Infamy decay

[Stablebrew]

Okay, I write many questions and rants for the last few days but right know I encounter another problem.

I started a Great Holy War and gained Ruthenia.
Most of Ruthenia de-jure is split by Byzantine, Bavaria and another tribal country. So I just gained 6 provinces in this war.

As a result, after winning war, I gained 50% infamy with a montly decay of 0,21%. The complete catholic league is pissed off, orthodox and all other nomadic/tribal nations, too.

I could release nations to lower infamy but I wont do that bcs what´s the reason of conquering?
So I have to wait about 250 month ingame until all pacts had been released.

Any tips right now?

 

[Siggerad]

Sadly nop, is wait and wait.

 

[Stablebrew]

Yeah, waiting was my biggest conerns.

So, before I started to get bored I released Wendenreich (dont know the englisch term). This gave me hilarious -6% decay. What a joke.
I never faced a big problem with the new patch (council members, shattered retreat) but this Infamy needs a another rework.
If I felt myself, right now, forced to idle this game for 250 month, I could also pick a browser idle-flash game for free.

I play/ed EU4 with AE. This had been done well last time I played.
I had chances to expand in different directions but CK2 corners me vs the whole world.

Well, lets see. Just need 160 yrs for Seven Centuries.

 

[name_here]

Nothing to be done about it except release nations or wait. You could spin off some territory under a close relative and ally with them to lower your infamy while still getting some benefits from them.

 

[Stablebrew]

Nothing to be done about it except release nations or wait. You could spin off some territory under a close relative and ally with them to lower your infamy while still getting some benefits from them.

I did that, as mentioned a post above -6% for Wenden.
Right now m ruler died and Lithuana has been released as an independent nation. I asked for vassalization for 2 provinces: 5% infamy threat.
Yay, if i wouldnt vassalize them, they would get conquered by Bohemia.

 

[LACKADAISICAL]

Yeah, waiting was my biggest conerns.
I play/ed EU4 with AE. This had been done well last time I played.
I had chances to expand in different directions but CK2 corners me vs the whole world.

Yeah, this is the most irritating thing about threat in CK2. AE never bothered me in EU4 since it was tied to regions. People would get scared if I started taking out their neighbors, but not if I started taking land halfway around the world. In CK2 it doesn't work that way, and you get dumb stuff like Italy feeling threatened when the Byzantine Empire takes a county from Georgia or whatever. It just seems haphazardly implemented.

 

[Stablebrew]

What bothers me is the decay of Threat.

Picking minor kingdoms boost me as an European Warmonger - even Hitler would pull of his fedora and salute.
There are too less options to dump this threat, especiallyy that it works "somehow" global instead of territorial. A static decay of 0,2 - 0,4? not that much for a minor 50% kingdom.
releasing a de-jure empire for pity 6% decay? laughable!

NPA are somehow useless right now bcs the AI tends to switch to elective monarchy asap. So it´s no use to marry my daughter to the actual rulers family.
I tried for about 100 yrs to "stock and bred" daughters only for NPA marriages and had a high intrigue ruler for assasination plots. Nice idea but it´s a double-edge swordbcs of assasination and economy (bribes) with tedious work and silly in meaning.

btw: council is easily abusable wit carousing.

Rant over and out - finished my game session for today

 

[Robert II]

Yeah, this is the most irritating thing about threat in CK2. AE never bothered me in EU4 since it was tied to regions. People would get scared if I started taking out their neighbors, but not if I started taking land halfway around the world. In CK2 it doesn't work that way, and you get dumb stuff like Italy feeling threatened when the Byzantine Empire takes a county from Georgia or whatever. It just seems haphazardly implemented.

Which is just so damn annoying. On every Dec diary leading up to conclave with shattered retreat or coalitions being mentioned people who had played EU4 or just saw the obvious issues pointed them out. But it didn't matter we still got them half arsed into ck2 with plenty of problems and no logic.

 

[Melichai]

You could just get the No Coalitions Mod for CK2 - you still gain Infamy, but the AI will never join a coalition against you so its meaningless.

 

[schondetta]

sadly there is nothing to do but eat hot pockets and burn through seasons of The Office while your game plays itself on speed 5

 

[Soylent Dave]

You don't need to wait until your threat has decayed completely; the pacts form and decay on an ad hoc basis.

As your threat lowers, more distant & more powerful nations leave the pact - in my experience it's not very long before the pact has been diminished to the point where you either bypass it (attacking nations who are no longer in it) or ignore it (because the nations who remain are nowhere near powerful enough).

You can also knock nations out of a pact by engaging in an NAP with them, of course.

 

[Bluedino2]

Just going to say this I know my empire is huge but i relished my son on the throne of another empire and my threat went down .63%. why?

 

[Mithrantir]

I can't understand why above 75% everyone is attacking you regardless of religion.
If I attack exclusively Muslims (as I do in my current campaign, where I often call for the aid of other Christian kingdoms), there should be no worries from Christian kingdoms and especially those that are part of the heresy I follow too (either Catholic or Orthodox or any other it might be).

 

[Tapio]

I can't understand why above 75% everyone is attacking you regardless of religion.
If I attack exclusively Muslims (as I do in my current campaign, where I often call for the aid of other Christian kingdoms), there should be no worries from Christian kingdoms and especially those that are part of the heresy I follow too (either Catholic or Orthodox or any other it might be).

Think about it this way... those AI countries can't know that the neighbor heretic has limited himself thoughout the generations to fighting only one type of religious war.

 

[GoodOcycak]

Yeah, this is the most irritating thing about threat in CK2. AE never bothered me in EU4 since it was tied to regions. People would get scared if I started taking out their neighbors, but not if I started taking land halfway around the world. In CK2 it doesn't work that way, and you get dumb stuff like Italy feeling threatened when the Byzantine Empire takes a county from Georgia or whatever. It just seems haphazardly implemented.

Exactly, once i had coalition from Iberia to kirghiz, because i took the entire germany and byzantine empire, why some nomads living in other end of the world care about it?

 

[name_here]

Because they suspect they're somewhere on the list.

 

[Shammah175]

My guy got 11.45 threat just from inheriting his falther's throne

 

[CyberianK]

Can someone explain how you gain infamy with other Catholics if you win a holy war?

I don't get that shouldn't they be happy?

 

[Bluedino2]

Can someone explain how you gain infamy with other Catholics if you win a holy war?

I don't get that shouldn't they be happy?

No as it means that you are more powerful and can attack them easier is what i think their thinking.

 

[Soylent Dave]

Yeah, the idea of coreligionist threat after you've been fighting infidels isn't that they're unhappy with your recent military victories. It's that they're worried by their suddenly larger and more powerful neighbour. Your neighbours and coreligionists aren't (necessarily) your friends; they just hate infidels more.

It wouldn't exactly be unprecedented for a King victorious on the battlefield against a common foe to decide (when that war is over) that actually - given how amazing and godly he is - he should be the one true ruler of his neighbours, and that they need to start swearing fealty.