CM badly needs more title dissolution opportunities
- Thread starter jordanjay29
- 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.
I think adding a minimum of about 70 realm holdings for an empire title to exist would be a quick and easy fix. Custom kingdoms currently require 35 holdings, so an emperor should have the same holdings as two kingdoms at minimum. Is this moddable?
Good thing I prefer strategy and diplomacy. I always found Total War battles more a pain than anything, to be honest. The slowed the pace of the game way too much. I like to see how the landscape of the world change as I play, which take way too much time if every battle takes at last half an hour to finish.
Yeah. I don't know how the code works, but there have been mods that destroy empire titles when they shrink too low for ages. I believe CK2+ had it back when Wiz was in charge.
I think there should be difficulties dealing with areas far removed from your capital.
Anywhere too far from your capital should not be able to be added as de jure and should have greatly increased chance of independence revolts and secession, especially at change of ruler.
E.g. England or France conquered by Byzantines.
That reflects the fact that vassals too far away would feel less connection with a distant ruler and prefer a local.
Anywhere too far from your capital should not be able to be added as de jure and should have greatly increased chance of independence revolts and secession, especially at change of ruler.
E.g. England or France conquered by Byzantines.
That reflects the fact that vassals too far away would feel less connection with a distant ruler and prefer a local.
Britain was still too far away for the Romans to effectively manage well.
Yet it was them that jumped ship rather than the other way around.
Not... really. In game terms, the empire collapsed once and lost about half of its territory pretty much right out of the gate for the game's time frame.
In a word, France.
I agree with the OP's sentiments wholeheartedly.
The Karlings never do well in my game...they just implode into four of five successor states. In the last game I played, the Saxons conquered Denmark, so when the Franks won the Saxon Wars, Denmark passed into the Frankish realm. Widukind's Germanic revolt was successful, so Saxony was liberated, but Denmark remained in Frankish hands. When Karl died and the empire broke up, Denmark ended up as one of those successor kingdoms, as one of the Karlings inherited Denmark and converted the whole kingdom to Christianity.
...also, Widukind ended up becoming Dutch.
...also, Widukind ended up becoming Dutch.
For starters, Pictland is Scotland, just with a different name because it's controlled by Picts, not Scots.
And yes, if someone creates an Empire (Andalusia+a few bits, France+Aquitaine, the HRE) they tend to stay stable rather than shatter. That's kind of the point of building an empire, if it holds together past one ruler, it's probably stable.
So anything should happen... Except for being able to build and maintain a stable empire without deliberate efforts by the game to punish you for being successful?
Independence revolts should be difficult, unless they're large scale, and that requires them to have a reason to be large scale rather than just "Country X is too powerful, let's make 2/3 of his land revolt".
England had multiple wars based around Crown Authority or Claims. Not once did it have a serious "everything north of the Humber wants to be independent!" situation. Wales went to war a few times to break free of England's domain, but lost, largely due to scale. In general the wars tended not to be "I want to be king of an independent X", but rather "I want to be king of X and Y".
You might think it satisfyingly frustrating to have an empire you've built up shattered by unfortunate events. I disagree, especially when they're events that I cannot influence or control, and that have been piled into the game purely because I've become an Empire, or picked up a second Kingdom title, or worse still I'm fine at 149 holdings in the Empire, but as soon as I hit 150 I get bad events to break me apart. Even worse would be being fine at 50 holdings, but degraded to a Duke at 49 - even though I'm in a war to get those provinces back, and I'm now going to have to pay through the nose to get my kingdom back, and worse still the now non-de jure areas are revolting.
I respect your perspective, but I think we play the games in different ways. I play CK2 as more of a historical simulator with an aim towards getting a realistic feel for managing a medieval nation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears your style of play is a bit more casual, for the gameplay itself. I can't disagree that this is a valid way to play, but I honestly feel like there are enough players who enjoy the realism aspect that it deserves some serious consideration.
I wouldn't care for any arbitrary limits, such as those you suggested, as I feel those would break immersion too much. An empire should not simply break apart at 150 holdings, but perhaps it cracks at 100 holdings, fractures at 130 holdings and if you're still together at 150 holdings you've probably got a very strong ruler, a weak crown authority, decentralized government and low taxation, etc. If none of those things are true, it'll be likely that the empire breaks apart, or pieces break off. This would be completely normal and natural as strong and weak rulers come and go.
This is arbitrary, ahistoric, and nonsensical. It also makes it harder to hold even a smaller empire together as time moves on and people build more holdings. Not to mention that one of the criteria for a custom empire is 180 holdings.
It was just an example based on the post I was quoting. Don't read too far into it.
Couldn't the ability to maintain an empire grow with technology as well? Seems like the CK2 devs would be smart enough to consider something like that.
