There are some mods (CKPlus) that solve this problem of big realms being far too stable really well.
How many times do i have to say it? nerf muslims and nerf blobs
- Thread starter gman551
- Start date
-
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.
Unfortunately as you yourself admitted you haven't had enough experience with the game so far bc of only two serious runs. I can assure you your experience is not typical
I've had quite a few games where the Caliphates and Euro-Blobs just deteriorate into an unstable mess after every succession.
As I said before I've played a ton of games and that hasn't happened to me ever. The key question here is for how long do they disintegrate? Bc yea in the case of empires there's a period of unrest but it NEVER does any real damage the emperors just smack a couple heads and its like it never happened. Same for caliphate
I've seen a Polish-Hungarian-Lithuanian-Denmark blob (yep, 4 kingdoms) for a decade or so...
only to kind of predictably dissolve into a mess a succession later (probably an effect of diff. succession laws)
I would recommend a little investigation before writing these kind of thinks. Orthodoxes they do not have Pope they have Ecumenical Patriarch with seat on Constantinople and they are Christians . Furthermore until 1054 when the Schism happened the 2 churches were 1. The main theological difference for the schism was the Filioque and the real cause was that the Catholic church started feeling sure about their self not need any more the declining empire of Byzantium. It is not in random that the game ends in 1453 the year that the City of Cities (Constantinople) fallen.
Mongols are not Russian and Russian are not Mongols. Mongols came from the steppes of Eastern from where the Turks also came where Russ are of Scandinavian - Slavic Descendant. Make a search on Wikipedia
Well, being a two-province king like Navarra can be fun. Especially since he can't just casually assassinate his way to half of Iberia like Castille or Leon can.
One problem is that there aren't enough wars to lower crown authority specifically. These were by far the most common forms of rebellion by barons (getting a king to stop ruling in such an arbitrary/tyranical manner). The plot to lower crown authority needs to be strengthened, and I think the default position for any noble should be to support this plot if crown authority is above low. Should it come to war, then nobles nominally supporting the king at the start should have the option to support the rebels, meaning that even a relatively weak plot can become a strong rebellion.
This doesn't solve the problem of over-powered blobs however. The king/emperor of even a low authority realm can usually raise substantial numbers of levies from his vassals, leading to the HRE conquering massive tracts of land. I don't think you should nerf this as such; you don't want an HRE that can't defend itself against Denmark for example, but on the same hand it is problematic currently. I would suggest that (at least at lower levels of crown authority) vassals should only provide levies for a non-personal casus belli. For example, a king going and pressing a claim, vassals don't provide levies because it is a purely selfish war. The empire under attack: Emperor can raise levies in defence of the realm. It would mean that the playing field is somewhat levelled in terms of expansion, because kings and emperors, like everyone else, would only be able to use their personal levies for most conquests, and it would help smaller nations defend against these incursions.
Crusades also need an overhaul, and I think there are some very good suggestions for that floating about so I won't add to them. I would recommend though, that all christians should be able to intervene in a defensive holy war. I think the one problem area of the game is the Iberian peninsula, where the muslims are comparatively strong vs. the Spanish kingdoms. If Christians could intervene, perhaps for a piety bonus should the war be won, I think it would stop the Iberian Peninsula from being constantly eaten by the Islamic countries when a player isn't intervening, without having too much of an effect on the overall game.
This is not splitting hairs, but the Ottomans were Muslim (or at least the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic Empire). The Sultan of the Empire ended up calling himself caliph of the Muslim world. If you mean the Arabs and the Moors (who should not be referred to as Muslims outside the context of their religion, especially as there are christian arabs for example), as others have pointed out they occupied a substantial portion of the Iberian Peninsula and Southern Italy. The Ottomans conquered into Europe in the 14th century IIRC, though it may have been the 15th. Either way, it is in the time frame of CK.
