I Was Once Content...

[SnowHawkKiller]

I'm still confused as to why the ally call-to-arm change was even necessary. The AI seemed to handle rejecting requests and stuff for wars that either wouldn't benefit them or if they ended up disliking one's character for reasons. The main downside seemed to be that players could and did refuse many calls-to-arm despite being able to do so since the penalty wasn't really severe. However, that could have been fixed by making it more punitive to do so.

I completely agree, in EUIV declining a CTA decreases your prestige by 25 which can have detrimental repercussions since prestige actually has value (due to its status affects) and breaks your alliance. If in CK2 declining a CTA decreased your prestige by 500-1000 depending on how much you had; plus made prestige actually count for something rather than small opinion bonuses, then there'd be an actual reason to accept them. The only definite way to get players to partake in AI wars though would be to make it so that every member of an alliance would stand to lose something like in EUIV, since if you don't actually lose anything then there's no real incentive to do anything other than sit there and not help.

 

[Galarel]

Guys... what do u thinkt about this. Its on beta patch my current ironman campaing.

Almost 45% threat for ONE duchy in India. I know somebody might say .... "ur empire is big thats why". So what? That means if I manage to create big empire im doomed to just looking at the map until 1453 ?? Even worse my Khiva satrap as u see is warmongering everyone around him and he is constantly adding new threat to me for his conquests and I cant stop him doing that. I have been looking for a map since 20-30 years or so because of huge "defensive pact" of whole world (threat was about 90% then) and that threat is not going down because its very slow and my insane vassal doing his dirty work all the time. Just to be sure I took 44,68% threat for ONE duchy in India. It would take almost 18 years of looking at the map to reduce it to zero. Im not even counting other sources of threat. How this game is supposed to be fun now? Oh and that "brilliant" idea to release land you just conquered so u can conquer more ... i wont even comment it.

 

[Audoucet]

And your empire isn't so much bigger than the Abassid, I'm not even sure it is as big. So it isn't exaggerated.

 

[Galarel]

And your empire isn't so much bigger than the Abassid, I'm not even sure it is as big. So it isn't exaggerated.

Exacly, thats my point! its not big in my opinion too, I was just speculating about hipothetical situation with sarcasm. Thats why Im so dissapointed with this DLC. I shoudln't take so much threat at this stage of realm. Whats next? 80% threat for one duchy with empire twice as mine?! Its insane.

 

[Shebaloso]

What do you do with all the weird conversion problems?

Like, Norge and Danmark getting converted as new countries with 'national ideas' rather than just Norway and Denmark. Problems with provinces getting assigned to the wrong country, Etc.

i may be wrong here, but isn't religion the reason for that? I'm pretty certain the scandinavian kingdoms will only convert to Sweden, Denmark and Norway in euIV if the kings are catholics. I mean, it certainly makes more sense that a norse germanic svitjod converts into a norse germanic Svitjod with "national ideas" than converting into sweden with swedish ideas. It's just like converting a zoroastrian persian empire ruler. You won't play as Persia in euIV, you will play as Karen.

 

[CocoCincinnati]

Just curious Op.. Have you tried to play the game with the Ck2 + mod which as of right now gets rid of Coalitions and is overall much better than Vanilla ?. Honestly I tried playing vanilla when the new Dlc came out and I could not play it at all.. Had to wait for Ck2 + to update and that made the game so so much better as it gives you things the main game simply does not have.

I would recommend trying out Ck2 +or HIP both are very good mods that make this game so much better than Vanilla.

That question goes to all that posted in this thread.. Have any of you tried playing the game with mods Such as CK2 +, Hip, Game of thrones mod etc ?

I'm current playing CK2+ with an older version and rolled back to patch 2.4.5. Can you tell if the latest version of the mod with an up to date patch has fixed all the elective successsions happening all over the place? Also, is the opinion nerf from the latest patches tweaked at all?

 

[LordDamien]

I'm current playing CK2+ with an older version and rolled back to patch 2.4.5. Can you tell if the latest version of the mod with an up to date patch has fixed all the elective successsions happening all over the place? Also, is the opinion nerf from the latest patches tweaked at all?

