|
In both of my games the Byzantines did eventually collapse (without me doing any more than nibbling on their borders, I didn't sack Constantinople or anything), so that's something. Francia for whatever reason can also never manage to stay stable, despite being an incredibly wealthy and developed region. Honestly the biggest offenders I've seen are the Seljuks in 1066. Not sure if my experiences are an outlier, I did notice the HRE was stable in my 1066 game too, though it didn't especially grow much beyond its starting game borders.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
game needs an Infamy/Threatening system even though it's going to be referred to as "badboy points" (ugh) only way to rein in blobbing
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Is it just my game, or does CK3 blob even worse than CK2? The HRE owns it's territory and most of Spain, and the Byzantines own all of the middle east all the way down to central north africa. And every other nation is just insanely stable. Did they take out the 'vassal wants your title' opinion malice? I remember in CKII all of my vassals wanted the next title above them for a good -20 or -40 opinion hit depending on level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
In my ongoing non-ironman game Byz was inherited by a Russian dynasty which eventually caused it to split in half in a pretty ugly way, the other half being K. of Epirus. Before it was inherited by Russians it had gone to the king of Georgia which was pretty cool and somewhat believable, until a non-matrilineal marriage forced the Russian thing. Really hope the first expansion is Byz focused. Gimme all those minor titles again. Or some sort of co-emperor mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
Excelzior posted:game needs an Infamy/Threatening system I'd rather not copy the worst Paradox mechanic. Anti blobbing should mean more internal issues to focus on that need time/money/soldiers to deal with. The bigger you are the more your gameplay should be on internal struggles. It would fit the period better and be more interesting than an arbitrary threat mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
Eimi posted:I'd rather not copy the worst Paradox mechanic. Anti blobbing should mean more internal issues to focus on that need time/money/soldiers to deal with. The bigger you are the more your gameplay should be on internal struggles. It would fit the period better and be more interesting than an arbitrary threat mechanic. See, I agree with you, except the AI cannot possibly be made to understand such subtleties nor to simulate it within its own realms. you need a numerical value and if >value, then consequence. Without it both ai and players alike will forever blob as their resources snowball
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 22:55
|
|
|
im considering making an alternate start mod where the karlings dont exist cause im tired of them either coalescing into a giant unstoppable blob or collapsing almost immediately into tiny duchy-sized kingdoms that france never recovers from
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 22:57
|
|
|
strong bird posted:im considering making an alternate start mod where the karlings dont exist cause im tired of them either coalescing into a giant unstoppable blob or collapsing almost immediately into tiny duchy-sized kingdoms that france never recovers from Iron Century start pls pdox.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 22:58
|
|
|
Okay, glad to hear it isn't just me with horrible blob issues. Also while the AI seems to be much better this time with positioning itself to take advantage of the terrain... It seems to do the exact same thing over and over. You'd think the 4th time they send a boatload of soldiers to my capital with an army waiting 2 spots away to obliterate them that they might try something different.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
I will counter your mod by putting all Ragnarssons into a single dynasty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
Oh, and the AI is absolutely terrified of any engagement that they aren't sure they can win. Which is funny when the first year of a crusade is 20 nations all circling the area they want to invade but too scared to land, or immediately going back to sea if any enemies are seen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
Yeah I do that too
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
Excelzior posted:game needs an Infamy/Threatening system Nah, what it needs is a time-distance based limitation to how effective your rule is, and make periphery areas more likely to break away. Access to information and communication is really the biggest problem in forming a highly centralized state, but it's been completely removed here (and in Paradox games in general). There is no itinerant monarchy, no need to appoint counts Palatine to run poo poo in your absence, you have perfect information on what your vassals are doing at all times, and your armies teleport around the map. EU4 honestly has a lot of the same problem, where how your armies can move has basically nothing to do with the local geography. Starting with making anyone who isn't your de jure vassal take 2-3 times the short reign penalty would be a good start. And maybe giving them free reign to just break off unless you can keep them in line by hook or by crook. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Oct 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 23:10
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Eimi posted:I'd rather not copy the worst Paradox mechanic. Anti blobbing should mean more internal issues to focus on that need time/money/soldiers to deal with. The bigger you are the more your gameplay should be on internal struggles. It would fit the period better and be more interesting than an arbitrary threat mechanic. I think the “threat” mechanic could return, but in an an inverse function. Your powerful vassals get huge opinion bumps of each other and greedy/envious vassals get bonuses to their negative opinion of their liege. Hopefully leading to large blocs in your empire forming against their liege. “You just took over half of Europe in a single lifetime? Hope you gave some to your powerful vassals....” that imo is the devils circle most players would struggle to avoid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
I think it would be really cool if the game had flexible fog of war, even inside your own realm - as a medieval ruler you don't *know* what's going on outside your throne room and need to rely on messengers. Data should be progressively less certain and updated at progressively longer intervals as you radiate outwards, factoring in how organized your realm is and technological advances made.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
Does anyone pre-emptively retaliate on factions? I murdered one guy who wanted a faction, but then one of my kings started one up. In lieu of a “loving try me” button, I jumped to the end, tried to imprison him, and then crushed him in the war that followed. Then I stripped all titles. I did not appreciate his manners.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
