Dev Diary 11: Stopping The Snowball

[mjohnson85]

Examples like this keep coming up and for me, the answer is pretty much always, no.

Unless they are a kingdom/empire/dynasty that I've been actively antagonistic against, or it was clay that I had been maneuvering to inherit myself, I really REALLY don't care.

And in the case of the latter, I'm just annoyed that the A.I. beat me to the punch. And would likely be followed by me muttering something along the lines of "fracking Karlings". Cause I know it would be them. IT'S ALWAYS THEM!

IRL, You WOULD be worrying. I cant stand when people only think about the way THEY play, assuming they are the only freaking person.

 

[Blastaz]

Cross religion infamy doesn't really make sense. Eg burgundy goes on a crusade and takes Jerusalem. Suddenly hre and the pope! Feel threatened and join a coalition against them with the Abbasids.

At the very least you need seperate infamy on a regional/religious basis like euiv.

 

[Lord_P]

Cross religion infamy doesn't really make sense. Eg burgundy goes on a crusade and takes Jerusalem. Suddenly hre and the pope! Feel threatened and join a coalition against them with the Abbasids.

At the very least you need seperate infamy on a regional/religious basis like euiv.

The Pope: I declare Crusade for Jerusalem!
Duke of Burgundy: I pledge myself to the good cause!
*Burgundy wins Crusade*
Burgundy: Now this land of Jerusalem is mine!
*Pope joins coalitions against Burgundy*
Burgundy: Hey, what's this about?
The Pope: I AM OUTRAGED OVER YOUR EXPANSION!

 

[Wookie1]

I'm sorry I really hate this idea, it makes little actual historical sense (looking through this thread there is no record of similar coalitions, and I cannot think of encountering anything remotely similar in reading for my degree). But, further to that it doesn't fit with how CK2 works, it is a character based game, by locking infamy to realm it gets away from that. Furthermore it doesn't fit with the entire design ethos in any previous change.

A personal opinion for what its worth, is that the system as it is works quite well now, perhaps the twin biggest problems that may cause realms to get out of control is that they can be too stable, particularly new Byzantium, Karlingland, some parts of India and the Caliphates (empire titles in general I guess). As it is most massive realms almost immediately fracture on the monarch's death without heavy player intervention and that makes good sense (although that itself is possibly a bit ahistorical) there is seldom a player or AI blob that is completely invincible.

One final personal point, I think you are attacking the wrong area, more internal management requirements or ideas of things to do in peacetime would discourage it by encouraging better management and more focus on improving the realm. As is there is little to actually do in peacetime (apart from building and the fairly repetitive WoL events which need expansion) and I'm saying this as someone who loves the game and has played 1,100 hours+

Slightly off topic, but I do also think this shows a problem I have been seeing for some time both from Paradox and the fanbase which is that there is a heavy split between people on what it is they want to happen in the game. Some people feel that expansion should be tricky but not impossible whereas there seems to be a opposed idea (encouraged by some Paradox decisions and discouraged by others) that expansion past a relatively small size should be heavily penalised, if not impossible. EU IV strikes me as that game and it seemed that CK2 was much closer to the first idea. It feels like the forum and perhaps the dev team are something of a house divided on the wisdom of expansion vs restriction.

 

[Nague]

This is a very weird choice for a game that previously is all about characters fighting each other in a chaotic world.

Not only does it introduce 19th century politics into the 9th century, it also introduces realm focused EU4 mechanics into CK2.

This is such a weird choice and the sceenshot with 40 AE, i mean infamacy, with -0.09/year means a whole generation cant do anything. Exciting gameplay!




If you want to restrict expansion, just focus on the casus bellis and make them more restrictive with the option to use weaker causes that come with inner and outer penalties.
Or introduce corruption or culture wars.

 

[Chef Boyardee]

Looks good.

 

[Cetan]

There needs to be some checks and balances for this system if I'm going to enjoy it. At least some religious restrictions and penalties.

I will be pretty pissed if I see the Karlings form a coalition with the Umayyads because the King of Asturias is holy warring in Hispania.

