Coalitions make game boring...

[ninoallen]

So the year is about 1050, and i have reformed the Persian Empire, and thanks to the newly reformed priesthood, i have won a great holy war for greece, and so thus began trying to conquer most of asia minor in order to connect my lands.

Anyways the real goal of this campaign is to conquer all of india, and eventually sometime switch to buddhist,
but with every ruler in a coalition the game really slows down and just becomes me waiting and waiting doing nothing, while having some podcast or youtube going in the backround. Now this wouldnt be bad if there was actually some things to do during peacetime but there is pretty much nothing to do, aside from build up your holdings.

my complaint really isn't about coalitions rather the fact that these coalitions force you to just sit there with nothing to do, and really shows how wide the game is, but how really shallow it is in terms of depth.

ive played this game since about 2013, and have over 2000 hours in it, i usually always attempt to roleplay things, but sometimes these random supernatural events can ruin that.

how does anyone else ever do these long campaigns? ive only ever finished a game once and it was a 1066-1453 survivor run. which was also grueling but was before the coalitions was implemented.

 

[zharliette]

In my current Byzantine game, I ignore coalitions completely and storm the wargoal and get the warscore to 100% as quick as possible. And then peace out and move on, staying constantly at 100% threat. Of course, sometimes I stop warring for a few years or decades to roleplay and/or regain troops.

So yeah. Once you are big enough, coalitions don't matter. And mind you, I'm not even using my full force to do that, only about 20-30 thousand troops or so.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

I don't even know why you're complaining. You're just outright too scared of coalitions. Seriously it takes ages for them to muster the firepower to threaten you. Especially Persia. Persia is one of the strongest de jure empires in the game and one of the most landlocked. The place is full of deserts and mountains no less. Your opponents will bleed themselves dry trying to travel to the war area, not even mentioning the fact they come piecemeal.

Coalitions only really affect people who are at the strength of multiple kings but not yet the full de jure empire. Once you have a particularly strong empire like India, Arabian, or especially Persia or Byz you can basically run over any coalition.

 

[RagingJaws]

Coalitions only really affect people who are at the strength of multiple kings but not yet the full de jure empire. Once you have a particularly strong empire like India, Arabian, or especially Persia or Byz you can basically run over any coalition.

This.

Accidentally inherited the Byzantine Empire through Elective shenanigans, ruining my game as the Strategos of Sicily in the Old Gods start. Wanted to reconquer Sicily and the Italian boot as a vassal to the BE. Halfway finished when I was elected in. Elected, mind you, to a revolting de jure border gore fest being pressed in on all sides because the idiot AI calls for Holy Wars over De Jure wars when it can. 40 years later, after the death of my first Emperor character, I've beaten back two separate Karling coalitions (Italian conquests), a Muslim one (Antioch and Armenia), and several large separate faction uprisings demanding Elective that overlapped in those above wars.

Once you get a strong enough realm, it's not that hard. Realm strength of around 18-20k should be the target for an Empire that wants to start serious conquest goals. You can certainly do it with less if you're careful but that number is a good point to start from.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

Agree - having said that, Coalitions are still a pain.

When the new patch drops I'm doing a Byz Old Gods game, I'll do a blow-by-blow on just how annoying it is at that point. At least when that patch comes shattered retreat will be able to be turned off without affecting achievements, so you'll still have the micro-armies but you'll be able to swat them more effectively.

Still holding out for a better system than these coalitions, though.

 

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

The last time i posted the exact same thing, i got respectfully castrated.

Thank you.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

I'll elaborate further.

You only need roughly 30-40k troops in that area of the map, in that 1050 time period, or 20-25k in the early 900s. You will easily have more than that because Mesopotamia and Persia alone are bar none two of the strongest de jure kingdoms on the map, and they're all in de jure Persian Empire. Again that is not including the fact most of the terrain surrounding/within the Empire is very hostile to large (non Mongol) stacks. Attrition is a very real bonus for the Persians.

I only included Byz as one of the strongest empires not because they get the most troops, but because Greece and Anatolia are formidable de jure kingdoms (Greece more so) that can focus all their manpower by sea.

TLDR. You're twiddling your thumbs for fear of nothing and then writing a complaint so people can sympathize about your plight against the boogeyman. Have you even tried to attack at 100% threat?

 

[ninoallen]

Have you even tried to attack at 100% threat?

nop, and i dont wish to, i refuse to attack at 100% threat level unless im playing as some mongolian warlord.

nobody has still replied about peacetime being boring though.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

nop, and i dont wish to, i refuse to attack at 100% threat level unless im playing as some mongolian warlord.

nobody has still replied about peacetime being boring though.

Then it's clearly not Paradox's fault you're bad at the game.

 

[Legionary Guard]

Yeah, my last Byz playthrough ended about a hundred years in (1066 start as Isaac Komnenos, Basileus lost Armenia and Anatolia before I could usurp the throne; ended at about April 1170) when I realized that I had more troops than the next seven strongest nations on the map combined. I declared a Holy War for Alexandria sitting at 100% threat while simultaneously defending my 4PM Zoroastrian ally from a Jihad that called in whatever Sunni powers weren't arrayed against me. Oh, and a simultaneous Shia Jihad for Jerusalem. Not only did I win, not only did I win while only levying about a third of my troops, but a good 2/3 of my casualties were from Persian attrition.

Coalitions are annoying, but not for the reason you think they are.

nobody has still replied about peacetime being boring though.

Intrigue! Watch your vassals plot against each other! Take sides! Roleplay! Plot to take over foreign territories nonviolently! Do something that's not incompetently painting the map (Because if you're scared of 100% threat but you're big enough to form Persia, you just kinda suck)!

Then it's clearly not Paradox's fault you're bad at the game.

Damn son that burn.

 

[ninoallen]

you're bad at the game.

coalitions were meant to deter players from map painting, so excuse me for not going over 100 percent and declaring war on all of india and the middle east at once.
people are saying roleplay, yet while also telling me to declare war on multiple fronts at the same time and take on multiple kingdoms, just for the hell of it.
and somehow me not wanting to do that means i suck at the game? I dont map paint, sure id easily be able to win any way, as i have 50,000 men ready to fight and 5000 of my own retinue and money is pouring in, but i dont want to, the point of this is how peacetime is boring and dull.

clearly you have no valuable input on this topic.

Intrigue! Watch your vassals plot against each other! Take sides! Roleplay! Plot to take over foreign territories nonviolently! Do something that's not incompetently painting the map (Because if you're scared of 100% threat but you're big enough to form Persia, you just kinda suck)!

intrigue in vanilla ck2 is dull, plots take years to fire, although intrigue focus has helped, but man i miss the assassinate button, just throw money till u get the kill lol
and its kinda hard to nonviolently take over territory when your Zoroastrian, and i have no need for more personal land, as my duchy is Baghdad (best duchy in the game)
i never do map painting games, usually i limit myself myself but this time i decided to go all out and form a massive persian indian empire, though somehow greece became apart of it.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

Then you can maybe wait a generation (or more) per claim as most historical realms did rather than expand as fast as the Mongols and then call that "roleplaying." You wouldn't have any issues with threat if you were properly roleplaying.

Don't use "roleplaying" as an excuse to paint the map your color. If you're going to expand that fast at least be honest about it.

The rest of us are honest about it and coalitions are absolutely fine in providing a proper challenge (even if you can still easily snowball out of control.) Barring some really crappy de jure empire like Mali once you get to de jure empire level + a few territories outside of that the game basically poses no challenge. Just boring Holy War/Imperial Reconquest + assault all holdings.

 

[ninoallen]

Then you can maybe wait a generation (or more) per claim as most historical realms did rather than expand as fast as the Mongols and then call that "roleplaying." You wouldn't have any issues with threat if you were properly roleplaying.

Don't use "roleplaying" as an excuse to paint the map your color. If you're going to expand that fast at least be honest about it.

The rest of us are honest about it and coalitions are absolutely fine in providing a proper challenge (even if you can still easily snowball out of control.) Barring some really crappy de jure empire like Mali once you get to de jure empire level + a few territories outside of that the game basically poses no challenge. Just boring Holy War/Imperial Reconquest + assault all holdings.

oh i agree with you, i dont usually do the "map painting" thing, its not the coalitions i have a problem with its just that, now i truly see how boring peacetime is.
im guessing you didnt read most comments, but i dont usually map paint, as i usually a play a christian, where its easier to expand your realm by other means.
the only time i "roleplay" a conqueror is when my character has amazing traits like brave and ambitious.
i recently had a frail and cruel character and tried to model him after King Joffrey, ohh that was fun.

