Dev Diary 11: Stopping The Snowball

[macd21]

I'm not sure about anyone else, but on this possible issue, it's not so much the infamy passing to a fellow dynast that is an issue. That can actually make some sense.

I'm more curious about the possibility of inheriting the infamy of a non-dynastic predecessor.

Case in point, you are playing as a duke in the hre. The current emperor in on the war path gaining lots of infamy. He dies without issue and you are then elected emperor.

Should you then inherit your predecessors infamy, despite not having any relation to the man other than the crown? I'm not so sure.

I would hope so. If you're now the head of a powerful realm that just conquered a huge chunk of territory, you should still be seen as a threat.

Infamy really isn't the right word to describe this mechanic.

 

[Slayen]

Infamy really isn't the right word to describe this mechanic.

On this, we can definitely agree.

'Threat' was mentioned earlier in this thread and that really does sound like a more appropriate name for this mechanic.

 

[yourworstnightm]

I just want these coalitions to be between characters, not realm. If someone Think a duke is a danger there should be a coalition against said duke. And if the King of Navarra suddenly goes on a conquest Spree, he might not worry the King of France, but the King of Leon should be able to see Eye to Eye with some of France's Southern vassals to try to contain Navarra. Because if it's between independent realms it doesn't fit the era at all. However if vassals can join coalitions or be targets of coalitions it becomes much more medieval. The person you worry about isn't necessary a sovereign ruler.

 

[smeggy]

Bit of meek whining. Hopefully the DLC is about something fun and slightly not historical.

 

[paulk205]

Terrible design decision. It's ahistorical (balance of power politics in the 8th century?), against the grain of all that makes CK what it is (characters, not nations) and, frankly, encapsulates all that I dislike about the attitude of Paradox designers of the last few years: force players to play they way Paradox wants. You want world conquest? No you can't have it. It's the reason I completely abandoned EU4 for years now.

Now, I never WC. I never did in any of the EUs, and other than the odd Roman Empire reconstitution in CK2+ I don't bother with it in this game. But if other players like to blob what's Paradox's problem? If it was the AI that blobbed consistently and ahistorically, then yes, that's something to fix in the design process. But if the player wants to do it, what's so wrong? And use a bad, frustrating and artificial system to do it? Why the killjoy attitude? Sure, I'm also bothered by the stable Abbasid blob. Kill it with internal politics, not the Entente Cordiale of the 8th Century!

To use another sandbox game example: Sports Interactive doesn't seem to want to stop Lower League Managers from bringing up Eastleigh up from Conference South to Champions league glory if they so wish. Why is Paradox bothered by people conquering India as the Count of Sijilmasa? I repeat: it's not the AI that's doing it (it's not CK1 when you got the infamous Emirate of Praha all the the time) - it's the human. It's his bloody game after all! Let him play it (abuse it, even) as he wishes. He paid for it, didn't he?

Do you really want to fix things? Start by designing sea power. A medieval history game without Venetian and Genoese (and Byzantine) fleets? But where the Jarl of Northeast Iceland repeatedly lands his 324 raiders on the Bosphorus or the Rialto? Continue with a proper military model, without teleporting generals, six-month-long battles, vassal Kings of Armenia materializing their 14K of levies in the single Italian province that the King happens to own outside their core holdings, where battle planning actually requires force composition and (gasp!) planning instead of "rushing all the lemmings into one hex". Or perhaps leave well alone and design a new game (and for heaven's sake, no more map!). I'd pay good money for a Victoria 3. And I would even applaud you for designing a good coalition system there.

EDIT: Not to mention: there already exists a coalition system. IT's called the Crusades/Jihads/Great Holy Wars

 

[adijarca]

I appreciate the intent and that you guys are hard at work trying to improve it but this idea seems very very bad from the onset. AE and coalitions are completely broken in EU 4 90% of time, and that game was designed around an infamy idea. Hammering it into Ck 2 by force will not work as expected and only make the game more obtuse.

 

[sreckom92]

I'm not sure about anyone else, but on this possible issue, it's not so much the infamy passing to a fellow dynast that is an issue. That can actually make some sense.

I'm more curious about the possibility of inheriting the infamy of a non-dynastic predecessor.

Case in point, you are playing as a duke in the hre. The current emperor in on the war path gaining lots of infamy. He dies without issue and you are then elected emperor.

Should you then inherit your predecessors infamy, despite not having any relation to the man other than the crown? I'm not so sure.

I believe it makes sense.
I would be wary of anyone who inherits the throne of a country that previously waged many wars with me, and expanded greatly. It may be unfair to the new ruler that has no connections to the previous ruler, but it seems logical that people are suspicious about him.
But maybe it would be for the best if he inherited a fraction of that infamy.

 

[Mudcrab]

Nice. I remember it being way to easy to conquer land in CK2.

Agreed. As fun as it was, bunny-hopping for the "nobody's business but the Turks'" achievement (Heh, those communal yurt models in Nikaea did look good though) was ludicrously devoid of any consequence whatsoever. 8,000 laminar and super-bow 'n' arrow equipped Qara - Qanids literally melted any opposition quite away: 9,000 hardened Teutonic knights scattering to the four winds before the bunny-hopping Khivan Horde taking up in Blachernae stables.

Note to PDX: Horse Lords, I am in awe of. Imho it's your best expansion, but my Khan was making 50+ gp per month from his own assets (trade posts make far too much money for the holder, you see). There was no need to conquer anything but trivially easy to so do. If there are new speed-bumps on offer, heck, I'll take them.

 

[paulk205]

I love these posts where people talk about game design, but then discredit themselves by whining about how their pet peeve is the #1 issue with the game.

I love it even more when people read selectively what those posts argue. For instance, I did say "or perhaps leave well alone". I'm cool with Paradox leaving the Jarl of Iceland to keep raiding the Bosphorus. Let them design something else. And anyway, even if my pet peeves are silly, this doesn't make the forcing through of 19th Century Balance of Power politics into a medieval game ok.

 

[Catman115]

And coalitions have nothing to do with EU4... they are completelly different. Just the name is the same...

They added Badboy/Infamy to a game they promised us would not have that due to its character focus. And yet when they have finally run out of ideas they just add in more of the old ones, in spite of them not making sense in the case of this game. Bring back the old faction system that could actually break you if you were not VERY careful upon succession. That was far more challenging than anything they have added since RoI.

 

[paulk205]

5th Century BC, actually (Thucydides).

Perhaps it is not Paradox who is forcing this modern interpretation into CK2, but actually the fans? Irony of ironies.

I really don't want to turn this into a tennis match of posts, as I believe I made my point. Anyway, you're right, there has been coalition politics in the world before the 19th century. But those of (southern) Greek city states (even with the interference of the Persian Empire) in the 5th century BC are very different in nature (think political decision structures in small oligarchies or democracies of a few thousand citizens) and scope (the southern Greek horizon was tiny, even if you include Sicily) from those of medieval Europe and the Near East. And anyway, there WERE coalition mechanics in the middle ages. They were ideological, not national, and very specific in aims: it's called Crusader Kings after all.

 

[yourworstnightm]

They added Badboy/Infamy to a game they promised us would not have that due to its character focus. And yet when they have finally run out of ideas they just add in more of the old ones, in spite of them not making sense in the case of this game. Bring back the old faction system that could actually break you if you were not VERY careful upon succession. That was far more challenging than anything they have added since RoI.

No the old system was as bad. You fought the same war every 5 year, with the same people. And it didn't matter if they were your best friend, they still joined the faction. That system needed an overhaul. The problem is the overhaul killed the factions.

 

[Groogy]

They added Badboy/Infamy to a game they promised us would not have that due to its character focus.

Promise? Are you referring to the first dev diary? It just states that we don't have it at the time of the writing that dev diary., no promise was given that it would never have it.
Also we are free to change our mind, just because we say something over 5 years ago doesn't mean we will keep the same mentality, ideas or ambitions we had at that time.

 

[WeissRaben]

No the old system was as bad. You fought the same war every 5 year, with the same people. And it didn't matter if they were your best friend, they still joined the faction. That system needed an overhaul. The problem is the overhaul killed the factions.

They joined the faction if they had been blackmailed by someone's spymaster. You can do that as well, really. Over 80 opinion, no one joins factions of their own volition.

 

[Calad]

Promise? Are you referring to the first dev diary? It just states that we don't have it at the time of the writing that dev diary., no promise was given that it would never have it.
Also we are free to change our mind, just because we say something over 5 years ago doesn't mean we will keep the same mentality, ideas or ambitions we had at that time.

You are making CK2 into something fundamentally different game. Instead of expanding domestic politics to prevent blobbing you are coping EU4 mechanics that never worked well.

 

[Hector of Troy]

I really miss the days factions were a threat, when vassals would invite other vassals to war, and so on. It's true the older system would only gain from additional balancing and further improvements. What I still don't understand is why the devs have nerfed factions so much, to the point they are barely noticeable nowadays.

Internal politics (factions) and intrigue are the two things that in my opinion makes CK2 so great and different from other PDS games. Relating to your vassals is in the essence of the game. I honestly wouldn't mind at all if Infamy or Threat would play a secondary role in containing expansionism. In fact, if well executed, this new feature has the potential to be a nice addition, but just as long as internal affairs, and not coalitions, receives the priority when tackling the blobbing issue.

 

[Tazzoz21]

Promise? Are you referring to the first dev diary? It just states that we don't have it at the time of the writing that dev diary., no promise was given that it would never have it.
Also we are free to change our mind, just because we say something over 5 years ago doesn't mean we will keep the same mentality, ideas or ambitions we had at that time.

