What will be done about blobbing?

[Drakken]

Title is self-explanatory. Let's discuss what can be done to limit blobbing - or make it more difficult to hold a blobbing Empire. My opinion : Expanding is far too easy in CK2, and it's the big elephant in the room for CK3.

a) Vassal limit does not stop the player from holding a mega-Empire, at all.
b) Factions are still very underwhelming : No loyalist faction, no courtiers jockeying for influence on the Council, etc.
c) It is too easy to increase your stats to improve a low-to-mediocre ruler into a superman ruler.
d) It should be far (exponientially) more expensive to declare war for a non-De Jure territory, than for a De Jure territory.
e) Let's introduce some balance of power mechanic. CK2 threat is just insufficient as a mechanic, and your neighbors should not see your expansion very kindly at all.

 

[Heiliges Thüringens Reich]

Hands off of my wide playstyle!

 

[Antoine]

Expanding is only ultra easy because of religious wars (and them snowballing into a religion losing influence, and its remaining kingdoms plagued with heresies becoming even easier to conquer), expanding against same religion powers (if you don't have access to invasion cb) can rather be described as slow as hell.

Anyway expansion is globally fine, the problem is more that it's too easy to keep an ultra large realm forever, as vassals aren't allowed to pledge to someone else even if they revolt, and are too easy to bribe (and also to imprison to provoke isolated rebellions and then redistribute fiefs, as most spend their lives plotting to kill some unimportant courtier who became their rival because of some random event, or to claim other duke titles, even if you have a godlike spymaster).

 

[PhilzuNeide]

I hope they end the coalition mechanic of CKII. It may have served its purpose of limiting empires to grow to large to quickly but it was unrealistic and annoying.

My idea of limiting blobbing is to let diplomatic distance matter inside an empire. It simply is unrealistic that I can order my vassal in Persia at the same time as the vassal in Italy.
I would propose to let the power of the ruler shrink with growing distance as the vassals get more and more autonomy. Depending on the strength of the ruler these distant vassals could switch to become tributaries if the conditions are right or leave outright.

 

[Cardolam]

For me this is a subject of capital importance. The ability to paint the map in one color (or half the map, or a quarter of it!) and keep it for long is utter nonsense that should be treated the same way as the Devil Worshipers, Supernatural events and Absurd events: Through a game rule.

I think challenging internal conflict, depending on the number of provinces, the amount of different cultures and religions the realm has, should be generated by a large and complex event pool to address this matter.

 

[y8r4G0xz3fFkXdGXyJ4V]

My hope is not necessarily that the mechanics of expanding are changed, but that the cost of going to war is massively increased, even in victory. It should never be a decision that is taken lightly.

I’d like the bonus of having (or penalty of not having) the ruler lead their army increased, adding to the risk. I like the potential of the new knight system - we will perhaps see an increase in nobles being lost in war, potentially destabilising realms.

 

[Avernite]

I think the dynasty system might help - as I understand it you get points for having rulers of your dynasty who have no other your-dynasty overlord. So you'll ideally have maybe an Empire yourself, and put your cadet houses in all the other Empires (or, if the dynastic prestige scoring is weird, put your cadet branches in hundreds of independent counties).

Mind, the powergamer will still want their Empire, but beyond that if the power-gaming options is to put your dynasty in independently...

 

[wthree]

I think focusing on internal politics is an important part. Having characters with more complex desires so you don't get situations where vassals just sit in factions and there is nothing that can get them out of it. But on the flip side characters should be aggressive about wanting to achieve their aims, and scorning a character will leave them distant and angry. One of the big problems is its an all or nothing situation. Characters will demand independence, and you either let them go or basically take all their land. It would be nice to be able to go "ok, you don't have to give troops or taxes, you can call yourself King, but you still call me your ruler."

Having a system where a vassal can claim de facto independence, where they just stop supporting you and attending your summons, but haven't officially left your realm.

Having characters have specific aims that aren't just completely random event spam, where multiple characters have aims that conflict. So two vassals want to become Marshal, whichever one you don't give it to, will go off and declare de facto independence. The more vassals you have, the more likely this will happen.

This, coupled with vassals being able to offer fealty to another lord if they help them in an independence war. Particularly crafty vassals might just them fight, then go "screw you both" halfway through the war.

