How is 769 "imbalanced?"
- Thread starter iron0037
- 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.
ive only played the Charley start a few times and didnt like it
sometimes ill play 867 if i feel for a more chaotic europe, as it still often resembles our OTL europe.
but i mostly play 1066 and forward, only problem with 1066 is william never wins england, and the ERE always stays strong, i hate a strong ERE.
but yes i agree though that nations that were historically hard to subdue easily get rolled over in ck2, i feel that harsh terrain should play a heavy and crucial roll,
the fact that an army of germans can invade sweden or rus in the winter and siege out multiple castles annoys me, now i know you have to sometimes sacrifice realism for gameplay, but i feel theres gotta be a way it can be done better.
i also feel that vassals should get more mad towards their ruler if their ruler is clealy losing a war, and still continues to sacrifice men, a duke should be getting pissed at his lord for this.
i feel ck2 needs a POP mechanic or sometime of manpower system, which would also fit in nice with a plague and disease system, imagine seeing POP numbers drop as a plague decimates your realm.
sometimes ill play 867 if i feel for a more chaotic europe, as it still often resembles our OTL europe.
but i mostly play 1066 and forward, only problem with 1066 is william never wins england, and the ERE always stays strong, i hate a strong ERE.
but yes i agree though that nations that were historically hard to subdue easily get rolled over in ck2, i feel that harsh terrain should play a heavy and crucial roll,
the fact that an army of germans can invade sweden or rus in the winter and siege out multiple castles annoys me, now i know you have to sometimes sacrifice realism for gameplay, but i feel theres gotta be a way it can be done better.
i also feel that vassals should get more mad towards their ruler if their ruler is clealy losing a war, and still continues to sacrifice men, a duke should be getting pissed at his lord for this.
i feel ck2 needs a POP mechanic or sometime of manpower system, which would also fit in nice with a plague and disease system, imagine seeing POP numbers drop as a plague decimates your realm.
- 7
The first problem is CK2 was never meant to simulate Late Antiquity, and 769 is far, far more Late Antique than it is Medieval.
The second problem is that Charlemagne is such a massively important figure in West European history and when CK2 kneecaps him with a random event before he even gets rolling everything immediately goes off the rails.
The second problem is that Charlemagne is such a massively important figure in West European history and when CK2 kneecaps him with a random event before he even gets rolling everything immediately goes off the rails.
- 9
Can you expand on that thought? What is fundamentally different about 769 vs other bookmarks that makes CK2 unsuitable?
should have put the start point at when charles was emperor, things would be much more stable IMO, have events for his sons to divide the realm.
at the very least just before the coronation in the church. with the span between the death of either karloman or karl and the coronation has to many variables
The big thing was that no nations in 769 had a strict, heirarchical, geography-based division of authority. This is the core CK2 mechanic.
The exception is Byzantine themes, which weren't hereditary and are simulated via duchy viceroyalties. Even then, there werent hereditary counties for the strategos to oversee within a theme.
The exception is Byzantine themes, which weren't hereditary and are simulated via duchy viceroyalties. Even then, there werent hereditary counties for the strategos to oversee within a theme.
- 6
Well, for one, feudalism just straight-up did not exist in 769, even in the broadest possible strokes.
- 10
The awful succession mechanics for the karling realms is a major offender. The HRE by decision is simply broken, making horrifying de jure empire borders, with the title being kept intact on succession (which is gavelkind), and we see the realm fragmenting messily due to factions and succession of the 1-2 empires and 4-6 kingdoms (because the AI must click the buttons). It never results in anything remotely plausible, usually as an accumulation of the usually passable issues with the game (factions, successions, de jure, vassal status, and stability).
Also they really, really need to fix antiquine so france doesn't always make it. That should be an easy fix, just add a culture requirement for the AI.
Also, obligatory #FlandersForFrance
Also they really, really need to fix antiquine so france doesn't always make it. That should be an easy fix, just add a culture requirement for the AI.
Also, obligatory #FlandersForFrance
- 3
- 2
It seems the problem is small collapsing France? I think it is possible that the Charles start is mainly suited for a Charles (or Karloman etc) game. If they nerfed the muslims and made the gavelkind go away, starting as Charles would likely be too easy. The muslims in Spain should provide a signifcant threat to Europe, and its thus a difficult balance to maintain: its quite likely that if western Europe hadn't united under the Karlings the Muslims would eventually have taken over Spain.
