How did Conclave ruin the game?

[thekaje]

Yes, they removed backstabbing from the game. You cannot betray an ally or break a non-aggression pact with a sneak attack. You are forced to respect and obey your alliances and pacts at all times.

No, I have no idea why they thought removing the option to backstab in CK2 was something anyone wanted.

 

[Druesling]

Some total conversions still run on the new version. "When the world stopped making sense" for example. Okay, thats just the one i know, but i dont monitor all, so i guess there will be more, perhaps.

 

[Cniht]

The biggest issue I've had with the DLC is the education system.

I know someone wrote a very good forum post on it and I've read it many times, but that still doesn't remove the sour taste in my mouth with the system as a whole. The biggest issue is it largely seems to have taken something that was key to game play (grooming heirs and other members of the dynasty) and turned it into an overly convoluted and half automated mess. It is impersonal and detached and the failure in the DLC attempting to remove you from direct control in your child rearing actually creates more micromanaging.

It's a classic example of taking something that wasn't broken and attempting to 'fix' it.

 

[Secret Master]

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

Or you could just fight the defensive pacts.

Seriously, they are not that hard to beat.

 

[VladPrus]

Yes, they removed backstabbing from the game. You cannot betray an ally or break a non-aggression pact with a sneak attack. You are forced to respect and obey your alliances and pacts at all times.

No, I have no idea why they thought removing the option to backstab in CK2 was something anyone wanted.

The real stupidity is you CAN attack your ally, but you can't attack someone with NAP

 

[Robert II]

Or you could just fight the defensive pacts.

Seriously, they are not that hard to beat.

Which makes them even worse.

 

[naisel]

Or you could just fight the defensive pacts.

Seriously, they are not that hard to beat.

The problem is not how hard to beat the coalitions are, the problem is how easily they break immersion.

 

[Rostan]

Ironically, if you roll back at 2.04, you will see how easily more powerful domestic rebellions were. I have no idea how in the endless set of patches, domestic resistance was heavily nerfed only for gamey EU4 mechanics to be uset to limit growth 2 years later.

 

[Ilyasviel]

The problem is not how hard to beat the coalitions are, the problem is how easily they break immersion.

Exactly this. There's nothing realistic about them. They don't even add to the fun of the game either. It has no purpose other than making it less fun for people who just want to blob (and I'm not even one of those persons).

Ironically, if you roll back at 2.04, you will see how easily more powerful domestic rebellions were. I have no idea how in the endless set of patches, domestic resistance was heavily nerfed only for gamey EU4 mechanics to be uset to limit growth 2 years later.

It was 2.1 with the new faction mechanism. This patch changed everything and was the first time that the game got worse, and it's been downhill since then.

 

[Finnway]

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.

You'd think they could just increase the MTTH on events.

 

[Secret Master]

Which makes them even worse.

I wonder what people would be saying if they were far more difficult to defeat. Actually, I don't have to wonder. I remember the first year of EU4's existence. :sigh:

Although I think better integration with the current diplomacy mechanics is called for. Part of what I don't like about them is that there are currently specific mechanics to create alliances and NAPs, but the defensive pact mechanics sort of bypasses all of that. If dynasties were more likely and willing to marry with one another in the face of an outside threat, the system would be more logical.

The problem is not how hard to beat the coalitions are, the problem is how easily they break immersion.

I guess we'll just pretend that the Battle of Tours never happened in the Middle Ages then? It's practically the fundamental event that shaped the Charlemagne start in CK2, and it only a occurred 37 years before the start of the game. It is a classic medieval example of a coalition forming to defeat an outside invader.

 

[Audoucet]

I guess we'll just pretend that the Battle of Tours never happened in the Middle Ages then? It's practically the fundamental event that shaped the Charlemagne start in CK2, and it only a occurred 37 years before the start of the game. It is a classic medieval example of a coalition forming to defeat an outside invader.

I don't think that even ONE person criticised the idea of a coalition of religion X, against religion Y, which isn't what actual coalitions are.

Especially since everybody can join any holy war against its own religion.

I have honestly no idea where you are going with your point.

 

[Secret Master]

The problem is not how hard to beat the coalitions are, the problem is how easily they break immersion.

I don't think that even ONE person criticised the idea of a coalition of religion X, against religion Y, which isn't what actual coalitions are.

Especially since everybody can join any holy war against its own religion.

I have honestly no idea where you are going with your point.

- Coalition/Defensive Pact Mapmode now only shows the Defensive Pacts against selected Realms
- Split up defensive pacts based on religious groups
- Threat level controls the size of realms which are allowed to join defensive pacts to protect themselves from a threat
- Threat level controls how far away realms can be in order to join in defensive pacts
- AI Realms with equal or greater troop strength than a target will never join Defensive Pacts against them
- Your own religious group have a lower defensive pact distance
- As a Realm's threat increases, the different Defensive Pacts will be willing to work together to contain them.

So why are we having this discussion at all? The beta patch clearly changed the situation with defensive pacts and made criteria such as religion much more important.

 

[Robert II]

I wonder what people would be saying if they were far more difficult to defeat. Actually, I don't have to wonder. I remember the first year of EU4's existence. :sigh:

Although I think better integration with the current diplomacy mechanics is called for. Part of what I don't like about them is that there are currently specific mechanics to create alliances and NAPs, but the defensive pact mechanics sort of bypasses all of that. If dynasties were more likely and willing to marry with one another in the face of an outside threat, the system would be more logical.



I guess we'll just pretend that the Battle of Tours never happened in the Middle Ages then? It's practically the fundamental event that shaped the Charlemagne start in CK2, and it only a occurred 37 years before the start of the game. It is a classic medieval example of a coalition forming to defeat an outside invader.

Any other examples of coalitions? Do Charles' forces at Tours even qualify as a Coalition?

 

[Secret Master]

Any other examples of coalitions?

There are examples of smaller coalitions, such as Irish resistance to the Norman invasions in the 12th Century. The English had the Pope's blessing, but the Irish resisted in a semi-coordinated fashion after the initial attack in 1170 (that took what looks to me like an Irish duchy). It failed to truly stop Norman attacks (even the Treaty of Windsor didn't stop the fighting), but unless you think of Ireland as a single polity in 1170 (the game does not count it as such), it would be a small local coalition in the terms of the new system that continues on for some time when the local Norman lords the English installed continue attacks (liege inherits vassal threat, so it makes sense).

I could think of others if I had more time. These are just the ones coming from the top of my head.

 

[Audoucet]

So why are we having this discussion at all? The beta patch clearly changed the situation with defensive pacts and made criteria such as religion much more important.

No, they just separated the pacts in religion based groups, and they tuned down a little the maximum distance to join a pact against your own.

 

[Robert II]

There are examples of smaller coalitions, such as Irish resistance to the Norman invasions in the 12th Century. The English had the Pope's blessing, but the Irish resisted in a semi-coordinated fashion after the initial attack in 1170 (that took what looks to me like an Irish duchy). It failed to truly stop Norman attacks (even the Treaty of Windsor didn't stop the fighting), but unless you think of Ireland as a single polity in 1170 (the game does not count it as such), it would be a small local coalition in the terms of the new system that continues on for some time when the local Norman lords the English installed continue attacks (liege inherits vassal threat, so it makes sense).

I could think of others if I had more time. These are just the ones coming from the top of my head.

That's a no then isn't it? If you can only think of 1 that is no where near the scale of the ones in ck2 that's a no. And you didn't answer the question about the Hammers army.

 

[Audoucet]

There are examples of smaller coalitions, such as Irish resistance to the Norman invasions in the 12th Century. The English had the Pope's blessing, but the Irish resisted in a semi-coordinated fashion after the initial attack in 1170 (that took what looks to me like an Irish duchy). It failed to truly stop Norman attacks (even the Treaty of Windsor didn't stop the fighting), but unless you think of Ireland as a single polity in 1170 (the game does not count it as such), it would be a small local coalition in the terms of the new system that continues on for some time when the local Norman lords the English installed continue attacks (liege inherits vassal threat, so it makes sense).

I could think of others if I had more time. These are just the ones coming from the top of my head.

Again a coalition of local Christians, against infidels... Which isn't the problem, the problem is the Pope and Byzantine Empire teaming up with the Abassid caliphate to fight against France because she tries to conquer Egypt after conquering Jerusalem in a crusade, called by said Pope. Even if it is more difficult now, the mere thought that it can happen is stupid.

 

[win746]

It seems that Paradox is trying to balance their games more and more, which would be nice, if it didn't break immersion of a medieval world. I mean, I was playing Byzantine, and while I understand that both Christian and Muslim worlds would probably panic irl if the Romans suddenly took back parts of Italy, the holy land and half of Africa, unbreakable defensive pacts really bothers me. As if no one ever in medieval times had an alliance by marriage, and then backstab their allies and attack their lands.

The new patch is a good step, the threat system is better than coalitions, but 25% increase of threat from me conquering Rascia (a duchy) is kinda ridiculous.

 

[Secret Master]

That's a no then isn't it? If you can only think of 1 that is no where near the scale of the ones in ck2 that's a no. And you didn't answer the question about the Hammers army.

Scale of the ones in CK2? Do I need to post the patch notes for the beta patch again? They scale from small to huge. And those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head right then.

You could consider Anglo-Saxon response to the invasion(s) of 865 a coalition against the Vikings. The mycel heathen here was not just a single prepared invasion or war, but closer to a series of smaller wars that results in a partition of England between the Anglo-Saxons and the Scandinavians. If it was a single war like a prepared invasion in CK2, there wouldn't have been a partition so much as a either a complete defeat of the Vikings or the annexation of a single Anglo-Saxon petty kingdom. (The Vikings got portions of Mercia and Northumbria, independent realms at this point, so it's not just a single war. That's why the game portrays the 865 start the way it does.)

The initial response to the Mongol invasions of territory of the Cumans resulted in the first contact between the Rus and Mongols before the actual invasion of Rus territory. (Battle of Kalka River) The principalities were not really unified as a single state at the time.

The further subjugation of the states in Rus resulted in a bunch of fighting that might as well be a coalition. Of course, once these territories were subjugated, they still existed but could no longer join coalitions against the Mongols. (The Mongol attacks on Poland, Silesia, and others represent a good use of simultaneous war declarations to get around defensive pacts.)

I'm not going to continue listing instances, as I don't have the time. I considered looking at Mongol conquests, but those didn't matter in the end (the Mongols just crushed the opposition regardless). Which, I think still fits in the game mechanics.

Regarding the army at Tours:

From the information we have available (there's a lot of missing info), if we do not count the mercenaries from pagan realms, the Christian army at Tours included armies from territories controlled by the Merovingians, but also areas that they did not own at the time, including Lombards from Italy.

One problem with this discussion is that CK2 does not really deal well with the ambiguities of fealty, homage, and diplomacy in the period. Don't get me wrong: it's better than just about any game out there. But when trying to determine whether the game is modeling things correctly, we have to make choices like "Should we model the HRE as a single state or a coalition of smaller states in a kind of confederacy? How do we model invasions like Viking attacks on England?" and so on. The defensive pacts seem to be a way to help model yet another weird in-between aspect of diplomacy and domestic policies in the period.

I still think that tying it to the rest of the diplomacy system would be better.