CK II - 1.05 Development Diary - 2 of 3 - April 6th 2012
- Thread starter unmerged(1823)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Sure, and I agree with you but I do not think de jure duchies can change. They can't with the current patch anyway. So you'd have to decide on whether you wanted the old stem duchies or the more recent (and more numerous) duchies such as Brabant, Holland etc.
Personally I am of the opinion that fewer, larger duchies work better as there is less usurpation of titles and constant warring between dukes. This is definitely the case in my mod since merging Bourbon into Auvergne and Berry into Anjou and Orléans. It tends to make duchies generally more stable, which I prefer.
I suppose ideally we could have different de jure duchies set in the history files -- this would be a good way of having a pre-Conquest England with three or four de jure Anglo-Saxon earldoms and a post-Conquest England with a larger number of 14th and 15th century dukedoms.
I'm sure someone probably already mentioned this but 11 pages is too much to read through.
Based on this post it looks like Aquitaine would easily be able to create the Kingdom since he starts off as a triple Duke right? Only requirements is being King/Emperor/More than one Duke title?
Based on this post it looks like Aquitaine would easily be able to create the Kingdom since he starts off as a triple Duke right? Only requirements is being King/Emperor/More than one Duke title?
khedas you make some excellent points but isn't it true that regardless of papal authority and their feelings on what was de jure and what wasn't that many of the western nations wars occured precisely because certain nations felt that they owned certain territories based on the language spoke by the people there or the fact that it had been owned by them for a period of time. (Normandy obviously and that valley that was annexed between germany and france so many times) Wouldn't that make sense that after 100 years of holding a place the dejure changes not as an actual changing of dejure from the papal perspective but to represent the change in the minds of the people?
+1 and everything above. The game would change immense and loose the specific feel. If they wanna do a conquest game, why not EU: Medieval Wars. :angry:
I would'nt mind, if i could believe that it will work well. I'm afraid the HRE will split up quickly and just turn out the very opposite.
Too much a hassle not necessary at this point i think, compared to work on the court, events, assasinations, plots, ERE and the muslims of course.
Yup. Having a choice at game start would be a great option, but wouldnt it cause more work on balancing ?
I'm suprised i'm so critical here and i dont like it being picky. There are two souls inside me fighting on the issue.
Maybe its just a hangover. Jeez, ......ah hopefully they wont mess it up and surprise us with a great solution to it.
Also how will this affect some of the HRE/Byz vassal starts? As I understood it the Emperors could not create kingdom titles pre 1.05 so you could start as Toscana and with a little work create Kingdom of Italy. But now the Kaiser can create Italy/Germany himself correct?
It appears so, but then again German king and king of Italy were subsidiary titles of the HRE (well he was eligible to be crowned as such).
In game it will be hard to keep these together though.
This actually can be a issue with some solutions, they cause other issues, and neither might be totally satisfactory.
I thought it was a bit strange that a duke in Italy could make himself king of Italy or that as Savoy I could conquer and expand and become King of Burgundy. What would be needed is a way to simulate the imperial vicars and archchancellors for each kingdom and the eventual breakup of Italy and Burgundy due to inheritance and war.
Attention, the idea that Kingdoms should be created around the idea of a group of people united by something in common (usually language) is something that started to gain traction after the Thirty Years War (indeed, this is the basis for the whole 'Chambers of Reunion' of Louis XIV that ened up leading to a major war in Europe in the late XVIIth century), gained strong support after the French Revolution and was accepted in the XIXth century, becoming the basis for the unifications of Germany and Italy.
That is, you see, because if a monarch would 'feel' he would be intitled to a territory just because of what the people spoke, he would:
a) be in direct defiance with the will of God, as decreed by His representative on Earth, the Pope;
b) putting into question the whole basis of the system, as he would be implying that a lord might not be the rightful lord of a territory if the people was of a different language/ethnic group. That pretty much threatened the sway of many Kings, and effectively meant that 'your dynasty may not have the right to this title, as you are too foreign'.
