It's the borders. It's always been the borders. It's a historical-themed game and the map goes into pure AI-generated insanity within a couple decades.
In fact it's been getting worse in their recent releases.
And Paradox just seems to have no interest in solving the AI bordergore, when even modders of their games have found solutions.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
I think people like you might genuinely enjoy a medieval history lecture series more than playing a role playing video game
I enjoy medieval history lectures but also video games.
Unironically, yes. I find reading a history book more immersive and more pleasant than PDX games
I enjoy both though
CK would have been better without the borders imo
just focus on character interaction and historicity
No. If they did they would realize the border gore in CK is downplayed.
This.
There's currently no game that truly simulates this insanity, partially because currently no game has a way for one region to be controlled by more than one person, which was the case for most of human history until probably victorian era.
As far as I know there's also no way to betray your sovereign to immediately swear fealty to someone else without having to go through a normal independence war first.
>tfw can't manipulate 2 AI super powers into weakening each other in their fight over your vassalage, only to betray them and landgrab with a 3rd party ally joining midway
You could go it like black and white where your influence grows your borders until it absorbs a village and switch to your flag.
Good post. This is the actual issue with CK2/CK3: vasallage was a very fluid, very unstable system and commonly enough landowners in your "borders" could simply switch sides or ask for protection from any nearby realm. That kind of political game is completely absent in these games, while, ironically enough, being very present and fairly well represented in Warband of all places.
>being very present and fairly well represented in Warband of all places.
The fact that you couldn't renounce vassalage and keep your lands always pissed me off.
You can. Take a castle or town and request ownership of it, if denied you can tell your overlord to stuff it.
The AI-created bordergore in this game is not representative of human-created bordergore.
>If they did they would realize the border gore in CK is downplayed
No it isn't you fricking moron
go back to /r/crusaderkings and take your shill arguments with you
Absolutely is not. People always post that same fricking internal political map of the HRE from the 18th century when nobody even complains about duchy-level borders in the first place.
>he believes the HRE was a real entity at any point of its history
Grim.
Fricking moron.
And yet, only a hundred years before...
That's the map with duchy and county map filters turned on. If it was CK3 France would have random bits of land over in Poland and Scandinavia.
Facts on the ground.
In Paradox terminology, no one cares about core provinces you don't actually own. You can have as many core claims as you like, France still isn't the one actually owning that province.
But the King of France is the liege of all the dukes and counts whose lands lie within the red line.
That's control, it's not some de iure claim.
When they went to war those lands marched for the England king. How is that control? De facto claim is the only one that matters. When you look at a map do you care about de jure claims? Of course not. This is so ridiculous you're clearly arguing in bad faith.
I get it, it's funny because you're the one arguing in bad faith and are trying to project.
The 100 Jahre Krieg started 150 year after the timeline of that map and was essentially a civil war between two French dynasties who shared the liege status over a bunch of lands in France, except one of them also owned Ingerland.
How is any of that relevant to whole kingdoms and independent duchies owning random holdings all over Europa?
Cool goalposts bro. Anyway, let's pretend I didn't spot you changing the subject. Well, what about the Habsburg dynasty? Random scattered holdings is how they worked and expanded. What about just colonialism, which was border gore on a global scale?
Moving goalposts? Changing the subject? This is what the whole conversation is about, just scroll up to the op.
This whole chain of replies is people conflating the internal map of a feudal realm and claiming that because of the liege-vassal relationship none of it but the land directly owned by the sovereign is the actual country.
And funny you mention the Hapsburgs because whilst being an exception to the rule, their dynastic control over multiple realms still does not even come close to the Paradox border gore. Habsburgs just gained the thrones of a couple large kingdoms/duchies and those tiny disconnected pieces of land people like to use as a strawman example were all within the internal borders of The Roman Empire. Far cry from CK2 border gore of everyone owning random counties scattered across Evropa.
