Reply to Status report #8 by Duuk

[Erufailon]

Since MrT stated that he doesn't want to see conversation about certain topics in that thread i chose to reply here.

I think claims should die with the claim holder. Prestige is fairly easy to come by, so being able to "reclaim" the claim later is fairly easy.

I think this would be a very bad idea. Many seem to see the game from a King's perspective who usualy have lots of claims. But to me one of the most important part of the game was that you didn't have to be a King, you could play as a Duke or a Count as well. (In EU I loved that I could be a peacefull country and just try to keep it together for my people). And while it's easy for Kings to get claims, for counts it rarely happens, and it is a joyfull day when it does, so doing this would make it even harder for counts to do anything, and it is hard enough right now. Besides afaik many families held claims they thought they posessed.

 

[unmerged(18148)]

Well, what other uses has Prestige apart from claiming titles?

 

[fraese]

prestige affects vassal loyalty somewhat, no? Also, prestige is an end in itself - along with piety it's what you need to win

 

[unmerged(18148)]

Also, prestige is an end in itself - along with piety it's what you need to win

Not until we get a score table that records totals

 

[unmerged(2456)]

prestige also effects what kind of events will fire.

 

[Erufailon]

And counts don't have that much prestige, so it doesn't matter anyway. As a small count it takes many many long years to get a claim with prestige and you won't be able to get the province in a characters lifetime so if you lose it when he dies all that waiting goes to waste.

 

[ulmont]

I think [dropping claims at death] would be a very bad idea. Many seem to see the game from a King's perspective who usualy have lots of claims.

I'm seeing the game from a performance perspective - the fact that each generation the number of claims only goes up keeps making the whole game run slower and slower.

There is no reason that the number of courtiers and claims should only go up - after all, there are the same number of provinces in 1453 as in 1066.

-Richard Campbell.

 

[Erufailon]

yes, I agree with that, and some dead characters could be eliminated as well for this reason, but this solution is not right for counts (and maybe dukes), it would only make the game worse. And as said before it would be ahistorical as well. So in general I agree that something should be done about the problem, but not in a way that makes the game even less playable for those of us who don't always want to play kings, and not in an ahistorical way.
I have to admit at this time I don't have a better idea, but in my point of view the present state is better than to lose claims at the death of the ruler in case the county/duchy/kingdom stays on the same families hand.

 

[ulmont]

yes, I agree with that, and some dead characters could be eliminated as well for this reason, but this solution is not right for counts (and maybe dukes), it would only make the game worse. And as said before it would be ahistorical as well.

Could use some mix of the following strategies:
1) Only X claims (X most prestigious titles) can be inherited.
2) The player can pass on as many claims as they want; AI-claims die with the owner.
3) Claims die with the 2nd inheritor (claim owner, son, grandson, claim dies).

-Richard Campbell.

 

[Duuk]

I've also posted before that I thought claims should have a time limit. This could be based on prestige necessary to claim the title.

My main reason for wanting claims to die with the holder is that you wind up 200 years into the game with 30-40 claims.

So, if a claim can be flagged as "inherited X times" or "created in X year" that would be fine. If Johan wants to save some time, make claims die with the holder.

Play as a count in Ireland and you deserve to
* get prestige by building schools/etc
* get prestige via event
* get claims via event

or.. last but not least...

* Not get claims at all.

 

[Erufailon]

I'm sorry, but in my opinion if there is a game in which you could play as kings, dukes or counts, all 3 should be playable and fun. A count simulator doesn't have to be boring, and it could be made into a fun game even just by following history. What you are saying is like if a certain strategy game in which you could be humans, orks and undead was fun with humans, but boring with orks and undead and you would say that everyone deserves to die of boredom if they decide to play orks or undead.
Besides it's not historical.
What if claims would die after 2 inheritances for kings, and 3 inheritances for dukes, but not die for counts as they don't hold many anyway, or die for them as well after 3 inheritances if they have more than a certain number?
I don't know how the game is designed programing-wise, but I wouldn't think that this would be all that hard to implement.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Exactly RotTK 7 and 8 did great jobs at all levels of play. Being a count shouldn't be just a stripped down less-playable version of a duke and king.

