|
The Twitter suggests Nov 24th as a patch date. That's for patch 1.2 and ruler designer.
Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Nov 18, 2020 |
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:13 |
|
|
I’ve been playing a mogyar start and have taken most of Hungary. Can’t help but notice it’s been about 50 years now and the Abassids and the Byzantine a have been living peacefully next to each the entire time. The abassids now have Egypt and the byzantines have Bulgaria. When the gently caress are these two gonna butt heads.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
They never do. Sometimes Egypt gets taken by random Roman vassals, sometimes said vassals gobble up the Muslim minors on the Levantine coast, and always the the Romans capture all of North-Central Africa, but I have never seen a serious (say) Byzantine-Seljuk conflict fire. The Muslim powers are nominally powerful enough to take on the Empire, but they never seem to accumulate enough Piety before their vassals tear them apart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 19:05
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
If I have male preference partition, but only daughters, does the whole realm go to the eldest daughter, or does it get partitioned between all daughters? Do patrilineally married daughters inherit?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:11
|
|
|
Steely Dad posted:If I have male preference partition, but only daughters, does the whole realm go to the eldest daughter, or does it get partitioned between all daughters? Do patrilineally married daughters inherit? Yea, the “partition” part of the inheritance wasn’t in question in your scenario.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
Dammit. Just looking for loopholes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
Steely Dad posted:Dammit. Just looking for loopholes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:25
|
|
|
Blimpkin posted:...if you have a decent eldest, you could always try to go for the grandson heir. This is a hypothetical right now. I don’t have any kids with this character, but he’s 30ish and it’s time to crank a couple out. My basic plan is to marry two wives with decent inheritable traits and then divorce them once I’ve got a viable set of kids so I don’t end up with too many sons. Just want to make sure I’m considering all the ways it can play out; I hate pulling off some brilliant plan that actually fucks me over because I didn’t understand how the game works. actually that’s usually pretty funny
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:They never do. Sometimes Egypt gets taken by random Roman vassals, sometimes said vassals gobble up the Muslim minors on the Levantine coast, and always the the Romans capture all of North-Central Africa, but I have never seen a serious (say) Byzantine-Seljuk conflict fire. The Muslim powers are nominally powerful enough to take on the Empire, but they never seem to accumulate enough Piety before their vassals tear them apart. I feel like this is another "byzantines too stable, needs some form of partition" problem, along with dominance of Europe being easily decided by which kingdom can maintain an alliance with the romans for the longest
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
Partition doesn’t really work for how Byzantium as a state functioned
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
Sure, something like an automatic chance of civil war on succession then if the heir isn't popular
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
Mister Olympus posted:Sure, something like an automatic chance of civil war on succession then if the heir isn't popular At some point I suggested the game should calculate a Legitimacy (or Claim Strength or whatever) score for all the possible successors, based on their traits, events, etc. Then, when succession occurs, if the heir's Legitimacy is low and/or there are other candidates with a really high Legitimacy, everything goes to hell. The idea being that, even if the law says Dave inherits, that doesn't mean people can't dislike or deny it. As a bonus, this would give the player a reason to care about things like adultery, or to accept a bad heir instead of having him murdered, or to send younger kids off to a monastery, because those things would affect Legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
It would probably also help if some of the destabilisation options were retrofitted from CK2: diplomatic action to seed discontent among vassals or in public opinion; the ability to antagonise rules, with similar results; sabotage to reduce various key parameters related to internal and external warfare; or just returning the imperial elective and viceroyalties (which is bound to happen sooner or later) since, while notionally transferrable between vassals, they still generated legitimate claims that some slighted non-heir could then use as a pretext for independence wars. Byzantine stability is an issue that feels like it will be sorted out over time as more mechanics are added in DLC, but it still ties into the general problem of large realms been too stable. In part it's due to how “realm power” is calculated (and by extension the threshold for when instability explodes) and in part it's with how easy it is to just bash dissent over the head. It just that, with as basic as these mechanics are in the vanilla game, it's almost a perfect storm of “things aren't in yet” that make them really annoying at this stage of the game's development. They're a huge realm that gets all the stability-enhancing benefits from being large, that also inherently comes with the pinnacle of stability-enhancing laws in its succession. Each is pretty bad; put together, they're horribad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
