More ways to rule

[SweArdaia]

If there is one thing poorly represented in CKII, it's fear. In its current state, the game only allows for generous and kind rulers. What it needs, is the possibility to rule with threats and tyranny.

Not all kings of the time was kind, gifting money everywhere and spending tons of time managing vassal relations. This can be fixed very easily by just adding a "afraid" or "frightened" positive opinion modifier, or better still, separate opinion and revolt risk. Your vassal may hate your guts, but he is too afraid to rebel against your rule. Revolt risk may be influenced by oaths, temporary weakness in the liege's army etc.

Think this may be viable?

 

[Sam L]

If there is one thing poorly represented in CKII, it's fear. In its current state, the game only allows for generous and kind rulers. What it needs, is the possibility to rule with threats and tyranny.

Not all kings of the time was kind, gifting money everywhere and spending tons of time managing vassal relations. This can be fixed very easily by just adding a "afraid" or "frightened" positive opinion modifier, or better still, separate opinion and revolt risk. Your vassal may hate your guts, but he is too afraid to rebel against your rule. Revolt risk may be influenced by oaths, temporary weakness in the liege's army etc.

Think this may be viable?

This would make for more interesting games. Alternatively, they could make it so that if the ruler is too nice, they won't fear you and will rebel etc..

That way, you won't be attempted to just go for decisions that result in "good" traits.

 

[Voy]

One would think that at least Craven vassals would be easier to manage than Brave, as they're too afraid of conflict, but it have no visible effect.

 

[SehnVretor]

I think this is a great idea, because history has known more than one tyrannical ruler and I would really like to play as one sometimes. Currently, the game doesn't really allow this because you'll have to keep facing rebellions.

 

[civilizedAustin]

I like your ideas.

Perhaps if the "opinion" value were to be changed to "respect", tyrannical actions/traits could add to it as well as kindness and virtue.

 

[SehnVretor]

I like your ideas.

Perhaps if the "opinion" value were to be changed to "respect", tyrannical actions/traits could add to it as well as kindness and virtue.

In fact, this would require both an "opinion" value for general opinions about someone as a "respect" value referring to the opinion of one's rulership.

 

[SweArdaia]

I think this is a great idea, because history has known more than one tyrannical ruler and I would really like to play as one sometimes. Currently, the game doesn't really allow this because you'll have to keep facing rebellions.

Yeah, that's why I recommend splitting revolts and relations. If a vassal hates you, he doesn't nessisarily revolt. Or, a vassal that likes you, may see you as a coward, or be threatened by other vassals to join a faction against you.

The game needs more intrigue as well. Threats, money and promises should too have a big role in the life of a leader. Your vassals like you, but are influenced by more powerful people.

 

[minke19104]

Imprisoned dukes cannot revolt

 

[unmerged(512626)]

If there is one thing poorly represented in CKII, it's fear. In its current state, the game only allows for generous and kind rulers. What it needs, is the possibility to rule with threats and tyranny.

Not all kings of the time was kind, gifting money everywhere and spending tons of time managing vassal relations. This can be fixed very easily by just adding a "afraid" or "frightened" positive opinion modifier, or better still, separate opinion and revolt risk. Your vassal may hate your guts, but he is too afraid to rebel against your rule. Revolt risk may be influenced by oaths, temporary weakness in the liege's army etc.

Think this may be viable?

This is one of the best ideas for improving the game I've read. I hope the powers that be think so -- or at least a modder.

 

[Comradebot]

Should still be appropriately balanced. One shouldn't be able to just go tyranny happy and expect the increasing dickishness to keep people more and more in line. There should always be a point where your tyrannical ways will get you facing some nasty revolts.

 

[SweArdaia]

Should still be appropriately balanced. One shouldn't be able to just go tyranny happy and expect the increasing dickishness to keep people more and more in line. There should always be a point where your tyrannical ways will get you facing some nasty revolts.

That's what's neat by separating revolt risk and relations. By acting as a tyrant, you'll effectively scare the weaker and cowardly vassals from revolting, and encourage the stronger, brave vassals to break free. By acting kind and nice, you will see ambitous vassals revolt while content characters stay by your side, and may even lend you some troops. Ambitious and brave characters will be more likely to join factions, while content and craven characters will keep from it, unless threatened by a spymaster or bribed.

This can be expanded on, including more traits and such, to the point where your realm gets really unstable when it grows too large (instead of the stupid free soldiers in the independence faction)

 

[unmerged(88697)]

Somebody made a posting like: 101 Rules for Tyrants and it was really, really good.

I'm such a dunderhead, I thought I made a copy of it, or at least saved the link, but can't seem to find it anywhere. But, in answer to your question, yes, there are alternative ways to play.

If I find that thread again I'll post it here.

 

[wizaerd]

I couldn't agree more. This is a great suggestion, as is the suggestion to add more intrigue. Underhanded and sneaky was a very popular way to gain power and lands, and while we have some capabilities, they could be greatly enhanced.

 

[FieserMoep]

I made a similar suggestion some time ago and ATM the AI just behaves stupid where it should be frightened. If you are a small lord, just one province under your rule, do you join a rebellion if there is a 15k strong Knigh-Retinue in your lands, ready to crush your laughable castle in just a few days?

Do you join rebellion as a craven man if another treacherous duke has been killed? And after his son started another rebellion his whole family was send to the execution site and their house did extinct? You would not like this king that has the strenght to crush every rebellion the last 20 years but at least you would think twice about organizing a rebellion by yourself.

Also I would like different ways to deal with treacherous scum. I mean, cmon. As a King our right to rule was given by !!!GOD!!! we are the legitimate ruler of this land by the lords law! If someone revolts because he does not like to pay his taxes he is a sinner against the world order, the word of the holy father himself! (At least if we make it look like this^^) So I would like to see some ways to deal with this dukes based upon the crown authority. We can revoke titles under certain circumstances. But with the absolute authority, where our status as gods vassal is stronger than ever before, are we not allowed to simply execute this scum? Perhaps not their whole family, but at least this pesky duke. Or we just could banish them all into oblivion.

And yes, I think there should be another opinion "indicator". Call it fear, call it respect but at least introduce it. Someone would hate me, that regularly happened on the court, but that does not turn a honorable duke that follows the laws of his ancestors into a traitor. Its just ridiculous that just because we do not like each other a war is just a matter of time. On the other side, just because someone likes me this does not prevet him from achieving his own goals. And a craven guy is very unlikly to start war with a strong ruler. Perhaps the "respect" rating can receive a +30 modifier for any won faction war in the last 10 years? But if you have lost this would be -30 and even the weaklings would try to break loose. So the respect can work both ways. On the one hand it can save a large empire as long as a strong ruler is on the throne. But when there is a weak one, that looses ground, a chain of "events" breaks loose because when the stronger ones could get their independence the weaker ones are more likly to try that too. And this might lead to an empire wide collapse.

But at the moment all we can do as the ruler of a large empire is to delete the events for civil wars, bribe our vassals to make them stronger, aim for positive traits and be the overall kind ruler. Hell, even a emperor of mine got the "the Kind" surname in his first 10 years of reign... boring 10 years... but then he became the conqueror of the HRE... thats about his kindness... and now I play with a glorious line of cruel sometimes-bastards that send their vassals to prison and appoint their retinue leaders as dukes and lord. Why? Because even the most laughable idiot that holds a country with a opinion of around 20-40 will join a faction... its just a matter of time... so my emperors trust nobody and regularly perform some rampage-madness-roudhouse-kicks every 20 years to prepare the empire for the succession.

 

[LordMinast]

I think that revolt risk should be influenced by opinion, but not as much as it is currently. It should be affected by certain traits (cruel, craven etc), manpower, and martial ability. I also think that if you hated someone's parents, your opinion of their children should be pretty low (like father, like son) unless you have the just trait(because you don't necessarily make that assumption). That way, the ruthless military genius Holy Roman Emperor with 40k doomstacks won't suffer any revolts, but should he die, leaving his craven infant son with no military intelligence whatsoever in charge, the HRE would implode. That would make plotting to kill very interesting, and give vassals windows of opportunity. That being said,if there was a well-respected leader who maybe cannot fight, but has managed to bribe everyone into supporting him, his realm would stay stable.

In other words, if your leader sucks, he's going to need a lot of cash to keep people loyal, and some people should refuse it, stating it as an insult to honour(although only if they had the zealous trait). I'd say this is fairly accurate to the time period.

 

[SweArdaia]

Shamelessly self-bumping for 1.09

 

[yezhanquan]

Plotting to revoke titles can be a pretty tyrannical way to rule, as when properly executed, at the very least, you get a revolt which you can then use as an excuse to imprison the fellow until kingdom come.

 

[n000b]

This have been requested since the game got released, and it's the missing feature I want the most. Imo more important than stuff like pagans and college of cardinals, though i dont think it will be implemented before any of these, if its even gonna be implemented.

 

[SweArdaia]

This have been requested since the game got released, and it's the missing feature I want the most. Imo more important than stuff like pagans and college of cardinals, though i dont think it will be implemented before any of these, if its even gonna be implemented.

I think the main reason of it not being implemented yet, is becuse you don't see this all that often on the forums. Tell me the last time you saw a thread suggesting tyrrany as a valid way to rule your country.

As it happened to republics, if people request it, paradow will make it. But as stated, it needs to become more visible so that Paradox gets aware that we want this

 

[Cymsdale]

This have been requested since the game got released, and it's the missing feature I want the most. Imo more important than stuff like pagans and college of cardinals, though i dont think it will be implemented before any of these, if its even gonna be implemented.

There is no missing feature. We don't need a patch of DLC. Ruling by tyranny is already implemented in the game as a way to play. Tyranny is simply CK2's version of badboy or infamy. You can "spend" it to accomplish your goals, but then you have to wait a while for it to cool down if you let it get too high.

What are people asking for here? Tyranny with zero consequences? That's ridiculous.