What would make CK perfect?
Yes it's subjective and for CK3
Feedbacks are welcome
Yes it's subjective and for CK3
Feedbacks are welcome
Warning: this will be long.
Hi! With the release of HF, I have been thinking about how far CK2 has gone since I started playing (since TOG) and all the changes that I think would make the game better, but that can’t be incorporated properly in CK2 due to its limitations. Hence the idea of this thread where I will describe my opinion on the best CK game possible, without the current restrictions. I do this without pretension to know the difficulties to create a game, so there may be some nonsense. I invite members of the forum who had the patience to read to criticize, say what they agree or disagree, to clarify which evolutions would be welcomed for a possible CK3, one day...
General idea (or gameplay philosophy)
- CK is a game mixing RPG and grand strategy elements, but it sometimes seems these two aspects are just alongside with only passive modifiers as interactions. This is the game’s main flaw. I think it is necessary that the player does not distinguish between role play and strategy. It is therefore important the most rational choices from a strategic point of view are also those that would make the most sense for the character according to their trait. Or, to reword: the RPG aspect must converge the interests of the player and their character to promote immersion. The different decisions at events and the ways of playing should not be utterly good or bad but it would depend on the traits of the player’s avatar. This encourages adaptability and variety of gaming experience.
- Events with totally random outcomes are in my opinion a missed opportunity to force the player to weigh the pros and cons in decision making. With the same choices not having the same outcomes or having a higher or lower cost according to the traits, the player’s implication is strengthened. You no longer systematically always make the same decisions. Combined with the risk-reward system, events gain in depth and relevance.
- Most decisions made by the player must have both a direct impact and a longer-term impact. Thinking in the short term can be rewarding but keeping in mind the implications is cautious. Here again, it is a risk-reward system.
- Different governments should not be variants of the feudal system: the basis should be more universal and modular specific rules should represent the diversity of societies and make any of these interesting to play without having to twist the hardcode at each expansion.
- Some gameplay elements bring depth when you control a small territory but become tedious when they are too many once you control an empire. That is why it is better, rather than simplify these elements, to set up a dynamic system of delegation of tasks to be accomplished. The role of the ruler of a great empire thus gradually becomes to organize the management and not the management itself (except for the feudal government where the king is primus inter pares, and for whom this transition has no meaning and is not useful).
- The base game has to be complete while leaving the door open to many expansions (this is why I’ll talk mainly about general stuff and not really about specific features, aside from governments ideas)
I would add that developers should allocate resources in creating an event editor. Given the time needed to script events in CK2, building a program to simplify the task would allow longer, more numerous and modular sets of events with each expansion. This seems to me essential to save time and resources later while maintaining a high level of quality. It will also help the modders.
And now the details:
Base mechanics
Action Points
Each character has a limited amount (usually around ten) of Action Points (AP). These points represent the time and energy that a character spends in the fulfilment of a goal. Instead of spending "Piety" or "Prestige" for any action, the APs are used while the action is being performed (organization of a fest, a pilgrimage, sway or antagonize, stewardship themed events, society missions, ambitions and foci, etc.) or withdrawn by a temporary modifier (for one-off choices during events). Your personal skills are considered to know if you have succeeded or not these actions. Different actions require more than one AP to be performed, and some may require even more during the event chain to increase the chances of success. When the action is completed, or the modifier expires, the point(s) used are given back. We must therefore choose our actions wisely because unlike the "Piety" and "Prestige" of CK2, the APs do not accumulate either with time or indefinitely. Depending on the traits and stats, the same action will not require the same number of APs. Take the example of a torture session of a captured conspirator to make him confess who the other members of the plot are: organizing the interrogation requires less APs for a cruel character than for a just character. Similarly, the interrogated conspirator may occasionally sacrifice APs during the event chain to not answer, but sacrifices less if he is stubborn.
No longer having enough APs prevents the making of any decision that requires them. Some of these decisions come unexpectedly in the form of events or tasks (I'm talking about the tasks below). Keeping APs in reserve is therefore needed unless you like risky bets.
The success of the actions gives various rewards: modifiers (for example + 5% income), gold, opinion bonus, more Authority, etc...
No longer having enough APs prevents the making of any decision that requires them. Some of these decisions come unexpectedly in the form of events or tasks (I'm talking about the tasks below). Keeping APs in reserve is therefore needed unless you like risky bets.
The success of the actions gives various rewards: modifiers (for example + 5% income), gold, opinion bonus, more Authority, etc...
Authority
Feedback: Several kinds of Authority may be needed. I added a whole part about religious Authority below.
Authority represents the prestige, influence, and subjectively perceived power of a non-courtier character. It depends on the achievements of the character and their ancestors. The expansion and fall of empires are indirectly determined by this variable. I named it "Authority" to avoid confusion, but I know it's not the ideal name.
This is an essential variable because it influences the submission, autonomy or independence of each lord or vassal towards their peers, but also the ease with which a character will accept a request, support you, interact with you... I’m clarifying this right away:
First, it allows to vassalize or to make de facto tributary another lord. Indeed, you can vassalize only lords with a lower Authority than yours. If your vassals have more Authority than you and a weak opinion or fear, they may, depending on the case, claim independence or your titles. The pursuit of power therefore means gaining more Authority. A character gains Authority when s/he successfully performs tasks or ambitions requiring Action Points, and especially by winning battles and duels or winning wars. S/he loses it in case of failure, defeat and over time. The less Authority a character has, the easier he gains. Conversely, the more Authority a character has, the greater the losses. This is all the more accentuated as the technological level is low, and becomes more “linear” with high technology level. The vassals have a reduced gain of Authority compared to their direct overlord.
Second, unlike CK2 where all vassals have the same relationship to their overlord, the Authority can represent over whom the liege has the most power and who is more autonomous etc. In addition to the strict difference in the amount of Authority, the perceived authority must be taken into consideration. The perceived Authority corresponds to the Authority diminished according to the distance to the capital. For example, a suzerain with an Authority of 1,000 can submit a neighbor with 700 Authority if he is close because the perceived Authority will be approximately 950, which remains higher than 700. However, for a lord with 700 Authority but far away, the Authority perceived will be 650, which is insufficient. This diminished perception can be offset by technology or with more Authority. So, beating a lord in battle is a good way to enforce vassalage. If the difference between the suzerain's Authority and a vassal is small, if that vassal has no land connection to the overlord's capital or is of another religious group, then the vassalage is small and looks more like a tributary status.
Third, diplomatic interactions and favors are affected by the Relative Authority. Requests cost less favor if you have more Authority, and vice versa.
Finally, Authority is inherited at succession. If the heir already has some, the larger amount replaces the smaller one. In case of gavelkind succession, the heirs get 75% of the Authority each.
This is an essential variable because it influences the submission, autonomy or independence of each lord or vassal towards their peers, but also the ease with which a character will accept a request, support you, interact with you... I’m clarifying this right away:
First, it allows to vassalize or to make de facto tributary another lord. Indeed, you can vassalize only lords with a lower Authority than yours. If your vassals have more Authority than you and a weak opinion or fear, they may, depending on the case, claim independence or your titles. The pursuit of power therefore means gaining more Authority. A character gains Authority when s/he successfully performs tasks or ambitions requiring Action Points, and especially by winning battles and duels or winning wars. S/he loses it in case of failure, defeat and over time. The less Authority a character has, the easier he gains. Conversely, the more Authority a character has, the greater the losses. This is all the more accentuated as the technological level is low, and becomes more “linear” with high technology level. The vassals have a reduced gain of Authority compared to their direct overlord.
