Conclave: The Near Future

[Delicate Danseuse]

Are you guys also considering infamy levels per religious group?

Like, a holy war from some Zoroastrian Empress against the Sunni Muslims would incur X amount of infamy with Muslims, Y with Orthodox Christians(should be very low), etc...

I was going to say - I think this is a good idea! Or possibly making the infamy gain dependent on the participants and CB. I don't think you should gain as much infamy if you're warring against someone with a different culture/religion group than you, and you should get more from warring against someone in the same culture or religion group, and the most when you're attacking someone with the same culture and religion group.

I think the subjugation CB*, especially in the instance where you're playing as the Byzantine Empire, you've reformed the Roman Empire, and you're trying to reclaim all the of the Roman Empire lands, should grant probably the largest infamy possible. In that case, it should be pretty clear to all of your neighbors what you're trying to do, and it should be outright terrifying. I think the CB on that could actually prompt cross-religion, cross-cultural coalitions, because the reformed Roman Empire is a cross-religious, cross-cultural threat.

I don't think that the cross-religious, cross-cultural coalitions should be impossible. I think they're totally necessary in some circumstances.

*I was thinking of the imperial reconquest CB. My mistake.

 

[ZechsMerquise73]

The problem is that coalitions are a weird, gamey way to try to increase difficulty in a very arbitrary way. The fact that they don't even accomplish that goal makes them even worse.

Well, they do at least present you with a peer-like challenge when attacking smaller kingdoms, so you can't just chip away at them over and over again. It should just have your biggest competitor guarantee any smaller territory you attack, maybe.

 

[Hecaton]

After BjornB's post, I'll refrain from discussing this topic much further. Just for the record, I was talking about overall opposition to the wholesale idea. The top up voted Reddit thread is titled "Our coalition against coalitions is bearing fruit" and the negative Steam reviews almost entirely reference coalitions, even though I realize that it was part of the patch.

That's why I'm here. I'm pretty upset at the current situation, and while it's been historically shown that the design team doesn't listen to criticism that implies they've made any bad decisions whatsoever, I'm still pretty ticked off.

 

[DMcCool]

That's interesting, I'm curious why you like this, I haven't heard anybody defend the idea of genetic-type traits resulting from education focus so far but that doesn't mean there isn't an argument for it. I haven't noticed it as a particular problem, myself, but it does seem like it was an odd design choice.

The idea that someone who spends a life reading books might become more "weak" or that someone who just spends all their time on physical exercise is more likely to be "slow" seems like a fun roleplaying idea that helps characters be more unique and takes things away from powergaming. "Strong" being a genetic trait was always kind of strange, it makes more sense for it to be something some characters earn.

 

[ZechsMerquise73]

Someone was complaining about adventurers. You know you can settle them and they kick everyone around them's ass, right?

 

[E. Cephalopoda]

I was going to say - I think this is a good idea! Or possibly making the infamy gain dependent on the participants and CB. I don't think you should gain as much infamy if you're warring against someone with a different culture/religion group than you, and you should get more from warring against someone in the same culture or religion group, and the most when you're attacking someone with the same culture and religion group.

I think the subjugation CB, especially in the instance where you're playing as the Byzantine Empire, you've reformed the Roman Empire, and you're trying to reclaim all the of the Roman Empire lands, should grant probably the largest infamy possible. In that case, it should be pretty clear to all of your neighbors what you're trying to do, and it should be outright terrifying. I think the CB on that could actually prompt cross-religion, cross-cultural coalitions, because the reformed Roman Empire is a cross-religious, cross-cultural threat.

I don't think that the cross-religious, cross-cultural coalitions should be impossible. I think they're totally necessary in some circumstances.

Coalitions should be limited by religious groups. Just because nobody wants to meet such madness like this:

in game.

 

[CVDE]

Coalitions should be limited by religious groups. Just because nobody wants to meet such madness like this: View attachment 157340 in game.

I agree but not fully, and I want to. The reason I dont is because Pre-Horse Lords I was able to make a custom Finnish Empire starting as a custom count of Suomi in 769 start. It Incorporated Finland,Russia, and Lithuania and I was well on my way to getting Ruthentania, but then Horse-Lords came out and ruined that save. I would like to try again but everyone who has started a game at the 769 start knows that no matter what the Nomads always spill into Russia and pierceds to wreck the surrounding tribes.

