Messalian is Overpowered and Other Feedback

[Usmell]

I started in 1018 as the guy ruling that duchy in the Middle East with Eastern Syriac and Suryahe provinces. I switched to that culture and religion, and after I had significantly expanded a heresy appeared: Messalian. It seemed interesting, so I switched to it and found that it is far too powerful. Once the religion is large enough, its moral authority is constantly at 100 due to something called "self-castration" which stacks too much, as shown in the image. Also, the head of the religion was my vassal and I always made him my court chaplain, ensuring high relations with him and fast conversions. Messalians are still allowed to join the Eastern Syriac society, which means they have access to all those bonuses and the ability to instantly convert any province once the highest rank of the society is reached. Messalians have access to the "Driving out Demons" decision, which removes negative traits and adds positive ones. Almost any Messalian character can take a decision to become a "Perfecti", which grants some learning and piety and +20 opinion with *all* Messalian characters. This opinion bonus is huge and makes rebellions and assassinations less likely. This means that a Messalian king is able to have high relations with most of his vassals, remove negative traits, and quickly convert characters and provinces.

In the religion map you can see that I spread the religion extensively. Due to the permanent 100 moral authority, provinces very rarely deconverted once they became Messalian. I invited pretenders to my court, converted them, and installed them. The collapse of empires needs to be clearer, I think. The Byzantine Empire had been stuck at 100 imperial decay for a century, yet it never collapsed. Conversely, the HRE collapsed after being at 100 decay for about a decade. Bordergore is still a problem, and the rules for breaking realms upon rulers' death need to be harsher. I was using the harshest settings, and there were still oddities like the Fatimids controlling northern Ireland.

 

[Oyster Boy]

Coming here and saying all that took a lot of balls.

 

[Amyntas]

Sounds like you need to drive some of your demons out so you can truly see the light of the Pantocrator. Also I have a knife if you want to cut your balls off.

 

[Usmell]

Yes, yes, very funny. I just thought that religions are not supposed to be permanently at 100 moral authority.

 

[Ispil]

Heresies in general are more powerful than their non-heretical counterparts, as a bonus for taking on their challenges. Bogomilism, when formalized, offers a law that outright makes your realm better than non-Bogomilist counterparts. Several faiths get that perfecti decision (including Bogomilism). Paulicians can holy war literally anyone.

 

[Toa Kraka]

Heresies in general are more powerful than their non-heretical counterparts, as a bonus for taking on their challenges.

So this is a conflict between the "plausibility" and "fun factor" principles behind EMF.

Some principles which have already and shall always guide EMF's development:

• Plausibility
  • Whenever a mechanic within EMF is considered for alteration or add, the first question asked will always be, "Is this change real-world plausible, and if so, what is the realistically grounded explanation of the mechanic?"
  • Sometimes one must choose between the most plausible outcome and the most historically accurate outcome, and for EMF, plausibility must take priority. Historical accuracy is very important, but ultimately, when we have to choose, we choose not to railroad history.
• Fun Factor
  • If it's not fun, it's not going into EMF. If it's getting in the way of fun to serve some other purpose, the approach or very premise of that other purpose needs reevaluation.
  • EMF plans for the long game and assumes challenge, diverse strategy, and what would amount to a great AAR are fun.
  • Despite being the core overhaul mod for the Historical Immersion Project, EMF also offers a wide array of ahistorical or "what-if" scenario customization decisions to offer an even wider, more fun number of options to the player and enable the game to be played the way you want rather than simply how we think you'll want it.

 

[Ispil]

So this is a conflict between the "plausibility" and "fun factor" principles behind EMF.

Everything added with these heresies is also historically plausible. It is all done with respect to what is known about those faiths and their political situations at the time. There's no conflict there.

The only thing I can see needing a possible reduction is the religious authority bonus for self-castration.

 

[majesty8]

IMO you should also make becoming a Perfecti more difficult. Considering it represented extreme fanaticism and asceticism, I'd suggest making it the equivalent of a monk - making the Perfecti unlanded and unable to inherit.

 

[Usmell]

I agree that the self-castration bonus should be reduced and the perfecti status should be more dificult to achieve and have greater maluses. I'm fine with the heresies having fun mechanics which reward the player for the initial difficulty of playing them, but I think those mechanics should not make the game so easy. The late game is already almost thoughtless due to my massive armies effortlessly crushing even the Byzantines and Mongols while dissuading unruly vassals. Making me even more powerful is too much. I don't see why self-castration should give a moral authority bonus at all, and attaining the perfecti status should be much more likely to kill the attempter, or at least cause him great suffering for an extended period.

 

[Ispil]

Oh, I see now- that's very strange. The Messalian "perfecti" thing is entirely unrelated to the actual perfecti trait, which is used for Cathars and Bogomilists. Rather, it's the "messalian master" trait.

For reference, the perfecti trait has a +20 opinion to anyone of that religion, -20 for its opposites (greedy, lustful, etc.), -1 health, +1 monthly piety, and the decision to take it also makes you celibate.

The messalian master trait has a +20 opinion to anyone of that religion, +.25 monthly piety, +.1 monthly prestige, and +3 learning. The decision to get this trait requires you to have no "seven sin" traits, but once you have it, you can no longer drop out of any negative traits- you become "free of moral obligations".

In that regard, I can see it being plausible that such a trait would confer a sort of "monk" status, where they can't hold titles.

 

[Usmell]

Exactly. Losing the sin traits is also done via decision in Messalian and the Community of Saint Abraham, so you can remove your sins and get the perfecti trait quite quickly, which I think is overpowered. That +20 was pivotal in maintaining my empire.

 

[SerialCereal]

The entire mechanic of imperial decay feels pretty broken. In my game as an HRE duke now, there is a new Keiser every 1-2 years being installed by factions because the Keiser can't possibly find the numbers to defeat a rebellion, and decay is stuck at 100% without any obvious way to decrease it. It's pretty insane given that dukes who can raise armies of 6k+ troops before succeeding to the throne can't muster up more than a thousand after. The empire is too big but isn't shrinking fast enough for the experience to be enjoyable, and the rate at which Keisers are burned is thoroughly disruptive to gameplay and the sense of historical immersion.

In my opinion, the process of decay could be expedited by introducing an event that pushes peripheral/non-de Jure lands toward independence, not as a willful act but as a result of bureaucratic strain or some such concept. For example, Northern Italy and (in my current game) Poland, as regards the HRE, would no longer be able to recognise the HRE as their de facto liege because it lacks the basic functionality to do so. Logically, I suppose that losing these lands would lower the decay by quarters depending on the number of holdings that leave the empire.

 

[Ispil]

The entire mechanic of imperial decay feels pretty broken. In my game as an HRE duke now, there is a new Keiser every 1-2 years being installed by factions because the Keiser can't possibly find the numbers to defeat a rebellion, and decay is stuck at 100% without any obvious way to decrease it. It's pretty insane given that dukes who can raise armies of 6k+ troops before succeeding to the throne can't muster up more than a thousand after. The empire is too big but isn't shrinking fast enough for the experience to be enjoyable, and the rate at which Keisers are burned is thoroughly disruptive to gameplay and the sense of historical immersion.

In my opinion, the process of decay could be expedited by introducing an event that pushes peripheral/non-de Jure lands toward independence, not as a willful act but as a result of bureaucratic strain or some such concept. For example, Northern Italy and (in my current game) Poland, as regards the HRE, would no longer be able to recognise the HRE as their de facto liege because it lacks the basic functionality to do so. Logically, I suppose that losing these lands would lower the decay by quarters depending on the number of holdings that leave the empire.

Not particularly related to the thread, I think.

 

[SerialCereal]

Not particularly related to the thread, I think.

I mean, he does talk imperial decay in the OP...

But I can make my own thread ranting about it I suppose

 

[High Elder Ash]

The entire mechanic of imperial decay feels pretty broken. In my game as an HRE duke now, there is a new Keiser every 1-2 years being installed by factions because the Keiser can't possibly find the numbers to defeat a rebellion, and decay is stuck at 100% without any obvious way to decrease it. It's pretty insane given that dukes who can raise armies of 6k+ troops before succeeding to the throne can't muster up more than a thousand after. The empire is too big but isn't shrinking fast enough for the experience to be enjoyable, and the rate at which Keisers are burned is thoroughly disruptive to gameplay and the sense of historical immersion.

In my opinion, the process of decay could be expedited by introducing an event that pushes peripheral/non-de Jure lands toward independence, not as a willful act but as a result of bureaucratic strain or some such concept. For example, Northern Italy and (in my current game) Poland, as regards the HRE, would no longer be able to recognise the HRE as their de facto liege because it lacks the basic functionality to do so. Logically, I suppose that losing these lands would lower the decay by quarters depending on the number of holdings that leave the empire.

Still off topic, but I've noticed that when the Emperor is weak, often enough, lands will be allowed to secede from the empire or kingdom, I would imagine because they push for independence.

 

[Oyster Boy]

I don't think imperial decay is broken as such, but there needs to be more ways of managing it beyond going to war and waiting for buttons to press, the latter of which is distinctly unfulfilling. I know it says certain events can trigger with effective rulers, but these seem few and far between even with some quite incredible emperors I've had. And the AI might just need some kind of special help with it because it tends to turn their empires into absolute showers. Maybe it should only effect empires that have an imperial style government, as a trade off for all that absolute power? I dunno'.

 

[Usmell]

Yes, imperial decay does not work well. I agree with SerialCereal. Staying a kingdom and never becoming an empire is much better because you don't have to deal with the arbitary maluses. There should be harsher independence of exclaves and peripheral land. In my game the HRE controlled southern Norway despite being at 100 imperial decay. I don't think that should be possible. I like the concept of imperial decay, but it needs a huge rework. It should effect more than just the emperor and be more logically produced and enforced. At the moment it just feels arbitrary.