Crusader Kings II: The Republic - Developer Diary 2: War and Trade

[DLFebin]

Clothes are prolly in the third variant, The Republic DLC itself, together with UI skin etc.

 

[NosgothKingdom]

YES!!!
Thanks a lot for this dev diary, I really enjoyed it. I wasn't sure we'd get one because of the holidays, but hell yeah.

Just one thing. Realistically speaking the returns of a broader trade network should be increasing ones, so I suppose it's decreasing ingame for gameplay (balance) purposes, ain't it?

 

[Portal]

Yes, we should get this back on trade... but the point is that overland trade will balance Africa and the Middle East!

OVERLAND TRADE

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

YES!!!
Thanks a lot for this dev diary, I really enjoyed it. I wasn't sure we'd get one because of the holidays, but hell yeah.

Just one thing. Realistically speaking the returns of a broader trade network should be increasing ones, so I suppose it's decreasing ingame for gameplay (balance) purposes, ain't it?

You still get the bonus for each trade post but the overall extra bonus for having a growing trade zone diminishes. Makes sense to me.
The more trading posts in one zone, less lucrative they get in competing against each other. No more monopolies. Hence, lower bonus per each new trade post, while still more income.

 

[Kimberly]

YES!!!
Thanks a lot for this dev diary, I really enjoyed it. I wasn't sure we'd get one because of the holidays, but hell yeah.

Just one thing. Realistically speaking the returns of a broader trade network should be increasing ones, so I suppose it's decreasing ingame for gameplay (balance) purposes, ain't it?

Does broadening a trade network really have increasing returns? A wide trade network will generally have an efficient overall economy, because areas can specialize. Adding more territory to it would only slightly increase its overall efficiency; the difference between one trade post and two trade posts, on the other hand, is pretty huge.

 

[grisamentum]

I can tell we're going to get into a Manzikert debate now, lol.

It might help if we buff the Seljuks with the Silk Road, but turn them also against the Fatamids by making Shia a Sunni heresy. Now, this is slightly historical; Sunni and Shia did not view each other like Orthodox and Catholic. They usually considered themselves to both be Christian until the Fourth Crusade debacle and the Massacre of the Latins and such. However, the Sunni and Shia hated each other as heretics.

By making Shia a heresy, making the majority of Egyptian territories either Miaphysite or Sunni, linking Egypt with Nubia and Assyria via trade, nerfing holdings in Alexandria and Cairo, and introduce the Silk Road, we will have a number of things:

1. The Fatimids will be as historical. They will never attack Nubia or Assyria as they will be their only trade partners and allies. They will be systematically torn apart by the Sunni states in North Africa and the Seljuks. They will face constant rebellions by Sunni or Miaphysite rulers and peasants. They will never catch a break.
2. The Seljuks will progress as historical into Anatolia, possibly forming the Sultanate of Rum.
3. Byzantines may survive as historical. Or not, depending on the actions of the Seljuks. Considering the truces involved and the opportunities, I think Byzantium will progress roughly as historic without having to worry about the Fatamids Invasion of Greece.
4. Nubian and Assyrian survival and perhaps economic dominance. Imagine it; the once doomed nation of Assyria, now a merchant-kingdom, ruling the Red Sea and the Ethiopian trade routes!

I agree with all of this. It's totally ridiculous that the counties in the Fatimid Sultanate (also wtf? Fatimid SULTANATE??) are majority Shia. They were not. The populace was always Sunni and the rules were shia heretics.

That's another thing - the Fatimids should NOT be the de jure rulers of all that land. The Fatimid Caliphate should be a titular title and the Fatimids should NOT use the sultan title.

 

[Kimberly]

That's another thing - the Fatimids should NOT be the de jure rulers of all that land. The Fatimid Caliphate should be a titular title and the Fatimids should NOT use the sultan title.

I think the problem here is not so much that the Fatimid's de jure borders may or may not be wrong, but rather that the whole de jure mechanic makes much for sense for Christendom than it does in the Islamic world.

