Didn't even get chance to fight with it at all, because of insta assaults and pumping warscore to 100%.
Ironman save ruined thanks to it, derp
Ironman save ruined thanks to it, derp
They will fix decadence, but what about decadence revolt?
- Thread starter Rozmarzony
- 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.
This is part of general warscore mechanics problem, not unique to decadence invasions.
Gigantic Realm can be brought down by rebels siegeing few provinces before levies could be summoned.
In this particular case - The Decadence Revolt - effect could be lessened if rebels spawned on opposite edge of map, giving you time to raise and consolidate your levies before they arrive.
That is simplest solution. Adventurers already do just that (they also give you warning, one year before, so you can raise levies before they attack you).
Harder but better way (this would have to be done by devs, not by modder scripting events) would be to redo warscore mechanics. Or making rebels unable to siege for first six months.
Gigantic Realm can be brought down by rebels siegeing few provinces before levies could be summoned.
In this particular case - The Decadence Revolt - effect could be lessened if rebels spawned on opposite edge of map, giving you time to raise and consolidate your levies before they arrive.
That is simplest solution. Adventurers already do just that (they also give you warning, one year before, so you can raise levies before they attack you).
Harder but better way (this would have to be done by devs, not by modder scripting events) would be to redo warscore mechanics. Or making rebels unable to siege for first six months.
Yeah, most CBs should require you to occupy more than the outskirts of a realm and destroy its main army in the field. Why should an Emperor give up his title because he lost a few border castles?
Yeah, these types of war should have a requirement to hold your current capital. My Tunisian empire was brought down by a decadence revolt in turkey. I never had the chance to even get my armies near them before they got 100 war score.
Problem with decadence revolts is that they don't do what they're supposed to - which is curb Muslim blobbing. The destruction of the liege title, while it WOULD do the job nicely, seems extreme and not entirely accurate. Perhaps it would be better for it to act like an invasion - the top tier title will be destroyed, yes, but the "desert warrior" dynasty will keep all occupied territory. The rest will become independent. This would also allow human victims of decadence revolts to keep on playing, provided they managed to protect their own demesne from occupation.
The latest dev diary said that the consequences of a successful decadence invasion will be more dire come next patch.
It remains to be seen how that works though. At the moment, it's just non-de jure parts of the realm that even have a chance of falling out, and now that the AI is creating every kingdom title it can, that narrows it down to a very small amount.
Decadence revolts are gimmicky as hell at the moment. Once you've snowballed to the point of 100% decadence there is no escape anyway. You've reached critical mass and there is no way to fix it as I think Arumba showed with his series on ''Defective Decadence'' on Youtube.
I personaly believe that only the first 2 direct blood lines of a landed dynasty member should be able to produce decadence. That means if you are landed or an emir, your brother, your nephew, your uncle and your children will cause decadence. But not that cousin twice removed that is unlanded and in a persian minor court far away from your influence...This simple rule means that not your entire dynasty is responsible and it means that the system is manageable.
Simply said, only the direct family members of landed rulers are responsible for decadence. That should and I hope it does include the RULER in the upcomming version. Having a drunk, lustful greedy sultan should not be ''okay'' just because he has a job and a title.:glare: having a decadent ruler should be a pain and a real cause for problems in the long run although not an instantanous death sentence as it is when you've reached critical mass in the current system.
What would be cool though, if your dynasty had been fractured through decadence but you had a pious ruler then you should be able to cleanse your decadent dynasty members of their lives and lands to reduce your decadence in the process!...sort of like cleaning house. Dynastic style...you get it
As for the decadence revolts, I think they should replace the revolt with decadence related faction support such as;
Whenever decadence gets too high...(in this order)
1) Emirs will start backing more often pretenders to take over the reigns and lower crown authority. (50-60% dedacence)
2) Emirs will want to lower crown authority more often. (60-70% decadence)
3) Emirs will desire independence when crown authority is low enough. (70-80% decadence)
4) If you remain decadent then pious non-decadent vassals may get claims on your titles. (80-90% decadence)
5) You are a filthy heathen who has been corrupted by civilization and luxury. Your pious non-decadent vassal with a claim will get tribal support if they rebel against you similar to how vikings get troops for invasions. (if you lose you'll be replaced by one of your vassals instead of some random adventurer with 20k troops and no history whatsoever. I think this is more fun, that governor you installed 100 years ago in libya? Yeah well his family is biting you in the butt now and has a tribal army to boot!)
