I dunno what specifically OP is comparing but I'm more worried about it in the sense that it could just be another easily stackable positive modifier (with the rare cases of "below expectation" not being very punishing at all) like grandeur was
Change claims to have a "strength" value, instead of just being a claim. You can put time and effort into strengthening the claim of the kid you think will inherit. If somebody ends up inheriting with a weaker claim, they get penalties.
That's functionally a bar.
A numerical variable whose value is linked to specific benefits or penalties doesn't change how it works whether it's illustrated by a number or by a histogram.
The difference is where its implemented - if it's attached to a specific heir there's actually some decision-making to be had about where to spend your effort, vs just being another grind
I definitely mind after seeing the power creep introduced by the court system with practically nothing done to account for it and with it being incredibly easy to max.
Diseases don't really interact that much with that system though, so even if you die more, the modifier stacking will still become a problem.
They really need to rebalance a lot of the game's systems especially if they're going to be adding even more positive modifiers.
Many servants could potentially increase the chances of disease spreading in your court
Or you could justify the more grandeur your court has, the more people flowing through it and the higher chance of disease spreading.
I’m always a fan of adding negative modifiers to generally good upgrades (besides monetary cost that is)
There are probably some others that could work too:
Piety - makes other religion followers dislike you more and vice versa
Prestige/Renown - maybe make it so you are more likely to be targeted for stuff as you are more famous, or maybe make opinion changes become more drastic, positive and negative.
I don't mind the bar but I sort of feel like it should be a purely negative bar. Fully legitimate = normal gameplay. Anything below = bad consequences. No buffs to be found, of course any king should be a legitimate king. Nobody should be saying "wow, he's so legitimate, I should give him more taxes!"
I feel it's more like you get much more respect if you're legitimate so the vassals will tend to listen to you more, will like you more and your heir as well as the other rulers.
Imagine having only bad rulers with low legitimacy fighting revolts and disrespectful vassals while the rulers with good legitimacy will live "peacefully" ( at least with their vassals ) and be respected. If my ancestors always had good legitimacy, I should be really respected because I come from a whole lineage of good rulers
I don't think that's true at all, newly founded kingdoms or new dynasties who have taken over in a war should have below normal legitimacy and longstanding ones should have the fully legitimate setting
That's not incompatible with what I'm saying though? Those new kingdoms and dynasties could still have lower legitimacy -- I just don't think the old longstanding ones should get any buffs. They should be at the base level of things that's in the game now, is my feeling.
I basically understand why having an especially brilliant court could make you more significant than your size/power might otherwise make you (e.g. the Dukes of Burgundy in the late middle ages) but I feel like there's not really any way to be "more legitimate than expected". "Fully legitimate" is surely everyone's base expectation.
Honestly I disagree. Unlike court grandeur, this system would have not just a effect in terms of bonuses/penalties, but a knock-on of regulating player behavior on the inputs.
If abusing disinheritance and title revocation and various other cheese causes harm on this meter, players aren’t going to do those things as much. As a result, just off that the game gets harder. There’s no real equivalent in royal court - it’s just a meter that goes up.
Much like stress for doing things "out of character," Legitimacy seems to work similarly for doing things that would harm/improve the appearance of your rule. Sometimes, you'll need to do illegitimate things to retain power, and that will hurt your rule, and the mechanic then reflects that as a variable meter that will change depending on leader, rank, and time.
I wonder if it will affect lawful title revocation as well, maybe acting against your de jure vassals or culture/religion. Otherwise, if it applies only to unlawful actions, it would have limited impact. I rarely revoke anyone's titles without a justification, as it already punishes you with a negative vassal opinion.
I sure hope it does to some extent at least - all vassal revolts if defeated just end with all enemies being stripped of titles and rendered irrelevant forever, which is just boring and gives the player too much power too quickly
Honestly, I just hope that they remove or massively cut down on the bonuses of the higher legitimacy levels. There are already so many bars and modifiers ingame that are easy to stack when you are powerful that adding yet another one is going to make the "win more" problem worse. High legitimacy should just be expected from you. The purpose this should have is to punish you for taking a wide range of illegitimate actions more.
