Great Khan - No claims is very very very stupid

  • 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.

MindGizmoWizard

Private
83 Badges
Dec 17, 2015
22
31
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Majesty 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Sengoku
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Prison Architect
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
It makes absolutely no sense that the Great Khan's troops conquer a world, a month later I kill them, and another month later they become a New Khanate and for some reason, I don't even have a single solitary claim on the system that was just taken from me 30 days before.
It is extremely stupid. Please fix this.
 
  • 14
  • 1Like
Reactions:
yes, IMHO if a system has belonged to an empire that empire should have a permaclaim on it
 
  • 4
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I believe the issue is that the Khan technically destroys the system, reverting it to unowned territory, before building a starbase to reclaim it. Claims are made on owned systems so are lost.

Something similar happens with the successor states; entirely new empires are created so claims based on previous ownership dont transfer.

It is stupid, but the solution isnt simple.
 
  • 6
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I believe the issue is that the Khan technically destroys the system, reverting it to unowned territory, before building a starbase to reclaim it. Claims are made on owned systems so are lost.

Something similar happens with the successor states; entirely new empires are created so claims based on previous ownership dont transfer.

It is stupid, but the solution isnt simple.

Tie claims to the system instead of the station. That way they'll persist after a station is torn down. Also set the AI so it won't expand into unowned systems if there's an allied claim, that'll stop scenarios like losing some systems to a crisis and having a federation member go "lol let's expand right into our supposed allies' core sector" yes that has happened to me and no I'll never forgive such blatant treachery.
 
  • 10
  • 1
Reactions:
Tie claims to the system instead of the station. That way they'll persist after a station is torn down. Also set the AI so it won't expand into unowned systems if there's an allied claim, that'll stop scenarios like losing some systems to a crisis and having a federation member go "lol let's expand right into our supposed allies' core sector" yes that has happened to me and no I'll never forgive such blatant treachery.

Which is a perfectly decent idea, but one that would require a complete rework of the claim system and a reprogam of the AI's expansion rules. It is not a quick fix and beyond the scale of just fixing the great Khan.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Which is a perfectly decent idea, but one that would require a complete rework of the claim system and a reprogam of the AI's expansion rules. It is not a quick fix and beyond the scale of just fixing the great Khan.

I coincidentally support a complete rework of the claim system as part of a greater complete rework of warfare in Stellaris anyways. It really needs a do-over, mid-late game conflicts devolve into unwinnable nonsense battles that complaining about would be beyond the scope of this thread.
 
  • 7
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Which is a perfectly decent idea, but one that would require a complete rework of the claim system and a reprogam of the AI's expansion rules. It is not a quick fix and beyond the scale of just fixing the great Khan.
Or you know... you can make them take the system station instead of destroying it and recapturing it as for example driven assimilators or other no-claim governments do.

PS: or they can make a small event checking if the new owner is a khan and give a claim to the old owner using the on_syste_lost, which should be really quick solution

# From = system
# FromFrom = country (new owner)
# This = country (previous owner)
on_system_lost = {
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
I believe the issue is that the Khan technically destroys the system, reverting it to unowned territory, before building a starbase to reclaim it. Claims are made on owned systems so are lost.

Something similar happens with the successor states; entirely new empires are created so claims based on previous ownership dont transfer.

It is stupid, but the solution isnt simple.
While that is true, the game somewhat remembers what empire the systems belonged to. When you liberate a planet, during the Khan crisis, the game asks you if you want to give it back to their owner. They couldn't do that without keeping the system's last owner somewhere.

It seems trivial to make use of the information that is already being kept.
 
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
IMO you should only have to pay the influence price for every system once to have a permanent claim on it. If you lose it you keep the claim.

I hate having to rebuy every system I lose to the grey tempest. It's like losing thousands of influence points into the void for not killing the special intruders in the cradle.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
IMO you should only have to pay the influence price for every system once to have a permanent claim on it. If you lose it you keep the claim.

I hate having to rebuy every system I lose to the grey tempest. It's like losing thousands of influence points into the void for not killing the special intruders in the cradle.
You do pay an influence cost, when you built an outpost in the system.
 
You do pay an influence cost, when you built an outpost in the system.
Pretty sure that's what they just said; You spent influence to build an outpost in the uninhabited system, so why have to pay again to re-take it after loss.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You do pay an influence cost, when you built an outpost in the system.
You don't understand what i'm saying. You should only pay the cost once per system per game no matter what. If you lose the system then you get a claim, if the star base is destroyed by something then it only costs the alloys to rebuild it not the influence you already paid. If you claim an alien system and its ownership is lost then it should only cost alloys to build your starbase in the system because you already paid the influence in a claim.

The idea is that there is a total fixed cost of influence to take all the star systems in the galaxy rather than an arbitrary cost that goes up every time you lose a system because you have to pay influence again.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
If you claim an alien system and its ownership is lost then it should only cost alloys to build your starbase in the system because you already paid the influence in a claim.
can't agree with that one. this should only apply to systems that belonged to the empire.
 
can't agree with that one. this should only apply to systems that belonged to the empire.
Why? Adding on influence costs arbitrarily based on if other empires lose to a specific enemy type seems weird to me.

The fact that certain event fleets like the khan, crisis, grey tempest just delete ownership of a system but no other empire can always seemed weird to me. Following a bad crisis large parts of the galaxy can be depopulated. I think with my suggestion it would allow any empire that previously owned that space a big headstart to reclaiming it (no influence) and help them regain their natural borders faster. But other empires could still snipe systems paying the influence cost and I just figure if they already claimed the system but then it lost its ownership why would they stop claiming it? So on the ones they already paid influence they could have the same uperhand as the original owner and contest the space on equal footing. At least that's how I see my suggestion working.

