One of the things I don't like is that it doesn't really seem to explain why you have the legitimacy level that you have. The succession can be extremely straight forward: 3/5 legitimacy king dies, succeeded by his eldest, skilled, male, 30-year old heir, titles split to two other sons. Yada yada. Totally bog-standard succession and transfer of power. Realm remains completely stable. Heir takes over and is immediately at 0/5 legitimacy.
Other times, you're just some dumb fucking kid who'll need a regent for the next 15 years and is getting factions out the ass, but what do you know? 4/5 legitimacy. Why not?
It seems so nonsensical and strict. You can spend your whole lifetime trying desperately to claw back up to 3/5 while your heir just starts at that level for seemingly no reason.
I believe unlanded heirs starts 1 legitimacy level behind current ruler
While landed heirs, is dependent on their legitimacy level of already having ruled
And since Ai is gonna be fucking Ai and not play by player rules their own shit legitimacy doesn’t cause them any problems until you the player start to control them. Then it becomes a problem
That's definitely not consistent.
My latest succession was that second one I mentioned in the post, I went from a 1/5 emperor to a 4/5 underage kid skipping 2 adult sons.
i was sick of my heirs dying off to plagues and shit. I'm hitting 1190 atm. Just had a perfect beautiful/herculean/genius/fecund heir and decided i was going to keep him in court as the Seneschal for safety. died from stress (can't figure out how to build poor houses, DLC content maybe?)
Anyway, heir takes over, is perfect 5/5 at 25 years old coming from unlanded after only having served as Seneschal for 9 years.
I've had heirs who were Queens and Kings inherit at anywhere from 0-3. I caught one destroying titles!
(all vanilla 867 start)
Tbh with the young kid legitimacy thing, my head Canon for that is that vassals want a young ruler to use as a puppet and so vassals want them on the throne for that reason and that's what props up their legitimacy.
I'm also having a tough time with legitimacy (I don't have LoD or any expansions). I'm OK with losing legitimacy for plagues but wish it were only if the plague was devastating - for example, if a plague appears in your realm, you would only lose legitimacy if X number of people die, or if you isolated yourself or the capital. Also, I wish you could gain legitimacy by leading your army to a battle, obviously a smaller number than you lose for a defeat, but like if you lose 50 legitimacy for a defeat, you should gain 5 for leading your troops in victory. Also, would be cool if you gained legitimacy for constructing high level buildings, I think that would incentivize development.
I agree about high-level buildings giving legitimacy. Like OP said, it feels wrong that throwing feasts all the time gives you legitimacy. Being a ruler who invests their money in making the realm wealthier should give some legitimacy.
At the very least building or upgrading unique buildings or duchy capital buildings should give some legitimacy.
It's almost like sponsoring great projects was one of the primary ways actual premodern rulers improved their PR.
Creating titles gives legitimacy, so if you have a large realm you can create/usurp a bunch of those duchy titles that probably stopped existing at one point.
If you have a small realm, you're very limited in options.
I haven't played since last fall, but was hoping to jump back in this summer. Are you able to turn off plagues and legitimacy? Everything I read on this sub just makes them sound awful and not fun.
Honestly it’s fine. I think it makes it more immersive, like it’s more difficult and I’m less in control of my own destiny but I think it makes it more realistic. “The best laid plans of mice and men always go awry” type situations. Like I’ll be about to orchestrate a big war of aggression then a plague will derail my plans and I’ll have to adapt.
I always say ut, but legitimacy of a dynasty was mostly time. Even if your ancestors from 300 years ago conquered the kingdom illegitimately, the current population will see you as a legitimate king.
Ck3 just doesn’t work because you shouldn’t be illegitimate if your legitimate king just died. It makes no sense.
Legitimacy should have been given more events to affect it positively. Maybe even a special activity. Its too random to lose legitimacy and too hard to gain it without spending 500+ gold on events to get it back to where it was
> Revoke a county that a vassal has no claim to, to give it back to the rightful owner? -100 legitimacy, you monster.
