Will the new travel system allow us to stay in multiple "Capitals"?

[greywulfos]

Pretty much exactly what it says on the tin. I think it's really bizarre that in this game you can currently hold land on either side of a literal sea and not have to move regularly between different power bases on either side.

For instance, say I'm William of Normandy - will I be able to move to England to deal with problems up in England, then stay in London for a while, before moving back down to Normandy when problems arise there? This kind of system could allow for making loose personal unions feel a lot more like a loose personal union instead of any addition to your empire being the same, be it on the other side of a mountain range or not.

It would be a shame to add the notion of a character's position on the map into the game and then have all plotted courses eventually return to the same place.

 

[grommile]

In response to the question in your subject line:

Not yet.

It's fairly clear that Tours are based on how Capitals currently work i.e. you have exactly one capital and changing where it is is a big deal.

 

[Darumaka]

Such a system would be very immersive and historically accurate, especially when playing as Viking Kings with lands in Scandinavia and abroad. King Cnut frequently traveled back and forth from England to Denmark to deal with his vast Empire, employing regents to rule in his stead as he made his voyages. There's also the fact that many rulers in this era didn't actually have permanent capitals. London for example didn't become a capital until the Norman conquest, the Welsh Kings constantly moved courts from stronghold to stronghold, etc.

Such mechanics could bring about much needed balance to vast empires like the Abbasids or Byzantines needing Emperors to visit border areas to keep the people there firmly under control while also allowing these large empires to break down if their rulers neglect such tours, as more or less happened with the Caliphates and Rome itself.

And because such a mechanic would greatly enhance gameplay, I'm sure Paradox has completely overlooked it and has no plans to adapt it. I still don't understand why there's a limit on how often we can switch capitals when historically realms that did have a capital often had more than one, such as Ethiopia or the HRE.

 

[grommile]

I still don't understand why there's a limit on how often we can switch capitals

Because capitals are magic in Paradox games, and letting you flip it willy-nilly creates its own set of gameplay problems as a result.

 

[FishieFan]

It kinda makes sense to have the current capitals be the administrative capital in game where revenues are sent, and tours to allow your court to move as much as they did in history

 

[tilly]

from the start, i imagined the tours system was intended to be a sort of.... limited way of simulating the itinerant court, which was way more common for most of history in quite a lot of places. there are certainly quite a few mechanics like that - an admirable attempt at portraying things within the limited capacity of the game engine, since end of the day its a videogame first and foremost. a level of structure is sort of required, and some parts of that structure are more limiting than others

its part of the reason i found the negative blowback so odd. this is something thats been brought up a lot, and it seems to me like a clear example of trying to do something close to it. i dont think we could ever have, like, REAL itinerant courts - the ruleset has already been built like this now and i think its one of those hard coded things they cant really mess around with - but i appreciate that it seems to be being touched on at least

 

[Castle Adrian]

from the start, i imagined the tours system was intended to be a sort of.... limited way of simulating the itinerant court, which was way more common for most of history in quite a lot of places. there are certainly quite a few mechanics like that - an admirable attempt at portraying things within the limited capacity of the game engine, since end of the day its a videogame first and foremost. a level of structure is sort of required, and some parts of that structure are more limiting than others

its part of the reason i found the negative blowback so odd. this is something thats been brought up a lot, and it seems to me like a clear example of trying to do something close to it. i dont think we could ever have, like, REAL itinerant courts - the ruleset has already been built like this now and i think its one of those hard coded things they cant really mess around with - but i appreciate that it seems to be being touched on at least

what do you mean by "REAL" itinerant courts? what's missing?

 

[FishieFan]

what do you mean by "REAL" itinerant courts? what's missing?

The whole court being away with you and not just you individually going places. You have like 3 knights join you rather than all your retinue

 

[Bisonmask]

Such mechanics could bring about much needed balance to vast empires like the Abbasids or Byzantines needing Emperors to visit border areas to keep the people there firmly under control while also allowing these large empires to break down if their rulers neglect such tours, as more or less happened with the Caliphates and Rome itself.

Correct me if I'm wrong but both states generally worked in an opposite manner to what you're describing here. In other discussions I've seen it noted that Emperors rarely left the capital if not on campaign and Caliphs with functional governments generally had their vassals come to them rather than the other way around. This is indeed what allowed state capture by unlanded bureaucrats/soldiers/courtiers but travelling wouldn't have fixed the problem because leaving the capital to go visit a vassal in Syria would leave everyone back in court time to plot among themselves

Forcing vassals to travel to/stay at the capital could be an interesting mirror for Feudal tours and would help to differentiate bureaucratic governments from feudatory ones though

 

[Meka66]

It's fairly clear that Tours are based on how Capitals currently work i.e. you have exactly one capital and changing where it is is a big deal.

Worth re-iterating, Tours are not the same as Travel.

