North Korea Mode

[daemonofdecay]

For a lot of people, keeping vassals above 60+ relations is "really difficult" so they get "constant factions."

So their spy is working to force them out of factions, they're keeping some money saved in case they need mercenaries while they bribe their vassals to stay loyal, and they're marrying off their children to obtain alliances with strong neighbors and key vassals, right?

If they are unable to hold a kingdom together at all, then they need to ask for assistance as to what they're doing wrong. I've found my vassals can sometimes be challenging and I do have to actually work to keep the important ones appeased, but even when I get a revolt that knocks me from power it doesn't seem like feudalism is broken. It might seem unfair that your vassals might jump on you when you are at your weakest, and it can take a while to get to the point where you feel you have control over your kingdom again, but that's a good thing to have in a game.

And what's the point in playing a game about feudalism if you remove feudalism from the equation?

 

[Kumicho]

It's not a hard cap. It varies depending on how far overboard you go. If it was a hard cap, the losses would be the same whether you were one above or one hundred above. A hard cap is something like the republic/theocracy limit.

This is a soft cap. If you are two over your demesne, you will be slightly more affected than if you go one over your demesne. The point is that each of those slight increases adds up to a lot once it gets to NK mode levels of overboardness. This is a dynamic cap.

We still have yet to see what the penalties are, but if it's the same as your tax revenue (-25% per holding over, up to -90% or something) than it might as well be a hard cap. I can't imagine trying to play a game with 2.0 levies that nerfs your personal demesne by 50% just for being 2 over the limit. It's why I've said that far more players are going to get caught up in this "fix" than just the ones that were exploiting NKM.

 

[Kumicho]

So their spy is working to force them out of factions, they're keeping some money saved in case they need mercenaries while they bribe their vassals to stay loyal, and they're marrying off their children to obtain alliances with strong neighbors and key vassals, right?

If they are unable to hold a kingdom together at all, then they need to ask for assistance as to what they're doing wrong. I've found my vassals can sometimes be challenging and I do have to actually work to keep the important ones appeased, but even when I get a revolt that knocks me from power it doesn't seem like feudalism is broken. It might seem unfair that your vassals might jump on you when you are at your weakest, and it can take a while to get to the point where you feel you have control over your kingdom again, but that's a good thing to have in a game.

And what's the point in playing a game about feudalism if you remove feudalism from the equation?

It's been stated by quite a few different people, but many of us feel that feudalism was removed the day the 2.0 levies hit. Having vassals was more of a threat than a benefit, and so suddenly the optimal way to play became either to keep your vassals as weak as possible, or take it to the extreme and just go without. Until PDX figures out how to buff feudalism instead of nerfing the workarounds, nothing's going to change.

 

[daemonofdecay]

Because every vassal you have is more of a threat than an asset. You get so few troops from your vassals that it's not even worth using them to fight wars, which lowers the benefit to any of them. NKM took it to the extreme, but especially outside your du jure empire it doesn't make sense to have any vassal that owns more than a single county.

So how is it that I still conquer multiple kingdoms using vassals and never going over my demense limit? I'm not a very good player, to be honest, and it seems like if this were the case and every/most vassals were bigger obstacles than assets that I would never get anywhere without just absorbing all the land for myself and going North Korea on everyone. But I've always handed out titles and did my best to keep my vassals happy, and it has always paid off for me in the long run.

I have the impression that some of the people who have such terrible difficulties with the feudal system just need to ask for help or post a few questions about what others are doing. Or maybe they should post about why they can never appease their vassals. I doubt anyone here would refuse to help others.

 

[BaronIronmaggot]

1. Increasing the penalties for NKM is...... wait for it, increasing penalties. You're completely missing the entire point that some of us are making, in that PDX should make feudalism more attractive instead of increasing penalties.