Second, unlike CK2 where all vassals have the same relationship to their overlord, the Authority can represent over whom the liege has the most power and who is more autonomous etc. In addition to the strict difference in the amount of Authority, the perceived authority must be taken into consideration. The perceived Authority corresponds to the Authority diminished according to the distance to the capital. For example, a suzerain with an Authority of 1,000 can submit a neighbor with 700 Authority if he is close because the perceived Authority will be approximately 950, which remains higher than 700. However, for a lord with 700 Authority but far away, the Authority perceived will be 650, which is insufficient. This diminished perception can be offset by technology or with more Authority. So, beating a lord in battle is a good way to enforce vassalage. If the difference between the suzerain's Authority and a vassal is small, if that vassal has no land connection to the overlord's capital or is of another religious group, then the vassalage is small and looks more like a tributary status.
Third, diplomatic interactions and favors are affected by the Relative Authority. Requests cost less favor if you have more Authority, and vice versa.
Finally, Authority is inherited at succession. If the heir already has some, the larger amount replaces the smaller one. In case of gavelkind succession, the heirs get 75% of the Authority each.
Favor
It's very simple: to replace the binary system of Conclave favors with a variable similar to the opinion but functioning a little like the Imperial Grace of JD, allowing more complex and interesting interactions between characters. The possibilities of requests depend on the government, the independence or not of the characters and their respective Authorities. For example, it is possible to use favor to ask for a title, or to join the war, etc. The cost of requests is reduced for characters with high opinion or fear.
Favor is between -100 and 100. For instance, when you see 60, you may request something that has a cost of 60 or less. In this case, the character (who from his point of view sees -60) must accept or gets a general opinion penalty. If you request a service costing more than 60, he can refuse without penalty or accept, which will put your favor in the negative and therefore his positive: you will owe him favors.
Favor is between -100 and 100. For instance, when you see 60, you may request something that has a cost of 60 or less. In this case, the character (who from his point of view sees -60) must accept or gets a general opinion penalty. If you request a service costing more than 60, he can refuse without penalty or accept, which will put your favor in the negative and therefore his positive: you will owe him favors.
Tasks
Feedback: The equivalent of council positions should make personal gains possible via decisions taken by council members themselves and not only by their job.
Why doing yourself what others have more skills for? Or how to use the action points of your vassals instead of yours.
'Tasks' are missions like those of the Monks & Mystics societies but given by a liege (who may be the player) to a vassal (who may be the player too) or a courtier in exchange for favor. These missions are used to administer the realms, like the jobs of the councilors from CK2, but with a gameplay side and a more RPG aspect.
Some tasks simply require the use of APs for a while, but the majority of tasks will have more varied objectives like:
- murder or kidnap someone;
- calm a furious vassal (with diplomatic skills and traits);
- expose a suspected conspiracy;
- win a minor war (an emperor should not waste time with small counties);
- educate a child;
- train a character to fight (duels);
- negotiate with peasants (events);
- build a building or holding;
- more narrative missions through series of events. It will often be necessary to use APs punctually and judiciously;
- etc.
If the task is successful, the liege earns a positive modifier, gold or just the effects of the actions undertaken. The vassal gains Authority. If the task fails or takes too long to complete, the vassal loses Authority and liege opinion. It is possible for a ruler worried that their vassal has more Authority than them to give this vassal an impossible task to hinder their rise to power.
Courtly Titles (by @vyshan )
One of the things I currently dislike is that minor titles are just that minor. They do not have many events there and are mainly there to increase the relations. It ignores the very real function that these positions. For example, the Master of the Horse was often one of the most important positions in a kingdom; in England it was a member of the Privy Council while in France it was classed as one of the Great offices of State.
So what I propose is revamping the Minor titles into Courtly Titles. They should have various events related to them. Some of these events might just be flavor but it can be there to help add to things. For instance having to arrange hunts as the master of the Hunt or as a Court Poet you have to perform Poetry for your lord.
Moreover, depending on your plots that you are doing, there would be events related to it. For instance perhaps as Master of the Hunt, you help to get the the drunkard king drunk during a hunt that might lead to his death or you learn about that plan and reveal it to him.
These various titles would be seen in a screen showing who has them, and how they are gained as some could be inheritable.
'Tasks' are missions like those of the Monks & Mystics societies but given by a liege (who may be the player) to a vassal (who may be the player too) or a courtier in exchange for favor. These missions are used to administer the realms, like the jobs of the councilors from CK2, but with a gameplay side and a more RPG aspect.
Some tasks simply require the use of APs for a while, but the majority of tasks will have more varied objectives like:
- murder or kidnap someone;
- calm a furious vassal (with diplomatic skills and traits);
- expose a suspected conspiracy;
- win a minor war (an emperor should not waste time with small counties);
- educate a child;
- train a character to fight (duels);
- negotiate with peasants (events);
- build a building or holding;
- more narrative missions through series of events. It will often be necessary to use APs punctually and judiciously;
- etc.
If the task is successful, the liege earns a positive modifier, gold or just the effects of the actions undertaken. The vassal gains Authority. If the task fails or takes too long to complete, the vassal loses Authority and liege opinion. It is possible for a ruler worried that their vassal has more Authority than them to give this vassal an impossible task to hinder their rise to power.
Courtly Titles (by @vyshan )
One of the things I currently dislike is that minor titles are just that minor. They do not have many events there and are mainly there to increase the relations. It ignores the very real function that these positions. For example, the Master of the Horse was often one of the most important positions in a kingdom; in England it was a member of the Privy Council while in France it was classed as one of the Great offices of State.
So what I propose is revamping the Minor titles into Courtly Titles. They should have various events related to them. Some of these events might just be flavor but it can be there to help add to things. For instance having to arrange hunts as the master of the Hunt or as a Court Poet you have to perform Poetry for your lord.
Moreover, depending on your plots that you are doing, there would be events related to it. For instance perhaps as Master of the Hunt, you help to get the the drunkard king drunk during a hunt that might lead to his death or you learn about that plan and reveal it to him.
These various titles would be seen in a screen showing who has them, and how they are gained as some could be inheritable.
Traits
I have always found it disappointing that personality traits in CK2 are just mere modifiers that we gain or lose as events unfold. Each character seems to be the same and the paths to gain certain traits and to lose others encourage to always choose the same decisions. I think that on the contrary, the traits should make the characters unique and significantly influence which decisions are best suited. If the traits are the equivalent of EU4's national ideas or Stellaris' ethics, then each played character will feel like a playthrough in its own!
The characters must gain most of their traits when they reach adulthood and tend to retain the same personality traits until the end of their lives. Changing personality traits requires a long investment like the Buddhist ambitions in CK2 and does not happen during random events. No personality traits are fundamentally bad, but they change the decision opportunities, or make more Action Points necessary to take options that are contrary to the character's personality.
The characters must gain most of their traits when they reach adulthood and tend to retain the same personality traits until the end of their lives. Changing personality traits requires a long investment like the Buddhist ambitions in CK2 and does not happen during random events. No personality traits are fundamentally bad, but they change the decision opportunities, or make more Action Points necessary to take options that are contrary to the character's personality.
Religious Influence (inspired by @Alratan 's feedback)
Characters of Abrahamic religions who are landed or priest get a special kind of Authority system beside the usual one: Religious Influence. Unlike Authority, it does not depend on military actions but only on decisions and event choices made by the character (remember decisions are themselves influenced by traits) which might be seen as pious or unpious.
Characters with more Religious Influence than others may:
Make those characters excomunicated ;
Make those characters to convert ;
Win papal elections (over less pious cardinals) ;
Make the pope accept their demands (if more than the pope) ;
Get new Casus Belli on less pious rulers (if muslim) ;
Etc.
With high enough Religious Influence you can also do this (like with CK2 Piety):
Take special decisions and create special titles ;
Make their heresy a proper faith ;
Recruit additional armies (if muslim) ;
Etc.
Characters with more Religious Influence than others may:
Make those characters excomunicated ;
Make those characters to convert ;
Win papal elections (over less pious cardinals) ;
Make the pope accept their demands (if more than the pope) ;
Get new Casus Belli on less pious rulers (if muslim) ;
Etc.
With high enough Religious Influence you can also do this (like with CK2 Piety):
Take special decisions and create special titles ;
Make their heresy a proper faith ;
Recruit additional armies (if muslim) ;
Etc.
Advanced mechanics
Relations between characters
Feedback: Fear could be linked to Authority rather than being an autonomous variable.
Relations evolve according to two variables: opinion (as in CK2) and fear.
Both reduce favor cost and discourage conspiracies and factions. It is therefore possible to play as a tyrant and substitute opinion for fear. However, the fear decreases with time and it is necessary to remind regularly who is the boss by executing a rebel or punishing a vassal, for example. Traits like "cruel", "wroth" etc. promote more to bet on fear while "patient" and "kind" promote more to maximize opinion.
Opinion and fear between characters should evolve according to the choices and not only the traits, knowing that the most judicious choices are affected by the traits (to go against one’s own personality requires more APs). That is, decisions give a modifier that changes the opinion or fear of characters with a certain trait. For instance, a wroth character who gets angry with a clumsy courtier at a banquet will for a while lower the opinion of the patient characters and increase the general fear, but if instead he calms down by using Action Points. he will simply increase the opinion of the characters present at this moment.
Certain events that make characters directly interact with each other can greatly increase or decrease the opinion following the choices of the two characters (again, the Action Points are necessary or not depending on the traits). Most of the time, it is better seeking to increase opinion, but becoming someone's enemy improves their own enemies’ opinion of you (like Stellaris' rivalries). Of course, according to opinion and fear the characters already have between them, the events triggered will be different.
Both reduce favor cost and discourage conspiracies and factions. It is therefore possible to play as a tyrant and substitute opinion for fear. However, the fear decreases with time and it is necessary to remind regularly who is the boss by executing a rebel or punishing a vassal, for example. Traits like "cruel", "wroth" etc. promote more to bet on fear while "patient" and "kind" promote more to maximize opinion.
Opinion and fear between characters should evolve according to the choices and not only the traits, knowing that the most judicious choices are affected by the traits (to go against one’s own personality requires more APs). That is, decisions give a modifier that changes the opinion or fear of characters with a certain trait. For instance, a wroth character who gets angry with a clumsy courtier at a banquet will for a while lower the opinion of the patient characters and increase the general fear, but if instead he calms down by using Action Points. he will simply increase the opinion of the characters present at this moment.
Certain events that make characters directly interact with each other can greatly increase or decrease the opinion following the choices of the two characters (again, the Action Points are necessary or not depending on the traits). Most of the time, it is better seeking to increase opinion, but becoming someone's enemy improves their own enemies’ opinion of you (like Stellaris' rivalries). Of course, according to opinion and fear the characters already have between them, the events triggered will be different.
New plot system
The intrigue gameplay is based on building a network of people under the influence of the conspirator, visible in its own tab. There are two types of characters visible in this tab:
- Those who freely participate in a specific conspiracy because of friendship, favor, bribe or by common interest (as in CK2) and who can leave the network at any time.
- Those who secretly obey the conspirator because he blackmails them, who can disobey and denounce him but at a heavy cost...
The conspirator can add in the second category the characters:
In the first two cases, the AI of the characters may be tempted to plot back to deliver the relative or kill the conspirator if they have the necessary skills and traits. If the relative is released, the character leaves the network (unless it is affected by one of the other reasons) and may choose to denounce the conspirator. If the character also learns a secret from the conspirator, this one can no longer order anything, and both are held incommunicado or both secrets are revealed (but if one is disclosed by a third person, the one whose secret has not been revealed becomes the new prey of blackmail by the other). If the conspirator holding the antidote dies, the poisoned character eventually dies too. Blackmailed characters must also accept the conspirator's requests unless they decide they have more to lose by accepting. This does not increase the favor of the conspirator.
*The ‘shameful’ secrets can be: homosexuality, fornication, shameful illness, lunacy, participating in a heretical cult, having committed an assassination... They can be revealed directly when they are discovered instead of being used for blackmail.
Kidnapping, assassination, making false treason proofs to blackmail or justify imprisonment, poisoning for blackmail etc. are done via conspiracy and require a network. Espionage to discover a secret to exploit is individual and requires a larger intrigue score than the victim.
The more characters under the influence will be numerous and close to the target of a plot and have good plot skills (which can turn against the conspirator as we have seen), the more a conspiracy will be strong.
To avoid being caught, a conspirator can make one character or more (according to his level of intrigue) in his network his spymaster, a secret job. He can order the spymaster to target another character with a determined plot. The spymaster will then build his own network to accomplish his mission. Nothing prevents a spymaster to name his own spymaster (without it being known to the first conspirator) and follow his own agenda, such as betraying the conspirator who blackmails him by voluntarily joining the network of his enemy... What a intermingling of intrigues!
- Those who freely participate in a specific conspiracy because of friendship, favor, bribe or by common interest (as in CK2) and who can leave the network at any time.
- Those who secretly obey the conspirator because he blackmails them, who can disobey and denounce him but at a heavy cost...
The conspirator can add in the second category the characters:
- of whom he has captured a relative (whom he executes in case of betrayal)
- of whom he has discovered a shameful secret* by spying on (which he reveals in case of treason, destroying the reputation of the character and this can make them depressed)
- that he has poisoned (via a plot difficult to succeed) and holds the antidote (a betrayal therefore means death).
In the first two cases, the AI of the characters may be tempted to plot back to deliver the relative or kill the conspirator if they have the necessary skills and traits. If the relative is released, the character leaves the network (unless it is affected by one of the other reasons) and may choose to denounce the conspirator. If the character also learns a secret from the conspirator, this one can no longer order anything, and both are held incommunicado or both secrets are revealed (but if one is disclosed by a third person, the one whose secret has not been revealed becomes the new prey of blackmail by the other). If the conspirator holding the antidote dies, the poisoned character eventually dies too. Blackmailed characters must also accept the conspirator's requests unless they decide they have more to lose by accepting. This does not increase the favor of the conspirator.
