Not the same. This is a very specific stupid dream. You're on to something with Taurica though...... definitely qualifies. Only more dream to shatter, ultimately. To persist is to suffer.
Is there a reason why Emperors can't have King-tier theocracy/republic vassals?
- Thread starter CosmicDwarf
- 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.
Not the same. This is a very specific stupid dream. You're on to something with Taurica though...... definitely qualifies. Only more dream to shatter, ultimately. To persist is to suffer.
The theory as I understand it is that the AI is supposed to be a bunch of other players, rather than obstacles or resources for the humans, so they're balancing the game with that in mind.
- 1
I actually remember 1066 England often becoming a theocracy in earlier patches (there's some of Godwin claimant bishop somewhere and factions liked to put him in charge). Where did it happen to you?
You can't give a king-level title to theocracies or republics directly. But they can still make the title themselves.
Just give them two duchy titles and transfer all the vassals in the de jure kingdom to them.
That would only work if it was actually true. As it stands all it does is limit the options of how people want to play in a -sandbox- game due to multiplayer and a bunch of people with the complete incapability to control themselves. They should instead make these nonsensical things be a multiplayer only thing and leave it out of the singleplayer completely instead of doing the same mistake other devs have made and create unneeded resentment between singleplayer and multiplayer fans.
- 1
- 1
There's a difference between being overly restrictive in what you can do in a sandbox game, and removing an exploit which completely and utterly destroyed the entire premise of the game.
People making every single vassal in their feudal realm be theocracies is not something you can justify with the "historically-plausible sandbox game" argument, and it completely removed the entire vassal management aspect of the game. This is not a singleplayer vs. multiplayer issue, it's that the game was never intended to be played that way.
- 2
It's interesting that there are several contradictions between history and the limitations imposed on having non-Feudal vassals. The Holy Roman Empire comes to mind, with the fact that it holds more County-level Theocracies than the game allows due to the limitations added for the sake of "balance."
Which is fair, but that only leads to the conclusion that the limitations might need to be raised. It doesn't mean that the limitation needs completely eliminated, unless a better, more natural way to balance stuff is made.
"Balance singleplayer". If that doesn't strike you as a ridiculous statement, I don't know what would.
I can understand that exploits need to be fixed, but people and paradox have been talking about balance. It doesn't matter for anyone else how someone else plays his singleplayer session, unless you want to compare your e-peen, in which case your psychological issues are far deeper than I wish to tackle here. As long as you're not forced to play the same way, and nobody forced you to create theocracies, it won't affect you in any way. Needless restrictions are always bad and the multiplayer aspect of ck2 is marginal in my opinion. But even so, there are still house-rules on multiplayer matches which negotiate the terms of gameplay. And if people wouldn't adhere to them, they were blacklisted.
TL;DR: "Fixing an exploit" and "balancing singleplayer" are not the same and this issue belongs to the second category.
I can understand that exploits need to be fixed, but people and paradox have been talking about balance. It doesn't matter for anyone else how someone else plays his singleplayer session, unless you want to compare your e-peen, in which case your psychological issues are far deeper than I wish to tackle here. As long as you're not forced to play the same way, and nobody forced you to create theocracies, it won't affect you in any way. Needless restrictions are always bad and the multiplayer aspect of ck2 is marginal in my opinion. But even so, there are still house-rules on multiplayer matches which negotiate the terms of gameplay. And if people wouldn't adhere to them, they were blacklisted.
TL;DR: "Fixing an exploit" and "balancing singleplayer" are not the same and this issue belongs to the second category.
- 2
- 1
"Hey, why should I care that the rules of Solitaire are that you have to alternate the color of suits? You don't have the right to decide how I play my single-player game, and if I want to place cards without alternating suits I will."
Yes, sure, there's nothing stopping that example from happening, and someone doing that isn't really hurting anyone else by doing so. But it's not the same game, and if you did that and told people you were playing Solitaire you would be lying.
So, basically, to answer the question you posed in your first line, I'd say that your claim that the devs fixing the game to make people play the game the way they intended is absurd and restrictive is something that I'd find to be a ridiculous statement. I mean, the original exploit would be akin to something like finding a way to get plentiful healing items and ammo in, say, Silent Hill - it completely ruins the entire point of the game to the extent that it's not the same game, it's just a rather boring game where you kill some monsters. Similarly, essentially removing vassal management from the game by making everyone theocracies turns CK2 from a political/dynastic simulator into MSPaint with Europe as the background.
Even if multiplayer did not exist, the devs would still be completely justified in changing/nerfing/fixing things in order to make the game play more like the game they wanted to produce. Don't like it? Get some mods. That's exactly why they exist.
Yes, sure, there's nothing stopping that example from happening, and someone doing that isn't really hurting anyone else by doing so. But it's not the same game, and if you did that and told people you were playing Solitaire you would be lying.
So, basically, to answer the question you posed in your first line, I'd say that your claim that the devs fixing the game to make people play the game the way they intended is absurd and restrictive is something that I'd find to be a ridiculous statement. I mean, the original exploit would be akin to something like finding a way to get plentiful healing items and ammo in, say, Silent Hill - it completely ruins the entire point of the game to the extent that it's not the same game, it's just a rather boring game where you kill some monsters. Similarly, essentially removing vassal management from the game by making everyone theocracies turns CK2 from a political/dynastic simulator into MSPaint with Europe as the background.
Even if multiplayer did not exist, the devs would still be completely justified in changing/nerfing/fixing things in order to make the game play more like the game they wanted to produce. Don't like it? Get some mods. That's exactly why they exist.
- 2
You'd be surprised at how many people will happily pop up and demand that everyone plays only how they do it no matter. Enough so that tvtropes ended up making a trope out of it.
Doesn't work when the limitations are hardcoded like the 10% one. Otherwise I would've removed it myself ages ago.
Is the actual value of the limit not in defines? If it is, that's just a matter of changing it to 100%, which effectively removes the limit.
If it isn't, yeah, I'll agree, it really should be in there.
Does it matter? Shouldn't devs fix broken mechanics?
"What would happen in other careers if they acted like game devs: A psychological investigation for the idiots"
"That broken arm is a FEATURE, I did that on purpose. If you don't like it you can find a new doctor!"
"We destroyed that wall to make room for new structural pylons. Don't worry, you'll love how your house looks when it's done in three years!"
"Oh sorry, I thought you would enjoy a chocolate smoothie instead. I like chocolate smoothies!"
"I can't believe you don't like my business idea! You people should really learn about it's development, you'll never understand the industry!"
"
Let player decide if he wants to have balanced game, easy game or hard game. Why devs are telling me how to play in sandbox? Why can't I just start game at lovely Saturday evening and by midnight be liege of whole Europe without any bigger challenges and obstacles on my way?
So I think that best option would be to bound balance changes to difficulty level. If someone wants challenge, lets allow how to get it in Hard or Very Hard mode, if someone wants easy game, give him it too. Just allow gaining achievements from Normal or Hard mode only.
So I think that best option would be to bound balance changes to difficulty level. If someone wants challenge, lets allow how to get it in Hard or Very Hard mode, if someone wants easy game, give him it too. Just allow gaining achievements from Normal or Hard mode only.
- 1
Mod it.
So this one doesn't work?
MAX_THEOCRACY_COUNTIES_IN_REALM = 0.1, -- 10% of a feudal realm is allowed to be under vassal theocracies/bishoprics (affects title grants)
EDIT
By the way it looks theocracies cannot create kingdoms any more
theocracy_government
{
(...)
can_create_kingdoms = no
have_gender_laws = no
can_be_granted_kingdoms_and_empires_by_other_government = no
(...)
}
- 1
- 2
Yes, stupid mistake. I forgot I found this topic by google, not during my daily forum reading.
Somehow he became the leader of the Byzantine Empire in my game, which is now considered a Theocracy. It's been interesting hahaha.