of horses on the steppes, after all, but horses don't have that much utility once you're past enough to have a warhorse, some spares, etc. Not every group on the steppe menaced settled peoples after coalescing into a massive, grass-fueled, throat-singing, rolling thunder of horses. Most didn't and those that did relied on settled states on their border being weak.

Making nomads have to really scrape by -- and.fight each other for the scraps -- until an opportunity opened would justify a lot of the power growth they can have in CK3.
How do u think ck3 could achieve that with the current mechanics? I may or may not have a mod based on balancing the game and it does sound like an interesting idea to me, but i have no thoughts on how to do that in a way that would let AI achieve something sometimes too.
Coz sure, you could just cut all numbers 3 times, and that probably would achieve the desired effect, but will i make the steppe an interesting place to look at? Because lets be real, 90% of what 90% of the places in any given campaign get from the player is a look, a glance over them.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
How do u think ck3 could achieve that with the current mechanics? I may or may not have a mod based on balancing the game and it does sound like an interesting idea to me, but i have no thoughts on how to do that in a way that would let AI achieve something sometimes too.
Coz sure, you could just cut all numbers 3 times, and that probably would achieve the desired effect, but will i make the steppe an interesting place to look at? Because lets be real, 90% of what 90% of the places in any given campaign get from the player is a look, a glance over them.
A few ways come to mind, with at least some historical backing:

Fertility should be more sharply limited and require, at least in some circumstances, proactively taking it from your neighbor in order to survive. Right now that doesn't really happen but if the steppes were less bountiful that would directly translate into less ability (or even inability) to hurt a serious sedentary state next door. It would also promote more competition between various steppe powers, which would in turn limit their ability to engage in farmer-bothering. Basically, make it a bad neighborhood to live in for the most part.

Secondly, unifying the steppes to any real degree should require a ruler who is both willing to make big promises and able to ensure they happen. Throughout the Han-Xiongnu conflict, it was noted that the Xiongnu's ruling class was essentially "buying" the support of other tribes. It was something that was a mix between status competition (I've got shinier stuff than you!), enticement and outright bribery at times. So in CK3 terms, nomadic followers should be sharply limited along family and cultural lines, with any extras brought in by "buying" them off with resources that mostly settled realms provide. It could just be burning renown or prestige directly for an opinion buff in pure mechanical terms, scaled so that you can't just max everyone at +100 forever but instead have to make some decisions and compromises.

Finally, force more points of contact between steppes and settled areas. Instead of herd being a nomad-only thing, it should be tied to anyone trying to raise large numbers of mounted MAAs. It should be a boon to army movement speed and supply capacity. Meanwhile, the steppes should be rich in horses but poor in literally everything else. It should be an equivalent -- but less immediately pressing -- requirement that they get the resources offered by settled societies to advance their cause on the steppes by equipping them with useful items like swords, iron and steel armor, etc., status-indicating things like wheat, silk, spices, etc. or useful skills in medicine, siegecraft, accounting. Mechanically, it could be something as simple as a "Traded for Horses"/"Traded for Goods" modifier that makes it easier to upgrade to cavalry MAAs for settled realms and armored for nomadic realms.


Overall though, the only way the steppes should be overrunning settled states is if a whole lot of things are going bad, all at once.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
How do u think ck3 could achieve that with the current mechanics? I may or may not have a mod based on balancing the game and it does sound like an interesting idea to me, but i have no thoughts on how to do that in a way that would let AI achieve something sometimes too.
Coz sure, you could just cut all numbers 3 times, and that probably would achieve the desired effect, but will i make the steppe an interesting place to look at? Because lets be real, 90% of what 90% of the places in any given campaign get from the player is a look, a glance over them.
If theres more struggle in achieving your goal, its more satisfying to achieve it. If you can do grand conquests of settled people not long after start date, its really diminished in value
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
What's your problem exactly? That seems to be accurate.

You are not supposed to face issues with succession every time.
In feudal governments technically lords would create factions against you when they are unhappy with their new ruler.
You wouldn't complain about not getting a dissolution war every time either.
You're conflating "doesn't happen historically" with "trivial" when the reason succession usually goes fine in most places is because it's one of the main things a given ruler is concerned with securing over the course of their life and thousands of other people's lives also depend on enthroning their desired successor


CK3 Conclave when
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
And what do you know? Latest balance patch addresses a lot of the issues that were brought up in this thread.

There's still more room for improvement, but let this be an example that Paradox does listen to us.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: