How often does game balance interfere with realism?

[BrokenSky]

tbh it really bugs me most of the time when you have scripted events doing things. Universal mechanics >> special cases.

The only excpetion I can think of off the top of my head is how CK2+ handles scripted norse invasions of various places, e.g. Normandy, and in game there are similar non-event mechanics to do that as a regular viking anyway. It's more that it railroads the AI, rather than letting the AI do something any player/ai can't normally do. On the other hand, Charlie's skipping of Karloman's son for inheritance, invasion of saxony 300 years before kingdom level holy wars are unlocked and ability to get a claim on all of Lombardy by marrying and then divorcing the king's daughter are all not possible using game mechanics, which bothers me.

 

[Anzi]

King of England has the ability to give precise orders that will be executed the moment they are given to his crusading army in the Levant while sitting on his throne in London. Should he wish to lead his armies personally, he can just teleport there in an instant. He knows the size and composition of his opposing armies to a single man. To add to that, he possesses perfect psychological profile of every single nobleman and woman in the known world.

 

[Rubidium]

Rebels are rebels. By rebelling against the crown, they are putting their life on the line. In feudal societies, a civil war was a split, the defeated tended to lose a lot.
eg: Williams Harrying of the North
In the ERE even more so. When the Komenos lost the ERE throne, they did not become vassals to the new dynasty - but independent.

It's actually more complicated than that, especially in Western Europe. Peasant rebels (e.g. Wat Tyler) put their lives on the line, but noble rebels often got away with a slap on the wrist, at least in England (the area I'm most familiar with).

There are several reasons for this:
1) Unlike in CK2, defeating a rebellion generally didn't result in the free imprisonment of all the rebels (here's a realism/balance dispute for you); if you want to force them to give up rather than either continuing to fight or fleeing to exile to continue scheming, you need to give make it "safe" for them to surrender
2) Unlike in CK2, where you can appoint some random lowborn from a hick court as vassal-king and no one bats an eye, nobles came from prestigious families, and removing one was an insult to not just them but potentially everyone related to them (which, in an inbred nobility, means essentially everyone important)
3) Likewise, you might need that duke to successfully rule their lands; someone has to rule the place, and it might as well be the person who has spent a lifetime training to do so, rather than someone new.
4) Your opponent today might be an ally tomorrow (and vice versa, the same Roger Mortimer who led the overthrow of Edward II had been a valued ally of Edward's in the Piers Gaveston disputes)

That's not to say rebels were never punished, but it usually required a history of rebellion before drastic measures were taken, rather than a first offender.

 

[SaphireSeas]

It's actually more complicated than that, especially in Western Europe. Peasant rebels (e.g. Wat Tyler) put their lives on the line, but noble rebels often got away with a slap on the wrist, at least in England (the area I'm most familiar with).

Everything is always more complicated than it appears.
I agree with you, and the Harrying is a good example of a rebellion that the reverse happened(Every rule has it's exception...)
Hmph. Bloody dukes. Why can't they just accept the status quo? They still have a council!

In CK2 the slap on the face is being released from prison. Nevertheless, repeated rebellion is still treated the same as the first.

More on topic, The Byzantine Empire(1066 or before) devolves into an EHRE style mess, with castration, blinding and plenty of Islamic expansion targets for the more powerful Doux(Only if not CM start). Gone are the days of the palace and military coups, the civil wars, all to seize the Throne which held such absolute power.
I'm rather downhearted by this one. I'd love to play in the real ERE. (starts new game in 1066)

 

[Helios Panoptes]

Byzantium is way way waaaaaay too stable, because the player would get salty if their best buddy suddenly killed them and usurped the throne.

 

[SaphireSeas]

Byzantium is way way waaaaaay too stable, because the player would get salty if their best buddy suddenly killed them and usurped the throne

I know.
But I have to keep dreaming that they'll change it, or I'll go utterly insane.
(I'm the sort of person who gives claims to ambitious Doux when the Emperor is unpopular)

 

[Helios Panoptes]

I kinda wish there was a mod to play as the title, not the dynasty. It just feels so wrong to have the same family rule the Empire for centuries, especially in straight-line succession.

 

[dragoon9105]

Well infertility isn't properly modeled to allow that. Most lines died out because rulers either had nothing but daughters or didn't have the 'fertility'.

 

[BrokenSky]

Well infertility isn't properly modeled to allow that. Most lines died out because rulers either had nothing but daughters or didn't have the 'fertility'.

Yeah but then the title would often go to a cadet branch which the game models as being "the same dynasty". So the wars of the roses were between the house of Plantagenet and the house of Plantagenet. I think? In game terms.

 

[killerbee256]

Byzantium can't use Imperial Reconquest, despite that being its CB for basically all of its wars.

I believe when legacy of rome first came out they could. But it was ridiculously over powered so they removed it.

 

[Rubidium]

I believe when legacy of rome first came out they could. But it was ridiculously over powered so they removed it.

Yes, it turned out that having what was arguably the most powerful blob in the game have a free, permanent duchy-level CB on essentially half the map was not good for balance. Shocking!

 

[SaphireSeas]

Yeah but then the title would often go to a cadet branch which the game models as being "the same dynasty". So the wars of the roses were between the house of Plantagenet and the house of Plantagenet. I think? In game terms.

Yep. Rose and Lancaster were Plantagenets.