CK II - 1.05 Development Diary - 2 of 3 - April 6th 2012

[Slaunyeh]

I like all of what i see in the patch.
I m not concerned about ahistorical stuff if balance comes in, and nerf HRE easyness of cohesion (this term exist?) which is even more bothersome than Byzantine.

I find brilliant that you can help someone to acquire independence, as long as, when you re the ruler, such happens from AI stand point agaisnt you.
I like when the wind that blow this way also blow that way...
If such is not done, this will favor the Player over AI too much, which is already fairly easy unless you play a Dinasty game over cumulative ruler game.

I also hope relationship is reflected in that help, even if in a temporary way, AI could have second intention on your skin even if you help them...(the same way we will automatically have second and third intentions).
Historically most shift in rulership were supported because the supoorters of the newcomers saw/foresaw some personal advantage in the shift.

As for creation of 1 duchy kingdom, i would agree with it, would the fisrt date bein the 7XX 8XX timeframe, where fragmentation were much stronger and vassalisation less proheminent.
So i find fine the 2 duchy limit.

Since history is thrown out the window the moment you press play, and its the main game strenght, i m all for going up to the top of the line and be able to create Empireships. It doesn t matter gamewise that those empires were tied to ROME or whatever.

As for the change of the De Jure to Follow De Facto, i m all for it. But as demonstrated, it should be tied to custom and languages (culture) more than mere Tax domination. De Jure did not happen more often, cause rulers weren t intelectually interested if some part wasn t culturaly absorbed as long it payed their due.
Such interest would only rise when the region, "De cultural", caused consistent troubles that would treaten the coesiveness of his holdings.
Much difering from this situation was religion, as Pope(religion) had much more influence IRL than it has in the game.
But i understand this requires changing in the "absorbtions" mechanics actualy implemented in the game (adding features), althought i think such change would be awesome.
I also believe that trying to implement such cultural, language overlapping could/should be a stress on the kingdom as it would (as it has) provoke revolts that could end up chaining as other regions non culturally aligned would/could preemptively revolt.
Many castles and cities were realocated (razed and rebuilt elsewhere with diferent architectural characteristics just to emphatize the cultural dominance.)
Such would allow one to raze a castle as basis of the land and make it a bishopry or doge, but this may provoke imbalance, or player advantage over AI, which we actually doesn t need.

This patch seem to be a game changer for those that are gamewise inclined and not so pleasing for the historicalwise inclined.
Being one of the formers, i welcome all of the changes.

I hope the third part comes with changes around plots, because in this very moment its the underused area of the game that have IMHO the greater potential to stonewrite this game into one of the stelar games in its genre, and market turning point.

And i hope in the long run more love is given for the Non catholic faction so we can play them with non catholic features.
I am probably one of the few that would love to see a Celtic kingdon, non catholic rise, or whatever.
If cultures and religions are diferenciated gamewise (which could be a programable nightmire) this game would be THE GAME to beat.

But maybe for a CK3 ?

 

[Ahmed68]

no word on fixing ethiopians?.. what the hell paradox

 

[Sleight of Hand]

I've reported it as a suggestion in the bug forum.

 

[kingofparades]

I think what I personally will do, is put a bunch of titular titles within the HRE that require independence. If the HRE isn't controlling bavaria anyway, I could see a pope maybe declaring it de-jure independent.

 

[Hamanu]

Which is totally realistic!

Even the over-mighty Habsburgs knew how the game was played; they had to wait for an existing crown to up their stake in the Empire -- they didn't just decide that they held more land than anyone else so they'd create the kingdom of Austria.

Actually, Frederick III toyed with the idea, and Maximillian wanted to fulfill it, but Charles V opposed it vehemently since he - already king of Spain - didn't want his brother Ferdinand to have a royal title to match his.

And the Habsburgs before Frederick III were not in a position to create a royal title due to Bavarian and Luxemburg hostility and their own internal divisions.

