Conclave: The Near Future

[Zolotaya]

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.

The Pope interfered in many things ... in your earlier post you reference the Photian Schism, an event that occurred because the Pope became involved in Bulgaria.

The pope temporarily glossed over the controversial question of the autocephalous status desired by Boris for his church and sent a large group of missionaries to continue the conversion of Bulgaria in accordance with the western rite.[36] Bulgaria's shift towards the Papacy infuriated Patriarch Photios who wrote an encyclical to the eastern clergy in 867, in which he denounced the practices associated with the western rite and Rome's ecclesiastical intervention in Bulgaria.
​

As I've stated earlier, I am not against distance restrictions to coalitions ... the mechanic can be tweaked and fine tuned. It does not need scrapping.

 

[TheKingofWinter]

Yes, I am. Because there is a difference between complaining about subjective matters and providing constructive feedback on said matter.

i have given constructive feedback, on this thread, directly to one of the developers about why they should consider removing shattered retreat retreat https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/conclave-the-near-future.906388/page-12

just because you dont agree that it would be better to simply remove it all together doesnt mean that there arent good reasons to consider doing so.

 

[sreckom92]

they still arent able to attack offensively, and the AI isnt affected at all. unless those two are changed i see no point in the mechanic being there.

How come it's not affected?
It won't expand in that direction, or it will have problems.

 

[Kollatius]

i have given constructive feedback, on this thread, directly to one of the developers about why they should consider removing shattered retreat retreat https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/conclave-the-near-future.906388/page-12

just because you dont agree that it would be better to simply remove it all together doesnt mean that there arent good reasons to consider doing so.

Re-read my post.

 

[TheKingofWinter]

How come it's not affected/
It won't expand in that direction, or it will have problems.

why? either make it so that coalitions are an actual threat that can seriously threaten to bring down empires, or get ridd of it. most complaints against it is that it affects to many, for to little expansion. i agree with those, but unless there is an actual reason for why you as an emperor would want to avoid coalitions i dont see the point of them being there.

also, to me at least, any debate on the matter is pointless, as the ai isnt affected in the same way. the player and the ai does not play by the same rules. if you play as a byzantium emperor and the mongols just conquered the entire middle east, you cant form a coalition of you own to oppose them. in other words, this is a mechanic that is solely there to punish the player. and i find that as a bigger reason to hate coalitions than anything else. say what you will about shattered retreat, at least you and the AI have the same rules about it. you dont get to use coalitions to your advantage. only the ai does, its a massive advantage in a game where elsewise, you and the computer are bound by the same rules and limitations. and that i cannot tolerate.

 

[JohnKR]

WOW, i honestly didnt expect to find an example of godwins law here, but youve proved me wrong JohnKR, you must be really proud to be the first to pull out the hitler argument in this debate. also, go check out reddit and steam, cause the few guys who like these mechanics? they are the ones that post on this forum, everyone else hates them. also, "paradox should care about history"? well, in that case, shattered retreats(or tactical retreats as real life calls them) and coalitions shouldnt even be considered here, cause they werent a thing in medieval times. AT ALL. they came into being centuries after CK2 ended. they belong in EU4, not here.

In CK2 warfare was too bloody...there are only a very few examples of pursuing and annihilating the enemy army. In most cases they regrouped and fought back an other day. That's something that was happening in the whole world from the ancient times ( even in sparta ). The armies were not annihilated but surrendered cause in real life losing 10000 man is not just numbers. (i thinks they should add a relation penalty to vassals when you lose battles) So i aggre with increased battle win points but shattered release is ok. Even if the name of shattered retreat or coalitions are not the best ( are true terms of another era ), is something that always existed with different name and form. ( that: we the bourgeoise of the 18th century and after discover everything has to stop someday )

 

[TheKingofWinter]

