Kurultai Succession is too trivial to stabilize

[rboetto]

I've played a few games now and haven't been faced with a single chaotic succession -- there's just too many options to get out of it:

(1) You can flip 1 or 2 Kurultai to obedient during a nerge, which you want to do regularly anyways because it's your main way of turning herd into gold.
(2) Befriend scheme is pretty easy on your own court, which also flips them to obedient
(3) You can just pay some herd/gold which flips them
(4) Dread passively flips them.

The *only* time I legitimately faced a chaotic succession is when I married my oldest daughter away and she joined another court -- but then it didn't even happen. She died in a raid.

I don't need this to be excruciatingly difficult, but right now its basically nothing.

 

[CAELISTIX]

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.

 

[rboetto]

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.

The fact that a feature that should be significant is hardly present in the game.

 

[CAELISTIX]

Why should it be significant?

Historically, that hasn’t always been the case. Just because a mechanic exists doesn’t mean it has to play a major role in every playthrough. Just like in real life—just because something is technically possible doesn’t mean people will always choose to do it. Free will and all that.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Why should it be significant?

Historically, that hasn’t always been the case. Just because a mechanic exists doesn’t mean it has to play a major role in every playthrough. Just like in real life—just because something is technically possible doesn’t mean people will always choose to do it. Free will and all that.

It hasnt always been the case historically, but if the player can blob even more easily with this form of gov than they could in ck2 or than the other forms of gov, the mechanic for breaking the blob needs to work properly.

 

[rboetto]

Why should it be significant?

Historically, that hasn’t always been the case. Just because a mechanic exists doesn’t mean it has to play a major role in every playthrough. Just like in real life—just because something is technically possible doesn’t mean people will always choose to do it. Free will and all that.

I didn't say it needed a "major role". It just needs A role.

Currently it's so trivial to gain obedience that the mechanic effectively *does nothing*. It has net zero impact on the game experience.

I don't want to be tortured by Kurultai succession, but I do want it to have a presence in the game -- that's what makes it a mechanic.

 

[Willy Waggler]

if the player can blob even more easily

I don't see permanently available kingdom tier cb like feudals and admins have with by the sword holy war. Also admins have way more control on their subjects, more income, and don't have to worry about herd casualties.
Nomads are way more inferior in all prospects.

 

[rboetto]

I don't see permanently available kingdom tier cb like feudals and admins have with by the sword holy war. Also admins have way more control on their subjects, more income, and don't have to worry about herd casualties.
Nomads are way more inferior in all prospects.

My understanding is that nomads are able to snowball quickly into military powerhouse, especially when led by a highly skilled leader, but becoming unstable as a critical mass is achieved and succession occurs. By contrast, admin realms should be there for the long run.

I've found this premise to be partially accomplished. It's not quite as "boom or bust" as I had imagined it.

 

[tribnia]

I think that, if a Khan is not old, and died accidentally, there should always lead to some sort of chaotic succession, as no one is ready for it.

 

[MirrorMonkey2]

Why should it occur more often?
Because the game is TOO EASY. This is the answer to 90% of the games problems. Haven‘t played the DLC myself yet, but based on what I‘ve read and heard from the many reviews I‘ve seen the problem is the same as always.
Other than that, I‘m very exited for the DLC and LOVE the concept. I‘m sure I‘ll have lots of fun anyways

 

[rboetto]

I think that, if a Khan is not old, and died accidentally, there should always lead to some sort of chaotic succession, as no one is ready for it.

That's a great idea.

Maybe if the Khan dies within the first 5-10 years it's always a chaotic succession. That'd be great.

 

[Benismann]

You forgot the "just negotiate obedience without offering anything" strat the sole existence of which makes me so angry at the mechanic. If i can negotiate obedience with someone without offering anything - why are they not obedient already? Threshold exists, why is it not clearing it? Why do i have to engage in a micro-fest to keep people who are willing to unconditionally be obedient to me obedient when there're systems in place to make people who would be obedient obedient?

And obedience in general is just too easy to gain through both interactions. Excluding them i barely saw ppl being obedient just because, which seems fair.

 

[Benismann]

My understanding is that nomads are able to snowball quickly into military powerhouse, especially when led by a highly skilled leader, but becoming unstable as a critical mass is achieved and succession occurs. By contrast, admin realms should be there for the long run.

I've found this premise to be partially accomplished. It's not quite as "boom or bust" as I had imagined it.

As always with ck3, the "boom" part is there, the "bust" one is not. Same with every new government ever.

 

[rboetto]

As always with ck3, the "boom" part is there, the "bust" one is not. Same with every new government ever.

I mean, I would expect varying degrees of stability from different governments.

But Nomads should NOT be the most stable government -- they should be the fastest-growing, sure, but also the most volatile.

 

[Goodfortune99]

You forgot the "just negotiate obedience without offering anything" strat the sole existence of which makes me so angry at the mechanic. If i can negotiate obedience with someone without offering anything - why are they not obedient already? Threshold exists, why is it not clearing it? Why do i have to engage in a micro-fest to keep people who are willing to unconditionally be obedient to me obedient when there're systems in place to make people who would be obedient obedient?

And obedience in general is just too easy to gain through both interactions. Excluding them i barely saw ppl being obedient just because, which seems fair.

I agree. Obedience is at the same time a mechanic that's too forgiving as well as too much micromanagement to handle, when vassals past the threshold should automatically be obedient.

 

[ArynI]

It’s same with everything - take regents for instance, they were labeled as potential threat but is it for anyone?

 

[Apocal]

I mean, I would expect varying degrees of stability from different governments.

But Nomads should NOT be the most stable government -- they should be the fastest-growing, sure, but also the most volatile.

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.

 

[The Shacks]

Nomadic Sucession should trend toward chaotic more than stable. Nomadic realms in any medium are usually big on the unstable element mechanically.
Blob and collapse, blob and collapse. This is meant to be the tempo on the steppe.

 

[The Shacks]

It’s same with everything - take regents for instance, they were labeled as potential threat but is it for anyone?

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.

 

[TL_]

When I got the opportunity for the Dominance Decision, I noticed that using it caused me to lose one obedience because triggering the war broke a truce and that made him angry. That seemed like good game design.

The only bad thing is that the decision itself did not tell me I was breaking a truce (it was my first time using the decision, was unaware it would count as trucebreaking for me) and so I got hit with a large prestige penalty I wasn't expecting, plus lost level of fame, plus that penalty. Fortunately I don't play Iron Man.