CK2 Dev Diary #34: Facts about Artifacts, Real talk about Relics

[MateuszS]

What about making it so one of your ancestor's crown becomes a powerful heirloom due to his or her abilities as ruler? Or if one of you ancestors is sainted, then you obtain some relic they once had.

Well, DLC should have an option to praise particular ancestor as saint...

 

[pirro]

Yay, bloat for the bloat God! Adding random stuff to an overdone game ALWAYS works, amirite?

 

[Sopbucket]

This is shaping up to be a very interesting expansion.

 

[The Guru]

Sad…

I'm really fond of CK2 as a historical grand strategy game. I like the depth of the history simulation system, yet not being perfect, but immersive enough to please me.

I'm sad that time is spent in RPG focused DLCs whereas developing a richer historical system (e.g. Cluny subsidiary abbeys network, cadet branches, multiple overlords depending on the owned title, more flexible title system…) would please me much more and make me buying new DLCs.

I understand others may have a taste for RPG like games, but please, please, please, implement a way to unable all this RPG stuff. For artifacts, I'm not convinced that an individual having a masterpiece sword could alter the history in any signifcant way. Maybe having two CK2 instances could be appreciated, one being "History simulation and grand strategy" and the other "RPG and medieval alternative".

+10000000000000000000000000000000000

CK2 would always at best be a weak and very odd RPG.

It used to be about medieval intrigue, dynasties, religion -- big picture stuff -- that created a wonderful framework for a rewarding strategy experience that spanned centuries. At some point issues like rebellion reworks, missing cadet branches, meaningful internal management, etc. just became completely overlooked and supplanted with vampires and +2 Swords of Striking.

Couldn't agree more...

 

[sreckom92]

Yay, bloat for the bloat God! Adding random stuff to an overdone game ALWAYS works, amirite?

People like it. Why not?

 

[PK_AZ]

Right up until Conclave if you'd ask me to pinpoint it.

Uh, no? It never worked? Vassal management was a mess because of lack of any kind of negotiations and zero feedback. Intrigues were unintuitive. Rules of war let you wage wars in every place of the map and there are principles controversial from both gameplay and realism point of view.

 

[TheDungen]

Would there be any likelihood of rare event chains giving the previously 'mundane' items of exceptionally prestigious characters legendary features? Say a norseman succeeds in a prepared invasion of the Abbasids and forms an empire stretching from Egypt to India, dies with 17,000 prestige and the dread viking trait at the ripe old age of 87 in battle against the dreaded Mongol menace. Any chance his axe becomes a lot more valuable than it was when Erik the Blind forged it on a goat's back?

Quite so I doubt Joyeuse ever did cut an anvil in twain but being the sword in the hand of the man who dragged western europe back from the dark ages tend to get people thinking along those lines.

My question is probably unrelated to the Monks and Mystics expansion but has there ever been any consideration for doing more with ships? I really feel like naval warfare is totally neglected by the current Crusader Kings setup. It seems kinda silly to be able to raise hundreds of ships and have them do nothing to stop an incoming army that is about to invade your shores. In just about every game of crusader kings I have ever played I almost always have way more ships than I could ever use for transporting my army. Ships could also be used to set up trade routes or possibly some sort of naval bombardment.

No navy prior to radar could block a naval invasion. The coastlines are to long, if you spread out enough to cover the entire coastline then you don't have the force to stop even a much weaker navy. That said there should be a naval mechanic, when they find a way to do it right, not like in EU where navies are essentially armies on water because that's worse than no naval mechanics. I would say a HoI4 style mechanic is better where you can send out ships to patroll or raid indirectly and they have certain chances of minor skirmishes wiht enemy fleets in the same areas and can then cause attrition and loss of organisation (morale) to transported armies. But the whole "I sink your navy your armies die" don't work in EU4 and it certainly wouldn't work in ck2.

Naval warfare would probably not be a positive addition to the game. In CK2, the countries with the most ships tend to be the ones with the most coastal provinces. Adding naval warfare to the game would result in things like the Fatimids in the 1066 start raising gigantic doom fleets that obliterate all of those little crusading counts who are trying to land with 5 ships holding their entire armies. The only way around that is a super arbitrary "brown people can't sail" modifier of some sort, just so Euro Christians can compete. This looks like a bad idea without even considering the other potential consequences, like some big Indian empire launching a massive doom fleet with 500 ships in it to attack Oman or something similarly ridiculous.

If you look at the waters in CK2, you'd see that the European things are very narrow. Unlike in EU4, there would be nowhere to hide from big enemy fleet on the prowl. For most AIs, the addition of naval warfare would exclude them from making use of ships at all, because their armies would just be drowned shortly after leaving port. I think the negatives far outweigh the gains in this specific case.

If done right it would be, navies should be a lot more offensive tools (at least for war) than they should be defensive, you can always have enough ships to attack somewhere but you rarely have enough ships to defend against enemy fleets. I have explained it above.
A real life example from this era is when Harald Fairhair united Norway a lot of the defeated nobles fled to places like iceland, the faroe islands and orkey, and started raiding him from there, Harald Fairhair perhaps the greatest king of all viking kings could do nothing to stop them, so eventually he invaded the islands where they hid and conquered them again. Because while he had a much larger fleet than they had they could always strike where they had the advantage and avoid conflict when they did not. Only be going on the offensive could he truly stop them.

As for indian invasion of arabia how is that not the case today?

Again fleets operating like armies on water and two fleets engaging in a pitched battle on sea is possible the least realistic naval mechanic in all time, yes what we have today (nothing) is far better than that, but it's not better than an actually well thought through naval game.
You're being far to conservative in how you think about these things.

As for the much coast mean large navy thing I would say the opposite should be true, some important large harbours should give almost all your ships and more coast means you'll have to spread them out more. And around those provinces is probably also where you should defend if you mean to defend against enemies, setting most of your ships to protect a few very valuable provinces instead of trying to control the massive vastness of the open sea.

 

[BlackPrince]

Please, please, get closer! Only here you can buy cheaply plenty of priceless relics! Nutsack of St Leo IV, thighbones of Saint Eadburh, buy two and you will receive one extra. Finger bones of St Stanislaus one ducat for dozen. Hide of ass on which Jesus drove into.. umm, the place where he was heading to.

And now important questions, can I trade relics and other junk? Or create fake relics as some cynical character? Is each relic binded to not only religion but also heresy, for example Cathars will have their own relics which will be viewed by catholics as objects conceived by devil's hand? Can I use them to create new center of pilgrimage? Will they reduce decadence for muslim characters? What happens to them in gavelkind succession? How high will be a chance to get a Golden Horseshoe of St Glitterhoof? Obviously many items will be obtainable by eventchains, but how many relics will start some unusual events? Can normal item become a special one, for example arrogant sniffy talking sword: "I think I'm a special one."? Will Hindu artifacts get a nice description like those from Mahabharata? Can my items 'disappear' during regency? Or be stolen by character with certain focus? Will Judaism get some kind of 'event' after restoring the Kingdom of Israel to recover all relics lost during and before Dispersion? Any chance for Hellenic artifacts? Shall we expect renewable items which require certain skills of owner or his advisor, which would make a sense mostly for West Africans. Is there going to be a new ambition to get important relic? And most important.

Lunatics and their artifacts, ball made of earwax as sign from God??

 

[pirro]

People like it. Why not?

Ey, if people believe CK II needs more weak rpg elements, it's their opinion. I parted ways long ago, since I understood paradox didn't know what to do with the game and wouldn't even care to add depth or historical stuff.

 

[Axe99]

Cheers for the DD Darkrenown and the extra info Bratyn . Great system as well, for vanilla alone, and I'm sure modders will be salivating over it . Now we can have a Monty Python and Holy Grail mod with the Holy Hand Grenade .

Some random thoughts - apologies of covered in earlier posts:
- gifting relics for improved relations could be a thing?
- perhaps demanding items to ransom people could also be a thing? (Likelier a bit more fiddly code and UI-wise, so maybe not a good idea)

They do. We can look into splitting them more if artifact pileup becomes a problem, but it might be more that the relic event needs tuned. The idea is they'll stay with the player as your characters die.

Just throwing ideas around here, and they could be silly, but in case not:
- Perhaps instead of all going to primary heir, they could default to that but also be able to be 'assigned' to be inherited by someone else (for a relations bonus with that person - or a malus for a detrimental item). You could even have a relations malus with non-primary heirs if a character had a lot of items and wasn't sharing them out. Adds trade-off to choices, and might feel a bit more immersive.

Not to "unsell" you on it, but remember the system is in the patch, so if modding is your only concern you don't actually need the DLC.

Big props for this .

 

[sreckom92]

Ey, if people believe CK II needs more weak rpg elements, it's their opinion. I parted ways long ago, since I understood paradox didn't know what to do with the game and wouldn't even care to add depth or historical stuff.

You parted ways, but you bother to write here?
Weak rpg elements? I don't understand what do you mean by that.

 

[Asiak]

Yay, bloat for the bloat God! Adding random stuff to an overdone game ALWAYS works, amirite?

Oh look someone butthurt that they aren't adding in things they specifically are interested in.

It can't be that overdone if you're still curious enough in its development to come read about the changes.

 

[marcelodcs]

Amazing!

 

[durbal]

But what did actually change?

The game direction, really. When was the last time some of the broken or neglected features were reworked or even thought of? Rebellions still need a rework, internal management and internal collapse are still basically nil. But now there are more statpiles and virtual bling that further break a broken game.

I just hope CK3 goes back to its roots as a grand strategy game from a grand strategy company.

 

[TheDungen]

You parted ways, but you bother to write here?
Weak rpg elements? I don't understand what do you mean by that.

I'm guessing RPG elements that don't directly impact on the main gameplay, and to some extent he's right, the characters, traits and events feel very disassociated from the grand strategy aspects of the game.

It feels like MSG with RPG things glued on top sometimes.

For an example why would a cynic declare a holy war? And if he uses it as a justification, will he really fool anyone? There needs to be more inter-connectivity between different mechanics. I've been saying that for ages.

In many ways the stats of the ruler is more important in EU4 than in CK2, despite the latter supposedly being character driven.

 

[Peregrin Eleventy-One]

I can't wait!

 

[Lord Cuddlesworth]

Very much looking forward to this.

 

[DmUa]

For an example why would a cynic declare a holy war? And if he uses it as a justification, will he really fool anyone?

- actually i personally would expect that it would be a cynical person who would use religion in this way.

 

[illathid]

Ey, if people believe CK II needs more weak rpg elements, it's their opinion. I parted ways long ago, since I understood paradox didn't know what to do with the game and wouldn't even care to add depth or historical stuff.

You're right. It's completely unhistorical for anyone in this time period to own relic, artifacts, or other items. The concept of ownership didn't exist until Adam Smith wrote the wealth of nations. It's like how people don't realize color didn't exist before it was invented in the 1950's.

 

[TheDungen]

- actually i personally would expect that it would be a cynical person who would use religion in this way.

Then how would that in turn affect him? would waging for on these heathens make him actually start hating them? Or would he learn to respect them as an enemy? Or any other scenario? And as I said how would others view it?
But the game does very little to bridge the gap between what actually happens in the game and the RPG elements.
Say the characters best friend dies in one of these conflicts, how would that affect his personality?