[2.5] and Threat workaround

[grigorii]

Greetings, forum.

As 2.5 introduced threat and coalitions and also reduced all opinion modifiers, I wonder if it is possible to dominate the world.

I need advice: I want to get SPQR achievement for Byz and threat mechanics makes it difficult as I cann't fight coalition of all neighbours and waiting for threat reduction is too long, I won't manage it in time.

I have an idea: if I abandon title of Emperor and become powerful vassal kings of the Empire
1) Will I get threat and coalitions for external Holy wars?
2) Will it be difficult for me to return the throne of the Empire when I want to?

 

[Asiak]

Not if you play right.
I don't think people who you have a NAP or alliance with will enter coalitions.

And depending on the patch you have they did rework threat to make it more based on religious groups so Christians shouldn't be bothered by holy warring infidels.

But at higher levels of infamy (I think maybe 95% don't quote me) yes even your own religion will start to worry about your size and may enter a coalition even for a holy war.

 

[Robert II]

Not if you play right.
I don't think people who you have a NAP or alliance with will enter coalitions.

And depending on the patch you have they did rework threat to make it more based on religious groups so Christians shouldn't be bothered by holy warring infidels.

But at higher levels of infamy (I think maybe 95% don't quote me) yes even your own religion will start to worry about your size and may enter a coalition even for a holy war.

If he's going for SPQR he's going to be massive so 2 holy wars will put him at about 100%. 75% is own religion 95% is religious heads. Fuck infamy bad mechanic badly added.

 

[lucky7]

I'm doing the exact same thing, and I heartily recommend pushing right up to the limit of agression. From there, try to start and break betrothals with your next target: I'm doing this against Venice currently, and as an Emperor it shouldn't be hard to find people who want to get into your dynasty's collective pants.

 

[Asiak]

If he's going for SPQR he's going to be massive so 2 holy wars will put him at about 100%. 75% is own religion 95% is religious heads. Fuck infamy bad mechanic badly added.

I have not yet fully formed my opinion on infamy but I tend to lean toward it isn't as bad as the community makes it out to be.

We just have to grow up a little and not unrealistically expect to be able to sweep across a sizable chunk of Arabia within 2 decades it didn't happen. Yes two holy wars might cause a Muslim defensive pact to form. But the infamy will tick down and within 5 years he will be able to attack again. In the mean time he can focus elsewhere.

The community tends to hypocritically point to the a-historical nature of threat/coalitions while failing to realize that the levels of blob that we used to achieve were also a-historic. A blob the size of Europe (Roman empire size) never occurred in history during this time period therefore why would history even have a mechanism to deal with it.

Especially when the reason that the a-historical mega blob occurs is purely the player and his skill.

 

[sreckom92]

My first playthrough, when Conclave came out, was with the Doux of Antioch. I formed the Kingdom of Syria rather quickly, and took a bite of Kingdom of Jerusalem as well.
I got no infamy, neither did my liege: the Emperor of ERE.

And at that stage I had around 8 thousand troops, and a monthly income of ~20 gold per month due to Silk Road.
I was the most powerful vassal, and could've easily swayed other powerful characters in the Empire to join my cause. However, it took me almost no effort to become the Emperor.
There was previously a civil war in the Empire for Elective succession. I did not take any part in it, since I only cared about my little slice of Heaven.
Rebellion was a success, and the voting for the heir started. I nominated myself, but didn't really pay much attention to it. Few decades passed, and I saw that my character was second in line to inherit the throne, only lacking 2 votes.
It didn't take much to take the lead. I became the Emperor.
I had tons of gold, prestige and troops. Others probably voted for me because of that.
My point is:
You can expand wherever you want as a vassal, with no Threat (or Infamy, whatever it's called) generated. And then, as a very powerful vassal, you can quite easily dominate the political scene in your empire.
In my humble opinion, it is far more interesting when you play as a ruler from shadows, than as a recognized ruler.

 

[schondetta]

I found it to be excedingly difficult if not impossible to get the Trajan borders on non 769 bookmarks. Unless your getting super lucky with kingdom inheritance or something. Even I'm 769 your still doing a whole lot of" wait 40million hours for infamy to fall" time. you'll get bored and quit before you get half way

 

[Robert II]

I have not yet fully formed my opinion on infamy but I tend to lean toward it isn't as bad as the community makes it out to be.

We just have to grow up a little and not unrealistically expect to be able to sweep across a sizable chunk of Arabia within 2 decades it didn't happen. Yes two holy wars might cause a Muslim defensive pact to form. But the infamy will tick down and within 5 years he will be able to attack again. In the mean time he can focus elsewhere.

The community tends to hypocritically point to the a-historical nature of threat/coalitions while failing to realize that the levels of blob that we used to achieve were also a-historic. A blob the size of Europe (Roman empire size) never occurred in history during this time period therefore why would history even have a mechanism to deal with it.

Especially when the reason that the a-historical mega blob occurs is purely the player and his skill.

2 holy wars if he has reformed rome will push him above 75%. At Romes size each county is 15%. Even if he only takes 4 counties that's 60% so everyone except other Orthodox people and the Indians out of range will be at war at the same time against him. I have a restored Roman game I tried to take Krete and had a decade long war against all of the world except Scotland the ummayads and India.

I also hate how easy it is to blob and hold together a massive empire but coalitions are a horrible solution.

 

[Siggerad]

I have not yet fully formed my opinion on infamy but I tend to lean toward it isn't as bad as the community makes it out to be.

We just have to grow up a little and not unrealistically expect to be able to sweep across a sizable chunk of Arabia within 2 decades it didn't happen. Yes two holy wars might cause a Muslim defensive pact to form. But the infamy will tick down and within 5 years he will be able to attack again. In the mean time he can focus elsewhere.

The community tends to hypocritically point to the a-historical nature of threat/coalitions while failing to realize that the levels of blob that we used to achieve were also a-historic. A blob the size of Europe (Roman empire size) never occurred in history during this time period therefore why would history even have a mechanism to deal with it.

Especially when the reason that the a-historical mega blob occurs is purely the player and his skill.

50 infamy tick down 0.20 each month is not 5 years, why people is still defending something bad implemented, even the Twitch "wurst wedding wensday" developer ck2 video, they dont do nothing, they eat on the video don´t conquer anything, all is a minor vassal vs the other vassal of the HRE. Is like dont play a kingdom, play as a vassal, but if you get a kingdom title you are a BLOP so stop and for SPQR achievement be ready for a loooong loooong game with revolts each year, vassals immune to infamy continue conquering and that give you more infamy, your council dont let you go to war, your spymaster dont protect you and plot after plot to kill you ahhh maybe because is a powerfull vassal with 5 in intrigue and if is not in your council he go crazy.... and more.

 

[schondetta]

I have not yet fully formed my opinion on infamy but I tend to lean toward it isn't as bad as the community makes it out to be.

We just have to grow up a little and not unrealistically expect to be able to sweep across a sizable chunk of Arabia within 2 decades it didn't happen. Yes two holy wars might cause a Muslim defensive pact to form. But the infamy will tick down and within 5 years he will be able to attack again. In the mean time he can focus elsewhere.

The community tends to hypocritically point to the a-historical nature of threat/coalitions while failing to realize that the levels of blob that we used to achieve were also a-historic. A blob the size of Europe (Roman empire size) never occurred in history during this time period therefore why would history even have a mechanism to deal with it.

Especially when the reason that the a-historical mega blob occurs is purely the player and his skill.

The "historical accuracy" argument should never be used if it's compromises gameplay. Creating your own blob is part of the fantasy of the game.

 

[Dragatus]

Make a non-agression pact or even alliance with the biggest coalition members to remove them from the defensive pact, then start wars normally. If my experience with Crusades in 2.5.2 is anything to go by the coalition members will fail to group up properly and your doomstack can easily mop up armies sent by individual rulers between sieges.

Also, when you're fighting Muslims feel free to break truce. You'l get -25 opinion from all Muslim rulers each time you do that, but that's irrelevant since you were going to fight them anyway. You'll also lose a little over half your prestige each time you do it, but having more than 2000 prestige doesn't really do anything for you anyway.

 

[PK_AZ]

...is there any reason why you don't use alliances? Or ERE is just not blob enough?

 

[Asiak]

The "historical accuracy" argument should never be used if it's compromises gameplay. Creating your own blob is part of the fantasy of the game.

I agree, I think.

I've always found the idea that CK2 is a historical game in a way kind of laughable. It is a historic game in the masterfully hand crafted start dates. But what the community kind of kids itself with is that its still a historical game after you un-pause. Yes the core gamepaly mechanisms simulate history still but the minute you un-pause within the month you are playing an a-historical game.

 

[schondetta]

I agree, I think.

I've always found the idea that CK2 is a historical game in a way kind of laughable. It is a historic game in the masterfully hand crafted start dates. But what the community kind of kids itself with is that its still a historical game after you un-pause. Yes the core gamepaly mechanisms simulate history still but the minute you un-pause within the month you are playing an a-historical game.

