CK 1.06 - Initial Thoughts Thread

[Damocles]

Wow. It's amazing how you think about this for so long, then when your opinion is actually asked for, you blank out!

I'd like to see Battle lethality increased, with Martial playing a key role in it.

Mostly, I would like to see the Crusades actually work. I.E, that somehow, Muslims could identify recently lost provinces and retake them, after someone's new marshal forms a county that is at peace.

I'd like to see vassals have to automatically join a war in order to contribute troops when requested, mostly.

 

[unmerged(5822)]

Spruce, to your second point:

Never less than 51%! How can you usurp a title you don't even own the land to do it? 40% is really extremly low. Think of that, when the Duke of Toulouse marries the daughter of the Duke of Poitou he would be able to usurp France! Would you like to see such lands? If it's too easy to claim in your opinion play Very Hard. There it would cost you more than 10 000 prestige to claim a title. With 51%, 60% and 66% I could live, but never less than 50%.

As long as usurping only gives a claim, even 33% might make sense - all usurping does is to establish you as a serious pretender to the throne.

IMO, though, the 66% requirement should instead translate to getting the title instead of a claim to it. If nobody was holding the title, that'd be enough to create it - and it's quite possible that it's cheaper at that point to just grab the counties and make the title-holder lose all his land, thus destroying his title and allowing you to re-create it and gain prestige at the same time.

 

[unmerged(48100)]

As long as usurping only gives a claim, even 33% might make sense - all usurping does is to establish you as a serious pretender to the throne.

IMO, though, the 66% requirement should instead translate to getting the title instead of a claim to it. If nobody was holding the title, that'd be enough to create it - and it's quite possible that it's cheaper at that point to just grab the counties and make the title-holder lose all his land, thus destroying his title and allowing you to re-create it and gain prestige at the same time.

I can agree with that. But I can't see why you should get a free claim on a title you hold so few lands. But usurping as it is now giving you the title is very good to me, as long as the old holder keeps a claim.

 

[Duuk]

Wow. It's amazing how you think about this for so long, then when your opinion is actually asked for, you blank out!

I'd like to see Battle lethality increased, with Martial playing a key role in it.

Mostly, I would like to see the Crusades actually work. I.E, that somehow, Muslims could identify recently lost provinces and retake them, after someone's new marshal forms a county that is at peace.

I'd like to see vassals have to automatically join a war in order to contribute troops when requested, mostly.

Wow. How did I forget the "copy wars from the liege" rule for new counties? Thanks for reminding me.

Now there are _2_ code changes I want for a mythical 1.06

 

[Spruce]

As long as usurping only gives a claim, even 33% might make sense - all usurping does is to establish you as a serious pretender to the throne.

IMO, though, the 66% requirement should instead translate to getting the title instead of a claim to it. If nobody was holding the title, that'd be enough to create it - and it's quite possible that it's cheaper at that point to just grab the counties and make the title-holder lose all his land, thus destroying his title and allowing you to re-create it and gain prestige at the same time.

just my toughts, an usurper is only a pretender ... in my last game I controlled 50% of the lands of the Serbia title. At least it should be possible to usurp that title !

in the current condition - usurping is so rare - it doesn't bring much fun to the game. There's way too much prestige accruement - and titles are just grabbed ...

 

[queenimperiale]

Claims

I think there should be a better system for claims. I think there should be an option to drop certain claims, which in turn would improve loyalty (if a vassal) or relations (if a foreign noble). Also, I think there should be a difference between a legitimate claim and one forged. If there is a legitimate claim (they are related through a close relative) then it should just cost prestige. If you have to make one up, then there should be a large sum of money and a large sum of prestige.

The only problem I could see arising is that I'm not sure if the game recognizes who is a close relative and who isn't.

 

[Wessel]

Matchmaker

This proposal may not be suitable for 1.06 - but maybe it could be usefull for CK2.

How about solving the Kwisatz Haderach problem by making it possible to use matchmakers in search of a bride or a husband. By 1600 professional matchmakers were common and respected. Earlier in 1442 The Land Acts of the swedish King Kristoffer mentioned matchmakers http://www.tkukoulu.fi/tiimalasi/en/en-lakitekstit.html. Earlier than that matchmaking was a job for the parents or an elder from the family.

