Is it possible to calm down bordergore?

[Werther]

In the long history of Para's bordergore, CK3, and especially this patch, is unrivalled. I was playing in Italy for 250 years and didn't notice how bad it was until I dezoomed... and oh boy it was ugly!

To be fair, North Africa is fine, but Europe...

Devs should probably try to find a solution, because after some years, I'm not playing in Europe but in an OPM-Apocalypse mod

 

[Slimane]

In the long history of Para's bordergore, CK3, and especially this patch, is unrivalled. I was playing in Italy for 250 years and didn't notice how bad it was until I dezoomed... and oh boy it was ugly!

To be fair, North Africa is fine, but Europe...

Devs should probably try to find a solution, because after some years, I'm not playing in Europe but in an OPM-Apocalypse mod

One of the major problems this patch is that the AI simply can't handle the new faction changes and such. They always end up fractured by independence factions.

 

[Mr.BigPig]

It is ironic that they changed the faction system to make the game harder and instead they made it easier by having more fractured and weaker neighbours.

 

[Tiax]

I think that, in addition to the AI being generally unable to handle factions, another facet of the problem is that factions themselves are sort of aimless and arbitrary. The way the system is set up, even mildly happy vassals will join factions, just for the hell of it. They don't really have a clear objective - they just want to join something. And so faction pressure is constant, rather than being a long term ebb and flow.

It's a tough balancing act - if factions only become a problem when a ruler is weak or incompetent or cruel, a human player might find that their genetically-engineered supermen never face a single revolt. On the other hand, if factions are a constant fact of life, enough to keep a player on their toes, the AI will fold to the pressure almost immediately. If the faction force is strong enough to break up an AI empire 100 years from now, it's also strong enough to break that empire up today - because faction strength will generally be constant.

I'm not sure exactly what the answer is, but it definitely is not in a good place right now. Maybe if there were more faction goals that were a little less destructive - some other options of similar consequence to liberty factions - and the AI could just concede their demands as necessary, it would be a little less chaotic. Maybe as we get more systems to interact with, like the upcoming court features, there will be more opportunities for mild factions. Right now, since most faction types (peasant, populist, independence and, to some extent, claimant) lead to border gore, any increase in faction strength will necessarily induce even more of what we see in these screenshots.

I envision a system where, over the years, factions slowly eat away at the king's authority, bit by bit, weakening his grip on the realm. Once the monarch is particularly weak, the AI will seek independence. This way, disintegration would still happen, and factions would still be a constant struggle, but it wouldn't be a sudden jump from "the king has one less levy than our hodge-podge faction" => "the kingdom is now 10 independent counties, and a swiss-cheese rump state". We'd see something more like what happened with the Abbasids in real life. As the caliphs lost power to their vassals, viziers, and generals, they grew weaker and weaker until whole chunks of the empire (Tulunids, Saffarids, etc.) were able to break off. It's probably the sort of thing that would need it's own entire DLC/patch to focus on.

 

[Flinteroon]

I envision a system where, over the years, factions slowly eat away at the king's authority, bit by bit, weakening his grip on the realm. Once the monarch is particularly weak, the AI will seek independence. This way, disintegration would still happen, and factions would still be a constant struggle, but it wouldn't be a sudden jump from "the king has one less levy than our hodge-podge faction" => "the kingdom is now 10 independent counties, and a swiss-cheese rump state".

The Historical Immersion Project for CK2 had an "Imperial Decay" system where poor rulers, lost wars, or years of decline generated "Decay," whilst the opposite reduced it. This "Decay" would reduce taxes, levies, I think it also reduced opinion of vassals, and if it got too high, the ruler would either be overthrown or the realm would get fractured and the title be destroyed. Something like this definitely needs to be implemented in CK3, but not just for empires but also kings.

 

[SauronGorthaur]

To be honest, as someone who hasn't tested 1.4 yet, the only part of the map that really looks out of the ordinary is the "nomadic" steppe.

 

[Rifal]

One of the major problems this patch is that the AI simply can't handle the new faction changes and such. They always end up fractured by independence factions.

Paradox adding more and more systems into their DLC recepticle that the AI cant handle, nooooooo, say it aint so.

 

[Pressburger]

I think one of the issues would also be the way anyone can easily fabricate claims on random border provinces.

 

[InsidiousMage]

Not as long as map painting is the default playstyle for the game. Partition would probably have to be changed, or removed, as well. The de jure system would probably also need to be overhauled along with how titles function. Having multiple lieges would also help and keep subordinate titles as part of the de jure realm but the ruler now has two lieges instead of just one.

There is a lot that could be done but I'm not sure the player base would necessarily be in to those changes since a lot of the systems and playstyles people seem to like actively contribute to border gore.

 

[IVIephesto]

Why not add faction game rule - harder for player and easy for ai?