*The ‘shameful’ secrets can be: homosexuality, fornication, shameful illness, lunacy, participating in a heretical cult, having committed an assassination... They can be revealed directly when they are discovered instead of being used for blackmail.
Kidnapping, assassination, making false treason proofs to blackmail or justify imprisonment, poisoning for blackmail etc. are done via conspiracy and require a network. Espionage to discover a secret to exploit is individual and requires a larger intrigue score than the victim.
The more characters under the influence will be numerous and close to the target of a plot and have good plot skills (which can turn against the conspirator as we have seen), the more a conspiracy will be strong.
To avoid being caught, a conspirator can make one character or more (according to his level of intrigue) in his network his spymaster, a secret job. He can order the spymaster to target another character with a determined plot. The spymaster will then build his own network to accomplish his mission. Nothing prevents a spymaster to name his own spymaster (without it being known to the first conspirator) and follow his own agenda, such as betraying the conspirator who blackmails him by voluntarily joining the network of his enemy... What a intermingling of intrigues!
Culture
It is not necessary to have a pop system in CK, but a percentage of culture and religion (in addition to a population level) would be a good idea. Here's how it could work:
- Counties may have several cohabiting cultures, each with a defined religion;
- The conversions of cultures and religions are progressive;
- The culture conversion by normal means affects less and less the cultures when they become a minority, and almost not when they are rare on the map;
- Conversion is easier in sparsely populated counties;
- A culture present in an adjacent county increases the chances of converting a population to that culture;
- Convert the religion of a culture which is not that of the Lord convert it also culturally, with preference to a culture of that religion found in the county or in a neighboring county. If not, it is converted to the culture of the lord (Prussian Germans, Turks of Anatolia, etc.);
- Cultures may spread as a minority in counties of the region, especially if they are in highly populated counties;
- This migration is encouraged by the invasions of other religions (Armenians, Berber of Spain, etc.) or by events (Jews, heretics);
- The characters generated from the county have a culture determined in percentage of chances by the percentage of culture in the county. They have the religion associated with this culture;
- The percentage of population of your religion decreases the penalty of conquest. It is easier to pacify the territories obtained during the Reconquista than during the Baltic Crusades;
- Characters of certain cultures are more willing to assimilate to the cultures of their provinces instead of converting them. Others, on the contrary, are more resistant. Turkish characters, for instance, do not become Persian or Greek.
- Counties may have several cohabiting cultures, each with a defined religion;
- The conversions of cultures and religions are progressive;
- The culture conversion by normal means affects less and less the cultures when they become a minority, and almost not when they are rare on the map;
- Conversion is easier in sparsely populated counties;
- A culture present in an adjacent county increases the chances of converting a population to that culture;
- Convert the religion of a culture which is not that of the Lord convert it also culturally, with preference to a culture of that religion found in the county or in a neighboring county. If not, it is converted to the culture of the lord (Prussian Germans, Turks of Anatolia, etc.);
- Cultures may spread as a minority in counties of the region, especially if they are in highly populated counties;
- This migration is encouraged by the invasions of other religions (Armenians, Berber of Spain, etc.) or by events (Jews, heretics);
- The characters generated from the county have a culture determined in percentage of chances by the percentage of culture in the county. They have the religion associated with this culture;
- The percentage of population of your religion decreases the penalty of conquest. It is easier to pacify the territories obtained during the Reconquista than during the Baltic Crusades;
- Characters of certain cultures are more willing to assimilate to the cultures of their provinces instead of converting them. Others, on the contrary, are more resistant. Turkish characters, for instance, do not become Persian or Greek.
Warfare
Feedback: The subcounties stuff might be too much. Plus warfare should in a way or another decrease coutnty population.
Annexations should not be rigidly restricted by casus belli (except in the case of a claim for feudal lords) but by material constraints. A war is expensive and administering a new territory too. Going to crush your neighbor does not increase your wealth or your military strength in the short term, on the contrary it weakens both sides. That way I think it is more realistic and more interesting gameplay wise. The immediate interest of the war is to gain Authority by winning battles and signing favorable truces, while the Authority of the vanquished plummet.
To be clear: you launch war for the glory of your house and character, not for a nation that doesn't properly exist yet.
The war goal set by the casus belli only determines what is necessary to win the war: occupy cities to conquer, beat armies to repel an invasion or accumulate more Authority than his suzerain for a war of independence... it helps the AI to know what to do, basically.
A Stellaris-like "war exhaustion" system is needed which increases the cost of the army (the loss is therefore based on the number of troops mobilized, dissuading the player and AI to launch total wars) and gives bad economic modifiers. It is a mechanism more universal than the decline of the vassals’ opinion in CK2. Eventually, this exhaustion forces the belligerents to a truce, which does not always make the casus belli invalid. Thus, even if the Plantagenets fail to claim the title of King of France at the time of the first truce of the Hundred Years War, they still lowered the Authority of the King so that his vassals might become more autonomous and thus will give less troops when the war resume. Occupied territories are kept if casus belli allow it (holy wars…).
The AI must be able to measure the strength of the opponent and not send to the battle all its forces if it is not necessary or vain.
It is possible to order to a vassal or a commander the occupation of a territory or the confrontation with armies as in the recent versions of CK2, but also to make a minor war of conquest in automatic mode with his own troops. This will avoid the tediousness to the player and the absurd involvement of an emperor to invade OPMs. But there is a cost: the vassal wins all the Authority in this war, and he annexes the conquered territories.
Another important stuff:
The counties are now subdivided into several places (minor provinces? Subcounties?) where the armies can be positioned, one of which is the castle (or city) capital. An army positioned in the castle represents the garrison. Positioning an army on an enemy castle is necessary to occupy the county, but the "province" castle has an extremely high defensive bonus. It is therefore wise, before attacking the garrison (to replace it), to lower its morale. This is the role of the siege. When an enemy army remains in the subcounties around that of the castle, it besieges that castle: the morale of the garrison gradually decreases. Occupying all the subcounties around helps to lower morale more quickly but, logically, at the same time divides the occupying force into several armies. However, leaving free subcounties would allow the besieged to bring in other troops to join the garrison...
Once the army in the castle or city, this one is usually looted. To keep control of the county, it is necessary to leave troops in the castle as a garrison at least until the end of the war. What does it mean? To occupy the counties without fear of being reconquered, it will therefore be necessary to leave some of the armies behind, which makes the large direct conquests (and I mean by direct expelling the county's owner from their holding, not vassalizing them) riskier or requiring large armies.
The truces, in case of war of conquest (no claim), still allow the annexation of border counties occupied by the one who disposes of the biggest warscore. Small wars are then sometimes more strategically interesting than big conquests.
The great battles outside the castles are those that give the most warscore and some are enough to decide the outcome of a war.
The fact that nomads do not have cities or castles makes them impossible to conquer. They must be defeated on the battlefield, which is enough to reduce their Authority and can greatly undermine their power.
Conquered territories require a garrison for a time to avoid revolts. This time is reduced if part of the population is of the religion of the conqueror but not of the former owner. These territories barely give any tax for years and are highly subject to revolt, and even more if the level of development is not the same as you (feudal Christians will have difficulty avoiding revolt in tribal Estonia, for example). To avoid too much cost, it is possible to name a local lord (if there are inhabitants of your religious group) or from your court and give him a relative autonomy so he could manage to pacify the mess. He can then be fully vassalized after fews years.