 

[czam2007]

this is going to be a great patch, cheers Paradox

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Actually, Frederick III toyed with the idea, and Maximillian wanted to fulfill it, but Charles V opposed it vehemently since he - already king of Spain - didn't want his brother Ferdinand to have a royal title to match his.

And the Habsburgs before Frederick III were not in a position to create a royal title due to Bavarian and Luxemburg hostility and their own internal divisions.

None of that contradicts what I've said though. I'm sure there were people who wanted to create new imperial titles -- but they didn't.

 

[unmerged(101730)]

Thanks guys for clearing up to me what "De Iure Kingdom" actually means (because the way the game uses them certainly makes no sense whatsoever). As an idea, would scrapping them all outside of the Catholic-ruled lands unbalance the game much? Did anyone try it?

 

[deezee]

I understand the point that khedas and Sleight of Hand make has a strong basis in the actual history, but I'm pretty sure not all people would enjoy playing a game that is accurate in those ways. However, it would be a very easy thing to mod in as Alerias said, just mod changing of de jure titles to be something that never actually happens and then set the borders of de jure kingdoms to be historical accurate. In order to be truly accurate though, de jure DUCHIES not to be dynamic; while the kingdoms didn't change during this time period, many of the duchies obviously did, and to my knowledge kings were permitted to revoke, alter and create duchies within their kingdom as they wished. Moreover, to my knowledge (though I might be mistaken on this) duchies didn't really have de jure boundaries; the duke of Burgundy for example might be vassal to the king of France or the Holy Roman Empire in different parts of his territory, but he was never vassal to another duke to my knowledge because a county he had; that county would simply have been considered a part of his duchy. Would it be possible in future updates to have fluid duchies as well then?

 

[Hamanu]

The Kingdom of Arles (Arelat, 933–1378) or Second Kingdom of Burgundy of the High Middle Ages was a Frankish dominion established in 933 from lands of the early medieval Kingdom of Burgundy at Arles. Its territory stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to the High Rhine in the north roughly corresponding to the present-day French regions of Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, Rhône-Alpes and Franche-Comté, as well as western Switzerland. It was ruled by independent kings until 1032,[1] after which it fell to the Holy Roman Empire.

The Carolingian subdivision of Burgundy originally was part of Middle Francia allotted to Emperor Lothair I by the 843 Treaty of Verdun, as distinct from the Duchy of Burgundy which fell to West Francia. By 875 all sons of Lothair I had died without heirs and most of the Burgundian territories were held by the West Frankish king Charles the Bald, with the exception of those parts of Upper Burgundy north of the Jura mountains (Bourgogne Transjurane) that had fallen to King Louis the German of East Francia by the 870 Treaty of Meerssen.

In the confusion after the death of Charles' son Louis the Stammerer in 879, the West Frankish count Boso of Provence took the chance to establish the Kingdom of Lower Burgundy (Bourgogne Cisjurane) at Arles. Parallel in 888, Count Rudolph of Auxerre upon the death of the Emperor Charles the Fat of East Francia founded the Kingdom of Upper Burgundy at Saint-Maurice. Both kingdoms were united in 933, when King Hugh of Arles ceded Lower Burgundy to King Rudolph II of Upper Burgundy in turn for Rudolph's waiver of the Italian throne.

Rudolph merged both Upper and Lower Burgundy into the new Kingdom of Arles (Arelat). In 937, he was succeeded by his son Conrad the Peaceful. Inheritance claims by Hugh of Arles were rejected with the support of the German king Otto I, whereafter the kingdom fell into the Imperial sphere of influence. In 993 Conrad was succeeded by Rudolph III, who, as he had no heirs, in 1006 signed an inheritance treaty with King Henry II of Germany. In 1032, King Rudolph III died, and the Kingdom was inherited by Henry's successor Emperor Conrad II from the Salian dynasty.

