Print

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

[EnigmaticHat]

Isn't crown integrity the same as crown authority

To put it in modern terms, think of like a dictator whose country is torn apart by different rebel groups.  He has unlimited authority to give whatever commands he wants, but in practice his country has lost integrity.  In all the little regions people start fearing and obeying the local wannabe dictators instead of the official dictator.

Basically if the country was already having internal friction and a civil war lasts a long time, the country should remain fractured unless someone puts the hard work in to reconquer it.  None of this silliness where a couple deaths or a white peace and suddenly the whole thing is unified again.

I'm not sure if that's realistic to real life fuedalism.  But then again, in practice no one would ever try to, for example, rule France and England at the same time for 10 generations with feudal level tech.  Giant empires like Rome and China did it by essentially having proto-nationalism where no I'm not a citizen of [insert small Iberian Roman settlement], I'm actually a Roman in a permanent way.  And that means X Y and Z.  That didn't really happen in most of CK2's timespan.  You kept control in the medieval time by concentrating all military and political power in the hands of a small few, and then keeping those people where you could see them.  The game simulates that well in a small to medium sized kingdom, but it doesn't scale the challenges well for a large empire.  You can set up empires where in real life the whole thing would fall apart in short order, yet the game has no system to actually split up the damn doomblob even if it repeatedly falls into civil wars.

[Loud Whispers]

To put it in modern terms, think of like a dictator whose country is torn apart by different rebel groups.  He has unlimited authority to give whatever commands he wants, but in practice his country has lost integrity.  In all the little regions people start fearing and obeying the local wannabe dictators instead of the official dictator.

If all the provinces obey their local dictators, and their dictatorial masters do not obey the prime dictator, then the prime dictator does not have unlimited authority - their authority is very limited, and in ck2 terms it is very low.

Basically if the country was already having internal friction and a civil war lasts a long time, the country should remain fractured unless someone puts the hard work in to reconquer it.  None of this silliness where a couple deaths or a white peace and suddenly the whole thing is unified again.

Unless it was an independence revolt, why should it be fractured if the defending monarch eliminated or imprisoned all of his enemies? It doesn't make sense for the monarch to have to reconquer it all after forcing their foe to surrender or agree to a truce

I'm not sure if that's realistic to real life fuedalism.  But then again, in practice no one would ever try to, for example, rule France and England at the same time for 10 generations with feudal level tech.

The Angevin dynasty ruled loads of Ireland, England and France for a century, with their successors losing their continental holdings over the 100 years war. Don't understand what's unrealistic about maintaining large multicultural feudal Empires, without nationalism, the loyalty of aristocracy is explicitly what makes such an Empire possible

You kept control in the medieval time by concentrating all military and political power in the hands of a small few, and then keeping those people where you could see them.  The game simulates that well in a small to medium sized kingdom, but it doesn't scale the challenges well for a large empire.  You can set up empires where in real life the whole thing would fall apart in short order, yet the game has no system to actually split up the damn doomblob even if it repeatedly falls into civil wars.

Really underselling the flexibility of feudalism, what with all the tiers of obligations and land division possible. Sure you could concentrate all military and political power in the hands of a small few, but you could just as well divide that land into many more hands of lower-ranking nobles, being only limited in the size of your court. Likewise I like that CK2 shows the progression, the struggle of monarchs to slowly and surely take away power from their vassals and place it directly into their own hands, much to the rebellious discontent of their vassals. Then if you reach blobbage you can adopt an Imperial System like the byzantines which allows you to delegate to a bureaucracy instead of aristocracy, to cut down on factional scheming and dynasty builders.

Doom blobs are hard to kill, just as they were in the past
Granted, I do think your idea has merit. I could see something like effective authority running parallel to crown authority, so a weak monarch could see their vassals act disobediently despite having high crown authority and high popularity, or act as a variable to legalism policies - so a law would only be as good as its monarch's ability to enforce them.

Perhaps the game needs something else instead to better simulate the rise and fall of doomblobs though, like another way to lose control over a province. Something like lines of communication. So for example, if you don't have access by land, trade route or sea, and the longer away provinces are, the greater a negative opinion malus and unrest malus is given to the provinces you have command over. This would also gel well with the game's preexisting mechanics, especially with the opinion modifiers from authority, traits and court interactions. Even more interesting - you wouldn't be able to send your court to interact outside of lines of communication.

With such a mechanic your scenario could organically occur. Let's say a deathblob has blobbed from Marrakesh to the Indus river. It is stable, the monarch strong, popular and the crown laws heavily centralized. All of a sudden a big holy war happens, and the monarch loses many troops in the fighting. Suddenly this drastically changes the power balance between a faction demanding autonomy and the monarch, and that faction declares a war to lower autonomy. This faction controls Persia and Jerusalem, which cuts off the African and Indian Kingdoms from the capital in Bagdhad. This creates a penalty to taxes, levies and an opinion malus which ends up being enough to cause the African and Indian Princes to found a secessionist faction, which then fractures the Empire. It'd basically just be a more accelerated version of what normally happens when blobs breakup, only it would happen more often when the conditions to trigger it are present.

Also nifty would be in peacetime. Nobles geographically close to the court would be the ones who provided the most taxes, levies and be more likely to support the monarch, given their proximity to the monarch's courtly festivities and authority, and their agents. Those on the border would be the ones more likely to be rebellious, if a line of communication status gave a malus to taxes, levies and opinion, the frontier or enclave nobles would have more personal levies, personal wealth and more inclination to be rebellious. Thus if an Empire had very poor lines of communication, it would end up full of angry nobles with large armies and large coffers, all of which quickly trigger deadly faction revolts.

[EnigmaticHat]

When I say small few I meant the landed nobility in general (excluding people with tiny fiefs).  Small as a subsection of the otherwise largely powerless population.

But anyway, the lines of communication idea is really good and it really speaks to why large empires had a hard time staying glued together.  I'm reminded of a interactive map of the Roman Empire that I saw indicating how long it likely would have taken to get from one part of the Roman Empire to the other.  According to this map, with a fast boat and a horse you could get from Rome to Alexandria in no less than 13 days (which is decently optimistic since neither of those is super far inland).  That means that if the Emperor was in Rome and he had a pressing inquiry for someone in Alexandria, the extremely optimistic assessment is 26 days to get his answer back.  Rome to London is 20 days days one way trip.  Something as simple as asking how many troops that region has available and what the conditions are for a possible caimpaign, getting the answer and then ordering the regional governor to ready and attack, would take at least 2 months.  Not for the actual attack, just the order to begin preparations.  Imagine if an important long-distance transfer of troops or taxes doesn't arrive.  Is it late?  Was it waylaid?  Is someone rebelling or trying to cheat you?  You don't know, and it might take you a while to find out.  Its a logistical nightmare and the game doesn't address this.

[Karnewarrior]

These kings, unlike most, make use of AOL.

[Loud Whispers]

When I say small few I meant the landed nobility in general (excluding people with tiny fiefs).  Small as a subsection of the otherwise largely powerless population.

But anyway, the lines of communication idea is really good and it really speaks to why large empires had a hard time staying glued together.  I'm reminded of a interactive map of the Roman Empire that I saw indicating how long it likely would have taken to get from one part of the Roman Empire to the other.  According to this map, with a fast boat and a horse you could get from Rome to Alexandria in no less than 13 days (which is decently optimistic since neither of those is super far inland).  That means that if the Emperor was in Rome and he had a pressing inquiry for someone in Alexandria, the extremely optimistic assessment is 26 days to get his answer back.  Rome to London is 20 days days one way trip.  Something as simple as asking how many troops that region has available and what the conditions are for a possible caimpaign, getting the answer and then ordering the regional governor to ready and attack, would take at least 2 months.  Not for the actual attack, just the order to begin preparations.  Imagine if an important long-distance transfer of troops or taxes doesn't arrive.  Is it late?  Was it waylaid?  Is someone rebelling or trying to cheat you?  You don't know, and it might take you a while to find out.  Its a logistical nightmare and the game doesn't address this.

Aye, and that's for provinces with extensive roads and a single political unit with no bandits, nomad raiders, rebellions or occupations interfering with lines of communication

These kings, unlike most, make use of AOL.

Communication Kings II

[umiman]

These kings, unlike most, make use of AOL.

Communication Kings II

Harold2: Yo wassup, I'm king now!
Harald3: Why'd you take my name, bitch?
Harold2: I didn't take your name, why'd you take my name? I'm king!
Harald3: I'm fucking king and I'm going over there to kick your ass!
Harold2: Come get me bitch!
Tostyboy32: Yo, don't talk shit to my brother, I'll kick your ass you Anglo-Saxon piece of shit.
Harold2: I can take all you shittalkers down! I'm king of England! Come at me!
B1gWill28: Hey bros, I'm planning a "vacation" in England too

[Loud Whispers]

abbadass: gtfo chat
s3ljuk: fuk u
A1exius: MODS
s3ljuk: fuk fuk u
A1exius: FUCK SAKES MODS
Popo_Urb2: what
S3ljuk: fuk ufuk u fuk u
A1exius: DO YOU SEE THIS SHIT
Popo_Urb2: what do you want me 2 do about it
S3ljuk: fuk fukfu kfufkufkfukuk
S3ljuk: FUK UFKUFKFUFKUHFKUFKUF
A1exius: SORT IT OUT

HueHueHue has joined chat

HueHueHue: DESU VULT

Philip_de_Frank has joined chat

HueHueHue: DESU VULT

Godphr33 has joined chat

S3ljuk: FUK U
Godphr33: DEUS LUL
Philip_de_Frank: DEUS LULZ
A1exius: WHAT HAVE YOU DONE
Popo_Urb2: called 4 help m8

Bossmenod has joined chat
Raymandem has joined chat

A1exius: NO

Adhemar_the_big_dicked has joined chat
RobFlan has joined chat
RobNorm has joined chat
doubleBlois has joined chat

A1exius: NO NO NO
A1exius EVERYONE GTFO MY CHAT

Patriachy has joined chat
Eternalanglo has joined chat
GeNOPE has joined chat
bal_winning has joined chat

Popo_Urb2: im helpin

[umiman]

I'm dying...

