Nerf for Admin Empires?

[Gaius Augustus Caligula]

I am overall happy with the game. It could be a bit harder but that's not a huge problem for me, but Admin Empires, Byzantium in particular, are not fun to play against, atleast not without mods. They can't collapse or loose territory due to internal issues unless it's a populist revolt, which barely ever succeeds in non-admin realms anyway but under admininstrative they get curbstomped even harder. The governors expand like crazy since the AI almost never restricts their expansion, which creates really bad border gore and is really frustating if you are their neighbour and get attacked by Byzantium itself or their governors several times in the span of a decade.
And their military, due to consisting mainly of MAA, is arguably the strongest in the game so they rarely loose any wars due to their superiority even if their army is stackwiped once or twice in the conflict.

As a result admin realms become big blobs that never break up or loose any signficant territory unless they get attacked by a conqueror. They just grow bigger and bigger despite internal civil wars which don't really affect their rate of expansion.

Imo it's just not fun to interact with them unless you are interested in a challenge run. Playing them is easy mode, but that's not as egregious as playing against them. I am afraid when Asia gets expanded and we get bureaocratic governments which, as I understand, are mostly slightly modified admin governments (except China), they will severely reduce the chance of interesting stuff happening.

So I hope there is atleast some plan to nerf admin governments planned so we don't just get a bunch of boring blobs in East Asia and maybe make playing against Byzantium, without mods, less frustrating.

 

[Vityviktor]

Definitely. Right now the only counter to Byzantium expanding non-stop over the map (doesn't matter if it's 867, 1066 or 1178) is a "Fourth Crusade". They're far stronger than any of their historical enemies: Bulgarians, Arabs, Rus, Normans or Turks. Besides that, the worst thing that can happen to them it's a usurpation civil war, and they mostly get unnoticed (they're not as destructive or damaging as they should). CK3 is a game in which your realm could be severely weakened (or even lost) by internal issues, like a mismanaged inheritance or mismanaged vassals, and Admin empires don't have such issues, which is a mistake in my opinion.

So yes, I really hope they could implement severe nerfs and reworks for this government type. In the Chinese dev diary they mentioned they were experimenting about limited or frontier wars that don't involve the main liege, so that could be a good start.

 

[Silens]

If there is an imbalance, the correct way is to buff the weaker side, instead of trying to make both sides as unfun as possible.

And this is maybe a good time to ask for a better feudalism and better military system. The imbalance comes mostly from how bad feudalism was implemented. That is what I'd love to see changed at some point. And that point is probably next year, when the focus shifts to Europe, to republics, holdings, economy. That's a good point to start reworking realm administration, realm laws, and the feudal system in general.

 

[X_FloW]

Dissolution faction, independence faction, admin government has none of that, when historically throughout the empire's life states did break away from Constantinople. (Historical examples such as: Cyprus, Serbia, Antioch, Trebizond, etc)

Maybe dissolution faction can be restricted, but there is no reason why governors should not declare independence if they can.

 

[Gaius Augustus Caligula]

If there is an imbalance, the correct way is to buff the weaker side, instead of trying to make both sides as unfun as possible.

And this is maybe a good time to ask for a better feudalism and better military system. The imbalance comes mostly from how bad feudalism was implemented. That is what I'd love to see changed at some point. And that point is probably next year, when the focus shifts to Europe, to republics, holdings, economy. That's a good point to start reworking realm administration, realm laws, and the feudal system in general.

I agree that feudalism is arguably the least flavourfull/most bland and weak (early game) government type at this point, but that admin governments can't loose even a bit of territory due to internal issues or that civil wars in general have basically no impact at all on the strength of the Empire is a fundamental issue that should be adressed regardless of if feudalism gets a buff or not.

I don't think the admin government type itself is a problem, but there are simply no drawbacks or cons to it, which is just unrealistic and legitimitely unbalanced. Admin realms should be extremely powefull when stable and very weak when not to represent the necessity of a strong central government to make a bureacratic regime work. Presently admin realms are always the former, especially the Byzantines can easily defeat invasions while in a multi sided civil war and the governors are seemingly unaffected and expand rapidly at the same time (but can't go independent or autonomous).