One of the problems that bothers me with the current system is that you could lose and regain any system and suddenly incur an influence cost at the mercy of your ability to stop the loss in the first place. It's kind of a punishment for playing imperfect. In a rare scenario one could theoretically lose a crucial system to the grey tempest or khan, then rebuild the starbase and paying influence again, only to lose it again to the same or another crisis and having to continually pay the influence for the system again. I think such a scenario could happen with claims too if the system influence price isn't waved. So I'm against it.

I personally started noticing this problem the most with the grey tempest and crisis through the L gate. Controlling the terminal system can be fundamental to slowing down crisis attacks across the galaxy through it. But every time you lose the system to a crisis you have to pay influence to rebuild it. Not horrible in the end game if you have lots of influence stored, but in the midgame while fighting the tempest it really sucks. I haven't had it in a long time but back in the day the wraith tore through systems and I remember having a particularly bad spawn that ripped through my empire. I'd have to patch up holes to keep my neighbours from claiming my former space only to have the wraith rip through it again. Same can happen with the crisis at the end of the game, although the AI usually gets it worse so it's not as unfair.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Believe it or not, but this mod has implemented such a feature (only systems with former owned/colonized planet):

Ruby:
    every_owned_planet = {
        limit = {
            any_playable_country = { has_country_flag = former_owner@prev }
        }
        random_playable_country = {
            limit = { has_country_flag = former_owner@prev }
            prev.solar_system = {
                add_claims = { who = prev num_of_claims = 2 show_notification = no }
            }
            if = { limit = { NOT = { has_global_flag = marauder_crisis_ongoing } }
                remove_country_flag = former_owner@prev
            }
        }
    }
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I believe the issue is that the Khan technically destroys the system, reverting it to unowned territory, before building a starbase to reclaim it. Claims are made on owned systems so are lost.

Something similar happens with the successor states; entirely new empires are created so claims based on previous ownership dont transfer.

It is stupid, but the solution isnt simple.
Eh it can be done - With system flags: Add a flag to the star system last_owner_was@scopedcountryid, have it populate whenever a non normal empire takes a system, and check whenever that system then next changes hands/has a starbase built in it, to determine if it should give 10 claims to the @scopedcountryid or not. That should let it track ownership through the period without a starbase, and checks would only be run on_actions (on starbase built or on system Changing owners).

Can make the flag timed too, so if this isn't concluded within a year, and stays neutral all that time, the logic fades away. This wouldn't be needed for the khan but might be useful for total-war wars (e.g. Vs assimilators) which can do some weird stuff to borders.
 
Eh it can be done - With system flags: Add a flag to the star system last_owner_was@scopedcountryid, have it populate whenever a non normal empire takes a system, and check whenever that system then next changes hands/has a starbase built in it, to determine if it should give 10 claims to the @scopedcountryid or not. That should let it track ownership through the period without a starbase, and checks would only be run on_actions (on starbase built or on system Changing owners).

Can make the flag timed too, so if this isn't concluded within a year, and stays neutral all that time, the logic fades away. This wouldn't be needed for the khan but might be useful for total-war wars (e.g. Vs assimilators) which can do some weird stuff to borders.
Btw: my example code above (and below) is working with vanilla flags and vars only (so it is save game compat).

Ruby:
    every_playable_country = {
        limit = { is_variable_set = "planets_lost_to_marauder" }
        round_variable = "planets_lost_to_marauder" # For Khan Expanded mod, as you get also minor points for each system...
        while = {
            count = planets_lost_to_marauder
            add_resource = {
                influence = 30
                alloys = 50
            }
        }
        clear_variable = "planets_lost_to_marauder"
    }
 
Last edited:
The issue is two-fold:
- The influence cost of systems (whether through claims or building starbases) must be paid many times over when conquered by Automatic Star System Holistic Organisms of Lien Eradication (henceforth referred to as the ASSHOLE acronym). Examples of ASSHOLEs include the Great Khan, Grey Tempest and Engame Crises;
- The very possibility of creating claims on systems after the Great Khan has turned into successor states (for example, if you're any sort of Pacifist).
The second part is really

Fanatic Purifiers, Determined Exterminators or Devouring Swarms, for example, don't destroy ownership of the systems, and simply transfer them back and forth. You also get a free casus belli to declare war on them. I feel like they're not really a problem, and ASSHOLEs should probably work the same way.

The ASSHOLEs destroy ownership of systems, create their own, but allow getting them back at the cost of rebuilding starbases with an influence cost is bad, but debatable, and can be justified as the cost of losing systems during the crisis. One thing that happened to me was the Khan taking a system, I take it back, build a starbase and pay influence. They come back, destroy the starbase, and leave. I come back, build a starbase, and pay influence again. I agree that once a system has been claimed, either through claims or the construction of the first starbase, it should be "cored" (as provinces are in EU4, for example) and therefore you shouldn't have to pay again. At least, there should be a mechanic to that effect. But I feel like that's a design decision that has pros and cons.

However, the second issue is different. Once the Great Khan decides to die, the Successor States are suddenly considered completely different people totally unrelated to the Khan, and an actual legit nation, but also completely disregard any prior ownership of systems. You don't get any claims on those planets you colonized and that were conquered literally days ago. And if you're a pacifist, those systems you had no problem taking back 5 seconds ago are now completely impossible to take back, unless they declare war on you for some reason and you get to make claims. You may be able to jump through hoops (such as liberating the systems as independent entities and the like), but that makes absolutely no sense. The second issue seems more like an oversight and a bug than a design decision.

Costly consequences of war, as annoying and unjustified they may be, I can live with. The way it works doesn't seem to make sense, but feels like it could be justified. The impossibility of taking back your systems because of a game system technicality, however, feels problematic to me.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions: