The part you quoted wasn't about William and the Saxons, but, as stated in the very same quote, about the AI that refuses peace talks at 75% warscore. And I picked 75% because that's the cap for battle war score.
- 2
Why does CKII need to be more like EU?
- Thread starter Sabotage13
- 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.
The part you quoted wasn't about William and the Saxons, but, as stated in the very same quote, about the AI that refuses peace talks at 75% warscore. And I picked 75% because that's the cap for battle war score.
Well, coalitions AREN'T absolute alliance!
And set timer is good. Just because that said coalitions ARE fortnight. This guy threaten us JUST NOW. We are scared, so we just will not kill each other today, we have common enemy.
Well. Some years spent, warmonger didn't attack anyone. Hey, people said, ok, that was false threat. By the way, you, left from my border, I want your land!
So why we're taking Hastings as a max war score? Not all saxon army was defeated, even by norman sources (that gives Saxons half a million troops). Wilhelm haven't enough power to take London, after all.
- 12
Half a million troops? Did you smoke something bad? Englands overall population back then was about 1.5 million. This was a simple overestimation to make their own accomplishments seem even more relevant.
- 14
- 1
I agree with what you were saying about trying to encourage more internal instability, and I think that is a goal Pdx are striving gor but haven't yet reached, even with the recent update.
I think one difficulty is that the game is quite open ended with lots of different play styles. The risk of setting the ai up to play more like a min/Max human player is that it means that this becomes the only possible way to play and survive.
I actually like the idea of coalitions, I just think that the implementation at present is so simplistic that it is very difficult for people to see the potential for the concept
I didn't. Tell it Normans.
Yes, I know it's overestimation. So overestimation is "we killed every last saxon". Numbers by current historicans are "something around 10K, possible to raise more (not done because Harold was in hurry), casualities about 4K". Great hit and definitly Normans had a first hand, but not instant lose for me.
- 3
- 1
But they aren't necessarily short, you can get years of it! And it should not be that way. Large alliances should loose and gain members irregularly over time (because, hey, I don't like that guy, if he stays, I'm out!). Even alliances that are not actual alliances (me? He don't scare me no more, I'm out!).
Now you might argue that it's an abstraction for game's sake, but this game has all the tools to track this down. I have argued this elsewhere, but if you really want to keep infamy, it would be better if it influenced the current implementation to alliances: give your neighbors a bonus in their relationships (they're all scared of you, and the enemy of my enemy...), give them a malus in their relationship with you, and prioritize the ai so it makes alliances among them and with other powerful neighbors to defend themselves.
You'd get more or less the same result, but it would be organic and use existing mechanics: allies could leave when they fall out with each other while new ones could appear, you could undermine the alliances with all the tools at your disposal (takes work, but a lot more interesting then waiting for a ticker to go down, even if you have other inks to tend in your realm), it would seldom cross religious or culural divides but could still happen, and when infamy gets to 0, the alliances would not just break off but the bonuses and maluses in the relationships would.
I think that would be a lot less gamey than the current oversimplified representation for a reasonable cost in terms of complexity. And would be a lot more immersive.
- 2
Coalitions severely reduces the roleplaying aspect of the game. I'm not completely absorbed in the personality of my characters, but I tend to act according to their traits to some extent. While I could wage wars with high frequency with an ambitious brilliant strategist, the succeding diplomatic character might not engage in war at all throughout his reign. I could focus on strengthening relations with my vassals, constructing buildings, setting up strategic marriages, and otherwise remain peaceful.
With the infamy mechanic, this is no longer a rewarding approach. I will have to deliberate each war carefully, and frequently. If I hit 0 infamy, I will be compelled to engage in a war, lest the infamy burn will be ineffective. That means my benevolent diplomat will now have to be just as warmongering as the ambitious strategist, because peaceful reign is no longer rewarding. Conversely, if I exceed the infamy limit, the ambitious strategist will have to remain idle unless I want to fend off half of Europe for pressing a county claim.
Coalitions defeat the purpose of the character driven system of CK2, and every ruler will now be a cautious and machiavellian robot, instead of actual characters.
Last edited:
- 21
- 1
Well, it's a moot point to talk about. We have inaccurate numbers and one-sided reports. The fact remains that Hastings was the only bigger engagement in the war. Thus it indeed was decisive. I guess it could've been different if Harold hadn't died. But he did.
- 1
I'd say submitting English leaders were decisive. And there is a difference with "decisive" and "only hostile action happens in war". War wasn't win on Hastings (even if after Hastings we could give a good guess).
- 6
- 1
Just use strategy to react to and overcome them? That's part of your character.
- 5
- 2
Finding solutions to combat infamy has nothing to do with character traits. Especially not when they are as gamey as Groogy suggested in his thread.
- 5
- 3
- 3
- 1
From having a dozen babies for the sole purpose of containing coalitions. From pressing claims on independent realms only to release them for the infamy burn.
- 6
- 2
Sounds very medieval to me. Have lots of kids to spread your dynasty, put friends/relatives on foreign thrones.
- 6
- 1
Yes, that sounds JUST RIGHT. You just made the best pro-coalition argument I've seen yet. Which side are you on again?
I think they should tweak two things: Give more information about infamy effects in the "declare war" screen, and make it so small-territory religious heads like the Pope can't join coalitions.
- 6
- 2
The only reason why Hastings proved as decisive as it did was because it resulted in the death of such a huge portion of the Saxon leadership, Harold included, and because the tradition of building Castles was not nearly as wide-spread in England as on the Continent.
The Battle left the leadership of the Kingdom in disarray with few constructed strong points to repel the invaders from.
That doesn't necessarily encourage the use of Hastings as an example of how all battles in the CK2 era should be ridiculously decisive. Quite the contrary
- 4
- 2
Remember what we are discussing here: characters, not strategies. Only the most calculating and pragmatic medieval rulers would have lots of kids just for leverage. A character is by definition more complex than that.
- 2
- 1
We're talking about strategic marriages being strongly encouraged because of the very real political incentives involved.
Your character is still free to have his daughters marry for love or whatever, just like in the real world. And he'll suffer politically for that decision, just like in the real world.
- 3
- 1
Mdieval rulers would have lots of kids because it was considered proper and safe to expand your family.
Last edited:
- 6