A MAA rework might rectify some thing, but it still doesn't change the fact that, as it stands, admin governments are absurdly OP.

 

[Silens]

A MAA rework might rectify some thing, but it still doesn't change the fact that, as it stands, admin governments are absurdly OP.

That is where the weakness of feudalism comes into play. You have to ask yourself, why can't a feudal realm beat admin? It's not because admin is particularly strong, it's because the top lvl liege in a feudal system is alone in both offensive and defensive wars. Admin can buy troops with influence, surpassing the feudal numbers with quality troops substantially.

While admin realms can borrow troops from themes, feudalism is supposed to be a close military alliance of semi-independent hereditary rulers. When the realm goes to war, all of them go to war. Whereas admin would pull troops from themes under a single command, they'd be faced with a swarm of feudal armies. And that swarm, historically speaking, was strong.

Just that in this game the combined might of an admin realm stands against a single feudal opponent, who gets nothing from his entire realm. That makes him weak, and ultimately unable to oppose and win against the stronger admin realm. That is what causes the imbalance.

My original point therefore stands, if feudalism were actually feudal, we wouldn't talk about how supposedly op admin is.

But we can take it a bit further as well, because the current thematic armies also aren't that historical. At least not in terms of their costs. While feudal levies had to keep and maintain their own equipment as part of their feudal obligations, the standing army of Byzantium was a centralized force of professional soldiers at its core. The equipment was provided by the state. Their upkeep was also paid for by the state, while feudal levies paid for their expenses through the land they held.

While the land all belonged to the emperor, all taxes belonged to the emperor, all income went to the emperor, the emperor also had to pay for everything. In good times this made the emperor very rich, and there was always the temptation to cut back on military spending to increase the treasury.

This is a conflict the game is missing, and if we want a more historical Byzantium, we should see a shift towards the new treasury mechanic from AUH, where the state has to bear all costs of ALL thematic armies. And of course those troops are more expensive than their feudal equivalent, since the state provides their equipment as well. You might have a stronger army with overall better and more uniform cohesion, and a centralized command making that army efficient. But that was horribly expensive to maintain, which in game it currently isn't. It's dirt cheap actually.

When the military gets reworked, I hope that centralized (aka admin) realms separate their civil and military commands. Armies should become their own entities then, with a commander, and some loyalty mechanic. That was also one strength and weakness, since a single vassal being disloyal wasn't that hurtful to a feudal realm. But a commander of a sizeable portion of your professional army being disloyal? That hurt, and that's also a reason why many generals ended up gunning for the emperor's throne. That is also something that is currently missing, as thematic troops currently benefit from the decentralized nature of the feudal framework. Pulls out some of the historical teeth from the Byzantine's most notorious dangers. For China as well, mind you.

We're really missing lots of things, and I'm hesitant to call for a mere nerf, when the underlying problems are so much bigger and systemic. Making feudalism feudal would be a first good step, though.

 

[Slime99]

Salaries, the process of feudalization, attacking vassals without calling in the liege and restricting naval expansion to naval themes would do wonders for administrative realm balance without being too hard to implement.

 

[Dayvit78]

The ducal themes have free reign to expand even if the Emperor is stuck in a usurpation war.
They really should spend more of their time attacking each other instead of expanding the empire. That would be an AI prioritization issue.

 

[Germanicus_Caesar]

.

May your rule be more wise and glorious than they predicted mine to be, my brave little boots.

 

[Byzantium2000]

The ducal themes have free reign to expand even if the Emperor is stuck in a usurpation war.
They really should spend more of their time attacking each other instead of expanding the empire. That would be an AI prioritization issue.

They shouldn’t be attacking at all. A Byzantine Strategos could not just go hey, I’m gonna attack and dog pile Rum with my 3 other allied Strategoi who I also made commit insubordination because we’re married right after the Emperor did so and made a truce.

Lowkey the crown authority restrictions need to be reversed. Even a tier 1 admin realm should have all its admin vassals at no war unless a hook, bribe or request was made to the emperor. Then Bribe or hook at 2, hook only at 3 and nothing at 4. Then on the other hand the emperor should have no authority over feudal vassals at 1 who are more unruly in an admin realm and exert more as CA goes up.

And that’s just for player agency cause there is less than a handful of times to debatably no times in all of Byzantine history where a Strategos attacked a foreign realm without imperial consent and got away with it. And no governors attacking governors outside civil wars. There was feudal vassals trying to get away with attacking a governor for his territory while still proclaiming loyalty to the emperor though.

Also if an admin realm has a truce it should apply to the governors too. Tbf that should be default for all govs outside nomads or pastoralists.

Andronikos II had a truce with Epirus, his governor in Berat raided and attacked Epirus in the meanwhile, Epirus then immediately considered the truce broken and attacked. Crazy this is not in CK3.

It’s funny too cause setting an admin realm to CA3 on start basically ends their blobbing until it gets lowered. But that’s also cause vassal ai will not use their hooks to declare a war in vanilla CK3.

But Yeah Admin realms are broken OP. They never splinter, they have insane amounts of wealth, manpower, man at arms, development, Legitimacy and prestige while the ai doesn’t play them right cause they barely play them at all outside the ruler.

I think there needs to be a separate admin from Byzantine too now that China has its own such as for the caliphate. Feudalization did not happen in Byzantine admin but it did in others.

 

[InsidiousMage]

And that’s just for player agency cause there is less than a handful of times to debatably no times in all of Byzantine history where a Strategos attacked a foreign realm without imperial consent and got away with it. And no governors attacking governors outside civil wars. There was feudal vassals trying to get away with attacking a governor for his territory while still proclaiming loyalty to the emperor though.

I remember when the game came out the devs where very insistent that CK3 was not a map painter. Its been a while since I've seen them say that and I wonder if designing RtP made them change their mind because either a) playtesters didn't enjoy no war as admin vassals or/and b) they couldn’t come up with something engaging to fill in the lack of warfare. One would hope that Celestial government having stricter limits of vassal wars would mean they are considering doing the same for admin governments but I wouldn't count on it

Also if an admin realm has a truce it should apply to the governors too. Tbf that should be default for all govs outside nomads or pastoralists.

Andronikos II had a truce with Epirus, his governor in Berat raided and attacked Epirus in the meanwhile, Epirus then immediately considered the truce broken and attacked. Crazy this is not in CK3.

This is another thing that annoys. Like, I get you probably want more wars to happen than historically for gameplay reasons but the devs seem to think pure anarchy is a desirable game state. And all of this feels like it seems from a genuine fear of placing real restrictions on the players, even if those are sensible restrictions!

 

[Slime99]

They shouldn’t be attacking at all. A Byzantine Strategos could not just go hey, I’m gonna attack and dog pile Rum with my 3 other allied Strategoi who I also made commit insubordination because we’re married right after the Emperor did so and made a truce.

Lowkey the crown authority restrictions need to be reversed. Even a tier 1 admin realm should have all its admin vassals at no war unless a hook, bribe or request was made to the emperor. Then Bribe or hook at 2, hook only at 3 and nothing at 4. Then on the other hand the emperor should have no authority over feudal vassals at 1 who are more unruly in an admin realm and exert more as CA goes up.

And that’s just for player agency cause there is less than a handful of times to debatably no times in all of Byzantine history where a Strategos attacked a foreign realm without imperial consent and got away with it. And no governors attacking governors outside civil wars. There was feudal vassals trying to get away with attacking a governor for his territory while still proclaiming loyalty to the emperor though.

Also if an admin realm has a truce it should apply to the governors too. Tbf that should be default for all govs outside nomads or pastoralists.

Andronikos II had a truce with Epirus, his governor in Berat raided and attacked Epirus in the meanwhile, Epirus then immediately considered the truce broken and attacked. Crazy this is not in CK3.