In CK2 warfare was too bloody...there are only a very few examples of pursuing and annihilating the enemy army. In most cases they regrouped and fought back an other day. That's something that was happening in the whole world from the ancient times ( even in sparta ). The armies were not annihilated but surrendered cause in real life losing 10000 man is not just numbers. (i thinks they should add a relation penalty to vassals when you lose battles) So i aggre with increased battle win points but shattered release is ok. Even if the name of shattered retreat or coalitions are not the best ( are true terms of another era ), is something that always existed with different name and form. ( that: we the bourgeoise of the 18th century and after discover everything has to stop someday )

they didnt "regroup to fight another day" they broke. medival armies outside of byzantium were not made up of proffesional soliders, it was made up of levies. and levy soliders werent trained soliders. they had the bare minimum of training for their tasks on the battlefield, they had no mental training to deal with the stress of battle. this meant that when fighting actually came, and they lost? most of these men broke. they basicly said: screw this, im going home. then they desserted and tried to make their way home. thus armies that lost vanished over night, even if most of the fighting men actually survived. for example at agnicourt the french lost one third of their 40k strong army, but still the survivors outnumbered the english 2-1. yet the army completely broke apart, as the levies desserted. and before you ask, yes this was also the case where the retreat was ordered.

tactical retreats didnt resurge again until proffessional armies again started to become a thing once more.

 

[sreckom92]

either make it so that coalitions are an actual threat that can seriously threaten to bring down empires, or get ridd of it.

Again, your "actual threat" is too severe for the majority of players, and is no different than current coalition mechanic. My proposal is not going to give challenge for hardcore players. But honestly, I don't really care. Game should not be tailored towards the playstyle and skill of the most experienced players.

also, to me at least, any debate on the matter is pointless

Indeed it is pointless.
You have a mindset of "make coalitions a threat, or get rid of them".
But, since you are not going to accept any suggestion to modify or nerf coalitions, your only contribution to this debate is "REMOVE THEM".
And so, of course it is pointless to debate anymore about it.

 

[Memoryofthelost]

Nooo, no, no it did not. I remember SI's announcement. The fury was all-pervading and knew no bounds.

Coalition/SR-rage is somewhere between that and the fury over the AI-military-bug following WoL's release, which in turn was about the same level as the RoI-hate. Seduction hate probably exceeds them too, but that's more slow-burning rage.

It seems like Seduction was kinda fixed in the last patch since it is hard for anyone to get high opinion with anyone. Making it really hard to seduce anyone.

 

[TheKingofWinter]

Again, your "actual threat" is too severe for the majority of players, and is no different than current coalition mechanic. My proposal is not going to give challenge for hardcore players. But honestly, I don't really care. Game should not be tailored towards the playstyle and skill of the most experienced players.

Indeed it is pointless.
You have a mindset of "make coalitions a threat, or get rid of them".
But, since you are not going to accept any suggestion to modify or nerf coalitions, your only contribution to this debate is "REMOVE THEM".
And so, of course it is pointless to debate anymore about it.

ok, ill give my thoughts on how to make the coalition system work.

first of all make it optional. i think no one would have given a damn about the system if we had a choice wheter to use it or not. i can assure you that had shattered retrea and coalisions been an exclusive part of conclave i sure as hell wouldnt use it.

secondly make it so that the players has full acess to coalitions like the ai does. in doing that also make it so that the ai also gathers infamy. thus making the computer play by the same rules as the player.

thirdly make it so that there is not any infamy gathered from inheriting a title.

fourth, make infamy scale very hard depending on tier rank, so that counts, dukes and kings are hardly affected at all, and this is only a feature emperors have to worry about.

fifth, make it so that imfamy over a certain level unlocks offensive coalitions. so that having a very high infamy rate is something that you really do wanna avoid like the plague.

sixth make it exclusive to the groups you make war upon, so that unless you fight massive amounts of wars against several different groups at the same time, theyre never going to join together.

seventh, make sure to be very precise when dealing what gives how much infamy. and avoid ludicrous situations where you get coalitions for winning a war that you started with.

and there you have seven steps for how idd improve the coalition system without removing it.

but you know what? i still say that removing it is the better solution. i genuinly think that from a gameplay standpoint, there are far better ways to deal with overexessive blobbing. i think there are ways to improve the system, but im also of the opinion that simply removing the system is the better option here, and thats only from the gameplay itself. there are tons of people who are against the very idea simply because for them it breaks the suspesion of disbelief. while ck2 can be pretty unrealistic at times, when it comes down to it, its a alternate history generator. and thats one of the things we love about it, the fact that a early united UK could have happend, or united scandinavia, or a restored rome. but the game is still grounded in that its set in medieval europe/north africa/asia. and as such we expect it to follow certain rules. thats one of the reasons why sunset invasion was so hated, because it broke these rules, and it freely admitt it. but sunset was and is optional. if we dont want to use it, we dont. coalitions and shattered retreats are not optional. they are completely ahistorical, but we dont have the option of turning them off. and that is why there are a lot of people who are championing for them to be removed. because even if they are fine tuned, they still break our suspension of disbelief.

 

[sreckom92]

ok, ill give my thoughts on how to make the coalition system work.

first of all make it optional. i think no one would have given a damn about the system if we had a choice wheter to use it or not. i can assure you that had shattered retrea and coalisions been an exclusive part of conclave i sure as hell wouldnt use it.

secondly make it so that the players has full acess to coalitions like the ai does. in doing that also make it so that the ai also gathers infamy. thus making the computer play by the same rules as the player.

thirdly make it so that there is not any infamy gathered from inheriting a title.

fourth, make infamy scale very hard depending on tier rank, so that counts, dukes and kings are hardly affected at all, and this is only a feature emperors have to worry about.

fifth, make it so that imfamy over a certain level unlocks offensive coalitions. so that having a very high infamy rate is something that you really do wanna avoid like the plague.

sixth make it exclusive to the groups you make war upon, so that unless you fight massive amounts of wars against several different groups at the same time, theyre never going to join together.

seventh, make sure to be very precise when dealing what gives how much infamy. and avoid ludicrous situations where you get coalitions for winning a war that you started with.

I agree with every point that you presented.

 

[TheKingofWinter]

I agree with every point that you presented.

yet you refuse to accept that i have actual reasons for wanting the system removed as opposed to it simply being me against change?

 

[richvh]

ok, ill give my thoughts on how to make the coalition system work.

first of all make it optional. i think no one would have given a damn about the system if we had a choice wheter to use it or not. i can assure you that had shattered retrea and coalisions been an exclusive part of conclave i sure as hell wouldnt use it.

secondly make it so that the players has full acess to coalitions like the ai does. in doing that also make it so that the ai also gathers infamy. thus making the computer play by the same rules as the player.

The AI does gain infamy, by the same rules the player does. The player can join coalitions against AI that have gained sufficient infamy.

thirdly make it so that there is not any infamy gathered from inheriting a title.

fourth, make infamy scale very hard depending on tier rank, so that counts, dukes and kings are hardly affected at all, and this is only a feature emperors have to worry about.

Infamy scales very hard depending on realm size. Counts and dukes are hardly affected at all, and only the biggest kings have to worry about it.

fifth, make it so that imfamy over a certain level unlocks offensive coalitions. so that having a very high infamy rate is something that you really do wanna avoid like the plague.

sixth make it exclusive to the groups you make war upon, so that unless you fight massive amounts of wars against several different groups at the same time, theyre never going to join together.

seventh, make sure to be very precise when dealing what gives how much infamy. and avoid ludicrous situations where you get coalitions for winning a war that you started with.

and there you have seven steps for how idd improve the coalition system without removing it.

but you know what? i still say that removing it is the better solution. i genuinly think that from a gameplay standpoint, there are far better ways to deal with overexessive blobbing. i think there are ways to improve the system, but im also of the opinion that simply removing the system is the better option here, and thats only from the gameplay itself. there are tons of people who are against the very idea simply because for them it breaks the suspesion of disbelief. while ck2 can be pretty unrealistic at times, when it comes down to it, its a alternate history generator. and thats one of the things we love about it, the fact that a early united UK could have happend, or united scandinavia, or a restored rome. but the game is still grounded in that its set in medieval europe/north africa/asia. and as such we expect it to follow certain rules. thats one of the reasons why sunset invasion was so hated, because it broke these rules, and it freely admitt it. but sunset was and is optional. if we dont want to use it, we dont. coalitions and shattered retreats are not optional. they are completely ahistorical, but we dont have the option of turning them off. and that is why there are a lot of people who are championing for them to be removed. because even if they are fine tuned, they still break our suspension of disbelief.

