Treaty system, ck3
- Thread starter V1bezz
- 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.
Treaties as in expanded peace deals? Because paradox decided 3d models and same sex marriage was more important than devoting resources to expanded peace deals or tributaries
- 21
- 6
- 5
- 1
Like more advanced and expanded peace deals almost like hoi4 but more simple
- 9
Because even though EU4 nearly perfected important game mechanics like the peace treaty, directing allies and vassals, automated revolt suppression, naval warfare. The devs think flashy3D graphics are more important than fundamental grand strategy mechanics they themselves pioneered.
Whoever the hell at paradox keeps telling the team not to implement features in other paradox games again needs no to longer allowed to wear the platypus.
Whoever the hell at paradox keeps telling the team not to implement features in other paradox games again needs no to longer allowed to wear the platypus.
- 15
- 3
- 2
Well if you think this backwards..
What would be left if you remove the flashy 3d graphics and the meme/incest simulator and instead patch in deep war mechanics, naval battles, automatic revolt suppression..
You would basically play an (inferior) EUIV
- 11
- 3
You'd have CK2 with the much needed war mechanics it was slowly trickling in fro EU4.
I don't believe that sharing basic good mechanics makes one game into the other. CK still focuses on characters, it's still focused on the medieval age, it would just allow you to make real peace deals, fight basic naval combat (which did happen), make your allies actually useful, and suppress revolts.
I don't think borrowing the automated armies from Imperator would make the game Imperator rome. I don't think borrowing pops from vicky would make this vicky 3, I don't think adding in "national spirits" would make this HOI4, and I don't think adding in an option to generate a random world would make this Stellaris.
These are well done mechanics that can straight up be borrowed and molded to fit CK3.
- 7
- 4
- 2
Borrowing war mechanics from EU4 and such is straight up meh. Opposing that to the character focus is even worse. Do you honestly think it would cost a million manhours to have deathstacks killing each other on the seas?
- 5
- 2
The reason is that they deliberately (as a game design choice) decided to go with CBs dictating what can be taken. You have to have some sort of claim or CB, and then if you win that's what you get.
EU4 style peace deals are great, but much more so for huge expansions without the need for claims.
On the whole, I don't mind it - it's a good way of grounding that wars in this time period were more fought over small chunks of land, and in how important personal claims were for it. Rather than EU4 style taking of territory.
EU4 style peace deals are great, but much more so for huge expansions without the need for claims.
On the whole, I don't mind it - it's a good way of grounding that wars in this time period were more fought over small chunks of land, and in how important personal claims were for it. Rather than EU4 style taking of territory.
- 6
- 3
Or they could make the cb dictate what can be taken, like how cb in eu4 dictate what can be taken.
Coalition cb doesnt let you take land only return, only restoration of union/enforce Union lets you form a PU no other cb does
CBs in ck are extremely deterministic, you cant expand your conquer county to conquer duchy to conquer kingdom etc because oh no its what you selected when the war started, even if you've resolutely thrashed the enemy and seized his family and occupied his lands.
Struggle clash was a move in the right direction of being able to pick and choose, even if it ended up letting you conquer even faster than a holy war cb does and for cheaper, and was still pre war
If ck's system worked so well, they wouldn't need to make 1066 norman invasion use a special cb to seize land, rather than the generic claim on throne cb
- 6
- 2
You wouldn't be playing eu4, you'd be playing ck3 with various levels of levies rather than standing armies, no mana to discover boats or diplomats but learning and patronage, regional governors suddenly declaring independence and calling themselves king, a functioning family tree unlike eu4's magic bag, troops actually needing ships to move from one side of the med to another, trade being effected by absence or presence of a navy
- 2
- 1
- 1
CK3 could benefit from taking inspiration - not from EUIV but from Total War Three Kingdoms. The main difference is that EUIV does not allow both parties to raise demands simultaniously. It will always be one side that raises demands unless it is a white peace.
Total War Three Kingdoms differs in that it allows both sides to raise demands simultaneously:
A very crude image of it would be like this:
This would make CK3 a lot deeper on multiple fronts. Most importantly, though, it actually allows you to raise relevant demands.
For instance, I remember that my liege - a 1-county duke - attempted to revoke one of my counties. I refused, and won, which meant that he abdicated.. I didn't care about his abdication, and his heir promptly attempted the same thing.
With the system above I would've asked for his title, maybe even his lands. Or we could've worked out some other arrangement - maybe a better contract etc.
A system that would allow both parties to raise demands would play directly into CK3's dynastic struggles, marriages, roleplays and so on.
Alas, as other people commented, Paradox decided to aim at flashy 3D models and a court system that only really exposes the very limited 3D engine. Thus, instead of depth we've gained a pretty, but very shallow and largely empty game.
Total War Three Kingdoms differs in that it allows both sides to raise demands simultaneously:
A very crude image of it would be like this:
| Demand: | Give: |
| The county of Toulouse | 350 ducats |
| The county of Carcassonne | Marriage with Marianne (your daughter) |
| The Title: Duke of Toulouse | The county of Nevers |
| Establish Non-aggression pact | Establish Non-aggression pact |
This would make CK3 a lot deeper on multiple fronts. Most importantly, though, it actually allows you to raise relevant demands.
For instance, I remember that my liege - a 1-county duke - attempted to revoke one of my counties. I refused, and won, which meant that he abdicated.. I didn't care about his abdication, and his heir promptly attempted the same thing.
With the system above I would've asked for his title, maybe even his lands. Or we could've worked out some other arrangement - maybe a better contract etc.
A system that would allow both parties to raise demands would play directly into CK3's dynastic struggles, marriages, roleplays and so on.
Alas, as other people commented, Paradox decided to aim at flashy 3D models and a court system that only really exposes the very limited 3D engine. Thus, instead of depth we've gained a pretty, but very shallow and largely empty game.
- 6
- 6
- 3
You know what really grinds my gears the most about this? QoL features abandoned in old games. Remember attaching armies in CK2? Ever choose where an ally should siege in EU4? Ever use the diplo macro?
Pure gold! Never to be seen again!
Pure gold! Never to be seen again!
- 6
- 1
Choosing defensive war goals feels clunky to me.
I'd prefer to see something themed more like the struggle system. With events, plots, wars, and other game mechanics driving to eventual resolution. Likely built for different scales of conflicts, ranging from the small scale example you have given, to the fall of the ERE, which more of less takes the entire game timeline.
The developers have been asked about this, many times, and their answer has always been consistent.
The AI cannot do planning for long-term consequences. In all of PDS' game that have these treaty systems, the result of every player treaty is exactly the same. The AI gets eaten alive. Player carves out the most strategically beneficial terms for themselves, the AI gets permanently weakened, and it is impossible to balance. There's no going back on series' that have already victim to this but there's surely no reason to start introducing it to other games.
And before any of you deny it, no, the AI not understanding why it shouldn't give away Panama for 10% war score, is not a model that should be exported to CK3. All this would result in is even faster world conquests. That and literally nothing else, ever.
The AI cannot do planning for long-term consequences. In all of PDS' game that have these treaty systems, the result of every player treaty is exactly the same. The AI gets eaten alive. Player carves out the most strategically beneficial terms for themselves, the AI gets permanently weakened, and it is impossible to balance. There's no going back on series' that have already victim to this but there's surely no reason to start introducing it to other games.
And before any of you deny it, no, the AI not understanding why it shouldn't give away Panama for 10% war score, is not a model that should be exported to CK3. All this would result in is even faster world conquests. That and literally nothing else, ever.
- 4
- 1
The CB system in CK3 is what limits blobbing, since it does not have an infamy/aggressive-expansion mechanic. Likewise, if the player is cares about his own dynasty, he is forced to expand slower by using different CB's, such as county-level claims. In theory, the CB's are supposed to make wars over small CB's quicker, like a border conflict. However, I would question how well that works in practice.
In EUIV, the duration of wars is largely determined by the "length of war" enthusiasm. That means most wars last around 5 or so, unless one side can get close to 99% warscore sooner. This could be annoying for vassal play, as your liege's wars linger on. Having a treaty system would allow for some exploits, such as making only one claim but taking multiple counties, or conversely, using a high level CB but peacing out quickly at low war score.
I could some sort Vic2 system, in which each side, including allies, can add wargoals. Obviously, there would need to be a warscore cap. The most fair (and chivalric) way would be to allow each ally a chance to add a war goal before the main belligerent can add another one. This would disincentivize calling all your allies to war just because. Also, the "all or nothing" war resolution would prevent the player or the AI from screwing over an ally. (That would still raise the issue of an ally not having a CB, but that could be countered by increasing the prestige cost if the ally can't take anything and reducing if it can.)
In EUIV, the duration of wars is largely determined by the "length of war" enthusiasm. That means most wars last around 5 or so, unless one side can get close to 99% warscore sooner. This could be annoying for vassal play, as your liege's wars linger on. Having a treaty system would allow for some exploits, such as making only one claim but taking multiple counties, or conversely, using a high level CB but peacing out quickly at low war score.
I could some sort Vic2 system, in which each side, including allies, can add wargoals. Obviously, there would need to be a warscore cap. The most fair (and chivalric) way would be to allow each ally a chance to add a war goal before the main belligerent can add another one. This would disincentivize calling all your allies to war just because. Also, the "all or nothing" war resolution would prevent the player or the AI from screwing over an ally. (That would still raise the issue of an ally not having a CB, but that could be countered by increasing the prestige cost if the ally can't take anything and reducing if it can.)
- 2
Imagine how unplayable vassals would be with an EU4 styled treaty system. In current CK3, when your liege is at war, you know exactly what is on the line and if your sub-realm is at risk. With dynamic treaties, your liege could just randomly give away your provinces at the end of the war. You'll have no idea that it is coming and no chance of intervening to prevent it outside of literally joining every single liege war as a defender, just in case.
Last edited:
- 4
- 2
- 2
Getting ai to join wars when their titles are at risk would be a good idea, especially vassals whos land is in two kingdoms and so will all be seized if one kingdom is stolen
- 4
- 2
And how do you know which vassals are at risk in a war where anything can change hands and there's no sign of what will change hands until literally the very end when the treaty is being drawn up? lol
- 3
- 1
In theory yes, but that would mean the defenders would normally have a manpower advantage in wars, which would mean ossified borders.