>people conflating the internal map of a feudal realm
I see this shit so fricking often. Do you think it comes preprogrammed or do paradrones keep thinking up this stupid point by themselves?
If theoretically the Habsburgs decided to declare war on the HRE, do you think the shaded regions that lie within the borders of the HRE would suddenly start fighting against the Habsburgs because they're part of the HRE? Get real. These supra-states can claim whatever they like, but power flows out of a barrel of a gun.
bro you've just btfo'd yourself
>england owning lands over the channel in france is LITERALLY the same thing as brittany owning half of russia and the byzantines snaking into hamburg via the alps
If that map can't get one part right I'm free to assume the rest is also equally fake.
Dumb map, Aquitaine was de-facto owned by England, and no doubt similar situations were there for other parts of Europe that aren't part of my area of interest. No one cares about your de-jure claims.
>Aquitaine was de-facto owned by England
It was owned by the English King not England moron
>Year 1300
The Middle Ages were basically over at this point.
No.
If you owned some far off exclave it would get invaded/drift away from your control.
Paradox does a very poor job of representing this irl course-correcting.
You gays are histrionic. Border gore in CK3 is very downplayed and almost always localized. I've played about 500 hours and have never seen Byzantium go out of their historical boundaries.
>I've played about 500 hours and have never seen Byzantium go out of their historical boundaries.
Either liar or terrible memory.
How about a medieval history lecture WHILE playing a video game?
I do both at the same time to set a mood
I feel like historically and maybe even now borders weren't as clean as you would be comfortable to know, especially in terms of mimicking modern nations.
They straight up sell lectures for the in game radio right now and I hope they do more
Imagine not playing with the enclave independence rule set to total.
now how many isles do they control?
At least 2
>historical-themed game
>enables custom empires
Ah yes, the borders. The borders are clearly the issue, and not any of the dozen other major issues with modern Paradox games. All Paradox has to do is fix border gore, and their games will be perfect!
a problem since EUIII,
LONG LIVE EU2
There's no game that more accurately represents borders in the Middle Ages/time before the advent of the modern nation-state. You're just ignorant of history. Ever heard of the Hundred Years War? All about "border gore".
It's sad that you lack the mental faculties to differentiate between OP's pic and your pic.
I think the biggest thing they could do to clean things up would be to have hierarchically stacked regions and have the AI focus its efforts on regions. Kind of like how Vicky 2 groups provinces into states, but imagine if you had groupings of states into larger regions as well (especially if they had some overlap) which the AI is set to try to acquire one at a time - you could then somewhat curate the sorts of borders and expansion that would be likely to form, because the AI would try to fill in a particular region rather than snaking out wildly.
Throw in some administrative buffs for having domination over a region so players are also encouraged not to bordergore and so the AI isn't crippling itself by doing it.
That somewhat already exists regarding de jure duchies, kingdoms and empires. They could expand on that. Having vassals that aren’t under their de hire liege pay the missing portion of their obligations to their de hire liege rather than just getting a break from their de facto liege might also encourage things to be more mindful of borders.
But I don’t want history to always play out as it did in reality with my presence being the only difference.
Bordergore in a game about medieval politics is kino and accurate.
>durr why does the isles own parts of France
Most of Europe is dominated by a dynasty from a small duchy in northern Germany
>pic related
why would bordergore not exist in a game where armies can teleport?
"the isles" for example, you would expect them to have huge logistical problems mobilizing in a sane setting, but in ck3 they can just spawn their entire force wherever they want
fleets and naval mechanics do not exist either, so why would this "byzantine empire" try to secure its coastline and not just launch incursions in germany? if they want to sail somewhere their troops will simply walk on water and they have no reason to bother with consolidation as you can march over foreign territories with 0 repercussions
this "border gore" is a symptom of you playing a garbage game, but you complain about the symptom as if without it CK3 (or any other paradog game for that matter) would suddenly stop being garbage
Bordergore is a problem in their older games as well, doesn't matter if you have standing armies like EU3 or fixed location levies like CK2.