Its noteworthy that the picture with Umayyads way into Europe was with a pagan start: a strong norse faction on the offensive (as the player often is) doesn't exactly help the Christians.
I do agree however that the Gavelkind sometimes make weird borders. I think one problem is the lack of control with how the realm is divided. Charles the great was himself controlling which son got which area (at least to a degree). The problem is that the AI gives counties/duchies to all sons, but if the father does not posses counties in all de jure kingdoms, the counties (and duchies) will go outside the de jure Kingdoms (a son getting a french county/duchy, and Aquatanian crown). Possibly a function where the sons always gets the de jure capital of the kingdom irregardles of current ruler could be a possibility (and of course any county/duchy which the father have in that kingdom), thus preserving the relalms more intact.
Also the player needs more control over which sons gets which part of the realm (whether duchy, kingdom or empire). Perhaps nominating an heir for each of the highest tier titles (with the heirs being different for each title untill every son have one of the highest tier titles - then the oldest should get the rest - as it is sometimes a younger son gets too much of the realm, but not the top title), and then let de jure titles follow that?
Gavelkind as it is isnt functioning neither well or entirely historical correct. But realm splitting should be maintained.
Its noteworthy that the picture with Umayyads way into Europe was with a pagan start: a strong norse faction on the offensive (as the player often is) doesn't exactly help the Christians.
I do agree however that the Gavelkind sometimes make weird borders. I think one problem is the lack of control with how the realm is divided. Charles the great was himself controlling which son got which area (at least to a degree). The problem is that the AI gives counties/duchies to all sons, but if the father does not posses counties in all de jure kingdoms, the counties (and duchies) will go outside the de jure Kingdoms (a son getting a french county/duchy, and Aquatanian crown). Possibly a function where the sons always gets the de jure capital of the kingdom irregardles of current ruler could be a possibility (and of course any county/duchy which the father have in that kingdom), thus preserving the relalms more intact.
Also the player needs more control over which sons gets which part of the realm (whether duchy, kingdom or empire). Perhaps nominating an heir for each of the highest tier titles (with the heirs being different for each title untill every son have one of the highest tier titles - then the oldest should get the rest - as it is sometimes a younger son gets too much of the realm, but not the top title), and then let de jure titles follow that?
Gavelkind as it is isnt functioning neither well or entirely historical correct. But realm splitting should be maintained.
- 3
Yes, I think that is the biggest problem: In CK2 you are always better of conquering a county than not conquering a county. In reality, conquering and policing a county may cost more than it is worth. Conquering that poor mountain region near the polar circle won't add much to your treasury, but requires you to support quite a strong garrison that must be paid somehow. (And, frankly, how are you going to tax a band of arctic nomads anyway?).
My main problem with the 796 start lies elsewhere though: The extreme railroad that is Charlemagne. He cannot achieve what he achieved in reality through standard CK2 mechanics, so they give him (and him only) special exception to make it possible, and more or less force you down that road. I bought CK2 as a simulator of sorts, so such exceptions rub me the wrong way.
- 2
The problems are not ahistorical outcomes. The problems are it's almost ever the same. That means unbalaced.
If it would be balanced different dynasties would have a chance to make it, but tey don't.
- 1
- 1
I am making a MOD for 821 AD bookmark as alternative to Charlie Start. If people would like to comment on it, check it out from here.
There are two 1066 starts and in one William has already conquered England. So how is this a problem?
Doesn't the game already have a variety of government constructs? Do you consider its implementation of nomads, tribals, imperial administrations, theocracies, and republics abject failures?
The problem is that it's meant to be handled by railroading but the railroading events are broken. I have dug through those files a lot trying to make them work and realsiesd that there are a load of events I've never seen fire. For an example the son of Carloman is suposed to be captured when you defeat the guy who took them in, but that even tis broken. The random duchy in muslim iberia revols is also really bad since it makes no sense for a random duchy to do it, barcelona did it because of proximity.
The very concept of the blood cout of verden is wrong, it didn't happen after the invasion of saxony it happened after the Widukind rebellion, and it only fires if you have happen to have saxon prisoners. Also the follow up events for widukind never fire unless you imprison and exile him which is odd since the events all correctly state that he fled.