You would need to ask on the Ck2 + forums, I do not know on the top of my head if any of that has been fixed or not

Although I do know you wont have to deal with coalitions like people do in Vanilla as they have been removed

 

[kellenbeck]

I agree, the coalitions and shattered retreat are a pain in the rear, but at least conclave has some good stuff to balance it out.

Plus, if you REALLY don't like coalitions and shattered retreat, there is of course a mod for that, and coalitions are removed in CK2+ if you use that mod. i'm thinking about making a mod to tone down coalitions too, since they're a good idea, just insanely overdone.

 

[St. LongEar]

Crusader Kings II used to be my favorite game, but recent changes have made me feel forced to launch the game in my library; like when you buy a game you don't like but you're trying to get your money's worth. I used to enjoy playing Ironman because I liked having achievement to show off for one of my favorite games. But the addition of coalitions, shattered retreat (although I've become "used" to this), and forced call to arms has made me hate this game and I think its generally not fun anymore. Before anyone asks, I'm currently playing with the latest beta patch 2.5.2 and coalitions are still not fun. I still end of sitting there for hours waiting for a coalition to tick down which at 100% takes 40 years. This game isn't deep enough to have you sit there and twiddle your thumbs for 40 years. If CK2 had a very complex internal management system then maybe this would be okay, but the point here is that there's absolutely nothing to do for 40 years which even on five speed is a couple hours. If threat is going to be viable at all, there needs to be some caps for threat gain. Vassalization should give half the threat that conquering something gives since its peaceful and not warmongering. The cap for conquering should be something like County 10% >>> Duchy 20% >>> Kingdom or Higher 50%. This would work well and by the way the 5% threat threshold is too low, it should be higher and 50% threshold for co religious coalitions is too low as well >.>

I'm playing with infamy constantly at ~100%
I don't like to wait for it to tick down, but there are still plenty of workarounds:

0. Take away titles fron nondynasty members and give to dynasty members. Fight rebellions. If you have option plot away lands from someone. Or take away viceroyalties - that is middlegame or Byzantine/Rome empire option.
1. Attack rebellions of your neighbour. this requires timing and attacking armed forces who are besieging his liege as last option for those extra % to make victory.
2. Attack small nations and force siege them.
3. From time to time your neighbours are going to make war and drop out of coalition against you. Make your move.
4. When you are strong enough and have half of the world, too high infamy is not a problem anymore, because pre Conclave games also cosisted of taking over simultaneous targets in one war and usually those other bastards were declaring war on you as well, so it just added a little bit to complexity.
5. Your vassals are still going to wage wars against neighbours, so that as well...

 

[DerMaulwurf]

Guys... what do u thinkt about this. Its on beta patch my current ironman campaing.

Spoiler

View attachment 161340

Almost 45% threat for ONE duchy in India. I know somebody might say .... "ur empire is big thats why". So what? That means if I manage to create big empire im doomed to just looking at the map until 1453 ?? Even worse my Khiva satrap as u see is warmongering everyone around him and he is constantly adding new threat to me for his conquests and I cant stop him doing that. I have been looking for a map since 20-30 years or so because of huge "defensive pact" of whole world (threat was about 90% then) and that threat is not going down because its very slow and my insane vassal doing his dirty work all the time. Just to be sure I took 44,68% threat for ONE duchy in India. It would take almost 18 years of looking at the map to reduce it to zero. Im not even counting other sources of threat. How this game is supposed to be fun now? Oh and that "brilliant" idea to release land you just conquered so u can conquer more ... i wont even comment it.

No, you're not supposed to look at the map for 18 years. You're supposed to be beating that coalition silly. Especially since any war you start in india will be over before the enemies in europe get even near the fighting and vice versa.

Now coming to the reason why I dislike the current state of the Infamy/Threat mechanic: Fighting a medieval world war is kinda fun the first time. The second time it is mostly silly, when even co-religionists that you defended earlier turn against you. And after that it is mostly a chore, especially if you're fighting to kick a holy order (=no easy occupation warscore) out of your lands and everyone including your own holy order turns on you.

One one hand beating a alrge coalition is pretty much the only challenge for a large empire. On the other hand the whole thing just feels so damn gamey. I can understand the furstration, since it's the opposite to an organic approach to provide some difficulty. The other thing is that there is no alternative to constant high infamy, since waiting for cooldown just takes too long to be an option.