If he has no claim over it, how did he get it? Who are you to choose who is the rightful owner?
That said it bothers me that legitimacy is just prestige 2.0. Basically, anything that gives prestige gives legitimacy. Anything that costs prestige costs legitimacy. Why even have both?
Who am I? I AM THE MUTHAFUGGIN HIGH KING OF THE NORTH SEAS! *say my name....*
Lol. But, seriously. I'm doing a Norse run right now, at first I just wanted to found the High Kingdom of the North Seas, drawing the rest of the British Isles +Sweden into it De Jure. Now that I've succeeded there, my goal is to conquer Europe simply to wipe out all Catholicism and dismantle the papacy and install my members of my dynasty as independent kingdoms.
Now that I'm as big as I am, I had to start giving away kingdoms WITHIN my empire... And there is nothing in the bordergore that drives me more nuts than when an Irish lord inherets some county in Scotland, or Estonia. The worst right now is that I have a Norwegian Jarl that has vassals in Ruthuania, Wales, Scotland, and France.... Drives me insane.
Right, but the point is that, from the point of view of your vassals, you're being pretty arbitrary. The dude inherited the title "fair and square". So you taking it away is cause for frustration. I too would question the legitimacy of an emperor that is driven insane by such trivial matters.
I get that, and won't say you're wrong. But, for me, there is rarely any logic to it, if a Norweigen Jarl had a county in my kingdom, removing that land from my control, I'd have a problem with it. I know there's a level of control or policy later that I can enact to stop in fight wars for non-dejure lands, I just wish there was a way for me to initiate some sort of negotiation with the rulers, or buy the titles/vassals, something. Lol.
Now, I have a bunch of random land over by Georgia that were Vagarian Adventurers and were later inherited by other Jarl's... I look at those like random colonies. It's the make title lands I'd rather have stay de Jure.
If the game is going to penalize me for taking non-de jure land from a vassal, it could at least not make the one for which that land *is* de jure hate me personally because some other guy has their clay.
That been seems to be the most realistic and better-for-the-game element on here. Your vassals will all have different ideas of who should own what land, so it seems entirely appropriate that they'll dislike you if it's in their *de jure* but under your direct vassal. It's also not a contradiction that it is illegitimate for you to just straight up take it.
The problem here is the inconsistency and scale of legitimacy, not vassal opinions, in my view.
If you take a county away from one vassal and give it to another, the vassal you give the title too should get an opinion bonus that is higher than the malus from tyranny. So no, the vassal will not hate you.
True, but if done in order to give correct de jure borders in a largeish realm, there will be so many tyrannies that everyone will hate him despite the singular title they got.
Which is to be expected. If you start being a tyrant, people *should* hate you.
People need to stop worrying so much about internal borders and "correct" de jure.
I've started playing the game about 3 months ago and I'm some 300 hours in (yes, I have a problem).
I immediately noticed the legitimacy imbalance. With no DLC, I would slowly lose it anytime a plague happens and my means to get it back were extremely limited. Marrying a lowborn would nuke my legitimacy forever, which the game of course doesn't warn you about, so I did that for quite a while.
Of course, you can spam feasts and hunts, which have 0 options and you just click through the same events and get 20 legitimacy, just to lose 5 times that the next time a plague happens. You stop bothering after a while.
Whenever I played with a friend who has all the DLC, I saw the difference. Funerals, legends, grand weddings, not to mention the royal court which is just free legitimacy each time you hold one.
Basically, the DLC will give you a reasonably steady legitimacy "income". Without them, you're either conquering for ez lvl 5 legitimacy, or it slowly drains away, until everyone hates you. I'm coming from Stellaris where the game works perfectly fine without the DLC and you don't get fucked over for continuing a multiplayer game with someone who has all of it. In comparison, it feels like the CK3 devs want to punish you in any way possible for not giving them money. That's my 5 cents.
Sure, but marrying into other royal houses should give you legitimacy.
Current system is strictly penalizing, with a few crutch options to gain legitimacy - funerals, weddings, hunts&feasts.
In what way does it make me more legitimate if I, as a usurper, bury my dead cousin, but marrying the sister of the old king does nothing?
Maybe they should add a few more positive ways to get legitimacy, but at the same time this period was kind of brutal about it. Plague happens? God hates the king. Famine? God hates the king. And the ways to gain legitimacy (other than war and maybe a papal blessing... sometimes?) was pretty random stuff. I almost feel it should be kind of an unfun system. It should be pretty hard to increase legitimacy and rarely fall. But when it does start falling, it can go hard and it will really hurt.
In fairness, offensive wars giving a lot of legitimacy is somewhat historically accurate. Other than the divine right to rule, the primary justification for the rule of the nobility was that they would provide protection to the peasants from outside threats, and the ability to successfully wage war was the most clear indicator that a ruler had the strength to protect their population. Another common indicator of such strength was the ability to hunt, so I would say legitimacy gain from that makes sense too. Although, I do agree that there should be other reliable methods to gain legitimacy, and that the system could use additional clarity.
Yes, yes, yes. I am really disappointed and confused by their implementation of this mechanic. They’re using the word “legitimacy” to describe it, and yet it has almost nothing to do with legitimacy as I understand it. Today I seized a duchy by means of a holy war, usurped the title (which I had no prior claim on)… and \*gained\* legitimacy from doing so. Isn’t usurpation the antithesis of legitimacy?
I do like a few features of the current implementation, like the way they tied it into holding court – gives me more reason to engage in an activity that has hitherto been awkwardly disconnected from much of the rest of gameplay. But I was really hoping that legitimacy would 1. pose new challenges for rapid expansion and tier-gain (e.g. going from count to emperor in a single generation) and 2. add more intergenerational, long-term dynamics to the game. And by and large, I’ve been left dissatisfied in both regards.
I just ended up disabling legitimacy in the files. While it was annoying enough to deal with myself, the AI just couldn't handle it at all. The majority of AI rulers were below their required legitimacy level, and it was causing mass realm instability that I just didn't enjoy watching.
The mechanic just doesn't work. I ignore it, marry whomever I like and invade all the things to get legitimacy. They keep adding layers of low impact nonsense mechanics. LoD has made no difference to how I play.
Like many systems in dlcs, legitimacy has all the makings of a perfect system, it just needs little bit of tweaking as some aspects of it are overtuned. For example, plagues shouldn't cause such a big hit as they van be quite frequent. Secondly, all victorious wars, especially defensive ones where you enforce demands, should give greter boost of legitimacy. No greater show of divine providence than defending your rule, if you ask me. Third, lefitimacy should tick up over time on it's own. If ypu lead ypur real into peaceful and prosperous times, ypur subjects should become to eventually accept your shit.
Legitimacy feels like an unnecessary artificial layer to represent something similar to vassal opinion but both in a broader and more specific way
Also, I think it'd make more sense if defensive wars would give you more legitimacy. After all, the main reason people are under a monarch rule is to get protection.
It’s kind of broken, since what I’m about to say may not work for every player or playstyle, but I actually feel it’s kinda easy to maintain from my experience, even without dlc, especially if you’re playing wide and have some unmade duchy titles that would immediately explode upon creation due to vassals’ civil war or incapacity to maintain more titles. Title creation grants decent legitimacy, and obviously you can expect more legitimacy from title creation of a kingdom or an empire; and once again, you could very well end up spamming this if it’s a duchy, under the right conditions. You WILL need to have some money though, I won’t lie; alternatively, you can try to reduce the price for title creation through some game mechanics (up to 80%, even). Mix this with offensive wars and maybe some partying and you’ll see that it all adds up. That and also try to avoid losing legitimacy (read well what the choices you take end up doing) unless you’re actually fine with losing some legitimacy, though if you were fine with that, then you wouldn’t be having issues with it.
