1500 hours here, I would be very happy to see something like that in the game, I believe that was also one of the reasons behind Hordes being so OP.
-
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.
Something like if the emperor died with no heir, its vassals will destory the empire and become a loose alliance or fight with each other？ I think this should be added in CK3 and triggered when in some special situation.
Just don't make it global. Make it a Game Rule, so players can play how they please. If you want a constant, never-ending uphill struggle, fine. But not all of us do.
Just please - no arbitrary soft/hard limits. Player should be able to paint entire map anyway (see The Three Mountains rule) - just make it conveniently harder: more challenges to tackle, more goals to achieve, more hard work to put into holding all things together. Probably AI will fail with this much likely, so there will be less AI blobs to worry (but then - are AI blobs that bad? they are at least a force to be reckoned with)
The problem of the cycle of rebellion is that it never manged to be interesting. Because interest comes from dealing with issues and trying to fix or mitigate them - the earlier patches tended to make rebellions almost unsolveable, so it wasn't interesting, and the later ones made fixing it easy, so it wasn't interesting.
Both eras had their pros and cons.
IMO the best way to fix it would be to reward, instead of powerplay, dynastic play - which is hard, of course, because your family members are all idiots. But if I spend my time putting my brother on the French throne (rather than myself) I might care less that my conquering France will result in a century of hellish gameplay as I deal with unbeatable rebels - after all that's not what I'm trying.
The crusades mechanic in Holy Fury somewhat tried that, but because powerplay was the way to go, I tended to try to game that (i.e. make sure you're the heir of your claimant, or at least make sure you can overthrow them and use the dynasty rule to make the new claimant a vassal of your empire).
The hard question is how to do that. After all, in CK2, if my Britain conquers France, I can then go conquer Spain next, or Germany, or Italy, and on it goes. If I install a French ruler of my dynasty, what next? I might manage Germany or Spain from my ships, but my French relations probably won't be any help (because they don't understand).
Of course Paradox might surprise us by making the internal cycle of gameplay so exciting that after a century of struggle, I'll be happy enough to even get a chance to invade France and put my brother on the throne, and then leave me busy enough for the next hundred to only wake up again when it comes time to install my family (and my cadet branches from France) in the Holy Land. But that seems a bit optimistic, since even the best Paradox games at internal gameplay (Vicky2 and CK2) didn't come close to making a fully non-expansionist game seem fun to me.
Both eras had their pros and cons.
IMO the best way to fix it would be to reward, instead of powerplay, dynastic play - which is hard, of course, because your family members are all idiots. But if I spend my time putting my brother on the French throne (rather than myself) I might care less that my conquering France will result in a century of hellish gameplay as I deal with unbeatable rebels - after all that's not what I'm trying.
The crusades mechanic in Holy Fury somewhat tried that, but because powerplay was the way to go, I tended to try to game that (i.e. make sure you're the heir of your claimant, or at least make sure you can overthrow them and use the dynasty rule to make the new claimant a vassal of your empire).
The hard question is how to do that. After all, in CK2, if my Britain conquers France, I can then go conquer Spain next, or Germany, or Italy, and on it goes. If I install a French ruler of my dynasty, what next? I might manage Germany or Spain from my ships, but my French relations probably won't be any help (because they don't understand).
Of course Paradox might surprise us by making the internal cycle of gameplay so exciting that after a century of struggle, I'll be happy enough to even get a chance to invade France and put my brother on the throne, and then leave me busy enough for the next hundred to only wake up again when it comes time to install my family (and my cadet branches from France) in the Holy Land. But that seems a bit optimistic, since even the best Paradox games at internal gameplay (Vicky2 and CK2) didn't come close to making a fully non-expansionist game seem fun to me.
Something that occurred to me when playing is that it should be possible for titles to ‘die.’ At the moment, once a Kingdom or Empire title is created, someone will have it. If the current emperor is weak and the realm breaks up, inevitably someone will seize the title from him and use the de jure claims it grants to rebuild the empire pretty quickly.
I think if a king/emperor no longer holds enough of the de jure realm (whether directly or through vassals), then upon his death that title will die with him. The title can be recreated if someone meets the requirements, but until then nobody will have it, and therefore won’t have an easy route to rebuilding the realm.
I think if a king/emperor no longer holds enough of the de jure realm (whether directly or through vassals), then upon his death that title will die with him. The title can be recreated if someone meets the requirements, but until then nobody will have it, and therefore won’t have an easy route to rebuilding the realm.
@Larva That's not the point. Instead of a strict limit (vassal limit *cough cough*), large empires should become progressively harder and harder to keep united at the borders as you expand + should be sufficiantly vulnerable to be conquered easily when you don't manage to stabilize it.
