Hello again folks, I do believe it is time for another dev diary!

We've basically covered most of the features in the game by now, so I thought I'd change tack and talk a bit about what we've been up to in the last week. Much of the focus lately has been on war and peace, both the rules and the AI behaviour. I am pleased to report that we've now got vassals within the same realm fighting each other like the vicious bastards they are.

We have also changed the rules a bit - vassals are now allowed to declare war on independent rulers, but independent rulers still cannot declare war on vassals. Thus, we now have William of Normandy as a vassal of France while invading England on his own. An unforeseen consequence of this is that he now tends to call in his father-in-law, another French vassal, Duke Boudewijn of Flandres to help him out. Marriage matters folks, and don't you forget it!

On a related note, Duchess Matilde of Tuscany, vassal of the Holy Roman Emperor (and the most eligible bride in Europe), tends to open the game in 1066 with a rather bad move, attacking the Pope to seize Orvieto (which is de jure part of her Duchy of Spoleto.) Other times, the Pope usurps the title Duke of Spoleto, and then Matilde feels obliged to attempt to take it back.

Either way, the unfortunate Duchess tends to get a rather nasty surprise. She has forgotten an important lesson that you might remember from an earlier diary - the Pope gets taxes from loyal bishops around Europe, making him a very, very rich man. So, while he has few levies of his own to raise, he can basically afford to hire every mercenary company in Europe! Even the mighty Holy Roman Emperor sometimes loses to the might of the Vatican.



...and there was much balancing.

Until next time!

 

[Sadino]

So, if alliances are strictly marital, I assume the AI is going to be much more picky on marriage selections?

If so, woohoo. I always found it annoying in CK1 that every major noble seemed to marry some random courtier, rather than trying to find a daughter of a noble house. I mean, if the Duchy of Aquitaine has an only daughter who starts off as heiress to the lands of Aquitaine, Poitou, and Gascony, she should be fighting off suitors with a stick, rather than being tossed off to some random Norwegian count in the middle of nowhere. Similarly, the King of France should not be pulling a wife from a court out of thin air. Mistress, quite possibly, but wife? Would never have been accepted.

 

[Boshko]

As far as the plots go, all I'm hoping for is that it allows for rebellions with goals aside from:
A. Make me independent.
B. Take my liege's title away.

I'd love to see rebellions with specific demands that they'd press and that you could give into, which would make the rebellion go away. Such as:
A. Changes to laws.
B. Supporting someone else's claim.
C. Demanding independence of a larger region than just what my character has.
D. Changes to taxation.
E. Changes to appointments.

That sort of thing.

 

[.Spartan]

Here's what's getting very frustrating for me:
I say "Plots should almost always be military," and people say "should not, Plots should include <insert method of causing Civil War>, and <insert something totally unsuited to the Plots mechanic>"

Usurpation and the renunciation of feudal oaths are clearly the former, because they start a war. We don' know much about CK2's Plots, but we know they will be, at core, Lord A going to Lord B and asking for help in something. If you can find a single example of Medieval assassination that involved Lord A going to Lord B saying "let's kill the King" I will eat my hat.

Excommunication could be interesting, but it could also be an example of something that isn't covered by the Plots mechanic. It could remain a Diplomatic option, as it was in CK1. And it simply can't feature in most Plots in the game or non-Popish characters will never be able to participate in any plots.

Nick

All those reasons are why I think the name "plots system" is not a good name. A "subterfuge mechanic" would be more apt methinks.

 

[Nick B II]

I'd love to see rebellions with specific demands that they'd press and that you could give into, which would make the rebellion go away. Such as:
A. Changes to laws.
B. Supporting someone else's claim.
C. Demanding independence of a larger region than just what my character has.
D. Changes to taxation.
E. Changes to appointments.

That sort of thing.

I'd take A and B as given. C too, for regions that have de jure titles, because you should be able to Plot to put somebody else on the throne of those regions. For regions that don't it will be impossible to implement without radical changes to the game architecture.

D and E would be a lot of fun if they're included.

Nick

 

[Nick B II]

Charles VII certainly tried to kill Jean sans Peur covertly on the Bridge of Montereau. The trouble is, it didn't work, and he was killed overtly in front of him instead. And when Jean Sans Peur himself had Louis d'Orleans murdered in an alleyway in Paris, years earlier, it didn't work either. The target on his back was so great, the culprit so obvious, that he actually had to paint it publicly (as in, in front of members of the Université de Paris) as a tyrannicide to save his hide.