 

[grisamentum]

I think the problem here is not so much that the Fatimid's de jure borders may or may not be wrong, but rather that the whole de jure mechanic makes much for sense for Christendom than it does in the Islamic world.

This is true also. Also, the difference used to be more significant. When vassal revolt calculation included a penalty for "not my de jure liege" then it would have helped a lot if the Fatimids only had their historical titles, and not the "Sultan of Egypt" title, which did not ever exist until Saladin.

Really, the entire relationship between Saladin and the Fatimids is so far beyond this game's ability to model that I don't understand why anyone bothers complaining about "gameyness." This game is so divorced from reality that you have to have to be totally ignorant of medieval history and politics if you think you're going to do better by playing "historically."

 

[Delta107]

Okay. Nice stuff!

 

[Blitzzer]

Can't wait to try a republic. Heh, sounds like greed can invite doom, especially for republics like Venice or Genoa who can mostly build trade posts on either ERE/HRE or infidel soil.

...but turn them also against the Fatamids by making Shia a Sunni heresy.

Why would they? Mainstream shiites and mainstream sunnis can use holy wars and invasions on each other, and have been able to do this since patch 1.06 at least, possibly even earlier than that. Why do you think the Fatimids from 1066 -> usually feast on the weaker African sunni muslims? If they aren't, then you should probably take a clorser look at the mods you're using.

 

[Bloodly]

The Italians playing off each other is one thing. Making one in a non-standard place and playing as them will be powerful, though it may take an annoying amount of time to initially set up since you need to create a Duke-Level Republic for them to work in.

Being biased, my ideas are the Most Serene Republics of Ireland, Britain, The Isles, Scotland...I'm looking forward to it.

EDIT: I just thought of something NASTY. Pagans can conquer where they like at Piety cost. Republics can conquer any coast they like. So combine the two and what do you get? The answer is 'Great Potential For Evil+Money'.

....These people basically have my money already.

 

[Hackworthy]

Sounds good.

Boy I wish people would do something other than bitch and moan about every aspect of the game on here...

 

[Svip]

From the first thread. C'mon, you know it can work! Don't you want to simulate the importance of Nubia and Ethiopia? The Baqt? The Novgorod Republic? The Silk Road, which went overland through Persia?

I doubt it would work. You may think, 'but Europa Universalis IV is going to have trade routes, nodes and whatnot throughout the world - even across land! - why can't Crusader Kings 2?'; the reason is obvious, however. EU4 is getting this trade feature as a fundamental mechanic in the game. Because the whole world is included in EU4 (as it is certainly not in CK2), the simulation can include these long trade routes (including the Silk Road), because both the point of origin and destination exists.

But that's not really the reason; it is because trade is such an importance in EU4 and we have done fine without it in CK2 so far. Furthermore, the way Doomdark explains this mechanic does not appear to be as 'route' and 'node' based as the EU4 trade system, but rather with trade posts that are connected via sea provinces. To include land trade, the whole mechanic would have to be reconstructed and many more things would have to be created to allow trade over land.

Or in short: Too much work for too little gain.

That's more the technical and 'economical' reasoning. Secondly; it would take away a bit of the uniqueness of playing a republic in this game, if other countries can make trade posts as well. That's not really pleasing, game design wise.

So what about the Silk Road? Well, like King said about March of the Eagles when someone asked why the colonies were not included and how to simulate the colonial income; 'just give the home provinces a bonus'. For all manners of the simulation, it works 'good enough'.

 

[Richard Dolder]

Guys, this is about republics, not muslims. Make a muslim thread about muslims.

Great stuff. Will feudal lords have something to counterbalance the Republics' CBs that allow them to take cities and entire counties?

Nope, i kept saying if they wanted to add playable republics they needed to take out the coastal horde CB, but it's in.
It's gonna be trivial to just conquer everything with your endless mercs, money and free CBs.

 

[Jeltz]

Nope, i kept saying if they wanted to add playable republics they needed to take out the coastal horde CB, but it's in.
It's gonna be trivial to just conquer everything with your endless mercs, money and free CBs.

They have weakened the CB so now you need first to build a trade post and then two wars to conquer a county. And conquering the county might actually give you little benefit compared to just conquering the city since what you are usually after is more money from the extended trade range.