So maybe professional matchmaking is not the way to do it, but it would be nice to be able to appoint an elderly member of the court to be the matchmaker of a young man or woman. After a while a popup will present a list of candidates based on the matchmakers diplomacy-skill, intrigue-skill and maybe the amount of money given to travel and gifts. A choice can then be made based on the list or the list can discarted. Maybe another lord is disapointed that his daughter was not selected (how does he react to that) ... or the matchmaker may end up being stressed by the fact that his or her lord discarted the work.

 

[unmerged(32372)]

Can the IA assassinate without prior human attempt?

If not, I'd like it could do it. I'm not asking Byzantion Dagger Massacre, as seen in Release Candidates, but some tweaking would be interesting.

 

[Ganso]

This proposal may not be suitable for 1.06 - but maybe it could be usefull for CK2.

How about solving the Kwisatz Haderach problem by making it possible to use matchmakers in search of a bride or a husband.

That has got to be THE best metaphor i've seen in a while. And it actually makes sense since the whole "breeding program" we are faced with brings to mind the Bene Gesserit.

Back to topic,

My one request is: take notes from the amazing job so far and gives us CK2. Better graphics, better coding, etc... please?

Cheers

 

[Mus]

This proposal may not be suitable for 1.06 - but maybe it could be usefull for CK2.

How about solving the Kwisatz Haderach problem by making it possible to use matchmakers in search of a bride or a husband. By 1600 professional matchmakers were common and respected. Earlier in 1442 The Land Acts of the swedish King Kristoffer mentioned matchmakers http://www.tkukoulu.fi/tiimalasi/en/en-lakitekstit.html. Earlier than that matchmaking was a job for the parents or an elder from the family.

So maybe professional matchmaking is not the way to do it, but it would be nice to be able to appoint an elderly member of the court to be the matchmaker of a young man or woman. After a while a popup will present a list of candidates based on the matchmakers diplomacy-skill, intrigue-skill and maybe the amount of money given to travel and gifts. A choice can then be made based on the list or the list can discarted. Maybe another lord is disapointed that his daughter was not selected (how does he react to that) ... or the matchmaker may end up being stressed by the fact that his or her lord discarted the work.

Awesome idea!!!

 

[unmerged(53997)]

Awesome idea!!!

While it's a nice idea, it's also a major exploit, it was never that easy to find the "ideal" bride... and in that time most marriages at tat level were quite diplomatic. In fact we should have events where heirs want to marry brides who have little to offer both in claims or in traits.

 

[Drakken]

And don't forget the Habsburg empire of Austria/Hungary/Bohemia/Castille/Aragon/Naples/Croatia/Burgundy... which didn't survive Charles V.

Other examples are the union of Spain+Portugal from 1580-1640, and the Kalmar union from 1397–1520.

Indeed.

Were they under Gavelkind succession law? Nope, they were are salic or semi-salic. That said, what did Charles do before abdicating? That's right, Charles shared his crowns between his son Philip for Spain and his brother Maximillian for the Empire. This is an imperial Gavelkind in all but name. And let's not even talk of Portugal, which is to be honest a mere successful revolt.

If I were a cadet when my father had two or more crowns I would certainly bug the hell out of him for a kind of Gavelkind to gain a title of King, even if it's a less prestigious title. And if I were a father, it would make perfectly sense, especially if it was not that easy to manage in the first place.

However, even with two kingdoms your eldest son should be able to militate for his own title of King. For example, it is the reason why Henri III was sent off to be King of Poland and why Philippe IV of France gave the crown of Navarra to his first son Louis instead of merely incorporating it into the French crown.

So, Phoenix' proposition here is quite logical. Everybody hates Gavelkind because it is inherently unstable and undesirable, and rightly so. But this succession law needs to be revigorated in the gameplay as the boogeyman it can be. Also, your younger sons do not share the same interests as the player, so they should indeed whine A LOT to ask for a Gavelkind share to their advantage.

D.

 

[Drakken]

While it's a nice idea, it's also a major exploit, it was never that easy to find the "ideal" bride... and in that time most marriages at tat level were quite diplomatic. In fact we should have events where heirs want to marry brides who have little to offer both in claims or in traits.

No one forces the matchmaker to find the "ideal" bride... in fact they found brides that suited their own interests.

The bride proposed could have pneumonia and be a total idiot, but to the matchmaker she would be ideal because she is a daughter of Duke of xyz...

D.

 

[Drakken]

As another suggestion, I would like that the monthly prestige increase includes all counts, dukes, and kings with the same last name as the player's character, even when they are independent.

The logic here is that the more members of your lineage own titles, the more prestigious the dynasty is throughout Europe. That would also give an incentive for the player to strive to place its family members first, even when they would be independent lords later.