Though the Emperors from that time on counted themselves "Kings of Arles", few went to be crowned in the cathedral. An exception was Emperor Frederick Barbarossa who in 1178 was crowned King of Burgundy by the Archbishop of Arles. The Kingdom operated with considerable autonomy.[1] The office of an archchancellor was held by the Archbishop of Trier, confirmed by the Golden Bull of 1356.

Between the 11th century and the end of the 14th century, several parts of the kingdom's territory broke away: Provence, Vivarais, Lyonnais, Dauphiné, Savoy, Franche-Comté, parts of western Switzerland.[1] Most of the territory of Lower Burgundy was progressively incorporated into France — the County of Provence fell to the House of Anjou in 1246 and finally to the French crown in 1481, the Dauphiné was annexed and sold to the French king Charles V of Valois in 1349 by the dauphin de Viennois Humbert II de La Tour-du-Pin. On the other hand the County of Burgundy was acquired by the Imperial House of Hohenstaufen in 1190 and the eastern parts of Upper Burgundy fell to the House of Zähringen and later to the Habsburgs.

Emperor Charles IV of Luxembourg in 1361 detached the County of Savoy from the Burgundian kingdom. In 1365 he was the last emperor to be crowned King of Arles, though in 1378, he appointed the Dauphin of France (later King Charles VI of France) as permanent Imperial vicar of the kingdom. From then on, Arelat existed only on paper.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Arelat

I think this is an example par excellence of a dynamic de iure kingdom or : How the majority of the kingdom of Arelate became de iure part of France and a tiny bit ended up Imperial (the county of Bugundy)

And ultimately, CK is a simulation of medieval concepts and principle, not a literal replay of the Middle Ages. If the Arelat could and did go from being a de iure kingdom to a part of de iure France, there's no reason why CK shouldn't allow for that principle to happen elsewhere in the game world.

 

[khedas]

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.

The problem I see with changing the change in De Jure from 100 to 400 years is that, like that, we would never get rid of the fantasy Kingdoms (like Bavaria, Frisia and Aquitania) that would be present from the start of the game, I'm afraid... the AI would be able to create them right until the end of the game.

Unless there is a way to eliminate those Kingdoms altogether, while also giving their De Jure provinces to the correct Kingdoms, of course.

I like all of what i see in the patch.
I m not concerned about ahistorical stuff if balance comes in, and nerf HRE easyness of cohesion (this term exist?)

The problem is that people keep having in their minds the concept of the HRE as the weak and divided state that arouse from the Thirty Years War. That was not the previously the case. Has anybody actually noticed that the HRE always remained in existance, regardless of internal problems? Can anbody even quote ONE example of an "implosion" that utterly wrecked the HRE? I was a far more stable entity than what players, only thinking of the Empire of latter centuries, can bring themselves to admit.

Since history is thrown out the window the moment you press play (...)

This is a logical fallacy.

What is meant is that the game can (and should) develop in a different way than in History, but still respecting the principles of the era, that certainly would not change during the time frame. Not something that right off the bat disregards the core principles of the time.

For example, let us assume a strategy game set in the years 1950-2000.

In one version of the game (that mantains the core concepts of the era), we could see, for example:

North Korea quickly overruning South Korea and unifying it under a communist rule, Canada accepting a referendum for an independent Quebec, Yugoslavia eventually accepting to enter the Warsaw Pact, the US investing more in Africa and preventing the USSR from gaining major victories there, France keeping Algeria, India conquering the whole of Pakistan (and facing decades of terrorism), Iran keeping the Shah, Islamic fundamentalism never gaining a strong foothold in any country, Israel annexing Jordania, and a combined effort of the UN convincing the US to lift the embargo of Cuba, eventually leading to a transition of this country to Democracy.

