Are defensive pacts fun to play with on?

[alex]

I've always had defensive pacts turned off because when I first played the game, I kept getting destroyed by them and I already didn't know what I was doing so I turned them off. I just forgot about them and never turned them back on.

Now I'm wondering if they would make the game more fun. I'm playing as Byzantium right now trying to form the Roman Empire and I'm not having much trouble conquering my neighbors because my retinue is large and my vassals provide enough levies to slap the ♥♥♥♥ out of anyone even remotely close to me.

So would defensive pacts be fun to turn on? I've read that most people didn't like them because they were unfair and not fun to play against, but has anything changed? Do any of you like playing with them on? Would it make the play-through more fun or just stressful and annoying?

[Majestic Person]

Defensive pacts are really annoying but if you want another challenge than turn defensive pacts on and if you wanna double down turn it to hard or very hard. It's just preference on whether you wanna fight a whole swarm by yourself and see how you fare or just wait some time to attack safely. Either way it depends on what you call "fun" if you want to waste more time in this game getting more challenged or frustrated then yes if you want a fun relaxing game, no.

[alex]

Originally posted by Majestic Person:

Defensive pacts are really annoying but if you want another challenge than turn defensive pacts on and if you wanna double down turn it to hard or very hard. It's just preference on whether you wanna fight a whole swarm by yourself and see how you fare or just wait some time to attack safely. Either way it depends on what you call "fun" if you want to waste more time in this game getting more challenged or frustrated then yes if you want a fun relaxing game, no.

Alright, thank you for your insight!

[Narrowmind]

If you don't plan to pain the map or you're planning on being in a dangerous situation, defensive pacts can help you. I feel they are good when you mainly plan to play tall. I don't fight defensive pacts. I just tend to keep my expansion reasonable.

[Razorblade]

Unfortunately, they're kind of vital to game balance. In start dates like 867, you'll often end up with a giant AI reformed Viking blob that is immune to shattering and constantly expands through vassal invasions, and in a similar vain, in start dates like 1066, the player will rapidly become this same kind of blob.

Paradox should have invested more time in developing a realistic limit on expansion, i.e. internal dissent, rather than using an anachronistic band-aid solution (defensive pacts), but we're sadly left with what we have. Hopefully Paradox's more focused approach to CK3 will fix this issue in future games.

[Brother Frank]

Originally posted by Razorblade:

Unfortunately, they're kind of vital to game balance. In start dates like 867, you'll often end up with a giant AI reformed Viking blob that is immune to shattering and constantly expands through vassal invasions, and in a similar vain, in start dates like 1066, the player will rapidly become this same kind of blob.

This. HRE also is kept in check for longer by defense pacts. Wouldn't play a game without them, even if they are a minor inconvenience at times (dying ruler with gavelkind when I want to form an empire)

[al_x_ator2411]

All the pagans or all the Christians or all the Muslims defending against you might be fun in a way but all the world banding together against you is just tedious and time consuming.

Of course without the pacts the game does become a walk in the park after a while which is also tedious. For this reason I have been playing with them on from the start.

But now that I'm trying to rush some achievements (so I get 100% before I buy the new game) I do find them more of an arbitrary hindrance instead a depth adding feature.

[Сааребас]

Originally posted by al_x_ator2411:

All the pagans or all the Christians or all the Muslims defending against you might be fun in a way but all the world banding together against you is just tedious and time consuming.

Of course without the pacts the game does become a walk in the park after a while which is also tedious. For this reason I have been playing with them on from the start.

But now that I'm trying to rush some achievements (so I get 100% before I buy the new game) I do find them more of an arbitrary hindrance instead a depth adding feature.

Basically this.

[Brother Frank]

Easy work around is to just murder anyone in a defense pact that you want to attack. Makes muslim games a total joke if you're an assassin. Also true for satanists but to a lesser extent though as its harder to kill off kings.

[Yaldabaoth]

They're terrible and even Paradox agrees. That's why you can switch them off and still get achievements.

[galadon3]

Originally posted by Brother Frank:

Easy work around is to just murder anyone in a defense pact that you want to attack. Makes muslim games a total joke if you're an assassin. Also true for satanists but to a lesser extent though as its harder to kill off kings.

Are you sure you mean the same? He is not talking about the diplomatic non-agression treaties and pacts but the game-option that makes more and more realms go to the defense against you the more threat you (or your vassals) have built up through expansion.
The death of a ruler doesnt change if a realm joins in on those.

[Yxklyx]

It might be that a better anti-blobbing mechanism is to reduce vassal limit by half. I find the game more challenging and it seems like there's less blobbing (but I also have defensive pacts on). I might experiment with quartered vassal limits in my next game. The thing with vassal limit though is I don't think titles can break away if the realm is at war and realms are often at war.

[Thistle and Rose]

defensive pacts are the only way de jure empires fall apart in my games, so i use them, so every hundred years or so the power balance flips and the balance of europe is gone. For example in 960 the ummayads spread the iron grip from barcelona to the whole of north africa, in another century the ummayads had fragmented and a giant france rose. the defensive pacts ar emeant to keep smaller players a chance

[Brother Frank]

Originally posted by galadon3:

Are you sure you mean the same? He is not talking about the diplomatic non-agression treaties and pacts but the game-option that makes more and more realms go to the defense against you the more threat you (or your vassals) have built up through expansion.
The death of a ruler doesnt change if a realm joins in on those.

Yeah. I mean those very same defense pacts. I was abusing it in my very rare muslim game (too easy) two nights ago. Joined the assassins and just murderplotted the crusaders to repeatedly do wars against them and only them while sitting at 99% threat. Also used it to expand nonstop. Can demonstrate in a quick video if you'd like.

Edit: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2199352262

Was previously in the defense pact, now he's alone and ready to be demolished by my retinue walking on his borders right now.

Edit2: So while murdering the rest of Africa's leaders I noticed it doesn't always work, so you may have to murder more than one person, but that's ok because assassins are OP.

[al_x_ator2411]

I used to use that 'exploit' too (murdering leaders of the pacts) but as you noticed it doesn't always work anymore. In fact in doesn't work 99% of the time.

[Brother Frank]

Originally posted by al_x_ator2411:

I used to use that 'exploit' too (murdering leaders of the pacts) but as you noticed it doesn't always work anymore. In fact in doesn't work 99% of the time.

Definitely works a lot more than 1% of the time. More like 40% for me for the first kill. Longest it took for me was only 4 kills which isn’t that bad at all.