CK2Plus - Balance improvements, more kingdoms and empires, more ambitions and plots

[Wizzington]

Hello together.
I have a few questions/proposal to this outstanding mod.
First, I think the way elective successions are modeled could be tweaked a bit. This is especially important for the HRE. If a ruler gets elected unanimously (or nearly),, was appointed heir by the former ruler (especially if in the HRE the ruler was crowned emporer) and is the son of the former ruler (especially if the former ruler was a crowned emporer), shouldn't there be no real opposition to his rule (maybe from the people who voted for another canidate)?.
So, i prospose the following:
If a new elected ruler is chosen as heir by the old one, he gets a small relationship increase with all his new vassals.
Same if he is the legal son of the old ruler.
There should be a high relationship increase for the people who voted for him (after all, they voted for him to be their liege...).
On the other side, a decrease for people who voted for another canidate.

I think, this would a bit of flavor. Sorry, if this has been mentioned before and I just replied it.

P.S.: Why is the HRE not legal liege of Italy? They had the Iron Crown.

Are you talking about "short reign"? There is nothing I can do about that, its hardcoded.

Also the HRE might have had the Iron Crown but the Italians mostly viewed the HRE as a foreign aggressor, Italian Dukes did not get to vote for Emperor and the HRE progressively lost control over it during the CK2 era, so I feel it being De Jure HRE is inappropriate and leads to ahistorical results.

 

[Wizzington]

Right on. Thanks for the note.

Edit: As of 1.01 characters still don't receive the Jihad trait. And Jihads still fail before they succeed. I know to hold on to the territory for a day, so I get the successful Jihad bonus.

It wouldn't be bad for the Seljuks to start of as Sultans(Shahanshah) of Persia as well. I think this was one of many their styled titles. Then they'd have a solid base to work from, though it would be nice of later Mongols or Timurids could claim the title as well enforcing the Turkic-Persian culture that existed in the time frame.

Problem is if they start as ruler of Persia, every single vassal there desires Persia, so they collapse even faster.

 

[Wizzington]

Eh, the Pope regularly abandoned Rome to hostile powers during our period without any real consequences for the latter. I'm fine with the event firing and taking the excommunication, but both times I did it just came up again and again over the next five years until I gave in. I agree that taking Rome should have serious spiritual consequences, but it also shouldn't be a permanent ruination button for whoever chooses it. Maybe, after the request is made and rejected, an event chain can fire to hand over control of one of the counties where the pope has holdings (there are always a half-dozen) or script a crusade to retake Rome, upon which the victor will again be prompted with the event to restore Rome to the pope?

I'll see if I can't make something a bit more reasonable.

 

[makif130289]

Hi Wiz, I guess you will make your next release after the patch. I am playing as Emir of Mosul now and ı was a little bit disaapointed because I couldn't take jihad trait. I don't know much about CK2 modding, but if it is not very hard for you, could you describe me where should I change in objectives.txt to fix this ? I want to continue my game having the jihad trait.

 

[Andrzej I]

The Normands definitely have issues staying in power, but it seems to otherwise work as I intended it.

It does? I have never seen Harold Godwinson lose and not retain his Duke of Bedford title, which makes it seem like it is not working as intended. Not to mention, I have yet to see Harald Hardrada win, which strikes me as off... And the lack of staying power, I think, is in part due to there being so many Saxon lords retained due to the changes of invasion rules, which takes only (it seems) the top tier title, leaving the native lords still in power.

 

[Wizzington]

It does? I have never seen Harold Godwinson lose and not retain his Duke of Bedford title, which makes it seem like it is not working as intended. Not to mention, I have yet to see Harald Hardrada win, which strikes me as off...

It was working last time I tested for sure. I'll give it another check.

 

[jkkfreelance]

I must be doing somthing wrong, though i know not what as each time I start a game the new empires and kingdoms have a e- or k- in front of them, for example e-Spain. Any ideas?

