[MOD] EMF: Extended Mechanics & Flavor

[Chris_92]

I'd very much love a cooperation of both teams but your arguments are valid, especially considering core mechanics

But I'd like to know one thing: Have you ever considered reworking the faction system? CK2+ did it and I loved their approach. It's a core mechanic obviously and I guess they would not want to share it. But the vanilla system is just not thought through (although it's a good idea) and switching between your mod and CK2+, it's the thing I probably miss the most.

So, if I may be curious, have you got any plans or ideas of reworking it?

 

[IoannesBarbarus]

The wiki says “W¤” is the code for the wealth symbol in localisations. (There’s more than one? I guess I haven’t noticed…) In EMF/localisation/emf_holy_orders.csv I see simply “¤” used for the purpose. Anyone know off the top of his head which is correct? (Or both?)

 

[zijistark]

I'd very much love a cooperation of both teams but your arguments are valid, especially considering core mechanics

But I'd like to know one thing: Have you ever considered reworking the faction system? CK2+ did it and I loved their approach. It's a core mechanic obviously and I guess they would not want to share it. But the vanilla system is just not thought through (although it's a good idea) and switching between your mod and CK2+, it's the thing I probably miss the most.

So, if I may be curious, have you got any plans or ideas of reworking it?

Yes, I've considered it a lot. From a player satisfaction standpoint, it's pretty nifty to see tooltips all over that show how your actions will impact one faction or the next. However, there are also some deep problems with fixed-faction systems (too many and some too technical that it's not worth listing)-- some rooted in plausibility and some in correctness.

E.g., I just don't buy into the semi-permanent faction leadership concept anymore-- this is 769-1444, and "parliamentary" concepts ought to be alien. Likewise, I don't believe vassals would ever officially align themselves along the lines of 'Glory,' 'Tradition,' 'Court,' etc. for the purpose of civil war. It's fantasy. I'm more interested in dynamic 'factions' that arise autonomously in a plausible manner (in the sort of way real coalitions might arise among vassals in a large empire regarding specific topics). That said, our very own Autonomy Faction has some of these very same problems as well as others (and I'd like to replace it for that reason).

Perhaps there is a middle ground...

 

[IoannesBarbarus]

zijistark, I’m doing a sort‑of code audit on HIP, for issues similar to the NBSP thing (any chars out of place, anything of wrong encoding). I’ve found a few things so far in other mods but in the latest EMF beta I was disappointed to find nothing except the minor thing I had found before, so congrats. (I was going to get you for UTF-8 emf_nwo.csv, but you already fixed it in the beta!) But I had to pull request something, so there you go :laugh:

 

[zijistark]

The wiki says “W¤” is the code for the wealth symbol in localisations. (There’s more than one? I guess I haven’t noticed…) In EMF/localisation/emf_holy_orders.csv I see simply “¤” used for the purpose. Anyone know off the top of his head which is correct? (Or both?)

Off the top of my head, I don't know. The holy orders stuff is based off vanilla holy order stuff, FWIW. One could write a quick event that showed the localisation key in question and find out, though.

zijistark, I’m doing a sort‑of code audit on HIP, for issues similar to the NBSP thing (any chars out of place, anything of wrong encoding). I’ve found a few things so far in other mods but in the latest EMF beta I was disappointed to find nothing except the minor thing I had found before, so congrats. (I was going to get you for UTF-8 emf_nwo.csv, but you already fixed it in the beta!) But I had to pull request something, so there you go :laugh:

Merged. Thanks. Sorry to disappoint!

 

[Pyoro]

I've gone through the changelog, but didn't seem to find anything - how does EMF handle cultural buildings? Same as vanilla? Or is there something I should know when playing a multi-cultured Kingdom with the occasional unavoidable culture-switching King? ^^;

 

[Ganegrei]

I've gone through the changelog, but didn't seem to find anything - how does EMF handle cultural buildings? Same as vanilla? Or is there something I should know when playing a multi-cultured Kingdom with the occasional unavoidable culture-switching King? ^^;

Would also like to know this. A few versions ago both EMF and SWMH both implemented separate kinds of cultural buildings simultaneously. One seemed to depend upon county culture, the other on ruler culture. It kind of clashed.

 

[zijistark]

I've gone through the changelog, but didn't seem to find anything - how does EMF handle cultural buildings? Same as vanilla? Or is there something I should know when playing a multi-cultured Kingdom with the occasional unavoidable culture-switching King? ^^;

Would also like to know this. A few versions ago both EMF and SWMH both implemented separate kinds of cultural buildings simultaneously. One seemed to depend upon county culture, the other on ruler culture. It kind of clashed.

IIRC, all EMF castle culture buildings [are supposed to] use county culture. Yeah, there are a few conflicts with SWMH that can lead to multiple cultural building types possible, although they are pretty rare.

 

[Woody Man]

Yes, I've considered it a lot. From a player satisfaction standpoint, it's pretty nifty to see tooltips all over that show how your actions will impact one faction or the next. However, there are also some deep problems with fixed-faction systems (too many and some too technical that it's not worth listing)-- some rooted in plausibility and some in correctness.

E.g., I just don't buy into the semi-permanent faction leadership concept anymore-- this is 769-1444, and "parliamentary" concepts ought to be alien. Likewise, I don't believe vassals would ever officially align themselves along the lines of 'Glory,' 'Tradition,' 'Court,' etc. for the purpose of civil war. It's fantasy. I'm more interested in dynamic 'factions' that arise autonomously in a plausible manner (in the sort of way real coalitions might arise among vassals in a large empire regarding specific topics). That said, our very own Autonomy Faction has some of these very same problems as well as others (and I'd like to replace it for that reason).

Perhaps there is a middle ground...

Would it be possible to create a church faction? I feel they are currently unrepresented in terms of gameplay. Not so much for rebellions, but for pressure tactics that sort of thing.

Though to be honest I actually have no idea how it work gameplay wise.

 

[Arko]

Would it be possible to create a church faction? I feel they are currently unrepresented in terms of gameplay. Not so much for rebellions, but for pressure tactics that sort of thing.

Though to be honest I actually have no idea how it work gameplay wise.

I think it can reacts on antipopes at least. Heresy control, proselytism, holy war/crusades etc.

 

[Ryuga10]

What's the usual time for crusade to unlock after the pope declares crusade era?

 

[theStormWeaver]

What's the usual time for crusade to unlock after the pope declares crusade era?

Its semi-random. Each Pope can only declare Crusades once every 30 years (so, pretty much once per Pope), and they need a target with a Crusade weight.
If there are no infidels or heretics holding a Kingdom with a Crusade weight, the Pope won't declare a Crusade.

 

[Ryuga10]

I meant the request crusade button since EMF changed that crusade will not automatically unlock after the pope declares the crusading era

 

[zijistark]

I meant the request crusade button since EMF changed that crusade will not automatically unlock after the pope declares the crusading era

Average time: 5 years, IIRC. There's a hard cap which forces them to unlock eventually, if the RNG is being brutal, although I forget exactly what it is off the top of my head. You can always choose to use vanilla crusades via the customizations menu if you want to be able to use the SoA 'Ask for Crusade' functionality more easily.

 

[zijistark]

Would it be possible to create a church faction? I feel they are currently unrepresented in terms of gameplay. Not so much for rebellions, but for pressure tactics that sort of thing.

Though to be honest I actually have no idea how it work gameplay wise.

I think it can reacts on antipopes at least. Heresy control, proselytism, holy war/crusades etc.

Well, the problem with a specific 'Church' faction is that it'd presumably only be populated by the clergy. So you'd need enough count-tier and above bishops as direct vassals for them to actually hold some sway.

I've been thinking about creating factions (that are not necessarily exclusive) that represent the political alignments of vassals, managing their [temporary] opinions directly as a result of your actions (which gives you the neat tooltip feedback about what kinds of actions will upset/please what kind of factions and all that implies), and more or less leaving it at that. [Not using them directly for civil war, nor building any parliamentary leadership or [direct] voting mechanics into them, etc. but simply using them as a means to insert the political alignment of vassals into the system and allow that to be managed.] That seems to be the part about CK2Plus's faction system that I do find to be plausible, fun, and add depth.

Mulling it over... feedback is welcome.

I think that these style of factions need to be focused upon political interests. Though 'Church' might be a valid such faction, perhaps 'Zeal' / 'Religious' might be a better generalization in that case so as to include any vassal that values religious interests in the state over other interests. Honestly, it's pretty hard to break down political interest groups into different generalized axes (and, in this respect, CK2+ does not at all do a bad job with Prosperity/Glory/Tradition/Court). Feedback on good ways to encapsulate 'primary political interests' is quite welcome too.

Note that specific, action-oriented factions (such as claimant factions, anti-king [internal antipope deposition] factions, etc.) would still exist completely independently of these 'primary political interest' factions.

 

[Arko]

Well, the problem with a specific 'Church' faction is that it'd presumably only be populated by the clergy. So you'd need enough count-tier and above bishops as direct vassals for them to actually hold some sway.

I've been thinking about creating factions (that are not necessarily exclusive) that represent the political alignments of vassals, ...

rulers that are pious, zealous, theological educated, theological focused, crusaders, or love the pope, can surely support a clergy faction

 

[zijistark]

Regarding the topic of 'primary political interest' factions:

Anax and I did some thinking on the most important, generic political axes into which we could plausibly shuffle CK2 characters. We [very tentatively] came up with 3: Wealth, Glory(*), and Faith.

(*) Could also be known as Majesty or even Martial, but I think Glory sums it up best, and CK2Plus's faction of the same name represents basically the same values, so why not go with the same name.

To reiterate, some key differences from the CK2Plus-style faction model:

• We wouldn't use these 'primary political interest' factions for the purpose of civil war alignment.
• The 'faction leader' would have no special role; instead, these are simply groups of characters that share the same primary political interest.
• We would avoid any "parliamentary" style stuff with these kind of factions: no voting on stuff, no faction meetings, etc.
• We would not assume that members of these factions like each other more than those vassals in other factions. They're simply a cross-section of vassals that most value the same basic things. They will tend to like the liege more or less as a group according to his/her actions.

And what would we do with them then?

• Their liege opinion would be directly affected, as a group, by different types of actions/outcomes that the liege may take/achieve or other properties of his/her rule, in whatever way they affect their particular faction's values.
• They're an easy way to understand your vassals' motivations and cater to them / manage them.

Action-oriented factions (i.e., the ones with CBs and such) would still work the same, but all vassals (above baron-tier) would tend to belong to 1 of the primary political interest factions as well. They'd switch such factions from time to time, as their traits, opinions, and other factors changed. Depending upon the faction, there might be some semi-organized solidarity or intra-faction familiarity (i.e., certain events and mechanics in which rulers interact may favor intra-faction ties due to similar interests), but mostly the above is assumed.

In some ways, this brainstormy idea could almost be simply represented as a 'political trait.' But sticking them in factions is a great way to view them and their opinions all at once.

Thoughts?

 

[BigPharma]

Regarding the topic of 'primary political interest' factions:

Anax and I did some thinking on the most important, generic political axes into which we could plausibly shuffle CK2 characters. We [very tentatively] came up with 3: Wealth, Glory(*), and Faith.

(*) Could also be known as Majesty or even Martial, but I think Glory sums it up best, and CK2Plus's faction of the same name represents basically the same values, so why not go with the same name.

To reiterate, some key differences from the CK2Plus-style faction model:

• We wouldn't use these 'primary political interest' factions for the purpose of civil war alignment.
• The 'faction leader' would have no special role; instead, these are simply groups of characters that share the same primary political interest.
• We would avoid any "parliamentary" style stuff with these kind of factions: no voting on stuff, no faction meetings, etc.
• We would not assume that members of these factions like each other more than those vassals in other factions. They're simply a cross-section of vassals that most value the same basic things. They will tend to like the liege more or less as a group according to his/her actions.

And what would we do with them then?

• Their liege opinion would be directly affected, as a group, by different types of actions/outcomes that the liege may take/achieve or other properties of his/her rule, in whatever way they affect their particular faction's values.
• They're an easy way to understand your vassals' motivations and cater to them / manage them.

Action-oriented factions (i.e., the ones with CBs and such) would still work the same, but all vassals (above baron-tier) would tend to belong to 1 of the primary political interest factions as well. They'd switch such factions from time to time, as their traits, opinions, and other factors changed. Depending upon the faction, there might be some semi-organized solidarity or intra-faction familiarity (i.e., certain events and mechanics in which rulers interact may favor intra-faction ties due to similar interests), but mostly the above is assumed.

In some ways, this brainstormy idea could almost be simply represented as a 'political trait.' But sticking them in factions is a great way to view them and their opinions all at once.

Thoughts?

If there is some way to incorporate these factions into an overall scheme to limit royal authority, I say, implement them. Even though they shouldn't act in any parliamentary-type way with regular faction meetings and votes, perhaps a more dynamic system could arise in which the nobles collectively present demands to the king in exchange for their continued loyalty. The Glory faction could push for a declaration of war against an enemy that would not be convenient for the King, or the Faith faction could demand the expulsion of the Jews, even if the King were more tolerant of them. The King should then have to risk the ire of those vassals by ignoring their petitions (and consequently their opinion, taxes, and levies) or give in, but at the cost of undermining his own authority.

Of course, this wasn't very fleshed out or well-thought out, but it is, in my mind, the best way to both present a challenge to the player as well as make gameplay more immersive.

 

[.Spartan]

If there is some way to incorporate these factions into an overall scheme to limit royal authority, I say, implement them. Even though they shouldn't act in any parliamentary-type way with regular faction meetings and votes, perhaps a more dynamic system could arise in which the nobles collectively present demands to the king in exchange for their continued loyalty. The Glory faction could push for a declaration of war against an enemy that would not be convenient for the King, or the Faith faction could demand the expulsion of the Jews, even if the King were more tolerant of them. The King should then have to risk the ire of those vassals by ignoring their petitions (and consequently their opinion, taxes, and levies) or give in, but at the cost of undermining his own authority.

Of course, this wasn't very fleshed out or well-thought out, but it is, in my mind, the best way to both present a challenge to the player as well as make gameplay more immersive.

I concur. Those ideas sound pretty damn good and if done properly would add substantial value to the gameplay throughout the endeavor.

 

[antidualist]

One issue I can see with making these factions so minimal is that it doesn't seem to allow the player as a vassal to have much influence over the politics of the realm. I appreciate that the player shouldn't have too much power when playing as a vassal but it seems like there should be some way to influence the way the faction acts, I think caocao268's suggestion that the factions should be able to make some demands for their obedience seems sensible but in that case a player vassal should be able to influence whether ultimatums are sent and how they are sent. Have you thought of any way to allow player vassals more interaction with these new factions?