This doesn't solve the problem of over-powered blobs however. The king/emperor of even a low authority realm can usually raise substantial numbers of levies from his vassals, leading to the HRE conquering massive tracts of land. I don't think you should nerf this as such; you don't want an HRE that can't defend itself against Denmark for example, but on the same hand it is problematic currently. I would suggest that (at least at lower levels of crown authority) vassals should only provide levies for a non-personal casus belli. For example, a king going and pressing a claim, vassals don't provide levies because it is a purely selfish war. The empire under attack: Emperor can raise levies in defence of the realm. It would mean that the playing field is somewhat levelled in terms of expansion, because kings and emperors, like everyone else, would only be able to use their personal levies for most conquests, and it would help smaller nations defend against these incursions.
Crusades also need an overhaul, and I think there are some very good suggestions for that floating about so I won't add to them. I would recommend though, that all christians should be able to intervene in a defensive holy war. I think the one problem area of the game is the Iberian peninsula, where the muslims are comparatively strong vs. the Spanish kingdoms. If Christians could intervene, perhaps for a piety bonus should the war be won, I think it would stop the Iberian Peninsula from being constantly eaten by the Islamic countries when a player isn't intervening, without having too much of an effect on the overall game.
This is not splitting hairs, but the Ottomans were Muslim (or at least the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic Empire). The Sultan of the Empire ended up calling himself caliph of the Muslim world. If you mean the Arabs and the Moors (who should not be referred to as Muslims outside the context of their religion, especially as there are christian arabs for example), as others have pointed out they occupied a substantial portion of the Iberian Peninsula and Southern Italy. The Ottomans conquered into Europe in the 14th century IIRC, though it may have been the 15th. Either way, it is in the time frame of CK.
disregarding the Orthodox Russian mongol comment which admitably made me laugh out loud in real life, I will jump back to a previous discussion:
the Muslims conquered A LOT of Christian kingdoms. To be exact:
they dissolved the kingdom of Sicily and conquered half of it, they conquered all of North Africa and Egypt only stopping at Abyssinia (which ironically is extremely easy to casually roflstomp in ck2), they conquered all of the western middle east (coastal middle east?) meaning: modern Lebanon, Israel (+Palestine if you count it), Syria, Jordan and part of Iraq. They conquered the Iberian peninsula for almost 300 years. They conquered half of France before being pushed back. They conquered the Roman empire, Serbia, Bulgaria. And finally, of course, they re-conquered (de-re-conquered? depends on how you view it) the crusader kingdoms.
They really really weren't pushovers. And I only count conquests happening before and during the game period.
edit: but yeah, as a general rule, I agree crusades need an overhaul. The post moterm diary says that some work is been done on it by having a "crusade participation percentage", whatever that means.
the Muslims conquered A LOT of Christian kingdoms. To be exact:
they dissolved the kingdom of Sicily and conquered half of it, they conquered all of North Africa and Egypt only stopping at Abyssinia (which ironically is extremely easy to casually roflstomp in ck2), they conquered all of the western middle east (coastal middle east?) meaning: modern Lebanon, Israel (+Palestine if you count it), Syria, Jordan and part of Iraq. They conquered the Iberian peninsula for almost 300 years. They conquered half of France before being pushed back. They conquered the Roman empire, Serbia, Bulgaria. And finally, of course, they re-conquered (de-re-conquered? depends on how you view it) the crusader kingdoms.
They really really weren't pushovers. And I only count conquests happening before and during the game period.
edit: but yeah, as a general rule, I agree crusades need an overhaul. The post moterm diary says that some work is been done on it by having a "crusade participation percentage", whatever that means.
This community is without any hope.
Ragekids who really are convinced that no muslim (besides the Ottos) ever had a foot in Europe.
(Moors anyone? Or does the Iberian peninsula not belong to Europe?)
Sigh.
Next ragekid who states the HRE was an elective empire all the way.
(Karl IV. anyone? His family, the house of Luxemburg and Habsburg, ruled the HRE all the way down the line with just 2 minor breaks, since he set the Golden Bull which enabled them to do so)
Sigh.