D.

 

[Garbon]

So, Phoenix' proposition here is quite logical. Everybody hates Gavelkind because it is inherently unstable and undesirable, and rightly so. But this succession law needs to be revigorated in the gameplay as the boogeyman it can be. Also, your younger sons do not share the same interests as the player, so they should indeed whine A LOT to ask for a Gavelkind share to their advantage.

D.

Should the primary choice be to say yes?

 

[Duuk]

Should the primary choice be to say yes?

No. The AI should elect to maintain their Kingdom. But it should give interesting claims to the sons, reduce vassal loyalty (disloyal vassals lining up behind the Pretender), etc

 

[Drakken]

Should the primary choice be to say yes?

It should be the secondary choice. Renouncing salic or semi-salic and changing the fundamental laws of the realm is clearly disadvantageous for the player. So the first should be "no, wait your turn".

- Normally, there should be three choices, IMHO:

a) Statu quo, with some penalties
b) Statu quo, but attribute a crown to the son
c) Change into Gavelkind.

- One thing we could do would be perhaps to allow some triggers to sons of ruler to "force the deal". In that case, with the triggers, the choice would be:

a) Statu quo, but attribute a crown to the son
b) Change into Gavelkind.

- Only if the ruler is weak and his sons/brothers are much stronger than him it should be the only choice available. We could have a "Lion in Winter" event in which the sons band together and rebel against their father to split his realm.

a) Change into Gavelkind.
b) Try to say no and risk that the father and/or sons lose their lives

D.

 

[unmerged(48100)]

A few points that would make this really annoying.

The AI does work like a country, plus it fights the player most. Means that the will claim your land although you gave them theirs.

There is no relation system. That's really a problem, as we can't say 'I give you some land and then we help each other'. The game makes no difference between relatives, and you have no control over non-vassals. Your influence on your neighbour in CK is like none. You can fight them, yes. You can make alliances. But that's it. You can't warn them, you can't tell them that you gave them land and can take it back too. There the system is really weak, and we can only hope for a better version with relations. But that won't be possible for CK and has to be part of CK2 I guess.

Besides, the gavelkind doesn't really work. If I give a son a Kingdom title, he will have it but I will keep the vassals. And he will also get titles that are not in the same area. What do I do with a King of Jerusalem that has lands in Saxony etc.? There it would be better you are forced to choose between your titles and then give some up. Like there is a point you have to give up a Kingdom title and some Duchies and you can choose personally which you give up. Then you would give him the lands in Jerusalem and keep your own land free of them.

And what I really would like to see is that you can give up vassals to one. Not only the titles, but also the vassals you have. I mean you say I don't like this vassal in my realm, but he is not part of the title I give away. Then there should be a possibility to do that. Like in my AAR: I have given away Jerusalem to my son, but Aleppo is still part of my realm because it is part of Syria and I don't have the title. I can't get it either, since the Seljuks own extremly much land. So this vassal no stays under me and not my son, although I don't want him to be part of my realm. Also he doesn't declare independence, which means I have to wait years to get rid of him. If I may choose to give him away I wouldn't have this problem.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

It should be the secondary choice. Renouncing salic or semi-salic and changing the fundamental laws of the realm is clearly disadvantageous for the player. So the first should be "no, wait your turn".

- Normally, there should be three choices, IMHO:

a) Statu quo, with some penalties
b) Statu quo, but attribute a crown to the son
c) Change into Gavelkind.

- One thing we could do would be perhaps to allow some triggers to sons of ruler to "force the deal". In that case, with the triggers, the choice would be:

a) Statu quo, but attribute a crown to the son
b) Change into Gavelkind.

- Only if the ruler is weak and his sons/brothers are much stronger than him it should be the only choice available. We could have a "Lion in Winter" event in which the sons band together and rebel against their father to split his realm.

a) Change into Gavelkind.
b) Try to say no and risk that the father and/or sons lose their lives

D.

Well remaining the status quo obviously isn't going to help that son's loyalty, but i'm thinking if you refuse to change to gavelkind there could be nome nasty consiquences and not all of them noticable right away.

Really there should be nasty consiquences for every law, but gavelkind doesn't need many because its conqisqunces aren't really that favorable ever.

 

[unmerged(12299)]

For the matchmaker can the matchmaker be made to pick brides who are closer to his political leaning or trait. Matchmaker being a Frenchman will try and find a bride in France first. If the matchmaker is evil or a conniver he will try and find a bride closer to those traits.