Such an idea would be unthinkeable and seen (correctly) as a threat to ALL ruling dynasties, as many ruled 'foreign' lands. He would be declared a heretic, excommunicated and attacked by all his neighbours.
(the first dynasty of Portugal, btw, is called of 'Burgundy', as they were French, from a cadet line of the Capets. The father of the first King could barely speak the language of the land he ruled for 30 years).
In the Middle Ages, about 90% of the wars beteen the Western Kingdoms (holy wars against heathens and infidels were another thing) were caused by one thing, and one thing only: dynastic claims. One family had a claims that they argued THEY were the chosen ones to rule a territory (county, duchy, or the whole Kingdom) and the war revolved around that.
The other causes were:
- peasant revolt for any reason, usually overtaxation or war exhaustion (like Watt Tyler's revolt in England or the Jacqueries in France though those doesn't count as wars in CK2)
- crusades against heretics (like the Albigensian Crusade ordered by the Papacy against the Cathar Heretics in Occitania [southern France] or the ones against the Hussites in Bohemia),
- division between Emperor and Pope about Investiture [a big deal in XIth century HRE];
- Internal attempts to take the throne, either by pretenders or the heir (like the Praguerie, when the 17-year-old Dauphin Louis [the future Louis XI] tried to be declared regent and de facto ruler by his 37-year-old 'old' father Charles with the aid of some major nobles (he was defeated, but would revolt numerous times after that. For that matter, in Portugal between 1279 and 1325 all the prince heirs revolted against their fathers to get the throne early)
- And the one, GREAT exception that is the ONLY time the Will of the People actually mattered: the revolt of the Swiss cantons against the Emperor in 1291. Aided by their mountainous territory, the Swiss held back the armies of the Empire. Still, they had to negotiate a nominal submission as a confederacy later on. The official independence of Switzerland would only occur in 1648, exactly because the end of the Thirty Years War 'broke' the strength of the Empire and let it dependent only of the power of the Austrian Habusburgs.
In all the other conflicts, it was always questions of 'who was owed what': William the Conqueror had no real ties to England, he just claimed Harold had once (was probably coerced into) swearing fealty to him, Philip Augustus wanted back the territories the Plantagenet Kings of England held in France so that his 'vassal' the King of England would not be stronger in France than he was, Edward III started the Hundred Years War based on his claims to the French Throne, and so on. There were some attempts to change this (the rich cities in Flanders tried to kick their French count out, and indeed their support was key in convincing Edward III to start the war with France. It lasted little, and the Count ended up retaking his rightful holdings when the burger leader was assassinated six years later).
In the case of Normandy, the land had been given to be settled by Rollo's normans in the 9th century, and it was not seen as being anything other than French soil. So much so, that it was inherited by one of William's younger sons, who immediately reverted to being a vassal of just France, until it reverted back under the Angevins. And Henry V invaded France in 1415 because he wanted 'his' duchy back, but only because he had claims to it, not because he had any links to the territory (the French had managed to make the English retreat from almost all their French holdings between 1361 and 1384).
Also, note that EVEN TODAY, the rulers of England are also the Dukes of Normandy. That doesn't make Normandy any less French or give Queen Elizabeth II any link to the people there, does it?
In this era, by and large, what the people wanted or were *did not matter* for the nobility. Besides, if that wasn't the case, how could you try to grow through dynastic marriage if you happened to inherit a territory of a different language? People only *felt* they should have land if they had a family tie to it, or if they could get it with the permission of the Pope (this is why the burgundian duke Charles the Bold died trying to attack the Swiss - they were the easiest target for him).
To sum it up, when the People wanted something else that the Pope did not allow, the only exit was to become Heretics and risk the wrath of all Catholics. In fact, you can see here the roots of the Hussite movement as a kind of nationalist movement in Bohemia against German rule. Their only way to express their desire to be a totally free Kingdom was to not accept the Pope nor the Emperor. Thus they became heretics, to the wrath of not just the Germans, but all Catholics - even Joan of Arc wrote to them threatening to stop her campaign against the English and turn against the Hussites, who so insulted God with their heresy...