It’s funny too cause setting an admin realm to CA3 on start basically ends their blobbing until it gets lowered. But that’s also cause vassal ai will not use their hooks to declare a war in vanilla CK3.

But Yeah Admin realms are broken OP. They never splinter, they have insane amounts of wealth, manpower, man at arms, development, Legitimacy and prestige while the ai doesn’t play them right cause they barely play them at all outside the ruler.

I think there needs to be a separate admin from Byzantine too now that China has its own such as for the caliphate. Feudalization did not happen in Byzantine admin but it did in others.

What if ALL foreign wars had to be approved by the emperor regardless of CA, so you'd have to engage in interpersonal politicking. Strategos alliances could be reduced only to factions and not foreign campaigns too.

 

[apollo1989vieten]

Forcing governors to invest in being allowed to declare war would be good at forcing the use of schemes, which is what the admin government is supposed to have a focus on.

 

[Benismann]

If there is an imbalance, the correct way is to buff the weaker side, instead of trying to make both sides as unfun as possible.

True. But there's also a point where you just have to nerf the stronger side. If pdx were to make every government as broken as admin (without copying it... somehow) the game will become extremely boring, as the game will be EVEN EASIER.

Also - not all nerfs make things unfun. For example, in my balance mod i just straight up removed the ability to change your contract at will as a vassal (now always requires hook/borrowed powers). That's a nerf, yes, but it also made it way more fun, at least for me, as now i have to actually do something do gain a favorable contract instead of flicking a few switches day 0.

 

[peteoj]

I do not understand why strategoi are allowed to freely declare war when that was never historically accurate. It is especially frustrating because the poor balance of 1178 means a strategos can bisect and destroy Rum within half a decade of gameplay. I also do not understand this design choice when the game already has a mechanic for the AI to request consent before declaring war, the imperial expedition system that co monarchs can use. Why not simply create a county level version of that mechanic for strategoi.

Generally speaking, the administration system has some interesting ideas but it is weighed down by the fact that the developers began discussing these mechanics long after they were already deep into development. Take acclamation for example, it is a ridiculous mechanic. No Byzantine emperor ever peacefully took the throne over a family member of the previous emperor unless he either usurped it or was designated as heir. No co emperor or porphyrogenitos was ever quietly ignored in succession just because some random figure had more influence. It is nonsensical.

Byzantium lacks the serious internal issues it should have and those issues are necessary to balance it. Scrap acclamation entirely and make succession primogeniture, but increase faction and scheme success chances if the emperor is either inept or a child. In fact, I dislike the current faction system enough that I would not mind scrapping it entirely and replacing it with a greater focus on schemes. Armies should be able to rebel on their own, this is basic Byzantine history. How can you release a Byzantine DLC and not allow independent army rebellions. Characters in the capital should have a heightened chance to murder, usurp, or kidnap the emperor.

Legitimacy should actually matter. An emperor with low legitimacy should almost always be deposed unless he is a porphyrogenitos. There should be periods much like the Twenty Years Anarchy or the post Manzikert collapse where one usurpation leads to another, or where disastrous rule triggers repeated civil wars.

Of course, none of this will happen now that Roads to Power has been released. The developers will never go back to fix broken content. The same thing happened with Khans of the Steppe, and the same will happen with All Under Heaven. They will release a broken DLC, make a few minor changes for a month or two, and then abandon it, no matter how flawed, unbalanced, or unplayable its mechanics are.

 

[peteoj]

Dissolution faction, independence faction, admin government has none of that, when historically throughout the empire's life states did break away from Constantinople. (Historical examples such as: Cyprus, Serbia, Antioch, Trebizond, etc)

Maybe dissolution faction can be restricted, but there is no reason why governors should not declare independence if they can.

States in the periphery should be able to break away I think.

