Dev Diary 11: Stopping The Snowball

[Dakilla TM]

Interesting. How will this impact scripted conquerors like the Mongols? Will they receive bonuses to Infamy reduction, or just essentially ignore it due to their strength?

Also....#FlandersForFrance confirmed?

That's what I wanna know. And what about planned invasions from Germanic pagans and adventurers and such? What about Crusades and Jihads? Would those have reduced infamy among those of the same religion?

I MUST KNOW NAO

 

[AchedTeacher]

The concept of 'this guy has more pointy sticks than me, so I will get everyone who hates him to poke him with their pointy stick's was invented about roughly the same time as the pointy stick.

There's actually a very valid argument to say no, no it wasn't invented at the same time. In a very tribal society (which pretty much everywhere was, until the renaissance), a guy without a pointy stick would probably just stay away from the guy with the pointy stick. Mind his own business. Keep his head down. Still happens a lot. Anyway, putting coalitions aside, the notion that "this individual SHOULD not have a pointy stick" is without a doubt something that was not in their society. That's balance of power, realpolitik. Something that did not exist then.

 

[Jorlem]

Am I the only concerned as to what happens after a coalition war is successful in ck2? Just a bit curious to hear what lands we will have to give up or what penalties will concur afterwards.

Groogy already answered this, at least in the case of a war where the aggressor is attacking the coalition: the attacker looses money and prestige, and gets to try again when the truce runs out. (And since infamy only increases when land is taken, not when war is declared, there will likely be less people in the coalition for the second attempt, or the third.)

 

[Bernard95]

Have to admit this changes everything. Mind blown.

 

[Asiak]

I feel like defeating such a coalition should yield at least a gain of 500 prestige, and loosing cost at least that. I hope this isn't like adventurers where "lol you just defeated this whole big thing and now you get nothing."

In my test he get 300% for conquering Iberia. So 10% is a bit low for half of Europe.

300% infamy with who?
I mean 300 seems fairish it is Iberia, but those are infidels.

If Karl were to simply holy war for a duchy why would that make him infamous to Bavaria or Lombardy? Is it at least going to take religion into consideration? Karl should get more for invading a duchy in Bavaria then a duchy in Umayyad Andalusia. Although it isn't unreasonable for a christian to look at a christian neighbor expanding into infidel lands with concern, we both know the main emotion would be "Yea you crush that infidel, deus vult man!"

Honestly I do think this is needed. Sometimes it is waaaaaay to easy at king and emperor levels to just shoot your kids like missiles and grab whole kingdoms through claims.

But if it's just going to be about, or to heavily about, the numbers of who has more troops then it isn't going to be worth its salt.

It has to take into account at least the religion and the culture, I would also say prestige and piety. Unless I take all of Iberia christians shouldn't care that much about me beating up on infidels. And wouldn't a more pious ruler get away with more things, Karl did manage to conquer most of western europe.

 

[Rostan]

People wanted a Check to the Karlings, Greyskin, Blurple and The Muslim blobs running around Stomping everything, Now they have it.

Speed 5 is the once again the best friend of an ambitious conqueror, same as Eu3/4 and Vicky 2.

Except that Speed 5 stutters in CK2 after more than 150 years or so of gameplay...

 

[Sforzesco]

This mechanics would also have potential for representing the FEAR mechanic of Liege vs. Vassals:
* doing revocations,executions etc affecting the infamy
* vassals would fear infamous liege and do not dare to oppose (now they only like you less and join factions like it would be safe)
* when liege would be weak or vassals got strong enough, they would forcefully remove bad liege.

 

[gnome109]

It occurs to me that this dev diary is misnamed. "Stopping" the snowball would mean creating some sort of equilibrium. The forces tearing an empire apart would be in balance with the forces building it up. What infamy does is pause the snowball for a while.

True, as do coalitions in EU4. Snowballing cannot be totally stopped as you sooner or later reach critical mass.

 

[vandevere]

Please don't do this. The idea should stay in EU4 where it belongs, in a context where more centralised nation states and the idea of the balance of power makes sense.

Blobs in CK2 should be punished by things that make sense for the time period - increased corruption, difficulty of administration for large realms, that kind of thing. Make there be some actual difficulties inherent to being a blob, rather than punishing people for expansion.

This would also be a good way to moderate the effects of this nerf, in that-once again-I'm afraid of heavy-handed, ham-fisted nerfs coring gameplay for small realms, while leaving Empires-the true targets of these nerfs-relatively untouched.

The small fry, vassals and small kingdoms, shouldn't face the exact same penalties that Empires face.