I wrote a whole suggestion thread about how to do this (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/ck3-features-id-like-to-see-in-it.1160370/).
I wrote a whole suggestion thread about how to do this (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/ck3-features-id-like-to-see-in-it.1160370/).
One of the problems in my opinion is that there isn't enough incentive for a kingdom to really meddle in the affairs of another kingdom I would like to see more wars to install puppet kings than wars of outright conquest if I invite a pretender from another kingdom and then press his claim for him instead of a opinion modifier I should get tangible benefits like paying tribute or an ubreakable alliance for twenty years
This is indeed my most important point as well. If a title (in particular a king or emperor level title) doesn't hold enough power anymore, it should cease to exist. There's no way for that to happen right now. If the Empire of Francia is ever formed, Europe will never fracture, etc. I'd love to be able to give Charlemagne the e_francia title to create a strong Europe in the early game, and then have it implode at some point (for example after some prodding from my king whose grandfather started as count in Charlemagne's time) and fracture Europe so you're fighting wars against something that's not the entirety of Europe.
I think this is a really good idea. Right now pushing someone's title does almost nothing (it's really only worth it if they become your vassal or in the rare case that they inherit towards you), if they become your tributary or something similar that would make it much more worth. I'd get that random courtier on the throne of England every time if that meant they then had to pay me and join my wars. Even if I'd lose it with a weak ruler or even just on my death.
In my opinion, the Byzantine 'Empire' does deserve to be demoted to a 'petty empire' after at least 1204, but possibly before; so maybe that's a way to deal with it? If the Byzantine Empire becomes the Kingdom of the Straits (obviously can't have current Greece and Anatolia as they are) if it shrinks too much and the emperor dies, in practice of not in displayed name, that would be quite fitting.
And, to be honest, I feel that would also be the more realistic case - if the 'king of France' is reduced to a tiny county around Paris, he will still derive prestige from being the nominal heir to such a great legacy, but that doesn't mean the Duke of Normandy and Burgundy thinks it's okay for him to go attack the Count of Orleans.
First war against Tyranny - king gets replaced by alternative candidate from the same dynasty, the title itself gets -15 vassal opinion for 100 years simulating general distrust of the king and the dynasty.
Second war against Tyranny - Another dynasty assumes the throne, decentralized, lowest monarch power, elective government, -30 opinion malus for 50 years.
Third war against Tyranny - Vassals bind together and break the empire or kingdom down to their own feuds. In case of kingdoms with multiple kingdoms under it the strongest vassal in each becomes king.Lands that are not connected get given over to another lord or given independence.
Second war against Tyranny - Another dynasty assumes the throne, decentralized, lowest monarch power, elective government, -30 opinion malus for 50 years.
Third war against Tyranny - Vassals bind together and break the empire or kingdom down to their own feuds. In case of kingdoms with multiple kingdoms under it the strongest vassal in each becomes king.Lands that are not connected get given over to another lord or given independence.
One thing I noticed is that mega vassals makes a realm mega stable, even for the AI, mostly due to Conclave, while in real life such arrangements have never been stable because of the broken balance of power in the realm.
And to expand on the revolt breaking realms, perhaps overthrowing rulers or claimant rebellions can result in disgruntled vassals breaking off in the aftermath.
And to expand on the revolt breaking realms, perhaps overthrowing rulers or claimant rebellions can result in disgruntled vassals breaking off in the aftermath.
I want to make multiple points,:
1) There should be a mechanism through which you can destroy your liege's title.
2) It has already been confirmed that you get incentives to play as your character's traits indicate.
Therefore I think it would be a good idea when how more "security" (large realm, no external and internal threats and a secure succesion) a ruler feels, he will disregard affairs of state more and more.
So an emperor has much greater chance to get traits like slothful, lustful, hedonist, etc. than a count.
It could turn so bad that the ruler points a regent to rule for him, while the ruler (and the player) is distracted by events regarding chasing women for example.
3) It would be also interesting if they added for every (independent) ruler a legitimacy bar. It would function similarly as religious authority.
1) There should be a mechanism through which you can destroy your liege's title.
2) It has already been confirmed that you get incentives to play as your character's traits indicate.
Therefore I think it would be a good idea when how more "security" (large realm, no external and internal threats and a secure succesion) a ruler feels, he will disregard affairs of state more and more.
So an emperor has much greater chance to get traits like slothful, lustful, hedonist, etc. than a count.
It could turn so bad that the ruler points a regent to rule for him, while the ruler (and the player) is distracted by events regarding chasing women for example.
3) It would be also interesting if they added for every (independent) ruler a legitimacy bar. It would function similarly as religious authority.