I also think that muslims should have the following extra CB
1) Invade decadent neighbor and take ALL lands occupied. (instant annex of muslim states to one another making the recreation of the caliphate somewhat possible)
2) Invade dynasty member and take ALL lands occupied. (to reforge fractured empires and force the entire dynasty back in line that is manageable)
3) Organize Resistance. (the casus belli for decadence event #5). A pious vassal (baron or higher) will gather local tribal support (free troops like vikings) and attempt to take over the primary title of the decadent ruler. Thereby replacing it with a dynasty that actualy has a history in the game rather than something randomly generated.
I personaly believe that only the first 2 direct blood lines of a landed dynasty member should be able to produce decadence. That means if you are landed or an emir, your brother, your nephew, your uncle and your children will cause decadence. But not that cousin twice removed that is unlanded and in a persian minor court far away from your influence...This simple rule means that not your entire dynasty is responsible and it means that the system is manageable.
Simply said, only the direct family members of landed rulers are responsible for decadence. That should and I hope it does include the RULER in the upcomming version. Having a drunk, lustful greedy sultan should not be ''okay'' just because he has a job and a title.:glare: having a decadent ruler should be a pain and a real cause for problems in the long run although not an instantanous death sentence as it is when you've reached critical mass in the current system.
What would be cool though, if your dynasty had been fractured through decadence but you had a pious ruler then you should be able to cleanse your decadent dynasty members of their lives and lands to reduce your decadence in the process!...sort of like cleaning house. Dynastic style...you get it
As for the decadence revolts, I think they should replace the revolt with decadence related faction support such as;
Whenever decadence gets too high...(in this order)
1) Emirs will start backing more often pretenders to take over the reigns and lower crown authority. (50-60% dedacence)
2) Emirs will want to lower crown authority more often. (60-70% decadence)
3) Emirs will desire independence when crown authority is low enough. (70-80% decadence)
4) If you remain decadent then pious non-decadent vassals may get claims on your titles. (80-90% decadence)
5) You are a filthy heathen who has been corrupted by civilization and luxury. Your pious non-decadent vassal with a claim will get tribal support if they rebel against you similar to how vikings get troops for invasions. (if you lose you'll be replaced by one of your vassals instead of some random adventurer with 20k troops and no history whatsoever. I think this is more fun, that governor you installed 100 years ago in libya? Yeah well his family is biting you in the butt now and has a tribal army to boot!)
I also think that muslims should have the following extra CB
1) Invade decadent neighbor and take ALL lands occupied. (instant annex of muslim states to one another making the recreation of the caliphate somewhat possible)
2) Invade dynasty member and take ALL lands occupied. (to reforge fractured empires and force the entire dynasty back in line that is manageable)
3) Organize Resistance. (the casus belli for decadence event #5). A pious vassal (baron or higher) will gather local tribal support (free troops like vikings) and attempt to take over the primary title of the decadent ruler. Thereby replacing it with a dynasty that actualy has a history in the game rather than something randomly generated.
They're making it so that only characters with the "Decadent" trait will add decadence to a dynasty which seems like a good idea.
I saw the twich video, I do hope that includes the ruler though as I mentioned in my previous post. Would be nice to see some decadent sultans or something.
If they don't properly fix the lame decadence tribal revolt system then I will mod in what I said myself:happy: I'm not going to suffer from ludicriously random spawned event troops.
The warscore from assaults issue happens in all kinds of wars involving a large numer of troops appearing in the same region (primarily hordes, decadence revolts, and faction doomstacks). While demanding that the rebels hold the capital is perhaps a bit extreme (especially considering that you could have it located on an island and be up against a shipless enemy), I also feel that holding non-wargoal border regions should matter far less than making a dedicated attack towards the capital.
A rule preventing peace from being signed within a certain period (one year?) if the attacker is not significantly more numerous than the defender (attacking troops < 5*defending troops seems like a good limit to still allow a powerful ruler to sign a peace with someone who is much smaller) and neither side has captured the leader of the other side would be nice. It would allow both sides to gather their forces and make an attempt to fight instead of peace being signed as your retinues disembark one province away from the enemy forces. A craven ruler might sue for peace early if the other side is making gains, but others would be unlikely to, and ambitious rulers might try to fight to the last man.
A rule preventing peace from being signed within a certain period (one year?) if the attacker is not significantly more numerous than the defender (attacking troops < 5*defending troops seems like a good limit to still allow a powerful ruler to sign a peace with someone who is much smaller) and neither side has captured the leader of the other side would be nice. It would allow both sides to gather their forces and make an attempt to fight instead of peace being signed as your retinues disembark one province away from the enemy forces. A craven ruler might sue for peace early if the other side is making gains, but others would be unlikely to, and ambitious rulers might try to fight to the last man.