Some of your steps show that you really don't understand the system as implemented, despite your claims. Play a couple hundred hours then come back with a better understanding.

 

[JohnKR]

Paradox please don't listen to this zealot with the name of TheKingofWinter.... He is just one of those boys who want to conquer the world, have a huge empire for centuries, he even called france an empire. Empire is not just a big realm you know. It's people like you who destroyed this game! It was a great game but people like you just wanted to have a world conquest simulator with some medieval flavor, so empires popped up! Now that paradox just took the right direction, by making this very very veeeeerrrryyyy easy game a little more challenging you whine! We took your cheating game, boo hoo!

Sorry for beeing offensive but you have said so many wrong things in just so little time that i just can't be civilized until you stop spamming this thread with your non-sense...French Empire?! Charlesmagne Empire that hold enough? British Empire?! Really? Maybe you mean the Kingdom of Great Britain? Kingdom, with one king...not many kings and one emperor! Actually no empire had many king as vassals...actually only holy roman empire had bohemia and thats questionable. Tier 4 of governing it's a fantasy thing you know but ok...that's ok....but now....you overstress it man!
You seem to not even know what an empire is.......

And before starting posting play the game damn it! You don't even know how coalitions work in it!

Alternate History Generator? UK or United Scandinavia? Do you even know what are the technologies and ideas that made that possible are? Like you know... Printing? Musket?...New Shipping technology...and wait...NATION-STATES...CAPITALISM...BOURGEOISE...

You could be the emperor of the whole world...but without some technological progress and the ideas to support you are emperor of nothing...thats why every state that overstressed in feudal society collapsed...
and the idea, that i dont think you know, that they are part of one christian empire...

 

[TheKingofWinter]

Paradox please don't listen to this zealot with the name of TheKingofWinter.... He is just one of those boys who want to conquer the world, have a huge empire for centuries, he even called france an empire. Empire is not just a big realm you know. It's people like you who destroyed this game! It was a great game but people like you just wanted to have a world conquest simulator with some medieval flavor, so empires popped up! Now that paradox just took the right direction, by making this very very veeeeerrrryyyy easy game a little more challenging you whine! We took your cheating game, boo hoo!

Sorry for beeing offensive but you have said so many wrong things in just so little time that i just can't be civilized until you stop spamming this thread with your non-sense...French Empire?! Charlesmagne Empire that hold enough? British Empire?! Really? Maybe you mean the Kingdom of Great Britain? Kingdom, with one king...not many kings and one emperor! Actually no empire had many king as vassals...actually only holy roman empire had bohemia and thats questionable. Tier 4 of governing it's a fantasy thing you know but ok...that's ok....but now....you overstress it man!
You seem to not even know what an empire is.......

And before starting posting play the game damn it! You don't even know how coalitions work in it!

Alternate History Generator? UK or United Scandinavia? Do you even know what are the technologies and ideas that made that possible are? Like you know... Printing? Musket?...New Shipping technology...and wait...NATION-STATES...CAPITALISM...BOURGEOISE...

You could be the emperor of the whole world...but without some technological progress and the ideas to support you are emperor of nothing...thats why every state that overstressed in feudal society collapsed...
and the idea, that i dont think you know, that they are part of one christian empire...

want to know what the funny thing is? ive never done a world conquest run. in my 6086 hours of playing this game ive never once tried to actually conquer the whole map. the closest ive ever been, was when i did the achievements regarding conquering india, when i conquered my way to it after a crusade for jerusalem. then after getting the achievement, i stopped that campain. never tried anything of similar scale again.

as for no emperor having dozens of kings beneath him, the roman emperors would disagree rather severely with that claim. as for what an empire is, its a country where that goes by the definition empire, and in most cases its ruled by an emperor. there might be a bit more grandiose in the title than that of king, but an emperor is not by definition weaker or even equal to a powerfull king.

as for what made the united scandinavia(more commonly known as the kalmar union) possible, then yes, i do in fact know what made it possible. marriages, elective monarchies and a queen who's son had the right claims. that made a united scandinavia possible. printing, muskets, new ideas of nation-states, capitalism and bourgeoise had nothing to do with it i can assure you. though new shipping technology might have played a part, so i suppose you might have gotten that right.

as for large empires not being possible without the technology, the roman one lasted for many centuries before they fell. also the idea of only one christian empire, is pretty silly. sure there was only one emperor crowned by the pope, but there were also the emperor of the byzantines. and for a brief period there was a latin one. the idea that other could have arosen at the same time is not really all that unlikely.

as for not knowing how coalitions works in game, i do know that if you conquer the kingdom of england with the oh so feared kingdom of norway, you piss off quite a few people. that might seem silly to me, but hey, you might disagree.