Here I fixed it for you:

1. Increasing the penalties for NKM is ... wait for it ... giving it the penalties it was supposed to have in the first place.
-----------------------

A response to this thread in general:

It was never a secret, what the demecne limit represented and it was never was a secret, that this feature doesn't work at the extremes. We can safely assume that there has been a clear oversight in that feature*. Clear oversights which can be fixed without much of an hassle are a logical step to fix.

*Feature that is meant to punish harder and harder, the more a certain criteria is violated.

Rambling about making feudalism an attractive choice is quite pointless for this thread. This thread is about a game mechanic that is meant to punish the player when certain conditions are met. If you have an idea, how to make stuff better, post it, if not, comment other thread that talk about a certain mechanic that could be buffed. Don't just come thrashing threads with your cynical remarks about something irrelevant that you are butthurt about.

 

[Kumicho]

So how is it that I still conquer multiple kingdoms using vassals and never going over my demense limit? I'm not a very good player, to be honest, and it seems like if this were the case and every/most vassals were bigger obstacles than assets that I would never get anywhere without just absorbing all the land for myself and going North Korea on everyone. But I've always handed out titles and did my best to keep my vassals happy, and it has always paid off for me in the long run.

I have the impression that some of the people who have such terrible difficulties with the feudal system just need to ask for help or post a few questions about what others are doing. Or maybe they should post about why they can never appease their vassals. I doubt anyone here would refuse to help others.

One, going over your demesne limit by a few holdings has nothing to do with NKM. It's a tactic to use when you're expecting your demesne limit to increase in the future (marriage, education, etc) or waiting to have a child to give it away to. The fact that it's probably going to get hit in the "fix" just because some people are exploiting a known bug is what's annoying.

And I never said that it wasn't possible to have feudal vassals, only that it's not the optimal way to go. If you take territory outside of your du jure empire it's always better to have 6 counts than one duke, and always better to have 5 dukes than 1 king. The troops that you'll get from that one king or one duke are pitifully small, and yet the troops that he can raise against you are as big as they've ever been. So you want them to be poor, weak, and no more powerful than a single count because they're less of a threat. Since you're not using their troops to fight your wars there's no point in trying to make them as rich and strong as possible. Previously you WANTED your vassals to be strong so that they'd generate more troops, and happy so that they'd give you more of them. Now it's better to keep them poor and only just content enough not to rebel. There's no reason to have a vassal at 100 when 60 will be just as good.

 

[daemonofdecay]

It's been stated by quite a few different people, but many of us feel that feudalism was removed the day the 2.0 levies hit. Having vassals was more of a threat than a benefit, and so suddenly the optimal way to play became either to keep your vassals as weak as possible, or take it to the extreme and just go without. Until PDX figures out how to buff feudalism instead of nerfing the workarounds, nothing's going to change.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Every state in the game is suffering these same issues, right? I mean, if your vassals are hypothetically never giving you any benefit, then your enemy also gets no benefit from them. If all the "players" in the game are suffering the same checks on their power, then it is hardly an issue.

So personally, do you have trouble with your vassals? I've found that as long as I was careful and made sure to not get dragged into terribly long wars, I never had much of an issue with my vassals after a few years in power while expanding my own control over other lands. Using your agents to keep people appeased, keeping track of the factions and breaking up the most dangerous, assassinating dukes that were a significant threat, and bribing the friendlier ones was normally more than enough to keep my people in line. Sure, I normally faced one good-sized revolt about every other king/emperor, but once you win that war you just lock up all the revolters to keep them in check, possibly taking land away from them and giving it to your vassals that were loyal as a reward. That's what I've always seen as the whole game: trying to expand your power and rise up the ranks while keeping your own vassals in check.

Or are these hypothetical players unable to even defeat their revolting vassals? I mean, if they can't even win a war against their vassals, that sounds like they either had terrible luck (it happens) or made a very large error - and thus are being punished for it. Sounds like they need to keep extra money around for mercenaries, just in case. The game already gives you a free 300 gold whenever you need if you are desperately short of cash.

