• 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.

Conclave Dev Diary #1

Hi folks, I hope you have all had a nice and relaxing holiday! However, just in case you didn’t, let me take the edge off your existential angst with some soothing talk about the next expansion for Crusader Kings II; a little thing we eventually decided to call Conclave...

As you know, most of CK2’s expansions have “widened” the gameplay by unlocking new regions of the map and making various religions playable. You can now start the game in widely different cultural spheres for a great variety of different experiences; “Fifty Shades of Dark”, if you will. Meanwhile, we have gradually improved the core gameplay in patches (e.g. the technology system), but rarely in any radical way. Whenever we did try to “deepen” the core gameplay in an expansion, it often turned out to be a mistake: The Retinue mechanic of Legacy of Rome should, for example, have been a part of the base game so we could have kept building upon it.

Even so, it is high time that we addressed some of the major shortcomings of the strategy game that underpins the RPG experience. In particular, CK2 suffers from a kind of inverse difficulty progression; it is hard in the beginning and easy in the mid-to-late game. This is a great shame, because one of the main points of the whole feudal hierarchy mechanic - the need to rely on vassals - was to make it hard to maintain stable large Realms. So, my first and foremost intention with Conclave was to increase the challenge of the mid-to-late game. This was the general plan of action:

  • Reduce the “positive opinion inflation” of vassals vs their liege. (We ended up cutting many important positive opinion modifiers in half.)
  • Highlight the most powerful vassals by making them strongly desire a Council seat.
  • Give the Council more power without reducing player agency. (You are free to disregard the Council’s suggestions, but this will have ramifications on Factions. More on this later...)
  • Introduce Infamy and Coalitions against aggressively expanding Realms.
  • Improve the alliance mechanic to make it a more intentional choice. (A royal marriage is now simply a non-aggression pact. Alliance is the second step, but still requires a marriage.)
  • Improve the diplomatic AI in order to contain “blobs” (with the help of the above Alliance and Coalition systems.)
  • Bring the military AI to a whole new level.
  • Make it harder to quickly win wars through one or two major engagements. (Hence, we reduced the bloodiness of battles overall, introduced “shattered retreats” and made armies reinforce in friendly territory.)
Crusader Kings II - Conclave - Obligations.jpg


Thus, the features of Conclave and the accompanying patch are a combination of internal and external measures to make blobbing harder. This intention had ripple effects on other mechanics. For example, malcontents now tend to gang up into fewer but more powerful Factions, and we reworked the Law Screen while we were adding the new Council Power laws.

Crusader Kings II - Conclave - Council.jpg


We also took this opportunity to address an unrelated weakness in the game, namely the education of children. If you have the expansion, that whole experience should now be more interesting…

That’s all for now, stay tuned for the details!
 
  • 193
  • 50
  • 12
Reactions:
Depends on the job. If you appoint a noble to be your steward, you'd probably expect that he'd do the job himself.

Yes. He would do the job as Steward. But he wouldn't go on the missions on his own. But not allways. In the HRE the jobs were pretty much titular to the prince electors.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Looking great. Finally this so called positive inflation is addressed. Maybe it's not all in search of pure historical simulation, but it'll make the game as a whole much more interesting.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Looking great, but I have my doubts about those Obligations. Sure, it will probably make the game a bit harder and better.
But, what if I wanted to be a tyrant who exploits his vassals to the last coin/peasant?
It's already too easy to be the good guy and it's more rewarding.
You are (probably) making good gameplay decisions, but please don't forget RPG elements.
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
I hope the anti-blobbing mechanics feel realistic and not superficial. I think blobbing itself should be relatively easy, but keeping your realm intact should be harder. And I hope the effect is less significant for AI because they might not be able to handle some additional penalties for blobbing.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I do hope that the military leader issue is addressed as well.

Your highest noble vassals should be severely displeased if you name general of your army a bishop, courtier or someone they seem unworthy instead of them.
 
  • 12
  • 1
Reactions:
Wouldn't vassal-councilors require regents if they're actively absent from their demesnes?

From a "realistic" stand-point probably yes, but from a game-play standpoint NO WAY.

They've got their own councils back home though. Even if it isn't a full on regency, that council should have a bit more power if their lord is on his liege's council.

From a realistic standpoint no councilor would go on his own to a mission... Why should my court chaplain move on his own to Lithuany to convert the heathens? Realisitivally hze would send another guy to do it.
That would also get rid of the gamey trick of appointing someone you want to get rid of to be your court chaplain, then sending him to preach to the vikings.

@Doomdark, any chance that the adjustments to opinion bonuses might also includes those from traits, and other trait based bonuses? <_< >_> <_<


I
I
\ /
v
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Eh, alliances are defensive anyway, are they not? You can freely decline any offensive call to arms.
Yes, but defensive allies couldn't be called into an offensive war. That's the difference.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I get that feudal realms shouldn't be able to blob into large empires, that makes total sense to me, however, what about administrative (i.e. centralized) empires, a'la Byzantium or any other late game empire? Those, I think, have a decent justification for being able to grow large, namely that they were not truly Feudal in nature, but more like centralized "modern" empires a la EUIV.
 
  • 11
Reactions:
I get that feudal realms shouldn't be able to blob into large empires, that makes total sense to me, however, what about administrative (i.e. centralized) empires, a'la Byzantium or any other late game empire? Those, I think, have a decent justification for being able to grow large, namely that they were not truly Feudal in nature, but more like centralized "modern" empires a la EUIV.

They already get bonuses to blobbing such as viceroys right from the start and a larger vassal limit.
 
  • 11
Reactions:
They already get bonuses to blobbing such as viceroys right from the start and a larger vassal limit.