 

[TheKingofWinter]

The AI does gain infamy, by the same rules the player does. The player can join coalitions against AI that have gained sufficient infamy.


Infamy scales very hard depending on realm size. Counts and dukes are hardly affected at all, and only the biggest kings have to worry about it.



Some of your steps show that you really don't understand the system as implemented, despite your claims. Play a couple hundred hours then come back with a better understanding.

if it does affect the AI ive have yet to see it. admitingly i based that on AI charlemagne not getting it, while a player charlemagne does get infamy for getting kingdoms through events.

as for scaling, i suppose then you agree that the king of norway successfully conquering england should create a massive coalition?

oh, i understand the system, i just think it needs massive reworking to actually be worth anything. i also dont see a point in a coalition system if its exclusively defensive in nature. that might be an unpopular opinion, but thats how i see it.

 

[sreckom92]

yet you refuse to accept that i have actual reasons for wanting the system removed as opposed to it simply being me against change?

It all comes down to fun and realism. People generally want both.
For you, coalitions are not fun, and not realistic. And as of now, that's my thought as well.
If they are made fun and less ridiculous, you would then complain about realism. And how there are better ways to stop blobbing...
Realism is a funny thing in CK2. While some features are not realistic, they at least "blend in" well, and can be tolerated. As of now, the level of non-realism with coalitions is above the clouds.
My suggestion would bring them to a tolerable level. Even you suggested a great way to make the "realism level" tolerable.

Even after we make coalitions fun and somewhat realistic, you still want them removed because you think there are better ways to stop blobbing.
You want a smart AI? Well, I want world peace....

First of all, devs won't remove coalitions just yet.
Why?
Would you simply delete something that you worked hard to make?
They will try to fix it. No matter how broken a feature is, Paradox will try hard to provide patches until it is tolerable.

Whether you like it or not, we are stuck with the system for the foreseeable future.

Second of all, it is not so easy to make an anti-blob mechanic.
People will always complain. And the way I see it, many people who dislike coalitions, do it because they are unable to conquer vast territories.
Do you actually believe that we can have a good anti-blob mechanic, without people complaining how they can no longer expand their territory? Should we have more exciting things to do inside our realm, without focusing on war and expansion? Yes, yes and YES!
I want to have more things to do, while in peace. (but then again, when I mention economy and trade, for some reason people yell at me how this is not EU4 or Victoria 2.....When I ask for better religion, pagans, republics...people yell at me, saying how we already have dedicated expansions for that.)
Still, we need to look at here and now. More things to do, while in peace, could come in the next expansion. We need to deal with current problems.
What ideas do you have? I bet Paradox had many ideas, but proved to be either impossible to implement, or would potentially anger the player base.
Vassal Limit was poorly implemented, same with Decadence. At least that is how some people would say.
Do you really think that Paradox deliberately makes poor features? Do you really believe that this game could be infinitely better, only if devs weren't so lazy?

Yes, I believe that you have actual reasons for disliking this feature.
But once (or if) we get coalitions to a fun and somewhat realistic level, your reasons will become void.
And they will simply only stand as your personal opinion.

For now, we wait for this patch.
Until then, we can either give suggestions to how to make coalitions better (because, like I said, we won't see them removed just yet) or to simply ignore the problem and play the game.

 

[richvh]

AI kingdom, affected by infamy and coalitions. You either haven't played enough, or haven't looked the right places.

Scaling is by aggressor size and acquisition size. I'm sure you agree that Norway conquering a kingdom is much more alarming than Norway conquering a county.

