Dev Diary 11: Stopping The Snowball

[smeggy]

Implementing AE is going to generate a whole new category of unforeseen issues (just like in EU4). Stick to improving factions and bring back the distance opinion modifier.

International factions?

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Slightly off topic, but I do also think this shows a problem I have been seeing for some time both from Paradox and the fanbase which is that there is a heavy split between people on what it is they want to happen in the game. Some people feel that expansion should be tricky but not impossible whereas there seems to be a opposed idea (encouraged by some Paradox decisions and discouraged by others) that expansion past a relatively small size should be heavily penalised, if not impossible. EU IV strikes me as that game and it seemed that CK2 was much closer to the first idea. It feels like the forum and perhaps the dev team are something of a house divided on the wisdom of expansion vs restriction.

I agree that this situation exists. But, unless I am misunderstanding you, it has usually been that the reverse is true. EU series has always been the ultimate blobbing map painter. CK1 (and even CK2 used to be to some degree) the game where a series of unlikely events could have you go from mighty emperor of a massive realm to an OPM imbred icelandic count. Considering bloodlines and vassal strength need monitoring, the more balls you choose to juggle with a larger empire should, at least in theory, makes things unstable. CK didn't need artificial restraints on growth like infamy, coalitions and the like. Reason being that the instability of the larger realms tended to self limiting. I personally feel that is what should be aimed for once more.

Compared to CK1 and CK2 at launch, every expansion brings more gold, more traits (with more stats) and new flavors of casus belli. Rarely is there a lack of target now. We have so much gold that a relatively small reserve can buy enough mercenaries to bail us out of any kind of crisis. If you are able to raid (and its no longer all that uncommon for 769), it not only brings in piles of gold but also gives you so much prestige that you can reach the maximum relation bonus in a very short period of time. Retinues offer additional stability too. There has been very little in the way of chaos added to balance this. Usually the biggest inconvenience my character faces in his lifetime is having to walk around the queue of men waiting outside his wife's bedroom door.

Like I said in an earlier post, badboy/infamy/overexpansion/AE in other paradox games doesn't prevent expansion. It is merely an arbitrary speed limit on your expansion. The fact we are even considering it for CK is indicative that large realm stability needs to be addressed. I just worry infamy will be a so called "good enough" bandaid fix and the snowball will never be "stopped". It will merely have to monitor its rate and stay under the limit. That doesn't sound terribly fun to me, and feels out of place for the era.

 

[Kenlin]

Well I was here for this game when it still wasn't famous. I was here when this game was easy and retinues made levies obsolete. I was here when India came out and no one liked it. Now I am here to say that this is a wrong move.

I don't want a stressful game. I want a fun game. This game isn't eu4. This game is the reason eu4 is a success.

Well, I want a challenging game that demands skill, planning and concentration from the player in order for them to succeed.

Why don't we let the devs put in the things that make it more challenging, and you can mod them out? Because I can't mod these things *in*, you see?

 

[DiZero]

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/crusader-kings-dev-diary-1.503167/

This goes against original intent and development ideas. They expressly stated this would be a DIFFERENT type of game, that it would be unique. What has made the game so successful is its unique-ness, that its not EUIV. They're ruining the game for us, and if I could play without the patch then I would just do that. However I can't, Steam shoves it down my throat.

Literally never post. Don't have a real reason to usually, but I am disgruntled and sad about this change.

 

[richvh]

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/crusader-kings-dev-diary-1.503167/

This goes against original intent and development ideas. They expressly stated this would be a DIFFERENT type of game, that it would be unique. What has made the game so successful is its unique-ness, that its not EUIV. They're ruining the game for us, and if I could play without the patch then I would just do that. However I can't, Steam shoves it down my throat.

Literally never post. Don't have a real reason to usually, but I am disgruntled and sad about this change.

But you can. Ever since 1.11, the devs have provided a means to play with prior patches rather than the current one. There's even a sticky telling you how.

 

[Tom013]

As an exclusive EU4 player I have to ask - why do you have sea provinces in Caspian Sea?

Because boats can go there in CK2. Vikings can go raiding by river (and thus by lake and sea)

 

[Andrzej I]

But you can. Ever since 1.11, the devs have provided a means to play with prior patches rather than the current one. There's even a sticky telling you how.

While yes, you can do that, it prevents you from taking advantage of new features one might have and, more importantly, bugfixes.

 

[Angeleyed]

Well, I want a challenging game that demands skill, planning and concentration from the player in order for them to succeed.

Why don't we let the devs put in the things that make it more challenging, and you can mod them out? Because I can't mod these things *in*, you see?

I have no problem with the game becoming more challenging. This change however targets specific nations that are already hard to manage. Watch the Seljuk picture in the dev diary. All the Muslim world is in a coalition against him, because he won the scripted invasion of Armenia. So it will go like crusade--> coalition war ---> faction rebellion. This is cheating, ahistorical, boring, exploitable and stressful. It is not challenging.

Making crusades the center of the game again would make the game challenging.

 

[richvh]

While yes, you can do that, it prevents you from taking advantage of new features one might have and, more importantly, bugfixes.

But that is not what the person I was responding to was worried about. He said the patch was shoved down his throat by Steam, which is true only if you don't opt into the prior patch betas.

And sounds like you're suffering from "want to have my cake and eat it too" syndrome.

 

[Andrzej I]

But that is not what the person I was responding to was worried about. He said the patch was shoved down his throat by Steam, which is true only if you don't opt into the prior patch betas.

