CK3 Dev Diary #60 - The Cost of Warfare

[Leivve]

Does raiding take out garrisons?

 

[SanicK]

Thanks for the DD and the balance changes. They seem like good changes, but I share the concern of other members about certain aspects of balancing (pope already great numbers of mercenaries for example). We will have to test to see if they were really good changes.

 

[Aza-]

Nice patch

 

[JackMcManus]

I last played on very hard difficulty, a feature of the More Game Rules mod, which gives the player -25 opinion with vassals (among others things). I also played with Sud's Gameplay Overhaul, which (among other things) increases the likelihood of rebellions, especially with foreign vassal. Even with these changes, I manage just fine, so I can confirm there's much room for additional difficulty—I certainly enjoy the game more this way.

i'm interested. Does this mods break ironman?

 

[Scanz]

does the mechanism of factions reworked instead just stucking their strengh ? cuz empire always have 6-7 factions active

 

[luigi_L]

i'm interested. Does this mods break ironman?

I don't see why it would not. You can find detailed information on Sud's Gameplay Overhaul in its forum entry.

 

[Tiax]

Here is a screenshot from an observer game in which the Seljuks (now the Shahid cadet branch) have collapsed. The majority of those little OPMS that are peppering the territory are the results of populist factions - the khan gives into the populist demands, and bunch of new characters are created from nothing and given independent provinces, as we can see from the title history:

Note that this didn't happen because of some great defeat suffered by the Seljuks - there was no Byzantine invasion (the Byzantines and Seljuks never fight each other, of course). All that happened is that the Seljuks got an alliance with Zhetysu, and were called into a minor border skirmish over a single county up in Siberia. The Seljuks walked their entire army there, died to attrition, and went thousands of gold in debt, and then surrendered to multiple rounds of populist factions.

This is obviously terrible, and has been this way since the game launched. How will the AI manage to handle the new faction mechanics detailed in this dev diary if it is so inept at the current system? Or should we just expect to see the entire world be populated by randomly generated OPM counts from here on out?

 

[Malivamar]

Any change that makes conquering the world more difficult is more than welcome.

The medieval period was not the time of WC. Holding a large kingdom or empire should be a challenge, not fun

It SHOULD be fun AND be really challenging. No need to punish the players, for seeking whatever makes them happy, but do give them the extra challenge if they pursue those extraordinary feats, WC shouldnt be easy but not make the game a chore either.

Expanding as the byzantines in ck2 would be an example of going from fun to frustrating chore IF you chose to grant titles as viceroyalties instead of normal titles, since it makes it easier to manage the vassals early on but later you end up spending half of your time just handing them out as more vassals die to age, plots, war, diease, etc. So its just a clickfest in the late game if you want to keep your empire stable.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

To be clear, I'm totally in favor of internal instability, and I don't want ever-larger rivals. What I do want, though, is that if I don't go grinding my neighbors into dust and form a mega empire, that there still exist coherent states in the world. If I'm playing as, say, a relatively historical Poland, I don't want Hungary, Ruthenia, and Sweden to all collapse into a jumble of disconnected counts and never recover. That makes expansion trivial and means that, if I am having internal issues, I do not need to balance external security against internal management - I can devote all my resources to reigning in my vassals because my neighbors are helpless.

I want them to collapse and be replaced by the next Poland or Ruthenia. That's for the next great leader to sweep the area and coalesce the next large realm. And the cycle of rise and fall repeat for most of these realms.

It's baffling to me when players expect to be immune to this when it's really the best way to organically keep the map fresh. No arbitrary events, no ever larger enemy blobs (what happens after there's no map space to sustain a larger enemy? Abandon campaign,) no excessively strong event troops, no ridiculously unfair AI bonuses like Civ Diety. Simple legitimate internal challenges keep both player and AI small and stable or large and precariously unstable. Supports the next Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan, and supports the fracturing of their gains about as fast, freeing them up for the next great conqueror. As was the case for most realms of this period.

It SHOULD be fun AND be really challenging. No need to punish the players, for seeking whatever makes them happy, but do give them the extra challenge if they pursue those extraordinary feats, WC shouldnt be easy but not make the game a chore either.

Expanding as the byzantines in ck2 would be an example of going from fun to frustrating chore IF you chose to grant titles as viceroyalties instead of normal titles, since it makes it easier to manage the vassals early on but later you end up spending half of your time just handing them out as more vassals die to age, plots, war, diease, etc. So its just a clickfest in the late game if you want to keep your empire stable.

Byzantines were a frustrating chore only if you bothered. They were smooth as pie to play since there's no real external threat even during 769's massive Abbasids.

CK2's internal challenge was equally bad as CK3, so Byzantines were about as double digit IQ to play as they come. A real snorefest.

Oh, I want this. Mowing over some insignificant blob to acquire it. Oh, I want this, and so on, and so on.

 

[Tiax]

I want them to collapse and be replaces by the next Poland or Ruthenia. That's for the next great leader to sweep the area and coalesce the next large realm. And the cycle of rise and fall repeat for most of these realms.

I'd certainly be happy to see rise and fall, but right now, once a realm collapses, that's it - there's only fall. The AI will not manage to re-unite it for hundreds of years.

 

[naq29]

You are basically eliminating the fog of war and the uncertainty element, did you think Kings going for a crusade had excel spreadsheets at their disposals with all the infos they needed about the enemy?
How can people upvote and be fine with this foolishness?

well, to be fair, kings did not know all the vassals that secretly hated them and planned for an independence revolt against them either.