A Tour is an Activity which uses the Travel system extensively, but the Travel system is used in many many different places

i dont think we could ever have, like, REAL itinerant courts - the ruleset has already been built like this now and i think its one of those hard coded things they cant really mess around with

Never say never, but yeah it's... pretty unlikely I'm afraid

For instance, say I'm William of Normandy - will I be able to move to England to deal with problems up in England, then stay in London for a while, before moving back down to Normandy when problems arise there?

I wouldn't be against revising the hard restrictions we have on moving capitals personally. A travelling court system would be quite difficult to do, but loosening the restrictions on when you can move your capital wouldn't be super hard to do, it's a balance concern mostly.

 

[Ixal]

Such a system would be very immersive and historically accurate, especially when playing as Viking Kings with lands in Scandinavia and abroad. King Cnut frequently traveled back and forth from England to Denmark to deal with his vast Empire, employing regents to rule in his stead as he made his voyages. There's also the fact that many rulers in this era didn't actually have permanent capitals. London for example didn't become a capital until the Norman conquest, the Welsh Kings constantly moved courts from stronghold to stronghold, etc.

Such mechanics could bring about much needed balance to vast empires like the Abbasids or Byzantines needing Emperors to visit border areas to keep the people there firmly under control while also allowing these large empires to break down if their rulers neglect such tours, as more or less happened with the Caliphates and Rome itself.

And because such a mechanic would greatly enhance gameplay, I'm sure Paradox has completely overlooked it and has no plans to adapt it. I still don't understand why there's a limit on how often we can switch capitals when historically realms that did have a capital often had more than one, such as Ethiopia or the HRE.

Considering tours are optional DLC content you do for buffs you can bet that Paradox will at no point add any of that.

 

[Meka66]

Considering tours are optional DLC content

As of this morning, I've actually changed Tours so now if you fail to complete a Tour every five years, your entire dynasty is killed and your PC crashes. Hope this helps!

 

[Ixal]

As of this morning, I've actually changed Tours so now if you fail to complete a Tour every five years, your entire dynasty is killed and your PC crashes. Hope this helps!

It would be nice if you as a developer would take the concerns of your customers serious and actually address them and maybe explain your views on them.
Especially as the number of threads about them and upvotes show that those concerns are shared by more than just a few players.

 

[jrfess]

It would be nice if you as a developer would take the concerns of your customers serious and actually address them and maybe explain your views on them.
Especially as the number of threads about them and upvotes show that those concerns are shared by more than just a few players.

People just unable to take jokes anymore I guess.

 

[FishieFan]

People just unable to take jokes anymore I guess.

Its funny but perhaps not best to be snarky to your community at this point

 

[Meka66]

It would be nice if you as a developer would take the concerns of your customers serious and actually address them and maybe explain your views on them.
Especially as the number of threads about them and upvotes show that those concerns are shared by more than just a few players.

Nah, not from you mate. You've been routinely coming into threads I'm in and just making snarky comments about the same thing over and over. This thread is not about your personal gripe about Tours, and I'm interested in hearing what people have to say about capitals, travel, and all that good stuff and I'd rather not have it derailed.

Most everyone else in the thread has had some nice constructive ideas, and I'm taking those seriously. If you ever have something of value to contribute to the conversation, I will address it, but until then, you snark and I'll snark back

Hope that clears everything up!

 

[Ixal]

Nah, not from you mate. You've been routinely coming into threads I'm in and just making snarky comments about the same thing over and over. This thread is not about your personal gripe about Tours, and I'm interested in hearing what people have to say about capitals, travel, and all that good stuff and I'd rather not have it derailed.

Most everyone else in the thread has had some nice constructive ideas, and I'm taking those seriously. If you ever have something of value to contribute to the conversation, I will address it, but until then, you snark and I'll snark back

Hope that clears everything up!

You had enough constructive ideas in the threads that came out last week. Yet you choose a passive-aggressive "I wont post anymore because you are negative".
When you avoid addressing criticism like that you shouldn't be surprised that they do not go away and instead get louder.

 

[jrfess]

Its funny but perhaps not best to be snarky to your community at this point

I kind of get it, but at the same time do we really want devs to have to watch what they say at all times to avoid upsetting someone that might not be 100% happy?

I'm not even sure what @Ixal wants from the devs, because what I've seen this week is that they are rebalancing vassal opinions to be less overwhelmingly positive. They way they've described Tours are as another option to help deal with internal strife, and it seems to be way more integrated and fleshed out than Royal Court.

To me it just seems like people upset about the pace of development venting those frustrations on any content that gets announced, regardless of how much it looks like the devs are trying to incorporate feedback from previous DLCs.

 

[Meka66]

Let's try to get back on topic guys

 

[jrfess]

A Tour is an Activity which uses the Travel system extensively, but the Travel system is used in many many different places

Are you able to say if the Travel system has been tied into any previous DLC mechanics? I know holding court on tour would be a big ask, but I think it would be cool if during a tour around Iberia, different types of visits and intents would influence the progress of the struggle in different ways. Like an altruism intent would influence the struggle towards conciliation, and a justice intent towards hostility.