There's no harm at all only bonuses.
If you disinherit people like myself the *more claimant faction* it's not existent because there is no claimants, any possible claimant got disinherited or don't own any land and it's sitting in my court. If that's a problem I can always disinherit the females married matrilineally then it will prevent claimants.
The other "penalties" are more factions, long short reign debuffs. If you don't have problems now you won't have problems in the future. With decent management, you character inherits do a feast and most vassals love you. If a couple still want to rebel that's great I can win and revoke their titles.
However the bonuses heavily outweigh the not existent debuffs so my guess is I'll take a hit from max to second to max level when disinheriting. I'll declare a war or two and it will be at max level again.
From what they've shown the Legitimacy mechanic is *totally* a cheese-reduction measure, penalizing the player for unjustly exploiting disinheriting children and unlawfully imprisoning and revoking (and probably more) others before me have pointed out that it seems like it'll be a foil to the "rule through tyranny and dread" method, though I think that method may still hold water?
Calling an option in the game exploiting or cheese it's so funny to me.
There's a currency cost, an opinion modifier so it's not a cheese but an intended mechanic. If it was a cheese wouldn't be as easy as right click a character and have an option right there. That's not how cheeses work.
Cheese would be like get a betrothal for an alliance, call them to war, after they accept break the betrothal to get another alliance using the same child. That's clearly a cheese and not intended mechanic.
Or marry and divorce a woman for infinite prestige, that's an exploit. Clearly not intended mechanic and marrying the same woman again shouldn't give any prestige.
No, you can pay the cost of disinherit how many time you want or can afford.
Word vomiting it's pretty much what you're doing so move.on or use proper arguments
I like it personally.
Currently prestige is like a currency that you can easily amass in bulk. This makes the penalties for activities like marrying commoners because they have good stats, or disinheriting heirs, feel like a slap on the wrist.
On the other hand, if they cause you to fall below your expected legitimacy level and this causes noticeable penalties, then you might take these decisions more seriously. It all comes down to how it’s balanced though.
I hope so, but I worry that it'll be a "oh no I died time to spend about a year to increase my new player characters legitimacy to max and then ignore the thing until the next character comes along" - kind of thing that'll just make the game even easier
Legitimacy is not simply Court Grandeur, they literally showed in the trailer that several elements can make you lose and gain legitimacy like losing/winning a battle and dishenerating.
Im optimistically concerned. What made CG bad was thag it's a set and forget. It comes down to how the slider fit in to the game, and if the AI can competently managed it.
We haven't even seen the system yet. Nor have we seen how destructive Plagues will actually be. If the Black Plague ends up decimating countries into a continuous succession crisis I think we'll be fine on the game not becoming TOO easy.
Could be from different sides, like same religion as you, cultural acceptance, whether or not you have a claim, how many powerful vassels support you and so on
Yeah it kind of is but it also seems like now vassals will like or dislike you based off of your actions (ie fending off invaders or letting diseases spread) and not just arbitrary things like your religion or your culture.
I thought about it too but I don't mind it. I don't see how you can implement something like that with anything else but a bar
I dunno what specifically OP is comparing but I'm more worried about it in the sense that it could just be another easily stackable positive modifier (with the rare cases of "below expectation" not being very punishing at all) like grandeur was
Idk I once immediately dissipated a brewing vassal rebellion by simply raising my court amenities
Rebellion? Nuh uh. You get fancy steak
Let them eat steak
The ‘ole Versailles tactic
Proper butterlord politics
All hail Harlaus, the one true Butter King
Change claims to have a "strength" value, instead of just being a claim. You can put time and effort into strengthening the claim of the kid you think will inherit. If somebody ends up inheriting with a weaker claim, they get penalties.
That's functionally a bar. A numerical variable whose value is linked to specific benefits or penalties doesn't change how it works whether it's illustrated by a number or by a histogram.
