Conclave: The Near Future

[LACKADAISICAL]

I kinda admire what Paradox is trying to do with coalitions, I just think it isn't implemented that well. In my game, I got a claim on Fatimid-held Egypt as the Byzantines and pressed it. I won the war and took their land (Egypt, Jerusalem and most of North Africa), and as a result all of Europe, most of the Middle-East and most of the steppes joined a coalition against me.

Now, I get that blobbing needed some countermeasures, but there are two problems with this situation:

1. It didn't stop me from blobbing. This is the biggest issue, to me. If you get some really sweet CB (like a really nice claim) you can still become massive in a single war. If the goal was to counter blobs, it would've been more effective and more realistic to make it more difficult to integrate foreign lands into your realm. In EUIV, for example, taking more land than you can manage can result in extremely dangerous rebels and the destabilization of your realm. It isn't like that in CK2, even with conclave's difficulty-enhancing features. In the years since I took egypt I haven't really had any internal problems managing my vast new lands, I just can't attack my neighbors without starting WWI really early.

2. It makes no sense. I can't really see why Bretons would join up with Persians halfway across the world in a "screw those Byzantine jerkwads" pact when I pose no threat to them. I guess the design here was not to increase realism or anything, just to increase difficulty, and I don't think that's a great idea. Again, referring to my suggestion in the first point, you could make the game harder and more realistic by making foreign lands difficult to integrate (by beefing up rebels, adding some sort of overextension mechanic or by adding mechanics for culture-based rebels like you see in EUIV) rather than throwing in this kooky coalition mechanic.

 

[Delicate Danseuse]

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

See, I don't see that as bad or weird. People know the Roman Empire is a threat of that scale, and the Byzantine Empire has that kind of reputation. And since the Pope is Catholic and the Byzantine Empire is Orthodox... That makes sense to me.

Another argument: I think cross-religious coalitions would make sense against the Mongols or the Aztecs. The Aztecs wouldn't be a near certain game ender, there.

Not to say that the current standard is acceptable right now. I think it should be very, very hard and the threat very, very big. And foreign.

 

[E. Cephalopoda]

See, I don't see that as bad or weird. People know the Roman Empire is a threat of that scale, and the Byzantine Empire has that kind of reputation. And since the Pope is Catholic and the Byzantine Empire is Orthodox... That makes sense to me.

Another argument: I think cross-religious coalitions would make sense against the Mongols or the Aztecs. The Aztecs wouldn't be a near certain game ender, there.

Not to say that the current standard is acceptable right now. I think it should be very, very hard and the threat very, very big. And foreign.

Seems, corrupted by modern values people can't understand all depth of the Pope's fall.
Look at the date at my previous picture. It's 9th century. The divsion of the East and the West churches are still not too significant, even after photian schism, and for the common people in general there are no difference.
Emperor have a rightful claim, and the Pope calls to war religious leader of infidels and even pagan holy order:

People of Rome will rather impale their Pope for such heresy and present a keys of the city to the Emperor after looking at such madness. At least Emperor hadn't any allies except orthodox Russian Empire.

The threat of nomads and aztecs can't be recognized as a global problem by medieval people. It's a local troubles of local rulers, they got for their sins.

 

[GUmby_Aaron]

Do more with the favour system. If you get a favour from the Pope you can't use it for anything either. Excommunication, Divorce or even nomination of Bishops if you don't have Free investiture. Instead the Pope just owes you a useless favour, never to be repaid. Also if someone owes you a favour you should be able to call on it for the joining of an intrigue plot as long as it doesn't harm them or their immediate family.

 

[Zolotaya]

... Emperor have a rightful claim, and the Pope calls to war religious leader of infidels and even pagan holy order:

The threat of nomads and aztecs can't be recognized as a global problem by medieval people. It's a local troubles of local rulers, they got for their sins.

The fallacy is believing that all politics and concerns are local. The Pope, even in the 10th century, was more worldly and had a larger picture of reality than given credit for. The Pope was involved in politics from Bulgaria to the Ausurias ... and his machinations to get the results he wanted made for strange bedfellows. Charlemagne was invited into Italy to counter a local threat to his perceived security but that did not mean the Pope was ignorant of the ERE's efforts in the Balkans against Charlemagne or the strengthening of the Franks with the Saxon conquests.

Roman people would have slit any non-Roman Pope's throat if they could, yet the local factions were not alone in a vacuum unaware of what was happening and involved with those events.

