Muslim Decadence in CK2Plus

[Rylock]

So here's the thing:

The Muslim decadence system is...difficult to make work like we believe it's intended to work. Paradox has clearly discovered that, and more or less resigned itself to keeping the system as-is (insofar as I can see). Our decadence is restricted insofar as the events which raise the decadence level itself only apply to the head of the dynasty (so having some cousin who has bad traits doesn't result in your decadence shooting up), but the amount you gain from having decadent dynasty members has been tweaked up and down forever, as has the rate at which they actually get that trait.

Thing is, it seems impossible to balance. Muslims either sit at 0 or shoot up high very quickly. No matter what we do, there seems to be no middle ground.

So there's a few thoughts as to what we could possibly do:

1. Remove decadence entirely. Use the Imperial Decadence system for the empires, as non-Muslims have.
2. Remove the decadence rating, but keep the system and use it to reduce piety wherever it would now add decadence (or, inversely, add piety wherever it would now decrease decadence). The decadent trait itself could have some negative effects, and wouldn't be a good trait to have in a ruler, but otherwise has no game effect.
3. Change decadence so its effects aren't as pronounced, and perhaps cause different effects than they currently do. I wouldn't re-instate the "decadence invasion" from vanilla, but other events are certainly possible.
   
4. Tweak the rate of gain further -- though you'd need to suggest to us what should change. We're a bit leery of this only because we've tried almost everything, and suggestions -- while no doubt well-intended -- likely won't have the effect that someone thinks they'll have. Still, it's not as if we've thought of everything possible.

I think we're mostly leaning to either 1 or 2, but I'd be willing to hear thoughts on the matter, if you have any. Feel free to make suggestions with the understanding that not everything can even be done -- we're well aware that not all of you know the limitations of the engine, so don't be afraid to offer something on that basis even if our response is "nope, can't be done".

 

[sejemaset]

I like 1 but favor the piety changes based on decadence as I think that fits into the way decadence affects muslims.

 

[Careful Plum]

Maybe a system where Decadence is intended to go in circles up and down for everybody, and the difference between more or less decadent dynasties is how fast they go through these circles and how much they lose when they reach the top. Maybe the top is about the realm breaking apart into multiple sub-states - and if the time you take to get to the top is longer, you have more land when you break apart and therefore also keep more.

 

[Darky]

Does it affect me somehow if I'm not playing Muslims anyway?

 

[Rylock]

Maybe a system where Decadence is intended to go in circles up and down for everybody, and the difference between more or less decadent dynasties is how fast they go through these circles and how much they lose when they reach the top. Maybe the top is about the realm breaking apart into multiple sub-states - and if the time you take to get to the top is longer, you have more land when you break apart and therefore also keep more.

That is, more or less, how it's intended to work. Large dynasties are supposed to become decadent, unless there's a very competent dynasty head who manages his decadent cousins, and failing to reduce decadence should result in the dynasty falling (as a result of them losing the ability to maintain a competent military and/or rebellions).

Thing is, the difference between intention and execution seems impossible to breach. Decadence moves up too quickly, or not at all, and a dynasty can sit at high decadence for a long time without much happening -- particularly with something like the Abbasids who, as a religion head, basically can ask independent rulers to become their vassals even after they've flown apart at the seams and have that request readily accepted. We could re-institute the "decadence invasion" where a dynasty that has high decadence for too long has a mysterious invading force appear out of nowhere, but a) that always seemed overkill, and b) exposes a problem with the system rather than actually addresses it.

Which basically brings us back to the original issue: either we continue to tweak either the rate of decadence gain and/or the effects or we toss out the system either entirely or in part.

 

[ShiaoPi]

Since I haven't played muslims for a while I really am unsure what it does for now. Just observing what you have already said that they either sit at low decadence all the time or shoot up bu then not much happens (especially with abbasids). So if what I am saying is outdated I apologize.

I would be in favor of trying to rebalance/tweak the ratio of the decadence gain again. But if that does not return with tangible results the option of having it affect piety is probably best I would think.
Just as a random thought, maybe you could have an event similar to the Byzantine empire tied to decadence instead of the "strong/crowned basileus" trait. As in if a dynasty accumulates too much decadence. powerful vassals with lower decadence will get a claim on the primary title leading to unrest and independence/pretender wars.

 

[Kalista]

Since I haven't played muslims for a while I really am unsure what it does for now. Just observing what you have already said that they either sit at low decadence all the time or shoot up bu then not much happens (especially with abbasids). So if what I am saying is outdated I apologize.

I would be in favor of trying to rebalance/tweak the ratio of the decadence gain again. But if that does not return with tangible results the option of having it affect piety is probably best I would think.
Just as a random thought, maybe you could have an event similar to the Byzantine empire tied to decadence instead of the "strong/crowned basileus" trait. As in if a dynasty accumulates too much decadence. powerful vassals with lower decadence will get a claim on the primary title leading to unrest and independence/pretender wars.

Problem with tweaking decadence gain ( which I've been doing since last november ) is the slightest increase or decrease causes it to swing one way or another. So if i slow down decadence gain by even alittle everyone from a lowly count straight up to the caliph will sit at or near zero ( with the reverse throwing them up to 100 ). What needs to be done is a system that the ai can handle and the player can't just outright abuse and decadence in its current form is failing miserbly at it.

 

[Rylock]

Problem with tweaking decadence gain ( which I've been doing since last november ) is the slightest increase or decrease causes it to swing one way or another. So if i slow down decadence gain by even alittle everyone from a lowly count straight up to the caliph will sit at or near zero ( with the reverse throwing them up to 100 ). What needs to be done is a system that the ai can handle and the player can't just outright abuse and decadence in its current form is failing miserbly at it.

Yeah -- ideally the decadence gain could be pretty high, if we gave the AI lots of ways to combat that decadence gain. Doing so without making them so effective at it that they sit at 0 has been next to impossible to achieve. I could take some more swings at it, but I'm personally out of ideas.

 

[ShiaoPi]

In that case just go with the piety option then I would say.

 

[Rylock]

Just as a random thought, maybe you could have an event similar to the Byzantine empire tied to decadence instead of the "strong/crowned basileus" trait. As in if a dynasty accumulates too much decadence. powerful vassals with lower decadence will get a claim on the primary title leading to unrest and independence/pretender wars.

There are lots of things that affect Imperial Decadence other than the strong/crowned basileus trait -- but emulating some of the event-related effects of high Muslim Decadence is something I hadn't really considered. That could certainly be done.

 

[Rhys DeAnno]

This is a weird idea, but perhaps have decadence affect succession? Maybe a dynasty with high decadence would have all its successions switched into Gavelkind, to break it up and make it weaker over a period of decades. There might also be events at high decadence to create cadet branches off dynasties to break them up, both making them weaker by cutting away allies and making it easier for them to repair their decadence with smaller dynasties. I think with something as long term as decadence, long term results like succession changes and cadet dynasties make more sense than short term problems like low income and military.

 

[Kalista]

This is a weird idea, but perhaps have decadence affect succession? Maybe a dynasty with high decadence would have all its successions switched into Gavelkind, to break it up and make it weaker over a period of decades. There might also be events at high decadence to create cadet branches off dynasties to break them up, both making them weaker by cutting away allies and making it easier for them to repair their decadence with smaller dynasties. I think with something as long term as decadence, long term results like succession changes and cadet dynasties make more sense than short term problems like low income and military.

That's pretty close to what happens right now. High decadence dynasties are more prone to have branches break off to form cadets and at high decadence if i recall some of the factions get more rebellious plus it tanks your vassal limit to the point theres a good chance some vassals will go free on succession.

 

[Rylock]

Yeah, high decadence is pretty bad -- the only group which can effectively resist it is really the Abbasids. Sometimes a large enough empire like the Umayyads can withstand it, for a time, so whatever we've done to promote breakup isn't completely effective.

Thing is, making the effects of high decadence worse doesn't address the fact that high decadence can come really swiftly, and the AI can't deal with it. Meaning if we make high decadence too good at breaking up realms, they'll be breaking up all the time. And then we'll go in and try to tweak it so decadence isn't gained that quickly...and then it'll swing in the other direction and suddenly nobody will have decadence. Etc, etc.

Not that we necessarily shouldn't try. It's worth considering. I just wouldn't want to treat the effects of decadence alone without also addressing how decadence itself is gained.

 

[Careful Plum]

I guess making decadence gain different for the player and the AI is not really the philosophy of ck2 plus? Or is the AI basically stuck at being at either 0 or 100% decadence?

 

[Fall_ark]

Yeah, high decadence is pretty bad -- the only group which can effectively resist it is really the Abbasids. Sometimes a large enough empire like the Umayyads can withstand it, for a time, so whatever we've done to promote breakup isn't completely effective.

Thing is, making the effects of high decadence worse doesn't address the fact that high decadence can come really swiftly, and the AI can't deal with it. Meaning if we make high decadence too good at breaking up realms, they'll be breaking up all the time. And then we'll go in and try to tweak it so decadence isn't gained that quickly...and then it'll swing in the other direction and suddenly nobody will have decadence. Etc, etc.

Not that we necessarily shouldn't try. It's worth considering. I just wouldn't want to treat the effects of decadence alone without also addressing how decadence itself is gained.

If that's the case then maybe the more disastrous effects of Decadence should be moved into an Imperial Decadence system. Let the base Decadence influence the natural increase or decrease of the Imperial Decadence stat, so that even 90%+ Decadence only adds a few points to ID each year.

 

[typeso]

1. Remove decadence entirely. Use the Imperial Decadence system for the empires, as non-Muslims have.

This sounds like a great fix. My last 3 plays have seen Byzantium not only hold fast through the seljuks, but also conquer the majority of North Africa. The majority of Muslim rulers I have seen are near 100% decadent.

 

[Rylock]

If that's the case then maybe the more disastrous effects of Decadence should be moved into an Imperial Decadence system. Let the base Decadence influence the natural increase or decrease of the Imperial Decadence stat, so that even 90%+ Decadence only adds a few points to ID each year.

I wouldn't want to use both systems -- meaning nobody should have a "Decadence" trait as well as "Imperial Decadence". That would be silly. So there would be no "base decadence" to look at.

 

[Vegose]

Is there any way to make decadence tied to vassal limit? Instead of wars to break apart from a decandent liege, a lower vassal limit would lose the vassals on death of a bad dynasty head. And if along comes a very good ruler, then he would be able to stich the realm back together?​

 

[TartanNinja]

For a point of reference how fast does decadence spike for most players? In most of my games the Abbassids can have quite high decadence after around 10-20 years though it varies a little depending on traits etc. How quickly they fall also varies in that they sometimes thrive for a while under high decadence and either nothing happens or a decent ruler appears and decadence drops. The other thing to happen which is slightly more common is that they get so worn down by internal wars they eventually crack and the middle east turns into one big colourful mess.
The Umayyads don't necessarily follow suit but they do get picked on by catholic rebellions and the Karlings

 

[Rhys DeAnno]

I mostly have experience starting new dynasties and trying to play vaguely conventionally for CK2. Decadence doesn't really spike, but you don't feel like you have all that much control either. Generally if you get stuck in a long regency someone will become decadent and send you up by 10 or so, and the trait events are rather unpredictable in their randomness. Ramadan doesn't do a whole lot to limit decadence because the effect is so small, the main useful way is to Holy War, which requires acceptable targets. It's not a particularly painful mechanic, but not one that's been doing a whole lot to me in my Muslim runs. Much more relevant has been the free Duchy revocation, which basically puts you in a situation where you always hate your liege, because the AI is too stupid to behave rationally.

As for more things that could effect Decadence, maybe the donating 300 gold could help? Right now it's a good source of piety, but the +10 to church vassals doesn't seem to do anything since all your vassals are Iqta.