Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Suggestion: prevent scheme targets from wandering to a new court

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Crusader Kings III 17930 Console 208 Suggestions 5235 Bug Report 2441 Tech Support 1987 User Mods 1725 Multiplayer 148 AARs (After Action Reports) MP Open Beta Feedback 27
X

x4077

General
Sep 16, 2020
2.242
5.707
Right now if you start a scheme against someone they can wander to a new court while the scheme is in progress and the scheme will continue, but they might no longer be in diplomatic range. This makes many of the schemes somewhat useless, as you are unable to interact with the character after the scheme has completed due to being too far away.
 
Upvote 0
I'd rather it work like in CK2 where it will just say that you can't progress on the scheme right now, giving you the option to continue trying (usually pointless) or to give up. I don't think you should prevent someone from wandering just because you have a scheme on them because then it makes for a way to force someone to stay at your court.
 
Scheme slots are pretty valuable to be used solely to lock someone into your court, not to mention the side effects of the scheme itself.

That being said, something should be done one way or the other, as the current situation is pretty unsatisfactory. Maybe a modifier in place on the character expiring a month after the scheme is completed that allows you to ignore diplomatic range for actions regarding this character?
 
For what purpose? Is there a particular situation you're thinking of? If your scheme is to murder someone, should you be allowed to prevent them from leaving so you have more chance to do so? Or if they are allowed to leave, should you continue to be able to murder them no matter how far away (that may be the current situation; I haven't had issues with plots of people moving away, so not sure). If it's a plot to seduce someone, if they move away, would you suggest that they now return because it was successful? It seems that if someone is out of diplomatic range, then they should be "out of diplomatic range." There shouldn't be an "except if you've had a scheme against them" option. I do think schemes should immediately stop when they are out of range (or like in CK2, allow you the option to keep trying or to quit in case it might be temporarily out of range).

I could potentially see a special option for certain circumstances where you might ignore diplomatic range, such as if someone were to murder your heir and then flee across the map, you might chase after them for revenge no matter where they go. But for most situations, if someone's too far away, then there really shouldn't be any further contact unless you or they get close enough again.
 
The specific purpose in my case is that I am befriending a person to invite them to my court, either to be a councilor or high stat knight. The same principle would apply for seduction or romance schemes, where you would likely either invite them if they are unmarried or might follow up with an elope scheme.

I agree with you that logically if the person moved on during the scheme to a spot out of diplomatic range that the scheme should not be allowed to continue, and should this happen the scheme should be terminated and the player notified. This is definitely not happening ATM.

I can see however where certain schemes would be reason enough for the target of the scheme not to move while the scheme is in progress, specifically befriend, romance, and seduce. If the progress of those types of schemes are going well then the target has some sort of connection with the schemer, and might not want to move themselves to a location where that connection could not be maintained.

Full Disclosure: I dislike the wanderer system in its current state, as I feel the conditions for someone being put into the wandering pool are too lax, and that there are far too few jobs available to a ruler to keep people for specific purposes in their court.
 
I agree with you to a point. Certainly, the wanderer system needs work and how people are added to it isn't working well. The changes suggested would need to be standard for every character in the game and I'm not sure that can be done. For example, if a wanderer is at your extreme diplomatic range and marries someone a little further away while you're scheming to befriend them (or any other scheme), I'm sure you wouldn't suggest they couldn't move to the court of their new spouse just because you're scheming against them. But if they just wanted to go somewhere they thought would let them get their claim pressed, then you'd suggest holding them in place. I don't think it's good to have two different rules in place. If someone is already your friend, then I could see them sticking around longer depending on your scheme, but if not, then what reason should they if they think they found a better place to be?

Even with romancing someone, depending on what they are hoping to gain by moving somewhere, that might not be enough to hold them. After all, you haven't yet succeeded in romancing them and may not. For example, if someone had the chance to be romanced by you or to have their claim pressed and gain a title, which do you think is more likely to interest them? On the other hand, if they don't have any claims and are just looking to become a knight, then romancing might be of more interest to them. A dynamic system that makes sense based on a combination of factors - why they are moving, what the scheme is, what their opinion of you is, etc. - would be a great improvement, but I just don't think forcing someone to stick around just so you can complete a scheme against them (if you aren't successful, you could conceivably continue scheming against them for years) is a better option than what we already have. If nothing else, the schemes should definitely stop if they leave diplomatic range as we both see to agree on. But I also agree that improvements need made. I would just like improvements that are believable instead of just a flat lock on movement.
 
I agree with the majority of your points, especially that the existing system needs improvement in many areas.

Part of the reasoning behind suggesting the lock is because it should be easy to achieve in the existing code base. Another part is that I am constantly seeing the scripted modifier 'Sees this as an opportunity' on the scheme success display, thus indicating that the character in question feels that my friendship/seduction/wooing is welcome and better than the situation they are already in.

We'll see where PDX goes with this, plus I'm willing to bet they are getting tired of seeing my username on so many suggestions anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back