 

[E. Cephalopoda]

The fallacy is believing that all politics and concerns are local. The Pope, even in the 10th century, was more worldly and had a larger picture of reality than given credit for. The Pope was involved in politics from Bulgaria to the Ausurias ... and his machinations to get the results he wanted made for strange bedfellows. Charlemagne was invited into Italy to counter a local threat to his perceived security but that did not mean the Pope was ignorant of the ERE's efforts in the Balkans against Charlemagne or the strengthening of the Franks with the Saxon conquests.

Roman people would have slit any non-Roman Pope's throat if they could, yet the local factions were not alone in a vacuum unaware of what was happening and involved with those events.

Pope hadn't enough influence and was a marionette in the hands of italian and lately european rulers until late 10-11th century. He was just a bishop of Rome, which stopped to be a center of the world, a religious leader, a source of legitimacy for a ruler, and no more, until HRE became powerful enough. Remember the age of pornocracy, do you really think, a papal rule was powerful enough to being inwolved into any independent politics?

Well, anyway, it's far away from the related discussion.
How about to limit coalition membership only for the neighbored states? It will be a nice thing for those, who like to create tributary buffer states.

 

[Langkard1]

The new council system is one of the changes which seems to be working well, for the most part. It could use some adjusting, however. The demand of vassals for council positions is an interesting addition and could be adjusted to be a really great one. At present, however, it seems to penalize the smaller realms rather harshly - those at duke and small king level. Counts will have several holding-level vassals demanding a council position, which is fine unless the count has several counties with many holdings. The player will have councilors needing appeasement, but it can be handled and adds a layer of interesting play. Dukes, on the other hand, have to deal with both the barony-level vassals in their own demesnes and their counts. These quickly far outnumber the limited 5 council positions to the point that a duke-level realm is constantly dealing with rebellions, but small enough to be game over vulnerable to them. For kings the number of demanding vassals is greatly increased, with baron and counts and dukes now added together wanting one of the 5 council positions; but kings will be able to at least reasonably deal with the increased revolts with some trouble.

A simple fix to the councilor position demands of vassals to work as intended (making very large realms harder to manage) but which doesn't also make it too harsh for the mid-level realm would be to limit vassal demands to the next lower title tier until empire level. Like this:

Count - barons, mayors and bishops will want a council position (no change from the way it is now)
Duke - only counts will want council positions, giving the player an incentive to move up from count to small duke while increasing the difficulty when expanding to large multi-county de facto duchies.
King - only dukes will want council positions, again incentive to form a small kingdom with few dukes but increasing difficulty when the kingdom expands.
Empire - dukes and kings will demand council positions, making forming an empire a risky choice and also encouraging emperors to create vassals kings instead of having all dukes.


One other point here: I caution people here to avoid falling into a false-consensus bias, assuming that their own opinions are the majority opinion. I've seen several people exhibit that bias on these forums. Paradox has sold over 1 million copies of CKII. Anyone claiming here that the majority opinion of players of CKII believe as they do first needs to prove that over 500,000 people agree with them. Simply claiming that your view is correct because of some silent majority which you assume agrees with you, without proof that they do, is an example of the false-consensus bias. We all have our opinions, but we should never assume that our opinions are the same as that of the majority unless a formal vote has been taken.

 

[vukica]

the first fourteen pages didn't convince me, but this final fifteenth did.

i do not like coalitions.

 

[Dracko81]

they got ridd of the assasination button didnt they? and that thing was just as ahistorical as shattered retreat and coalitions, only nowhere as hated. theyll be removed sooner or later.

So they will remove reforming religions next then right?

 

[TheKingofWinter]

So they will remove reforming religions next then right?

last time i checked, people like reform religion.

 

[Dracko81]

last time i checked, people like reform religion.

Last I checked people liked assassination button. It was removed for a reason and historical accuracy only goes so far in a game.

 

[Thure]

they got ridd of the assasination button didnt they? and that thing was just as ahistorical as shattered retreat and coalitions, only nowhere as hated. theyll be removed sooner or later.

The Assassination button was removed because we already had Assassination plots at this date. It was outdated. So Assassinations weren't removed from the game as mechanic... just changed.

 

[TheKingofWinter]

Last I checked people liked assassination button. It was removed for a reason and historical accuracy only goes so far in a game.

i fail to see how this is an argument that shattered retreat and coalition wont eventually be removed. also, there were ton of people who didnt like the assasian button.