I didn't play CK2, how much more powerful was Venice once the republics expansion came out? Historically they rivaled the byzantines in the Balkan and Greek coasts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
Venice became rich as gently caress after the expansion which let you hire approximately all of the mercs, so it wasa decent swing even before the huge retinues the family palaces let you get
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 01:54
|
|
|
They could also be really annoying to fight since they umpteen trade posts in coastal regions, and if you tried to bring allies along to combat all those mercs, the allies would without fail go after the trade posts rather than anything that mattered. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
Also the Italian cultural retinue was quite possibly the best one and could absolutely punch way more than their numbers indicate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 02:49
|
|
|
Which is true again I think, Picchieri are crazy good, right up there with Chasseurs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 03:01
|
|
|
Mister Olympus posted:Sure, something like an automatic chance of civil war on succession then if the heir isn't popular What I'd go for is giving every Duke level feudal vassal and every councillor who isn't a eunuch a claim on the title. To reflect the importance of popular opinion in Constantinople, have event chains which raise and lower popular opinion in the city, and make the strength of the Theodosian Walls directly tied to that popular opinion. Maybe events to affect that while the siege is ongoing. I'd like there to be tension between the Emperor and the Dynatoi nobles; as the period progressed, the Dynatoi got progressively stronger--what I'd maybe like is for the early Empire to initially use Republican vassals which provide little in the way of troops or taxes, while feudal barons are automatically tax and levy exempt unless they have Ducal-level Strategos titles. So you're incentivised to give out those titles and transition the Byzantines to a more recognisably feudal system in order to get the troops you need to hold your land, but the Dynatoi are far more rebellious than republican vassals. Something like that, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 04:47
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:They never do. Sometimes Egypt gets taken by random Roman vassals, sometimes said vassals gobble up the Muslim minors on the Levantine coast, and always the the Romans capture all of North-Central Africa, but I have never seen a serious (say) Byzantine-Seljuk conflict fire. The Muslim powers are nominally powerful enough to take on the Empire, but they never seem to accumulate enough Piety before their vassals tear them apart. im convinced like 90% of this is because the initial seljuk invasion was massively nerfed from how it worked in ck2
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 05:52
|
|
|
the other half of the issue is how outrageously powerful constantinople is as a county and how outrageously powerful the balkans are in general
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 05:54
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Which is true again I think, Picchieri are crazy good, right up there with Chasseurs. I personally think Konni are better than Chasseurs, because you get them in the tribal era instead of high medieval, and they trade 10 damage for 10 pursuit and 25 screen. More battle phase damage is always nice, but pursuit damage counts for a lot more (0.03 vs 0.17), while the screen is extremely helpful when you end up over your head in a fight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 06:14
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:im convinced like 90% of this is because the initial seljuk invasion was massively nerfed from how it worked in ck2 It's part of the problem for sure. With no civil war and no threat to Anatolia, it's not so surprising the Romans are so strong every game. It's why I'd much rather see the game start at 1081 than 1066. e: 1081, not 1071 PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Nov 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 06:49
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:It's why I'd much rather see the game start at 1071 than 1066.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 07:05
|
|
|
I'm hoping the first DLC will include an Imperial government form, which should re-balance the Byzantines and hopefully bring them in line. If, for example, Imperial vassals had a harder time waging external wars (or were even prevented from doing so altogether with perhaps some special exceptions) but instead vied for power within via estates or other intrarealm conflict it could help prevent them from getting out of control. If that is the focus of the first DLC, I can see holding off on doing anything to the ERE until then. If that won't be the focus of the first major DLC, I do hope Paradox does something to address the Byzantine dominance at some point in the near future, in particular I'd like to see their eastern neighbors be more aggressive towards them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 08:26