 

[Drakken]

Also, usually vassals didn't want to overthrow the ruler - except in very specific reasons (either because there was a candidate with a "better" claim or because they were just fed up with him like Edward II). Vassals would instead prefer to control the Ruler by setting a Regency government, removing "bad" councillors, or forcing certain inalienable rights and privileges.

 

[Pyoro]

Ideally I'd like mechanics that does allow you to expand, but that'll also force you to concede ground. Like, you get a good ruler, and stuff works in your favor, you expand. You get a bad ruler, and some stuff doesn't go so well, so you lose territory again. It should be a bit of an ebb and flow, I guess.

But I suspect that many "normal" players would feel that's frustrating - "I'm not making any progress!" - so design will probably primarily mean you'll go in one direction, aka expansion, again. And that always sooner or later leaders to "more land -> more money -> more troops -> more land -> ..." spiraling.

 

[Nyanako]

The thing that should prevent blobbing should be, rebellious vassals, March Lords at the edge of your empire with just a bit too much power, a council that is rebellious, and civil war should be more threatening. It was fairly straightforward to keep a large empire together in CK2, I hope they use relationships, vassals, and powerful generals to help add a level of instability to your empire which was hinted at, but not fully exploited for CK2.

 

[Abraman]

I think if we are limiting blobbing then ideally we add greater depth to the actual act of reigning a kingdom. The fact of the matter is, there just really isnt much to do in CK2 if you're not going to war. Playing the marriage game is fun, but there's only so much sitting on speed 5 doing nothing you can take before you're longing for something to do. I think if CK3 tries to limit blobbing without giving you something to do in the meantime, it would be a mistake.

 

[Leyrann]

I have nothing against the ability to conquer the entire map, but it should be much harder than it is now. In particular, your strength currently just scales too well with your land, and once you get big enough you just declare war whenever you have a CB and then roll over whoever you declared on. While in reality, you see things like the Roman Empire being unable to conquer the relatively unorganized Germanic tribes that, in CK2, wouldn't hold a candle to the Empire.

(they were Germanic, right? I mean the tribes in modern-day Germany)

 

[Antoine]

The problem, in addition to how easy it is to avoid realm scale rebellions provoking individual revolts before, is the kind of things vassals unhappy with you usually ask for, even when they do form strong factions or revolt :

- lower crown autority -> doesn't do anything against your blobbing at all, once you are strong low crown autority may even help you expand faster as strong vassals can start foreign wars ignoring realm level truces and so may expand the realm more than you can with strong autority ; also helps you avoid more revolts with bonus relation
- establish elective monarchy -> by the time you can be described as a blob you have hundred of people in your dynasty many of them landed, making easy to find one that is an acceptable candidate, and likely even better than your primogeniture heir
- establish partage -> mildly annoying demand (...only if you have several childs), will still end with your main heir getting the better realm, and claims on others to reform the realm as soon they have a succession crisis or their weaker realms get invaded, usually only slows blobbing for one generation
- deposit current ruler -> unless you have no heir it's not a problem
- independance -> usually never happen if you distributed lands correctly as only fully non de jure vassals seem to ever ask for it, rebel alone instead of in a realm scale rebellion and so are easily squashed ; and even if it happened, as you usually put vassals of your culture in command, and unless neighbour realms are same culture, they will fail to diplo-vassalise the new independant dukes, making them easy to reconquer pushing some claim of a family member that stayed in the realm after giving him a de jure title
- deposit you in favor of a claimant out of your bloodline -> the only really game threatening thing, but you can see it coming just looking at the list of pretenders and easily make sure dangerous non bloodline claimants don't remain free to push their claims, as vassals very rarely support one who isn't already part of your realm (the only case where it'd really a dynasty threatening problem is a faction supporting a strong foreign ruler to take the throne, but it's so rare I only had the case 2 or 3 times in dozens of games played to the end ; and also the foreign ruler doesn't side with rebels and invade, nor faction join his claim war if he starts one, they may have the same goal but they act independantly) ; also you'd remain one of the strongest vassal of the realm even if it happened if you correctly developped your demesne

There's just nothing likely to cripple an huge multi kingdom in there. Partage may make the next ruler spend his life fighting his brothers to reconquer previous lands but that's all. Lower crown autority or elective monarchy usually even make a big realm more efficient.

Now if rebellious vassals started to :
- support foreign claimants when they try to take your realm (aka don't start revolt for him, wait for the foreign claimant to attack and join his war)
- directly pledge to a neighboring realm they like the ruler better, based on mutual relations only (instead of needing to fight for independance first and then de jure and culture factors making such pledges very unlikely)
- ask for seniority or ultimogeniture to make you next ruler weaker (if they detect it'll mean a senile 90 years old, or baby will have the throne, leading to a vassal controlled regency)
- instead of removing you after a rebellion force you to appoint a regent who will always oppose arresting the faction members and only allow to give conquered provinces to faction members for the rest of this reign
- change gender rule of inheritance law so an already married woman (likely the wife of faction leader) inherit
- ask you to reduce your own demesne (especially give up the ultra rich capital county to capital mayor, think Etienne Marcel)
- ask you to distribute large sums of gold / special highly remunerated honorary titles among them (and/or to multiply the salary of all existing honorary titles), creating economic problems for a long period
- ask you to break key dynastic ties (ie repudiate your wife they hate, what will unfortunately piss the 500 provinces Byzantine Empire she secured a non agression pact with, or lead to your excommunication)
- ask you to declare your most capable heir bastard (there's always some rumor to justify that)

... The vassal threat would be something completely different.

 

[Ixalmaris]

Holy Wars are much too easy in CK2. There needs to be a cost to declare them or otherwise the mechanic must be changed to make them not spammable.

And of course changes to tribes and nomads which can conquer far too easily, even without you doing anything and instead just letting your vassalls blob all over the place.

I fear though that PDX will try to appeal to EU4 players and "the mainstream" by map painting.

 

[kviiri]

Holy Wars are much too easy in CK2. There needs to be a cost to declare them or otherwise the mechanic must be changed to make them not spammable.

And of course changes to tribes and nomads which can conquer far too easily, even without you doing anything and instead just letting your vassalls blob all over the place.

I fear though that PDX will try to appeal to EU4 players and "the mainstream" by map painting.

CK2+ mod changes them so you need to either pay a heavy cost in piety (usually earned back from piety bonuses of occupation etc) or to have a blessing from one's religious head. The blessing of the religious head may be free, or they might demand money, investiture law change, a temple grant or just general kowtowing (prestige payment to the head) to comply.

I think something like that might be interesting, I like especially the part of tying the Pope (or other religious head) into it. But other implementations to make holy wars less overpowered would be interesting to hear of too.

 

[ray243]

Empires should be expensive to run. Or make feudal vassals less loyal the further away they are from you, being almost autonomous in some respect. It also should be difficult mustering a big army to campaign far away from the central core of your empire, as supply lines becomes stretched and etc.

There needs to be some distance penalty for running an empire.

 

[kviiri]

Empires should be expensive to run. Or make feudal vassals less loyal the further away they are from you, being almost autonomous in some respect. It also should be difficult mustering a big army to campaign far away from the central core of your empire, as supply lines becomes stretched and etc.

There needs to be some distance penalty for running an empire.

This could tie in to warfare mechanics: in CK2, almost every war is anachronistically total (the AI always commits their full force). There should be harsh political and economical penalties for over-committing levies, and this'd give the rebels a fighting chance as their parent empires have to face them on a more even footing than in CK2.

 

[Serenity84]

Putting a vassal on your council should not keep them out of factions. That makes controlling them way too easy. Though by itself it's not a solution. You can turn that off now and it still doesn't make faction control too hard.
As noted one issue is the opinion inflation. You may have some issues after succession, but after a while everyone loves you.

Making internal realm management significantly harder causes huge problems for the AI though. In CK2 is already can't handle it. For some reason many rulers constantly revoke titles and get into pointless civil wars.

 

[RagingJaws]

The AI in CK2 tends to lag behind the player in garnering power, both in terms of levies and building a treasury. A player who plays within both the rules and the "spirit of the rules" will always have control of a tightly packed and developed demense that fields well over a third to half of the entire Kingdom's military. CK3 needs AI that both develop their lands more intelligently, fielding larger armies, and works towards specific goals. Like factions, though we've no idea how that works.

I'm hoping that the hooks system being implemented works smoother than the AI weights we have now.

That said, I don't want to see antiblobbing mechanics that rely on troops/money spawning out of thin air. Nothing turned me off of CK2 harder than the bullshit tribal event troop button that was an artificial "mudslog" for conquering different religion pagans that sat on their asses for 30 years and did nothing but accrue passive prestige and piety.