 

[TheKingofWinter]

The Assassination button was removed because we already had Assassination plots at this date. It was outdated. So Assassinations weren't removed from the game as mechanic... just changed.

forced loans when you went bankrupt was also removed.

 

[IFWanderer]

they got ridd of the assasination button didnt they? and that thing was just as ahistorical as shattered retreat and coalitions, only nowhere as hated. theyll be removed sooner or later.

It wasn't removed for historical (in)accuracy. It was removed because the assasination button and plots to murder people did "the same thing" (killing a character), so they felt it was redundant to have both, and plotting was more involved, so they removed the other one.

 

[Dracko81]

i fail to see how this is an argument that shattered retreat and coalition wont eventually be removed. also, there were ton of people who didnt like the assasian button.

Because there needs to be a reason to remove it. Not liking it, is not a reason. People dislike the way muslim succession and decadence are portrayed, but they are still in the game.

Any talk about removing a mechanic is essentially pointless, there is no reason to remove it.

 

[JohnKR]

So when are you planning on getting rid of shattered retreat?

Assasination was made better not removed, the button was removed. Forced loans where there because there was no negative money system, now there is.

Also Paradox should care about history, gameplay and balance. Not only if you like it or not. Many people just can't stand change. Many people supported Hitler, that doesn't made Hitler right.
If something is right or not, good or bad for the game has to have a rational answer and argument relative to the concept of the game, not just "i like it" or "i do not". Of course you also take that in consideration but shouldn't be the main factor.

Also i hope that you understand that people who are satisfied with something will not write in the forum as much as people who are not. So don't play the dictator here, who knows what people want and what they do not.

 

[Cetan]

forced loans when you went bankrupt was also removed.

And became arguably better, especially if you're a vassal.

I don't think there's a game where I don't withdraw 300 gold from the Jewish Bank. My liege is bound to kick them out and I walk away with free money.

 

[JohnKR]

And became arguably better, especially if you're a vassal.

I don't think there's a game where I don't withdraw 300 gold from the Jewish Bank. My liege is bound to kick them out and I walk away with free money.

Hahaha....very realistic and historical ( i am not joking )! How i did not think that

 

[TheKingofWinter]

Because there needs to be a reason to remove it. Not liking it, is not a reason. People dislike the way muslim succession and decadence are portrayed, but they are still in the game.

Any talk about removing a mechanic is essentially pointless, there is no reason to remove it.

they arent fun, they arent historical, and if reddit, this forum and steam is to believe, this is hated more than anything else in the history of CK2. even Sunset invasion has a higher ratio of supporters compared to antagonists than these features.

there is also the fact that by "fixing" these mechanics, paradox will make the reason why they were implemented pointless.
coalitions were created to prevent huge realms from just gobbling up everything in sight with no real opposition. the point where their plans for how it was going to go went wrong was that it affects small realms far to much, so in future patches they plan on making it so that it only affects really big realms. except 1. since coalitions are exclusively defensive a player can just wait it out with no problem, and 2. once a player gets big enough, he can just plow through the coalitions anyway, making the reason for why it exists pointless. this problem will only become bigger and bigger the more coalitions are made weaker.

as for shattered retreat, it was by paradox's own addmission a feature to help a realm survive after losing one big battle. except it doesnt work at all. a smart player will still continue to chase them down in despite of the shattered retreat. because. here's the thing. when you are aware of the fact that an army can bounce back from losing half their army if you just let them escape? any sane person will chase down the army again, and again and again, until its either completely destroyed or its so laughably weak that it simply cant "bounce back". the fact that the AI doesnt use this strategy is also a huge unfair advantage the player have over the ai. and paradox plans for making it better? theyre going to make battles, even ones with few casualties have a much higher warscore, making the endless chase strategy even better. and other suggested improvements on the system? the most common is that you should enforce a massive attrition penalty on the retreater, which is completely realistic. but also doesnt fix the problem that continued chase is the best strategy, in fact itll make it even better, bacuse itll drasticly shorten the amount of chasing youll actually have to do. all shattered retreat does is make it so that wars that should last a few weeks can last for years, and allow players to bounce back from losses they really shouldnt be able to do so from, because the AI isnt smart enough to play smart.

that is why so many of us wants it removed, because we can already see how this system, not only doesnt belong, in this game, but also will never be a good feature and only made more and more pointless with each "fix".