 

[daemonofdecay]

One, going over your demesne limit by a few holdings has nothing to do with NKM. It's a tactic to use when you're expecting your demesne limit to increase in the future (marriage, education, etc) or waiting to have a child to give it away to. The fact that it's probably going to get hit in the "fix" just because some people are exploiting a known bug is what's annoying.

As long as they scale the negative modifier the more you go over the limit, then I don't see any problem there. I'm never over my limit by much for any length of time: one province, tops. And if you are over your limit and your vassals don't like this, then why not give a title away to keep them appeased? I mean, if you're not willing to keep your vassals happy, then it seems reasonable that they would revolt.

And I never said that it wasn't possible to have feudal vassals, only that it's not the optimal way to go. If you take territory outside of your du jure empire it's always better to have 6 counts than one duke, and always better to have 5 dukes than 1 king. The troops that you'll get from that one king or one duke are pitifully small, and yet the troops that he can raise against you are as big as they've ever been. So you want them to be poor, weak, and no more powerful than a single count because they're less of a threat. Since you're not using their troops to fight your wars there's no point in trying to make them as rich and strong as possible. Previously you WANTED your vassals to be strong so that they'd generate more troops, and happy so that they'd give you more of them. Now it's better to keep them poor and only just content enough not to rebel.

But I do fight wars with their troops. Heck, sometimes their troops are the only soldiers I raise, preserving my own troops in case I suffer from a revolt or a sudden negative event. Why wouldn't you use your vassal's solders against the enemy?

There's no reason to have a vassal at 100 when 60 will be just as good.

This might explain why you are facing so much trouble with your vassals. If they are only just over the limit, then an unanticipated negative modifier you can drop beneath that +60 mark. I normally work to keep my vassals as close to 100 as I can, starting with the most powerful and working my way down. Makes revolts much less common and much more manageable.

 

[Kumicho]

Here I fixed it for you:

1. Increasing the penalties for NKM is ... wait for it ... giving it the penalties it was supposed to have in the first place.
-----------------------

A response to this thread in general:

It was never a secret, what the demecne limit represented and it was never was a secret, that this feature doesn't work at the extremes. We can safely assume that there has been a clear oversight in that feature*. Clear oversights which can be fixed without much of an hassle are a logical step to fix.

*Feature that is meant to punish harder and harder, the more a certain criteria is violated.

Rambling about making feudalism an attractive choice is quite pointless for this thread. This thread is about a game mechanic that is meant to punish the player when certain conditions are met. If you have an idea, how to make stuff better, post it, if not, comment other thread that talk about a certain mechanic that could be buffed. Don't just come thrashing threads with your cynical remarks about something irrelevant that you are butthurt about.

"Supposed to have in the first place?" The game's been out for over 2 years, and coming up on a dozen patches, and yet you're convinced that a set of penalties should have been there all along? We're not talking about NKM here, we're talking about the specific penalty for going over your demesne limit. You think that even though it hasn't changed for over 2 years, it's something that should have been there all along just because..........? And again, "fixing" NKM is fine. "Fixing" it so that there are penalties that hit everyone else just because you think that they should be harsher isn't.

And this is as appropriate a place to talk about feudalism as any. The entire concept of NKM has been around since CKII was released, but only became popular (both in play styles *and* discussions on here) after the 2.0 levy "fix" that pretty much gutted feudalism. If people had a reason to have vassals (instead of penalizing the lack of them), most people wouldn't play NKM just like they didn't before the patch. God forbid we talk about the causes of certain playstyles instead of just trying to crackdown on the exploits that people use to get around it.

 

[frolix42]

1. Increasing the penalties for NKM is...... wait for it, increasing penalties. You're completely missing the entire point that some of us are making, in that PDX should make feudalism more attractive instead of increasing penalties.
2. Nobody said anything about easier vs harder. I purposely went back to the old levy system because the new one was WAY too easy when you're a count/duke or a large empire.