Rather than the ruler, I think the title itself should have a legitimacy rating. That way, you can have the possibility where the ruler's claim to the Kingdom is shaky, but none doubts their claim to their duchy (even if the low rating of the former might still negatively affect the latter). It also would be a way to make map painting more challenging even if you get a string of incredible rulers and a rock-solid hold on your primary Kingdom/empire, because there could be a ceiling on legitimacy for titles that aren't your primary title or a de jure part of it (possibly relative to their distance from your primary title), as well as sort of "de facto" legitimacy for vassals whose holdings are outside of your primary title's de jure when you don't have the title until/unless de jure drift can happen.
Then I figure you have certain levels of stability that invite more chaos, like giving de jure vassals a chance to leave on succession or give more individuals the right to use a claim CB. Lowest means the title has a chance to shatter if you don't shape things up in X years or before the holder dies, or if you lose too much land in general to independence wars and foreign invasion. There might be ways to get the kingdom/empire to reach "too established to fail" (at least for some cases) but it should take generations of good legitimacy and/or taking laws or succession types that CK players are loathed to do, like some form of Elective succession or giving substantial power to the council... and that legitimacy cap for non-primary titles should make it pretty much impossible for those.
It would have to be an organic level of decay. An empire isn't any more special than a kingdom, county or city, which rise and fall on their own lifecycles of booms and busts.
There have been attempts to break the omnipotence of empires over the years. Vassal limits for inside pressure, defensive pacts for outside pressure, council powers and revolts to break up state autonomy, enclaves breaking off, and so on. I would welcome more attempts like that, since it gives a causal source for the empire to fall apart, rather than "100 years ticked, do something to break it".
If the player was forced to engage with various pressures that risk destabilizing the realm, and the health of the empire depends on their ability to effectively manage it? Bring it on, Paradox. Your machinations against my army of nubile daughters. If it's simply forcing instability? Ehh, punishing good choices is never fun.
There have been attempts to break the omnipotence of empires over the years. Vassal limits for inside pressure, defensive pacts for outside pressure, council powers and revolts to break up state autonomy, enclaves breaking off, and so on. I would welcome more attempts like that, since it gives a causal source for the empire to fall apart, rather than "100 years ticked, do something to break it".
If the player was forced to engage with various pressures that risk destabilizing the realm, and the health of the empire depends on their ability to effectively manage it? Bring it on, Paradox. Your machinations against my army of nubile daughters. If it's simply forcing instability? Ehh, punishing good choices is never fun.
He is right. One of CK2 biggest problems is how stable empires are. Like Whenever one players get an empire in my multiplayer games they lose interest in playing that empire cause the game is just too easy at that point.
I’ve put this elsewhere, but I think a system of distance impacted loyalty and autonomy could be an interesting way to provide ebbs and flows of a kingdom’s power. The farther from a seat of power, the more autonomy vassals will exert, and if central influence isn’t exerted, be it by giving your border nobles incentives to stay in the realm, sending crown agents to keep an eye on things, or military force, they could eventually just drop out of your realm. Non-violent exits from realms also seems like a cool idea to me.
I also very much like the suggestion that if at a monarch’s death, they control only a fraction of their de hire lands, that title gets damaged or destroyed.
Regardless, options like this should be in the opening screen toggles, because they definitely aren’t for everyone.
I also very much like the suggestion that if at a monarch’s death, they control only a fraction of their de hire lands, that title gets damaged or destroyed.
Regardless, options like this should be in the opening screen toggles, because they definitely aren’t for everyone.
There could of course be titles that are excepted from the rule, kind of like how CK2 has a de jure drift exception to k_jerusalem.
IMO one of the main issues of CK2's empires is simply that de jure empires functions exactly like de jure kingdoms.
De jure kingdoms mostly work (atleast in western europe) by keeping the kingdoms together, maybe expanding a little, which isn't that bad. But it completely breaks on empire level, simply because they're so large, while none of the de jure vassals wants independence, which is in no way realistic.
the HRE is probably the worst example of this - it was, with a few exceptions, not really capable of projecting the kind military might it can just endlessly do in CK2.
Something I've been thinking about was that the further away a war is from the main holding of a vassal, fewer froops are provided by said vassal..
De jure kingdoms mostly work (atleast in western europe) by keeping the kingdoms together, maybe expanding a little, which isn't that bad. But it completely breaks on empire level, simply because they're so large, while none of the de jure vassals wants independence, which is in no way realistic.
the HRE is probably the worst example of this - it was, with a few exceptions, not really capable of projecting the kind military might it can just endlessly do in CK2.
Something I've been thinking about was that the further away a war is from the main holding of a vassal, fewer froops are provided by said vassal..