|
|
|
Someone once brought up the idea of making independence wars defensive for who declares them rather than offensive which makes sense. If you hold your own capital you get a ticking war score and if your liege can't be hosed (or is unable) to beat you into submission, you automatically win the war. Last I checked they're considered offensive wars, so if someone wants to become independent they basically have to go take their liege's capital, which doesn't make a ton of sense and isn't really a thing that ever happens, unless I missed the chapter where Washington and Lafayette sacked London.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 15:59
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:Someone once brought up the idea of making independence wars defensive for who declares them rather than offensive which makes sense. If you hold your own capital you get a ticking war score and if your liege can't be hosed (or is unable) to beat you into submission, you automatically win the war. Last I checked they're considered offensive wars, so if someone wants to become independent they basically have to go take their liege's capital, which doesn't make a ton of sense and isn't really a thing that ever happens, unless I missed the chapter where Washington and Lafayette sacked London. IIRC in EU4 independence wars work exactly like that and have a "defend capital" wargoal, it would make so much more sense if that was in CK2 too. Unless there's some balance reason I'm not thinking of?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 16:10
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:Someone once brought up the idea of making independence wars defensive for who declares them rather than offensive which makes sense. If you hold your own capital you get a ticking war score and if your liege can't be hosed (or is unable) to beat you into submission, you automatically win the war. Last I checked they're considered offensive wars, so if someone wants to become independent they basically have to go take their liege's capital, which doesn't make a ton of sense and isn't really a thing that ever happens, unless I missed the chapter where Washington and Lafayette sacked London. This is an extremely necessary change (and I think that was the status in 1.0? Or was it the short patch, 1.1 or whatever? I remember somebody in the thread saying it), but also Independence factions are basically non-existent now anyway, I wouldn't expect it to make a huge difference all on it's own.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
megane posted:At some point I suggested the game should calculate a Legitimacy (or Claim Strength or whatever) score for all the possible successors, based on their traits, events, etc. Then, when succession occurs, if the heir's Legitimacy is low and/or there are other candidates with a really high Legitimacy, everything goes to hell. The idea being that, even if the law says Dave inherits, that doesn't mean people can't dislike or deny it. I'd love something like this, successions in CK have always lacked the drama they often caused in history. Having the inheirtor of a title being decieded by an imutable law and being 100% guranteed to recive it is far too rigid a system; for one thing it makes early partition far more annoying than it should be because titles get divvyed out at random between children, leading to much hated border gore. Let players decide how to hand out titles themselves, with inheritance laws representing cultural expectations; the further you deviate from them, the more likely you are to have trouble on succession.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 17:23
|
|
|
As I recall, there was a brief time where independence wars sorta worked like that but the problem was that you had to siege down the entire territory of every vassal who rebelled or the score would start ticking against the liege. I'm not sure the best answer here, you shouldn't have to siege down every single county owned by every single rebelling vassal to stop the tick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
Ahh yea that would be strange in it's own way; for Independence/Liberty wars right now the war goal is explicitly the liege's capital, so it should be possible to make it just the capital of the faction leader or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 17:43
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:As I recall, there was a brief time where independence wars sorta worked like that but the problem was that you had to siege down the entire territory of every vassal who rebelled or the score would start ticking against the liege. I'm not sure the best answer here, you shouldn't have to siege down every single county owned by every single rebelling vassal to stop the tick. PittTheElder posted:Ahh yea that would be strange in it's own way; for Independence/Liberty wars right now the war goal is explicitly the liege's capital, so it should be possible to make it just the capital of the faction leader or whatever. Yeah this should solve it, but on the other hand if your realm is that large it SHOULD be hard to hold together. You should have to beat down everyone who wants their independence and force them into submission. Just the capitals alone is potentially too little, it should also need at least some hefty battles or holding more of their territory. The idea here is that they all want independence and that includes the minor nobles - counts and such as well. This may make map blobbing a bit more difficult, so I guess maybe make it an option for people who want to try to paint the entire map, but any amount of realism at all should make holding giant empires together a difficult task, not "1 time of trouble during succession and then after 5 years all the vassals are at 100 opinion unless you're a cock and you can coast for the next 50 years grabbing up even more territory without issue"
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
Yeah I'm with you. The other thing I think is pretty necessary is making Independence factions regional/culturally separate, so for example if you're the Holy Roman Empire you might face a Great Saxon Revolt and breakaway Italians, quite probably at the same time, but as separate wars to allow negotiation with them separately. There's so many changes that need to be done honestly it's hard to spit ball about just one in short form forum posting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:Yeah this should solve it, but on the other hand if your realm is that large it SHOULD be hard to hold together. You should have to beat down everyone who wants their independence and force them into submission. Just the capitals alone is potentially too little, it should also need at least some hefty battles or holding more of their territory. The idea here is that they all want independence and that includes the minor nobles - counts and such as well. The normal war score system can handle most of that, but the ticking war score is the important bit IMO. I think the territory of the independence faction leader should probably be what counts for that, if the liege manages to siege down all of the territory of the faction leader that should make the war score tick in the favor of the liege, and it ticks in favor of the rebels if the faction leader has no territory occupied by the liege. Of course that does make it awkward in that sieging down the liege's domain doesn't have as big of an effect as it maybe should, so I don't know if it's the best solution either. Still, what it'd probably result in is if the faction leader is especially large, like a kingdom, sieging down a good chunk of their land and defeating armies will give enough war score to win. Which is about right for a normal kingdom-level conquest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
Ruler designer preview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9MnFAfEb5U
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
JustaDamnFool posted:I'd love something like this, successions in CK have always lacked the drama they often caused in history. Having the inheirtor of a title being decieded by an imutable law and being 100% guranteed to recive it is far too rigid a system; for one thing it makes early partition far more annoying than it should be because titles get divvyed out at random between children, leading to much hated border gore. Let players decide how to hand out titles themselves, with inheritance laws representing cultural expectations; the further you deviate from them, the more likely you are to have trouble on succession. Tie it into the old “present heir to the realm” and coronation mechanics, and a few other similar institutions for seeding the ground — ways of mitigating the transition and increasing the legitimacy of the next generation — and it could work really well as something to do in those last days rather than just staying alive and piling up silly amounts of prestige and piety. Arrange for your kids to not just get what they're owed, but also be recognised as the rightful owners, and they will not just like you more but have more unity among them; don't do it and the mutual dislike will increase and they are much more likely to press their overlapping claims, along with all the other people on the legitimacy list. Like the coronations in CK2, some of it would need to be contingent on you being on good terms with the institution in question, or burn a lot of hooks (or cash) to make people attend when they really have better things to do, and maybe just be quite costly in terms of those end-game resources to say nothing of stressing out the usual greedy, humble, and shy characters. And if you over-do it, you might accidentally convince everyone that, hey, those kids seem a whole lot better an alternative than you are so now there are factions to put them in charge ahead of time… There's so many fun little end-of-rule and downtime things that that kind of mechanic could introduce. Magil Zeal posted:As I recall, there was a brief time where independence wars sorta worked like that but the problem was that you had to siege down the entire territory of every vassal who rebelled or the score would start ticking against the liege. I'm not sure the best answer here, you shouldn't have to siege down every single county owned by every single rebelling vassal to stop the tick. Would that really be a problem, though? It would effectively be an extension of the existing pseudo-rule of making sure your vassals don't get too big, only now there's a more practical consequence other than that they make a difference in factions: because if/when they get unhappy, they will require a lot of work to bring back in line. Hell, I could see it as offering some interesting outcomes and dynamics if it was leaned into even harder and made the independence war more granular. Ok, you siege down everything in the horribly unfaithful and evil triple-duke's domain and things are ticking your way… but in the meantime, those two teeny tiny counties that were