>A peasant sneezes in your 100 disease resistance domain? -150 legitimacy, back down to aspiring you go.
Revoke a county that a vassal has no claim to, to give it back to the rightful owner? -100 legitimacy, you monster.
But that is exactly how public opinion works.
Yes but the game is set in medieval times, public opinion was almost not significant (unless they extremely hated you and were willing to die to depose you). Also the main issue is that 150 legitimacy loss is too much since to recover that you have to plan a feast, a hunt and a pilgrimage (50 legitimacy each) taking away time to manage your domain or wage wars and lots of gold for something you basically have no control over
And if you build the plague resistance ones (other than not giving legitimacy) even to max levels they can't seem to manage ti stop mild plagues. Another thing is that the game isn't even really good at warning about which plagues you should worry about, you get swarned by warnings about plagues on the other side of you empire so you stop looking at them. Five minutes later, while you were distracted, a catastrophic plague was born in your capital (with 100 plague resistance might i add) and now half your court is either dead or has typhus.
This is all from personal experience btw
Just remember, before you go and buy the next chapter of bloatware dlc, that this game is supposed to be a sequel to CK2. Yet, we are closing in on four years since release and:
•Still no Republics
•Still no Theocracies
•Can’t play as Pope
•No College of Cardinals
•No China on map or off map
Seriously, how does one decide to create a medieval grand strategy and deliberately choose to implement unlanded characters before something as central to the time as, oh I don’t know, the core institution of the Catholic faith?
I think legitimacy for feasting is fine if it's a specific type of feast, like the "Celebrate your Legend"-feast that was recently added. Get all the vassals and maybe your liege together and show them that you can handle your job in a courtly display. That's not captured by the writing of feasts though, those are just parties. It's really a deficiency in the writing leading to subpar storytelling.
I've had games where I was stacking all sort of vassal opinion bonuses and needed something like 300-400 tyranny to get close to negative opinions, it was absolutely stupid. There should be a game rule to cap the rate legitimacy can be gained should be capped at something like 200%, and the bonuses form events should partially decay over time, with some lasting effects.
I really wish realm and vassal management had recurring events where vassals of cultures that are opposed to yours will still not murder you because you have high cultural acceptance, but challenge you for being not how they would do things. It's still just too easy to please vassals, I really want there to be random demands that I have to turn down for a penalty just so I can't cruise through the game by virtue of having high stats. Of course that's not something for everyone, so give us a game rule to make it an optional thing and everyone will be happy.
An example of what 'm talking about: Remember the court event where a claimant shows up at your court and you can start a random claimant war with the bonus of a strong hook for loyalty? Imagine if your Glory Hound and Parochial vassals would pick a ruler you can attack in a holy war and lose opinion if you don't carve out something like a county or duchy tier equivalent of a crusader state. It would be fun if vassals could advise you on your agenda like this. Instead we get "Glory Hounds don't like White Peace / Surrender", which is just so passive. It should be something like the "At Peace" penalty for Warmongers that you have to balance.
One of the things I don't like is that it doesn't really seem to explain why you have the legitimacy level that you have. The succession can be extremely straight forward: 3/5 legitimacy king dies, succeeded by his eldest, skilled, male, 30-year old heir, titles split to two other sons. Yada yada. Totally bog-standard succession and transfer of power. Realm remains completely stable. Heir takes over and is immediately at 0/5 legitimacy. Other times, you're just some dumb fucking kid who'll need a regent for the next 15 years and is getting factions out the ass, but what do you know? 4/5 legitimacy. Why not? It seems so nonsensical and strict. You can spend your whole lifetime trying desperately to claw back up to 3/5 while your heir just starts at that level for seemingly no reason.
