CK2 Dev Diary #16: Man's inhumanity to man

[loup99]

I'd prefer an India switch

I suppose it would be possible for modders to make one

As a game rule? No.

 

[EU3NOOB]

Paradox, you really know how to party!

But you know what CKII really needs?

SODOMY!

Sodomy, sodou, Sodo-everyone-in-the-room!

#Lovemelongtime?

 

[m n]

Yes, see this DD for other game rule stuff:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/ck2-dev-diary-the-rules-of-the-game.923570/



Once again, we are not adding content from modders, we are adding our own content that is coincidentally similar in theme to a small mod.
Technically modders could have added every single event, every decision, all the province setup, the entire character database etc. - should we have added none of it and shipped the game as a bare-code base for modders to flesh out? I assume you don't think so, so where do you draw the line? Every DLC and most patches have added more of this content, is this the DLC we should have stopped doing it for, or if not, when?
I would also add to this point that while modders can add excellent content, they mostly can't do all the extra bits we can, such as add new UI elements, sound effects, trait icons and event pictures, or affect the underlying code - death reasons used to be hardcoded, now we have added a bunch more and the system has been made moddable so modders can add even more.

And yet it doesn't. The majority of the replies seem pleased with what we've added. Perhaps this signals that your personal opinions aren't the opinions of the playerbase? We've also done several other mostly script DLCs, such as Legacy of Rome, Sunset Invasion, Way of Life, and Sons of Abraham, which have mostly been well-received and sold well. If people like and buy this kind of thing, I'm not sure why we should stop making it. Of course, it might not be what you personally want, and that's fine, it is optional content after all.

Yes, most of your suggestions have been thought of, although making battles controlled like in your linked game is not something we want so if that's what you meant I would advise against making a detailed post about it. You must also understand that not everyone who works on the game is a programmer, Content Designers can't make Naval combat or new Diplomacy instead of making Execution methods, at best you would have some more events or decisions.

I understood your explanation, and changed my mind.

 

[m n]

I might be mistaken, but I don't think that it was possible to rulers to demand what weapons the levy turned up with---at least not until the very late game when levies were going out of fashion anyway.

Well, Charlemagne used to demad knights with specific gear from his subjects. The roman army had a professional army. Maybe if something like this be ever done it could have something to do with realm autority? it's possible.

 

[greenhawk]

Can a powerful enough prisoner (personal combat skills of at least +5 or so) beat the executioneer or something like that and, if not released, will lower your prestige a LOT (you had to use excessive power to put him down)? Can he even take someone random from the court in his last rampage? It could be really cool if in a fit of rage the brave Andalusian warrior, trapped in Iberia, would manage to kill the heir to Castille in his own jihad for god, for example?

 

[DocDesastro]

Well, Charlemagne used to demad knights with specific gear from his subjects. The roman army had a professional army. Maybe if something like this be ever done it could have something to do with realm autority? it's possible.

This is a minor feature that irks me a bit. We have - besides retinues - no influence at all on that. The only thing we can do is build buildings giving us a flat number of given soldiers and multiply that with some factors from martial skill and keep level. This means the most of our armies are jumbled together. If I recall correctly, however, tactics in battle depend on flank/centre position and composition of forces. You need to be king level, to start forming a small, working army with some kind of concept behind. I mean, I must wait until stables IV to get 5 (!) heavy cav as western european feudal ruler. At least I get 50 of them, if I build a retinue, which I am likely to have earlier than that - but eats up all my retinue points.
I would like to toggle this a bit either by buying equipment like all soldiers start as light infantry and I have to spend money to buy equipment for my castle to gradually change that composition to other arms. And after losses, some of the equipment must be replaced and eats up money like in the retinues. If youu want quality armies, this will take time and money.

 

[Czert]

it is posible to take different parts of body as trophy ? like in one movie i sav when man defeated minotaur, and then learned he cant take his horn as trophy, so he decided to take his family jewels as trophy instead.
and another - will be posible to give body, or multiple bodies to experiment like frankenstain/game of thrones ?

