CK3 and border gore

[Arko]

Nobody has mentioned the reason border gore exists in the first place. It's not from random AI conquests, it's from random AI marriages. If they can fix the marriage system, it would help (not eliminate) border gore.

Specifically, who the AI choose for marriage partner should be based on their current needs. For example, they want an alliance with a neighbouring country if they're afraid of them, or they want their help in another war. The AI should not be seeking alliances half way across the map. Maybe they're doing so because there's not enough eligible women near them - well then that's the problem that needs to be fixed, too. Maybe the AI can learn to use the "find a debutante" action when they don't any suitable women near them.

Lack of women can be a reason indeed. Low fertility (due to, among other reasons to game performance) can cause that deficiency. It is worse on game start where all available women are "caught" very fast and you then only have a choice among 0 year old babies to marry with. Courtiers and barons don't marrying also contribute to limited pool of characters to marry.
Plus, the smaller a religion and culture is, the more limited possibilities are.
Present debutante is not ideal either since they won't the rank expectations for marrying most nobles.

Marriage itself could pursue various goals : alliances, inheritance -both being maybe more distance limited- , pure prestige/gold marriage -with maybe as counterpoint to not bring alliances or claims.

AI creating and handing out titles blindly also contributes to it (HRE f.e.). Encouraged by the vassal limit thingy (yet another -failed- attempt to avoid NK mode), AI inability to make logical choice when giving titles.

 

[Dayvit78]

AI creating and handing out titles blindly also contributes to it (HRE f.e.). Encouraged by the vassal limit thingy (yet another -failed- attempt to avoid NK mode), AI inability to make logical choice when giving titles.

Ah I forgot that one. Yes, that is definitely a big contributor. AI needs to do a better job of keeping its demesne provinces connected and maybe keeping other titles more in the family. (Given the new dynasty mechanic).

 

[Denkt]

Ah I forgot that one. Yes, that is definitely a big contributor. AI needs to do a better job of keeping its demesne provinces connected and maybe keeping other titles more in the family. (Given the new dynasty mechanic).

The ai should play smart and given there is no reason to keep demesne united the ai should not play stupid in order to achieve that goal.

 

[Dayvit78]

The ai should play smart and given there is no reason to keep demesne united the ai should not play stupid in order to achieve that goal.

Keep demesne united: Avoid duchy desire penalty, avoid border gore

AI should play smart is not something that can be programmed. The AI can only be programmed with specific if/and/or goals & tasks and weights to them.

 

[Denkt]

You can tell it stuff like trying to get hold over the 5 best counties in its realm and such and generally the 5 best counties don't tend to be neighbours. The ai should try to play as good as possible, not try to conform to some sort of standard and misplay because of that.

 

[Limbojack]

You can tell it stuff like trying to get hold over the 5 best counties in its realm and such and generally the 5 best counties don't tend to be neighbours. The ai should try to play as good as possible, not try to conform to some sort of standard and misplay because of that.

It depends on what you mean by "as good as possible". Trying to seize the five most developed counties in the realm might be viable from one perspective, but the advantage of having all your holdings grouped up might be just as smart for another perspective. I'd rather have five counties within one duchy than 5 counties in 5 different duchies, and I would expect the AI to focus on gathering a strong powerbase before looking outwards.

In pretty much every situation I believe the AI should prioritize increasing its control over its heartlands (the area around its capital).

 

[Vohen]

The problem with bordergore is, imo, not in how it happens, but how the world doesn't try to fix it by itself.
It happens as a natural consequence of how the world works, and that's fine, but there are no consequences for it.
Rulers should try to consolidate their realms, and be more aggressive about keeping it that way, so if, for example, there's a mess of several foreign exclaves inside of France, the King should aggressively try to get those back in the fold and keep his dejure realm unified by any means necessary, even forging alliances to tackle it if necessary, not leaving the ever expanding mosaic inside his borders go untouched.
So regions under strong rule like England, France and the HRE would be less sucessible to bordergore, while more fragmented ones like Italy and and the Baltic states would be more vulnerable to it.

In real life, there were many cases where a feudal lord would be aligned with multiple lieges (the stand out example always being the duke of Normandy being a French vassal nominally while also being his equal as the king of England), which would always be a cause for conflict.
The game apparently won't model that complex web, but it could at least try to model that conflict with how their characters behave, not letting their realms become fragmented.

I'm always reminded of how bad it gets in the 867 bookmark, with those damn Karlings spread out pretty much everywhere, and the inheritance mess they like to cause.

 

[Denkt]

It depends on what you mean by "as good as possible".

About the same as strongest.

The problem with bordergore is, imo, not in how it happens, but how the world doesn't try to fix it by itself.
It happens as a natural consequence of how the world works, and that's fine, but there are no consequences for it.
Rulers should try to consolidate their realms, and be more aggressive about keeping it that way, so if, for example, there's a mess of several foreign exclaves inside of France, the King should aggressively try to get those back in the fold and keep his dejure realm unified by any means necessary, even forging alliances to tackle it if necessary, not leaving the ever expanding mosaic inside his borders go untouched.
So regions under strong rule like England, France and the HRE would be less sucessible to bordergore, while more fragmented ones like Italy and and the Baltic states would be more vulnerable to it.

In real life, there were many cases where a feudal lord would be aligned with multiple lieges (the stand out example always being the duke of Normandy being a French vassal nominally while also being his equal as the king of England), which would always be a cause for conflict.
The game apparently won't model that complex web, but it could at least try to model that conflict with how their characters behave, not letting their realms become fragmented.