I really have never understood why they don't just have distance penalties in CK, it seems so obvious that distant, overseas, and non-contiguous vassals would be more inclined towards wanting independence, and it could help solve a lot of blobbing problems. Make the penalties worse the lower their rank, so it encourages you to consolidate them and have bigger, supervassals ruling more distant lands. Then they could allow you to offset that to an extent by granting special rights and reduced obligations. The feudal contract system had so much potential, but as is, it's only purpose is to allow vassals to extract things from their liege, but there's almost no reason for the liege to ever concede anything if they don't have to, because the opinion bonuses are either negligible or non-existent. Let me buy loyalty with privileges
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 23:29
|
|
|
There's a ton of diffrent methods to sort out A.I blobbing that I hope they give a look at. Stuff like fiddling around with opinion modifiers and making factions fire off easier would all probably go a long way to helping A.I realms implode on a regular enough basis. Limiting player expansion is trickier, as not only is any skilled player going to have a massive advantage over any neighbours for a variety of reasons (significantly they're not bound at all by traits or in game opinion), but also any effective limitation should be provide an interesting challenge to deal with as opposed to being an impassable wall. The above is why I think a mechanic like Threat or Agressive Expansion from EUIV wouldn't be the best way to limit blobbing. The issue with A.I blobs is that they're too stable as opposed to them expanding rapidly; in my games at least they tended gradually expand with the issue being that the slow expansion never stalled out. On the other hand for the player AE just presents a timer that you have to wait to tick down, really only adding a delay to your conquests rather then halting them or causing your realm to contract. The best option here is to instead try and make realms more unstable from internal threats. Managing your relations with your vassels and mediating between them should be as important as dealing with external threats, and right now the ease at which it is done is probably the main driving factor behind blobbing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 23:38
|
|
|
I think MaA's not having any like, gathering time or anything plays into the stability of at least player controlled huge blobs if not AI ones. Once you have a large enough realm you can just raise and disband your regiments anywhere in your realm and just snipe vassal capitals that are rebelling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 23:52
|
|
|
idk why theres even supply limits and stuff when you have invisible supersonic aircraft transporting your army of 30,000 across the known world instantly. the combat really sucks, and the MaA system sucks too. there should be a game rule for ck2-style army raising and then make the ck3 version ironman disabling. the more i play the less i want to actually engage with war at all since the AI is too stupid to abuse the same mechanics that im forced to abuse simply by playing. ck has never been about Tactical Brilliance or mechanically difficult or whatever but its like im just wasting my time and i may as well win any war instantly with yesmen
strong bird fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Oct 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 23:57
|
|
|
JustaDamnFool posted:There's a ton of diffrent methods to sort out A.I blobbing that I hope they give a look at. Stuff like fiddling around with opinion modifiers and making factions fire off easier would all probably go a long way to helping A.I realms implode on a regular enough basis. CK2's defensive pacts were a lot like aggressive expansion, but with even less nuance. It was a really brute force solution, not good at all. I'm pretty sure a lot of people hated them, I turned them off forever after the first game I tried them. I 100% agree that the pressure should mostly be coming from within, having complex internal politics is what makes CK unique compared to EU. Holding together a big empire should be hard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 00:03
|
|
|
Distance penalties don’t really do much because winning a war requires you to be aggressive and to win completely So you would have to own a ton of overseas provinces for it to do anything
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 00:24
|
|
|
strong bird posted:im considering making an alternate start mod where the karlings dont exist cause im tired of them either coalescing into a giant unstoppable blob or collapsing almost immediately into tiny duchy-sized kingdoms that france never recovers from But then this couldn't happen 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 02:12
|
|
|
strong bird posted:im considering making an alternate start mod where the karlings dont exist cause im tired of them either coalescing into a giant unstoppable blob or collapsing almost immediately into tiny duchy-sized kingdoms that france never recovers from I said it before but worth repeating: an Alexiad start would be incredible, as it sort of sets the stage for some of the massive shifts in power that happen over the period (Anatolia slowly becoming Turkish, the Middle East fractured for Crusades, but wealthy enough to slowly push Crusades back eventually, some of the main Iberian blocs, France constantly fighting the HRE and Norman England), while still having a lot of opportunity for things to go off rails.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 02:36
|
|
|
A bit of a warning to those using Golden Obligations though, while it seems to raise your ransom amounts to 300 (or whatever your Demand Payment amount is, I believe it's income-scaled), when I started paying attention to how much gold I was getting it seemed to not be 300 for every ransom. It seemed to be the default amount instead, despite the tooltips assuring me at every point that I was receiving 300 gold. On the other hand, ransoming them for a hook and then demanding payment for the hook does get the full 300 gold. So unfortunately the fiddly bit is still necessary if you want your gold.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 02:45
|
|
|
Yea ransoms with Golden Obligations are way more broken than they were in the release version.Beamed posted:I said it before but worth repeating: an Alexiad start would be incredible, as it sort of sets the stage for some of the massive shifts in power that happen over the period (Anatolia slowly becoming Turkish, the Middle East fractured for Crusades, but wealthy enough to slowly push Crusades back eventually, some of the main Iberian blocs, France constantly fighting the HRE and Norman England), while still having a lot of opportunity for things to go off rails. Yeah 1071 is a straight up better start than 1066.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