 

[Wizzington]

I must be doing somthing wrong, though i know not what as each time I start a game the new empires and kingdoms have a e- or k- in front of them, for example e-Spain. Any ideas?

Seems like your localisation is busted. What language do you play in, and did you make any modifications of your own to the mod?

 

[jkkfreelance]

I'm playing with English and haven't made any changes afterward. I've installed mods before but I've deleted all the contents of the mod folder before installing CK2Plus, do the mods leave any pieces somewhere else?

 

[Wizzington]

I can only recommend reinstalling ck2+ and following the instructions carefully, as it seems you're missing at the very least the 0_titles.csv file

 

[jkkfreelance]

Huh, that sorted it.

 

[makif130289]

This is from Do you use "unortodox" tactics? thread I saw yesterday :

1)When i captured a new infidel settlement my king became the owner of the the county and all of the baronies included within the county.If i gave the county to a castilian catholic i would suffer from different culture, different religion and recently conquered penalties rendering the county practically useless for 30 years...but with all the infidels knocking on my door i was in desperate need for both money and levies.
So instead I gave the county including the vassals baronies to an appropriate infidel (say Andalusian Sunni). The first 2 penalties would go away (since the holder was of the same religion an culture as the population) and there was no risk for rebellions,then the infidel would give the lesser baronies to other people that shared the same religion and culture as him.The 80(130 if you chose someone who had the content trait) bonus in opinion by giving him the county and the baronies was enough to counter any penalty on opinion and ensured that he would accept a revocation at any time if need be.Within only 5 years the county would become fully functional.Then i could freely revoke the tittles(i have medium CA) and either giving the county to a new infidel or creating a proper catholic vassal.

At first, I thought it is gamey but then I decided that the problem is the lack of negative opinion bonus to vassals for granting land to infidels. Obviously, Christian vassals wouldhave been mad with their liege if he granted lands to infidels. May be, CK2+ mod could add such a negative bonus to remove this exploit.

 

[makif130289]

Right on. Thanks for the note.

Edit: As of 1.01 characters still don't receive the Jihad trait. And Jihads still fail before they succeed. I know to hold on to the territory for a day, so I get the successful Jihad bonus.

It wouldn't be bad for the Seljuks to start of as Sultans(Shahanshah) of Persia as well. I think this was one of many their styled titles. Then they'd have a solid base to work from, though it would be nice of later Mongols or Timurids could claim the title as well enforcing the Turkic-Persian culture that existed in the time frame.

What do you mean by "holding on to the territory for a day" ? I am trying to get +2 martial bonus from crusader trait as a muslim ruler but unable to get it although I successfully enforced my demands on jihad.

 

[Samefar]

Having to educate everyone of your dynasty is starting to get tedious. What would I need to change to revert back to the old system?

 

[Wizzington]

Having to educate everyone of your dynasty is starting to get tedious. What would I need to change to revert back to the old system?

There is nothing to change back. This part of education works exactly the same way as vanilla.

 

[James_Manring]

Tyranny upon death of Prisoners - "That's not fair!"

What is the intention of this event? It does not make sense to me. If someone dies under House Arrest you will incur the same amount of penalty as if someone died in the Oubliette. I believe a better way to model this is to have Tyranny based on the imprisonment type flag, not the position of being imprisoned.

Suggested Examples:

House Arrest = -0 Tyranny
Dungeon = -10 Tyranny
Oubliette = -20 Tyranny

After all, house arrest is nothing compared to being thrown in a cold, dark, and dirty hole to starve to death once the rats are all eaten.

Additionally, if someone dies under house arrest after having rebelled 3 times in their life it does not even remotely make sense that you should incur a penalty. That is not just "unfair", but insane. Being that kind to someone that is an incredibly obvious treasonous traitor is the exact opposite of Tyranny. In fact this is where I make my next suggestion.

Suggestion 2:

House Arrest + Traitor = +10 Demos or Democrat (Opposite of Tyrant, also ancient term not modern so you might want to choose something else to be less confusing to others)

Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as, "one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics—against his own people as well as others".

