I think the Developers have sorted hinted at this. I know that decisions via events will be made according to traits, but we will see if more basic things like declarations of war shall be. I hope so, but I sincerely doubt it.
The Great
Grand Strategy
- Thread starter RedRooster81
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I think the Developers have sorted hinted at this. I know that decisions via events will be made according to traits, but we will see if more basic things like declarations of war shall be. I hope so, but I sincerely doubt it.
The Great
How awesome would it be to watch the AI of a country that's headed by an insane excommunicated heretic? It'll be Aerys Targaryen x1000
.png){kind=avatar}
I would hope so, as well as who you have good or bad relations with. So to take Panjer's example, Manuel III might fight the Seljuks and die doing so, but his successor might forge a lasting peace in the East indeed, and even form a friendship with the Turkish Sultan through mutual gift-giving. In the meantime, the Turks complete their dominance over Syria and Palestine and begin to push into Fatimid Egypt, while the Byzantines sweep over Serbia and Croatia, to the Venetian lagoon.
One of the things that MUST be in the game is a real distinction between a good ruler and a terrible ruler, all the gains that were made during a good king's reign could be undone if a bad king reigns long enough. A depraved lunatic of a king could abuse and murder his fosterlings thus sparking a civil war where even the worst of enemies will band together to bring the mad king to justice.
Sorry if this is derailing the thread, I just love thinking of these scenarios.
Sorry if this is derailing the thread, I just love thinking of these scenarios.
You don't need a mod for that in CK1. If you had a bad King he tended to piss all his vassals off, which lead to realm duress and civil war.
Granted it wasn't a civil war against a coherent enemy with political demands. It was just a bunch of people getting pissed at you and attacking, but it could still be extremely dangerous. Your stability was gone, all your vassals as well, so you had to put your beautiful plans on hold. I actually had a couple Kings lose their titles, or come so close that I quit playing that game.
Nick
You have a point, I just found it somewhat disappointing that CK didn't distinguish from an ineffectual ruler and a truly bad one. A low-stat king could still have a stable kingdom if he is weak-willed and being manipulated by his court.
Sure, you could program the AI to do this, but why would the player do it? Now, if it were done in a way that abuse and murder were the optimal way to play a bad king, even the player would have to change his strategy. Maybe giving the player an incomplete of faulty view of thing ("The enemies are everywhere!") Or maybe reduce some of the limits associated with bad actions (declare wars without CB etc).
I also think the fact that traits limit the options you can select for events is one way to enable this goal. In CK1 I usually picked the same option for an event just because it was the optimal choice. In CK2 it may not be possible to pick the optimal choice any more.
Very good point. Certain Kings in history, for good or ill, were anything but weak willed but still led their Kingdoms to disaster.
I'm of course speaking of my father and brother.
.John the Great
Last edited:
Very good point. Certain Kings in history, for good or ill, were anything but weak willed but still led their Kingdoms to disaster.
I'm of course speaking of my father and brother.
John the Great
Yeah. I agree. I think the point is how disruptive a king is, how much he tries to change the status quo and how quickly. So a drooling, inbred madman could hold the Holy Roman Empire together, while an ambitious and cocky young monarch could bring six centuries of tradition down in six months.
There should also be distinctions between cohesive and structured civil wars and a chaotic breakdown of a country. Foreign AI's should act accordingly to distinguish the former from the latter, as should the kingdom's AI itself.
My personal wet-dream would be to have every single person have his own AI. I doubt the technology is ready for it though.
My personal wet-dream would be to have every single person have his own AI. I doubt the technology is ready for it though.
I love the guerilla warfare idea. It should definitely be tied to geography somehow - forests / mountains were key for asymmetric warfare. The main reason for tiny Scotland remaining independent through this period, in the face of overwhelming English manpower, was that every time the Plantaganets marched north the Scots simply hid in the highlands and harassed them till they gave up. Switzerland is another obvious example of geography being key to a small realm’s survival. Maybe give each mountain province a ‘guerilla warfare’ option to use, instead of calling levies as normal regiments, which would cause murderous attrition levels on besieging forces (like scorched earth in EUIII).
In terms of tiny counties suiciding against the Seljuks during crusades, I really hope crusading armies are treated with qualitative differences, akin to Total War’s “join crusade” button. Crusaders should be differentiated, not needing a formal declaration of war to seize Muslim lands, preventing the usual counter-crusade (and resultant Sheikdom of Praha). Ideally they would temporarily join a seperate ‘crusader’ faction, and lands that these armies captured would form independent crusader states (rather than outposts of France and Germany). Characters on crusade could vie for influence within the crusader faction, politicking to become the crusade’s de facto “Leader” (this was a big issue on the first crusade at least, the lack of kings present led to faction intrigue amongst the dukes). Hope there will be a ’crusade’ dev diary soon…
In terms of tiny counties suiciding against the Seljuks during crusades, I really hope crusading armies are treated with qualitative differences, akin to Total War’s “join crusade” button. Crusaders should be differentiated, not needing a formal declaration of war to seize Muslim lands, preventing the usual counter-crusade (and resultant Sheikdom of Praha). Ideally they would temporarily join a seperate ‘crusader’ faction, and lands that these armies captured would form independent crusader states (rather than outposts of France and Germany). Characters on crusade could vie for influence within the crusader faction, politicking to become the crusade’s de facto “Leader” (this was a big issue on the first crusade at least, the lack of kings present led to faction intrigue amongst the dukes). Hope there will be a ’crusade’ dev diary soon…
Perhaps the chances of an heir continuing their parent's goals would depend on how well the heir and previous king liked each other in life, and whether the "goal" involves fighting off an invasion of the realm or not.
To expand the raiding concept:
1 - To make it work, youd need to borrow the HoI3 naval concept of spotting/detection/mission stance, so that battles do not immediately occur as soon as two armies are in the same province. Smaller/faster (cavalry) armies should be much harder to spot. Effects ought to include relationship to the province (friendly/hostile), leader skills and stance. If an enemy settles down to siege in a province, it should be very easy to spot regardless of other factors (obviously).
2 - Pillaging needs to be possible even when the castle has not been taken - castles/fortifications ought to have an effect in that larger castles ought to limit the damage/loot potential by allowing more of the portable wealth of the province to be secured behind strong walls. Pillaging ought to be an effect over time: spend X days pillaging to generate Y return, with the risk of being spotted during that time and suffering combat penalties due to your troops being dispersed and disorganised, loaded down with loot. The decision to pillage ought to be a risk and the player needs an increasing incentive to think "Right - time to run before I get caught". Ought to be similar to the feeling in Mount and Blade when youre looting a village with a small force and hoping youre not interrupted by a larger group whove spotted the smoke.
3 - Newly levied troops will need to begin at full morale, to allow them to immediately engage hostile raiders. Or, the levy could be split between the smaller noble retinue of semi-proffesional nobles and soldiers who would always be available year round to fight - and therefore would be the troops used to raid and defend against raids - and the larger levy of non-proffesionals who would be raised to siege castles and fight large battles. The noble retinue would start at full morale, the levy would start at the traditional low morale reflecting the need to bring the various troops together and to get them organised in some coherent fashion.
4 - Im very much in favour of naval modelling, and Id argue that coastal raiding/piracy ought to be organised along similar lines though there would be less direct noble involvement, and the impact would be more upon your non-proffessional merchants, reflecting their decision to engage in an aggressive trading strategy due to opportunity.
You could have several implications:
- Firstly, it gives everyone *something* to do. You can always get into the game by raising some of your noble retinue and risking a raid on locals you dont like - including rivals within your own kingdom. Means you dont have to sit around waiting for gold/prestige to clock up so you can do something, or waiting for a lucky event.
- Secondly, lot of potential for character interactions: raids could lead to capture of characters who would then be held in the enemy court until ransomed, friendships, rivalries, romeo & juliet style romances etc etc. Characters could even be the target of raids with the potential to embarass or humilitate people, or for elopement - Diarmait Mac Murchada, who brought Strongbow into Ireland, was already infamous for a raid on which he kidnapped a rivals wife (who wanted to leave her husband). To further insult his rival, he later sent her back.
- Thirdly, it has political implications: If a land is being constantly raided, the target has an incentive to try and find some sort of arrangement with his tormentor: either through the payment of tribute, or an attempt to become a vassal of the raider. Afterall, if the local noble cant protect his lands from raids then his own position is under threat as his own barons will seek an alternative ruler who can defend them. Again, in Gaelic Ireland, a Kings prestige and his ability to control his vassals was totally dependant on the threat of raids, which would impoverish and humiliate a weaker king until they agreed to become vasals.
Similarly - marraige alliances ought to discourage raids by one side of the family on the lands of their in-laws. A non-aggression pact of sorts. Perhaps incentivised through prestige penalties, which should be significant but not penal. This would give players another reason to look for a local, political marraige, rather than opening bride finder and sorting by Stewardship stat.
As part of this - raiding would be low intensity warfare, but if theres a constant wave of raids on a particular border, it should increasingly draw the attention of the Kings who might accelerate it to high intensity warfare. Especially if a highly influential noble is the target of the raids.
Raiding ought to be part of internal politics too: a King might ignore, or even encourage his vassals to raid the lands of a vassal he dislikes or who is too independant. The target of these raids should have only two options: seek to reconcile with the King somehow so that he no longer ignores the raids, or rejecting the King who has not protected him and risking the acceleration into high intensity warfare which might cost him his lands (which may have been the intention of the King all along).
1 - To make it work, youd need to borrow the HoI3 naval concept of spotting/detection/mission stance, so that battles do not immediately occur as soon as two armies are in the same province. Smaller/faster (cavalry) armies should be much harder to spot. Effects ought to include relationship to the province (friendly/hostile), leader skills and stance. If an enemy settles down to siege in a province, it should be very easy to spot regardless of other factors (obviously).
2 - Pillaging needs to be possible even when the castle has not been taken - castles/fortifications ought to have an effect in that larger castles ought to limit the damage/loot potential by allowing more of the portable wealth of the province to be secured behind strong walls. Pillaging ought to be an effect over time: spend X days pillaging to generate Y return, with the risk of being spotted during that time and suffering combat penalties due to your troops being dispersed and disorganised, loaded down with loot. The decision to pillage ought to be a risk and the player needs an increasing incentive to think "Right - time to run before I get caught". Ought to be similar to the feeling in Mount and Blade when youre looting a village with a small force and hoping youre not interrupted by a larger group whove spotted the smoke.
3 - Newly levied troops will need to begin at full morale, to allow them to immediately engage hostile raiders. Or, the levy could be split between the smaller noble retinue of semi-proffesional nobles and soldiers who would always be available year round to fight - and therefore would be the troops used to raid and defend against raids - and the larger levy of non-proffesionals who would be raised to siege castles and fight large battles. The noble retinue would start at full morale, the levy would start at the traditional low morale reflecting the need to bring the various troops together and to get them organised in some coherent fashion.
4 - Im very much in favour of naval modelling, and Id argue that coastal raiding/piracy ought to be organised along similar lines though there would be less direct noble involvement, and the impact would be more upon your non-proffessional merchants, reflecting their decision to engage in an aggressive trading strategy due to opportunity.
You could have several implications:
- Firstly, it gives everyone *something* to do. You can always get into the game by raising some of your noble retinue and risking a raid on locals you dont like - including rivals within your own kingdom. Means you dont have to sit around waiting for gold/prestige to clock up so you can do something, or waiting for a lucky event.
- Secondly, lot of potential for character interactions: raids could lead to capture of characters who would then be held in the enemy court until ransomed, friendships, rivalries, romeo & juliet style romances etc etc. Characters could even be the target of raids with the potential to embarass or humilitate people, or for elopement - Diarmait Mac Murchada, who brought Strongbow into Ireland, was already infamous for a raid on which he kidnapped a rivals wife (who wanted to leave her husband). To further insult his rival, he later sent her back.
- Thirdly, it has political implications: If a land is being constantly raided, the target has an incentive to try and find some sort of arrangement with his tormentor: either through the payment of tribute, or an attempt to become a vassal of the raider. Afterall, if the local noble cant protect his lands from raids then his own position is under threat as his own barons will seek an alternative ruler who can defend them. Again, in Gaelic Ireland, a Kings prestige and his ability to control his vassals was totally dependant on the threat of raids, which would impoverish and humiliate a weaker king until they agreed to become vasals.
Similarly - marraige alliances ought to discourage raids by one side of the family on the lands of their in-laws. A non-aggression pact of sorts. Perhaps incentivised through prestige penalties, which should be significant but not penal. This would give players another reason to look for a local, political marraige, rather than opening bride finder and sorting by Stewardship stat.
As part of this - raiding would be low intensity warfare, but if theres a constant wave of raids on a particular border, it should increasingly draw the attention of the Kings who might accelerate it to high intensity warfare. Especially if a highly influential noble is the target of the raids.
Raiding ought to be part of internal politics too: a King might ignore, or even encourage his vassals to raid the lands of a vassal he dislikes or who is too independant. The target of these raids should have only two options: seek to reconcile with the King somehow so that he no longer ignores the raids, or rejecting the King who has not protected him and risking the acceleration into high intensity warfare which might cost him his lands (which may have been the intention of the King all along).
Last edited:
Good points, Melichai. I'm currently reading Bernard Cornwell's The Last Kingdom about the IX century Danish conquest of England (a bit early for CK2, but still relevant), so raiding and conquest are on my mind. There needs to be some political and economic ramifications, even depopulation over time of certain areas. Protection money can also be handed over, and barons and bishoprics could act on their own, to deal with raiders against the kingdom's overall policies. There should be some kind of march or coastal provincial modifier that you can apply by law or decision to increase border defenses, for example commissioning a small coast guard fleet (which could backfire, so you have bigger but less frequent raiding parties to overcome your fleet) or on land having a militia modifier to simulate a frontier area where every family needed to have a horseman who could be ready to mobilize on short notice for the common defense or go on raiding.
Raids and also wars of aggression (not defensive wars) should also be opportunities to share out gold and good will. Lords should want to be seen as generous, as fortune-seekers go where the pay is good, so if you get your neighbors or vassals to join you on a raid or invasion, you should get an event asking for you to pay up (EU Rome had an "army mutiny" event series that needs to be expanded), for a temporary relation boost. And (this might not be exactly relevant to all regions) raiding for different reasons, to free hostages, to save your beloved from her evil stepmother, to steal relics. Use your imagination.
Defeated nobles who keep their land should have to offer up hostages, I mean fosterlings, to ensure good behavior. If you forgive the Duke of Burgundy for his rebellion, he has to send his two sons as fosterlings. If he rebels again, you can choose to send the boys back, keep them at court (where they can be prisoners or as you future vassals be swayed to your side), or send him parts of his boys back.
Raids and also wars of aggression (not defensive wars) should also be opportunities to share out gold and good will. Lords should want to be seen as generous, as fortune-seekers go where the pay is good, so if you get your neighbors or vassals to join you on a raid or invasion, you should get an event asking for you to pay up (EU Rome had an "army mutiny" event series that needs to be expanded), for a temporary relation boost. And (this might not be exactly relevant to all regions) raiding for different reasons, to free hostages, to save your beloved from her evil stepmother, to steal relics. Use your imagination.
Defeated nobles who keep their land should have to offer up hostages, I mean fosterlings, to ensure good behavior. If you forgive the Duke of Burgundy for his rebellion, he has to send his two sons as fosterlings. If he rebels again, you can choose to send the boys back, keep them at court (where they can be prisoners or as you future vassals be swayed to your side), or send him parts of his boys back.
Indeed, I would love it if the old poem (that I like so much I memorised it) could be implemented as an actual strategy, not just in AARs:
On foot should be all Scottish war
let woods for walls their foes debar
and hill and marsh prove such an arm
that their enemies do them no harm.
In hidden places keep all store
and burn the plainlands them before
so when they find the land is waste
then must they pass away in haste,
harassed by cunning raids at night
and threatening sounds from every height.
Then, as they flee, with great array
smite with the sword, and chase away.
Such is the counsel and intent
of Good King Robert's testament.
On foot should be all Scottish war
let woods for walls their foes debar
and hill and marsh prove such an arm
that their enemies do them no harm.
In hidden places keep all store
and burn the plainlands them before
so when they find the land is waste
then must they pass away in haste,
harassed by cunning raids at night
and threatening sounds from every height.
Then, as they flee, with great array
smite with the sword, and chase away.
Such is the counsel and intent
of Good King Robert's testament.
KoM: Good poem. There should be such strategies available. It explains, too, why frontiers tended to be populated by sheep, cattle, and men, in that order. I'm not sure how to model no-man's-lands, though.
On Grand Strategy, and on the topic of looting, what about having certain battles or sieges or raids become points of memory, that characters will remember, and that might for a while gain you bad relations with the whole of the world (similar to infamy?). The massacre of Soissons before Agincourt comes to mind. Sure, looting was common for a day or two after a battle or siege (that's how the men got paid to be honest), but there should be those cases that put a black mark next to your realm's honor.
There could also be modifiers for significant battles and sieges, and massacring the losing side should bring some condemnation. Or castration, blinding, and other mutilation. There are also those post-battle assassinations. Enrique de Trastamara's murder of Pedro the Cruel, as well as generations before Alfonso VI of Leon's implication in the murder of his elder brother Sancho II of Castilla.
On Grand Strategy, and on the topic of looting, what about having certain battles or sieges or raids become points of memory, that characters will remember, and that might for a while gain you bad relations with the whole of the world (similar to infamy?). The massacre of Soissons before Agincourt comes to mind. Sure, looting was common for a day or two after a battle or siege (that's how the men got paid to be honest), but there should be those cases that put a black mark next to your realm's honor.
There could also be modifiers for significant battles and sieges, and massacring the losing side should bring some condemnation. Or castration, blinding, and other mutilation. There are also those post-battle assassinations. Enrique de Trastamara's murder of Pedro the Cruel, as well as generations before Alfonso VI of Leon's implication in the murder of his elder brother Sancho II of Castilla.
Maybe simply in a lesser population growth rate. Provinces of a kingdom that are at its borders (not borders between vassals within a kingdom) should get a growth penalty. People don't want to settle in probable war zones.