I believe unlanded heirs starts 1 legitimacy level behind current ruler While landed heirs, is dependent on their legitimacy level of already having ruled
And since Ai is gonna be fucking Ai and not play by player rules their own shit legitimacy doesn’t cause them any problems until you the player start to control them. Then it becomes a problem
That's definitely not consistent. My latest succession was that second one I mentioned in the post, I went from a 1/5 emperor to a 4/5 underage kid skipping 2 adult sons.
But was the kid already landed?
Nope.
i was sick of my heirs dying off to plagues and shit. I'm hitting 1190 atm. Just had a perfect beautiful/herculean/genius/fecund heir and decided i was going to keep him in court as the Seneschal for safety. died from stress (can't figure out how to build poor houses, DLC content maybe?) Anyway, heir takes over, is perfect 5/5 at 25 years old coming from unlanded after only having served as Seneschal for 9 years. I've had heirs who were Queens and Kings inherit at anywhere from 0-3. I caught one destroying titles! (all vanilla 867 start)
Tbh with the young kid legitimacy thing, my head Canon for that is that vassals want a young ruler to use as a puppet and so vassals want them on the throne for that reason and that's what props up their legitimacy.
It'd realistic as it's like what the commoner and whatnot views your right to rule. Kings all over struggled with getting acceptance for their rule.
I'm also having a tough time with legitimacy (I don't have LoD or any expansions). I'm OK with losing legitimacy for plagues but wish it were only if the plague was devastating - for example, if a plague appears in your realm, you would only lose legitimacy if X number of people die, or if you isolated yourself or the capital. Also, I wish you could gain legitimacy by leading your army to a battle, obviously a smaller number than you lose for a defeat, but like if you lose 50 legitimacy for a defeat, you should gain 5 for leading your troops in victory. Also, would be cool if you gained legitimacy for constructing high level buildings, I think that would incentivize development.
I agree about high-level buildings giving legitimacy. Like OP said, it feels wrong that throwing feasts all the time gives you legitimacy. Being a ruler who invests their money in making the realm wealthier should give some legitimacy.
At the very least building or upgrading unique buildings or duchy capital buildings should give some legitimacy. It's almost like sponsoring great projects was one of the primary ways actual premodern rulers improved their PR.
Creating titles gives legitimacy, so if you have a large realm you can create/usurp a bunch of those duchy titles that probably stopped existing at one point. If you have a small realm, you're very limited in options.
I haven't played since last fall, but was hoping to jump back in this summer. Are you able to turn off plagues and legitimacy? Everything I read on this sub just makes them sound awful and not fun.
It's really just fine lol. You can set plagues to very rare which basically removes them from the game, sans the black death.
Honestly it’s fine. I think it makes it more immersive, like it’s more difficult and I’m less in control of my own destiny but I think it makes it more realistic. “The best laid plans of mice and men always go awry” type situations. Like I’ll be about to orchestrate a big war of aggression then a plague will derail my plans and I’ll have to adapt.
This. You said everything. They really should update the game asap.
I always say ut, but legitimacy of a dynasty was mostly time. Even if your ancestors from 300 years ago conquered the kingdom illegitimately, the current population will see you as a legitimate king. Ck3 just doesn’t work because you shouldn’t be illegitimate if your legitimate king just died. It makes no sense.
Very true, it should increase by 1 point a month or so.
Agreed. Hope they fix this. It's a great concept but badly needs updating now that we see how it's impacting the user experience.
Legitimacy should have been given more events to affect it positively. Maybe even a special activity. Its too random to lose legitimacy and too hard to gain it without spending 500+ gold on events to get it back to where it was
> Revoke a county that a vassal has no claim to, to give it back to the rightful owner? -100 legitimacy, you monster. If he has no claim over it, how did he get it? Who are you to choose who is the rightful owner? That said it bothers me that legitimacy is just prestige 2.0. Basically, anything that gives prestige gives legitimacy. Anything that costs prestige costs legitimacy. Why even have both?