Touché. Though, he is in some part right, in that Steam does, sometimes, auto-update even if you tell it not to automatically update. You can though, as you said, rollback to a previous patch, yes. It just comes at a price. My apologies if offense was taken.

And sounds like you're suffering from "want to have my cake and eat it too" syndrome.

Perhaps, I guess, but I don't think it's all too demanding to want bugfixes without being forced to have new mechanics that could very well have been DLC for how drastic a change they make to the base game.

Either way, though, I suppose we'll see how it unfolds. I just can't say I'm optimistic from what information we've received, especially with the peace process remaining much the same, making breaking up a blob a lengthy process. I think, as some others do, that strengthening factions and internal politics would have served better to limit aggression and expansion rather than using EU4's coalition mechanics.

 

[Angeleyed]

Snowballs are pretty evil, just like medieval rulers.
View attachment 146616

To the wretched sir Vogelious the hedgehog, your low character is the subject of greek plays. This is a formal declaration of war. Our armies shall meet on the field of battle.

 

[Groogy]

To the wretched sir Vogelious the hedgehog, your low character is the subject of greek plays. This is a formal declaration of war. Our armies shall meet on the field of battle.

 

[Abnwtwtud]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH It's on now! Still, I'd like to know more about buying hedgehogs, and people just keep talking about infamy. If it turns out to be a placeholder option, I will be very disappointed, because I will be unable to immerse myself in a true medieval simulation wherein buying a large number of hedgehogs was vital to cementing one's status as a medieval lord.

 

[Thure]

Implementing AE is going to generate a whole new category of unforeseen issues (just like in EU4). Stick to improving factions and bring back the distance opinion modifier.

Distant opinion modifier don't make much sense either. Frederick II ruled from Sicily. But Northern Germany was less rebellious than Northern Italy...

 

[Keizer Harm]

We do not even know if they're not going to add internal anti-blobbing measures besides infamy. Everyone here is so angry, but I think it is not implausible that they are not ready to show their crown jewels yet, and they only do little crumbs in these DD's. Who knows? In a few weeks they may announce that they have completely revamped factions and buffed them greatly, and that the infamy is a lot less important than it appeared when seen out of context. Do not make assumptions of "This is not what we were promised! CK2 is going in the wrong direction!" when you don't know ten percent of the new stuff they will be giving to us for free.

 

[R'hllor]

Please don't bring the worst mechanics of EU4 into CK2. Coalitions weren't a thing in the middle ages, everyone fought for themselves mostly. The main reason for empires to fall apart were internal problems. What CK2 needs is more diplomatic interaction inside the realm, and between the characters. For example, factions starting a civil war while having a rather good opinion of you, or when you are clearly capable of winning. Instead, it would make sense to start civil wars only when the top liege shows weakness. Vassals can't backstab their liege and change the side in a war, always being able to use your vassals troops with no upkeep, vassals automatically supporting your war, not being able to call allies to war if they are someone elses vassal... Many things in the game could use more realism, though I get it that the current game engine can't handle anything, and historical accuracy shouldn't always go before good gameplay. But I believe many of the things people are complaining about can be fixed and I would appreciate if Paradox did something about internal diplomacy rather than make the player externally unable to expand. Because that makes a lot less sense in a game set during the time period. Hopefully a future dev diary reveals something more like what I'm hoping for. Rant over.

 

[GeneralPetrov]

Please don't bring the worst mechanics of EU4 into CK2. Coalitions weren't a thing in the middle ages, everyone fought for themselves mostly. The main reason for empires to fall apart were internal problems. What CK2 needs is more diplomatic interaction inside the realm, and between the characters. For example, factions starting a civil war while having a rather good opinion of you, or when you are clearly capable of winning. Instead, it would make sense to start civil wars only when the top liege shows weakness. Vassals can't backstab their liege and change the side in a war, always being able to use your vassals troops with no upkeep, vassals automatically supporting your war, not being able to call allies to war if they are someone elses vassal... Many things in the game could use more realism, though I get it that the current game engine can't handle anything, and historical accuracy shouldn't always go before good gameplay. But I believe many of the things people are complaining about can be fixed and I would appreciate if Paradox did something about internal diplomacy rather than make the player externally unable to expand. Because that makes a lot less sense in a game set during the time period. Hopefully a future dev diary reveals something more like what I'm hoping for. Rant over.

I disagree, coalitions in EU4 are perfectly fine. Whether they'll work in CK2 is another question.

 

[Yxklyx]

Distant opinion modifier don't make much sense either. Frederick II ruled from Sicily. But Northern Germany was less rebellious than Northern Italy...

It sure made sense when my England created Jerusalem after a Crusade - which I then had to to let go. It was a good idea - it was there from the first release I think.

I disagree, coalitions in EU4 are perfectly fine. Whether they'll work in CK2 is another question.

It took them about 2 years to get it right though no? So, we're all going to have a somewhat broken game for a while.

This new change is going to severely damage the flavor of the game - and it's 100% not needed because you can get the same results with opinion modifiers and serious factions - something that EU4 does not have the luxury to make use of.

 

[Thure]

It sure made sense when my England created Jerusalem after a Crusade - which I then had to to let go. It was a good idea - it was there from the first release I think.

I think the English barons would still be more rebelious than the new created ones in Jerusalem

Distant opinion malus don't make much sense. Really.

 

[Yxklyx]

I think the English barons would still be more rebelious than the new created ones in Jerusalem

Distant opinion malus don't make much sense. Really.

It makes all the sense in the world. It would be impossible for a king in England to govern land in Jerusalem. They would be de facto independent.