CK3 and border gore

[Arko]

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

Borger gore that should realistically happen. Hence my proposition about about marriage types/goals. It shouldn't be totally block though.

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.

For French kings, fixing there border gore plans was to remove any vassals and keeping all France for themself as historically.

 

[Denkt]

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.

If they have a duchy/kingdom with said county in it yes but that don't Always happen.

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.

However CK3 armies supposedly will work quite differently from CK2 and they will gather up slowly at a set Point or something instead of starting at their county or so if I have read stuff correctly. Also you can say by spreading out demense you force the enemy to spend more time Walking from siege to siege if they don't want to siege down vassal holdings. CK3 will also not have on map retinues like CK2 which is also a consideration.

 

[Limbojack]

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.

Just the fact that your holdings are neighbouring each other is an advantage in itself. It makes it easier to combine your forces and reduce the chance of your smaller armies getting picked off by the enemy. It also reduces the risk of conflicts with other nobles, either of your same rank or the rank above you. In addition to this, having the opportunity to upgrade the hospitals in a larger area reduces the chance of plagues ravishing your lands.

 

[Denkt]

Just the fact that your holdings are neighbouring each other is an advantage in itself. It makes it easier to combine your forces and reduce the chance of your smaller armies getting picked off by the enemy. It also reduces the risk of conflicts with other nobles, either of your same rank or the rank above you. In addition to this, having the opportunity to upgrade the hospitals in a larger area reduces the chance of plagues ravishing your lands.

However what I said is a sure way to make neighbour holdings better without doubts. And stuff above may not even work in CK3 as they do work in CK2.

The whole reason why I Always sound so negative is that don't take sides, simply try to understand what people want and the fact they actually give good arguments for it which is good for the game.

 

[Limbojack]

For French kings, fixing there border gore plans was to remove any vassals and keeping all France for themself as historically.

I think that was pretty much the case for every single ruler of all time

CK3 will also not have on map retinues like CK2 which is also a consideration

Retinues will just be replaced by mercs by the player in order to stack wipe gathering armies, unless they've made sure that's impossible.

 

[Denkt]

Retinues will just be replaced by mercs by the player in order to stack wipe gathering armies, unless they've made sure that's impossible.

Have mercs even been talked about yet?

 

[Vohen]

If they have a duchy/kingdom with said county in it yes but that don't Always happen.

I'm failing to understand here.
What I'm advocating is for rulers to always aggressively try to keep their de jure demesne unified, which would at least work in favor of making bordergore a self correcting problem.
In strong realms like France, England and the HRE, it'd become quite tough for anyone to hold lands inside their dejure land unpunished.
In CK2 there's an opinion penalty iirc, but the AI seeks their dejure land half-heartedly at best.

 

[Limbojack]

Have mercs even been talked about yet?

Not as far as I know, but I would be shocked if they removed mercs.

 

[Denkt]

Not as far as I know, but I would be shocked if they removed mercs.

It is not removal but how they work, like can you rush someone with mercs or have they limit it in some way?

 

[Limbojack]

It is not removal but how they work, like can you rush someone with mercs or have they limit it in some way?

Given that mercs work somewhat similar in CK2 and I:R I suspect they won't change too much. I would be surprised if you'll be unable to start a war if you've already hired mercs, and that is the problem with retinues and mercs in CK2 as well.

The only likely change I can imagine when it comes to mercs is for them to work like in I:R where they don't spawn in your capital.

 

[Denkt]

I can imagine alot of Changes to be honest.

But the only thing I do care about is if it is for the good of the game and I suspect the developers will have taken a look at the mercs to improve them a bit.

 

[Feeblezak]

honestly i hope it pretty much stays the way it is in ck2.

 

[hormag]

That don't tell if it is good or not for the game, which is more than just liking stuff or not.

Stuff like this:

Actually don't give an answer if border gore would be good or bad for the game and there could be many factors why/why not it should be in the game or not.

And if it is good or not for the game seems to be the primary question of this thead:

​

Not sure why you're acting as if whether something is good or bad for the game is completely disconnected from the players' experience. To me personally it's always been the case that, especially in a singleplayer game, the only things that make the game better are the ones that make my experience in particular better. Even if you scale it up to the whole game instead of one's playthroughs, from a dev's point of view for example. It stays the same: the better for the game is not dissimilar from the better for the majority of the playerbase. If you have a different opinion, go ahead! I'm really interested in hearing it, as i personally don't see a definition of good for the game that isn't a stretch of good for the players.

 

[Denkt]

We have to ask questions like how it influence the game as a whole, not just if the stuff in isolation is likable or not since it can have positive/negative effect upon other game mechanics.

honestly i hope it pretty much stays the way it is in ck2.

It may be a good idea to explain how that work for people not familar with CK2 border gore.

majority of the playerbase

Good luck knowing what the majority of player base actually want. Doubt even the developers know that.​

 

[vandevere]

We have to ask questions like how it influence the game as a whole, not just if the stuff in isolation is likable or not since it can have positive/negative effect upon other game mechanics.


It may be a good idea to explain how that work for people not familar with CK2 border gore.

Good luck knowing what the majority of player base actually want. Doubt even the developers know that.​

I'm sure the Devs have abetter idea than you might think. That was one of the reasons they instituted Game Rules. So each player could play the way he, or she, wanted.

 

[Denkt]

I'm sure the Devs have abetter idea than you might think. That was one of the reasons they instituted Game Rules. So each player could play the way he, or she, wanted.

And yet the last game paradox made. Imperator: Rome was clearly not aligned with what most people wanted. So even the developers can clearly miss the mark.

 

[hormag]

Good luck knowing what the majority of player base actually want. Doubt even the developers know that.​

This is exactly the problem i was trying to tap into. You don't know what the majority wants, unless it's an absolutely, indisputably almost unanimous opinion of the community, and that doesn't happen in the pdx community too much.

 

[Denkt]

This forum don't represent the player base as a whole or even anything remotely close anyway, the activity here is pretty limited.

I don't care about the mechanics, I'm neither for or against anything really, simply trying Point out things and keep the discussion going. I think the developers know better than me what mechanics should be included to make the game good.

 

[Feeblezak]

We have to ask questions like how it influence the game as a whole, not just if the stuff in isolation is likable or not since it can have positive/negative effect upon other game mechanics.


It may be a good idea to explain how that work for people not familar with CK2 border gore.

​

Huh?

CK2 has a lot of border gore and I like it. Sometimes it is funny, sometimes it is headscrathingly interesting on how such a state occurred. I never considered a game ruined because political entities have weird borders as some have said, that seems very strange to me.

 

[Axis89]

I just dont understand how a count in Ireland, can hold a county smack in the middle of the Holy Roman Empire. How was that correspondence? I assume medieval lords were very very respectful and polite at the time since the Holy Roman Empire let's you have that county, visit it etc and no questions asked.

If I were the Holy Roman Emperor I would have a good laugh, then politely tell that Irish count to **** ***, you ***** ****** ****!
(Taking the province myself and give it to a deserving noble)