Added: @Rozmarzony feedback
As for ecenomy, I would like to see "population" number for every county. And not like in current game (only modifier) but thing really important.
There is a war on the lands? Lack of trade? Epidemy? Less population.
And population should be most significant modifier for making big armies.
The more people survive the war, the more gets gack to the home, otherwise - population is lacking.
Right now: you can loose a major battle, all other ones, basically - be wiped out to the 10% of your max army, and still all counties/provs can have booming etc. population modifier.
It madness.
To be clear: you launch war for the glory of your house and character, not for a nation that doesn't properly exist yet.
The war goal set by the casus belli only determines what is necessary to win the war: occupy cities to conquer, beat armies to repel an invasion or accumulate more Authority than his suzerain for a war of independence... it helps the AI to know what to do, basically.
A Stellaris-like "war exhaustion" system is needed which increases the cost of the army (the loss is therefore based on the number of troops mobilized, dissuading the player and AI to launch total wars) and gives bad economic modifiers. It is a mechanism more universal than the decline of the vassals’ opinion in CK2. Eventually, this exhaustion forces the belligerents to a truce, which does not always make the casus belli invalid. Thus, even if the Plantagenets fail to claim the title of King of France at the time of the first truce of the Hundred Years War, they still lowered the Authority of the King so that his vassals might become more autonomous and thus will give less troops when the war resume. Occupied territories are kept if casus belli allow it (holy wars…).
The AI must be able to measure the strength of the opponent and not send to the battle all its forces if it is not necessary or vain.
It is possible to order to a vassal or a commander the occupation of a territory or the confrontation with armies as in the recent versions of CK2, but also to make a minor war of conquest in automatic mode with his own troops. This will avoid the tediousness to the player and the absurd involvement of an emperor to invade OPMs. But there is a cost: the vassal wins all the Authority in this war, and he annexes the conquered territories.
Another important stuff:
The counties are now subdivided into several places (minor provinces? Subcounties?) where the armies can be positioned, one of which is the castle (or city) capital. An army positioned in the castle represents the garrison. Positioning an army on an enemy castle is necessary to occupy the county, but the "province" castle has an extremely high defensive bonus. It is therefore wise, before attacking the garrison (to replace it), to lower its morale. This is the role of the siege. When an enemy army remains in the subcounties around that of the castle, it besieges that castle: the morale of the garrison gradually decreases. Occupying all the subcounties around helps to lower morale more quickly but, logically, at the same time divides the occupying force into several armies. However, leaving free subcounties would allow the besieged to bring in other troops to join the garrison...
Once the army in the castle or city, this one is usually looted. To keep control of the county, it is necessary to leave troops in the castle as a garrison at least until the end of the war. What does it mean? To occupy the counties without fear of being reconquered, it will therefore be necessary to leave some of the armies behind, which makes the large direct conquests (and I mean by direct expelling the county's owner from their holding, not vassalizing them) riskier or requiring large armies.
The truces, in case of war of conquest (no claim), still allow the annexation of border counties occupied by the one who disposes of the biggest warscore. Small wars are then sometimes more strategically interesting than big conquests.
The great battles outside the castles are those that give the most warscore and some are enough to decide the outcome of a war.
The fact that nomads do not have cities or castles makes them impossible to conquer. They must be defeated on the battlefield, which is enough to reduce their Authority and can greatly undermine their power.
Conquered territories require a garrison for a time to avoid revolts. This time is reduced if part of the population is of the religion of the conqueror but not of the former owner. These territories barely give any tax for years and are highly subject to revolt, and even more if the level of development is not the same as you (feudal Christians will have difficulty avoiding revolt in tribal Estonia, for example). To avoid too much cost, it is possible to name a local lord (if there are inhabitants of your religious group) or from your court and give him a relative autonomy so he could manage to pacify the mess. He can then be fully vassalized after fews years.
Added: @Rozmarzony feedback
As for ecenomy, I would like to see "population" number for every county. And not like in current game (only modifier) but thing really important.
There is a war on the lands? Lack of trade? Epidemy? Less population.
And population should be most significant modifier for making big armies.
The more people survive the war, the more gets gack to the home, otherwise - population is lacking.
Right now: you can loose a major battle, all other ones, basically - be wiped out to the 10% of your max army, and still all counties/provs can have booming etc. population modifier.
It madness.
Economy
Feedback: an alternative system by @pengoyo I found really interesting was added.
Western medieval lords’ incomes were essentially from agrarian work of peasants, but trade contributed greatly to the enrichment of the cities. In addition to CK2's tax laws and trade posts, I thought of a small system that makes the economy more interactive:
- Each county produces a certain amount of wealth depending on its level of development and its population. Wars, raids and epidemics reduce this quantity over several years.
- Where the trade routes pass, the poorer counties take advantage of the fact that others, richer, are on the road to develop (the merchants come to do more trade because the goods are not produced locally) and the taxes on these poor counties are more important. Conversely, taxes in rich counties decrease because goods are sold (and therefore taxed) elsewhere. To be clear: everyone benefits but some may benefit more (and to have this, income bonuses must be additional gold and not simple percentages).
- A powerful ruler can choose isolationism and stop exporting for several years so that their rich counties continue to bring him the maximum tax. However, he must assess the risks, because an epidemic or a war can impoverish his counties during this period and he will not be able to take advantage of the trade route to rebuild them for a long time.
- Merchant republics and lords who no longer benefit from trade can declare war to end isolationism (just like for China in JD).
Trade is a win-win scenario (it creates wealth). So both rich and poor counties should benefit from trade moving through them (goods are often taxed both on export as well as import). I think a cooler economic system would be one in which different goods are on the map and travel along trade routes given value to the provinces they pass through (note, trade good value is both a function of the good but also how far it can travel). The distance they travel depends on tech, the production building, sea vs land, if they are crossing borders, and if there are conflicts in the path (the border crossing is to help simulate that large empire often increase trade). The land routes should be fixed as they are now (allowing trade to reroute on fixed paths around blockages), but none of the sea routes should be fixed. This would allow merchants to fight over connecting various ends of different land routes (but also with the way goods are priced, it encourages them to connect distant trade routes). It will also encourage china (if on the game map) to care about trade. After all China wasn't just sending silk west, it was trading it for iron, gold and amber (it often tried to control the tamarin basin to encourage trade). The option to be isolationist should probably be limited to imperial (or maybe just China), and shouldn't be a made for economic reasons, but for cultural or political reasons.
- Each county produces a certain amount of wealth depending on its level of development and its population. Wars, raids and epidemics reduce this quantity over several years.
- Where the trade routes pass, the poorer counties take advantage of the fact that others, richer, are on the road to develop (the merchants come to do more trade because the goods are not produced locally) and the taxes on these poor counties are more important. Conversely, taxes in rich counties decrease because goods are sold (and therefore taxed) elsewhere. To be clear: everyone benefits but some may benefit more (and to have this, income bonuses must be additional gold and not simple percentages).
- A powerful ruler can choose isolationism and stop exporting for several years so that their rich counties continue to bring him the maximum tax. However, he must assess the risks, because an epidemic or a war can impoverish his counties during this period and he will not be able to take advantage of the trade route to rebuild them for a long time.
- Merchant republics and lords who no longer benefit from trade can declare war to end isolationism (just like for China in JD).
Alternative mechanics:
Trade is a win-win scenario (it creates wealth). So both rich and poor counties should benefit from trade moving through them (goods are often taxed both on export as well as import). I think a cooler economic system would be one in which different goods are on the map and travel along trade routes given value to the provinces they pass through (note, trade good value is both a function of the good but also how far it can travel). The distance they travel depends on tech, the production building, sea vs land, if they are crossing borders, and if there are conflicts in the path (the border crossing is to help simulate that large empire often increase trade). The land routes should be fixed as they are now (allowing trade to reroute on fixed paths around blockages), but none of the sea routes should be fixed. This would allow merchants to fight over connecting various ends of different land routes (but also with the way goods are priced, it encourages them to connect distant trade routes). It will also encourage china (if on the game map) to care about trade. After all China wasn't just sending silk west, it was trading it for iron, gold and amber (it often tried to control the tamarin basin to encourage trade). The option to be isolationist should probably be limited to imperial (or maybe just China), and shouldn't be a made for economic reasons, but for cultural or political reasons.
Duels
On the battlefield, you can use APs right before the duel to boost your combat skills.
Let’s say winning chances are 50/50 for character1 & 2. Then skill(char1) – skill(char2) is calculated. If positive, it is added as a percentage of winning chances for character1. If negative, absolute value is added for char2.
If you lose the duel, you can attempt to escape using APs (the more your opponent has better skills than you, the more APs you must use).
So, you have to choose carefully whether it is wiser to spend APs to attack or flee.
Let’s say winning chances are 50/50 for character1 & 2. Then skill(char1) – skill(char2) is calculated. If positive, it is added as a percentage of winning chances for character1. If negative, absolute value is added for char2.
If you lose the duel, you can attempt to escape using APs (the more your opponent has better skills than you, the more APs you must use).
So, you have to choose carefully whether it is wiser to spend APs to attack or flee.
Governments
I will start by describing what I call "Eastern" government (for lack of a better name), because it is the most neutral government in terms of new mechanics in this list. I leave aside some governments like European theocracies that have no dynastic continuity, or those for which I have no specific ideas. Ideally, every region of the world should have adapted governments that can be mixes of the typical examples I am going to describe.
Rank distinctions like "Count", "Duke", "King" or "Sultan" are not rigid and hardcoded as in CK2. These are, for a given government, statutes recognized by the religious head allowing to claim suzerainty over other leaders.
Eastern
This government and its variants mainly represent Muslims, Iranians and Indians. It’s a dynastic empire that emerges most of the time from the ruins of a previous empire, as a former vassal. To avoid the problems of border gore, there is only one level of vassalage and a ruler is either independent or vassal when of this government, but vassals can be under the influence of another vassal (I'll talk about that later) and it is possible to vassalize other governments. There are, however, several levels of vassalage: "strong", with a strong perceived Authority and "weak" that allows the vassal to swear allegiance to another neighboring independent ruler with larger relative Authority without needing to start an independence war, representing the double-dealing of some minor rulers. The liege, if he has a Relative Perceived Authority superior to that of a neighboring ruler whom he has beaten, he or his overlord, on the field of battle can make this neighbor his vassal.
The vassals can usually fight each other, and those with the most Authority can ‘dominate’ their neighbors, securing their support in case of war. If a vassal becomes independent, the other vassals whom he dominates strongly and who are bordering him will become his. The war goal here is to acquire enough Authority in battles and sieges to overcome that of the liege and to declare independence.
For empires of this type established in the Arab world, it is possible to recruit special troops composed of Berbers (Maghreb) or Bedouins (Mashreq and Egypt) who will revolt to take power in case of too low Authority. (But perhaps this non-essential feature would have its place in a DLC inspired by @elvain ‘s idea of Qabila?)
As we have seen above with the functioning of the Authority, it will not be uncommon for empires to appear, to spread, and then, once they are weakened by defeats or bad leaders, to be fragmented and conquered by an invader or a former vassal. Eastern empires are on average more powerful than Christian realms, but also slightly more ephemeral because less stable over time.
The vassals can usually fight each other, and those with the most Authority can ‘dominate’ their neighbors, securing their support in case of war. If a vassal becomes independent, the other vassals whom he dominates strongly and who are bordering him will become his. The war goal here is to acquire enough Authority in battles and sieges to overcome that of the liege and to declare independence.
For empires of this type established in the Arab world, it is possible to recruit special troops composed of Berbers (Maghreb) or Bedouins (Mashreq and Egypt) who will revolt to take power in case of too low Authority. (But perhaps this non-essential feature would have its place in a DLC inspired by @elvain ‘s idea of Qabila?)
As we have seen above with the functioning of the Authority, it will not be uncommon for empires to appear, to spread, and then, once they are weakened by defeats or bad leaders, to be fragmented and conquered by an invader or a former vassal. Eastern empires are on average more powerful than Christian realms, but also slightly more ephemeral because less stable over time.
Feudal
Unlike Easterners, allegiances can be multiple at the same time but are more codified. Authority does not lessen with distance from capital (for vassals who are also feudal) but the way to extend durably is to make territories de jure by enforcing (military or by the pope) lords to swear allegiance. This allegiance is automatic when you give a landed title. The troops and taxes due to the suzerain are taken only on the territory of the title recognized de jure as vassal, even if it is not vassal de facto. Thus, William will be vassal to the King of the Franks as Duke of Normandy but will be sovereign as King of England. A lord remains the de facto vassal of his de jure liege if the later has enough Authority and must formally renew his allegiance at each generation. Otherwise, the lord may refuse to swear (he’s not a de facto vassal anymore, and only still gives some taxes and manpower) and THEN seek to be recognized by the pope as an independent ruler de jure. The liege can declare war on him to lower his Authority and bring him back under his control. Ranks (Count, Duke, King, Emperor etc.) are a kind of title modifier that can be upgraded to ensure one’s de jure independence… and allowing to claim suzerainty over neighboring rulers of lesser rank. The vassals may swear allegiance to a lord with a claim on the title to which they are de jure vassal if they prefer him to the current title holder, paying them their taxes instead.
The other features are those of CK2.
The other features are those of CK2.
Imperial
Feedback: Not the most historically accurate gov of the list. Some changes have be made however.This government is designed for Byzantium but could be used (with heavy modifications) for China starting from the Song empire if this part of the map is in game.
Although the empire can make other realms tributaries like easterners, many of its “vassals”, as we will see, can’t become independent and are not affected by the distance to the capital. It is therefore a stable government which, although allowing civil wars, don’t really fall until foreign powers conquer it.
Most of the "vassals" of this government are of a special type: bureaucrats. They are playable and have a landless title. The bureaucrats may or may not be landed themselves. Each bureaucrat has personal money, a "court" and so on just like any playable character. They constitute, under the emperor, a list (visible from a special tab) from the one who has the most Authority to the one who has the least. Their number depends on the size of the empire: there are new ones if the empire grows. Conversely, if the empire loses territories, those at the bottom of the list lose their title (Game Over). The goal is to climb as high as possible in this list: by winning the Authority or by lowering that of others who are above or just below (via conspiracies or impossible task, etc.). Those who at the top of the list have more Authority than the emperor can take his succession.
The emperor can give tasks (see above) or distribute viceroyalties to collect taxes. Indeed, he technically possesses all the counties of the empire, but their too large number does not allow him to administer everything alone and collect all the money. He must therefore rely on the bureaucrats, taking care at the same time to appoint the most competent and making sure that they do not become too influential, at the risk of losing his place at the succession. Yes, because the success of tasks and effective administration of territories, as usual, give Authority. An administrator can in turn appoint a lower ranking bureaucrat who is not employed by the emperor to help him manage the territory or entrust him with tasks ... etc. You can interact with other bureaucrats of lower rank almost like they are your own vassals. This system is used instead of the viceroyalties from CK2.
The number of bureaucrats increasing less than proportionally as the size of the empire, the efficiency becomes inevitably less good when the empire extends its borders.
Even more dangerous for the emperor are the generals. This title, which can be held at the same time as an administrative title, consists in the command of an army and can only be given by the Basileus. A general owes 100% of his troops to the emperor in case of war. The emperor can also leave control of his troops to the general in automatic mode if he is a player (see the 'warfare' part). As it is with the title of general that the troops are attached, it is important for the Basileus to prevent them to be part of revolts…
Intrigue is an important aspect of imperial politics. It is possible to plot for a blackmailed character to give you a Viceroyalty, for example. It is also possible to tarnish the reputation of your rivals, etc. Favor is also a good way to progress.
When a revolt occurs, the armies (mercenaries or generals) of the revolt are raised some distance from the imperial capital to avoid its capture too easily when the leader of the revolt has no land.
To ensure a 'succession', unlanded bureaucrats must introduce members of their family into the imperial court with a few Action Points cost, which means heir designation. Landed bureaucrats are primogeniture. Like for any government, the heir will retain the acquired Authority upon succession.
Although the empire can make other realms tributaries like easterners, many of its “vassals”, as we will see, can’t become independent and are not affected by the distance to the capital. It is therefore a stable government which, although allowing civil wars, don’t really fall until foreign powers conquer it.
Most of the "vassals" of this government are of a special type: bureaucrats. They are playable and have a landless title. The bureaucrats may or may not be landed themselves. Each bureaucrat has personal money, a "court" and so on just like any playable character. They constitute, under the emperor, a list (visible from a special tab) from the one who has the most Authority to the one who has the least. Their number depends on the size of the empire: there are new ones if the empire grows. Conversely, if the empire loses territories, those at the bottom of the list lose their title (Game Over). The goal is to climb as high as possible in this list: by winning the Authority or by lowering that of others who are above or just below (via conspiracies or impossible task, etc.). Those who at the top of the list have more Authority than the emperor can take his succession.
The emperor can give tasks (see above) or distribute viceroyalties to collect taxes. Indeed, he technically possesses all the counties of the empire, but their too large number does not allow him to administer everything alone and collect all the money. He must therefore rely on the bureaucrats, taking care at the same time to appoint the most competent and making sure that they do not become too influential, at the risk of losing his place at the succession. Yes, because the success of tasks and effective administration of territories, as usual, give Authority. An administrator can in turn appoint a lower ranking bureaucrat who is not employed by the emperor to help him manage the territory or entrust him with tasks ... etc. You can interact with other bureaucrats of lower rank almost like they are your own vassals. This system is used instead of the viceroyalties from CK2.
The number of bureaucrats increasing less than proportionally as the size of the empire, the efficiency becomes inevitably less good when the empire extends its borders.
Even more dangerous for the emperor are the generals. This title, which can be held at the same time as an administrative title, consists in the command of an army and can only be given by the Basileus. A general owes 100% of his troops to the emperor in case of war. The emperor can also leave control of his troops to the general in automatic mode if he is a player (see the 'warfare' part). As it is with the title of general that the troops are attached, it is important for the Basileus to prevent them to be part of revolts…
Intrigue is an important aspect of imperial politics. It is possible to plot for a blackmailed character to give you a Viceroyalty, for example. It is also possible to tarnish the reputation of your rivals, etc. Favor is also a good way to progress.
When a revolt occurs, the armies (mercenaries or generals) of the revolt are raised some distance from the imperial capital to avoid its capture too easily when the leader of the revolt has no land.
To ensure a 'succession', unlanded bureaucrats must introduce members of their family into the imperial court with a few Action Points cost, which means heir designation. Landed bureaucrats are primogeniture. Like for any government, the heir will retain the acquired Authority upon succession.
Republic
Like the empire, but rulers are elected through the Authority directly and not by vote of characters. It is possible to spend gold to increase one's Authority. Patricians are less numerous than imperial bureaucrats and can’t be granted command of armies (which are rather mercenaries). Non-merchant republics like Novgorod can be playable by replacing patricians with bureaucrats.
Tribal
I have that idea in mind for the Norse, but it can perhaps suit other tribes. The idea is to add a new type of vassal: the warriors. Warriors are, like bureaucrats and patricians, playable, landless and linked to the primary title of a tribal ruler. They spawn in tribal realms with high Authority and are more and more numerous as the Authority of the ruler increases. They start the game with a small army and must raid to accumulate gold and Authority (to recruit more troops). They can be called to arms by the rulers and challenge them to duel to take their place if they have more Authority. Defeated rulers become either vassals (if they still own land) or warriors. Overly influential warriors can be chased away (with a long use of Aps) and become vassals of another tribal ruler of the same religion. They can also, like CK2 adventurers, be vassalized by non-pagans in exchange for land or launch an invasion that will make them independent lords.
Nomadic
Typically, this kind of society that CK2 can’t handle properly. An important aspect of nomadism is not to worry about keeping specific rich territories as it is the case in CK2 where the player khagan tends to keep the counties with the most empty holdings, or never giving up provinces. Here, it is necessary to have unoccupied provinces as in EU4. These provinces, unless they are colonized at high cost and with late technology by sedentary peoples, produce nothing. All unoccupied provinces within a radius (which increases with the total population) around the capital of the khagan are automatically annexed by the horde. The empty provinces owned outside this radius (because the capital has moved) become unoccupied after a certain time. The khagan must designate an empty province on the map (in the manner of the CK2 crown focus) and, if the path is possible, the capital moves progressively from county to county to that province. If there is no connection or if another horde is on the way, the migration stops. In this regard, the AI must choose isolated territories when its horde is weak, or close to a realm or a weaker horde, and away from the more powerful hordes.
The population increases slowly in times of peace, and a lot by raiding other hordes (which lose population) or sedentary realms (which lose prosperity). It’s this population that makes the horde larger on the map and makes clan leaders appear, in addition to giving manpower. Clan leaders are, like the tribal warriors, "landless" and possessing their own troops. In case of independence, an empty border county of the horde is designated by the game as their new capital. Hordes with too low population, in addition to not being able to have clans, disband at the slightest defeat, leaving their territory unoccupied (Game Over). Same thing for clans within a horde: not enough population = Game Over.
Like with any other government, Authority determines the loyalty of clan leaders or their independence desire and the ability to have tributaries. It is gained by battles or raids. Unlike other governments, it affects troops morale. Authority gains and losses are much higher than for other governments. Thus, great empires can form very quickly and disappear in a generation.
Clan leaders can, like tribal warriors, launch invasions that make them independent lords (mainly of eastern government) if they succeed. They can also, often at the cost of conversion, become vassals of a sedentary realm instead of their horde. They remain "nomadic" and landless. They can’t plunder their overlord and he can call them to arms. This makes the overlord more powerful militarily but it’s risky: if the nomadic guy has more Authority, he can revolt and conquer the lands of his former overlord to become sedentary and independent. The Samanids can testify to this painful experience...
It is harder to conquer and burn every holding like in CK2, so making non-nomadic realms tributaries might be a better idea… unless you want to found your own sedentary empire. Hordes get a casus belli to place a member of their dynasty on the throne of a large enough empire (more or less historically: Ilkhanid Persia and Yuan China). It is then possible to continue the game with that character. (Honestly, I would love to see this option not only for this case and crusades, but for any claim war for a landless member of the player’s family…)
The population increases slowly in times of peace, and a lot by raiding other hordes (which lose population) or sedentary realms (which lose prosperity). It’s this population that makes the horde larger on the map and makes clan leaders appear, in addition to giving manpower. Clan leaders are, like the tribal warriors, "landless" and possessing their own troops. In case of independence, an empty border county of the horde is designated by the game as their new capital. Hordes with too low population, in addition to not being able to have clans, disband at the slightest defeat, leaving their territory unoccupied (Game Over). Same thing for clans within a horde: not enough population = Game Over.
Like with any other government, Authority determines the loyalty of clan leaders or their independence desire and the ability to have tributaries. It is gained by battles or raids. Unlike other governments, it affects troops morale. Authority gains and losses are much higher than for other governments. Thus, great empires can form very quickly and disappear in a generation.
Clan leaders can, like tribal warriors, launch invasions that make them independent lords (mainly of eastern government) if they succeed. They can also, often at the cost of conversion, become vassals of a sedentary realm instead of their horde. They remain "nomadic" and landless. They can’t plunder their overlord and he can call them to arms. This makes the overlord more powerful militarily but it’s risky: if the nomadic guy has more Authority, he can revolt and conquer the lands of his former overlord to become sedentary and independent. The Samanids can testify to this painful experience...
It is harder to conquer and burn every holding like in CK2, so making non-nomadic realms tributaries might be a better idea… unless you want to found your own sedentary empire. Hordes get a casus belli to place a member of their dynasty on the throne of a large enough empire (more or less historically: Ilkhanid Persia and Yuan China). It is then possible to continue the game with that character. (Honestly, I would love to see this option not only for this case and crusades, but for any claim war for a landless member of the player’s family…)
Miscellaneous
Feedback: Characters souldn't teleport on the map.
- A system of perks for the dynasty, like bloodlines but more customizable.
- Naval combats
- Cadet branches: when a branche of the dynasty reigns for some generations without marriage with the main lineage, a new dynasty is founded. It is possible to continue playing with when all the lands or members of the old dynasty are lost, at the cost of a loss of score.
- A kind of “confederation” system between independent neighboring realms where one of the lords become the leader until death, giving an alliance with all members plus Authority boost. It could be used for the high kingship of Ireland, pre-Ottonian HRE and some Berber tribal confederations.
- Several starting dates, with possibility to continue the game after the end date.
- After a few centuries (number defined in game rules), a score panel pops up as not everyone plays until 1453. However, it does not prevent to continue the game.
- Late technologies unlocked usually after the end date of the game removes the distance penalty to Authority and allow colonization of Siberia, allowing the ahistorical World Conquest for those who want it.
- One of the best aspects of Paradox games is their moddability. Unfortunately, it is long and tedious to mod simple things. I mentioned at the beginning of the thread an event editor, but a landmass and story editor would also be an interesting feature. This can be integrated directly into the game in addition to the random & shattered world, with the possibility to export the result.
- Names and dynamic colors of titles:
As the titles take the name of the dynasty for some cultures in CK2, I thought of cases where the name or the color of a country could change:
Family Love and Rivalry (by @vyshan )
Crusader Kings is a game focused around the dynasty, yet there is little about dynastic rivalries and hatreds or alliances and loyalties. Think of House Neville and House Percy's rivalry during the War of the roses or the House of York and Lancaster.
There is however something similar for the Nomads, so what I am looking at is simple being able to have something similar to the Blood Brother and Blood Rival system that they have. You would be able to see what families you are rivals with and allied to as well as other rivalries and alliances in the Kingdom.
Also related to this would be an easier way to see which houses are the great houses in your kingdom. Not just to figure out which families have rivals and allies but also to properly reward them with titles and for marriages.
- Naval combats
- Cadet branches: when a branche of the dynasty reigns for some generations without marriage with the main lineage, a new dynasty is founded. It is possible to continue playing with when all the lands or members of the old dynasty are lost, at the cost of a loss of score.
- A kind of “confederation” system between independent neighboring realms where one of the lords become the leader until death, giving an alliance with all members plus Authority boost. It could be used for the high kingship of Ireland, pre-Ottonian HRE and some Berber tribal confederations.
- Several starting dates, with possibility to continue the game after the end date.
- After a few centuries (number defined in game rules), a score panel pops up as not everyone plays until 1453. However, it does not prevent to continue the game.
- Late technologies unlocked usually after the end date of the game removes the distance penalty to Authority and allow colonization of Siberia, allowing the ahistorical World Conquest for those who want it.
- One of the best aspects of Paradox games is their moddability. Unfortunately, it is long and tedious to mod simple things. I mentioned at the beginning of the thread an event editor, but a landmass and story editor would also be an interesting feature. This can be integrated directly into the game in addition to the random & shattered world, with the possibility to export the result.
- Names and dynamic colors of titles:
As the titles take the name of the dynasty for some cultures in CK2, I thought of cases where the name or the color of a country could change:
- After a tribal gavelkind succession, the various realms take the name of "Kingdom of [Ruler's first name]"
- When the ruler of a tribal or nomadic country has among his vassals all the lords of his own culture, the title becomes "[Name of the culture]s"
- With an imperial government, "[Title adjective] empire"
- If a feudal lord has two kingdom titles, "Kingdom of [Title1] and [Title2]"
- Non-nomadic Muslim empires always appear in a shade of green (and so if other religions conquer the Middle East, new states will not have the colors of Islam)
- Name changes at Third Crusade bookmark: "Kingdom of the Franks" becomes "Kingdom of France" and "(Catholic) Roman Empire" becomes "Holy Roman Empire"
Family Love and Rivalry (by @vyshan )
Crusader Kings is a game focused around the dynasty, yet there is little about dynastic rivalries and hatreds or alliances and loyalties. Think of House Neville and House Percy's rivalry during the War of the roses or the House of York and Lancaster.
There is however something similar for the Nomads, so what I am looking at is simple being able to have something similar to the Blood Brother and Blood Rival system that they have. You would be able to see what families you are rivals with and allied to as well as other rivalries and alliances in the Kingdom.
Also related to this would be an easier way to see which houses are the great houses in your kingdom. Not just to figure out which families have rivals and allies but also to properly reward them with titles and for marriages.
This is the end! I had to cut a lot of things less important or too detailed not to make the whole thing unreadable, but the overall idea is there.
What do you think? (if you have survived the reading so far...)
Last edited:
