RFC: Expiring Claims

[Duuk]

I know we had discussed this before, but I'm not sure if we ever reached a consensus as to "good" or "bad".

Should claims have an expiration? I think they should. Perhaps 20 years (through generations) or even Claims-Are-Not-Inherited.

This would give some impitus to using claims that you save up for and would also make for an excellent way to stop the massive-claims after 100 years of gameplay issue.

 

[Grosshaus]

Having claims expire would kill the enjoyment of playing the game as a count or a minor duke. At least if not done properly.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

It's generally better form to find the old thread and reanimate it instead of starting new thread.

 

[unmerged(6777)]

Not to mention that it requires coding time from Johan to have happen, so if it isn't already on the list then the odds are very slim indeed. As it happens, it is an item that I've asked him to have a look at, but I'm not making any promisees since it's a very heavy coding requirement and isn't exactly #1 priority.

 

[Duuk]

Having them NOT be inherited wouldn't require much coding time. Just remove the line of code that does it

And you can enjoy playing as a count. You just need to marry well or crusade! Or use the events (which you can manipulate with high intrigue) and build the prestige-gaining buildings when you need a claim for a war.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

And you can enjoy playing as a count. You just need to marry well or crusade! Or use the events (which you can manipulate with high intrigue) and build the prestige-gaining buildings when you need a claim for a war.

That really makes them unplayable for somplace like scottland except for marriage unlike dukes and kings though. The game should be just as playable on every level.

 

[caknuck]

Edit MrT: Marker for Johan

What about randomizing the chances that claims are passed down? Adding the random chance claims aren't passed down could simulate any number of historical possibilities: lost/stolen/destroyed documents, behind the scenes treaties, blackmail, intersibling rivalry, etc...

If claim inheritance could be scripted as an event that triggers on the death of a claimholder, this might work. Plus, this would make it easier to tweak variables.

Suggested factors:
1. Importance of Title: The more important the title should mean the more likely the claim is passed down. claimants would be more concerned about a claim to the throne of England as opposed to the county seat of Somerset.

This could be coded as a base value: King - 1.0, Duke 0.9, Count 0.8


2. Rank of Claimant: Logically, random untitled courtiers would cling to the hope that they would inherit the crown of some faraway land much more than a noble who already had his own titles and court. Plus, kings tend to accumulate the claims on so many lands that it becomes cumbersome reading through the messages by the end of the game.

A modifier based on the highest level of title held by the potential claimant could be: King - 0.8, Duke - 0.9, Count - 1.0, None (plain old courtier) - 1.1


3. Intrigue of Claimant: It isn't too much of a stretch to assume that characters with high Intrigue scores would be scheming as much as possible to ensure existing family claims are upheld.

This modifier could look like: Intrigue >15 - 1.5, Intrigue 12-14 - 1.3, Intrigue 10-11 - 1.2, Intrigue 9 - 1.1, Intrigue 8 - 1.0, Intrigue 7 - 0.95, Intrigue 6 - .9, Intrigue 5 - .8, Intrigue 3-4 - .7, Intrigue <3 - .5


4. Piety: As a claimant is held in higher regard by the church, the church should be more likely to recognize and validate his claims.

This could be expressed as: Piety >500 - 1.5, Piety 250 to 499 - 1.3, Piety 100 to 249 - 1.1, Piety 1 to 99 - 1.0, Piety -99 to 0 - .9, Piety <-99 - .75


5. Character Traits: Certain claimant traits lend themselves to this formula, such as: Selfish - 1.25, Modest .8, Energetic - 1.05, Wise - 1.05, Bastard - .5, Arbitrary - 1.1, Honest - .9, Generous - .9

--

Using this formula, a thickheaded king who has run afoul of the church would only have a 24% chance of inheriting any count-level claims from his father. Contrarily, the very clever and pious son of the deposed King of Spanish Galica (now residing as a courtier in the Duchy of Spanish Marche) would have a 247.5% chance of keeping the claim to his father's old throne alive.

It favors players (and the AI) playing counts to keep their claims, but prevents kings from stockpiling too many claims.

 

[Grosshaus]

If that can be done with events caknuck then I presume we have a winner idea.