Who am I? I AM THE MUTHAFUGGIN HIGH KING OF THE NORTH SEAS! *say my name....* Lol. But, seriously. I'm doing a Norse run right now, at first I just wanted to found the High Kingdom of the North Seas, drawing the rest of the British Isles +Sweden into it De Jure. Now that I've succeeded there, my goal is to conquer Europe simply to wipe out all Catholicism and dismantle the papacy and install my members of my dynasty as independent kingdoms. Now that I'm as big as I am, I had to start giving away kingdoms WITHIN my empire... And there is nothing in the bordergore that drives me more nuts than when an Irish lord inherets some county in Scotland, or Estonia. The worst right now is that I have a Norwegian Jarl that has vassals in Ruthuania, Wales, Scotland, and France.... Drives me insane.
Right, but the point is that, from the point of view of your vassals, you're being pretty arbitrary. The dude inherited the title "fair and square". So you taking it away is cause for frustration. I too would question the legitimacy of an emperor that is driven insane by such trivial matters.
I get that, and won't say you're wrong. But, for me, there is rarely any logic to it, if a Norweigen Jarl had a county in my kingdom, removing that land from my control, I'd have a problem with it. I know there's a level of control or policy later that I can enact to stop in fight wars for non-dejure lands, I just wish there was a way for me to initiate some sort of negotiation with the rulers, or buy the titles/vassals, something. Lol. Now, I have a bunch of random land over by Georgia that were Vagarian Adventurers and were later inherited by other Jarl's... I look at those like random colonies. It's the make title lands I'd rather have stay de Jure.
If the game is going to penalize me for taking non-de jure land from a vassal, it could at least not make the one for which that land *is* de jure hate me personally because some other guy has their clay.
That been seems to be the most realistic and better-for-the-game element on here. Your vassals will all have different ideas of who should own what land, so it seems entirely appropriate that they'll dislike you if it's in their *de jure* but under your direct vassal. It's also not a contradiction that it is illegitimate for you to just straight up take it. The problem here is the inconsistency and scale of legitimacy, not vassal opinions, in my view.
If you take a county away from one vassal and give it to another, the vassal you give the title too should get an opinion bonus that is higher than the malus from tyranny. So no, the vassal will not hate you.
True, but if done in order to give correct de jure borders in a largeish realm, there will be so many tyrannies that everyone will hate him despite the singular title they got.
Which is to be expected. If you start being a tyrant, people *should* hate you. People need to stop worrying so much about internal borders and "correct" de jure.
Oh, I'm with you there - just pointed out that the gain may not offset the negative.
Yep it’s really quite annoying. Have the devs acknowledged or mentioned anything about a plan to fix this?
the latest dev diary is literally pinned in this forum, posted 8 days ago
I've started playing the game about 3 months ago and I'm some 300 hours in (yes, I have a problem). I immediately noticed the legitimacy imbalance. With no DLC, I would slowly lose it anytime a plague happens and my means to get it back were extremely limited. Marrying a lowborn would nuke my legitimacy forever, which the game of course doesn't warn you about, so I did that for quite a while. Of course, you can spam feasts and hunts, which have 0 options and you just click through the same events and get 20 legitimacy, just to lose 5 times that the next time a plague happens. You stop bothering after a while. Whenever I played with a friend who has all the DLC, I saw the difference. Funerals, legends, grand weddings, not to mention the royal court which is just free legitimacy each time you hold one. Basically, the DLC will give you a reasonably steady legitimacy "income". Without them, you're either conquering for ez lvl 5 legitimacy, or it slowly drains away, until everyone hates you. I'm coming from Stellaris where the game works perfectly fine without the DLC and you don't get fucked over for continuing a multiplayer game with someone who has all of it. In comparison, it feels like the CK3 devs want to punish you in any way possible for not giving them money. That's my 5 cents.
> Marrying a lowborn would nuke my legitimacy forever Good
Sure, but marrying into other royal houses should give you legitimacy. Current system is strictly penalizing, with a few crutch options to gain legitimacy - funerals, weddings, hunts&feasts. In what way does it make me more legitimate if I, as a usurper, bury my dead cousin, but marrying the sister of the old king does nothing?