 

[TheKingofWinter]

It all comes down to fun and realism. People generally want both.
For you, coalitions are not fun, and not realistic. And as of now, that's my thought as well.
If they are made fun and less ridiculous, you would then complain about realism. And how there are better ways to stop blobbing...
Realism is a funny thing in CK2. While some features are not realistic, they at least "blend in" well, and can be tolerated. As of now, the level of non-realism with coalitions is above the clouds.
My suggestion would bring them to a tolerable level. Even you suggested a great way to make the "realism level" tolerable.

Even after we make coalitions fun and somewhat realistic, you still want them removed because you think there are better ways to stop blobbing.
You want a smart AI? Well, I want world peace....

First of all, devs won't remove coalitions just yet.
Why?
Would you simply delete something that you worked hard to make?
They will try to fix it. No matter how broken a feature is, Paradox will try hard to provide patches until it is tolerable.

Whether you like it or not, we are stuck with the system for the foreseeable future.

Second of all, it is not so easy to make an anti-blob mechanic.
People will always complain. And the way I see it, many people who dislike coalitions, do it because they are unable to conquer vast territories.
Do you actually believe that we can have a good anti-blob mechanic, without people complaining how they can no longer expand their territory? Should we have more exciting things to do inside our realm, without focusing on war and expansion? Yes, yes and YES!
I want to have more things to do, while in peace. (but then again, when I mention economy and trade, for some reason people yell at me how this is not EU4 or Victoria 2.....When I ask for better religion, pagans, republics...people yell at me, saying how we already have dedicated expansions for that.)
Still, we need to look at here and now. More things to do, while in peace, could come in the next expansion. We need to deal with current problems.
What ideas do you have? I bet Paradox had many ideas, but proved to be either impossible to implement, or would potentially anger the player base.
Vassal Limit was poorly implemented, same with Decadence. At least that is how some people would say.
Do you really think that Paradox deliberately makes poor features? Do you really believe that this game could be infinitely better, only if devs weren't so lazy?

Yes, I believe that you have actual reasons for disliking this feature.
But once (or if) we get coalitions to a fun and somewhat realistic level, your reasons will become void.
And they will simply only stand as your personal opinion.

For now, we wait for this patch.
Until then, we can either give suggestions to how to make coalitions better (because, like I said, we won't see them removed just yet) or to simply ignore the problem and play the game.

everythign you say after Whether you like it or not, we are stuck with the system for the foreseeable future. i want as well. i want more focus on trade, i want more religion focus, i want more republic depth. i want all of that and more.

you asked me if i believe that the developers are purposfully making bad features. the answer is no. but that doesnt mean that they dont deserve any blame here. almost everything that people are complaining about regarding Coalitions and SR were brought up back when they first announced them back in the diary entries. and they didnt take any of that into consideration. they didnt listen to what people were worried about. they had a idea and they refused to listen to any critisism regarding it. they also made the choise of having a small group of beta testers, rather than making it a massive one. had they chosen a massive open beta, we might not have gotten SR and coalitions at all. Paradox needs to learn from this fiasco. and there is no lessons that stays as well as the one taught by burned fingers.

there is also the fact if these features are eventually going to get removed, then we need to keep shouting. we cant stop talking about it, because if we do stop, we'll be stuck with it forever. thats one of the reasons why i continue to bring up that i think the best solution is the get ridd of the mechanic all together. because if i dont, we never will.

i will also admitt i have another reason for opposing coalitions. and that is that we are much more likely to have both features removed than one staying and the other being removed from the game. while i personally feel that coalitions could work with a lot of polish, the same can not be said for shattered retreat. if i have to chose between losing or keeping both? ill choose losing them. any good that might come from coalitions are undone by the horribleness of SR.

 

[TheKingofWinter]

AI kingdom, affected by infamy and coalitions. You either haven't played enough, or haven't looked the right places.

Scaling is by aggressor size and acquisition size. I'm sure you agree that Norway conquering a kingdom is much more alarming than Norway conquering a county.

well it would seem youve proven me wrong. but youve also brought up something else i didntknow off coalitions. they affects tribals the same as everyone else. which is yet anotehr way that the game makes sure that AI tribals never get to feudalism. also, norway is still a rather small country, it shouldnt be affected even if it did take england. especially since it doesnt have a casus beli against any of its neighbors.