- 15
- 6
-
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.
You mean that hideously costly and difficult war that took years and years to complete, saw the Romans defeated on multiple occasions, devastated Italy and was a massive burden to the Empire?
- 15
- 2
Just imagine crying when developers will add fall of empires mechanics.
- 4
Actually Norse pagans definitely know that Miklagard exists, because they're sending their kids there to serve in the Varangian Guard (which historically formed in the 9th century, but in game depends on what the Emperor is doing...)
... except there is a way to lower it. You can just 'not be at war for a little while' (you can knock a lot of threat off by granting independence to part of your realm, but you probably don't want to do that, given that you're expanding).
You're describing 'being at total war since the beginning of the game'. So obviously your threat is only going to build - as far as the other nations are concerned, the Roman Empire is resurgent, it's on its way to reclaiming all of its old borders (otherwise known as 'almost all of Europe and North Africa') and it could easily be coming for them next.
And - by the look of that map - the Emperor isn't interested in peace, he's not making non-aggression pacts or alliances with anyone. He's just picking a target and crushing it, then picking his next target and crushing that, and so on.
It would be absurd for nations & rulers not to be frightened of that, and try to do something about it.
If you saw an AI behaving like that, you would start preparing yourself.
- 15
- 3
Or you could simply go to war without the need of artificial and ahistorical restraint, conquer as much land as you're capable of, only to realize your empire has grown in size and has become military and financially ineffective- full of disloyal, opportunist and unhappy vassals. Then their liege, which is you, would see himself forced to be granting independence to part of his realm or face the consequences.
Now, wouldn't that be less tedious, more organic and realistic?
- 16
- 1
More internal instability sounds like a good thing as well.
But the idea that smaller powers would band together defensively in fear of a larger, aggressive, one doesn't feel particularly 'unrealistic' or 'inorganic'.
But the idea that smaller powers would band together defensively in fear of a larger, aggressive, one doesn't feel particularly 'unrealistic' or 'inorganic'.
- 7
- 3
Personally I actually have nothing against that system. But as I said on first page, the amount of threat gained makes no sense. If you ask me, Counts shouldn't generate it at all, Dukes should generate it only in their closest proximity, Kings should generate it in a slightly bigger area than Dukes and Emperors should generate a lot. Because honestly, how threatful is a County compared to an Empire?
- 7
- 1
True, but seeing Napoleonic era grand coalitions in the 1100s does feel rather unrealistic. Especially when they are triggered by stuff like a king peacefully vassalzing de jure counties (if anything this should reduce Threat) or by coreligionists getting pissed because a guy two kingdoms away won a few holy wars. Or nomadic khans, Hindu Rajas, African Emirs and Eastern Europeans who all have difficulties contacting each other (at least) forming a coherent alliance against anything no matter how big it is.
- 15
I wasn't aware that war galvanized everyone from Scandinavia, to the Slavic steppes, and India to rally in defense of the Iberian Muslims.
What you are talking about is war exhaustion or internal instability, both of which are not at all the same as these coalitions.
- 12
I agree that pagans should be differentiated...
With the other stuff... I think they patched it well
With the other stuff... I think they patched it well
It does when you study History and realize that it didn't happen on such a scale in the middle-age. Just look at any country that expanded quickly, like the Mongols, Seljuq, Franks, Samanid, Fatimid, Rus, Almoravid, Khwarezm, Mamluks, Lituania, Ottomans... None of them ever got the major coalitions that we see now. Just think about it: this threat mechanism is so unrealistic, that they had to resort to make it so that Charlemagnes' events give him no threat, just to get a result that is similar to History. This alone should tell you that the game right now is completely unrealistic and inorganic.
- 20
- 2
Is this some kind of joke or what? Are you claiming that Justinian could muster the same amount of levies and taxes from these conquered territories in Italy as in Thrace or in Morea? This expansion weakened and effectively runied the empire, in-game you would only get double as strong in money and troops. Come on..
- 2
- 1
Way I look at it, if you're going to go complain about infamy and coalitions, play the beta patch first where it was all scaled back. If you still don't like the idea you need to wait a year or two between wars then either roll back to 2.4.5 or use a mod. And at least in my opinion, the devs only sought to keep players and the AI from spamming holy wars / conquests / invasions in order to slow down your eventual world conquest a little. If anything, it's a similar idea to trait-locking or putting a cooldown on your CBs in popular mods. As others have mentioned also, even if there are a few nations opposing you in a pact and you really need to declare war nothing is keeping you from doing that (and still coming out on top).
Last edited:
- 10
- 1
Except it doesn't actually prevent empires or cause them to dissolve. An empire with high threat levels has two options:
1. fight a very difficult, possibly unwinnable war
2. Wait for the level to drop
The second option is the sensible one, but it's soooooooo boring. There's already a 10 year cool-downs on wars, now there's another do-nothing mechanic. At the moment I'm playing a merchant principality and my threat drops at 0.21% a month, so at 50% it would take 238 months to go away completely. 20 years of inaction isn't my idea of fun...
- 10
- 2
This is the current situation of the defensive pact, a bit hilarious. Everything you see colored is part of the defensive pact which means that with the exception of France and England every declaration of war is a first world war of the ancient world.
Boo hoo, woe is me ! I have conquered Rome, retaken the Holy Land, gutted Egypt and have pushed forward on nearly every border and now the bad men want to stop me. Why won't they just leave Byzantium alone ?
If anyone deserved a pan-Mediterranean defensive alliance then you just showed it.
- 11
- 6
you could always see those coalitions as a mechanic where all your neighbours want a piece of you, because you're so big and yummy to cut down. 
that said, I'd rather have them go to war (conquest cb with triple occupation ticking times) against me, and not to defend some lousy county on the other end of the world (hey, this Saxon Kingdom is defending that county in Mongolia, how do they even know I am attacking them in the first place?! damn medieval sattelites!)
that said, I'd rather have them go to war (conquest cb with triple occupation ticking times) against me, and not to defend some lousy county on the other end of the world (hey, this Saxon Kingdom is defending that county in Mongolia, how do they even know I am attacking them in the first place?! damn medieval sattelites!)
- 3
I understand the complaints, but I'm just tired of seeing a thread on this everyday.
- 5
- 1