CommunityEdition posted:I will counter your mod by putting all Ragnarssons into a single dynasty. I'm surprised that they didn't get made as individual houses of an overarching dynasty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 03:23
|
|
|
Speaking of other things that don't work: This would seem to suggest that leased temples under a theocratic clerical tradition are supposed to provide the person leasing them with all of their non-income/levy bonuses. This doesn't seem to work, but if it did work it'd be really freaking overpowered. Oh hey even more slots for buffing my MAA!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 03:39
|
|
|
So, uh, is there no option to change the start date? That is super weird.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 04:01
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:So, uh, is there no option to change the start date? That is super weird. They have the two hardcoded ones - the Old Gods start, which was 2nd best in CK2, and the Battle at the University of Stanford, England, in 1066. Paradox rightly dropped selecting whatever date you wanted because it's a giant pain in the rear end to maintain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 04:24
|
|
|
I outlived my daughter and her daughter and was educating my great granddaughter and heir. For some reason I couldn't pick am education focus? It would let me end guardianship and resume it but not change it. My last ruler lived just long enough to feudilize and research partition so now my realm didn't split apart.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 04:26
|
|
|
I notice that now your kids themselves don't wander off to visit foreign courts as much, but I had a particularly long lived king with grandkids and great grandkids, and they were constantly off visiting other countries by themselves at age 7 so I couldn't educate my future heirs. Very annoying. Ended up using debug mode to force them back to my court just so I could give them educations. I hope that gets fixed soon too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 04:32
|
|
|
A God drat Ghost posted:Ended up using debug mode to force them back to my court just so I could give them educations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 04:40
|
|
|
One fun way to play the game is to not teleport your supersoldiers around until you get bored by the lack of challenge and instead just keep a couple of rally points at most
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 04:40
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:One fun way to play the game is to not teleport your supersoldiers around until you get bored by the lack of challenge and instead just keep a couple of rally points at most That really just makes the inevitable take longer. It doesn't generally change much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 04:44
|
|
|
No, you’re right. EU4 also had the problem where eventually you get so big that nearly every single war is both an assured decisive victory while also being a pain to manage. They really should let you turn your army over to the AI and tell them, “Hey just win this war for me”. Luckily I haven’t reached that point in any of my CK3 playthroughs yet, but many of the screenshots of the huge empires posted in this thread make me think, “God that just looks tedious to manage”.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 04:51
|
|
|
lurksion posted:What's also really weird about doing this is they end up in both courts at once. Like you are able to have all the usual interactions, but they're still listed as in whatever foreign court they were in, and are listed in your Court menu as outside your court. Huh, I haven't noticed that, they seem to just be in my court after that. As long as they can get educated and I can choose a focus I don't really care, it's just annoying to have a dullard in the family because they somehow teleported to Mars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 05:04
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:No, you’re right. EU4 also had the problem where eventually you get so big that nearly every single war is both an assured decisive victory while also being a pain to manage. They really should let you turn your army over to the AI and tell them, “Hey just win this war for me”. It's really not that bad. The only tedious thing to me is the religious/cultural rebellions and how it can take a goddamn century to convert new territory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:No, you’re right. EU4 also had the problem where eventually you get so big that nearly every single war is both an assured decisive victory while also being a pain to manage. They really should let you turn your army over to the AI and tell them, “Hey just win this war for me”. I was listening to a talk by a game designer where they briefly argued that Crusader Kings would be a better game were it just stripped entirely of the grand strategy elements and focused on the characters, and I've started kind of agreeing. The map is appealing as a visual thing for sure; it's fun to zoom out once in a while, look at the world and see how things are going. But the actual mechanics of the warfare seem so completely tangential to the point; they're just there because that's what people expect from these games or something, but I feel like could impact the game just as well if they were just event based like pilgrimages and such, and that'd leave a lot of dev time for the more interesting character based things and also mean we'd never have to deal with the micro. I know that for a lot of Paradox's existing audience the wargame is a vital part of the experience, but imagining a medieval court intrigue simulator that was devoid of that from the start, maybe sims-like with more involved representations of palaces and castles and poo poo instead, and I think it could be if anything more popular.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Koramei posted:I was listening to a talk by a game designer where they briefly argued that Crusader Kings would be a better game were it just stripped entirely of the grand strategy elements and focused on the characters, and I've started kind of agreeing. The map is appealing as a visual thing for sure; it's fun to zoom out once in a while, look at the world and see how things are going. But the actual mechanics of the warfare seem so completely tangential to the point; they're just there because that's what people expect from these games or something, but I feel like could impact the game just as well if they were just event based like pilgrimages and such, and that'd leave a lot of dev time for the more interesting character based things and also mean we'd never have to deal with the micro. It is not just the warfare but creating tags and alternate history that is immensely appealing. I feel like it should be a different/spin-off game if they want to go down that path, because I wouldn't play it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 05:49
|
|
