CK2Plus - Suggestion Thread

[Tatterhood]

But then it would cause nomadic agitation in any tribal province which changed hands (this is already a problem in 'feudal->tribal' mode where theocracies can sometime end up with only a temple holding and spawn random nomads in western europe if the province is conquered?).

Though personally I wouldn't be sad to see Nomad agitation go.

Nomad agitation only happens when non-nomads conquer a province from nomads, I thought? Not sure how it would differ from the current system in that regard, afaik you can already get the issue of "nomads conquer a tribal province, tribe conquers it back and gets agitation".

If I'm reading the wiki right, the conditions for nomad agitation are specifically the lack of castle or city holdings, not merely the number of holdings, so I don't know that that define has any effect on it. The comment in defines.lua implies that it only affects whether vassal clans can demand the province.

 

[taxintoxin]

Nomad agitation only happens when non-nomads conquer a province from nomads, I thought?

Nope. I'm not entirely sure on the mechanics myself, other than that it's tied to culture (group?) and can be triggered by conquest of a holding with a bishopric with no castle/city, but other than that?

There are no nomads anywhere else on the continent

 

[Isinfier]

Norse-Gaels?

 

[BrokenSky]

Norse-Gaels?

Isn't that already in? Gallawa culture or something like that, in the celtic culture group?

 

[Isinfier]

Isn't that already in? Gallawa culture or something like that, in the celtic culture group?

Is it? Bugger, I haven't seen it yet. I haven't had a melting pot event for it, either...

Guess I'll have to check the files and see what the trigger is.

 

[Tatterhood]

Is it? Bugger, I haven't seen it yet. I haven't had a melting pot event for it, either...

Guess I'll have to check the files and see what the trigger is.

I went to check and the requirements are...strange. It requires a North Germanic ruler with a Pictish, Breton, Cornish, or Cumbric province or vice versa, in de jure Scotland, Ireland, Wales, or Brittany.

Notably, Scottish and Irish culture are missing from the list, which seems rather backwards if it's meant to be Norse-Gael. On the other hand, despite the inclusion of Cornish culture it can't trigger in Cornwall.

Basically, unless I'm missing something it's effectively limited to forming in Brittany or Strathclyde.

 

[Adam Joseph]

In my opinion it could be improve some of the game in early feudalism. What I miss is the detours of the ruler across the country. Lack of presence in one of the capitals of the most important vassals would result in a decrease in the opinion of this vassal about us. During the presence there would be special actions regarding this province (or this vassal). For example, an action related to "military" would result in an increase in the garrison, "intrigue" with a bonus during attempted assasination, etc. Of course, there could be one action. Health problems, wars and other events that would make the journey impossible would result in a decrease in opinion and a drop in income. Subsequent discoveries in the field of administration would reduce the influence of the ruler's presence on the opinion of the vassals. One could also associate specific chain of events with the ruler's journeys.

 

[LordPeter]

In my opinion it could be improve some of the game in early feudalism. What I miss is the detours of the ruler across the country. Lack of presence in one of the capitals of the most important vassals would result in a decrease in the opinion of this vassal about us. During the presence there would be special actions regarding this province (or this vassal). For example, an action related to "military" would result in an increase in the garrison, "intrigue" with a bonus during attempted assasination, etc. Of course, there could be one action. Health problems, wars and other events that would make the journey impossible would result in a decrease in opinion and a drop in income. Subsequent discoveries in the field of administration would reduce the influence of the ruler's presence on the opinion of the vassals. One could also associate specific chain of events with the ruler's journeys.

A very good suggestion, and I wholeheartedly agree that this "itinerant" early Feudalism is lacking in the game.
However, the game engine does not really allow for this to be modeled in a proper way: Basically everything assumes that your ruler is either safely at home in his/her palace, or leading troops in a war. The only exception from this are pilgrimages - but those require you to "step down" temporarily and have a regent take over business. Everything else is a huge mess, from love affairs a few mountain ranges away where no one notices the ruler's absence, to invitations to carousing to nearby realms that never see the king leave his bedroom in person. There are some safety flags in check and everything that should prevent the most outrageous un-immersive situations; but quite often those happen anyway (just think of (in vanilla) wife and husband having children, while potentially not being in the same province ever at any point...).