 

[nkibilko]

This could be their undoing if a serious competitor ever emerges. Paradox has a monopoly on quality grand strategy games for now (and overall has amazing, quality games, to be fair), but this propensity towards arbitrary railroading and limiting player choice is often infuriating.

To be fair, devs do read comments and suggestions and do take them into accout, but this is sadly usually a posteriori. Also, due to various factors, some key issues never seem to get solved (e.g., in CK2, lag).

As much as i disagree with it, the fact is at the end of the day Paradox only does what THEY want to do, and they don't care who doesn't like it because they know they are certain to make money off of people who have no voice and just buy everything because it's available. 200,000 people could say "REMOVE SHATTERED RETREAT COMPLETELY" and if that one person who's decision it is still doesn't want to, they won't. We're playing the game one person or a few people think we should be playing... That's just the way it is unfortunately.

 

[Audoucet]

As much as i disagree with it, the fact is at the end of the day Paradox only does what THEY want to do, and they don't care who doesn't like it because they know they are certain to make money off of people who have no voice and just buy everything because it's available. 200,000 people could say "REMOVE SHATTERED RETREAT COMPLETELY" and if that one person who's decision it is still doesn't want to, they won't. We're playing the game one person or a few people think we should be playing... That's just the way it is unfortunately.

They already declared that it was the last "heavy" DLC. My personal opinion is that they didn't sell Conclave enough.

You are right, most people buy everything... Until they don't play anymore. And in the "silent majority", the one everyone likes to use to favour its own opinion, I don't think, that there are so much "gamers". And if I am right (maybe I'm not we can't know anyway), then there will be a huge fall in sells, for the next DLCs.

Don't forget that this one guy deciding, there is probably someone just above him who's just going to ask why the hen suddenly stopped laying golden eggs.

 

[Rostan]

They already declared that it was the last "heavy" DLC. My personal opinion is that they didn't sell Conclave enough.

You are right, most people buy everything... Until they don't play anymore. And in the "silent majority", the one everyone likes to use to favour its own opinion, I don't think, that there are so much "gamers". And if I am right (maybe I'm not we can't know anyway), then there will be a huge fall in sells, for the next DLCs.

Don't forget that this one guy deciding, there is probably someone just above him who's just going to ask why the hen suddenly stopped laying golden eggs.

Well, of course they did not sell enough. 55% negative reviews on Steam is a new record for Paradox, even compared to Cossacks and other poorly received stuff.

 

[Ilyasviel]

Well, of course they did not sell enough. 55% negative reviews on Steam is a new record for Paradox, even compared to Cossacks and other poorly received stuff.

That's pretty terrible. Even Sunset Invasion and Mediterranean Portraits have better reviews.

 

[Galarel]

No, you're not supposed to look at the map for 18 years. You're supposed to be beating that coalition silly. Especially since any war you start in india will be over before the enemies in europe get even near the fighting and vice versa..

Thats just absurd. I have to fight every time WHOLE world just for one duchy or even de jure county. I attack small count in India and whole world would defend it right now at my current situation. Even some kings from england are in coalition against me and would glady die defending some count in India ... what kind of logic is that?! Those "defensive pacts" (maybe they should call them NATO or something similar to Medieval International Global Defense Forces ...) should only be regional at best. And I have tried ur funny tactic and it didnt work even before you posted it. I got spammed by tons of small armies from whole world (not just europe ...) and unfortunately had to deal with them. War was won but it took freaking 11 years to win just one duchy. You cant just take out this single count/duke and peace as you speak. Not when that damn count/duke has about 40-50 allies in war! Be reasonable, please.

 

[Galarel]

Well, of course they did not sell enough. 55% negative reviews on Steam is a new record for Paradox, even compared to Cossacks and other poorly received stuff.

Well... In my opinion Conclave ruined CK2. Things that were keeping me playing this game for years are gone. A lot of people see it that way too looking at the forums so Im not surprised revievs are so bad.

 

[vandevere]

Well... In my opinion Conclave ruined CK2. Things that were keeping me playing this game for years are gone. A lot of people see it that way too looking at the forums so Im not surprised revievs are so bad.