I agree 100%. .let the game be mine not a recreation of real life. In my world. Alexios Komnenos and his successors pushed back Islam and dominated the Mediterranean. Later I'm going to pick up a historical fiction novel and indulge my lust for alternate Medeival histories.

 

[Asiak]

I agree 100%. .let the game be mine not a recreation of real life. In my world. Alexios Komnenos and his successors pushed back Islam and dominated the Mediterranean. Later I'm going to pick up a historical fiction novel and indulge my lust for alternate Medeival histories.

Or the incredibly good real stuff - http://www.amazon.com/Alexiad-Penguin-Classics-Anna-Komnene/dp/0140455272

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

But what the community kind of kids itself with is that its still a historical game after you un-pause. Yes the core gamepaly mechanisms simulate history still but the minute you un-pause within the month you are playing an a-historical game.

Can we stop writing this nonsense over and over again.
Historical doesn't imply railroading. If so, then it wouldn't be a game.
Don't mix request for plausibility and railroading, please.

What you actually mean is railroading and threat is not railroading, threat is stupid as it is right now.

Not that one can't beat the whole world, that's not the point dear devs and fans.
It gets tedious, but well..
The point is that it is not historical plausible or anyting and if it the original intention was only to stop the AI blobbing, then why not make it a hidden mechanic,
without direct defensive alliances though, but with higher attack chance or something.
Early world wars simply kill my believe.

Maybe realms far apart perceived some realm as something like a common enemy, but they for sure didn't create defensive-alliances and attack together.
As mentioned before, stopping blobbing through internal trouble would make more sense anyway and that was what people asked for, not threat.

Also, are you not part of the community....

 

[schondetta]

Or the incredibly good real stuff - http://www.amazon.com/Alexiad-Penguin-Classics-Anna-Komnene/dp/0140455272

Did her

Can we stop writing this nonsense over and over again.
Historical doesn't imply railroading. If so, then it wouldn't be a game.
Don't mix request for plausibility and railroading, please.

What you actually mean is railroading and threat is not railroading, threat is stupid as it is right now.

Maybe realms far apart perceived some realm as something like a common enemy, but they for sure didn't create defensive-alliances and attack together.
As mentioned before, stopping blobbing through internal trouble would make more sense anyway and that was what people asked for, not threat.

Also, are you not part of the community....

I'm not sure what your saying here with all the train references but I think we're all on the same page

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

I'm not sure what your saying here with all the train references but I think we're all on the same page

Well....historical plausibility is actually an argument against defensive-alliances..that was confusing i suppose.
I think the point we all share is that the threat gain system feels aribtrary and artificial and defensive alliances are unhistorical utter crap.
Or so...

 

[Asiak]

Can we stop writing this nonsense over and over again.
Historical doesn't imply railroading. If so, then it wouldn't be a game.
Don't mix request for plausibility and railroading, please.

What you actually mean is railroading and threat is not railroading, threat is stupid as it is right now.

Not that one can't beat the whole world, that's not the point dear devs and fans.
It gets tedious, but well..
The point is that it is not historical plausible or anyting and if it the original intention was only to stop the AI blobbing, then why not make it a hidden mechanic,
without direct defensive alliances though, but with higher attack chance or something.
Early world wars simply kills my believe.

Maybe realms far apart perceived some realm as something like a common enemy, but they for sure didn't create defensive-alliances and attack together.
As mentioned before, stopping blobbing through internal trouble would make more sense anyway and that was what people asked for, not threat.

Also, are you not part of the community....

You have no idea what I'm saying. And I hardly have any idea what your'e saying.

I do not imply railroading when I say historical.

Nor do I "actually mean railroading." You really shouldn't tell people what they actually mean, simply because you wish to argue some other point based on your complete misconception of what they said.

That post isn't directly about threat, or railroading. It is simply me stating that in my opinion this a "historical" world only for the first few moments and that shortly after un-pausing you are in a "a-historical" world.

Am I indirectly arguing that the argument of threats / infamy being historically accurate in this "a-historical" world is silly? Yea.

I mean what are you even referring to when you say railroading?

If your saying that we / the devs should not devote energy and programming to making sure William the Conquer always wins, or every character has a fair shot to win. Then we are in complete agreement there, this is not the the type of game that can be balanced like that.

 

[schondetta]

Well....historical plausibility is actually an argument against defensive-alliances..that was confusing i suppose.
I think the point we all share is that the threat gain system feels aribtrary and artificial and defensive alliances are unhistorical utter crap.
Or so...

Yes sir!☺