Not to mention it all breaks down if charlie happens to die, and as little as I like railroading the situation just devolves into a mush without him.
The ummayads are totally overpowered and instead of slowly regressing as was what happened to them in the era, they just conquer everything (especially if charlie fails). The game totally ignore the reasons that the ummayad sultanate fell. And also the reasons that asturias didn't fall to the ummayyads.
In the east the nomads are playing mongols (happens in 867 too) and if they don't the byzantine empire just keeps blobbing.
All in all not so much imbalanced as half finished.
The very concept of the blood cout of verden is wrong, it didn't happen after the invasion of saxony it happened after the Widukind rebellion, and it only fires if you have happen to have saxon prisoners. Also the follow up events for widukind never fire unless you imprison and exile him which is odd since the events all correctly state that he fled.
Not to mention it all breaks down if charlie happens to die, and as little as I like railroading the situation just devolves into a mush without him.
The ummayads are totally overpowered and instead of slowly regressing as was what happened to them in the era, they just conquer everything (especially if charlie fails). The game totally ignore the reasons that the ummayad sultanate fell. And also the reasons that asturias didn't fall to the ummayyads.
In the east the nomads are playing mongols (happens in 867 too) and if they don't the byzantine empire just keeps blobbing.
All in all not so much imbalanced as half finished.
- 1
- 1
Though it does, it works best, and works essentially, on feudalism. That's why England is feudal in all its start dates, when really it only became so after a victorious William took the throne in 1066. Sure, things like tribal mechanics were added to try and shake it up a bit, but ultimately the game rests of feudalism, and by taking it back to a period so far from it, issues will naturally arise. This is also an issue, though to a lesser extent, in the Old Gods start, though it could easily be extended to 1066 and beyond in certain parts of the world.
The reason people don't like the 769 start seems mainly to do with the total unhistorical passage of events (Muslim France is incredibly rare from pretty much every other start date) and the fact that it just isn't as fun, being filled by a mixture of blobs and perpetually weak countries of the small variety. The player is usually fine, unless they pick Spanish Survival or some such, but the AI can't handle it so well as it can in the later start dates.
- 4
- 3
Lords disliking their liege for throwing hundreds of their soldiers into enemy army twice as strong, to defend one county far away? Hating him for not giving up after that county was conquered and his army destroyed? Feeling discontent when enemy army (which only wants some stupid county their liege inherited 1 year ago) is sieging all your land?
What madness is this? Why would vassals do that? He is defending against foreigners, therefore they love him. All people in Middle-ages were like Martells from Game of Thrones. Unbowed, unbent, unbroken! That´s why crusaders had to conquer all of Fatimid caliphate and Seljuk sultanate to create Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Oooh, wait...
- 2
- 1
One of the bad things about the early start dates are the super stable Muslims. The Abbasids and Umayyads have the sayyid trait, which boosts vassal opinion. Add in Hajjaj, Fafiz, Ramadan events, long reign, and so on, Muslims are very stable. This is why every time I play as France(769), I always have to bailout Asturias or else it gets eaten and soon I'll be the one dealing with the Moors.
I have seen both of these realms collapse early, but those are very uncommon and I generally don't count on it.
Oh and the messy borders when Karl dies is because the AI doesn't know how to hand out titles properly. Like he gives the Duke of Aquatine control of Flanders or transfers the count of Bourbon to the Duke of Brabant. Or he hands out multiple duke titles to one character. And then when he dies, France, Aquatine, Burgundy, Mid France, and even Germany looks super messy. With the king of France controlling Saxony and Aquatine ruling Holland.
Let the AI distribute titles better, that way gavelkind split realms will look somewhat historical.
I have seen both of these realms collapse early, but those are very uncommon and I generally don't count on it.
Oh and the messy borders when Karl dies is because the AI doesn't know how to hand out titles properly. Like he gives the Duke of Aquatine control of Flanders or transfers the count of Bourbon to the Duke of Brabant. Or he hands out multiple duke titles to one character. And then when he dies, France, Aquatine, Burgundy, Mid France, and even Germany looks super messy. With the king of France controlling Saxony and Aquatine ruling Holland.
Let the AI distribute titles better, that way gavelkind split realms will look somewhat historical.
- 1
- 1