It literally just poofed out of existence for me, and I was scrambling trying to figure out what mapmode I had switched to by mistake. Nope, no mistake. No more Umayyads!
- 10
- 3
- 1
The Umayyads are dissolving every game
- Thread starter Tercio Soldier
- Start date
-
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.
I for one appreciated that the umayyads will no longer conquer all of France and Islamise the majority of europe.
- 10
- 2
- 2
I ran several observer games, and can confirm that the Umayyads face a dissolution revolt as soon as the 5-year faction grace period ends in nearly every run. They lose a significant portion of them, but do sometimes win by capturing the opposing war leader. To make matters worse, the dissolution often doesn't really even work (a faction resolution that doesn't work? Unheard of!). See for example this outcome:
Here the Umayyad ruler has created a second kingdom (Xenxir), the only vassals that become independent are the ones who were actually part of the revolt. Everyone else, including vassals outside of de jure Xenxir, and even those in de jure Andalusia, remain vassals. Sure, the Andalusia title is destroyed, but who cares?
What's the point of a new dissolution faction if the result is going to be exactly the same as the existing independence faction? As a vassal, what's the point of fighting for dissolution if the kingdom is going to remain largely intact?
Really, the frequent pseudo-collapse of the Andalusians is not fundamentally a problem with the new faction type (although the above failure to actually dissolve is). It's a product of a few other failures in the game. First, factions continue to be poorly tuned, and this patch has done little to fix that. Without fixing this, it doesn't matter how you design factions, or even whether you bother making them resolve correctly - things will be a mess. It's also a product of the clan government relying on marriages for making vassals happy, but the history files containing only sons for most Muslim rulers. Even if the AI were capable of reasoning about the impending faction threat, what is it supposed to do? Everyone demands a marriage, and he has no daughters (he actually has one 11-year-old daughter, but that hardly helps).
The fact that we still have an arbitrary grace period on faction formation shows that Paradox knows faction dynamics are completely borked. Sadly, I get the sense that this bandaid will just remain in place for the foreseeable future. I don't think we've seen any progress towards removing the need for it.
Here the Umayyad ruler has created a second kingdom (Xenxir), the only vassals that become independent are the ones who were actually part of the revolt. Everyone else, including vassals outside of de jure Xenxir, and even those in de jure Andalusia, remain vassals. Sure, the Andalusia title is destroyed, but who cares?
What's the point of a new dissolution faction if the result is going to be exactly the same as the existing independence faction? As a vassal, what's the point of fighting for dissolution if the kingdom is going to remain largely intact?
Really, the frequent pseudo-collapse of the Andalusians is not fundamentally a problem with the new faction type (although the above failure to actually dissolve is). It's a product of a few other failures in the game. First, factions continue to be poorly tuned, and this patch has done little to fix that. Without fixing this, it doesn't matter how you design factions, or even whether you bother making them resolve correctly - things will be a mess. It's also a product of the clan government relying on marriages for making vassals happy, but the history files containing only sons for most Muslim rulers. Even if the AI were capable of reasoning about the impending faction threat, what is it supposed to do? Everyone demands a marriage, and he has no daughters (he actually has one 11-year-old daughter, but that hardly helps).
The fact that we still have an arbitrary grace period on faction formation shows that Paradox knows faction dynamics are completely borked. Sadly, I get the sense that this bandaid will just remain in place for the foreseeable future. I don't think we've seen any progress towards removing the need for it.
- 34
- 2
- 1
- 1
The thing that bothers me about this is that this isn't something they could have just missed. This is an extremely obvious problem that would be impossible to miss if you did even the most basic of playtesting. And if this actually is WAD then.... why? the game is already incredibly easy, why make it even easier, for what benefit?
I legitimately don't understand the design process of this game, I am 95% sure there is no development plan for the game and that it's completely directionless.
- 19
- 3
- 1
- 1
Playing Fate of Iberia for the first time....
yep, the Umayyads are dissolving in the first battle, first 5 minutes....
yep, the Umayyads are dissolving in the first battle, first 5 minutes....