 

[Hiems]

Playing with the Dregot dinasty. At first I thought of making the Latin Empire and going for the holy land but the Byzzies and Shia got too strong, so I turned to Iberia because the Christians lost there. My question is how big I can get and still have peacefull successions. Because with this size whenever my king dies I have to fight a real long succession war; in one of them almost every vassal of mine rebeled and I had to beat them using only my troops from Sicily. These war almost always results in me keeping my dukes in jail 'till they die. I had to choose whether forming the kingdoms and getting "desires X kingdom" or "not de jure vassal" so I created all possible kingdoms.

Edit: been thinking about handing some kingdoms to relatives, so they could always be my allies. Is this worth doing?

 

[Samefar]

There is nothing to change back. This part of education works exactly the same way as vanilla.

I'm talking about kinsmen, not close family. You never could chose to educate kinsmen of your family, they did it for you.

 

[Wizzington]

Tyranny upon death of Prisoners - "That's not fair!"

What is the intention of this event? It does not make sense to me. If someone dies under House Arrest you will incur the same amount of penalty as if someone died in the Oubliette. I believe a better way to model this is to have Tyranny based on the imprisonment type flag, not the position of being imprisoned.

Suggested Examples:

House Arrest = -0 Tyranny
Dungeon = -10 Tyranny
Oubliette = -20 Tyranny

After all, house arrest is nothing compared to being thrown in a cold, dark, and dirty hole to starve to death once the rats are all eaten.

Additionally, if someone dies under house arrest after having rebelled 3 times in their life it does not even remotely make sense that you should incur a penalty. That is not just "unfair", but insane. Being that kind to someone that is an incredibly obvious treasonous traitor is the exact opposite of Tyranny. In fact this is where I make my next suggestion.

Suggestion 2:

House Arrest + Traitor = +10 Demos or Democrat (Opposite of Tyrant, also ancient term not modern so you might want to choose something else to be less confusing to others)

Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as, "one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics—against his own people as well as others".

It won't happen for house arrest and it only happens if the prisoner dies as a result of falling ill in the dungeon. You even get an event telling you your prisoner is ill that allows you to put them in house arrest.

 

[Nitrousoxide]

So it seems the problems people have with the holy war implementation you developed are two fold:

1: It's not conducive to roleplaying because a crusader will have negative piety while a murdering thug who cares nothing about the Pope will have positive piety.

2: It screws up certain mechanics like dealing with the pope (a crusader can't call on the Pope for any of those diplomacy actions) and depresses the dynasty score for those who engage in holy wars.

However, as a mechanic to prevent excessive use of holy wars, your implementation is pretty good, so mechanically it's good at preventing what it aims at doing. Now I have a possible solution if the constraints of modding allow it which would retain the beneficial slowing of the use the CB while avoiding the pitfalls.

Establish an increasing check for piety for a ruler to use the holy war CB, but rather the deducting the 100 to 250 piety for a holy war, you simply increase the cost of the next holy war. Here's a practical example:

All numbers assume that the holy war is for an adjacent county.
Holy war 1: The game checks to see if the ruler has AT LEAST 100 piety. If he does then he can declare war using that CB. No piety is deducted when he declares war.
Holy war 2: The game checks to see if the ruler has AT LEAST 200 piety. If he does than he can declare war using that CB. No piety is deducted when he declares war.
Holy war 3: The game checks to see if the ruler has AT LEAST 300 piety, and so on

With this, if it can be implemented, you could retain the effective piety requirement for each additional holy war, while not adversely affecting dynasty score, or hurting other gameplay mechanics like interactions with the pope. From a roleplaying perspective you also don't end up with defenders of the faith with negative piety and rutheless atheists with positive piety. It's also easy to convey to the player and can be summed up with one sentence, "Each holy war requires that you have 100 more piety than you did for the last."

Would something like this be possible to implement?