 

[Hichel]

I Wonder if something like realm stability, where external pressure, internal wars, strength of ruler vs vassal and many more parameters could affect how autonomous, rebellious and loyals the vassals are.

Funny how there are vassal contracts and there isnt a faction to change it too.

There could even be a system where the bonus of councillors and rulers could be changed to so the balance of power could be tweaked.

I have no idea if anything like this could really work out to make it a better experience, but I do think that we have basics systems that could work in harmony with factions systems to become more interesting to manage the realms and less independence factions.

 

[Ivashanko]

Unlikely. Bordergore is historical, it happened- but mostly on a sub-national level. Crusader Kings will not and literally can not avoid bordergore unless it implements multi-lieges or very strict rules that limit international inheritance and expansion.

 

[Hichel]

Unlikely. Bordergore happened- it just happened on a sub-national level. Crusader Kings will not and literally can not avoid bordergore unless it implements multi-lieges or very strict rules that limit international inheritance and expansion.

I think a basic, basic system like something based on the "not rightful liege" penalty could be a start for the multi lieges shenanigans. e.g. a duke of France inherits a land in the HRE, the land belongs to the empire, so it's taxes still goes to the emperor unless the King of France wants to intervene and take it by conquest or maybe intrigue.

I don't even know if that's even possible to make in the game, but I think that could be a start. Nevertheless, you're absolutely right, Bordergore is inevitable whatever path the game takes.

 

[Breton_Lord]

1.4 Flat out ruined the gaming experience for me in this game.

 

[Werther]

Unlikely. Bordergore happened- it just happened on a sub-national level. Crusader Kings will not and literally can not avoid bordergore unless it implements multi-lieges or very strict rules that limit international inheritance and expansion.

Yep but, as you said, "on a sub-national level", here Europe is just a galaxy of dozens of independant and weak counts (or sometimes dukes) without kings or emperors above (even theoretically) them. It breaks a little bit my immersion. Even in the peak of French feodalism and weakness of the Capetians in the XIth century, a mere count should not be independant. In my head it should be a king with one or two holdings, a bordergore inside the kingdom with the lowest autorithy and no feudal contracts but not... this.

But, let be clear, it didn't "ruin the game" for me, I had a ton of fun in my corner of the world, it is just that it would be better to have a system were factions are less dangerous for AI, or less independance factions for them (and more liberty or claimants one).

To be clear, as the emperor of Italy, it would be more fun (and challenging) to have diplomatic relations (war, peace, wedding) with the king of France or the german emperor than with Hubert de Montmiraille, count of Paladru or Gehrard von Quedlinburg, count of Dinkelsbühl.

 

[Lollipop_but_rock]

Is the problem that factions in 1.4 are too dangerous for the ai, or that there's such a turnover in rulers that most ai rulers are extremely weak, a lot of them owning only one or two county only on top of their kingdom?

 

[Bannerman21]

I don't know what a good solution for the faction issue is, but I choose to abstract it a bit by thinking that all the rogue counties aren't de jure independent so much as they are de facto independent: As in, the King/Emperor has just lost all authority over them and they essentially make all their own decisions. The stuff that's part of the big kingdom is essentially the bits the king is able to rule over. The 'independent' parts are areas where the king's authority has pretty much vanished. There's in-game precedent for this, even: Lothaire was technically the emperor of Charlemagne's empire in 867, but he was too weak to actually enforce his authority anywhere outside Lotharingia.

Remember, at the end of the day, no video game will be able to accurately model real life. You have to make some concessions and abstractions, show some creativity in imagining how these things actually went. I still think this is an issue that should be fixed, but I just suggested a nice little band-aid until then.

 

[Choorus]

Interesting in my campaign started on 1.4.0 and continued on 1.4.2, I have a few mods on, like the Battlefield safety and Pluribus Casibus Belli and I had the exact opposite happen. Castille is big and stable, France has lost the Aquitaine (kingdom, not duchy) England has broken down completely by 1150 due to Waldensian dynasty, even HRE is pretty historical, they've lost Italy and Arelate, but apart from me knocking at the door in the Obodrite lands, they've kept their act together. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Kievian Rus, Byzzies and Jerusalem all pretty good too. I was actually positively surprised as most of the map is pretty sensible and stable with some areas going into a complete meltdown. Might post a screenshot later on.

 

[Blk82]

Due how CB's work, no, border can not be fixed. You can't rid the game of border-gore while having a war-goal system based on claiming the titles formerly held by your maternal grandfather. War in CKIII is not based on rational expansion of borders, but on pressing claims.

 

[Choorus]

Due how CB's work, no, border can not be fixed. You can't rid the game of border-gore while having a war-goal system based on claiming the titles formerly held by your maternal grandfather. War in CKIII is not based on rational expansion of borders, but on pressing claims.

That's why "Male only" succession law is a must ASAP. Not having those gals popping kids with claims on titles is a true blessing. Everything is much calmer then.