There have been a lot of discussions regarding decadence, and god bless Paradox for all their attempts at getting it right, but it always ends either being too hard to deal with decadence, or too easy to completely avoid it. Not mention that dealing with it leads to encouraging anti-historical behavior.
So, I'd just like to try to express a completely new idea and see what the response would be: Decadence wouldn't be wholly bad. Granted, according to the common definition of the word "Decadence", it is bad, but the game mechanic in CK2 wouldn't.
The requirements for a proper implementation of this change, would be adding "Nomadic tribes" that are designed to represent the Berbers, the Bedouins and the Turks, especially those who live in areas of the map that would never support anon-nomadic lifestyle within the timeframe of CK2. Tribes that are intended to stick around, not to evolve into feudal states.
The second requirement is the removal of the uniquely Muslim succession law, it being replaced with the option to have any of the following: Agnatic/Agnatic-Cognatic Gavelkind/Primogeniture/Tanistry/Seniority/Ultimogeniture.
As for the change to decadence itself, it would be reworked to represent "Urbanism" giving higher tolerance, better technology advancement, higher learning, viceroyalties (with less penalties) and better administration (high enough values might even unlock a "Choose a dynasty member" succession), but high values would also decrease relations with all of the "Nomadic tribals" (which would be unable to gain Urbanism).
This would mean that any of them that are vassals would provide less (or even no) soldiers and taxes, and low enough Urbanism would also give morale bonuses. Get your Urbanism value to high, and all nomadic tribals (even your vassals) get a "Decadence Invasion" CB on you, and you can also be targeted by the Holy War CB of Muslims with low enough Urbanism. Lastly, even if your Urbanism isn't too high, if your ruler isn't capable enough, any vassal mercenary company, marshal or nomadic tribal might attempt a coup.
Thoughts?
So, I'd just like to try to express a completely new idea and see what the response would be: Decadence wouldn't be wholly bad. Granted, according to the common definition of the word "Decadence", it is bad, but the game mechanic in CK2 wouldn't.
The requirements for a proper implementation of this change, would be adding "Nomadic tribes" that are designed to represent the Berbers, the Bedouins and the Turks, especially those who live in areas of the map that would never support anon-nomadic lifestyle within the timeframe of CK2. Tribes that are intended to stick around, not to evolve into feudal states.
The second requirement is the removal of the uniquely Muslim succession law, it being replaced with the option to have any of the following: Agnatic/Agnatic-Cognatic Gavelkind/Primogeniture/Tanistry/Seniority/Ultimogeniture.
As for the change to decadence itself, it would be reworked to represent "Urbanism" giving higher tolerance, better technology advancement, higher learning, viceroyalties (with less penalties) and better administration (high enough values might even unlock a "Choose a dynasty member" succession), but high values would also decrease relations with all of the "Nomadic tribals" (which would be unable to gain Urbanism).
This would mean that any of them that are vassals would provide less (or even no) soldiers and taxes, and low enough Urbanism would also give morale bonuses. Get your Urbanism value to high, and all nomadic tribals (even your vassals) get a "Decadence Invasion" CB on you, and you can also be targeted by the Holy War CB of Muslims with low enough Urbanism. Lastly, even if your Urbanism isn't too high, if your ruler isn't capable enough, any vassal mercenary company, marshal or nomadic tribal might attempt a coup.
Thoughts?
Upvote
0