Yeah...

They went a nerf-or two-too far I think.

It's ironic, seeing as all of these nerfs-opinion nerfs, infamy, coalitions, etc-were all intended to combat blobbing. But it's the *SMALL* realms that are suffering the most.

Why couldn't they have limited the scope of these nerfs by Realm Size? My favorite Independent Realm is the Custom Kingdom of Wessex, which is just 50 in Realm Size, yet Wessex gets hit by the same exact nerfbat as the HRE and the ERE?

What's lacking, I think, is *PROPORTIONALITY*. These nerfs should *NOT* be Global. They should only be aimed at Realms over a certain Realm size; so Wessex, with its lowly 50 Realm Size, doesn't get hit to the same degree as the HRE and the ERE.

 

[NathanD77]

Well... In my opinion Conclave ruined CK2. Things that were keeping me playing this game for years are gone. A lot of people see it that way too looking at the forums so Im not surprised revievs are so bad.

Same for me . I gave the DLC a fair go but ultimately it's rollback .

 

[wiz223344]

Sadly, Paradox has a habit of railroading changes they like onto the players without giving them an option. CK2 would be an amazing game if the post-vanilla changes would be introduced as options, not as changes to the game. Toggle India, coalitions/infamy and shattered retreat off and the game is amazing again. Of course this is my opinion, maybe others feel differently, hence options rather than hardcoded changes would be an interesting approach.

I really like the idea of options. I bought the game shortly before The Republic" came out and I have noticed that my enjoyment has decreased exponentially. The game feels like an "early access" game with the amount of game play that has changed. The game itself is vastly different in play style now from when I picked it up.

I really liked version 2.0.4. After "Rajas of India", the game slowly got worse for me. The one poster that said above that he liked some ideas and hated others, this rings true from my experience with the expansions past 2.04. Retinues were so drastically changed, they are almost useless now. I enjoyed them the way they were. The introduction of vassal limit in the Charlemagne patch made me resort to editing them to high levels after every patch so I could "conquer the world" again. I understand that many people dislike conquering the world on this forum and find that unrealistic, but that was something I did enjoy that was taken away. The nerfing of features that we had previously, really nerfed the fun I had with this game. Fun > realism, anytime in my opinion.

I have not bought Conclave, despite having bought almost every other expansion (and tweaking out the things I did not like). I can say I HATE shattered retreat. I turned it off as it is not fun, besides being completely unrealistic. Despite turning it off, my armies "ping pong" between territories and can never effectively conquer units anymore. I wonder, Dev team, are you trying to kill your own game?

If the answer to the above question is "No," you may want to greatly consider adding options to turn on or off these major game changes. I am not a professional game designer, and this is only my opinion, but I think expansions should be adding features, not tweaking existing features to fit the expansion which turns the game into something that I did not pay for.

 

[DerMaulwurf]

Thats just absurd. I have to fight every time WHOLE world just for one duchy or even de jure county. I attack small count in India and whole world would defend it right now at my current situation. Even some kings from england are in coalition against me and would glady die defending some count in India ... what kind of logic is that?! Those "defensive pacts" (maybe they should call them NATO or something similar to Medieval International Global Defense Forces ...) should only be regional at best. And I have tried ur funny tactic and it didnt work even before you posted it. I got spammed by tons of small armies from whole world (not just europe ...) and unfortunately had to deal with them. War was won but it took freaking 11 years to win just one duchy. You cant just take out this single count/duke and peace as you speak. Not when that damn count/duke has about 40-50 allies in war! Be reasonable, please.

If you had bothered to read my second paragraph, you would have seen that Medieval World War N and repeating is also my primary grievance with the mechanic.

Besides that my 'funny' tactic works and it is even more gamey than you think. You just ignore 90% of the enemies, form a doom stack and assault your way through 2 to 6 counties (depending on war target realm size) thereby ending the war in a year or two. You don't even have to wait for your levies to reach the target, now that Pikemen retinues storm castles like a boss.

Keep in mind that this is NOT a factor in favor of the mechanic, because it shows that a) Infamy doesn't even achieve what it was meant to do and b) the United Nations of 900A.D. are just plain silly as a concept.