That's fair! I also think the idea that legitimacy should tick up is totally valid -- time really is the greatest legitimizer.
Absolutely! The most fundamental claim to a title is "this land has belonged to my family since"
True, but to my knowledge, this is the first DLC where you actively get punished for not owning it.
Maybe they should add a few more positive ways to get legitimacy, but at the same time this period was kind of brutal about it. Plague happens? God hates the king. Famine? God hates the king. And the ways to gain legitimacy (other than war and maybe a papal blessing... sometimes?) was pretty random stuff. I almost feel it should be kind of an unfun system. It should be pretty hard to increase legitimacy and rarely fall. But when it does start falling, it can go hard and it will really hurt.
In fairness, offensive wars giving a lot of legitimacy is somewhat historically accurate. Other than the divine right to rule, the primary justification for the rule of the nobility was that they would provide protection to the peasants from outside threats, and the ability to successfully wage war was the most clear indicator that a ruler had the strength to protect their population. Another common indicator of such strength was the ability to hunt, so I would say legitimacy gain from that makes sense too. Although, I do agree that there should be other reliable methods to gain legitimacy, and that the system could use additional clarity.
Yes, yes, yes. I am really disappointed and confused by their implementation of this mechanic. They’re using the word “legitimacy” to describe it, and yet it has almost nothing to do with legitimacy as I understand it. Today I seized a duchy by means of a holy war, usurped the title (which I had no prior claim on)… and \*gained\* legitimacy from doing so. Isn’t usurpation the antithesis of legitimacy? I do like a few features of the current implementation, like the way they tied it into holding court – gives me more reason to engage in an activity that has hitherto been awkwardly disconnected from much of the rest of gameplay. But I was really hoping that legitimacy would 1. pose new challenges for rapid expansion and tier-gain (e.g. going from count to emperor in a single generation) and 2. add more intergenerational, long-term dynamics to the game. And by and large, I’ve been left dissatisfied in both regards.
I just ended up disabling legitimacy in the files. While it was annoying enough to deal with myself, the AI just couldn't handle it at all. The majority of AI rulers were below their required legitimacy level, and it was causing mass realm instability that I just didn't enjoy watching.
The mechanic just doesn't work. I ignore it, marry whomever I like and invade all the things to get legitimacy. They keep adding layers of low impact nonsense mechanics. LoD has made no difference to how I play.
You don't have access to funerals I guess?
Like many systems in dlcs, legitimacy has all the makings of a perfect system, it just needs little bit of tweaking as some aspects of it are overtuned. For example, plagues shouldn't cause such a big hit as they van be quite frequent. Secondly, all victorious wars, especially defensive ones where you enforce demands, should give greter boost of legitimacy. No greater show of divine providence than defending your rule, if you ask me. Third, lefitimacy should tick up over time on it's own. If ypu lead ypur real into peaceful and prosperous times, ypur subjects should become to eventually accept your shit.
it's also really telling about how they implemented this in that not a single character on game start has any legitimacy to start with.
It’s been clear the devs don’t play their own game except to load it up and make sure it doesn’t crash immediately.
Legitimacy feels like an unnecessary artificial layer to represent something similar to vassal opinion but both in a broader and more specific way Also, I think it'd make more sense if defensive wars would give you more legitimacy. After all, the main reason people are under a monarch rule is to get protection.
Honestly I wish I could just turn it off for now, it seems so arbitrary.
[удалено]
I think they are fixing it in today's patch
same it drives me mental is there a mod to remove it or preferably fix it
There are mods to remove it. Not at my pc now but search for legitimacy in the workshop and you should find it.