 

[unmerged(6777)]

I don't know how the game is designed programing-wise, but I wouldn't think that this would be all that hard to implement.

Extremely.

Claims are tags attached to characters and then transfered to the character's heir upon death. There is no built-in tag associated with a claim to either add a date when the claim originated, or to count how many generations had held it.

I'm not say that it couldn't be done, but it would be a very time-consuming coding effort to integrate it in the various places that it would need to be integrated (would require revising initialization of claim, passing of claim upon death, save subroutines, load subroutines, etc.). I'm going to guess (but I'll ask Johan) that implementing something like that would take about between half a day and a day of his time.

Conversely, having claims expire upon the claim-holder's death would be extremely easy (maybe 5 minutes) since all that needs to be done is to rem out a small block of code.

Given the very tight time budget and limited allotment Johan can give it, is it worth gobbling up a large chunk of it creating the generation-based system? Or would the 5 minute fix (or no fix) be better, allowing a larger volume of other work to be accomplished?

Note that I'm not shooting down the idea, nor am I certain of my estimate of the time required to implement it...I'm just illustrating the sorts of decisions we'll have to make when we prepare our recommendations.

 

[Erufailon]

MrT,

I understand, but then I would have to vote on no change, because I'm playing as a count right now, and I've danced a little happy-dance both times I got a claim through an event. I'm sure if those were gone with the character I just simply wouldn't play a count anymore, ever, as there would be no possibility in my experience to do anything at all besides trying to get married into a king's family and hoping to inherit his title. And if counts are eliminated, that's basicly 1/3 of the game the way I see it. Tho I also understand that I might be in the minority in that I like to play small countries and counts.

 

[ulmont]

Conversely, having claims expire upon the claim-holder's death would be extremely easy (maybe 5 minutes) since all that needs to be done is to rem out a small block of code.

Can we take 10 minutes and have the player's claims only not expire?

Or possibly have claim-expire-on-death be a setting?

-Richard Campbell.

 

[unmerged(5822)]

I'd prefer to have claims drop at death.

Alternatively, it could be a feature saved for the 2 highest difficulty levels (or perhaps even just the very hardest one).

 

[unmerged(21937)]

I would prefer to have claims not drop. For one, claims are quite hard to come by as count or less powerful duke and losing them at death would make it even difficult, if not outright unplayable. For another, let's presume that there is a war between two christians and the attacking lord happens to die in battle. Suddenly we have a war without a cause.

Also in the exploitation department, oh you are at war with this powerful king who has claims on all your important titles and you are losing bad. No problem, call the Royal Assassins and *poof*, you just got your butt saved.

EDIT: I only would see it reasonable if claims would drop after sufficient time has passed from their coming into existance (something like a century), but as I presume the benefit of that kind of fix is hardly worth the coding needed, I would say that it should stay as it is.

 

[Third Angel]

Would it be so hard to have relinquishing claims as an option, to have "grab a claim/drop a claim" (just like "excommuniate/desexcommuniate a character") ?

 

[Duuk]

Would it be so hard to have relinquishing claims as an option, to have "grab a claim/drop a claim" (just like "excommuniate/desexcommuniate a character") ?

The AI would never do it, resulting in the same "King of Germany has claims on all of Europe after 50 years of gameplay" that we see now.

Make 5 new "random claim" events, drop claim-on-heir, and voila, perfection.

 

[unmerged(28966)]

I like picking up claims. I like it as part of the game & think it would be a shame to lose. I also like to start as a count and build form there. I admit I use war from claims less frequently than marrying into a dead-end dynasty, except when I'm a lot bigger.

Really, I would not want to see claims disappear.

If you're looking for some kind of compromise, maybe claims can be lost by events "the legitimacy of your claim to xxx title has been successfully challenged" or something. Could be on death ... who knows.

BTW, there is an assumption that build up of claims is slowing the game... is this true? I can see it would make the save file bigger.

On the whole though I'd have thought there are much more pressing improvements we could be asking for ...