 

[Portal]

I doubt it would work. You may think, 'but Europa Universalis IV is going to have trade routes, nodes and whatnot throughout the world - even across land! - why can't Crusader Kings 2?'; the reason is obvious, however. EU4 is getting this trade feature as a fundamental mechanic in the game. Because the whole world is included in EU4 (as it is certainly not in CK2), the simulation can include these long trade routes (including the Silk Road), because both the point of origin and destination exists.

But that's not really the reason; it is because trade is such an importance in EU4 and we have done fine without it in CK2 so far. Furthermore, the way Doomdark explains this mechanic does not appear to be as 'route' and 'node' based as the EU4 trade system, but rather with trade posts that are connected via sea provinces. To include land trade, the whole mechanic would have to be reconstructed and many more things would have to be created to allow trade over land.

Or in short: Too much work for too little gain.

That's more the technical and 'economical' reasoning. Secondly; it would take away a bit of the uniqueness of playing a republic in this game, if other countries can make trade posts as well. That's not really pleasing, game design wise.

So what about the Silk Road? Well, like King said about March of the Eagles when someone asked why the colonies were not included and how to simulate the colonial income; 'just give the home provinces a bonus'. For all manners of the simulation, it works 'good enough'.

I don't think you understand. This system will have nothing to do with the sea trade system. The thing I'm suggesting is a link up between seperate trade structures granting stacking bonuses, making a chain of buildings - a trade route - desirable.

The Republics have their Patricians and government structure. And too little gain? They could vastly improve the simulation and balance. I would rather have a better balanced and historical game with no Fatamid Invasion of freakin Greece than 'unique republics.'

 

[Svip]

I don't think you understand. This system will have nothing to do with the sea trade system. The thing I'm suggesting is a link up between seperate trade structures granting stacking bonuses, making a chain of buildings - a trade route - desirable.

No, they use the sea provinces to connect to one another (and back to republic), hence why only trade posts are possible in coastal provinces. You don't need an array/line of trade posts to form trade according to their mechanic.

You want something like that, which means they will have to rework the entire mechanic from the ground up. And it's a little late for that.

The Republics have their Patricians and government structure. And too little gain? They could vastly improve the simulation and balance. I would rather have a better balanced and historical game with no Fatamid Invasion of freakin Greece than 'unique republics.'

That's your desire. There are other ways to fix the simulation. If you want an accurate simulation of trade routes, the map needs to include India and China. Instead, compromises are made. And they are - in my mind - good enough. They still need tweaking, but the basic mechanics are good enough.

 

[Portal]

No, they use the sea provinces to connect to one another (and back to republic), hence why only trade posts are possible in coastal provinces. You don't need an array/line of trade posts to form trade according to their mechanic.

You want something like that, which means they will have to rework the entire mechanic from the ground up. And it's a little late for that.



That's your desire. There are other ways to fix the simulation. If you want an accurate simulation of trade routes, the map needs to include India and China. Instead, compromises are made. And they are - in my mind - good enough. They still need tweaking, but the basic mechanics are good enough.

It doesn't need to have anything to do with the sea trade system. It can just produce income.

And yes, it is my desire, but is it so wrong to desire that Ethiopia survives past 1100? Or that the Byzantines are not destroyed by 1080? That the Fatamids actually collapse?

 

[Svip]

It doesn't need to have anything to do with the sea trade system. It can just produce income.

From the screenshots released as well as what I understand from the DD, the sea provinces provide a zone of control. So the sea provinces are of importance. I don't exactly understand their true importance, but considering that the trade map overlay includes the sea provinces means they are part of the mechanic.

And yes, it is my desire, but is it so wrong to desire that Ethiopia survives past 1100? Or that the Byzantines are not destroyed by 1080? That the Fatamids actually collapse?

Nothing, but there is no way Doomdark is going to rewrite so much to do that; there are other ways to do that using the existing mechanics.

 

[unmerged(397168)]

I was pretty excited for SoI and LoR. I'm pretty much pissing myself with excitement over this.