People that play a game that is made upon a historic background, not wanting to have it work in a historical way? Really?
(Yes, it is not a simulation of history. And yes, alot of people ARE actually able to let the game go into a direction that leads to complete destruction of the Empires. When you aren't, it's your lack of proper knowledge of the game)
Sigh.
Ragekids who really are convinced that no muslim (besides the Ottos) ever had a foot in Europe.
(Moors anyone? Or does the Iberian peninsula not belong to Europe?)
Sigh.
Next ragekid who states the HRE was an elective empire all the way.
(Karl IV. anyone? His family, the house of Luxemburg and Habsburg, ruled the HRE all the way down the line with just 2 minor breaks, since he set the Golden Bull which enabled them to do so)
Sigh.
People that play a game that is made upon a historic background, not wanting to have it work in a historical way? Really?
(Yes, it is not a simulation of history. And yes, alot of people ARE actually able to let the game go into a direction that leads to complete destruction of the Empires. When you aren't, it's your lack of proper knowledge of the game)
Sigh.
well, to be honest, HRE was an elective monarchy, de jure, until its end. It was just that these 2 houses dominated its politics so much that NOT voting for them meant a political (and often practical) suicide
I think this might be the best solution. And more historical than the actual game system. And easy to implement. It would end the expansion. It would be even better if vassals that want something from you (for example, a duchy) would also give troops (even if it´s an offensive war) hoping to get this or that, and getting a big penalty to opinion if, after war, you don´t give it to them. Of course, this would require some changes a more AI, but it would reflect very well how things worked during the timeframe.
I like this idea, and it makes sense. Sometimes it only takes one man stepping forward to unleash a storm of resentment...
I think the major issue with Emperor vs Rebels is that there is absolutely no sideways loyalty in the AI. If every Duke in the Empire revolted at once, the Emperor could still easily win because his own troops from his own demense is still far larger than ANY ONE of his rebelling vassals. If all of the vassals got together and piled their forces into a single doomstack, they could actually give him a run for his money. But no, they all try to go it alone. "Divided they fall".
Of course, deciding on who is running the rebellion is a potential problem in design, but if it could be done...
"For example, a king going and pressing a claim, vassals don't provide levies because it is a purely selfish war."
This is a good idea but I think it shouldn't be entirely banned. Rather the King should have to call on his vassals as if they were independent rulers. So if he has married a vassal's relative and has good relations with them (and they have bad relations with his enemy) they might assist but they would be doing so by choice, not by obligation.
This is a good idea but I think it shouldn't be entirely banned. Rather the King should have to call on his vassals as if they were independent rulers. So if he has married a vassal's relative and has good relations with them (and they have bad relations with his enemy) they might assist but they would be doing so by choice, not by obligation.
This is already worked into crown authority. At autonomous, they give you levies only if they like you (0% required)
Uh, no, it's not worked in as Crown Authority.
Crown Authority means that a King can levy troops without any potential interaction with the Dukes/Counts. It's instantaneous, and they have no say in the matter.
And the complete lack of tactical loyalty upwards means that an autonomous rule results in the Dukes and Counts NEVER levying their troops in order to aid their King. Not unless they're a player, anyways.
Crown Authority means that a King can levy troops without any potential interaction with the Dukes/Counts. It's instantaneous, and they have no say in the matter.
And the complete lack of tactical loyalty upwards means that an autonomous rule results in the Dukes and Counts NEVER levying their troops in order to aid their King. Not unless they're a player, anyways.
but it is. Autonomous vassals make vassals give troops only if they want to, completely depended on their opinion. If you are disliked by someone, you ain't getting a single pikeman from him.
Which implies that you EVER get a single pikeman from him. You never do, regardless of how he feels about you. Zero, zilch, nada, even at 100+ loyalty. The AI is not wired to do that.
I'm not proposing this. I'm proposing that in an "personal" war as a ruler one's vassals should be treated as foreign states - either they participate, but independently and under their own control, or they don't participate at all. Not they participate fractionally but under the absolute control of their liege.