Ck2+ - Faction System Flawed?

[FizCap]

I kind of like this faction system better than vanila's even though they both suck. This faction system is based on luck, if you have the traits your vassals like, or if you have a lot of prestige. But the biggest flaw with it is, you can have 1 ruler and never have a revolt because they all love you, then as soon as your ruler dies, you have every vassal in the kingdom revolt against you, it's like, hurr durr this guy hasn't ruled for 20 years lets all hate him and after he's been a king for 20 years, lets love him. It's just like, wtf, it needs to be fixed, either the member count is too high or their expectation for a ruler is too high.

It's like they love the old ruler so much they're not going to revolt, but as soon as he dies they're going to destroy the kingdom because they don't like that the son hasn't ruled for 20 years and destroy the king's ambition.

 

[KermitxTheFrog]

I know what you mean one time the ck2+ factions overthrew me and put my son and heir on the throne and then two years later overthrew my son and put me back on the throne and it was the SAME PEOPLE who just overthrew me

 

[Anastasius]

I know what you mean one time the ck2+ factions overthrew me and put my son and heir on the throne and then two years later overthrew my son and put me back on the throne and it was the SAME PEOPLE who just overthrew me

Situations like that actually played down in history.

 

[KermitxTheFrog]

Situations like that actually played down in history.

it gets ridiculous when you consider that around 40,000 soldier died in the first war and then 30,000 died in the second war for virtually no gain at all I guess the dukes just like depopulating the country

 

[FizCap]

it gets ridiculous when you consider that around 40,000 soldier died in the first war and then 30,000 died in the second war for virtually no gain at all I guess the dukes just like depopulating the country

Yea, there's no population count though, so it's just free soldiers come out of nowhere to fight for you , I have a lot of kings, and I started killing them if they turned out rebellious and it didn't even change the factions mood at all, so there's no way to counter their rebellious mood without schemeing lol, just have to get lucky like I did, 250% of the liege faction went rebellious, didn't revolt for like 10 years then they went unhappy and I went safe base but it made me bankrupt after I sent so many gifts and gave away lands that are not in their de jure.

 

[pjnlsn]

the problems the OP describes are in the original faction system too, though - overall i've found the ck2+ factions to be far less repetitive and random. to manage them correctly, you need to spam all the decisions that improve faction moods, bribe the leaders, etc

 

[FizCap]

the problems the OP describes are in the original faction system too, though - overall i've found the ck2+ factions to be far less repetitive and random. to manage them correctly, you need to spam all the decisions that improve faction moods, bribe the leaders, etc

There's one problem with that, if you play a small country, you'll barely get an income, and the faction mood also goes crappy if the faction members are low too, you can have the leader with a 100 relation and he'll still revolt if all the members have like -10 relations.

 

[Minrog]

There's one problem with that, if you play a small country, you'll barely get an income, and the faction mood also goes crappy if the faction members are low too, you can have the leader with a 100 relation and he'll still revolt if all the members have like -10 relations.

With a small realm you should barely have any vassals though, Barons/Bishops/Mayors can't join factions. With Legalism 3 you can have 5 Counties owned directly. In Sicily (a fairly small Kingdom) you can own Siracusa, Palermo, Messina, Naples, and maybe Amalfi (the last province is a lesser evil option). That leaves a couple of Dukes if you want them and a few Counts, and you could probably defeat those even if they all rise up at the same time. Just make sure to fill your demesne counties all the way up to their 5 or 6 holding limits..

 

[Gagik]

it gets ridiculous when you consider that around 40,000 soldier died in the first war and then 30,000 died in the second war for virtually no gain at all I guess the dukes just like depopulating the country

This is how it was i history, except in history it was even more harder and more ridiculous. ITs natural that they would revolt, who would stand against strong old king, but his new successor is something far less dangerous and weaker.

It's like they love the old ruler so much they're not going to revolt, but as soon as he dies they're going to destroy the kingdom because they don't like that the son hasn't ruled for 20 years and destroy the king's ambition.

For me its perfectly logical. In real life who would care about kingdom or soem kigns ambition, everyone cares usually only about themselves. So old king is too strong to rebel against him, but his son is much easier target.

To be honest I think even in CK2+ the faction system is too easy to handle right now, even in small realms (when u have also efficent demesne bonuses and honorary titles for each vassal to give) and especially with big realms. There are not many enough separatists (not only vassals with different culture should seek for independence, but also those from not - de jure area, and thats happening way too rarely), and opinion maluses are too low in my opinion, especially "title claimant" malus (-20 is too litle), "wants / desires to control county / duchy / kingdom" (-10 is way too litle).

 

[Minrog]

For me its perfectly logical. In real life who would care about kingdom or soem kigns ambition, everyone cares usually only about themselves. So old king is too strong to rebel against him, but his son is much easier target.