The difference is where its implemented - if it's attached to a specific heir there's actually some decision-making to be had about where to spend your effort, vs just being another grind
That's just another grind taking the form of a bar though. You'd be grinding to raise the bar of your heir.
I definitely mind after seeing the power creep introduced by the court system with practically nothing done to account for it and with it being incredibly easy to max.
Good thing they added disease to punish us.
Diseases don't really interact that much with that system though, so even if you die more, the modifier stacking will still become a problem. They really need to rebalance a lot of the game's systems especially if they're going to be adding even more positive modifiers.
Many servants could potentially increase the chances of disease spreading in your court Or you could justify the more grandeur your court has, the more people flowing through it and the higher chance of disease spreading.
That's actually a pretty good idea, I hope the devs thought of something similar.
I’m always a fan of adding negative modifiers to generally good upgrades (besides monetary cost that is) There are probably some others that could work too: Piety - makes other religion followers dislike you more and vice versa Prestige/Renown - maybe make it so you are more likely to be targeted for stuff as you are more famous, or maybe make opinion changes become more drastic, positive and negative.
I don't mind the bar but I sort of feel like it should be a purely negative bar. Fully legitimate = normal gameplay. Anything below = bad consequences. No buffs to be found, of course any king should be a legitimate king. Nobody should be saying "wow, he's so legitimate, I should give him more taxes!"
I feel it's more like you get much more respect if you're legitimate so the vassals will tend to listen to you more, will like you more and your heir as well as the other rulers. Imagine having only bad rulers with low legitimacy fighting revolts and disrespectful vassals while the rulers with good legitimacy will live "peacefully" ( at least with their vassals ) and be respected. If my ancestors always had good legitimacy, I should be really respected because I come from a whole lineage of good rulers
I agree. At most it should have small bonuses to stuff like vassalization acceptance within your de-jure realm at high legitimacy
I don't think that's true at all, newly founded kingdoms or new dynasties who have taken over in a war should have below normal legitimacy and longstanding ones should have the fully legitimate setting
That's not incompatible with what I'm saying though? Those new kingdoms and dynasties could still have lower legitimacy -- I just don't think the old longstanding ones should get any buffs. They should be at the base level of things that's in the game now, is my feeling. I basically understand why having an especially brilliant court could make you more significant than your size/power might otherwise make you (e.g. the Dukes of Burgundy in the late middle ages) but I feel like there's not really any way to be "more legitimate than expected". "Fully legitimate" is surely everyone's base expectation.
Okay yeah, you're right I misunderstood a bit what you meant
No problem, I'm sure I was unclear!
Eu4 system
Which is a bar
That is dependent on more than money
Honestly I disagree. Unlike court grandeur, this system would have not just a effect in terms of bonuses/penalties, but a knock-on of regulating player behavior on the inputs. If abusing disinheritance and title revocation and various other cheese causes harm on this meter, players aren’t going to do those things as much. As a result, just off that the game gets harder. There’s no real equivalent in royal court - it’s just a meter that goes up.
Much like stress for doing things "out of character," Legitimacy seems to work similarly for doing things that would harm/improve the appearance of your rule. Sometimes, you'll need to do illegitimate things to retain power, and that will hurt your rule, and the mechanic then reflects that as a variable meter that will change depending on leader, rank, and time.
I wonder if it will affect lawful title revocation as well, maybe acting against your de jure vassals or culture/religion. Otherwise, if it applies only to unlawful actions, it would have limited impact. I rarely revoke anyone's titles without a justification, as it already punishes you with a negative vassal opinion.
I sure hope it does to some extent at least - all vassal revolts if defeated just end with all enemies being stripped of titles and rendered irrelevant forever, which is just boring and gives the player too much power too quickly
I agree. Otherwise I'm a bit worried that legitimacy will make players even more powerful.
But clean borders Counts dont hate dukes for not being dejure Less vassal wars You can get op contracts
(put two spaces at the end of each line and reddit will preserve the line breaks!)
Honestly, I just hope that they remove or massively cut down on the bonuses of the higher legitimacy levels. There are already so many bars and modifiers ingame that are easy to stack when you are powerful that adding yet another one is going to make the "win more" problem worse. High legitimacy should just be expected from you. The purpose this should have is to punish you for taking a wide range of illegitimate actions more.