And using poison certainly would count as "covertly".

What sources are you using?

I can't find anything that says John the Fearless tried to poison Louis I of Orleans. What I can find is that John's troops did the deed openly. They weren't wearing uniforms, but you're not really trying to be covert when an armed party of people known to be your friends attacks an armed party of the other faction and kills their leader.

I can't find a covert attempt to assassinate John at the Bridge. There was a meeting. At some point during the meeting John touched his sword, which led the Dauphin's men to should "Kill, kill" and kill him.

Nick

 

[ramblymanguthri]

The only thing remotely like that ( that I know of) is the so called "Fiest of Nyköping" in the early 14th century Sweden. King Birger deceptively invited two rival dukes (Erik and Valdemar) to his castle under the guise of putting the their animosity behind them, cunningly had all their soldiers housed in the city, and then subtly had his own guards storm into the dukes' rooms in the early morning and imprisoned them (and later had them killed in prison).

So yeah, even if there was a lot of plotting beforehand, it still just came down to force-of-arms. And it wasn't that much of a plot in general CK2 sense either, since the only man knowing about this was the king himself.

There's also Erik XIV, I guess, who was dethroned by his brothers and assassinated by poison. He wasn't murdered until years after he lost, though, which he spent being moved from prison to prison. It was also in the 16th century, so it doesn't fit timewise anyway.

 

[Järnblomma]

The only thing remotely like that ( that I know of) is the so called "Fiest of Nyköping" in the early 14th century Sweden. King Birger deceptively invited two rival dukes (Erik and Valdemar) to his castle under the guise of putting the their animosity behind them, cunningly had all their soldiers housed in the city, and then subtly had his own guards storm into the dukes' rooms in the early morning and imprisoned them (and later had them killed in prison).

So yeah, even if there was a lot of plotting beforehand, it still just came down to force-of-arms. And it wasn't that much of a plot in general CK2 sense either, since the only man knowing about this was the king himself.

There's also Erik XIV, I guess, who was dethroned by his brothers and assassinated by poison. He wasn't murdered until years after he lost, though, which he spent being moved from prison to prison. It was also in the 16th century, so it doesn't fit timewise anyway.

Also, it's more of an assassination than a plot. Really, I think the big problem here is that people hear the word "plot" and want to use it for something else than it is meant for.

 

[Ruwaard]

What sources are you using?

I can't find anything that says John the Fearless tried to poison Louis I of Orleans. What I can find is that John's troops did the deed openly. They weren't wearing uniforms, but you're not really trying to be covert when an armed party of people known to be your friends attacks an armed party of the other faction and kills their leader.

I can't find a covert attempt to assassinate John at the Bridge. There was a meeting. At some point during the meeting John touched his sword, which led the Dauphin's men to should "Kill, kill" and kill him.

Nick

Another consequence was that Philip the Good and Burgundy became (de facto) and started to act much more independent, which helped by the fact that half their territories were a part of the HRE and were very wealthy. (This also increased the desire of the very powerful Burgundian dukes, more powerful than certain kings, to gain their own royal crown.) This started the rivalry between the Valois kings of France and the Valois dukes of Burgundy, which was later inherited by the Habsburgs.
I'm wondering how such poisoned family (Valois-France vs Valois-Burgundy) relations will be modeled in the game.

 

[Boshko]

I'd take A and B as given. C too, for regions that have de jure titles, because you should be able to Plot to put somebody else on the throne of those regions. For regions that don't it will be impossible to implement without radical changes to the game architecture.

D and E would be a lot of fun if they're included.

Nick

D and E wold be great since those were the sources of a lot of real world Medieval rebellions ("make my county independent from the King!" no so much). Bunches of kings had to sack their ministers in order to defuse rebellions.

 

[Orinsul]

B. Supporting someone else's claim.

Something is definitely needed for this, Almost every civil war was lead not by the claimant but by his most powerful allies, you should be able to rise in support of the true king against the usurper or invade a country to put your landless brother-in-law on the throne. [Both examples for the Aetheling].

Plots should not just be for war, but offer the chance prevent wars. Instead of rising in rebellion to enforce said demand, gather support and go to the king and say here are the demands, pass them or we will rebel and force you to pass them. That is how england was run, at the mercy of the barons, the king could either do what the barons told him for face war and lose his throne. Barons Wars, Magna Carta, etc. Especially as in CK2 Barons cant rebel but that shouldnt make them powerless, if all your barons plot against you that should hurt.
An Example.
The Anarchy started by Stephen 'Plotting' to take the throne, he got the support of the barons, went to matilda and said 'look all these people support me, abdicate the throne to me' she said no there was a civil war, if she had said yes then no civil war Stephen would take the throne, or atleast a smaller chance of a civil war. The Plot wasnt the start a war but to be King, it failed so there was a war.
But the Goal of the Plot should be the goal of the civil war, not the civil war itself.