*casts summon MrT*

 

[unmerged(21937)]

*spell failed, a minion appeared instead*

We still lack "remove_claim" event effect, so events like that are not possible to do atm. Even if we would have, we can't make events checked specifically on anybody's death, but if we would have, we could have random claim expiry events, which could use those as guidelines.

 

[caknuck]

*spell failed, a minion appeared instead*

We still lack "remove_claim" event effect, so events like that are not possible to do atm. Even if we would have, we can't make events checked specifically on anybody's death, but if we would have, we could have random claim expiry events, which could use those as guidelines.

Since we can't trigger an event, perhaps when Johan's working on 1.08 he can tweak the .exe to incorporate an idea similar to what I suggest.

As far as architecture goes, it would be more efficient to write a formula of this type into the .exe than to put time limits on claims. Savegames are already bloated as it is, and adding another 10-15 bytes per claim per character would only compound the problem (especially as the game progresses). As far as system resources, automatically triggering the claim inheritance formula upon a claim-holding character's death would eat up far fewer resources than an algorithm that has to check every character's claims for an expiry date on a daily or even a monthly basis.

 

[Gratianus]

If possible, it seems to be better that claims can be kept only through 3 generations

 

[lenny]

Why should claims expire? They are needed for inner-religious war, and they are terribly expensive in higher difficult levels. Playing on VH, I frequently make claims I do not intent to enforce with the current generation, if I can afford them. Also, even if you do not intend to ever enforce a claim, it might be a handy tool to DOW an opponent at will.

 

[Grosshaus]

Since we can't trigger an event, perhaps when Johan's working on 1.08 he can tweak the .exe to incorporate an idea similar to what I suggest.

As far as architecture goes, it would be more efficient to write a formula of this type into the .exe than to put time limits on claims. Savegames are already bloated as it is, and adding another 10-15 bytes per claim per character would only compound the problem (especially as the game progresses). As far as system resources, automatically triggering the claim inheritance formula upon a claim-holding character's death would eat up far fewer resources than an algorithm that has to check every character's claims for an expiry date on a daily or even a monthly basis.

I bet it´s easier for him to just make the event command, especially as that would mean that we could with events tweak ourselves how often and what kind of claims get removed.

Making it event-based would not bloat savegames at all. It can just be an event that has MTTHs based on things such as intrigue, diplomacy, prestige, piety, traits and perhaps the relative level of the claim (very unlikely to get a king title claim removed as a count, quite likely to get a count title removed as a king). Things such as the claim not being inside the same realm could have an effect as well.

 

[past caring]

The problem with this is, I think, that it is completely ahistorical to have claims simply expire.

We're talking about a period when the notion of "the divine right of kings" was very real - rulers or potential rulers didn't simply give up claims, because to do so was to betray the contract of stewardship placed upon a ruler by God. Whilst the game allows a player to give up a claim by way of peace settlement, in reality such claims were very often revived by later generations.

Playing as a minor count or duke can be difficult enough as it is - particularly at the start of the game. An example: my current game as Duchy of Gwynedd I started (in 1066) with an income of around 3 and prestige of 70. Unless helped by events (which I wasn't) it can take an age to build up the 150 prestige required to manufacture a claim on Deheubarth or Glamorgan. I can speed things up a bit by giving a province to my son - but only at the cost of income, which is piss-poor to begin with.....It took me close to 30 years game time to finally aquire both titles.

My view is that claims should only expire with the blood line.

What could work is to change the way that buying claims is handled. Rather than each title having a fixed cost to buy (and one that remains static throughout the game) the costs could be made variable relative to what titles (including personal desmene and vassals) the buyer has already got. In other words, the more titles you already possess, the more expensive it is to purchase claims.....

 

[caknuck]

I bet it´s easier for him to just make the event command, especially as that would mean that we could with events tweak ourselves how often and what kind of claims get removed.

Making it event-based would not bloat savegames at all. It can just be an event that has MTTHs based on things such as intrigue, diplomacy, prestige, piety, traits and perhaps the relative level of the claim (very unlikely to get a king title claim removed as a count, quite likely to get a count title removed as a king). Things such as the claim not being inside the same realm could have an effect as well.