 

[Zolotaya]

I'm sorry I really hate this idea, it makes little actual historical sense (looking through this thread there is no record of similar coalitions, and I cannot think of encountering anything remotely similar in reading for my degree).

I respect your opinions as expressed in the rest of your post 414. I guess you missed several examples provided in your readings of this thread and in your studies.

I provided examples of Brittany, the Angevin/Plantagenet dynastic struggles and of the York/Lancanster wars back on page 12. Will Steel also provided examples in Indian history a few pages back.

The naming of the mechanic and the system is a red herring and what is in EUiv and what we get in CK2 are two different things.

Your conclusions drawn may be valid but until I see the deployment of everything seen and not yet disclosed, I can not subscribe to them.

Edit: The following is an interesting observation and deserves its own thread of serious discussion. I've seen this theme since EU2, personally.

Slightly off topic, but I do also think this shows a problem I have been seeing for some time both from Paradox and the fanbase which is that there is a heavy split between people on what it is they want to happen in the game. Some people feel that expansion should be tricky but not impossible whereas there seems to be a opposed idea (encouraged by some Paradox decisions and discouraged by others) that expansion past a relatively small size should be heavily penalised, if not impossible. EU IV strikes me as that game and it seemed that CK2 was much closer to the first idea. It feels like the forum and perhaps the dev team are something of a house divided on the wisdom of expansion ...

 

[yourworstnightm]

Coalitions need to be coalitions of characters, definitely not realms, and be directed against characters, not realms.

If it's Realm based: will the HRE get infamy if the King of Bohemia conquer Poland? The answer should be: no. Should the King of Hungary, the duke of Brandenburg and the Count of Passau be worried? Yes.

 

[redsimonDE]

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.

True, but you should have kept the same idea. Otherwise you're losing focus, which eventually leads to a bunch of bad games who are all the same.
It is a unique thing about CKII that you want to replace with a system that doesn't even work properly in EUIV. There are other, much better ways to solve the blobbing problem, many of which have been mentioned in this thread.

 

[GoguRomania]

As an exclusive EU4 player I have to ask - why do you have sea provinces in Caspian Sea?

 

[nOxr]

I can see a lot of potential for this Infamy feature, beyond the defensive alliances against common threats.

For example, Infamy could affect vassal behavior, so that if you have neighbouring realms with high Infamy, the vassals in your realm would be less likely to cause trouble. They vassal AI would know that there is an external threat to the entire realm and therefore understand that cooperating with the liege would be in their best interest for the moment. On the other hand, if you have no neighbours with Infamy, the vassals would be more likely to cause trouble. When the realm has no external threats, it's time to pursue you own personal ambitions!

This would cut out situations when a vassal declare independence just for everyone in the former realm to be eaten by the blob next door. It could also make large blobs more unstable, since they often experience no external threats at all due to their own might, and infighting would therefore be maximized.

 

[Hector of Troy]

Slightly off topic, but I do also think this shows a problem I have been seeing for some time both from Paradox and the fanbase which is that there is a heavy split between people on what it is they want to happen in the game. Some people feel that expansion should be tricky but not impossible whereas there seems to be a opposed idea (encouraged by some Paradox decisions and discouraged by others) that expansion past a relatively small size should be heavily penalised, if not impossible. EU IV strikes me as that game and it seemed that CK2 was much closer to the first idea. It feels like the forum and perhaps the dev team are something of a house divided on the wisdom of expansion vs restriction.

I partially agree with this. What I actually believe is that there is a split (expansion vs restriction) among players themselves on how they enjoy playing PDS games in general, and I wouldn't be surprised if the developers were taking the Infamy approach as a means of trying to please both worlds, which seems quite impossible to me. Infamy should delay expansionism, but wouldn't make a world conquest impossible. Far from it, since once your blob becomes a huge and the only blob, coalitions opposing your realm would stop making sense.

On the other hand, factions becoming progressively dangerous, as the player's empire grow, and the addition of administrative and military penalties for the same purpose, would make for a complete different scenario. Empires would potentiality fall, and the player would have to be prepared to deal with real losses. Provinces would be lost, the hard earned emperor status could be lost as well. That's when I feel the developers call a halt and become undecided on the matter. They know there are both map painters and non map painters playing CK2, and they can't decide what's to be done with the dilemma.

I for one hate mindless blobbing and cheap expansionism, but there are people who like it that way.

 

[Andrzej I]

These coalitions are defensive, not offensive.!

The original post states otherwise:

Coalitions themselves are mostly defensive in Crusader Kings, if any member gets attacked by the target of the coalition they will automatically be called into the war. If a member starts a war against the target they only get a normal call to arms which they can choose to decline.

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.

On this, though, we agree. The mechanic of coalitions isn't a terrible idea, it just shouldn't be the primary means of countering expansionism. After all, with the way CK2's peace negotiations work, it won't stop a blob from being a blob, it merely penalizes the blob, should it lose a war against the coalition, with the loss of some gold and prestige. Or a single title, likely of county or duchy size, if a member of the coalition starts a war against it. Furthermore, having coalitions form at 25% infamy sounds rather low, especially if all of Iberia is supposedly 300% infamy for Charlemagne to conquer from the Umayyads. These coalitions can work well, but I think they should be the exception to the norm, a way of countering excessive expansion, not just any expansion past a certain, seemingly low, point.

 

[Angeleyed]

I really don't like the idea of coalitions. Combined with shattered retreat the game will become too hard to play. Imagine trying to conquer Rome. The pope will raise 10k mercs which you can't instawipe because they will shatter retreat. Moreover once you finish the war you will get max aggressive expansion since its "Rome" and coalitions will form.

I love ck2 because it's a casual and relaxing game. I don't want to get stressed when I am playing.

I don't want to be contained either. I want more freedom. I want to throw people at the lions and shire bastards. I don't want to cooperating and world peace...

Just watch the downvotes this dev diary got.

 

[Boucicaut]

I really don't like the idea of coalitions. Combined with shattered retreat the game will become too hard to play. Imagine trying to conquer Rome. The pope will raise 10k mercs which you can't instawipe because they will shatter retreat. Moreover once you finish the war you will get max aggressive expansion since its "Rome" and coalitions will form.

I love ck2 because it's a casual and relaxing game. I don't want to get stressed when I am playing.

I don't want to be contained either. I want more freedom. I want to throw people at the lions and shire bastards. I don't want to cooperating and world peace...

Just watch the downvotes this dev diary got.

So pretty much you want the game to be easy and casual?

I couldn't disagree more with this point of view. Go play a hidden item game or whatever if you want casual, this is supposed to be a "grand strategy" game. As it is it has too many exploits and it railroads the player into expanding and "map-painting" if you will(what else is there to do? peacetime is boring and empty).

The devs are taking the right direction, the game must have difficulty and it must cease becoming just another hollow map painting simulator.

 

[Yxklyx]

This is a ridiculously awful idea for tackling expansion. They already have the tools for this in the game (factions, etc...), they just need to be improved upon. The threat to expansion should be from within not from outside.

 

[Boucicaut]

This is a ridiculously awful idea for tackling expansion. They already have the tools for this in the game (factions, etc...), they just need to be improved upon. The threat to expansion should be from within not from outside.

It should be both, actually.

I support coalitions and hope they will also make factions effective.

 

[Angeleyed]

So pretty much you want the game to be easy and casual?

I couldn't disagree more with this point of view. Go play a hidden item game or whatever if you want casual, this is supposed to be a "grand strategy" game. As it is it has too many exploits and it railroads the player into expanding and "map-painting" if you will(what else is there to do? peacetime is boring and empty).

The devs are taking the right direction, the game must have difficulty and it must cease becoming just another hollow map painting simulator.

Well I was here for this game when it still wasn't famous. I was here when this game was easy and retinues made levies obsolete. I was here when India came out and no one liked it. Now I am here to say that this is a wrong move.

I don't want a stressful game. I want a fun game. This game isn't eu4. This game is the reason eu4 is a success.

 

[Yxklyx]

Implementing AE is going to generate a whole new category of unforeseen issues (just like in EU4). Stick to improving factions and bring back the distance opinion modifier.