Yes, I know. But a point made in the dev diary is that blobbing is harder due to things like vassals being more uppity due to opinion modifiers (the main way to prevent rebellions in large empires) being lessened. This would be a problem for large empires like the ERE or any late-game centralized empire.

Yes, it makes perfect sense that feudal infighting, bickering, and power struggles would make very large feudal empires very unstable (even France, one of the largest feudal nations, was a giant s***t show most of the time, and the HRE became the decentralized mess it was during the EUIV era for a reason), but centralized, administrative empires shouldn't have this kind of stability problem due to...well, their not being feudal. They had their own problems, yes, but those would be an entirely different thing.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
I wouldn't mind making Retinues part of the base game if that means they'll get more love.

Is offering an Alliance just a new diplomatic option once you have a marriage or are there any other requirements to it?
 
  • 22
Reactions:
Yes, I know. But a point made in the dev diary is that blobbing is harder due to things like vassals being more uppity due to opinion modifiers (the main way to prevent rebellions in large empires) being lessened. This would be a problem for large empires like the ERE or any late-game centralized empire.

Yes, it makes perfect sense that feudal infighting, bickering, and power struggles would make very large feudal empires very unstable (even France, one of the largest feudal nations, was a giant s***t show most of the time, and the HRE became the decentralized mess it was during the EUIV era for a reason), but centralized, administrative empires shouldn't have this kind of stability problem due to...well, their not being feudal. They had their own problems, yes, but those would be an entirely different thing.

You do know that even the comparably centralized ERE was pretty rife with infighting and uppity vassals? Managing a large empire will still be easier with Imperial administration, just not as easy as before (hopefully).
 
  • 8
Reactions:
I actually really enjoy a stable empire, I know many disagree and like things to fall apart to build them back up again. Will it be easy to mod to keep a stable empire that gets large?
I also enjoy a stable realm, but I enjoy knowing that my hard work is the reason it's stable.

From a "realistic" stand-point probably yes, but from a game-play standpoint NO WAY.
Depends on what happens with regencies.

From a realistic standpoint no councilor would go on his own to a mission... Why should my court chaplain move on his own to Lithuany to convert the heathens? Realisitivally hze would send another guy to do it.
Well you should be able to actually send your annoying brother in law to onvert the heathens.

Depends on the job. If you appoint a noble to be your steward, you'd probably expect that he'd do the job himself.
He wouldn't go around collecting taxes himself though

Yes. He would do the job as Steward. But he wouldn't go on the missions on his own. But not allways. In the HRE the jobs were pretty much titular to the prince electors.
Yeah I hope they take this opportunity to create so kind of such mechanic for the HRE.

Looking great, but I have my doubts about those Obligations. Sure, it will probably make the game a bit harder and better.
But, what if I wanted to be a tyrant who exploits his vassals to the last coin/peasant?
It's already too easy to be the good guy and it's more rewarding.
You are (probably) making good gameplay decisions, but please don't forget RPG elements.
Then dial up the crown authority.

I do hope that the military leader issue is addressed as well.

Your highest noble vassals should be severely displeased if you name general of your army a bishop, courtier or someone they seem unworthy instead of them.
Nah not title tier, prestige, powerful nobles should have no problem standing back if the general they are following is prestigeous enough.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Hi folks, I hope you have all had a nice and relaxing holiday! However, just in case you didn’t, let me take the edge off your existential angst with some soothing talk about the next expansion for Crusader Kings II; a little thing we eventually decided to call Conclave...
Next? Not last then? Or well not confirmed last. I was kind of expecting you to confirm it to be the last one.

As you know, most of CK2’s expansions have “widened” the gameplay by unlocking new regions of the map and making various religions playable. You can now start the game in widely different cultural spheres for a great variety of different experiences; “Fifty Shades of Dark”, if you will. Meanwhile, we have gradually improved the core gameplay in patches (e.g. the technology system), but rarely in any radical way. Whenever we did try to “deepen” the core gameplay in an expansion, it often turned out to be a mistake: The Retinue mechanic of Legacy of Rome should, for example, have been a part of the base game so we could have kept building upon it.
I really like that you admit when things didn't go as you hoped.

Even so, it is high time that we addressed some of the major shortcomings of the strategy game that underpins the RPG experience. In particular, CK2 suffers from a kind of inverse difficulty progression; it is hard in the beginning and easy in the mid-to-late game. This is a great shame, because one of the main points of the whole feudal hierarchy mechanic - the need to rely on vassals - was to make it hard to maintain stable large Realms. So, my first and foremost intention with Conclave was to increase the challenge of the mid-to-late game. This was the general plan of action:

  • Reduce the “positive opinion inflation” of vassals vs their liege. (We ended up cutting many important positive opinion modifiers in half.)
  • Highlight the most powerful vassals by making them strongly desire a Council seat.
  • Give the Council more power without reducing player agency. (You are free to disregard the Council’s suggestions, but this will have ramifications on Factions. More on this later...)
  • Introduce Infamy and Coalitions against aggressively expanding Realms.
  • Improve the alliance mechanic to make it a more intentional choice. (A royal marriage is now simply a non-aggression pact. Alliance is the second step, but still requires a marriage.)
  • Improve the diplomatic AI in order to contain “blobs” (with the help of the above Alliance and Coalition systems.)
  • Bring the military AI to a whole new level.
  • Make it harder to quickly win wars through one or two major engagements. (Hence, we reduced the bloodiness of battles overall, introduced “shattered retreats” and made armies reinforce in friendly territory.)
Here's an idea how about there being a least needed prestige for your realm, depending on it's tier and it's realm size. If you don't have alteast that much prestige you get a relationship malus with your subjects. And the whole prestige opinion bonus only counts prestige over this limit.

And less bloody battles sounds like a buff to the more expensive retinues.
 
  • 3
Reactions: