Here's one that should be near and dear to your heart (as it was fought between France and the HRE over control of Flanders): the Battle of Bouvines, France versus a coalition of England, the HRE and various minor nobles.
- 5
- 2
How did Conclave ruin the game?
- Thread starter WankoStankins
- 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.
Played the game now defense pacts were nothing untill I had basically a realm three or four kingdoms worth.
I have played 4 games 2 before patch 2 after
1st played as William the conquorer there I slowed down for the pacts but they only arrived after I took Scotland and Wales and Ireland.
2nd Bohemia, the pacts didnt effect me just stopped playing after pushing the HRE throne too fast.
3rd Sigard Ring start Defense pacts started to be an issue once I launched a great holy war for Scotland till then thy didnt effect my decission making.
4th 1066 Byzantine start. here its more of an issue after taking Rome and Venice siciliy, Seriva and Georgia attacking Croatia to press a claim for throne got even the Sejuks involved. Tbh I think its completely fine.
Council I have had no issues here though it is true that frequantly I had to chose someone a bit worse off never was it a guy with 5 or less usually it was the second or third guy. With the 1 or 2 advisor I usually can get the strong vassals in. Really I had no issue with badly skilled council. The only issue I did have was a council that owed favour to someone else but thats part of the game. Later though when you are stronger it is easier to control.
Again no issue with alliances are you playing at a significantly higher difficulty? I play on normal as I dont like the disbalance.
I agree that it does occur that now with infamy around 80 I am not sure what to do for a while and have in fact had a go at fighting the pacts anyway its harder but its at times possible.
- 1
Honestly, I like every change that came with Conclave except for infamy/threat, which I'm lukewarm about (the shattered retreats were pretty wonky at release but were quickly patched and are now pretty reasonable). The threat mechanic seems a little arbitrary as it is now, but if I run more games and find that it puts some brakes on the major blobs as intended then I'd call it a win for sure. Meanwhile the council mechanics have me thinking much more carefully about appointments (it used to be a total no-brainer, but now it plays a major role in realm stability and your ability to get laws through), it's added much-needed new layers to vassal interactions, and the new laws gives you a lot more interesting combinations and more mid- and late-game policies to strive for (prior to Conclave I'd usually get the laws I wanted within a few generations and then never touch the screen again).
When I play I'm usually more interested in setting up a midsized realm with some distinctive or interesting features ( unique mixes of culture/religion, laws, strategic location, etc) than just blobbing to the ends of the earth, and Conclave gave me some pretty cool new features to mess around with. I really feel like it's only a loss if you have an extremely narrow focus on expansion, and even then the impact of threat only kicks in if you've got a pretty large realm expanding at a fast rate. The game can run for up to 700 years, there's really no need to be in that big of a rush.
When I play I'm usually more interested in setting up a midsized realm with some distinctive or interesting features ( unique mixes of culture/religion, laws, strategic location, etc) than just blobbing to the ends of the earth, and Conclave gave me some pretty cool new features to mess around with. I really feel like it's only a loss if you have an extremely narrow focus on expansion, and even then the impact of threat only kicks in if you've got a pretty large realm expanding at a fast rate. The game can run for up to 700 years, there's really no need to be in that big of a rush.
- 2
- 2
These things aren't limited to the Conclave DLC! They affect everyone that downloads the 2.5.x version of the game, whether they own Conclave or not, which means if you want bugfixes, you have to adopt these new game mechanics.
- 2
- 1
The big issue is that Conclave is basically required to offset many of 2.5's nerfs. This is the first DLC since Legacy of Rome (and Yuletide, obviously
) that's really needed to play the game fully, and LoR isn't that important after retinues got nerfed.
) that's really needed to play the game fully, and LoR isn't that important after retinues got nerfed.
Right now i was trying SPQR achievement. The Council is linked with your advisors, the benefits of 20+ for example to create a claim vs a 5-1 is huge.
Coalitions: yes right now i have a 83% of infamy (threat) and I only conquer 3 Duchys, my vassals immune to infamy keep conquering and now they have 2-3 duchys each. More they conquer more power-hunger vassals, so more rebels. And the coalition of all pagans, coalition of several catolic, and the coalition of muslim now with Abassid Empire, is one big happy coalition. So with 0.20 tick each month i only have to wait 34 years with 5 months, only if my vassals don´t conquer more land. I dont think is higher difficulty.
- 1
Because of Conclave I made my own mod where I modded some of the opinion modifiers(because I hate fighting 6 or 7 increase council power factions during one characters reign). Now the game is much more bearable to me and I even tolerate Infamy and shattered retreat (having a council was never a problem to me). It still bothers me though that I cannot stop my vassals fighting for longer than 10 years.
What also bothers me is that Aquitaine decides to go after Kabylia on day one in the 867 start. I wonder if it is a bug because in one of my games I gave the Muslim Ruler 5K event troops making him stronger than Aquitaine but still Aquitaine declared war.
What also bothers me is that Aquitaine decides to go after Kabylia on day one in the 867 start. I wonder if it is a bug because in one of my games I gave the Muslim Ruler 5K event troops making him stronger than Aquitaine but still Aquitaine declared war.
You do you know that you can give away titles to reduce threat? Granting independence does as well. If you have NAPs (or Alliances) with other rulers they won't join DPs against you, etc. It's definitely a higher difficulty, because you really have to manage your expansion and balance the pros and cons vs just DoW your next target.
That's a war of aggression, so no possible comparison. If you want, you can just dig up every alliances in a war in history. Hey, let's say the crusades were, actually, a coalition ! That will serve your argument nicely.
- 1
The Third Crusade could be an example. The fall of Jerusalem triggering the Kings of England and France and the Holy Roman Emperor to participate in the Crusade.
- 1
Yes, but you can already spontaneously join holy wars, so... No need for coalitions, all that's needed is to make the AI better.
- 1
Err... nope, Bouvines was part of the continous Anglo-French war since 1204, when Philip II revoked Normandy, Anjou and Poitou from John of England (also his vassal as duke of Aquitaine), John tired to take his possessions back in 1214, calling his nephew HRE Otto IV to his aid, Flanders and Bologne rebelled with John as well.
It was a regular claim war coupled with vassal rebellion, not a coalition.
- 3
Alternative interpretation: Philip II declared a war against King John for Normandy, Anjou and Poitou (since you can't have kings vassals to other kings in CK2), and John was part of a coalition including Otto IV and various effectively independent counties in Flanders (who weren't related and thus wouldn't count as allies for CK2, unless they had spouses taking vacations in London). Worries that it would make Philip too powerful were clearly important motivations for the various lords.
Minor nitpicking, John was the uncle of the Countess of Flanders.
Also, by in-game terms Philip would be fighting even the Caliph by conquering Normandy, Anjou and Poitou.
Last edited:
Indeed, thats why i dont understand how people dont see the coalition as a mayor issue. 3 Duchys and your infamy skyrocked, maybe conquer is not in the plans of alot of people?. I cant sit and dont conquer is not my style.Minor nitpicking, John was the uncle of the Countess of Flanders.
Also, by in-game terms Philip would be fighting even the Caliph by conquering Normandy, Anjou and Poitou.
- 1
I don't think any of the mechanics of Conclave or the patch were game-ruining (personally, anyway) but I would say pretty much everything introduced needed to be further tweaked and refined after release. If it had spent another couple months in open beta, we might have avoided all of this outrage.
- 4
There was a major outrage at the very first announce of coalitions, they knew what would happen.
- 5
Infamy/threat goes up way too high, and goes down way too slow.
The fact that muslim and christians can coalize together for a massive coalition is even more ridiculous.
Basically once you grow big, the only thing you can do is wait for threat to go down, which is waaaaaay too slow, thus the game is just boring.
Imo the coalition mechanic, although arguably necessary, is frustrating.
Also, it doesn't do ANYTHING to prevent muslims from blobbing.
The fact that muslim and christians can coalize together for a massive coalition is even more ridiculous.
Basically once you grow big, the only thing you can do is wait for threat to go down, which is waaaaaay too slow, thus the game is just boring.
Imo the coalition mechanic, although arguably necessary, is frustrating.
Also, it doesn't do ANYTHING to prevent muslims from blobbing.
Last edited:
- 4
Not only a major outrage, but also let's not forget that in the DD where it was announced, we talked about coalitions and gave them a ton of advices. ALL the issues could have been avoided if they just listened to us instead of doing whatever they felt like doing.
- 5