So there's just no way to have a ruler "visit" his vassal in heir castle while still staying in charge. It could only be simulated through an extensive and ridiculously complicated series of events, which would also have to prevent any "impossible" other events to happen during the time.
Thus without changes to the core engine and its flawed assumptions about character locations, it would barely be possible and only in an extremely hacky and complicated manner.
Sorry, not worth it even though I would like to see it myself

 

[BrokenSky]

A very good suggestion, and I wholeheartedly agree that this "itinerant" early Feudalism is lacking in the game.
However, the game engine does not really allow for this to be modeled in a proper way: Basically everything assumes that your ruler is either safely at home in his/her palace, or leading troops in a war. The only exception from this are pilgrimages - but those require you to "step down" temporarily and have a regent take over business. Everything else is a huge mess, from love affairs a few mountain ranges away where no one notices the ruler's absence, to invitations to carousing to nearby realms that never see the king leave his bedroom in person. There are some safety flags in check and everything that should prevent the most outrageous un-immersive situations; but quite often those happen anyway (just think of (in vanilla) wife and husband having children, while potentially not being in the same province ever at any point...).

So there's just no way to have a ruler "visit" his vassal in heir castle while still staying in charge. It could only be simulated through an extensive and ridiculously complicated series of events, which would also have to prevent any "impossible" other events to happen during the time.
Thus without changes to the core engine and its flawed assumptions about character locations, it would barely be possible and only in an extremely hacky and complicated manner.
Sorry, not worth it even though I would like to see it myself

Why not just set it with a regency and handle it like pilgrimage? (maybe with the whole mechanic behind a game rule). If we're going for realism here, having to leave some things in the hands of a regent while you're away isn't totally unreasonable?

 

[Adam Joseph]

A very good suggestion, and I wholeheartedly agree that this "itinerant" early Feudalism is lacking in the game.
However, the game engine does not really allow for this to be modeled in a proper way: Basically everything assumes that your ruler is either safely at home in his/her palace, or leading troops in a war. The only exception from this are pilgrimages - but those require you to "step down" temporarily and have a regent take over business. Everything else is a huge mess, from love affairs a few mountain ranges away where no one notices the ruler's absence, to invitations to carousing to nearby realms that never see the king leave his bedroom in person. There are some safety flags in check and everything that should prevent the most outrageous un-immersive situations; but quite often those happen anyway (just think of (in vanilla) wife and husband having children, while potentially not being in the same province ever at any point...).

So there's just no way to have a ruler "visit" his vassal in heir castle while still staying in charge. It could only be simulated through an extensive and ridiculously complicated series of events, which would also have to prevent any "impossible" other events to happen during the time.
Thus without changes to the core engine and its flawed assumptions about character locations, it would barely be possible and only in an extremely hacky and complicated manner.
Sorry, not worth it even though I would like to see it myself

Well, I thought it would be easier. That you can use the mechanics that the game uses during the war. But if not, then no. And so I will play.

 

[LordPeter]

Why not just set it with a regency and handle it like pilgrimage? (maybe with the whole mechanic behind a game rule). If we're going for realism here, having to leave some things in the hands of a regent while you're away isn't totally unreasonable?

The whole point is that historically, rulers in medieval Europe did not do anything from a single place until towards the Late Middle Ages. Before, they would just move around their realm and administer it while moving, taking their entire court (!) with them. The very concept of a "fixed capital" was only known in the ERE and such areas. Compare Wikipedia on "Itinerant Courts".
Especially in Germany/France there were places called "Kaiserpfalz" where the ruler would stay temporarily. Charlemagne, for example, traveled almost his entirely life before finally settling in Aachen, but this also applies to later rulers.
So leaving a "regent" at "home" would not make any sense historically. But it would be required by game mechanics.

 

[Ruisuki]

A very good suggestion, and I wholeheartedly agree that this "itinerant" early Feudalism is lacking in the game.
However, the game engine does not really allow for this to be modeled in a proper way: Basically everything assumes that your ruler is either safely at home in his/her palace, or leading troops in a war. The only exception from this are pilgrimages - but those require you to "step down" temporarily and have a regent take over business. Everything else is a huge mess, from love affairs a few mountain ranges away where no one notices the ruler's absence, to invitations to carousing to nearby realms that never see the king leave his bedroom in person. There are some safety flags in check and everything that should prevent the most outrageous un-immersive situations; but quite often those happen anyway (just think of (in vanilla) wife and husband having children, while potentially not being in the same province ever at any point...).

So there's just no way to have a ruler "visit" his vassal in heir castle while still staying in charge. It could only be simulated through an extensive and ridiculously complicated series of events, which would also have to prevent any "impossible" other events to happen during the time.
Thus without changes to the core engine and its flawed assumptions about character locations, it would barely be possible and only in an extremely hacky and complicated manner.
Sorry, not worth it even though I would like to see it myself

The law requirements, yes. But you will still need to become absolute cognatic, meaning you'd need everyone to like you, at peace, ruled for 10 years.

