How did Conclave ruin the game?

[Maizel]

I think, overall, Conclave has a major positive effect on the game. With over 1300 hours in the game, I;ve really gotten sick with the railroading expansion of my realm after I reach a certain size. Many of the features in conclaves actually makes me pay attention to my vassals again, whereas I used to not even enter their character screens more than once every few generations or so.

The automatic call to arm thing can be annoying in game, but I find all the drama that is being made about it to be gravely overblown. Especially considering that it needs an action on your part to actually create an alliance.

 

[Hecaton]

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.

Pretty much. Any designer with any competence could have seen that was a problem. Or any of the countless untested changes they've subjected the playerbase to. I have no confidence in the current team, and am reconsidering purchase of future Paradox titles (i.e. Stellaris). There seems to be active disdain for a positive player experience coming from the CK2 team.

 

[yourworstnightm]

I think, overall, Conclave has a major positive effect on the game. With over 1300 hours in the game, I;ve really gotten sick with the railroading expansion of my realm after I reach a certain size. Many of the features in conclaves actually makes me pay attention to my vassals again, whereas I used to not even enter their character screens more than once every few generations or so.

The automatic call to arm thing can be annoying in game, but I find all the drama that is being made about it to be gravely overblown. Especially considering that it needs an action on your part to actually create an alliance.

Actually the need to pay attention to your vassals was a positive thing. I had no problem with that. On the contrary they should have done even more with vassal interactions. Instead stupid coalitions that makes little sense, don't stop blobbing, and slow down the game because there is nothing to do between wars (I'd like if not blobbing would become a viable strategy, but no...). Though I must say automatic call to arm is worse than Coalitions, because AI allies are now useless.

 

[Ki-Koshi]

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.

The concept of Defensive Pacts applies very well to the situation of the Crusader States and it's neighbouring islamic city-states, who formed coalitions against greather threats (e.g. Zengi had to face a pact between the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Damascus).

What could considered to be an ingame-defensive pact on a greater scale is the relationship between the Byzantine Empire and the Fatimid Caliph, which was probably directed against their mutual enemy, the Seljuks. Of course this never had any real consequences, because the Seljuks quickly crumbled after 1092 and the crusaders turned everything upside down afterwards. But that's the problem of Ck2-defensive pacts (from 2.5.2; not the coalitions from 2.5) alltogether, isn't it? They are supposed to simulate some sort of loose relationships between countries that face a similar threat, it's an "insurance" for the unlikely case, an easy possibility to disencourage further expansion, not a real coalition based on contracts and the will to actually act together against the enemy. The Fatimids and the Byzantines probably wouldn't have acted together against a renewed Seljuk expansion, despite good relationships and diplomatic contacts (hence the emperor turned to the west for help and not to the Fatimids) - but as the Seljuk sultan it would have been at your own risk, because you wouldn't have known for sure beforehand.

Similar examples can be found throughout the history of the Middle Ages - the anti-German coalition between the Byzantines, Venice, the Pope and the Normans against the actions of Barbarossa in Italy, all of them being enemies before (and afterwards); Roger II. encouraged Serbs and Magyars against Manuel I. in the context of his Italian ambitions; none of these had any real consequences and are sometimes only suggested by some sources, but the concept of Defensive Pacts is not entireley a fiction for the time. And I can easily live with them as they are implemented in the new patch - the only thing really annoying thing is the automatic call to arms. As the player you can always "backstab" the AI by simply not doing anything, but the AI will ruin itself with sending all its troops at once, even in the smallest of wars.

 

[Rostan]

P.S. I do not understand this "I cannot stop blobbing, I need help. Please, won´t somebody create mechanics to prevent me from blobbing like crazy?".

 

[Chunakun]

Before Conclave I always tried to improve relations with my vassals. Now I don't even try to do it. I especially hate it that I give a guy a County and he joins a faction within a year after I gave him the County. I beat the faction, revoke the county and give it to another guy who also joins a faction within a year after I gave him that County. What happened to gratitude and loyalty? How do I roleplay like this. It is not fun for me anymore. I am finally kicking off from CK2 after playing this game for three years.

 

[yourworstnightm]

Before Conclave I always tried to improve relations with my vassals. Now I don't even try to do it. I especially hate it that I give a guy a County and he joins a faction within a year after I gave him the County. I beat the faction, revoke the county and give it to another guy who also joins a faction within a year after I gave him that County. What happened to gratitude and loyalty? How do I roleplay like this. It is not fun for me anymore. I am finally kicking off from CK2 after playing this game for three years.

This is actually an old problem returning. When factions were new it was the same thing. There were no gain in keeping your vassals happy since they'd join factions anyway. I'm very unhappy this problem is back, but then again I try to avoid playing vanilla as much as possible, since the Factions are handled much better in some mods. But I think the solution would be another overhaul of the faction system, making factions more interesting, and not just a revolt timer, that either never goes off, or can't be stopped from going off.

 

[Soylent Dave]

If you can only think of 1 that is no where near the scale of the ones in ck2 that's a no.

The reason there aren't many historical coalitions / defensive pacts on the scale of the largest we see in ck2 is because those are a response to ahistorical empires growing ahistorically quickly.

Let's not be surprised that when we break history one way, it breaks in another.

The more egregious examples of Defensive Pacts - the things people seem the most worried about - are just a scaling up of things that actually did happen.

(I'd be more than happy to have the auto Call to Arms & the unbreakable NAPs looked at, though)

 

[Ilyasviel]

The reason there aren't many historical coalitions / defensive pacts on the scale of the largest we see in ck2 is because those are a response to ahistorical empires growing ahistorically quickly.

There were plenty of countries in the middle-age that grew extremely quickly, even faster than most players do (since we are limited by mechanics), and they didn't get these coalitions against them. There's nothing ahistorical about fast expansion and blobbing. It was rare, but it still happened regularly.

 

[Zsrai]

There seems to be active disdain for a positive player experience coming from the CK2 team.

I really wouldn't use that much hyperbole. I mean come on now. I'm sure plenty of game devs ACTIVELY destroy their game and hate their players. That's a great business model, sure to make them millions of <insert currency here>.

There were plenty of countries in the middle-age that grew extremely quickly, even faster than most players do (since we are limited by mechanics), and they didn't get these coalitions against them. There's nothing ahistorical about fast expansion and blobbing. It was rare, but it still happened regularly.

A lot of those also tended to break up pretty fast (usually after the death of the expander), or at least gave up so much power to their vassals to stay in power that the succeeding generations were arguably worse off. That sadly doesn't happen in CK2, but that's more of the "blobs need to be able to break up" argument than the "coalitions/DP are terrible" one.

 

[Noobified]

i'm a relatively new CK2 player so Shattered retreat didn't really bother me so much. i don't even remember what happens to armies before the patch.

BUT infamy and coalitions...why why is this even a thing? Now it would have made sense if it was dynastic, as in all the Karlings might be up in arms about it but why would the Sunni Muslims care what i do to the Tengri nomads? and also, its just this one duchy...It isn't as if i killed off all members of the family that owned it.

Don't like how the education is now. Maybe i just don't understand how it works but it feels so much more micromanaging. Used to just get a kid, give him/her a good educator and forget about it. Now its completely all RNG.

 

[Zsrai]

Don't like how the education is now. Maybe i just don't understand how it works but it feels so much more micromanaging. Used to just get a kid, give him/her a good educator and forget about it. Now its completely all RNG.

You can mostly do the same thing now. You get a kid, give them a Focus, then give them another Focus 12 years later. You only have to make it micromanagement if you really want to squeeze out every last positive stat and trait... about as much as you did before, if you didn't just dump them on whomever the AI suggested as a guardian.

 

[Noobified]

You can mostly do the same thing now. You get a kid, give them a Focus, then give them another Focus 12 years later. You only have to make it micromanagement if you really want to squeeze out every last positive stat and trait... about as much as you did before, if you didn't just dump them on whomever the AI suggested as a guardian.

the thing is i just don't know where all these negative traits are coming from. Previously, the benefit of educating your own kid means you rarely get crap traits unless its genetic. My kids don't need to be Superman. i don't even know, after this play-through i'll just deactivate conclave.

 

[Chunakun]

the thing is i just don't know where all these negative traits are coming from. Previously, the benefit of educating your own kid means you rarely get crap traits unless its genetic. My kids don't need to be Superman. i don't even know, after this play-through i'll just deactivate conclave.

Yes. You can have diplo 14 and personally educate your son and he still manages to get a diplo of 1. There seem to be certain events which only the child has influence over and not the guardian (as I noticed when I played a child ruler). And the AI is normally not good at picking what is in his interest.

 

[Zsrai]

the thing is i just don't know where all these negative traits are coming from. Previously, the benefit of educating your own kid means you rarely get crap traits unless its genetic. My kids don't need to be Superman. i don't even know, after this play-through i'll just deactivate conclave.

Are you looking at the Focii? The basic Focus gives a greater chance at certain traits, and the adolescent Focus's are better or worse depending on what childhood traits they have (usually 2-3 I find). If you pair up an education focus with the good/neutral traits, and especially no bad traits, you can usually get at least a 2 or 3 star education at the end. I find it extremely simple, without worrying about what educator traits to min-max for certain childhood traits, and still get solid education/trait output. If you micromanage it, of course you'll get better traits at the end.

 

[riadach]

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.

What infidels did he mention?

 

[Audoucet]

What infidels did he mention?

The French of course !

No seriously, my mistake. I was thinking about the Vikings. I'm French, I don't know anything about history, outside the revolution, the Islamic world, WW1 & WW2.

But the point remains that it's a very localised stuff. I wouldn't be hostile to some kind of automatic alliance between independent powers from the same de jure Kingdom, just like the automatic alliance between same dynasty or same religion. Why not even an automatic alliance between same culture ?

 

[Maeldun]

I wish people would stop associating these changes (alliance system, pacts, etc.) with the Conclave DLC. They are introduced by the patch, so they affect everyone, including people who do not choose to purchase the DLC and just update for the bugfixes which have been held over since 2.4.5.

 

[Hecaton]

I really wouldn't use that much hyperbole. I mean come on now. I'm sure plenty of game devs ACTIVELY destroy their game and hate their players. That's a great business model, sure to make them millions of <insert currency here>.

The game designer who thinks that what their customers want is badwrongfun is definitely a phenomenon that exists. They will grudgingly do just enough to not go under financially, but actively dump on their playerbase other than that.

 

[nestorius]

I kind of think that conclave is the best expansion since they put in factions its finally a little harder middle to end game and not that you are just waiting for the truce timer to expire.