Dev Diary 11: Stopping The Snowball

[omega20056]

@Groogy

Could we get a diplomatic option to release a vassal as a tributary?

 

[melkor88]

I do really like the idea of bringing AE to CK2. As you can quickly conquer the world in less then a hundred years with most countries, which takes the fun out of the game. And anything which stops the snowballing is welcome.

But. CK2 slows down to become unbearable to play after the first hundred years. And it makes you quit playing after that because of how slow it is. (My PC is an i7-4770 3.40GHz, GTX 770, 16GB RAM, which gets through the first year in 24secs. And I don't have any problem with EU4 slowing down)

 

[TheDungen]

How are traits going to impact this infamy?

If I am a kind, just and content king, it wouldn't make much sense for my neighbours to hate me as much for a rightful holy war as if I was an ambitious, cruel and wrathful ruler. They will certainly not think they would be the next (even if the player's plans may be otherwise).

Until the game forces you to play like a kind just and content king no there should be no such advantages to it.

 

[keynes2.0]

Yikes.

I'm not sure I like the approach of basically inventing a series of arbitrary bossfights. A lot of it's just annoying. "Ho hum, I've got to slaughter all these tiny armies before I do the same siege". It's sort of like in a first person shooter where they repeat a fight but twice the enemies with twice the health bar. Except while the enemy got twice the health the player got a gun that does five times the damage so the new fight is a pushover.

What creates the snowball is that the blobs just get too many goodies and there are no downsides to being big. Alp Arsan is shown with 16k levies in that screenshot. Add onto that 4k from the Gilmen which aren't raised right now because he is at peace. I think his levies are probably depleted, I ran a handsoff game to the same year and he had 16k troops with the same demense but his levies were depleted by another 7k (plus the Gilmen). So we can expect Alp Arsan to bring 20k-27k troops to a fight! With these resources, Alp Arsan simply is not in danger of suffering a reversal. His vassals wont dare go against that massive levy (and they love him anyway). He can't be invaded. Even if he leads his troops into a couple of stack wipes he will be able to summon new troops by the time the first wave are done dying. He just has too many resources for the normal limitations to matter. So paradox invented a bossfight called a coalition.

Of course Alp Arslan should be a terror which undermines the example. However the problem is that it's not Alp Arslan who is the terror, the terror is that Persia has 250 holdings and can bring all that might to bear against a one province count. If Alp Arslan died and was replaced by a twit, that twit could also bring all that might to bear against a one province count. The solution should not be to make all the surrounding realms bail out the one province count. The solution should be that hypothetical Sultan Twit Seljuk cant just automatically crush a one province count with all the realm levies, while having his vassals love him and having no fear of rebellion.

Ponder the wisdom of Notorius BIG. Mo money, mo problems. An empire shouldn't run itself.

 

[Asiak]

For the Gods sake... When are You going to understand, that WC is too easy, because wars are too simple? Your response to everyone who complains about difficulty is increasing AI ability to gang against player. When medieval ruler wanted to go to war, even against weaker and smaller opponent, he didn't simply send declaration of war and called upon his banners-men. He had to prepare everything- supplies for army, organize his troops into single force, prepare border for troubles, design regent (if he wanted to be present), raise taxes for upkeep...

How is it in CK2? DOW-> raise levies->single pitched battle->occupying provinces until warscore hits 100%. Great.

Thats a bit unfair its a bit more complicated then that.

Because your levies just all magically raise in one spot?
No you have to gather them from your potentially immense realm. And then see to having enough ships to get them over there.

Or you march to your destination but you have to check the supply limit first lest you suffer attrition which can loose wars. And how do you do that, by organizing them into smaller numbers.

It could be more complex but isn't nearly that simple.

 

[Slayen]

Until the game forces you to play like a kind just and content king no there should be no such advantages to it.

Would be nice if said traits did have an impact in that they affect how other rulers like you.

A positive opinion should make other rulers less likely to join/form a coalition.

Note that I said less not never. Even if you love a guy there is only so much you will overlook before you sit them down for an intervention on their addiction to taking other peoples clay.

EDIT: AND ANOTHER QUESTION!

Truces! Can those you have a truce with be in a coalition?

 

[Asiak]

And in a related story can we please have a supply map mode.

 

[keynes2.0]

If there is one empire nerf that I want to see brought to CKII from other games, it's the rebellion plotting from Sengoku. Vassals of a large empire should seek outside allies to leave the empire.

 

[Mixxer5]

Thats a bit unfair its a bit more complicated then that.

Because your levies just all magically raise in one spot?
No you have to gather them from your potentially immense realm. And then see to having enough ships to get them over there.

Or you march to your destination but you have to check the supply limit first lest you suffer attrition which can loose wars. And how do you do that, by organizing them into smaller numbers.

It could be more complex but isn't nearly that simple.

Especially when You've king level vassal, who holds possessions along whole empire, eh? You can raise troops from Anatolia and Syria in freaking Spain then. And checking supply? That's what You call supply system? Preparing for war should be long, tedious process. Instead I'm declaring them by dozens, conquering everyone in sight. It's only about obtaining CB...

 

[TheDungen]

Would be nice if said traits did have an impact in that they affect how other rulers like you.

A positive opinion should make other rulers less likely to join/form a coalition.

Note that I said less not never. Even if you love a guy there is only so much you will overlook before you sit them down for an intervention on their addiction to taking other peoples clay.

EDIT: AND ANOTHER QUESTION!

Truces! Can those you have a truce with be in a coalition?

Wouldn't be a very strong mechanic of the people you have apeace with couldn't join. And I'm not saying that I donät want other rulers to react to your traits I'm more saying I would like you to be forced to play a little closer to the actual nature of the character you're playing.

 

[Matt Zhuang]

THIS WILL BE WORST CHANGE EVER, BUT CK2 IS NOT F***ING EU4 (WTF Invincible defeated army and AE)
The core of CK2 is CHARACTERS , BUT AE is bound to COUNTRY? This puts the cart before the horse.

 

[Jorlem]

In EU4, loosing a coalition war is dangerous because peace deals are determined at the end of the war, so a victorious coalition can weaken your country. However, here in CK2, all that happens when the aggressor looses a war is that he gives up money and prestige. Will this be the same case against coalitions, or will loosing the war result in something other than "too bad, try again next time"?

Also, will declaring war add to infamy, if a coalition exists? If it doesn't, your infamy will just continue to decay a you declare war after war against the coalition, until you win.

Finally, will it be possible to add infamy via events? (I assume so, on the hope that fabricating claims can add to infamy.)

 

[imperium3]

So, I have a couple of questions:

1. Can there only be one coalition against a particular ruler, or can there be multiple?

2. Does a ruler's relationship with other coalition members affect their likelihood to join? (e.g. there is a big and scary horde approaching, but the King of Jerusalem hates the Muslim rulers around him too much to join their coalition).

 

[alfian]

Would paradox considering to insert new history of Shirvanshah/Shahdom of Shirvan (Kesranid)?

 

[Rostan]

Why are you so set against giving internal problems? Those should arguably the biggest reason for empires to be restrained, or for their bloating, weakening, and collapse. The HRE diluted because the Emperors tried to wiggle some concessions from a horde of vassals and ended up giving too much; the ERE started creaking when the old governors lobbied for hereditary rule, and got it; the Anarchy at Samarra, the English Anarchy, the dissolution of Al-Andalus, and the near collapse of France, were all movements that started on the inside. Sometimes they got a final push from outside, but those were pushes that a sane country of their size would have born without difficulties. So, why? Why add coalition, which are iffy but workable in EU4 but make absolutely no sense in CK2?

I concur. A good idea is o have distance penalties perhaps: vassals get a negative opinion modifier the further they are from your capital, until it becomes almost impossible to keep vassals across the map.

I like the idea of coalitions too, but it can go very, very wrong. EU4´s past two expansions have all gone very wrong, with ridiculous random alliances spanning the world and religions (in the 1400´s!), and with blobbing once again becoming a major issue, far more than in CK2.

But thats completely inconsistent. I'm a person not a nation this isn't EU4.

Exactly, even more so given that individual opinion penalties are NOT hereditary in CK2.

 

[TheDungen]

this also gives us a reason to use chancellors and butter up other rulers right?

Heh yeah that'll be fun I haven't had to use my chancelor to suck up to someone outside of my own realm for ages.

 

[Groogy]

In EU4, loosing a coalition war is dangerous because peace deals are determined at the end of the war, so a victorious coalition can weaken your country. However, here in CK2, all that happens when the aggressor looses a war is that he gives up money and prestige. Will this be the same case against coalitions, or will loosing the war result in something other than "too bad, try again next time"?

Will be pretty much that if you are the aggressor yes.

 

[Lord_Arda]

You can't be a dick then die and think you will get away with it.

Nice try, Jesus

 

[Metz]

If a vassal conquers stuff outside the realm you gain 50% of the infamy he generates. (this propagates up so if a count of a duke conquers something, the duke gets 50%, the king 25%, the emperor 12.5%)

And no, Infamy stays over generations. You can't be a dick then die and think you will get away with it.

Will those of other religions generate more infamy? For example if Muslims are conquering much of Iberia it would generate more concern for Christians than other Muslims.

 

[TheDungen]

THIS WILL BE WORST CHANGE EVER, BUT CK2 IS NOT F***ING EU4 (WTF Invincible defeated army and AE)
The core of CK2 is CHARACTERS , BUT AE is bound to COUNTRY? This puts the cart before the horse.

I figured it was bound to your dynasty?