Let's chill, before they delete the whole game and we're stuck with our dicks in our hands

 

[vukica]

Let's chill, before they delete the whole game and we're stuck with our dicks in our hands

dude, i laughed so hard at this

 

[Fjoel]

I: I'm decidedly undecided on this matter. On the one hand coalitions could be a way to restore epic wars to the game as declaring multiple (20ish) wars at once and chasing and wiping their puny armies with ones doomstack is both tedious and unchallenging. On the other hand the infamy/AE system doesn't convince me yet as it may end up defeating its own purpose if that is to combat blobs and late game boredom. It has been convincingly argued that it doesn't work well with the CK2 premise evolving around characters and dynasties rather than realms and as of right now it feels to me like another 'soft limitation' that challenges the players patience and endurance rather than their skill, knowledge and ingenuity.

II: The way HL 'encourages' you to carve out a realm, then settle down is an example for this kind of mechanism to me.
Now apparently we're not supposed to make the entire world one single steppe (which is okay) but I would've wished for mechanisms to achieve this other than just making it terribly tedious and impossible to RP.

Spoiler: Rambling about mechanisms I'd have prefered

Like anything would be better imo, including capping manpower at 10k, limiting pillaging to steppe regions/terrain and changing some terrain types or giving them bad tactics on european terrain etc.

There are no hard restrictions on how to play the game but I feel like ignoring or not knowing the way you're 'supposed' to play will inevitable lead to frustration. What you can do to prevent bad things from happening is notoriously boring. And this is my concern with coalitions/infamity based on what I've read so far.

III: Instead I would've prefered a mechanism that makes hordes weaker and more instable once they reach a certain size that is both effective and entertaining.

Spoiler: An example how nomad succession would be more entertaining imo to illustrate what kind of mechanisms I'd like to see for coalitions

Like transforming nomad troops into manpower upon death of a ruler or if another heir like your brother becomes powerful enough to challenge you (simulating leaders taking their troops back home to claim their rightful position and the confusion that follows after the death of a Khagan) and distributing them amongst the possible heirs (including non-dynastically) based on prestige merc size and stats/traits that will then based on oppinions and decisions(bribe/duel?) made by the player support the primary heir, take their troops away and carve out a realm on their own as adventurers or band together to defy him with the help of other vassals to take your thrown (victory) or at least take the occupied part of it (white peace).This way players would spend more time doing stuff that is actually fun as opposed to becoming the accounting mongol.
I just made these examples up to illustrate how I perceive mechanisms to work and how I'd prefer them to work with respect to coalitions/infamity, so don't lynch me Ofc we can just wait and see as it is too early to get all excited/agitated but well I can't complain nobody listens to me if I don't speak out.

Like these examples infamity (alone) sounds like something that while maybe doing or not what it is supposed to do neither strikes me as necessary, convincing let alone entertaining as it will merely slow the game down and cause you to reach the point of 'too-big-to-fail' a few years later.

IV: Why make coalitions a reaction to the aggression of large realms instead of making it a tool to give small/medium realms the initiative back to attack large realms they couldn't face on their own or to tip the scales in the grand game when empires clash. This would add dynamic and giving players the opportunity to engage in lengthy/epic wars with changing fortunes that would break the usual routine of dow/battle/siege/victory/dow.../.

Spoiler: some further requirements and possible outcomes of coalition wars

Which would ofc require
a) preventing to accept a call to arms but then stay at the sidelines
b) an opportunity to leave a coalition war after some time or even joining the opposite site

it has been stated that religion plays a lesser role in this so my brethren will feel threatened by me for leading a just war against the evil infidels at their very doorsteps or rightfully inheriting land
yet they won't care that I'm the ruler of a large realm that is either powerful enough (and preparing) to attack them or currently weakened and an easy target. Why not reduce the effect of infamity in favour of targeting large realms in general.

Why make them a tool that can do no real damage to the aggressors other than wasting their time
Like:- offensive/defensive coalitions that evolve around two dominating powers in a region: like ERE/Seljuks where minor powers (Alans/Khazars/attach to either side to push their own agenda
- give coalitions the option to take a few (non dejure) counties from very large realms if the overall warscore is high enough
- give coalitions the rare chance* to set up a favourable claimant in parts of the realm in question that were occupied or supported him but giving the ruler a strong inheritable claim on this realm so that he can take it back
- destablize the target realm by giving vassals the option to join the attackers (if they're same culture/religion/...) or push their own agenda (battle of manzikert), as well as possibly reducing crown authority and giving an oppinion penalty to vassals (weak ruler) especially if they lost titles
- or give them a chance to join civil wars and religious/cultural uprisings

*ofc this doesn't mean that a won coalition war should have a random result. Rather that there are some conditions that have to be met in order to enable this option.

 

[Boucicaut]

I really miss the days factions were a threat, when vassals would invite other vassals to war, and so on.

Can't we have both? I would personally love it if we get both coalitions AND a rework on the faction system. The more anti-blobbing mechanics we have the better and more balanced the game will be. As it stands it is just too easy to conquer land and eventually you have nothing to do but war(peace time is a bore).

IMHO, the way the CK2+ mod does factions is pretty cool. Devs should look into it.