Or at least that's what I would presume.

this is just me asking on 28 hrs of no sleep but - is it possible to script certain events so they only trigger when your leader is considered to be leading an army?

 

[LordPeter]

this is just me asking on 28 hrs of no sleep but - is it possible to script certain events so they only trigger when your leader is considered to be leading an army?

Okay, you should get some sleep dude
Yes, it is - you can just put an "in_command = yes" into the trigger section.
Though I'm not sure how that question relates directly to these two posts you quoted...

 

[Ruisuki]

Okay, you should get some sleep dude
Yes, it is - you can just put an "in_command = yes" into the trigger section.
Though I'm not sure how that question relates directly to these two posts you quoted...

It relates because I was tired
I was thinking of having events trigger when you are in command as an alternative but then you might get situations where you are in the middle of a war and it wouldnt make sense to trigger in such situations. Maybe if the game could differentiate between army and smaller detatchment, a personal guard of sorts would be more fitting for niche events, but since as you said it only recognizes safely at home, or leading troops during war probably wouldnt work

 

[mattrhearn]

The whole point is that historically, rulers in medieval Europe did not do anything from a single place until towards the Late Middle Ages. Before, they would just move around their realm and administer it while moving, taking their entire court (!) with them. The very concept of a "fixed capital" was only known in the ERE and such areas. Compare Wikipedia on "Itinerant Courts".
Especially in Germany/France there were places called "Kaiserpfalz" where the ruler would stay temporarily. Charlemagne, for example, traveled almost his entirely life before finally settling in Aachen, but this also applies to later rulers.
So leaving a "regent" at "home" would not make any sense historically. But it would be required by game mechanics.

They discuss this in the History of England podcast, where one interesting point stuck out to me: The cost of putting up the king's court in a local castle was expected to be handled by the host, not the king. Of course this did make a little more sense when you consider that the ruler's sources of revenue were a lot more sparse than CK2 represents, and local lieges could be expected to keep a larger share of their own incomes, but this did put a strain on those local hosts which the glory of hosting their liege could only make up for so much.

I'm wondering how this set of interactions could be represented in-game, because right now it seems like it would be a trap to build up resentment among feudal vassals without introducing any balancing elements to add opinion points. Maybe if you only spent one night with each host (in exchange for more money spent maintaining your court between stops) the balance could work out in the liege's favor, but to be impactful you'd have to be kept on the move for some time, possibly even on a "permanent" basis until your capital meets certain requirements.

 

[Mr Nobody]

What about melting pot events when one restores the Roman Empire as well as Roman culture? Like, you can Romanise again people within the boundaries of the restored empire.

 

[LordPeter]

They discuss this in the History of England podcast, where one interesting point stuck out to me: The cost of putting up the king's court in a local castle was expected to be handled by the host, not the king. Of course this did make a little more sense when you consider that the ruler's sources of revenue were a lot more sparse than CK2 represents, and local lieges could be expected to keep a larger share of their own incomes, but this did put a strain on those local hosts which the glory of hosting their liege could only make up for so much.

I'm wondering how this set of interactions could be represented in-game, because right now it seems like it would be a trap to build up resentment among feudal vassals without introducing any balancing elements to add opinion points. Maybe if you only spent one night with each host (in exchange for more money spent maintaining your court between stops) the balance could work out in the liege's favor, but to be impactful you'd have to be kept on the move for some time, possibly even on a "permanent" basis until your capital meets certain requirements.

Good ideas all around, but again, I must dampen your hopes as this whole affair - in any implementation - would be a hilarious amount of work and a proper mod in its own right. Such things are simply not something the CK2 engine/scripting language does allow to be handled easily, and almost every existing event in the game would have to be modified to take account of this.
Simply not feasible for our modding team, sorry.

 

[cchiu23]

can it be tweaked that the mongols can adopt chinese imperialism? seems weird that they can't do it when they were the ones who actually reunited China after the fall of the Tang

 

[mattrhearn]

Good ideas all around, but again, I must dampen your hopes as this whole affair - in any implementation - would be a hilarious amount of work and a proper mod in its own right. Such things are simply not something the CK2 engine/scripting language does allow to be handled easily, and almost every existing event in the game would have to be modified to take account of this.
Simply not feasible for our modding team, sorry.

No worries, shooting down cool sounding but unfeasible ideas is at least half the point of a spitballing thread.

 

[vukica]

@Tatterhood
You had some suggestions for nomads, but I'm having trouble following them because I'm not entirely familiar with nomad mechanics.
Could you give me a quick rundown of "what/why/how"? Code would also help.