I'm all for making it event-based!

I was just trying to say it'd be easier to have percentage chance of a claim being passed down as opposed to a time limit/generation limit. An "expiration date" on claims would case savegames to get even bigger.

 

[Gratianus]

Why should claims expire? They are needed for inner-religious war, and they are terribly expensive in higher difficult levels. Playing on VH, I frequently make claims I do not intent to enforce with the current generation, if I can afford them. Also, even if you do not intend to ever enforce a claim, it might be a handy tool to DOW an opponent at will.

I think with every alternation of generation, the foundation of claims become poorer. Even if between the same family, a forth cousin has not foundations enough to claim the head family's title.

 

[Grosshaus]

The problem with this is, I think, that it is completely ahistorical to have claims simply expire.

We're talking about a period when the notion of "the divine right of kings" was very real - rulers or potential rulers didn't simply give up claims, because to do so was to betray the contract of stewardship placed upon a ruler by God. Whilst the game allows a player to give up a claim by way of peace settlement, in reality such claims were very often revived by later generations.

Historicity my ***, "it´s a game, not a simulation"

Playing as a minor count or duke can be difficult enough as it is - particularly at the start of the game. An example: my current game as Duchy of Gwynedd I started (in 1066) with an income of around 3 and prestige of 70. Unless helped by events (which I wasn't) it can take an age to build up the 150 prestige required to manufacture a claim on Deheubarth or Glamorgan. I can speed things up a bit by giving a province to my son - but only at the cost of income, which is piss-poor to begin with.....It took me close to 30 years game time to finally aquire both titles.

True, which is why I proposed making these potential events to be less likely to trigger for counts. It could also be made impossible just as well.

What could work is to change the way that buying claims is handled. Rather than each title having a fixed cost to buy (and one that remains static throughout the game) the costs could be made variable relative to what titles (including personal desmene and vassals) the buyer has already got. In other words, the more titles you already possess, the more expensive it is to purchase claims.....

That is an awesome idea as well, perhaps techically a better one. But it would also require more time from Johan to implement and he would be needed to tweak the feature if it at first happens too often or not often enough. As things like that always do, you never get it rigth the first time.

Why should claims expire? They are needed for inner-religious war, and they are terribly expensive in higher difficult levels. Playing on VH, I frequently make claims I do not intent to enforce with the current generation, if I can afford them. Also, even if you do not intend to ever enforce a claim, it might be a handy tool to DOW an opponent at will.

Because if one has playd the game as a king for several generations you have so many claims that they don´t really fit the interface. Many of them are totally pointless anyway, like a claim you have gotten from a rebellous vassal who you have conquered and then have given the title to a new vassal. You remain to keep the claim. I know, it´s a bug in itself and things like that should not happen, it´s just potentially easier to fix it via events. We just have to push Johan to implement the event command.

*pushes Johan*

 

[unmerged(2456)]

An event command was what i thought would be best, but MrT didn't like that idea as he said it would add too much cpu load probably.

Still other than removing the line that hands claims down to the next generation that is imo likely what will happen as its the second easiest for Johan to impliment and would still do what we want without major game imbalances.

Of couse i could be wrong.

 

[lenny]

Because if one has playd the game as a king for several generations you have so many claims that they don´t really fit the interface. Many of them are totally pointless anyway, like a claim you have gotten from a rebellous vassal who you have conquered and then have given the title to a new vassal. You remain to keep the claim. I know, it´s a bug in itself and things like that should not happen, it´s just potentially easier to fix it via events. We just have to push Johan to implement the event command.

Well, then I definetly would like an option to not expire a claim, given that there will ever be the necessary event command.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Because if one has playd the game as a king for several generations you have so many claims that they don´t really fit the interface. Many of them are totally pointless anyway, like a claim you have gotten from a rebellous vassal who you have conquered and then have given the title to a new vassal. You remain to keep the claim. I know, it´s a bug in itself and things like that should not happen, it´s just potentially easier to fix it via events. We just have to push Johan to implement the event command.

Interface option to drop away claims you don't like would solve that one better, though it's prolly CK2 wishlist stuff too.