 

[Czert]

Can a powerful enough prisoner (personal combat skills of at least +5 or so) beat the executioneer or something like that and, if not released, will lower your prestige a LOT (you had to use excessive power to put him down)? Can he even take someone random from the court in his last rampage? It could be really cool if in a fit of rage the brave Andalusian warrior, trapped in Iberia, would manage to kill the heir to Castille in his own jihad for god, for example?

well before execution prisoners were starved on purpose before execution, to prevent this kind of resistance, or it was prevented by other means - broking thier spirit, chaining them..etc.

 

[Lord Cuddlesworth]

Ooh! Now I can be an even more sadistic asshole! Huzzah!

 

[Czert]

This is a minor feature that irks me a bit. We have - besides retinues - no influence at all on that. The only thing we can do is build buildings giving us a flat number of given soldiers and multiply that with some factors from martial skill and keep level. This means the most of our armies are jumbled together. If I recall correctly, however, tactics in battle depend on flank/centre position and composition of forces. You need to be king level, to start forming a small, working army with some kind of concept behind. I mean, I must wait until stables IV to get 5 (!) heavy cav as western european feudal ruler. At least I get 50 of them, if I build a retinue, which I am likely to have earlier than that - but eats up all my retinue points.
I would like to toggle this a bit either by buying equipment like all soldiers start as light infantry and I have to spend money to buy equipment for my castle to gradually change that composition to other arms. And after losses, some of the equipment must be replaced and eats up money like in the retinues. If youu want quality armies, this will take time and money.

while i agree that amount of knights from stables should be higher, but only by small amount, say max 30%, after all we are speaking about higher nobility here, since not every nobe should afford armored plate, o that they sometimes used outdated 150 years old or none at all (and served as light cav).and some nobles didnt even have war horse at all
.i think itr was at battle at agnicourt in which france ammased around 400 knights from all france, and since france was richest country in whole europe, it have greatest amount of knights possible, while england have only around 200, but still engkland won.
and if you can recruit knights as retuine is realy bending of history, since it was extremly rare to have retuine composed of knights, since retuine was basicaly mercenaries, and mercenaries at best were light cavalary, but most of time just foot troops. onlyest example of ruler having ovn knights retuine was byzantine king and that all.

 

[Czert]

This is a minor feature that irks me a bit. We have - besides retinues - no influence at all on that. The only thing we can do is build buildings giving us a flat number of given soldiers and multiply that with some factors from martial skill and keep level. This means the most of our armies are jumbled together. If I recall correctly, however, tactics in battle depend on flank/centre position and composition of forces. You need to be king level, to start forming a small, working army with some kind of concept behind. I mean, I must wait until stables IV to get 5 (!) heavy cav as western european feudal ruler. At least I get 50 of them, if I build a retinue, which I am likely to have earlier than that - but eats up all my retinue points.
I would like to toggle this a bit either by buying equipment like all soldiers start as light infantry and I have to spend money to buy equipment for my castle to gradually change that composition to other arms. And after losses, some of the equipment must be replaced and eats up money like in the retinues. If youu want quality armies, this will take time and money.

while i agree that amount of knights from stables should be higher, but only by small amount, say max 30%, after all we are speaking about higher nobility here, since not every nobe should afford armored plate, o that they sometimes used outdated 150 years old or none at all (and served as light cav).and some nobles didnt even have war horse at all
.i think itr was at battle at agnicourt in which france ammased around 400 knights from all france, and since france was richest country in whole europe, it have greatest amount of knights possible, while england have only around 200, but still engkland won.
and if you can recruit knights as retuine is realy bending of history, since it was extremly rare to have retuine composed of knights, since retuine was basicaly mercenaries, and mercenaries at best were light cavalary, but most of time just foot troops. onlyest example of ruler having ovn knights retuine was byzantine king and that all.

 

[Blackburno]

Does anyone know if executions will have any impact besides just a flavor feature? It would be cool if brutal executions would inspire a +10 "scared crapless" modifier on craven vassals or maybe decrease the revolt risk due to intimidation, but maybe at the risk of having less relation with religious vassals or kind vassals?

 

[Czert]

Does anyone know if executions will have any impact besides just a flavor feature? It would be cool if brutal executions would inspire a +10 "scared crapless" modifier on craven vassals or maybe decrease the revolt risk due to intimidation, but maybe at the risk of having less relation with religious vassals or kind vassals?

nothing, just flavour.