Another version is more dynamic (and fun!) and does away with the core concepts. In that one:

The United Theocracy of the USA invades Canada in 1959 before converting to Sunni Islam and launching a nuclear strike over Australia, the UK becomes communist and blockades France while conquering all the islands in the planet, China breaks up into warlord states and is gobbled up by the USSR [which integrates the chinese population perfectly and without problems], Poland turns Nazi in 1960 and attacks Norway before being pushed back by the Liberal-Democratic alliance of East Germany, Mexico and Spain, Greece is conquered by Turkey [all this while NATO does nothing] and Nigeria creates an African Empire by 1990 that spans from Cairo to Pretoria, without even a blink from the UN.

Which version do you prefer?

I think this is an example par excellence of a dynamic de iure kingdom or : How the majority of the kingdom of Arelate became de iure part of France and a tiny bit ended up Imperial (the county of Bugundy)

The Kingdom of Arelat joined the Empire in 1030, while the Papacy started to apply strongly the De Jure system in 1054. And because of it, its De Jure land was never well percieved [there was no need to]. Which is why eventually the land was seen as belonging to other lands. The vast majority of it never went to France, either. And no, neither the County nor the Duchy of Burgundy have anything to do with it - they're not even in the same area.

And ultimately, CK is a simulation of medieval concepts and principle, not a literal replay of the Middle Ages.

Exactly. A simulation of western medieval concepts and principle. CORE to which was the De Jure system, which allowed for the Crusades, defined the schism between Orthodox and Catholic and prevented the states of the time from collapsing.

What many gamers are praising and hoping for is to get rid of the most basic and defining legal tenets that defined the era and change them into something that did not exist - nor had *any* chance of existing - until many centuries after the games' end date. THAT is what I don't agree with.

I don't want the HRE to always turn into a hodgepodge of petty Germanic Kingdoms that would never, ever, be concievable, nor do I want to have NO reason whatsoever to go on a Crusade because I can conquer things and turn them into my De Jure land right in the heart of Western Christendom.

Or to see the rise of a Kingdom of Aquitania whose lords were never interested in (if anything could have been tried, would be the creation of a Kingdom of Occitania, and that right at the start of the game).

 

[s1234567890m]

The problem is that people keep having in their minds the concept of the HRE as the weak and divided state that arouse from the Thirty Years War. That was not the previously the case. Has anybody actually noticed that the HRE always remained in existance, regardless of internal problems? Can anbody even quote ONE example of an "implosion" that utterly wrecked the HRE? I was a far more stable entity than what players, only thinking of the Empire of latter centuries, can bring themselves to admit.

Of coarse not, history is only one play through, they simply got a few lucky die rolls

 

[Baneslave]

khedas: So you think having some non-historical, form-able kingdoms is same as USA converting to Islam in 1959, nine years into the game.

The fact is: During those times new kingdom titles popped up, for example: Kingdom of Jerusalem.

 

[Slaunyeh]

This is a logical fallacy.

What is meant is that the game can (and should) develop in a different way than in History, but still respecting the principles of the era, that certainly would not change during the time frame. Not something that right off the bat disregards the core principles of the time.
.

As we say here in Brazil, you re raining into the wet:
Nobody wan to discard the medieval rules, what we don t want it just accurate historical recreation.(beyond the starting settings)
And since ahistorical development occurs, its ahistorical all the way...under historical rules.

A doubt i have about helping independency war. If we are under the same kingdom, doing so we automatically start an independence war for ourselves ?
And if we are of another kingdon, or independent, does it automatically start war with the kingdom ?

How will such questions be managed ?

 

[Keanon]

Static de-jure borders aren't historical, look at a bunch of maps from 1066 to 1399

 

[Ruwaard]

Burgundy-Arles is more an example of de facto changes than de jure changes, even when the Dauphin was made imperial Vicar the region wasn't de jure French, nor did this apply to the Provence under the Capetian house of Anjou. The region stayed de jure Burgundy-Arles, but with an empty throne. This also was often advantegeous for the more powerful nobles in the region, since this makes the influence of your de facto liege smaller and you keep more freedom in your actions.
Even the Dauphiné was only really united with France in 1461, before that it was ruled separate of France. That point could be seen as a de jure transfer, but this is outside the period covered by the game.