What I regret is having no chance to recreate the Swiss confederacy in CK2 - there should have been some way for peasants to last long enough in mountains to be able to do that...
Last edited:
Khedas again a great post, but I can nitpick about one thing, the Flemish cities eventually supported their count (Guy of Dampierre) in the conflict with his liege the king of France (battle of the Golden Spurs). Initially the cities did have a dispute with their count and his power over them, they did ask for French help, but that kind of backfired, because the French governor was even worse than their count.
Later the Flemish cities did end up in conflict with their count Philip the Good regarding taxes, but those revolts were usually against those taxes not the right their liege had to rule them.
Later the Flemish cities did end up in conflict with their count Philip the Good regarding taxes, but those revolts were usually against those taxes not the right their liege had to rule them.
Last edited:
From a gameplay perspective that's fine. Once you're above the "Count" level you can expand to the entire map even with the limits thanks to you being able to put new subservient counts in charge of counties. There really ISN'T a difference, de-facto, between a mega-count and a King as far as gameplay is concerned.
The change from De-jure kingdoms being fixed in stone to being changable does nothing to expand or improve gameplay, and only serves to hurt the plausability.
I think these changes will greatly improve the playability and the fun of the game, though there are nice historical arguments in this thread.
Ultimately, the power of the Holy See in this game fluctuates wildly based on Moral Authority. Whatever the Pope may have wished for with his forged documents and bulls isn't as important as the temporal might of a powerful ruler unless their authority is extremely high, and i tend to think about real life as a 'high papal authority' time throughout the Crusades era.
Perhaps it should be more difficult to alter De Jure borders when Papal authority is high... but honestly, gameplay takes precedence for me, and I dont think the De Jure static system was very fun.
Ultimately, the power of the Holy See in this game fluctuates wildly based on Moral Authority. Whatever the Pope may have wished for with his forged documents and bulls isn't as important as the temporal might of a powerful ruler unless their authority is extremely high, and i tend to think about real life as a 'high papal authority' time throughout the Crusades era.
Perhaps it should be more difficult to alter De Jure borders when Papal authority is high... but honestly, gameplay takes precedence for me, and I dont think the De Jure static system was very fun.
Most likely, hence the debate, fun is connected to what you want to find in a game; probably we're looking for something different
. I'm not against all changes, for instance the new crusade system looks very promising. What's represented by the de jure system in the game was pretty static in established Christian realms and not very fluid; a too fluid de jure system would IMHO be (very) wrong too. So in part it will depend on how this will be worked out and to which extend it can be adjusted by players; every type of player should be able to play the game in a way they like.
Some like this new more fluid system, whereas others fear that it will be an immersion breaker and thus will decrease their fun. Neither side is right or wrong, but they just define their fun differently
.
Last edited:
Expect that single king title covering all vassals is better than three king titles covering all vassals.
If they put the timer these 100 years in defines or in an event it will be possible to go back to static and everyone wins.
You know, you don't actually have to create additional duchies. You can just roll as a duke with lands outside of his de-jure fiefdom, but which aren't enough to make a claim on the de-jure kingdom that would include his duchy.
Most likely, hence the debate, fun is connected to what you want to find in a game; probably we're looking for something different
I'm not against all changes, for instance the new crusade system looks very promising. What's represented by the de jure system in the game was pretty static in established Christian realms and not very fluid; a too fluid de jure system would IMHO be (very) wrong too. So in part it will depend on how this will be worked out and to which extend it can be adjusted by players; every type of player should be able to play the game in a way they like.
Some like this new more fluid system, whereas others fear that it will be an immersion breakers and thus will decrease their fun. Neither side is right or wrong, but they just define their fun differently
I understand of course.
I'm absolutely certain the amount of years for this to happen, 100 by default, will be a value exported to defines though. For SURE anyone will be able to set it to 400 to essentially disable the new feature.
As for the new kingdoms, theyll be moddable in landed_titles of course, and I'll probably take one or two out myself, not a huge fan of dividing Germany or France.