How I see it is that some people are making demands that the game be rebalanced to compete with or replace a vastly overpowered playstyle that was never intended to be viable in the first place.
These people are purposefully misinterpreting a bug fix which, in the form it is promised, only significantly effects people using a specific exploit involving going far above their demesne limit. Raising the alarm as if it is a nerf that will make the game harder for everyone doesn't make it so.

This is actually hilarious and why I've stuck with this thread for so long, to see people huff and puff as they insist that they never play NK Mode themselves but they "defend others right to play NK", then suddenly do a pirouette and claim that a NK Mode fix somehow hurts everyone.

 

[Kumicho]

As long as they scale the negative modifier the more you go over the limit, then I don't see any problem there. I'm never over my limit by much for any length of time: one province, tops. And if you are over your limit and your vassals don't like this, then why not give a title away to keep them appeased? I mean, if you're not willing to keep your vassals happy, then it seems reasonable that they would revolt.

Huh? I was saying that vassals being unhappy that you're over the limit is fine. That's the way it is now. There are plenty of ways to ameliorate that as I noted (feasts, educating heirs, gifts, transfers of vassals, etc). What I don't like is some arbitrary reduction in demesne troops just because you're over by a couple holdings. Again, it's just another example of normal playstyles and tactics that are getting caught up in a heavy-handed "fix" that was supposed to only target one explicit exploit.

But I do fight wars with their troops. Heck, sometimes their troops are the only soldiers I raise, preserving my own troops in case I suffer from a revolt or a sudden negative event. Why wouldn't you use your vassal's solders against the enemy?

They're fine when you're small, but once you get to be a decent size kingdom you have massive amounts of retinues and personal levies. When you consider the pitiful amount of troops you get from a vassal that's outside your du jure empire, there's no reason to use them. Since you're facing smaller armies you can usually just go straight Skirmish or Longbow retinue and mop up any threat you face, internal or external. Crank up the taxes to pay for your levies and mercs, and you're pretty much set.

This might explain why you are facing so much trouble with your vassals. If they are only just over the limit, then an unanticipated negative modifier you can drop beneath that +60 mark. I normally work to keep my vassals as close to 100 as I can, starting with the most powerful and working my way down. Makes revolts much less common and much more manageable.

I'm not sure why you're assuming that I'm having trouble with my vassals? My vassals currently love me. I purposely switched back to the old levy system to give me a *reason* to make my vassals love me, and it's rare when any of the kings underneath me have less than 100 opinion of me. Under 2.0 levies I was controlling a nice, boring, stable realm with hundreds of pitifully poor counts underneath me who could never get enough troops together to fire a rebellion. Combine something like Elective (+20) with the fact that only you and your heir get a vote means that you really never have to worry about a rebellion or a failed election. It was just so ridiculously overpowered that I switched back to give me more of a challenge.

 

[frolix42]

Oh, I've read that AAR and understand how he did it, and NKM wasn't actually an integral part of it. It focused on the imprisoning and banishing portion, and the "hold everything" was just a byproduct.

You don't understand that the imprisoning and banishing portion is an integral part of NK Mode.

I'll wait to see what the exact mechanics of it are, but I'm guessing that with the "fix" it still leaves the door WIDE OPEN to abuse.

I'm honestly glad you seem to get a thrill out of exploiting the game. If you don't want to post about it because you think it might cause them to get nerfed, that's good for you. Keep in mind that you are not the only person who can find exploits in the game and post about them. Maxirage used his AAR to point out places where he thought exploits should be closed.

 

[Kumicho]

How I see it is that some people are making demands that the game be rebalanced to compete with or replace a vastly overpowered playstyle that was never intended to be viable in the first place.
These people are purposefully misinterpreting a bug fix which, in the form it is promised, only significantly effects people using a specific exploit involving going far above their demesne limit. Raising the alarm as if it is a nerf that will make the game harder for everyone.

This is actually hilarious and why I've stuck with this thread for so long, to see people huff and puff as they insist that they never play NK Mode themselves but they "defend others right to play NK", then suddenly cry and scream that a NK Mode fix somehow hurts everyone.