- 8
- 2
- 1
And this decides on whether I am jumping back in to CK3 or not.
Guess I'll wait for a patch...
Guess I'll wait for a patch...
- 10
- 1
- 1
It looks like there is code in the dissolution war code to try to destroy all top-tier titles:
Doesn't seem to work though.
Code:
scope:defender = {
every_held_title = {
limit = {
NOT = { this = prev.primary_title }
tier = prev.primary_title.tier
}
prev = { destroy_title = this }
}
destroy_title = primary_title
}Doesn't seem to work though.
- 12
- 5
- 2
- 1
This game, man. Every time I'm tempted to come and play it, Tiax is here with the antidote.
- 12
- 6
- 5
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
It would be more logical to start the dissolution mechanism on certain historical dates (script). But whether the disintegration of the kingdom will happen or not is already a matter of chance. Otherwise, there will be no strong competitors for the player on the map.
- 8
I think the idea of a dissolution is OK, but the threshold for AI to start and to want to join it should be very high. It should only happen after prolonged time of mismanagement of the ruler and with very low opinion (for a long time) and maybe after an attempted deposition of the ruler.
Imho it makes no sense that without severe/prolonged frustration with the management of a kingdom/country you would want to just 'disolve' the entire thing, that is/should really be like a 'last resort' kind of measure.
Imho it makes no sense that without severe/prolonged frustration with the management of a kingdom/country you would want to just 'disolve' the entire thing, that is/should really be like a 'last resort' kind of measure.
- 38
.png){kind=avatar}
Hey everyone,
Please keep the thread civil & constructive, there is not need for all the fuss made here.
We have escalated this matter for investigation, thanks for your understanding.
Cheers,
Please keep the thread civil & constructive, there is not need for all the fuss made here.
We have escalated this matter for investigation, thanks for your understanding.
Cheers,
- 13
- 8
- 6
- 2
- 2
While I too believe the Umayyads should stay longer, I think we should also focus on the positive sides of the DLC. I have started and lost 2 games now in Iberia and the struggle mechanic was really good.
- 7
- 1
- 1
Kinda amusing, people feared exactly that. You can read dev answers in dev diary 98 where forum members voiced their worries multiple times, specifically about dissolution factions destroying realms too often etc. (Mostly about Byza). Players know their paradox well haha.
Although devs immediately said they will balance it more after release, probably knew it was off somewhat.
Although devs immediately said they will balance it more after release, probably knew it was off somewhat.
Last edited:
- 20
- 2
- 1
Its them being tribal that makes them op, nothing else
- 2
- 1
Odd. I've played a couple of games (for a few decades whilst I look at the mechanics), and not seen this dissolution faction fire in Iberia (867 start). It may have fired elsewhere, but I wasn't looking at those areas.
It's possible that something I was doing affected the balance of course, but I was relatively minor characters. It's also possible that the willingness to join a dissolution faction is set too high, and that something is persuading vassals to join when it's not in their best interests - perhaps the Ummayad ruler being wrong culture and wrong faith?
It's possible that something I was doing affected the balance of course, but I was relatively minor characters. It's also possible that the willingness to join a dissolution faction is set too high, and that something is persuading vassals to join when it's not in their best interests - perhaps the Ummayad ruler being wrong culture and wrong faith?
- 3
Maybe what CK3 needs is for realms to have some type of "Stability" rating that goes up or down from various factors. High stewardship can cause it to tick up overtime, as well as promote more positive-stability events from spawning. Stability can get chunked down by anything that upsets the status quo, and having too many things lower it in too little time can make things hard to recover from. Large border changes, corruption, major vassal rearrangements, war devastation. The stability rating can be used as an independent factor that can be used for vassals making decisions to join more extreme factions beyond just not liking that the ruler because he an ugly mole on his face.
- 13
- 5
- 2
- 1
