How did Conclave ruin the game?

[Silversweeeper]

@Soylent Dave: I think that screenshot illustrates one of the problems with defensive pacts: Other rulers don't care where you expand, only that you expand.

Compared to their borders 11 years earlier, the Abbasids have lost a little land to Armenia (due to inheritance, I believe) and have gained Usturt and Kalat. There might be some other minor changes as well (though I can't spot them), but I don't see a whole duchy (though presumably both Kalat and Usturt were gained via holy wars for their respective duchies). This has caused Antioch, Sanaa, and Oman to band together despite them either being entirely unaffected (Sanaa, Oman) or the Abbasids losing land next to them (Antioch). It has caused various Nubians to band together despite the Abbasids expanding as far as possible from their shared border. It has gotten Chadwda to start a pact with Kutch despite only Kalat being near them (and even that somewhat distant). The Zunbils and the Yabguids have formed a pact despite only being near one conquered county each, though it is fair that the Yabguids should react a bit more harshly as thely actually lost a county and that the Zunbils likely had the intention to take Kalat for themselves.

In descending order of reasonable pacts, we thus have:
- The Yabguids and the Zunbils (one lost land and one had a county taken next to them). I think they overreact slightly, but I'm willing to give it a pass.
- The Chawda-Kutch pact. One county was taken from the same religion group, and it was relatively distant. I think they shouldn't be overly concerned.
- The Nubian pact. A religious enemy expanded slightly (not counting the counties lost to Armenia), but nowhere near their borders. They should not care.
- The Muslim pact. Granted, one of them is Ibadi, but they should be more likely to cheer that someone of the same religion (or from the same religion group) took land from infidels than they should be to form a pact (and Antioch really shouldn't be looking for allies on the other side of the Abbasids).

 

[yourworstnightm]

Anything that reduces reasons to go to war imo is a good thing, because otherwise I feel pressure to go to war all the time and have my chancellor fabricating 24/7 (it's an addiction). If the alliance and coalitions are the main things wrong, at least there's some hope in fixing it eventually.

Yes, but what is there to do in the game when not going to war? It wouldn't be so bad if there were things to do instead of just waiting for the next war.

 

[Rostan]

Yes, but what is there to do in the game when not going to war? It wouldn't be so bad if there were things to do instead of just waiting for the next war.

Not as bad as EU4 IMO, though of course much, much worse than Victoria 2. You have education, vassal management, plots to organize, Popes to elect, clans to meedle with, conversions to organize, marriages to set up, people to seduce or spy on, pilgrimages to go to, buildings to build, etc.. Sadly, while EU4 has higher speeds between wars, in CK2 the engine is slower, so indeed it can get boring if you wait out too long a period or if you are a small realm. But with wars being so long now, you will have fewer non-war periods.

 

[EU3NOOB]

If you don't like infamy or coalitions then play with the recent HIP version. They haven't implemented those two things.

 

[CocoCincinnati]

Obviously opinions vary. The patch itself is what messed it up for me before I even had a chance to think about the expansion. Suffice it to say there are some major changes to gameplay made so I would suggest that you play with the patch first to make sure you like the new changes before dropping your money on the dlc.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

Obviously opinions vary. The patch itself is what messed it up for me before I even had a chance to think about the expansion. Suffice it to say there are some major changes to gameplay made so I would suggest that you play with the patch first to make sure you like the new changes before dropping your money on the dlc.

Good advice.

 

[luc124]

Honestly, Conclave's ideas were good, but the execution was miserable:

- Shattered retreats make no sense whatsoever, the troops run for province while they should just retreat to a nerby ajecent province
- Coalitions were originaly broken, they have been mostly fixed, but for me i never saw any Coalition be formed in any of my games so i cant say for certain
- The new education system is poorly designed, i liked the idea to flesh it out a little, but many aspects of it simply did not make alot os sense to me
- The Council mechanics broke it for me, they never stop revolting, even if they have a 100+ opinion of me, they still form factions, and they still revolt

Thats what i think, honestly

 

[Alfy]

- The Council mechanics broke it for me, they never stop revolting, even if they have a 100+ opinion of me, they still form factions, and they still revolt

Funny that. I was just reading the patch notes for 2.1, and I saw this:

• Much less likely to plot against characters they have a high opinion of.
• Much less likely to form factions against characters they have a high opinion of.

There is such a disconnect between the latest changes and what was done before.

 

[luc124]

Funny that. I was just reading the patch notes for 2.1, and I saw this:

• Much less likely to plot against characters they have a high opinion of.
• Much less likely to form factions against characters they have a high opinion of.

There is such a disconnect between the latest changes and what was done before.

Thank you, thank you so very much for showing me this

 

[Fireflycat]

I will state it once I think I see some fanboyism here on the main forums. That said, I hope for them to realize that other peoples opinions are just as important as yours.

Anyway's, you can clearly see a distinct lack of liking for this DLC. Many people just don't like these features that came a=out and prefer to stay on the older versions of the game. Many of us also agree that the DLC was poorly made and implemented. I believe the DLC could have been alot better from the start. There are alot of good posts on the steam forum on why people don't like it and their reasons, I suggest you just go browsing there. Mainly, it's bugs, and some mechanics that don't make sense. Some people don't like the shattered retreat because now the enemy takes not enough losses. While others don't like the constant war because lets face it, no vassle is loyal and that is just sad. For me, it feels like it's being treated as a war game when its not, the mechanics to stop blobbing affected other areas of the game to much. The Ai Couldn't even hold a stable kingdom without revolts. France falls by 900.

I also believe that ambitions could have been done far better. They said that this system was being redone, really I only see 1 new one if you are a ruler without a leige and thats the warchest one. This could of had much more. The rest were taking out so its not like they actually added anything here.
They also said forts would be modable so buildings could be built but I would have loved it if they actually put in some buildings themselves.
Overall I just see a lack of content that was pushed out while unstable.

 

[CMT1]

The only real problem with Conclave IMO (I'm playing 2.5.2 btw) is the AI's (still too pronounced) fetish for having councils agitate for Elective succession. There's a reason this almost never occurred anywhere in the world - it's a horribly destabilizing, weak form of government. And, as others have mentioned, it's kind of dumb that I wage holy war on the Umayyads and the King of Italy starts seeing me as a threat (instead of a savior since the Umayyads have been kicking his butt for 300 years). Otherwise, I quite enjoy it.

My first game through, as Wessex, I just tried to make sure my council never had power. That was ok, but . . . this play through, I started as DoToulouse in 769. Inherited an Aquitaine that had a very strong council. I beat them down over many years to just War Power - which I wound up keeping for quite some time. Being able to prevent all my minsters from joining factions was actually a huge benefit.

 

[Fireflycat]

The only real problem with Conclave IMO (I'm playing 2.5.2 btw) is the AI's (still too pronounced) fetish for having councils agitate for Elective succession. There's a reason this almost never occurred anywhere in the world - it's a horribly destabilizing, weak form of government. And, as others have mentioned, it's kind of dumb that I wage holy war on the Umayyads and the King of Italy starts seeing me as a threat (instead of a savior since the Umayyads have been kicking his butt for 300 years). Otherwise, I quite enjoy it.

My first game through, as Wessex, I just tried to make sure my council never had power. That was ok, but . . . this play through, I started as DoToulouse in 769. Inherited an Aquitaine that had a very strong council. I beat them down over many years to just War Power - which I wound up keeping for quite some time. Being able to prevent all my minsters from joining factions was actually a huge benefit.

For me this Dlc adds no challenge yet. I may be playing as a horse lord but I won an attack against 12 other separate land holders.

 

[Xinkc]

Overall, most of the dislike is for new features from the 2.5.x series of patches. In my opinion, I fairly enjoy Conclave and 2.5.x except for bugs involving AI pathing in holy wars and such which makes starts near the Umayyads infuriating.

When that betrothal matures into a marriage the NAP is still in place but you have the option to upgrade it to a full alliance.

Not true, you only need the non-aggression pact. Doesn't matter if they're married or betrothed.

I still fail to see how Shattered Retreat or coalitions were ever "game breaking" issues. Like, did they stop people from playing the game?

Have you ever played the Charlemagne start during 2.5.1? Much of the world would be against the man after the scripted war for Saxony then his vassals would begin their tyranny revolts. You know, exactly like what didn't happen in history.

 

[Soylent Dave]

@Soylent Dave: I think that screenshot illustrates one of the problems with defensive pacts: Other rulers don't care where you expand, only that you expand.

That was a good analysis - but one point to bear in mind is that the other rulers in these pacts don't actually care where the Abbs expand in future, as long as it isn't into them. They're not going to engage the Abbs, they're not going to pile in on the Abbs if they move against a larger power or against another religion.

These small nations are just looking at an aggressive nation and making provision, with other small powers, in case that larger power turns its eyes to them / their faith.

So yes, the Defensive Pact formation is triggered by any expansion (provided it's enough), but the Pacts don't do anything beyond 'exist' unless you then expand into them.

(and I think your co-religionists worrying about you attacking them because you're a proven expansionist makes sense - their attacking you wouldn't, but being wary of the new, bigger, nation neighbouring them? And preparing for you to turn on / vassalise them when you've finished with your current enemy?)

 

[jpinard]

Variety in the game has been hurt. To deal with each new system they introduced, you almost have to "game" the system... to work around them.

Worse, are all of the choices that were removed from the game. They were important pieces that helped build fun, amazing stories. Now that players will rarely make pacts, there will be no interesting stories of rage from an ally or king who was denied support after always being there for you. Or the thanks a vassal or courtesan gave for helping him get married. Or the many, many other ambitions that were wiped out.

This is the first DLC I've ever purchased that made a game feel worse than it was before.

 

[josefrees]

The nice thing about the alliances and auto call to arms is if you start small and marry into a stronger neighboring dynasty the starts are a lot easier. It might be gamey but having your little 300 man army followed around by a sizable stack with no upkeep for the price of a daughter is pretty nice compared to the same old save your money for 40 years or get a loan to buy mercs

 

[schondetta]

infamy makes the late game boring. you spend hours of game time doing nothing until your infamy is mellowed

 

[Druesling]

I'm overall okay with how the beta patch has reworked the Defensive Pacts. Since they aren't active Coalitions anymore, but only declare war against you if you attack a member, they hardly matter in my gameplay.

I too dont like the contant council push for elective monarchy. They should be okay with primogenitur, if it was the way long enough.

At least they dont faction against you for gavelkind. or faction against womens rights. That's something, I suppose.

 

[ProfPain77]

Or the thanks a vassal or courtesan gave for helping him get married. Or the many, many other ambitions that were wiped out.

I forgot how much I liked to do that when I was waiting for a claim to fabricate in peacetime. Nothing like marrying a septuagenarian widow to a chaste 16 year old to get his lifelong (albeit brief) gratitude.

 

[Drake_Hound]

Well the mods still are not done and it has been more then 1 month lol..


And I thought I was lazy but after tonight head ache modding I must say poor modders who need to update total conversión stuff.
So I take it back at those modders. you guys are awesome for continueing to try to make heads or tails out of things. and keep the total conversión kits working

Look game is still fun and I enjoyed yesterday a couple hours of sessions. but the question is what do I enjoy more pre conclave all those mods. and worlds.
Or post conclave only the base game