 

[Mudcrab]

Looks interesting, but vaguely OT, is there any chance that iconic and historic muslim (or anything else for that matter but especially muslim) banners, CoAs will be featured in their correct place, rather than the generic DDS jigsaw pieces we must settle for now?

F'rinstance: from left to right

Fatimid, Seljuq and Qara-Qanid, as per your screenshot.

These are well-known iconic images --atm only if you're non-muslim demense holder of the appropriate areas some of these *do* appear. Which is absurd when you think about it for a second or more.

 

[Keioel]

You may be good looking Groogy, but that doesn't excuse your attempts to prevent me from restoring the glorious Imperium Romanum.

 

[huyderman]

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 just want to emphasize this part. This is different from EU4 where you risk getting ganked by half of Europe if you get greedy. Your neighbours banding together for protection when you go on a conquest spree is just a potential speedbump.

 

[Sabotage13]

It occurs to me that this dev diary is misnamed. "Stopping" the snowball would mean creating some sort of equilibrium. The forces tearing an empire apart would be in balance with the forces building it up. What infamy does is pause the snowball for a while.

It wouldn't even do that. It would simply punish those players who prefer the county-to-empire game, while rewarding those who start out with an empire that's already very large and strong.



So basically, it would work exactly like Infamy already does in EU4: A mild obstacle to player expansion that's there to be gamed to hell.

 

[Deaghaidh]

So I'm assuming the Hedgehog is code for something big they don't want to spoil. What could it be? Land, perhaps? Or claims? Maybe this has been added as a way to peacefully expand in our new age of infamy mechanics.

 

[The Great Bear]

Will vassals care about their liege's infamy?

 

[Archinorf]

When you hit 25% infamy, coalitions will be unlocked and AIs will start joining them based on how threatened they feel.

Could you explain the 25% threshold? Considering that AIs join coalitions based on how threatened they feel, it seems just unnecessary and arbitrary, adding a layer of complexity and confusion.

Plus, coalitions seem to be a good opportunity to create situational alliances even against realms with 0% infamy that still can feel threatening.
Really I don't understand the threshold when you developed a gradual mechanic that can stay clean and simple.

 

[brobman22]

Could you explain the 25% threshold? Considering that AIs join coalitions based on how threatened they feel, it seems just unnecessary and arbitrary, adding a layer of complexity and confusion.

Plus, coalitions seem to be a good opportunity to create situational alliances even against realms with 0% infamy that still can feel threatening.
Really I don't understand the threshold when you developed a gradual mechanic that can stay clean and simple.

Its probably so the ai doesn't just start spamming coalitions all over the place or a safety measure against that.

 

[Kumicho]

I.......... am intrigued by this. I'm hopeful that it'll introduce a new and interesting twist on gameplay, but I'm concerned that PDX will overdo it. My concerns are:

1) PLEASE make it somewhat dependent on Opinion (and therefore dependent on religion and culture). To have the Karling's in Europe all join together against a Germanic Scandinvian Empire is one thing, but to have the Umayyads joining with Middle Francia against West Francia is just dumb....
2) Don't make it a "slowdown for slowdown's sake". I mean, if instead of conquering the continent in 100 years, it's going to take 500 years of forced sitting around watching the Infamy bar slowly tick down, it's not going to be worth it.
3) There should be a way to get other rulers out of coalitions. Whether it's an automatic thing (when they hit 75 opinion of you, they leave), or whether it's something that your councilors can do, there should be some way of whittling down the coalition.
4) There should be a way to invite other rulers to join your coalition. Say, if they like you more than they like the target (by a certain amount), you can invite them to join.
5) DON'T OVERDO IT!!!!!!! Seriously, I know you guys like to go big right out of the gate and then try to walk it back later, but please, pretty please, can you, just this once, start out small and then increase the difficulty later on if it's necessary?

Overall, it looks like the theme for this patch is "reduce all-around alliances (see: dynasty not proving alliances anymore) and replace with defensive alliances". I guess I'll wait and see how it all plays out. I'd like to think that this is a positive development, but I've seen far too many instances of PDX going completely overboard and making the game nigh-unplayable till a patch comes out a few weeks or months later.

 

[ConstantineXII]

Are there any historical examples of coalitions within the timeframe of the game? We already have crusades/jihads.

 

[Ilyasviel]

This is really bad. It's not going to prevent blobbing, it's only going to make it take longer and be more tedious. And as people pointed out in the thread, this is against the essence of the series, which is more character-based. At LEAST make it so infamy drops on a character's death. I can understand a character inheriting some infamy, but all of it just doesn't make sense. I think this DLC will be remembered as the one that put the final nail in the coffin for ck2. What a shame that a game with such a great start would devolve into this.