Do you actually know what the nerf is? Because anything I've read hasn't said a peep other than: It will affect anyone going over their demesne limit at all, and it gets worse the more you are over. As long as that holds true, it means it will affect far more people than those who are using a "specific exploit". I'm guessing that it'll be the same as the income nerf for going over your demesne limit, which is 25% reduction per holding over.

I haven't seen the devs anywhere say that it'll only affect people playing NKM. Only the following:

Small counts and dukes who go over their demense limit just a little bit will be a bit penalized but not to the same degree.

So much for only going after people exploiting a known bug....

 

[alphaomega66]

Do you actually know what the nerf is? Because anything I've read hasn't said a peep other than: It will affect anyone going over their demesne limit at all, and it gets worse the more you are over. As long as that holds true, it means it will affect far more people than those who are using a "specific exploit". I'm guessing that it'll be the same as the income nerf for going over your demesne limit, which is 25% reduction per holding over.

I haven't seen the devs anywhere say that it'll only affect people playing NKM. Only the following:



So much for only going after people exploiting a known bug....

A bit isn't suicide. It won't be 25% less per holding. Maybe 5% or 10%. 15% sounds reasonable. I don't know. I just know it will be less than 25%.

 

[frolix42]

I've been carefully avoiding hyperbole here.

These people are purposefully misinterpreting a bug fix which, in the form it is promised, only significantly effects people using a specific exploit involving going far above their demesne limit.

Nothing that would justify re-balancing levies to levels that you would get if you used NK Mode.

Also I'm trying to avoid making predictions like this:

I'm guessing that it'll be the same as the income nerf for going over your demesne limit, which is 25% reduction per holding over.

Which is much too dire to be taken seriously.

Increasing the penalties for NKM is ... wait for it ... giving it the penalties it was supposed to have in the first place.

This is very well put.

 

[Kumicho]

You don't understand that the imprisoning and banishing portion is an integral part of NK Mode.

Ummmm, no. NKM is owning all of the holdings personally. Imprisoning/banishing is the means at which you earn money to continue playing NKM. It's also not affected at all by the latest patch, which means that his world conquest would still be possible... The owning of all the land underneath him wasn't an integral part of his strategy, and he even admitted to setting up vassals underneath him (and then imprisoning them) to handle rebellions and to get below the limit needed for the game to run. Since it takes so long to raise troops from all of your own personal holdings, it's easier just to give it to a vassal, imprison the vassal and then raise troops from him.

I'm honestly glad you seem to get a thrill out of exploiting the game. If you don't want to post about it because you think it might cause them to get nerfed, that's good for you. Keep in mind that you are not the only person who can find exploits in the game and post about them. Maxirage used his AAR to point out places where he thought exploits should be closed.

I actually don't care one bit about exploiting the game, and usually don't. The exploits I usually avoid include not only things like NKM but also plot assassinations, the assassination button, vassalizing the pope, excommunicate/imprison/execute, or excommunicate/attempt imprisonment/crush revolt/revoke title, revoking duchies under the Byzantine Empire, etc. The game is so intricate that once you really get a handle on it it becomes easy, and therefore almost any of the players on here have self-imposed rules that they play by.

What I do care about is people whining on here that other people might be playing the game the way they don't want them to, and that PDX should "fix" the game for them. Why should you care how I play the game? If I play as normal but have 4 holdings over my demesne limit and utilize in-game features like feasts, my chancellor, my spymaster, etc to either keep my vassals happy or discourage them from factionalism, why should you care? Why should you be demanding that my way of playing isn't the "right" way, or the way that the game was "intended" to be?

 

[BaronIronmaggot]

"Supposed to have in the first place?" The game's been out for over 2 years, and coming up on a dozen patches, and yet you're convinced that a set of penalties should have been there all along? We're not talking about NKM here, we're talking about the specific penalty for going over your demesne limit. You think that even though it hasn't changed for over 2 years, it's something that should have been there all along just because..........? And again, "fixing" NKM is fine. "Fixing" it so that there are penalties that hit everyone else just because you think that they should be harsher isn't.