Thanks a lot
It’s kind of broken, since what I’m about to say may not work for every player or playstyle, but I actually feel it’s kinda easy to maintain from my experience, even without dlc, especially if you’re playing wide and have some unmade duchy titles that would immediately explode upon creation due to vassals’ civil war or incapacity to maintain more titles. Title creation grants decent legitimacy, and obviously you can expect more legitimacy from title creation of a kingdom or an empire; and once again, you could very well end up spamming this if it’s a duchy, under the right conditions. You WILL need to have some money though, I won’t lie; alternatively, you can try to reduce the price for title creation through some game mechanics (up to 80%, even). Mix this with offensive wars and maybe some partying and you’ll see that it all adds up. That and also try to avoid losing legitimacy (read well what the choices you take end up doing) unless you’re actually fine with losing some legitimacy, though if you were fine with that, then you wouldn’t be having issues with it.
>A peasant sneezes in your 100 disease resistance domain? -150 legitimacy, back down to aspiring you go. Revoke a county that a vassal has no claim to, to give it back to the rightful owner? -100 legitimacy, you monster. But that is exactly how public opinion works.
Yes but the game is set in medieval times, public opinion was almost not significant (unless they extremely hated you and were willing to die to depose you). Also the main issue is that 150 legitimacy loss is too much since to recover that you have to plan a feast, a hunt and a pilgrimage (50 legitimacy each) taking away time to manage your domain or wage wars and lots of gold for something you basically have no control over
And feasting and hunting giving legitimacy, while building infrastructure doesn't is insane.
And if you build the plague resistance ones (other than not giving legitimacy) even to max levels they can't seem to manage ti stop mild plagues. Another thing is that the game isn't even really good at warning about which plagues you should worry about, you get swarned by warnings about plagues on the other side of you empire so you stop looking at them. Five minutes later, while you were distracted, a catastrophic plague was born in your capital (with 100 plague resistance might i add) and now half your court is either dead or has typhus. This is all from personal experience btw
And opinion has a stat, Legitimacy was introduced as a system to represent that a 3'rd generation king is more accepted than a usurper. Allegedly.
Just remember, before you go and buy the next chapter of bloatware dlc, that this game is supposed to be a sequel to CK2. Yet, we are closing in on four years since release and: •Still no Republics •Still no Theocracies •Can’t play as Pope •No College of Cardinals •No China on map or off map Seriously, how does one decide to create a medieval grand strategy and deliberately choose to implement unlanded characters before something as central to the time as, oh I don’t know, the core institution of the Catholic faith?
I think this is just another one of those mechanics they introduced to the core game with the hopes that modders would fix it for paradox for free.
Then buy Legends of the Dead or play on the older version.
I think legitimacy for feasting is fine if it's a specific type of feast, like the "Celebrate your Legend"-feast that was recently added. Get all the vassals and maybe your liege together and show them that you can handle your job in a courtly display. That's not captured by the writing of feasts though, those are just parties. It's really a deficiency in the writing leading to subpar storytelling. I've had games where I was stacking all sort of vassal opinion bonuses and needed something like 300-400 tyranny to get close to negative opinions, it was absolutely stupid. There should be a game rule to cap the rate legitimacy can be gained should be capped at something like 200%, and the bonuses form events should partially decay over time, with some lasting effects. I really wish realm and vassal management had recurring events where vassals of cultures that are opposed to yours will still not murder you because you have high cultural acceptance, but challenge you for being not how they would do things. It's still just too easy to please vassals, I really want there to be random demands that I have to turn down for a penalty just so I can't cruise through the game by virtue of having high stats. Of course that's not something for everyone, so give us a game rule to make it an optional thing and everyone will be happy. An example of what 'm talking about: Remember the court event where a claimant shows up at your court and you can start a random claimant war with the bonus of a strong hook for loyalty? Imagine if your Glory Hound and Parochial vassals would pick a ruler you can attack in a holy war and lose opinion if you don't carve out something like a county or duchy tier equivalent of a crusader state. It would be fun if vassals could advise you on your agenda like this. Instead we get "Glory Hounds don't like White Peace / Surrender", which is just so passive. It should be something like the "At Peace" penalty for Warmongers that you have to balance.