If the successor is an adult and legitimate the chance of a revolution should be way lower. Especially if he's been co-ruling with his aging father for a while. It isn't that the Dukes wouldn't be willing to pursue a policy against him that furthers their ambition, just that there would be no support among the military for a civil war. That's why they turn to plots.

It's pretty cynical to assume that they wouldn't place the survival of their people over their personal gain, I don't think I buy it. If your country is getting crushed by foreigners there can't be that many sell outs, especially if you are fighting religious enemies. OTOH, the Great Kings in history placed their people's welfare above their own, so maybe fidelity is the anomaly.

 

[Gagik]

It's pretty cynical to assume that they wouldn't place the survival of their people over their personal gain, I don't think I buy it. If your country is getting crushed by foreigner's there can't be that many sell outs, especially if you are fighting religious enemies. OTOH, the Great Kings in history placed their people's welfare above their own, so maybe fidelity is the anomaly.

Sure thats why I wrote usually. On the other hand there wouldnt be so many patriots either, history is not only full of Great Kings, but also of many civil war starters and those who caused their kingdoms fall, because of their personal desires, or even patriotic desires - so that they thought they knew better how to protect the realm, or they supported someone who they thought will be a better defender od the realm. Its not only about personal gain, in medieval times a ruler was a basic part of realm's stability or instability, and there were always many poeple who were for one or another (patriotic feelings, desire for personal gains if ruler is weak), not to mention when we assume that not always people make logical and realistic decisions (for example wasting armies for civil wars is not a logical idea, still many wars has been waged like this in medieval times). And also there were many cases where next rulers had to abdicate, because they were unable (or were seen as such) to protect the country against foreign threat (Georgian Kings for example). History of Byzantine Empire or Kingdom of Jerusalem is also a good example of choosing between the sake of the country / personal interests.

You are right we cant assume that everyone would be cynical and eager only for personal gain, but we cant also create a happy world where everyone is unified for the sake of everyone's safety and prosperity. I wouldn't give any handicaps on this matter, since its not like one or other situation would happen more likely. But I remember that a while ago, there was an interesting talk about adding traits that would describe character's way of thinking - for example if they would be egoistic, altruistic, patriotic, envious, loyal, unfaithfull etc. Maybe that would be the solution?

 

[Minrog]

That or a shift away from the generic factions. People are conservative, if the new guy got put into place through "proper" succession they aren't going to rise up against him. Unless he makes drastic policy changes or raises their taxes. It's sort of unbelievable that there isn't a Loyalist faction operating in support of the King. Yes, for their own gain, but also to preserve the equilibrium in the Kingdom; an equilibrium that benefits them. Not everyone wants to be a top level dictator - most people are happy with piles of cash, good looking girls, a nice domicile and respect from their peers. Maybe some power as long as it doesn't require too much maintenance.

Things like the War of the Roses are caused when the succession gets broken. It's cases like this I'd like to see the faction system used for. Rather than "Lord Crowley for King" it should be "House of Lancaster for England".

 

[yourworstnightm]

It's still better than vanilla factions. But certainly not perfect.

 

[pjnlsn]

look to the GoT mod for good loyalist factions

 

[KermitxTheFrog]

This is how it was i history, except in history it was even more harder and more ridiculous. ITs natural that they would revolt, who would stand against strong old king, but his new successor is something far less dangerous and weaker.




For me its perfectly logical. In real life who would care about kingdom or soem kigns ambition, everyone cares usually only about themselves. So old king is too strong to rebel against him, but his son is much easier target.

To be honest I think even in CK2+ the faction system is too easy to handle right now, even in small realms (when u have also efficent demesne bonuses and honorary titles for each vassal to give) and especially with big realms. There are not many enough separatists (not only vassals with different culture should seek for independence, but also those from not - de jure area, and thats happening way too rarely), and opinion maluses are too low in my opinion, especially "title claimant" malus (-20 is too litle), "wants / desires to control county / duchy / kingdom" (-10 is way too litle).

yea it makes sense that they would want the weaker son on the throne but immediately after they overthrew the strong king they launched a revolt against the son to put the strong king back on the throne because he was a better king

 

[Gagik]

That or a shift away from the generic factions. People are conservative, if the new guy got put into place through "proper" succession they aren't going to rise up against him. Unless he makes drastic policy changes or raises their taxes. It's sort of unbelievable that there isn't a Loyalist faction operating in support of the King. Yes, for their own gain, but also to preserve the equilibrium in the Kingdom; an equilibrium that benefits them. Not everyone wants to be a top level dictator - most people are happy with piles of cash, good looking girls, a nice domicile and respect from their peers. Maybe some power as long as it doesn't require too much maintenance.

Things like the War of the Roses are caused when the succession gets broken. It's cases like this I'd like to see the faction system used for. Rather than "Lord Crowley for King" it should be "House of Lancaster for England".