Having just played an ironman game pretty deep as a Muslim, its definitely really frustrating that 1 million troops just randomly spawn and end the war before I can even muster my troops in the kingdom that they're in, let alone across 3 continents.
I think these revolts probably need to me much more local in nature. Say one tier lower than your biggest title. So if you're an emperor, it takes place in a kingdom, if you're a king it takes place in a duchy. Then just adjust the number depending on how large your overall holdings are, so if you're a huge empire it might take place across 3-4 kingdoms, a large kingdom 4-5 duchies, etc. Make the war slider scale with the number of holdings where the revolts take place. Then try to make it such that the rebels start off with a big enough force that it's difficult to reach them from the far edges of your empire before it ends, so if you don't have a reasonably decent local response, the kingdom/duchies become independent.
So if I were to control Hispania, France, and Arabia as an emperor, because I have 3 emperor titles say 4 kingdoms rebel. Let's make them Hungary, Italy, Arabia, and Ireland. Ireland is so small it doesn't take an awful lot of forces to quell the rebellion, or at least drag it out until I've dealt with the other rebellions. Italy, Arabia, and Hungary are big enough that it takes a lot more time for them to end. Because my primary strength lies in Spain and France, the Italian revolt is fairly easy to quell before it gets out of hand. But the Hungary and Arabia rebellions are so far away I have to make a choice which kingdom to save. Obviously this requires making the size of the stacks smaller initially- large enough to cause significant problems in whatever holding they're in, but not large enough to beat your forces if they get there in force quickly. But you could have them reinforce over time to their full strength, which means if you're slow reacting they could potentially beat you by the time you get there.
And then you lose your title and claim to anything you lose, so retaking it will take quite a while. Perhaps give the recently independent realms event troops against any invasion for the next 30 years, so they can resist your more effectively and defend themselves against local threats. Maybe even give them event troops when they do offensive wars against you for the same period of time, so they are a legitimate threat. And if they survive past a certain point, maybe even give them a permanent boon against you (30% larger levies against you due to religious furor after 30 years?). I think it would be kind of cool if a kingdom you once held became independent and in the wake of that they become a regional power that lasts the next 50-100 years, and has the chance of becoming a genuine dynasty that starts to overtake your old territory organically, especially as further decadence rebellions crop up.
I think these revolts probably need to me much more local in nature. Say one tier lower than your biggest title. So if you're an emperor, it takes place in a kingdom, if you're a king it takes place in a duchy. Then just adjust the number depending on how large your overall holdings are, so if you're a huge empire it might take place across 3-4 kingdoms, a large kingdom 4-5 duchies, etc. Make the war slider scale with the number of holdings where the revolts take place. Then try to make it such that the rebels start off with a big enough force that it's difficult to reach them from the far edges of your empire before it ends, so if you don't have a reasonably decent local response, the kingdom/duchies become independent.
So if I were to control Hispania, France, and Arabia as an emperor, because I have 3 emperor titles say 4 kingdoms rebel. Let's make them Hungary, Italy, Arabia, and Ireland. Ireland is so small it doesn't take an awful lot of forces to quell the rebellion, or at least drag it out until I've dealt with the other rebellions. Italy, Arabia, and Hungary are big enough that it takes a lot more time for them to end. Because my primary strength lies in Spain and France, the Italian revolt is fairly easy to quell before it gets out of hand. But the Hungary and Arabia rebellions are so far away I have to make a choice which kingdom to save. Obviously this requires making the size of the stacks smaller initially- large enough to cause significant problems in whatever holding they're in, but not large enough to beat your forces if they get there in force quickly. But you could have them reinforce over time to their full strength, which means if you're slow reacting they could potentially beat you by the time you get there.
And then you lose your title and claim to anything you lose, so retaking it will take quite a while. Perhaps give the recently independent realms event troops against any invasion for the next 30 years, so they can resist your more effectively and defend themselves against local threats. Maybe even give them event troops when they do offensive wars against you for the same period of time, so they are a legitimate threat. And if they survive past a certain point, maybe even give them a permanent boon against you (30% larger levies against you due to religious furor after 30 years?). I think it would be kind of cool if a kingdom you once held became independent and in the wake of that they become a regional power that lasts the next 50-100 years, and has the chance of becoming a genuine dynasty that starts to overtake your old territory organically, especially as further decadence rebellions crop up.
Last edited:
What I can say, only that's you're right.
They semi-resurrected decadence (now it's ok, but nothing more), but did nothing with decadence invasion.
Just have hope, that they will see this thread, and decide to do something about it.
They semi-resurrected decadence (now it's ok, but nothing more), but did nothing with decadence invasion.
Just have hope, that they will see this thread, and decide to do something about it.