 

[naq29]

View attachment 721019
Here is a screenshot from an observer game in which the Seljuks (now the Shahid cadet branch) have collapsed. The majority of those little OPMS that are peppering the territory are the results of populist factions - the khan gives into the populist demands, and bunch of new characters are created from nothing and given independent provinces, as we can see from the title history:

View attachment 721023

Note that this didn't happen because of some great defeat suffered by the Seljuks - there was no Byzantine invasion (the Byzantines and Seljuks never fight each other, of course). All that happened is that the Seljuks got an alliance with Zhetysu, and were called into a minor border skirmish over a single county up in Siberia. The Seljuks walked their entire army there, died to attrition, and went thousands of gold in debt, and then surrendered to multiple rounds of populist factions.

This is obviously terrible, and has been this way since the game launched. How will the AI manage to handle the new faction mechanics detailed in this dev diary if it is so inept at the current system? Or should we just expect to see the entire world be populated by randomly generated OPM counts from here on out?

I am all for limiting offensive alliances. Historically, allies only joined offensive war together either against a common foe, or to get a share of the spoils (mostly lands). In CK3, you can spend some abstract prestige points, and your allies have to help you or lose prestige, which make alliances seem more similar to NATO.

I think the crusade mechanics, whereat participants divide the gains among themselves depending on their contribution, is an interesting way of handling wars. Hopefully the dev can make wars more interesting by using this mechanics more.

 

[warband]

Nice job with this changes, they may be small, but this little details make the game great, keep doing so.

 

[robbiow]

I am enjoying the game, especially the RP and immersion. The dev diaries are also intriguing, but I think this one has a real problem.

When it comes to Mercenaries, we adjusted how their cost is calculated. The price of a company is now affected by a few parameters:

• The primary title
• The size of the Realm
• The current Innovation Era

Let's be realistic, if you're a mercenary company, you're far more likely to lower your price if your future employer is larger, stronger and/or more advanced, especially as there's likely to be bigger, better, stronger forces fighting with you. The idea that a tinpot little county can negotiate a better deal with mercenaries (potentially stronger than they are) doesn't seem right at all. It actually makes more sense that the larger realm does corner the market doesn't it?

I get that the large realms need a bit of restraining, but suggest better options might be -
- family drama - relatives pressuring for gold, council positions, titles, favours
- economic events and tweaking of existing mechanics eg vassal limits
- more cross cultural clashes
- internal strife / events / plots from random personalities, local heroes, disgruntled staff
- defensive alliances

 

[Koyraboro]

When is this update? I've read the dev diary 3 times and Googled it but can't find out when the update is actually being applied.

No release date yet

 

[Koyraboro]

Does raiding take out garrisons?

No since unlike CK2, Raiding in CK3 doesn't involve sieging at all. So you can't preemptively raid a settlement to empty its garrison. However raiding does add a -50% Holding Taxes modifier so you will hit them in the wallet at least.

 

[Q-Tips]

Making it easier for factions to go on war against you is not something i think will make it better. The entire faction part need to be reworked. This is why i think so :

- Feudal elective kingdoms will have vassals who all agree and vote for same candidate. But the moment he becomes the liege, the same vassals who voted for him will create factions to have him replaced.
- Faction members who rebel against you and are captured in battle before war against you is won/lost, will automatically withdraw from the war. Because of that you cant revoke title from them without tyranny. If you set them free, they can start a new faction against you right away.
- You might already be fighting a war to defend the land of the same vassals who joins faction and rebel against you. By pressing their demands in such a situation can in worst case interupt your defence and loosing the vassals land. The vassal are almost straight out asking to loose their own titles.
- Wether a faction are pwerful enough to press their demands are solely based on total numbers of soldiers. Measure of strength is more than soldiers and should be predicted in same way as outcome before battle is predicted. They might have larger amount of soldiers, but it doesnt make them stronger if they all is broke and cant buy mercenaries, dont have any good army commanders, knights, home defence or any quality of the number of their soldiers, while you have all of that.
- Rebel vassals never learn. You might revoke a title from them, but that will only make them like you less. And unless you spend your time licking them up their ass, they will start a new faction as soon their are allowed to. Then they rebel again and you revoke another title and they will like you even less, and the cycle goes on and on until you revoked all they had. By that time the vassal you replaced him with are creating faction against you.
- Dread do not work as intended. It drops to fast unless you have intrigue lifestyle. And intrigue lifestyle is underpowered compared to the other lifestyle. This makes your vassals less afraid to go in to factions. As stated above, vassals never learn from their foolish mistakes.

 

[Lollipop_but_rock]

And intrigue lifestyle is underpowered compared to the other lifestyle

mmhhhhh.....
The torturer three perhaps, but the spy one ...... Fabricate hook, almost automatic success on any murder attempt in less than a year, double murder attempt.... Not even speaking of when you combo it with other lifestyles like fabricate hook + racket people for hooks, as easy to get with every character as both are the first perk of the three than overpowerred, making you swim in money while weakening all of your neighbours in the same time.

 

[The_Old_Shrike]

Rebel vassals never learn. You might revoke a title from them, but that will only make them like you less. And unless you spend your time licking them up their ass, they will start a new faction as soon their are allowed to. Then they rebel again and you revoke another title and they will like you even less, and the cycle goes on and on until you revoked all they had

And that's why you always revoke all possible titles and either execute the treacherous bastard replacing him with someone more trustful, or revoke upper tier titles and then just grant the rebel vassal to a new duke.

 

[Q-Tips]

And that's why you always revoke all possible titles and either execute the treacherous bastard replacing him with someone more trustful, or revoke upper tier titles and then just grant the rebel vassal to a new duke.

And then you die or the vassal die, and you are back where you started again. Or the one you trusted ally up with some others and joins as an ally.