There should be Plots for counts and barons and their king to get together to legally remove the duke inbetween them, demoting him to count and promoting the count who lead the plot to duke. Or to maneuver an old and feeble king into naming your candidate as his heir instead of his legal one. It should not be limited to the one thing of starting wars, but to all things where your vassals gather together in common cause against you, as the Barons did all the time.
To do pretty much anything you need the support of your equals and vassals, not just start wars.

 

[3inar]

I was sitting watching the Units representing armies in this dev diarys picture and culdent help by thinking what wold the army look like going on a crusade, wold the army gett another sking like a crusader skin or something specific for lords choosing to go on crusade.

Any thaughts about this guys?

 

[Subcomandante]

Plots should not just be for war, but offer the chance prevent wars. Instead of rising in rebellion to enforce said demand, gather support and go to the king and say here are the demands, pass them or we will rebel and force you to pass them.

This is how I understand the dev comments in general. That is exactly what you do. Or have the option to do. I think this was said pretty much verbatim in one of the videos. So you need to either control or divide the barons. Give them reason to stay friendly.

 

[Captain Gars]

Plots should not just be for war, but offer the chance prevent wars. Instead of rising in rebellion to enforce said demand, gather support and go to the king and say here are the demands, pass them or we will rebel and force you to pass them.

Way ahead of you

 

[Orinsul]

way ahead of you

awesome

 

[Ruwaard]

The family and family relations should be the basis for alliances, however how close will these family relations have to be. Or can different branches of the same dynasty become bitter rivals, like my example of Valois-France and Valois-Orléans vs Valois-Burgundy; or the houses of Lancaster and York of the Plantagenet dynasty.

 

[Neoptolemos]

I'm trying to think of a time a Catholic ruler tried to kill a rival covertly, rather then sending his troops to do the job in their freaking uniforms. I'm coming up blank.

The best I can think of is the assassination of Sancho II of Leon and Castile at the siege of Zamora in 1072. A knight named Vellido Dolfos bluffed his way into the king's camp and then murdered him with his own sword before escaping back into the town. The act was almost certainly instigated by the king's sister Urraca, who was in possession of Zamora at the time, and probably with the complicity of her favorite Alfonso VI of Leon, who was in exile at Toledo after being dispossessed by Sancho some months previous. El Cid blamed him for his liege's death when Alfonso inherited his brother's lands, at least.

Of course, that's Spain, and Spain will give you an exception to every single pattern you can find in medieval culture. You'd make another whole game trying to code for every permutation of Spanish political behavior.

 

[Orinsul]

Edward the Exile also stands out as a memorable example of an assassination and of course famously St Thomas Becket come to that, just to show its not just in spain, thats just in Britain, that murders happen without having to send uniformed armies along to justify it. People get murdered all the time. Even if no one involved is spanish
That you have the option of sending in an army doesnt mean its the only option. send your troops to kill someone and everyone knows yourve done it, go down in history as a murder, have it done quietly and centuries later people will still be arguing over whether or not you had a hand in it. You'd get in trouble sending soldiers to kill people as itd break the law, if they just happen to die then as long as no one finds the evidence then your reputation might come away clean.
I dont quite get why theres a question of whether or not having to do murder covertly in a civilized society is historically accurate. Its kind of obvious, murder is bad and people are repulsed by it, so its hidden.

 

[Nick B II]

Becket was actually one of the people I was thinking of. He wasn't killed by an Army, but he was killed by Knights in Henry II's retinue who made no attempt to hide their responsibility. Edward the Exile may not have been murdered, and is out-of-period anyway.

Which means your argument for covert murder is that it needs to be present is based on that one time four of the King's personal guards hacked a guy to death in front of several dozen monks.

The Exile is a) out-of-period, and b) his death may be a coincidence.

Regardless, this is a stupid debate to have, because Paradox is including the feature.

I hope they make it risky enough that only a fool will try it, as in 20% chance of game-over.

But given that Johan's mini-AAR included an assassination attempt I strongly suspect this is a case where the modern obsession with Ninjas is forced onto the Middle Ages.

Nick