CK2 Dev Diary# 23: More rules, less lunatics

[Atlantians]

Really? With kingdoms created out of nothing? By the rule established in the game, creating a kingdom costs gold and piety. So, every ruler which creates a new kingdom must spend gold and piety (if he has), or not to create the kingdom (if he doesn't have). Otherwise, the game balance is damaged.

Their titles are granted de-facto, which does make some sense.

But I am not sure what I think about it.

 

[Tom013]

Really? With kingdoms created out of nothing? By the rule established in the game, creating a kingdom costs gold and piety. So, every ruler which creates a new kingdom must spend gold and piety (if he has), or not to create the kingdom (if he doesn't have). Otherwise, the game balance is damaged.

By the rule established in the game, Elective Gavelkind creates kingdoms and gives them to sons as inheritance. That, too, is a game rule.

You can argue about why it shouldn't be that way, but pretending it's not a part of the game like any other of the "game rules" (all of which are ultimately a design decision) is silly.

 

[Barnham]

Really? With kingdoms created out of nothing? By the rule established in the game, creating a kingdom costs gold and piety. So, every ruler which creates a new kingdom must spend gold and piety (if he has), or not to create the kingdom (if he doesn't have). Otherwise, the game balance is damaged.

I don't get this. By the way the game functions, a prestigious king upon death creates a new kingdom to grant to one of his successors. Whence Francia comes East Francia and West Francia. Isn't that actually, like, pretty good and historically reasonable design?

 

[0303]

I don't get this. By the way the game functions, a prestigious king upon death creates a new kingdom to grant to one of his successors. Whence Francia comes East Francia and West Francia. Isn't that actually, like, pretty good and historically reasonable design?

"...a prestigious king upon death creates a new kingdom..." - when, exactly, he creates the kingdom? In the afterlife? And why kingdom creation doesn't cost gold and piety?

"...to grant to one of his successors..." - no, not only one. It works like this: I create the kingdom, e.g., of Ruthenia and I occupy 51% of de jure Rus, Lithuania, Poland, Taurica, Volga Bulgaria & Wallachia. Pannonia and Alania, too, with a little bit of good luck. And I have, let's say, 10 heirs. On succession, 8 new kingdoms appear out of nowhere, for the price of 1.

"Whence Francia comes East Francia and West Francia..." - and Middle Francia, too. If I understand you correctlty, you're talking about splitting one de jure kingdom in several de jure kingdoms? No, this is not the case.

 

[Tom013]

"...a prestigious king upon death creates a new kingdom..." - when, exactly, he creates the kingdom? In the afterlife? And why kingdom creation doesn't cost gold and piety?

In his will, as an established practice of succession. It's a gameplay mechanic, and it happens. You say "in the afterlife without gold or piety" like some of any of these are not game mechanics...

"...to grant to one of his successors..." - no, not only one. It works like this: I create the kingdom, e.g., of Ruthenia and I occupy 51% of de jure Rus, Lithuania, Poland, Taurica, Volga Bulgaria & Wallachia. Pannonia and Alania, too, with a little bit of good luck. And I have, let's say, 10 heirs. On succession, 8 new kingdoms appear out of nowhere, for the price of 1.

Wait, so you're saying this is awesome for you? I'm confused. I thought you were complaining about how it hurts you... Sounds like it's difficulty for the price of having Elective Gavelkind, not "oo bonus without having to spend gold!" Which is it?

"Whence Francia comes East Francia and West Francia..."
- and Middle Francia, too. If I understand you correctlty, you're talking about splitting one de jure kingdom in several de jure kingdoms? No, this is not the case.

I think he was implying the historical example of the Frankish Empire being divided between the two sons, Karl and Karloman. Which is indeed what happened. Mechanically, it's handled by creating kingdoms. It's imperfect, but it's no less historical than what you're saying (i.e. never split it because "I am smart and do not create kingdom titles!")

 

[SaveScumPuppy]

Elective Gavelkind is WAD and not only does it provide a great challenge for tribal players but it also does a pretty good job of simulating the inherent instability of a massive tribal empire. I'd hate for the devs to change it.

What I really want to see, though, is Mongols with some form of Elective Gavelkind. Historically, once Genghis Khan died, wasn't the empire essentially split between his four sons? This sort of thing never seems to happen in my games.

 

[0303]

Elective Gavelkind is WAD and not only does it provide a great challenge for tribal players but it also does a pretty good job of simulating the inherent instability of a massive tribal empire. I'd hate for the devs to change it.

What I really want to see, though, is Mongols with some form of Elective Gavelkind. Historically, once Genghis Khan died, wasn't the empire essentially split between his four sons? This sort of thing never seems to happen in my games.

You are absolutely right. But it´s a different thing I´m talking about. In the description of elective gavelkind it is stated: "On succession... new kingdoms might be created for younger sons if possible..." And I agree. But:
"If possible" for the ruler, for the primary heir, for every character in the game universe, means "51% of de jure lands + gold + piety."
"If possible" for secondary heirs under elective gavelkind (and only for them), means: "51% of de jure lands + nothing more."
The question is: Why? Where's the logic?

 

[Tom013]

You are absolutely right. But it´s a different thing I´m talking about. In the description of elective gavelkind it is stated: "On succession... new kingdoms might be created for younger sons if possible..." And I agree. But:
"If possible" for the ruler, for the primary heir, for every character in the game universe, means "51% of de jure lands + gold + piety."
"If possible" for secondary heirs under elective gavelkind (and only for them), means: "51% of de jure lands + nothing more."
The question is: Why? Where's the logic?

You said it earlier that they were dead, so what's their piety matter? I jest -- it's irrelevant no matter what you said earlier.

The logic is "that's how elective gavelkind works" -- the tooltip might be imprecise, but you haven't made an argument save that "rules should all be equal" which is clearly not the case in so many other things in the game, not least amongst them that every succession law has its own characteristic rule modification. That's literally the point.

Change succession law or suffer the consequences.

 

[Urzhail64]

Some more suggestions for the upcoming patch (sorry if already suggested):

1. Please add the possibility to get unattached those f***ing attached allies' armies.

2. Please do something with siege commanders. I lay siege with 5k army, I select a commander with the needed trait. Then, a vassal comes to "help" me with 8 soldiers and a count commander, assumes the command and slows down my siege.

That's actually historically accurate. The overall command will and should default to the commander with the highest title as it did historically. Ever wondered why the French army that massively outnumbered the English at Crecy and Agincourt lost so badly ? Largely due to poor generalship by the ranking French nobility present.

Military command was considered a noble priviledge even as late into the Crimean War - with the Charge of the Light Brigade being one of the most notable examples of what happens when the nobility could purchase officer ranks. (that started to change during the Napoleonic Wars when the common man could easily rise to command as witness a good number of Napoleon's marshals notably the future King of Sweden, Bernadotte. Orignally apprenticed to be an attorney which ended upon his father's death, he joined the French army as a private - the rest is history although he was quite the opportunist such as deliberately withholding his Swedish troops from participating in too much combat at the battle of Leipzig and preferring to let the Russian army in his sector do most of the "work" out of concern of what Swedish casualties might do to his reputation back home !

 

[Jorlem]

3. When the issue of kingdoms emerging out of nowhere will be fixed? Let me explain. Under "elective gavelkind succession" in pagan states, when you are a king, and you've amassed enough lands to create several kingdoms, but you don't want to create them (because you don't want to lose them on succession, of course), your heirs divide your lands and become kings! Shouldn't the game rules be equal for everybody? Creating a kingdom costs a lot of gold and piety, for me and for any AI ruler, right? Why then, those empty-pockets bastards receive king titles free of charge?

As I recall, this mechanic was added because players would sidestep the splitting of titles by not creating them, preventing the realm from being divided up.

 

[Ulfing]

After playing a feudal lord for the first time since launch over the last few days, damn this patch is sorely needed. Europe is awash with 12 year old queens and drowning in the corpses of one handed lunatics. I spend more time replacing council members than actually trying to play the rest of the game.

 

[Iron Chariots]

As I recall, this mechanic was added because players would sidestep the splitting of titles by not creating them, preventing the realm from being divided up.

Yeah, honestly they should consider adding this mechanic to regular gavelkind.

 

[chrnno]

Yeah, honestly they should consider adding this mechanic to regular gavelkind.

Nah that would make it worse than elective which would go against making elective gavelkind the worst one(except for immortals).

 

[0303]

As I recall, this mechanic was added because players would sidestep the splitting of titles by not creating them, preventing the realm from being divided up.

Yes. But, sincerely, adding this mechanic wasn't quite a smart move. The sun rises up in the East for everybody, except secondary heirs under elective gavelkind - for them, the sun rises in the South. This mechanic looks exactly like this.

 

[Iron Chariots]

Yes. But, sincerely, adding this mechanic wasn't quite a smart move. The sun rises up in the East for everybody, except secondary heirs under elective gavelkind - for them, the sun rises in the South. This mechanic looks exactly like this.

And the oldest son always inherits in primogeniture, except for the Byznantines who have born in the purple. Every raider culture has to raid in provinces adjacent to their territory, except the Norse who can use boats. Empires require 80% of the land and 2 kingdom titles, except in cases like Francia where they require an additional outside title.

CK2 is full of exceptions. Why is this one so much worse?

 

[0303]

You said it earlier that they were dead, so what's their piety matter? I jest -- it's irrelevant no matter what you said earlier.

The logic is "that's how elective gavelkind works" -- the tooltip might be imprecise, but you haven't made an argument save that "rules should all be equal" which is clearly not the case in so many other things in the game, not least amongst them that every succession law has its own characteristic rule modification. That's literally the point.

Change succession law or suffer the consequences.

Did I say that dead man's piety matters? Am I an idiot? When and where did I say such a nonsense? I talk about living men's gold and piety and about the game mechanics. Sorry, but I really don't know why you are trying to discuss if you don't seem to be able to understand a simple text.
And, yes, the rules must be equal for all. The sun rises in the East, the stone falls downward, creating a title costs gold and piety.

 

[0303]

This exception is worse because it´s an exception from a fundamental principle of the game mechanics. The three cases you cited are only exceptions from some particular rules. This is the difference and this is why I find this exception so annoying. After all, it's a real cheat. You can create kingdoms by dozens for the price of 1 (these won't be your kingdoms, but anyway...). Just take territories and make children. Really, you have to spend money only for the first kingdom. The rest is only land and sons.
Well, if somebody believes that this is OK, I respect the opinion, but I'm sure I'm right.

Upd: The devs could make this ecxeption in a more reasonable way. E.g., let those bastards take kingdoms, but let them pay. Let them have appropriate negative gold and piety balance on inheritance. Right? It would be fair.

 

[Iron Chariots]

This exception is worse because it´s an exception from a fundamental principle of the game mechanics. The three cases you cited are only exceptions from some particular rules. This is the difference and this is why I find this exception so annoying. After all, it's a real cheat. You can create kingdoms by dozens for the price of 1 (these won't be your kingdoms, but anyway...). Just take territories and make children. Really, you have to spend money only for the first kingdom. The rest is only land and sons.
Well, if somebody believes that this is OK, I respect the opinion, but I'm sure I'm right.

How is spending gold and piety on a title a "fundamental" game mechanic? It's a detail at most. The fundamental game mechanics are the vassal/liege relationship and inheritance of titles and claims. Creation of titles plays into that, but the fundamental game mechanics have more to do with titles once they exist than with how they come into being.

 

[Tom013]

Did I say that dead man's piety matters? Am I an idiot? When and where did I say such a nonsense? I talk about living men's gold and piety and about the game mechanics. Sorry, but I really don't know why you are trying to discuss if you don't seem to be able to understand a simple text.
And, yes, the rules must be equal for all. The sun rises in the East, the stone falls downward, creating a title costs gold and piety.

I said you said that it didn't matter. The dead man is "creating" the titles for his sons, his sons get them... since they were created FOR (not BY, reference your own tooltip quote) his sons, certainly THEIR piety should not matter, right? So speaking of not understanding "a simple text" ...

 

[Dogukan91]

Turkic Conquerors can be set to Historical/Random/Off

Can someone tell me what this does?