 

[RJ7]

The problem with Admin empires is that dissolution and independence factions are blocked. So unlike clan/feudal empires, an admin empire cannot fragment once the Emperor has lost control. Apart from a player using the Seize Peripheral Duchy CB, the neighbours of an admin empire need to defeat the army of the entire Admin empire, to win even one Duchy off the empire. Yet each Frontier/Naval Admin Duchy of an Admin Empire can expand on its own into weaker neighbouring realms.

So admin empires can only get bigger, and never fragment.

The fix, in my view, is to add a CB for admin realm vassals, of "Become Feudal" or "Break away from Admin Empire" so that once the Emperor is no longer strong enough to defeat rebellions, the Admin Empire can fragment.

 

[Zifircin]

I am overall happy with the game. It could be a bit harder but that's not a huge problem for me, but Admin Empires, Byzantium in particular, are not fun to play against, atleast not without mods. They can't collapse or loose territory due to internal issues unless it's a populist revolt, which barely ever succeeds in non-admin realms anyway but under admininstrative they get curbstomped even harder. The governors expand like crazy since the AI almost never restricts their expansion, which creates really bad border gore and is really frustating if you are their neighbour and get attacked by Byzantium itself or their governors several times in the span of a decade.
And their military, due to consisting mainly of MAA, is arguably the strongest in the game so they rarely loose any wars due to their superiority even if their army is stackwiped once or twice in the conflict.

As a result admin realms become big blobs that never break up or loose any signficant territory unless they get attacked by a conqueror. They just grow bigger and bigger despite internal civil wars which don't really affect their rate of expansion.

Imo it's just not fun to interact with them unless you are interested in a challenge run. Playing them is easy mode, but that's not as egregious as playing against them. I am afraid when Asia gets expanded and we get bureaocratic governments which, as I understand, are mostly slightly modified admin governments (except China), they will severely reduce the chance of interesting stuff happening.

So I hope there is atleast some plan to nerf admin governments planned so we don't just get a bunch of boring blobs in East Asia and maybe make playing against Byzantium, without mods, less frustrating.

I think it's fine except remaining emperor should maybe be harder with civil wars breaking out if one characters acclamation score isn't so overwhelming. Also title MAA could rebel.

Anyway you can conquer entirety byzantium as an adventurer camp in half a lifetime if you focus on a martial custom character so I don't think they're difficult as long as AI keeps not stationing maa well

 

[Zifircin]

The problem with Admin empires is that dissolution and independence factions are blocked. So unlike clan/feudal empires, an admin empire cannot fragment once the Emperor has lost control. Apart from a player using the Seize Peripheral Duchy CB, the neighbours of an admin empire need to defeat the army of the entire Admin empire, to win even one Duchy off the empire. Yet each Frontier/Naval Admin Duchy of an Admin Empire can expand on its own into weaker neighbouring realms.

So admin empires can only get bigger, and never fragment.

The fix, in my view, is to add a CB for admin realm vassals, of "Become Feudal" or "Break away from Admin Empire" so that once the Emperor is no longer strong enough to defeat rebellions, the Admin Empire can fragment.

Become feudal while remaining within empire could be possible in this update considering that's basically what they did with japan

 

[Gaius Augustus Caligula]

I think it's fine except remaining emperor should maybe be harder with civil wars breaking out if one characters acclamation score isn't so overwhelming. Also title MAA could rebel.

Anyway you can conquer entirety byzantium as an adventurer camp in half a lifetime if you focus on a martial custom character so I don't think they're difficult as long as AI keeps not stationing maa well

My point is rather that the AI can't handle Admin governments (as an opponent) and that the player experience, as a neigbouring landed (especially feudal) ruler, isn't great at all.

AI Byzantium doesn't struggle in any playthrough except occasionally when he 4th crusade succeeds or they get attacked by the Mongols/Scourge of God conqueror. They are nearly invincible otherwise which makes playing as a neighbour aswell as watching them from a far a bad and arguably boring experience.

Sure, you can handle them even as a landed ruler if you play optimally, but it's just not fun and I don't want to take down Byzantium as an adventurer every time I play to not have an invincible blob in the balkans and middle eastern area.