You are going to have border gore in any game where possible to just send 100k troops halfway across the world as easily as Paradox games. Stopping border gore would require portraying logistics beyond slapping a slight attrition on troops in hostile territory, something Paradox is wholy uninterested in doing.
You don't need to have realistic logistics, using this
method would be much simpler. You subdivide the world into more regions (these don't necessarily have to be visible all the time) and give the AI a big bias to conquer and consolidate regions that are related to their historical borders, part of the same region, have X amount of already owned neighboring provinces or whatever metrics you want to come up with. This combined with more limited wargoals should limit bordergore by a lot. In EU3 you have moronic shit like Castilian Scania because Castille got dragged into war with Sweden somehow, the AI in that game treats very war like a war of extinction and goes balls deep and it demands whatever provinces it can at random as long as it isn't too close to the infamy limit. Ideally it shouldn't even be dragged into that war to begin with, if it does it shouldn't focus on a naval invasion on Sweden but rather the 'true goal' of the war and if it does invade it shouldn't demand unconnected provinces on the other side of the continent.
The game needs different degrees of warfare in general. Sending troops is not a all out invasion, nor is naval support. Yet right now every single war is decisive.
yeah it also doesnt help that in CK games to get something out of a war you have to basically siege the enemy's kingdom almost fully or defeat his whole army in various battles for them accept a small demand like taking one barony or some shitty land that his vassal owns
That's been a problem in Paradox games for a decade now. AI always treats every war like it's a total war and mobilizes all available resources.
EU4 has minimal bordergore.
Not at all. The problem is these games have shitty gameplay where everything is abstracted into moronic minigames that don't accurately simulate what I'm doing while the core gameplay is left underdeveloped. Diplomacy/war in stellaris for example.
It doesn't bother you because you are a dumbfrick. If you weren't a dumbfrick it would bother you more.
>It's the borders. It's always been the borders.
Absolutely not. That shit is something only weenies care about.
Yeah it's so fricking epic roleplaying as the Byzantine count of Hamburg.
>the game would be improved if you were forced to only occupy lands historically occupied by the civ you're playing
The main problem is that no paradox game has ever actually tried to simulate how medieval societies, even in particular regions, conquered and held land.
Let's go for the example of Henry II of England - he was King of England, in his own right, and had several vassals of different kinds, including the Earl of Huntingdon, who was at once the King of Scotland and was only Henry II's vassal for his lands within England.
Henry II was in turn a vassal of the King of France, but only in respect of his territories within France, each of which he held under a different title and authority - he was Duke of Normandy by right, Count of say Maine or Tourraine in fief to the King of France and Duke of Aquitaine by right of his wife.
He was also Lord of Ireland, with some of Ireland ruled by poorly controlled vassals, and the rest nominally giving him homage, a type of feudal submission that he in turn paid to the King of France in respect of certain parts of his holdings in France. The rest of Ireland was ruled by different laws, as was much of Wales - even the Welsh-English borders, under his rule, were semi-independently ruled by Marcher Lords, who held palatine rights, meaning that they exercised a certain amount of legal independence.
In CK2 it is absolutely impossible to express this historical state of affaris properly. In the bookmarks where Henry II is present, half of France is just part of England, a big blob, while a little bit of England is Scottish blue. The whole basic structure of a hierarchy of titles is inaccurate and prevents the game from presenting medieval Europe properly. The problem only compounds the second you leave Western Europe, where societies were organised completely differently - slapping on different title names and a decadence system doesn't even slightly account for how differently Fatimid Egypt was governed and how its leaders managed their realm. Let alone Byzantium.
The games are massive oversimplifications, and they always will be.
yes but how would you actually even program this lol
Say what you will about the state of modern Paradox games, but I love the CK3 paper world map. It looks beautiful and soulful.
I've never played CK3.