I see Coats as a solution to this problem as the Nomads are VERY OP and need to be check by an "All Eastern Tribes Coalition"(Nomads really just needs a big a$$ nerf). But I do also agree the Pope joining force with the Caliph is VERY ridiculous and immersion breaking if your deep into Rp-ing.

 

[history_fan]

What about the seduction? Are you going to fix that?

It gets out of hand at larger empires with your wife almost guaranteed to cheat on you immediately after marriage, no matter what. Only thing that helps are homosexual and chaste-traits, otherwise they are guaranteed to cheat on you. Same goes for unmarried courtiers, they have herpes and start popping out illegimate children continuously soon as they turn 16. Also if playing as a empress you are surrounded by vassal seduction attempts non-stop.

I think that sounds realistic in general, other than illegitimate children. I think reducing illegitimacy and making chaste much more common would be the best response. Perhaps it could be tied into raising the child by a theologian.

 

[E. Cephalopoda]

I agree but not fully, and I want to. The reason I dont is because Pre-Horse Lords I was able to make a custom Finnish Empire starting as a custom count of Suomi in 769 start. It Incorporated Finland,Russia, and Lithuania and I was well on my way to getting Ruthentania, but then Horse-Lords came out and ruined that save. I would like to try again but everyone who has started a game at the 769 start knows that no matter what the Nomads always spill into Russia and pierceds to wreck the surrounding tribes.

I see Coats as a solution to this problem as the Nomads are VERY OP and need to be check by an "All Eastern Tribes Coalition"(Nomads really just needs a big a$$ nerf). But I do also agree the Pope joining force with the Caliph is VERY ridiculous and immersion breaking if your deep into Rp-ing.

In my current game nomads didn't attacked any finnish tribes to the west of Uralic mountains. At least until 850 a.d. They are too busy to fight each other.
BTW at 900' there are a notable religious diversity among nomads: catholic (!), manichean, sunni, tengri and hindu.
I am afraid catholic khazars will soon declare crusade on me :3

 

[jpinard]

When playing a game of Karl Karling, I had a massive elective rebellion (extremely common) and when I defeated the rebels, I instantly got 65% infamy and everyone from iceland to north africa was coalitioning against me specifically whereas the Moor rebellion ended and didn't give the ruler there any infamy. It made it impossible to play as anything I did brought in the entire coalition. Paradox if you keep this at least make sure that civil wars and rebellions don't count towards infamy, with the instability making things hard enough as it is more limits just makes things impossible.

This a 1000x. This is what really drives players crazy. How does this get missed? Does Paradox not have anyone outside the development studio to bounce ideas off of? Signing up for a beta is one thing, but this expansion has way too many critical issues. I don't mind it if I sign up for a beta patch or to beta test a product and have these issues, but we expect more when it's released as a $23 expansion (including graphics and music). We expect putting 10 hours into a campaign game is not going to result in cataclysmic destruction of it and waste of our time due to design mistakes. A friend of mine teased me earlier today and said, "I told you so, never buy a Paradox game until it's been out at least a month"
I don't want him to be right.

 

[jpinard]

It's just funny that the exact reservations we had on the DD came true.

What's "the DD"?

 

[Voldurak78]

Dev Diary

 

[Thure]

Coalitions should be limited by religious groups. Just because nobody wants to meet such madness like this: View attachment 157340 in game.

The crusades and egypt tried to ally... and France and the Mongols... Strange things happen

 

[Prince Ire]

The crusades and egypt tried to ally... and France and the Mongols... Strange things happen

Ally=/=coalition.

 

[heliostellar]

The crusades and egypt tried to ally... and France and the Mongols... Strange things happen

You've mentioned these isolated examples a number of times, but they hardly justify the nonsensical, WW I or WW II scale coalitions that we are actually seeing.

Ally=/=coalition.

This

 

[heliostellar]

What's "the DD"?

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/dev-diary-11-stopping-the-snowball.896247/

 

[Dragon Princess]

The crusades and egypt tried to ally... and France and the Mongols... Strange things happen

Can you find any sources for the egyptians allying the crusaders? I would love to see what happened, but from everything I've seen and learned no such thing happened. As for the franco-mongolian alliance, it was a shaky alliance at best and only worked because of christian influences within mongolian courts and their being already at war with the same guy.

 

[Cruxador]

It's just funny that the exact reservations we had on the DD came true.

