• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hey all!

So today I felt that I was going to spoil some of the bigger stuff we are working on with the new patch, I thought Birken was a bit too mean keeping you guys on edge for so long. As several of you have noted we now have a Pacts tab in the character screen and I am going to tell you guys what it is all about.

So why it was changed is because we decided that we wanted to rewrite a bit how alliances worked in Crusader Kings making it much more predictable who will be in your war. No, as some of you tried to guess we have not made it no longer required to marry other rulers to forge an alliance, that is still a very big part of the core gameplay in the game. What we have done is that we have divided it up in two steps, Non-Aggression Pacts and Alliances.


1.jpg

Now now, don’t fetch your pitchforks yet! The idea we have is to make the marriage much more focused on its strategical nature than just finding your “soulmate” with impressive tracts of land.

Now when you first marry off your daughter or son you will be figuratively negotiating an agreement with the other ruler to come to terms over your issues with each other, resulting in a Non-Aggression Pact between your two mighty realms. This can later can be improved into a proper Alliance. This is an action done separately after the marriage as been finalized. You don’t have to wait until your family members have grown up however as betrothals also counts when formalizing these pacts.

This does mean that you do not have a Non-Aggression Pact with your close kins but they can still be made into allies without a marriage. Meaning you no longer get the penalties of attacking close kin unless you choose to make your them your ally.

2.jpg

Picture has been censored to not reveal undisclosed features

With these changes the AI has also been changed a bit to be more capable in recognizing Realpolitik instead of purely going on opinions. It is not much but the AI is now capable of properly identifying threats and will try to form Non-Aggression pacts with these, or if they refuse, ally someone else with a common interest to contain the threat. The idea is also that the AI no longer wants to aid these threats, but instead only preserve the status quo and keep them off their back. They will refuse to ally these threats most of the time in order to not help them become stronger.

Since we now have a distinct action you can perform to ally someone we have also changed how they relate to wars to make it less of a guessing game.

Allies for both sides will be shown in the Declare War screen showing who will join the war on what side. Also important to know with these changes is that allies are now required to honor their alliance, meaning they can not refuse a call to arms. So now you know exactly who you can count on when the war starts. However if your ally is starting an offensive war against someone you have a Non-Aggression Pact with you have to stand out.

All of this is in the Free Patch that will be coming with the next expansion.
 
Oh, that was nice!

So, we also have 2 new diplomatic options, but you censored it with hedgehogs and secret bears? :p
 
Last edited:
  • 33
  • 1
Reactions:
Oh, that was nice!

So, we also have 2 new diplomatic options, but you censored it with hedgehogs and secret bears? :p
They've been in since two patches ago, haven't you noticed them before?
 
  • 33
  • 9
Reactions:
Good. I always felt alliances were a bit artificial.

BTW, I still have a problem with the ability to wage aggressive wars and having most- if not all - the killing and dying done by one or more potent allies, who in the end hand over to you to fruits of their endeavour without getting anything in return but the satisfaction of complying to their alliances term.

It is not uncommon to be able to call an ally to some big warlike enterprise while not even bothering to raise your own levies, and then just be given the crown at the end of the bloodbath. Whatever strong the ties, I doubt that rulers would engage in long and costly wars (in gold and blood) started by some ally that could even not show up on the battlefield, without any perspective of gain whatsoever.

I have managed to carve kingdoms through this - unsatisfyingly easy - method
 
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
The CB system won't be remade for Crusader Kings 2
 
  • 32
  • 25
  • 5
Reactions:
Wow, great job! More depth for Marriages is always appreciated.

(And, also, while I did like the look into PI's innerworkings, it's nice to see a Dev Diary focused on upcoming new mechanics/changes.)
 
Last edited:
  • 4
Reactions:
What about joining Holy Wars? Will it still be a guessing game?
 
  • 24
Reactions:
Pity about no non-marriage alliances. Do tributes count as alliances?
 
They've been in since two patches ago, haven't you noticed them before?
Somehow missed the "- added Sancho the Hedgehog Dealer" line in previous patch-notes......
This changes everything!
 
  • 7
Reactions:
I don't like how they/me cannot refuse. What if I'm just a jerk and I want to stab people in the back? How can I not refuse? Is there some Godly force making me sign the document? I just say : "F**k it!" and do whatever I want! I really do hate all these limitations, just as I can't declare wars on people without CB, or when having raised levies, or how I'm pushed to surrender, because the warscore is already a 100%, even though I have an army moving towards the enemy at the moment. The enemy just takes the lands they haven't even occupied, even though I still have will and men to defend it, but some force makes me surrender. It's just silly how I have to obey these rules, which cannot be broken. Dammit I'm the king! Let me do what I want but with enormous penalties. You allow me to break truces, great, but I need a certain amount of this abstract concept called "prestige". What the hell? Heck, let the people hate my guts, let them form coalitions against me, but please Paradox just let me do what I want and then punish me for it, but don't openly forbid it, this is one thing I really despise about your games. It's a foced gamaplay narrative. Just as you have to be a "good" ruler, you cannot make people fear you and rule them with an iron fist. The counts just seduce your wives, openly form factions and try to kill your children and if you imprison them for their activities, then god forbid you cannot punish them for it with an execution, because you'll be branded a tyrant and that will only provoke even more such actions against you. I understand these mechanics are easier to control and it kinda shows newcomers the way they should play the game, but hell, after 700 hours I think I can make my own decisions for myself, thank you.
 
Last edited:
  • 43
  • 31
  • 1
Reactions:
Good. I always felt alliances were a bit artificial.

BTW, I still have a problem with the ability to wage aggressive wars and having most- if not all - the killing and dying done by one or more potent allies, who in the end hand over to you to fruits of their endeavour without getting anything in return but the satisfaction of complying to their alliances term.

It is not uncommon to be able to call an ally to some big warlike enterprise while not even bothering to raise your own levies, and then just be given the crown at the end of the bloodbath. Whatever strong the ties, I doubt that rulers would engage in long and costly wars (in gold and blood) started by some ally that could even not show up on the battlefield, without any perspective of gain whatsoever.

I have managed to carve kingdoms through this - unsatisfyingly easy - method
Well, the people who do the fighting get some prestige out of it. It would be nice if the prestige mattered more, so you'd have more incentive to carve out your own piece of the prestige-pie.
 
  • 3
Reactions: