Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

Huh, this actually sounds kinda nice.  It's frustrating to lose once early on (particularly by bad luck) and watch the enemy just slaughter your broken troops with no hope of escape or even reasonable self defense.  Kill ratios of 5000 to 1, even if only outnumbered 2 to 1, because everyone knows desperate armed men with nowhere to run are completely harmless

I assumed the important point was that the retreating army was splitting.  Which sounded... eh.

Thats far.  they should suffer attrition while in that mode.  deserters, infection, no food, no supplies, etc.

Yeah this makes sense.

[USEC_OFFICER]

That sounds extremely obnoxious and annoying. Good if you want to rescue your army from an enemy doomstack, but it sounds like it'd make cleaning up after big fights long and tedious. Heck, just think of something like a Crusade where a bunch of different armies rush into a fight and then scatter after they lose the battle. Sounds absolutely disgusting to me.

[Rolan7]

Hopefully they'll increase the warscore for actually killing off the enemy army, to compensate.  I find capturing holdings tedious, I'd rather have multiple battles with the enemy army.  Even in large wars where attrition splits the stacks, things are usually decided very early with no hope of recovery.  Just tedious capturing and badgering the opponent for surrender.

[pisskop]

you know whatd be nice?

if hedonistic characters were forced into party buying
lustful characters took more of a penalty for restraint
greedy characters refused to to splurge on the best options or castle improvements.


so far a crappy ruler is largely a role playing choice.  i mean they run kingdoms poorly through base stats too, but its not like you ever have to fall victim to active self-destruction.

pedit:

  to expound:  characters who lead lives in contradiction to their traits face increased stress, illness, and a few choice event rolls.

If we were to go as far as to add an rp point system or multiplier we could deduct points from the total score
  not that that fixes everything.  i mean, speeding a drunkard king to his death while furthering your kingdom?  bonus!

but what if you had a chance of increasing their lifespan as a result of counterintuitive play?  or an increased chance to force a sub optimal descision on an event roll?

something.

[EnigmaticHat]

That feels like a great idea for CK3.  Writing that into the system at every level, and making traits less maleable (not COMPLETELY random, but it shouldn't be so easy to line up all those green icons), could make for a very fun game.

[Majestic7]

Traits already matter by launching certain events. For example, if you are insane, you get crazy events no sane person would get, with mostly bad options available to choose from. Likewise, a lusty character will get events where gets caught banging maids or the like. So what you desire is already in the game. It could be easily tweaked in a mod or by editing the consequences of such events in your own game, but it might be an easy way to cripple the game in a way other players find annoying.

[EnigmaticHat]

...eh.  You still get about the same play experience regardless of traits, barring extremely negative or extremely positive traits all lumped together.

[WealthyRadish]

They use traits often when scripting MTTH and triggers for events and event choices (more than just the special event options, with things like "diligent" affecting the rate of successful advisor events and other unseen things). If you wanted to make it more dramatic and restrictive, it would be possible to mod it using what exists, preventing characters from changing much or adding additional affects from events if certain traits are active (something that's already done a little). But ultimately I think what you would end up doing is making the game less pleasant, since it would just be an even stronger motivation to go for good traits, if the alternative had worse consequences. Personally I really like all the little character events that give like -10 relations or a worthless amount of prestige, but if you made it worse than that, to the point where random events from your scumbag character are losing you huge amounts of money or causing event revolts like EU4, that would get old quick.

[Majestic7]

I think hardcore events would be okay if they happened after instigated by the player, so the player agency would still be leading the show. For example - when having a feast, a wrothful character could flip out and beat/kill someone important in a fit of drunken rage. Especially so if he is wrothful and drunkard. The way to avoid it would be to not have feasts, knowing that your character is a raging alcoholic.

That way player agency would still remain regarding makign the feasts happen in the first place. If the character just randomly flipped off and killed his heir, that would be just annoying.

[Persus13]

Being forced by lusty to make a move on your courtiers can piss off your wife, and if shes got enough intrigue and you have enough bad opinion, you're going to need to act carefully.

[pisskop]

well yea.  I had an idea that in order to lose these traits the player would have to willingly play into these traits for a time,  but . . . mechanics?

Something like: playing against a character's traits too much/long would result in a reduced chance to resist in the near future, a chance of stress or illness, and a chance of the trait evolving.  The lusty king gets a wroth problem, cuz blueballs.  Or the drunkard king gets depressed without his bottle; if he doesn't outright go on a bender.  Or the cruel character becomes saboutistic to his own success, trying to milk the sadism from every interaction.  Or the greedy character who buys too much too fast or isnt spending it on himself will lose positive traits.

   But instead, if by playing to his traits, granting him his due RP, you can accumulate (hidden?) points of some kind that eventually give rise to a yearly chance of kicking the habit.


The specifics are debatable, but having a system where the character is controled by you, not an extension of you that overrides his personality (the content emperor who adds 5 kingdoms to his vassal-list).

[Rolan7]

Those ideas are interesting.  It seems weird to lose a trait by indulging in it, but consequences for acting uncharacteristically make sense.

In general though, it's very tricky to encourage roleplay with mechanics...  Particularly carrots and sticks.  I'd check out a mod that tried though.

[Kot]

Maybe those "bad" traits would give some benefits. Like, greedy character getting some gold out of ass, drunkards getting reputation bonuses from partying, cruel kings being more "convincing" (let's say you have someone's kid, they will be more willing to bend into giving you what you want, especially if it's not money) or something.

[pisskop]

A lot of negative traits do carry positive bonuses.

Cruel characters cause moral damage in combat.
greedy characters get more tax money.  A tithe more, in fact.
Drunks don't, but I dont play as drunks to often to know the events they tend to role.
I know insane characters roll fun events.

[Kot]

They're ok for now, but if traits are going to force (or cause negative stuff to happen) people into doing stuff that isin't exactly best course of action, there should be a better, more direct positive impact.