[pisskop]

So I decided to give eu a chance anyways.

a couple things Ive learned by listening to like half a playthrough and tinkering tonight.

- economy isnt like ckii.  that stuff is weaker and needs the micromanagement
- the ai is a suckup until  they suckerpunch you
- the ui is likely the hardest part of the game.
- warring too fast, like you can in ckii, isnt a good idea.  'spec when going after other cultures and religions.
- manpower sucks.  and gets hoovered up.
- If you dont think about how inefficient you are because you dont know howdo:good at the game, its not so bad.


And that the export is possible, but not designed for an early game export.  I wonder how this 500 year setback in europe and central asia will alter an aztec invasion game ...

[Teneb]

Much like Stellaris, CK2 has a new Dev Diary up: DD #60: Rally Up.

Spoiler: Grand Rally (click to show/hide)

Good morning, all. I’m Magne “Meneth” Skjæran, the programmer on CK2. In the past I’ve written dev diaries about modding, optimization, and quality of life improvements, as well as a few diaries this summer about the team, the bug fixing process, and what we’re doing for modders.

We’re now returning to regular dev diaries, so today I’ve been given the opportunity to reveal a new feature: rally points.
And to maintain my tradition from the summer, at the end of this dev diary will be five changelog entries from the 2.8 patch.

Rally points are a rather classic strategy game feature which can do a lot to make troop management more manageable. While in the early-game, there usually isn’t much of a need for such a feature in CK2, as you grow larger collecting your troops at the start of a war increasingly becomes more tedious. This is especially the case in multiplayer, where you don’t have the luxury of pausing.

In 2.8, we’re finally rectifying this by adding the ability to define rally points, both for land units and ships.

Now, when you raise your troops and have rally points defined, the raised troops will immediately start walking towards the nearest rally point by travel time. Once they get there, they will merge with any troops in the province.

While rallying, they will not appear in the outliner, but instead the rally point entry will show how many troops are incoming.


If you disable the “rally points” section of the outliner, the individual armies will show as before.

You can define any number of rally points, and can put them anywhere in your realm, so you can set them up to suit any layout.
Units will only rally to provinces they can walk to (sail, in the case of boats); they will not use transports to get there. So you might for example want one rally point on the British Isles, and a handful in mainland Europe.

Now, as promised, here are 5 changelog entries from 2.8:

    Fixed old Byzantine women's hair being unable to change color
    Taught the Pope that lifting his own excommunication when he becomes the Pope makes him a better role model for other Catholics
    The AI no longer thinks that just because a province is someone's capital, it's a good target; it is now more discerning and only cares if it is the capital of an enemy
    When you have a unit selected and are hovering over a province it can't move to, the game will now try to explain why you can't move there
    Fixed it being possible to gift cursed diamonds and crowns

I hope you will all enjoy the rally point feature. That’s all for today.

[Tawa]

Paradox seriously needs to nerf or remove attraction bonuses and penalties for vassals. I swear, every time I have an ugly character or catch an STD, suddenly half of my vassals are gay or women, who then proceed to violently revolt over and over for no reason other than my character not being sexy. Not to mention that when you end up playing a female character you can make all your vassals love you simply by taking the Seduction focus.

[Loud Whispers]

Paradox seriously needs to nerf or remove attraction bonuses and penalties for vassals. I swear, every time I have an ugly character or catch an STD, suddenly half of my vassals are gay or women, who then proceed to violently revolt over and over for no reason other than my character not being sexy. Not to mention that when you end up playing a female character you can make all your vassals love you simply by taking the Seduction focus.

Homosexual/Female vassals + Mutual Crusader Bonus + Handsome attraction bonus + Strong + Just = Infinitely stable Kingdom

[Karnewarrior]

    Taught the Pope that lifting his own excommunication when he becomes the Pope makes him a better role model for other Catholics

...

lol

[A Thing]

Paradox seriously needs to nerf or remove attraction bonuses and penalties for vassals. I swear, every time I have an ugly character or catch an STD, suddenly half of my vassals are gay or women, who then proceed to violently revolt over and over for no reason other than my character not being sexy. Not to mention that when you end up playing a female character you can make all your vassals love you simply by taking the Seduction focus.

Has Paradox even fixed the evil religion cults yet? I don't have Monks & Mystics but I haven't exactly read good things about it here.

[Tawa]

I still don't play with satanists on because I'm not a huge fan of the mechanics, but from what I understand they nerfed them significantly in the same patch that made religious cults OP.

I still think societies as a whole could use a fair bit of reworking. They add too much for too little price. Literally anyone Christian or dharmic can join a monastic society for free piety, virtues, and birth control, 10 learning is not exactly a high bar for getting free alchemy and technology, and it's utterly ridiculous that the only qualification you need to become a satanist and slaughter babies for unlimited power is being proud or lustful. AGOTmod handles it much better by making the requirements much more stringent.

I'd probably just leave Monks and Mystics off if I didn't like the quality of life features so much.