 

[zharliette]

coalitions were meant to deter players from map painting, so excuse me for not going over 100 percent and declaring war on all of india and the middle east at once.
people are saying roleplay, yet while also telling me to declare war on multiple fronts at the same time and take on multiple kingdoms, just for the hell of it.
and somehow me not wanting to do that means i suck at the game? I dont map paint, sure id easily be able to win any way, as i have 50,000 men ready to fight and 5000 of my own retinue and money is pouring in, but i dont want to, the point of this is how peacetime is boring and dull.

clearly you have no valuable input on this topic.



intrigue in vanilla ck2 is dull, plots take years to fire, although intrigue focus has helped, but man i miss the assassinate button, just throw money till u get the kill lol
and its kinda hard to nonviolently take over territory when your Zoroastrian, and i have no need for more personal land, as my duchy is Baghdad (best duchy in the game)
i never do map painting games, usually i limit myself myself but this time i decided to go all out and form a massive persian indian empire, though somehow greece became apart of it.

My two cents: If you want to roleplay, don't start carving out empires. I've been through that rabbit hole often enough and honestly, roleplay dies when conquest begins. There is always one more duchy, one more border to fix etc. The most fun I've had with roleplay is when I stay within one kingdom and just keep track of everything that happens in my kingdom and those surrounding me. If I get big, I simply can't do it and lose all interest because there is simply too much going on and too many characters to keep track of.

You probably knew it already but whatever. Though I do think that the game needs more internal mechanics. It's kind of nobrainer.

 

[tywinzo]

Is there anything in defines.lua to disable coalitions altogether?

 

[schondetta]

coalitions and defensive pacts are boring and is why I quit playing ck2.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

Is there anything in defines.lua to disable coalitions altogether?

Yes, and there'll be a switch after the patch to turn it off - but it will disable achievements.

The problem is that Coalitions retard expansion, but you actually want expansion - and then you want collapse. Unfortunately Doomdark is on record sating he doesn't like collapse.

So, instead of internal instability to give the game challenge and to organically discourage expansion we have overly frequent factions that always fail and Coalitions to try to drag at your heels.

 

[ninoallen]

My two cents: If you want to roleplay, don't start carving out empires. I've been through that rabbit hole often enough and honestly, roleplay dies when conquest begins. There is always one more duchy, one more border to fix etc. The most fun I've had with roleplay is when I stay within one kingdom and just keep track of everything that happens in my kingdom and those surrounding me. If I get big, I simply can't do it and lose all interest because there is simply too much going on and too many characters to keep track of.

You probably knew it already but whatever. Though I do think that the game needs more internal mechanics. It's kind of nobrainer.

i love playing as some random count in spain or italy, i find the game use to be more fun pre India, when factions were actually a scary thing

 

[VoxNil]

If your contention is that peacetime is boring then perhaps you should have made that the title topic instead, no? Something like "What should I do while at peace?"
Your initial posting seems to imply that collations are deterring you from declaring war, yet later you say that they aren't. If peace is boring and you're not afraid of the collation, why not just declare war, especially as your still seem to have more you want to conquer (e.g. India)?

Yes, peace can be boring. I usually use it as a time for redrawing internal borders. Not enabling auto-stop plots it useful for this. This is also why I prefer raiding cultures/religions. In the meantime, throw a feast and turn the clock up higher. You could always grant independence to a Kingdom and lose a large amount of threat.

 

[ninoallen]

If your contention is that peacetime is boring then perhaps you should have made that the title topic instead, no? Something like "What should I do while at peace?"
Your initial posting seems to imply that collations are deterring you from declaring war, yet later you say that they aren't. If peace is boring and you're not afraid of the collation, why not just declare war, especially as your still seem to have more you want to conquer (e.g. India)?

Yes, peace can be boring. I usually use it as a time for redrawing internal borders. Not enabling auto-stop plots it useful for this. This is also why I prefer raiding cultures/religions. In the meantime, throw a feast and turn the clock up higher. You could always grant independence to a Kingdom and lose a large amount of threat.

well coalitions were put in peace to keep the player from map painting/expanding to fast, sort of like the game saying "hey you been warmongering alot relax a little"
i treat the coalitions tab sort of like a limit to my warmongering and expansion.

and with that said, paradox added in coalitions which deter players from expanding too fast or too much, yet now what are we expected to do during the time?
so my title indeed does fit accurately because coalitions has now made the game boring,

or maybe thats cause im playing as a zoroastrian emperor and theres not much to do but war?
emperor status does make the game boring and has been discussed since the game first came out.