Rather than funny, I'd consider it worrying. Paradox was told that this would be a problem, and why (and based on their experience, they should have known anyway) and still pushed this out with problems intact.

I really, really hope PDX is considering removing congenital traits from education, too. Idolizer always turns to Weak, Rowdy always turns to Slow. Useless childhood paths, and half the realm ends up Weak!

They're not considering changing it. It's DLC, so it gets no support.

I agree with this suggestion. I'm not an expert on medieval warfare, but I think the previous emphasis on decisive field battles (compared with sieges) was ahistorical, so I welcome Paradox doing something to reduce the importance of any one particular field battle. But the shattered retreat mechanic they've currently adopted doesn't really make any more sense, either. While I understand that defeated armies were rarely annihilated, an army whose morale has been shattered shouldn't retreat and regroup, they should just go home. So I like the suggestion that they melt away and return to their local holdings, with a cooldown on reraising them.

The only thing I would add is that I think there should be high-level prisoners taken during decisive victories in field battles; from what I understand, one of the few reasons European nobles would risk an actual field battle with each other from time to time was for the opportunity to capture and ransom their opponents. In other words, field battles shouldn't be the way wars are won, but they could be one way to fund your victory, and the way you destroy your enemy's ability to defend themselves or siege your holdings.

While this system is totally applicable to the France and Germany of the high middle ages, remember that the game has expanded to cover a lot more than that, and the combat system needs to apply universally. Unless a lot of details of battle and war mechanics were to be diversified so that they could change according to government type, religion, culture, cb, etc, but that'd be a change on the scope of a whole new DLC. And on the eve of this one, I can't say I want them tinkering with the mechanics until the people that were transferred to Stellaris get back (if they ever do).

 

[Camtheman]

Coalitions in CK2 are a horrible idea. Not only do they not work in the source game (EUIV, cue screenshots of people one-tagging as Kazan/Uzbek in 1670) they are ahistorical for CK2s time period and even during EU IV they are rare until very late (Napoleonic Wars)

This whole dogma is getting very old with paradox. Their cheap, band-aid solutions to larger problems. Like with EU IV restarting on exit to menu to get around the corrupt gamestate CTD issue. Instead of fixing the actual CTD issue, they band aid it.

Here it is carried over - instead of working on a fitting solution to slow expansion (why is people expanding quickly an issue again?) for CK2's time period and scope (They'll probably say that would be 'technically challenging', lol) , they carry over a (poor) mechanic from another game.

One can only put so many band aids on a wound before you'll bleed out.

 

[zbyrne]

I agree with this suggestion. I'm not an expert on medieval warfare, but I think the previous emphasis on decisive field battles (compared with sieges) was ahistorical, so I welcome Paradox doing something to reduce the importance of any one particular field battle. But the shattered retreat mechanic they've currently adopted doesn't really make any more sense, either. While I understand that defeated armies were rarely annihilated, an army whose morale has been shattered shouldn't retreat and regroup, they should just go home. So I like the suggestion that they melt away and return to their local holdings, with a cooldown on reraising them.

The only thing I would add is that I think there should be high-level prisoners taken during decisive victories in field battles; from what I understand, one of the few reasons European nobles would risk an actual field battle with each other from time to time was for the opportunity to capture and ransom their opponents. In other words, field battles shouldn't be the way wars are won, but they could be one way to fund your victory, and the way you destroy your enemy's ability to defend themselves or siege your holdings.

Yup this is a pretty important aspect of the period (another thing suspiciously absent from the game...), but the whole point of going to war, for most lords, was to capture people to ransom. It was the way to fund your campaigning, because it was expense. There were also generally rules against looting, so it was the only honourable way to generate money out of a battle/campaign. In fact the whole business of capturing prisoners made for a curious affect in (certainly the earlier - mid period) battles, where nobles just didn't die - there are actually some battles where only a handful are mentioned as being killed, and the chronicles effectively say it was a shame, and probably an unfortunate accident, which you know, is strange thing to say about a battle. Obviously peasants and that sort were slaughtered, but nobles were actually pretty safe in battles (at least in the early days it all goes to the dogs later). I'd actually describe it almost like making investments today - noble goes into battle, hoping his side will win (although not a necessity to secure a nice fat ransom), and gets some money out of it. The notion he'd die would be pretty far off.