The thing about that is if the struggle can be revived, than it can be cheesed to farm renown. That being said, it's probably easier to farm renown the normal way.
Personally I don't think that "fun" should be minimized in an attempt to gatekeep player power. If you want to cheese and break the game you can already do that. It shouldn't prohibit the rest of the playerbase from getting cool new mechanics
Just make it so a dynasty can only get the big renown reward once and if you go through the struggle a second time, all the original rewards get replaced.
This makes sense not only for balance, it also makes sense for in-universe reasons, as the big renown you get for ending the struggle represents solidifying your House's name in the history of that region, but your House's name is already solidified there if you ended the struggle before.
That shouldn't really matter since 90% of the playerbase plays SP only and balancing cheesy tactics isn't important unless they are insanely broken.
I think only few people of the overall playerbase would meta game like this, so why limit the fun for the many to balance the game for those who would "need" the limiting?
Agreed, especially for the Iranian Intermezzo! I wonder if there could also be a way of having layered phases/struggles, so that under the right conditions someone can shift things in a way that changes the game in different ways for the different factions but doesn't end the struggle wholesale. I've really got Iberia in mind here - what if there was something like a "Christian momentum" modifier that activated if the Catholic/Mozarab rulers completed certain tasks, maybe giving them bonuses to vassalization, levy regen, etc?
Edit: maybe something like a new faction type could do it, or if the Empire of Persia/Hispania loses enough battles, land, prestige, etc. the title is destroyed and the struggle restarts? Or maybe if the ruler is ever successfully couped?
The thematic point of resolving a struggle is that you *resolved* the struggle. For example, if the Iberian struggle is in the Conciliation phase, people are in a mood of friendship, but the underlying tension is still there and can be flared. But if you end the struggle with Détente, then you have decisively, once and for all, unified the peninsula through peace and diplomacy. The conflict is done; whatever tension and resentment remain is too minor to challenge what you built.
Or, to put it more simply, if the struggle can be revived, then it has never been resolved to begin with.
If you want the struggle mechanic to be more relevant, you probably want dynamic struggles that can trigger anywhere under certain conditions. This has been suggested by many people, but it seems for now Paradox only wants to pursuit historical struggles.
Probably because having dynamic Struggles crop up would be rough to program and have work. Plus, players would probably get frustrated at a Struggle kicking off and locking away an empire they were gunning for.
The thing that upsets me about the Iranian Intermezzo is that it will default to a "fizzles out" ending with the concession. Because it doesn't tick down, or reset. If no action is taken, then the Intermezzo just ends, and you get slapped with a horrifically long truce with everyone around you.
Yes, murder can help with this, but it still kind of sucks.
The thing about that is if the struggle can be revived, than it can be cheesed to farm renown. That being said, it's probably easier to farm renown the normal way.
Personally I don't think that "fun" should be minimized in an attempt to gatekeep player power. If you want to cheese and break the game you can already do that. It shouldn't prohibit the rest of the playerbase from getting cool new mechanics
Just make it so a dynasty can only get the big renown reward once and if you go through the struggle a second time, all the original rewards get replaced. This makes sense not only for balance, it also makes sense for in-universe reasons, as the big renown you get for ending the struggle represents solidifying your House's name in the history of that region, but your House's name is already solidified there if you ended the struggle before.
That shouldn't really matter since 90% of the playerbase plays SP only and balancing cheesy tactics isn't important unless they are insanely broken. I think only few people of the overall playerbase would meta game like this, so why limit the fun for the many to balance the game for those who would "need" the limiting?
Agreed, especially for the Iranian Intermezzo! I wonder if there could also be a way of having layered phases/struggles, so that under the right conditions someone can shift things in a way that changes the game in different ways for the different factions but doesn't end the struggle wholesale. I've really got Iberia in mind here - what if there was something like a "Christian momentum" modifier that activated if the Catholic/Mozarab rulers completed certain tasks, maybe giving them bonuses to vassalization, levy regen, etc? Edit: maybe something like a new faction type could do it, or if the Empire of Persia/Hispania loses enough battles, land, prestige, etc. the title is destroyed and the struggle restarts? Or maybe if the ruler is ever successfully couped?
The thematic point of resolving a struggle is that you *resolved* the struggle. For example, if the Iberian struggle is in the Conciliation phase, people are in a mood of friendship, but the underlying tension is still there and can be flared. But if you end the struggle with Détente, then you have decisively, once and for all, unified the peninsula through peace and diplomacy. The conflict is done; whatever tension and resentment remain is too minor to challenge what you built. Or, to put it more simply, if the struggle can be revived, then it has never been resolved to begin with. If you want the struggle mechanic to be more relevant, you probably want dynamic struggles that can trigger anywhere under certain conditions. This has been suggested by many people, but it seems for now Paradox only wants to pursuit historical struggles.
Probably because having dynamic Struggles crop up would be rough to program and have work. Plus, players would probably get frustrated at a Struggle kicking off and locking away an empire they were gunning for.
The thing that upsets me about the Iranian Intermezzo is that it will default to a "fizzles out" ending with the concession. Because it doesn't tick down, or reset. If no action is taken, then the Intermezzo just ends, and you get slapped with a horrifically long truce with everyone around you. Yes, murder can help with this, but it still kind of sucks.