part of the rebellion that you ignored because they contributed 200 troops a piece have had their personal war score ticking up so now they're just independent. You never bothered to challenge it, after all… And what do you care, they're tiny and you can probably deal with them later, or :esse: and offer vassalisation for the next ruler in line. It would let small-timers hide ride on the tails of bigger fish and make the outer fringes of a realm more problematic. Some lonely far-away count in Carpathia can suddenly break free from the Byz, not by beating the entire empire or by having the stars align right so there's an opportunity to ride along with a mega-faction that is capable of doing so, but exactly because he's so far away and insignificant. The ruler decides that the bigger territories need to stay, so those are sieged down; the cruft at the edge just isn't worth the bother.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
Tippis posted:Would that really be a problem, though? It would effectively be an extension of the existing pseudo-rule of making sure your vassals don't get too big, only now there's a more practical consequence other than that they make a difference in factions: because if/when they get unhappy, they will require a lot of work to bring back in line. If the system was capable of that sort of nuance, sure. But that wasn't how it worked, and I wouldn't want it to work in the way it did--where you could be losing war score because you didn't siege down a few insignificant counties on the edge of your empire while you completely defeated the armies of the rebels and sieged down the bulk of their land, and then if the rebels "win" the war in that way all of them go independent. I think, barring some sort of very nuanced system similar to an Invasion CB where any vassal you completely occupy doesn't become independent regardless of the outcome, tying it to the territory of the faction leader is the easiest solution. Technowolf posted:Ruler designer preview: I didn't notice it during the stream, but drat those positive congenital traits are super expensive. Of course if you're playing with mods there's little reason not to just add whatever you want, but if you wanted to be achievement-compatible it looks like setting up your character to be genetically awesome is pretty much a non-starter. Genius alone takes over half your budget. Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Nov 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 19:10
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:If the system was capable of that sort of nuance, sure. But that wasn't how it worked, and I wouldn't want it to work in the way it did--where you could be losing war score because you didn't siege down a few insignificant counties on the edge of your empire while you completely defeated the armies of the rebels and sieged down the bulk of their land, and then if the rebels "win" the war in that way all of them go independent. I think, barring some sort of very nuanced system similar to an Invasion CB where any vassal you completely occupy doesn't become independent regardless of the outcome, tying it to the territory of the faction leader is the easiest solution. Fair enough. And yes, having independence wars effectively be invasion CBs with a limit to what territory can actually be occupied could be a way to do it without adding a whole slew of new mechanics. The alternative, I guess, would be that every participant in the insurrection would start their own individual war where they need to build up the faction strength for it to be available (and maybe they auto-ally or something)? But that would get incredibly messy just from a basic UI standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
The lack of nuance is indeed a problem. Like again, let's say you're a German Emperor, and you're fighting an independence war against some breakaway vassal who owns a large chunk of North Africa and a duchy along the Rhine or something; how do you devise a system that resolves that sensibly? Regardless of where the vassal's capital is, it would certainly be plausible for the African portions to break away, while you would recover the Rhenish holdings, but the game doesn't really allow for it. Personally I would be tempted to resolve issues like that by aggressively enforcing exclave independence (annually and regardless of independence), where if some chunk of your territory is too far removed from your capital you can have claims, but you would be obliged to either relocate or hand it off to someone to actually govern the place. Which then brings up questions of itinerant kingship, which is a whole other thing the game needs, and on and on... PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Nov 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:13 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:aggressively enforcing exclave independence This is a big part of the problem, yeah. Exclaves are way, way too common, and it makes everything ridiculous -- you're trying to consolidate Egypt, but this single lovely chunk of desert has somehow been inherited by some loser Danish count buried three levels deep in the HRE, and now your options are to leave it there forever, or to fight the entire might of the loving empire and all its allies, because the Emperor will not hesitate to raise 100,000 guys and ship them 3000 miles around Europe to save the loser count's lovely chunk of desert.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2020 19:26
|
|