What are you ranting about, dude?

That feature that I was talking about was demecne limit itself.

Where are you pulling those assertions that NKmode nerf(or call it demecne limti buff) is going to affect everyone else? Out of your general waste dumping area?

Your argument puzzles me, if NKmode is getting a fix, why are all those screams about hurting everyone. Fixing NKmode is only ever going to affect anyone who violates demecne limit. And, please don't preach about "muh merchant 10% limit", that is just your paranoia/envy/cycism talking.

And this is as appropriate a place to talk about feudalism as any. The entire concept of NKM has been around since CKII was released, but only became popular (both in play styles *and* discussions on here) after the 2.0 levy "fix" that pretty much gutted feudalism. If people had a reason to have vassals (instead of penalizing the lack of them), most people wouldn't play NKM just like they didn't before the patch. God forbid we talk about the causes of certain playstyles instead of just trying to crackdown on the exploits that people use to get around it.

Heck, any thread here is as appripriate place to talk about feudalism as any. But, you know, feudalism contains quite a lot of infermation for just a one thread. That is why we have separate threads for specific topics.

Care to repeat that same argument just once more, just for me, I will never tire from hearing that, never. *making puppy eyes*

 

[frolix42]

Ummmm, no. NKM is owning all of the holdings personally. Imprisoning/banishing is the means at which you earn money to continue playing NKM.

Are you seriously going to split hairs and try to divide NK Mode into two exploits? NK Mode wouldn't be possible if you couldn't Imprison/banish barony level titles for money. Imprison/Banishing barony level titles for infinite money wouldn't be possible if you had free vassals who would get mad at your tyranny.

Heck, any thread here is as appripriate place to talk about feudalism as any. But, you know, feudalism contains quite a lot of infermation for just a one thread. That is why we have separate threads for specific topics.

He and a few other people are trying to claim that a fix for an unintended exploit makes the game so much harder, it justifies boosting the levies vassals give a ruler. I'm utterly unconvinced.

 

[Kumicho]

What are you ranting about, dude?

That feature that I was talking about was demecne limit itself.

Where are you pulling those assertions that NKmode nerf(or call it demecne limti buff) is going to affect everyone else? Out of your general waste dumping area?

Your argument puzzles me, if NKmode is getting a fix, why are all those screams about hurting everyone. Fixing NKmode is only ever going to affect anyone who violates demecne limit. And, please don't preach about "muh merchant 10% limit", that is just your paranoia/envy/cycism talking.

Sorry, I guess you haven't read Groogy's description he wrote in his dev diary:

Small counts and dukes who go over their demense limit just a little bit will be a bit penalized but not to the same degree.

Are you telling me that you've NEVER gone over your demesne limit? Ever? Because in every game I've played I've gone over at some point. Going from a high stewardship married man to an unmarried infant is an almost immediate way for that to happen. And if you have ever gone over your limit, you'll be affected by the "fix".

But that's ok, just go back to the insults and childish name-calling, I'm sure that it makes you feel better...

 

[Kumicho]

Are you seriously going to split hairs and try to divide NK Mode into two exploits? NK Mode wouldn't be possible if you couldn't Imprison/banish barony level titles for money. Imprison/Banishing barony level titles for infinite money wouldn't be possible if you had free vassals who would get mad at your tyranny.

If I imprison / banish and create new vassals, I'm not playing "NKM". I also wouldn't be affected by the new patch, which supposedly "fixes" NKM. So yes, I'd say that imprisoning/banishment alone shouldn't be considered "NKM".

He and a few other people are trying to claim that a fix for an unintended exploit makes the game so much harder, it justifies boosting the levies vassals give a ruler.

No we're not. I thought you were trying to avoid hyperbole here? Because to me it looks like you're falling into the childish name-calling just like some other people on here...