You are right but again, we can't say that for example all people are conservative, not to mention that "proper" succession doesnt mean that there will be no rebelion, there were no standards, sure there were peacefull successions but there also were civil wars, EVEN if target dynasty ruled a long time, or the new successor wasnt any kind of maniac / butcher / inbred etc. I mean we cant automatically assume that there will be much lower chance of rebelion, there are too many things influencing themselves to just say that all will go swiftly just because heir is normal and comes from a good dynasty. What about influence of his supporters, brothers, kinsmen etc? I wouldnt give any handicaps into this mechanics, that would make realms too stable imo. I wouldnt also create any loyalist factions, there is already rebel / loyalist mechanics which increases the supoport of those who wont join the rebelion. Loyalist in fact exist in this game, we can assume that everyone who wont join rebelion is a royalist, creating a faction for them, with inability to join more than faction, would create a stable big group of supporters (human players would do that for sure) which would eliminate any inner threat.

 

[pjnlsn]

You are right but again, we can't say that for example all people are conservative, not to mention that "proper" succession doesnt mean that there will be no rebelion, there were no standards, sure there were peacefull successions but there also were civil wars, EVEN if target dynasty ruled a long time, or the new successor wasnt any kind of maniac / butcher / inbred etc. I mean we cant automatically assume that there will be much lower chance of rebelion, there are too many things influencing themselves to just say that all will go swiftly just because heir is normal and comes from a good dynasty. What about influence of his supporters, brothers, kinsmen etc? I wouldnt give any handicaps into this mechanics, that would make realms too stable imo. I wouldnt also create any loyalist factions, there is already rebel / loyalist mechanics which increases the supoport of those who wont join the rebelion. Loyalist in fact exist in this game, we can assume that everyone who wont join rebelion is a royalist, creating a faction for them, with inability to join more than faction, would create a stable big group of supporters (human players would do that for sure) which would eliminate any inner threat.

I don't think it's important to prevent realms from being too stable - a well managed realm *will* be stable. I would rather like it to be more realistic, i.e. not a succession crisis after the death of every single monarch ever.

 

[RedRooster81]

Well, I would recommend historical sorts of factions, which EU: Rome did have. Surrounding particular claimants, as well as which 'estate' you belong to. So there should be a faction for the crown prince and once he is king he has to make certain adjustments.

The short reign/long reign penalty/bonus situation is one of my pet peeves in the game. It should go or at least be heavily curtailed. But replacing it would be a lot of work.

 

[Minrog]

You are right but again, we can't say that for example all people are conservative, not to mention that "proper" succession doesnt mean that there will be no rebelion, there were no standards, sure there were peacefull successions but there also were civil wars, EVEN if target dynasty ruled a long time, or the new successor wasnt any kind of maniac / butcher / inbred etc. I mean we cant automatically assume that there will be much lower chance of rebelion, there are too many things influencing themselves to just say that all will go swiftly just because heir is normal and comes from a good dynasty. What about influence of his supporters, brothers, kinsmen etc? I wouldnt give any handicaps into this mechanics, that would make realms too stable imo. I wouldnt also create any loyalist factions, there is already rebel / loyalist mechanics which increases the supoport of those who wont join the rebelion. Loyalist in fact exist in this game, we can assume that everyone who wont join rebelion is a royalist, creating a faction for them, with inability to join more than faction, would create a stable big group of supporters (human players would do that for sure) which would eliminate any inner threat.

For me it's a question about the kind of wars that pop up, and how often the different types of wars happen.

Having a full scale civil war is actually quite a rare event in history. You can look at the War of the Roses as one example, though most of them have a similar beginning. Guy with claims on King and power (titles) with which to do something about it gets banished. Guy flees to a friendly foreign court who already has a grudge. Guy comes back with army and gets a pack of lesser nobles to support him as a usurper. A generation later the nobility rises up against him to put the succession back the way it is supposed to be.

The first war (Henry's invasion) was less of a civil war and more of an Adventurer Conquest. I think these should be more likely and also able to bring in the King's Vassals as allies (as happened with Henry in 1399). The civil war took a long time to get going, and didn't start until the ruler was an infant.

I don't think automatic civil wars on new ruler is a good way to destabilize realms. In fact, I think it's having the opposite effect by allowing a bunch a new Dukes and Counts to be created; allowing 40 year peaceful reigns. The anti-blob mechanism needs to be something else imo.

 

[HawkSeraph]

As it is right now, you have a revolt almost every ruler change. Then you put that revolt down. Then you deal with regaining the land you lost during the rebellion. Then you can go back to roflstomping the AI. Until your next succession where everyone hates you, again. It's not even the tediousness that annoys me so much, but rather the predictiveness. I just spent 1k gold in bribes and a full suite of honorary titles on the most powerful men in my empire, and still everyone but one rebelled, and the loyal guy didn't even like me that much. If someone has an opinion of 96 of me, why the fuck would he rebel?