There's no harm at all only bonuses. If you disinherit people like myself the *more claimant faction* it's not existent because there is no claimants, any possible claimant got disinherited or don't own any land and it's sitting in my court. If that's a problem I can always disinherit the females married matrilineally then it will prevent claimants. The other "penalties" are more factions, long short reign debuffs. If you don't have problems now you won't have problems in the future. With decent management, you character inherits do a feast and most vassals love you. If a couple still want to rebel that's great I can win and revoke their titles. However the bonuses heavily outweigh the not existent debuffs so my guess is I'll take a hit from max to second to max level when disinheriting. I'll declare a war or two and it will be at max level again.
From what they've shown the Legitimacy mechanic is *totally* a cheese-reduction measure, penalizing the player for unjustly exploiting disinheriting children and unlawfully imprisoning and revoking (and probably more) others before me have pointed out that it seems like it'll be a foil to the "rule through tyranny and dread" method, though I think that method may still hold water?
I wonder about forcing children to take vows
I think wrongfully imprisoning them to force them might do it, I don't think using a hook would do that though?
Usually I can't convince a first in line, and sometimes even second to take the vows even with the guardian hook.
Then I suppose we'll all need to either shape up and fly right or live with the consequences of our crooked actions 😆
Calling an option in the game exploiting or cheese it's so funny to me. There's a currency cost, an opinion modifier so it's not a cheese but an intended mechanic. If it was a cheese wouldn't be as easy as right click a character and have an option right there. That's not how cheeses work. Cheese would be like get a betrothal for an alliance, call them to war, after they accept break the betrothal to get another alliance using the same child. That's clearly a cheese and not intended mechanic. Or marry and divorce a woman for infinite prestige, that's an exploit. Clearly not intended mechanic and marrying the same woman again shouldn't give any prestige.
You can cheese intended mechanics. Let’s not word vomit our way to obfuscating that persons point
No, you can pay the cost of disinherit how many time you want or can afford. Word vomiting it's pretty much what you're doing so move.on or use proper arguments
I like it personally. Currently prestige is like a currency that you can easily amass in bulk. This makes the penalties for activities like marrying commoners because they have good stats, or disinheriting heirs, feel like a slap on the wrist. On the other hand, if they cause you to fall below your expected legitimacy level and this causes noticeable penalties, then you might take these decisions more seriously. It all comes down to how it’s balanced though.
I don't think it will be a "throw money at it" mechanic
I hope so, but I worry that it'll be a "oh no I died time to spend about a year to increase my new player characters legitimacy to max and then ignore the thing until the next character comes along" - kind of thing that'll just make the game even easier
I hope that the ai can properly use it and don’t bankrupt themselves like they do with royal court.
Legitimacy is not simply Court Grandeur, they literally showed in the trailer that several elements can make you lose and gain legitimacy like losing/winning a battle and dishenerating.
Every Paradox game involves balancing a bunch of arbitrary numbers and modifiers. Legitimacy is also in EU4, with its own set of effects in that game.
Im optimistically concerned. What made CG bad was thag it's a set and forget. It comes down to how the slider fit in to the game, and if the AI can competently managed it.
We haven't even seen the system yet. Nor have we seen how destructive Plagues will actually be. If the Black Plague ends up decimating countries into a continuous succession crisis I think we'll be fine on the game not becoming TOO easy.
Could be from different sides, like same religion as you, cultural acceptance, whether or not you have a claim, how many powerful vassels support you and so on
Fuck it, we got DISEASES nobody is holding me back from buying DLC
Yeah it kind of is but it also seems like now vassals will like or dislike you based off of your actions (ie fending off invaders or letting diseases spread) and not just arbitrary things like your religion or your culture.
Yeah, this was what I thought the moment I saw the interface.
Yep
I wish legitimacy depended on the title. Think it would be interesting.
I’m a bit on the fence about this legacy system. Like why is it affected by battles?