 

[EnvyDemon]

Can a powerful enough prisoner (personal combat skills of at least +5 or so) beat the executioneer or something like that and, if not released, will lower your prestige a LOT (you had to use excessive power to put him down)? Can he even take someone random from the court in his last rampage? It could be really cool if in a fit of rage the brave Andalusian warrior, trapped in Iberia, would manage to kill the heir to Castille in his own jihad for god, for example?

Trial by Combat.

 

[duelistgamer]

I suppose it would be possible for modders to make one

Not at all. The best that can be done is completely modifying the map and removing all the India-related titles and events.

 

[m n]

This is a minor feature that irks me a bit. We have - besides retinues - no influence at all on that. The only thing we can do is build buildings giving us a flat number of given soldiers and multiply that with some factors from martial skill and keep level. This means the most of our armies are jumbled together. If I recall correctly, however, tactics in battle depend on flank/centre position and composition of forces. You need to be king level, to start forming a small, working army with some kind of concept behind. I mean, I must wait until stables IV to get 5 (!) heavy cav as western european feudal ruler. At least I get 50 of them, if I build a retinue, which I am likely to have earlier than that - but eats up all my retinue points.
I would like to toggle this a bit either by buying equipment like all soldiers start as light infantry and I have to spend money to buy equipment for my castle to gradually change that composition to other arms. And after losses, some of the equipment must be replaced and eats up money like in the retinues. If youu want quality armies, this will take time and money.

Nice, i think you got the idea. The ideia is just improving the game, making it more in depth, immersive and fun. Newcomers may struggle to learn but for anyone that is not a newcomer the game is ridiculously simple, there should be more "ways of winning" the game. Imagine if CK3 provided a way of you managing your troops, you could appoint different types of training that you could customize, you play more on daily life, you are the lord of your castle more.

 

[Fishman786]

I think they should get rid of troop types all together, honestly. Combat ATM involves too much micromanagement. In real life kings didn't decide what sort of 'units' they used most of the time, instead the levies and knights just came with whatever they could afford themselves. There were some professional troops like mercenaries and slave soldiers, but those were few and far between compared to the average drafted conscript.

Instead of troop types, army effectiveness could be based on leader skill, terrain and various bonuses (from culture, religion, technology etc).

 

[Knotz]

I think they should get rid of troop types all together, honestly. Combat ATM involves too much micromanagement. In real life kings didn't decide what sort of 'units' they used most of the time, instead the levies and knights just came with whatever they could afford themselves. There were some professional troops like mercenaries and slave soldiers, but those were few and far between compared to the average drafted conscript.

Instead of troop types, army effectiveness could be based on leader skill, terrain and various bonuses (from culture, religion, technology etc).

I think that's what happens already? You don't choose levy composition? They just show up? The only composition you choose is your retinue and I'm okay with that cuz you'd think the ruler would want some direct say in that.

 

[Fishman786]

I think that's what happens already? You don't choose levy composition? They just show up? The only composition you choose is your retinue and I'm okay with that cuz you'd think the ruler would want some direct say in that.

You don't get to choose levy units directly, and yeah it does make some more sense for retinues, but really IMO there's little point in representing it. It's nothing but added complexity that leads to counter-intuitive strategies that nobody would pick up without reading tutorials or documentation first. Just have three types of solider: noble elites, professional soldiers and common levies, and have their combat effectiveness change based on big things that the player can actually understand and control like culture, terrain, leadership and technology. From a game design perspective the countless different unit types and tactics associated with them don't seem to make any sense at all.

 

[HalouDoval]

I've just found this topic so sorry if it has already been addressed.

That list of things you can do to your prisoners has left me wondering, if you have a woman in your prison (or any man if the ruler is homosexual) can you rape them? Not like taking them as a concubine and keeping them I'm thinking if you've at war with a rival king and you capture his wife and/or daughter you can violate them, or have your soldiers or your hunting dogs do it as a way to annoy your enemy. I'm sure it happened at least once in the game's time frame especially in the more 'barbaric' parts of the world.