I'm always reminded of how bad it gets in the 867 bookmark, with those damn Karlings spread out pretty much everywhere, and the inheritance mess they like to cause.

The issue is that such rules can be exploited to destroy ai by diving up their realm.​

 

[Limbojack]

About the same as strongest.

Having your holdings spread between different duchies far from each other sounds neither strong or smart though. History is full of examples showing this.

 

[Denkt]

Having your holdings spread between different duchies far from each other sounds neither strong or smart though. History is full of examples showing this.

Because it is a game, not a reality simulator by any means.

 

[Arko]

The problem with bordergore is, imo, not in how it happens, but how the world doesn't try to fix it by itself.
It happens as a natural consequence of how the world works, and that's fine, but there are no consequences for it.
Rulers should try to consolidate their realms, and be more aggressive about keeping it that way, so if, for example, there's a mess of several foreign exclaves inside of France, the King should aggressively try to get those back in the fold and keep his dejure realm unified by any means necessary, even forging alliances to tackle it if necessary, not leaving the ever expanding mosaic inside his borders go untouched.
So regions under strong rule like England, France and the HRE would be less sucessible to bordergore, while more fragmented ones like Italy and and the Baltic states would be more vulnerable to it.

In real life, there were many cases where a feudal lord would be aligned with multiple lieges (the stand out example always being the duke of Normandy being a French vassal nominally while also being his equal as the king of England), which would always be a cause for conflict.
The game apparently won't model that complex web, but it could at least try to model that conflict with how their characters behave, not letting their realms become fragmented.

I'm always reminded of how bad it gets in the 867 bookmark, with those damn Karlings spread out pretty much everywhere, and the inheritance mess they like to cause.

-fixing the reasons is likely a better fix.
-stronger realms would in the opposite try to expand, even at the price of exclaves (France did it in some way).

 

[Denkt]

-fixing the reasons is likely a better fix.
-stronger realms would in the opposite try to expand, even at the price of exclaves (France did it in some way).

And what stop you from simply cutting ai realms in pieces and exploit the anti border gore rules to your advantages?

What is needed to talk about is the consequences of any change and addition.

I don't take sides, I simply trying to know if the consequences is taken account for.

 

[Arko]

It depends on what you mean by "as good as possible". Trying to seize the five most developed counties in the realm might be viable from one perspective, but the advantage of having all your holdings grouped up might be just as smart for another perspective. I'd rather have five counties within one duchy than 5 counties in 5 different duchies, and I would expect the AI to focus on gathering a strong powerbase before looking outwards.

In pretty much every situation I believe the AI should prioritize increasing its control over its heartlands (the area around its capital).

Grouped holdings is not always possible or realistic, see King of France demesne in 1066 (Paris region, Montreuil in the North, some demesne beyond Champagne...). Quite spread. They obviously held all that can can, wherever it was.

 

[Limbojack]

Because it is a game, not a reality simulator by any means.

Wait, so what you're saying is that you'd rather have the AI behave irrationally? How exactly does having the AI behave irrationally improve the game? CK3 is set it a historical context, depicting historical characters and political entities, so I don't understand your argument at all.

 

[Arko]

And what stop you from simply cutting ai realms in pieces and exploit the anti border gore rules to your advantages?

What is needed to talk about is the consequences of any change and addition.

If there's no wild border gore, there's no need to an artificial rule, isn't it ?

 

[Denkt]

Wait, so what you're saying is that you'd rather have the AI behave irrationally? How exactly does having the AI behave irrationally improve the game? CK3 is set it a historical context, depicting historical characters and political entities, so I don't understand your argument at all.

It is not irrational if it is actually a strong way to play.

If there's no wild border gore, there's no need to an artificial rule, isn't it ?

And what do you mean with wild border gore, like cause by marriage?​

 

[Limbojack]

Grouped holdings is not always possible or realistic, see King of France demesne in 1066 (Paris region, Montreuil in the North, some demesne beyond Champagne...). Quite spread. They obviously held all that can can, wherever it was.

I agree, and I don't argue against rulers having holdings here and there - just that rulers should try to group their holdings when possible.

 

[Denkt]

I agree, and I don't argue against rulers having holdings here and there - just that rulers should try to group their holdings when possible.

Why not start with some good reasons for doing so like bonuses for holdings neighbour to the capital or something? This way you give a good in game bonus to Group holdings together rather than spread them out. Obviously with development that may be a reason but it is hard to tell since ai may develop as well.

 

[Vohen]

The issue is that such rules can be exploited to destroy ai by diving up their realm.

How so?
If anything it'd make the AI more unwieldy, as holding their dejure land would put you permanently in their crosshairs, with the AI being more aggressive in pursuing alliances to use against you, waiting for the right moment when it has the upper hand to attack you.

Because it is a game, not a reality simulator by any means.

If CK2 is anything to go by, there are many benefits to keeping your demesne united in game as well.

-fixing the reasons is likely a better fix.

So what fixes do you propose?

-stronger realms would in the opposite try to expand, even at the price of exclaves (France did it in some way).

How is that exclusive with what I said?

 

[Limbojack]

It is not irrational if it is actually a strong way to play.

But that's my point. It's not a strong or rational way to play. In 99% of the time, a grouped demense is better and more easily defendable than a spread one. Having the AI focus of the most developed counties regardless of tactical consideration, would make it too easy tor the player to just go in and wipe the smaller armies etc.