Roman Empire. Persia. Both of those would apparently have immediately disintegrated under your model. So would the ERE.
I'm not presenting a model. I'm presenting a concept and, in one post, used arbitrary numbers to illustrate it. If you insist on being argumentative about a non-issue, then I have no further comments for you.
Your concept is that big empires should immediately fall apart, just because they're big. History does not work like that.
Any kind of generic event chain to nerf blobbing would be terrible. The game's own innate mechanics should keep things realistic. If indeed there is an issue with large AI kingdoms/empires becoming too stable (and in over 1600 hours played, I'm still not entirely convinced this is the case), it should be handled naturally, not with silly events. As for rump kingdoms/empires, this is a nonissue, and should not be changed.
I think the relative recent change by Paradox that make lieges hellbent on converting everyone's culture adds to this problem. Also, the ease at which entire cultures can be wiped out is far too easy and removes a bunch of negative opinion modifiers that Emperors should be dealing with.
A human player could never do this as it's too tedious to assign a tutor for every child and then making sure they don't stealthily change their tutors again. Players will hand out land to people of their own culture, but conquered vassals that remain your vassals get converted at a slower rate than under the AI (unless you're real diligent about it). The AI can do it for every single child of every single vassal however. I was once a vassal to the Umayyads and my liege suddenly switched upon succession from Andalusian to Bedouin... he suggested a tutor for all TEN of my daughters (not that the culture of female muslims matters, but hey, it's the AI).
Another problem is that most powerful realms absorb things too easily by De Jure drift, thereby removing the potential to get attacked when they are weakened. I wish an EU4 like block could somehow be applied if certain criterias aren't met. For example, the way cores don't expire on provinces with your primary culture or the way you can't convert a culture of a province if another state still exist with that as primary culture... I'm not asking for these to be implemented but some CK2 appropiate ruleset to hinder the cosolidation of conquered lands.
I've seen duchies of West Francia switch de jure to East Francia after being held long enough and the christian AI then becomes absolutely content to have a big hole in the middle of it's kingdom. It doesn't seek to connect up its land and can't remember the original De Jure borders like the human player can (but it should I believe and therefore aggressively fabricate claims to get it back).
And finally, decadence revolts don't seem to do much. It's simply an event that replaces the ruling dynasty with another while the blob remains a blob. A handful of vassals might declare independence, but it's never much... the Arabian Empire is huge and the new ruling dynasties will instantly gobble everything back up - and most of the Persian areas thanks to de jure drift.
A human player could never do this as it's too tedious to assign a tutor for every child and then making sure they don't stealthily change their tutors again. Players will hand out land to people of their own culture, but conquered vassals that remain your vassals get converted at a slower rate than under the AI (unless you're real diligent about it). The AI can do it for every single child of every single vassal however. I was once a vassal to the Umayyads and my liege suddenly switched upon succession from Andalusian to Bedouin... he suggested a tutor for all TEN of my daughters (not that the culture of female muslims matters, but hey, it's the AI).
Another problem is that most powerful realms absorb things too easily by De Jure drift, thereby removing the potential to get attacked when they are weakened. I wish an EU4 like block could somehow be applied if certain criterias aren't met. For example, the way cores don't expire on provinces with your primary culture or the way you can't convert a culture of a province if another state still exist with that as primary culture... I'm not asking for these to be implemented but some CK2 appropiate ruleset to hinder the cosolidation of conquered lands.
I've seen duchies of West Francia switch de jure to East Francia after being held long enough and the christian AI then becomes absolutely content to have a big hole in the middle of it's kingdom. It doesn't seek to connect up its land and can't remember the original De Jure borders like the human player can (but it should I believe and therefore aggressively fabricate claims to get it back).
And finally, decadence revolts don't seem to do much. It's simply an event that replaces the ruling dynasty with another while the blob remains a blob. A handful of vassals might declare independence, but it's never much... the Arabian Empire is huge and the new ruling dynasties will instantly gobble everything back up - and most of the Persian areas thanks to de jure drift.
It's not hard. Run a character search on all non-culture title-holders in your realm, sort by rank. Mark them all as special interest (this is the only thing I typically use special interest for), and every five years or so, take a minute to check through them for heirs aged 6 to 15 and assign tutors. Bam.
I somewhat agree, but in my current Byzantine game (2.2.0.1), the Abbasids lost a decadence revolt which for reasons that are not clear to me (vassal-limit maybe?), caused a handful of Emirs at the periphery of the empire to become independent, including Aleppo and several in Persia. I've been thinking for a few days now that it might be a good idea to tie vassal-limit to decadence. That way, when a decadence revolt wins, more vassals over the limit at the periphery will split off.
(I snatched Aleppo, Damascus, and Sinai after the dust settled; I don't have a ss of the immediate aftermath)
Last edited: