I mean, historically newly converted rulers would have demanded a conversion to their most loyal vassals, and they would (even reluctantly) have accepted. What do you think about it? Why did you feel like it was something to change?
-
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.
In vanilla CK2 as it stands religious minorities (which can only really be meaningfully expressed by characters, since CK2 is largely character-driven) are very easy to completely remove, which is incongruous with our understanding of history - religious minorities existed in courts and some courts/populations were heavily mixed (especially towards the beginning of CK2's depicted period). I think the move from auto-conversion to chancy-conversion influenced by character traits is a good one because A) it puts the focus on characters (is your ruler persuasive or learned enough) and B) it prevents the player from ironing their entire court one religion in a week.
Gameplay-wise it throws up approval challenges but not insurmountable ones (since you can still pass heretic-title-revocation laws, or take the tyranny hit) and I like the nuance of choosing how to convert - it adds a little bit of flavour to what is often a strategically-driven choice on the part of the player. I like differentiating between pragmatic queens who view unified faith as a political tool (and thus convert via diplomacy) and frothing-mouthed tyrants who incur the proper penalties for their repression. Like CK2+ at its best, it's a small choice that allows you to tell a story to yourself as you play, and I personally prefer that over "oh good, they're all 30 approval, let's clean house".
Gameplay-wise it throws up approval challenges but not insurmountable ones (since you can still pass heretic-title-revocation laws, or take the tyranny hit) and I like the nuance of choosing how to convert - it adds a little bit of flavour to what is often a strategically-driven choice on the part of the player. I like differentiating between pragmatic queens who view unified faith as a political tool (and thus convert via diplomacy) and frothing-mouthed tyrants who incur the proper penalties for their repression. Like CK2+ at its best, it's a small choice that allows you to tell a story to yourself as you play, and I personally prefer that over "oh good, they're all 30 approval, let's clean house".
- 1
I like CK2+ system far more. There's actually strategy involved on who to convert (or try to) and who to simply replace. The conversion from pagan to Christian is particularly nice, because one has the sympathy trait that makes the old faith bearable, but only for a generation.