@ Hamanu: Charles V did arrange the marriage of his brother Ferdinand with princess Anna of Bohemia & Hungary, which brought him (Ferdinand) in the line of succession of these kingdoms and he finally supported the election of Ferdinand as king of the Romans (admittedly partially, because Charles couldn't be everywhere at once.)
HREmperor Frederick III toyed with the idea of granting the duke of Burgundy, firsy Philip the Good and later Charles the Bold in order to tie the Burgundian territories closer to the empire (though as a kingdom, it would have been a kind of autonomous region) and some other concessions. Furthermore Charles had as his trump card, a marriage between his daughter and the son (Maximilian) of the emperor (later this would still happen after the death of Charles); so that the emperor would grant a crown indirectly to his family, though even these plans were controversial, making himself king directly would have been worse.

 

[Ruwaard]

As we say here in Brazil, you re raining into the wet:
Nobody wan to discard the medieval rules, what we don t want it just accurate historical recreation.(beyond the starting settings)
And since ahistorical development occurs, its ahistorical all the way...under historical rules.

A doubt i have about helping independency war. If we are under the same kingdom, doing so we automatically start an independence war for ourselves ?
And if we are of another kingdon, or independent, does it automatically start war with the kingdom ?

How will such questions be managed ?

To use your words the discussion isn't about (total) historic recreation, but is about historical rules and how strict these should be; because even under stricter rules events etc. will occur which will change things, but the more historic type will prefer some plausibility, which is of far less concern for a more a-historic player. This IMO is what distinguishes the so-called historic and a-historic players; other examples are the conditions to allow for the creation of a kingdom and most obvious a-historic empires, each type has different preferences for those too.

OTOH it still isn't completely clear how the de jure set up will be worked out; it will be more flexible, but how exactly isn't completely clear.

 

[Hamanu]

It is still debated among Croatian and Hungarian historians whether Medieval Slavonia (now in eastern Croatia) was de iure a part of Hungary or Croatia and the issue has not been settled yet. I'm sure there were and are such regions still. One could argue that the de iure status of Lorraine an Alsace (or is it Lothringen and Elsass? ) is still not entirely clear.

Thing is, what we now percieve as the de iure borders of that time are just that: our perceptions, based on the outcomes that happened. Had John won the Battle of Bouvines in 1214, then half of France might have become the de iure part of England.

I, for one, and glad that this new rule both a)allows for de iure borders to change as tradition and memory change and b)makes this change a very long one indeed.

 

[khedas]

khedas: So you think having some non-historical, form-able kingdoms is same as USA converting to Islam in 1959, nine years into the game.

Creating a German Kingdom inside the HRE is a complete alteration of the most basic rules of the Empire, like creating the Confederacy within modern USA. It makes absolutely no sense, no ruler of the time ever contemplated it, even when there was no Emperor, and it goes against a great deal of what the HRE was actually recreated for.

I used the nine years example because in HoI2 Paradox let you could turn the US into a dictatorship in less time than that... without any opposition from Congress, the states or the American society as a whole.

The fact is: During those times new kingdom titles popped up, for example: Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Fact is, you didn't read anything I wrote before and still have *no idea* of what the De Jure system was. Like I said multiple times, it was meant to crystallize Kingdoms in Western Christendom, exactly to force Catholic rulers to seek new Crowns in the lands of the heathens/infidels. Thus enabling the Crusades.

So, the appearance of the Kingdom of Jerusalem is a *triumph* of the De Jure system, as it is a successful consequence of making Catholic rulers carve a new Kingdom in lands outside Western Europe.

Now, if Catholics suddenly become able to carve crowns right in their doorstep in Western Europe, WHAT incentive, pray tell, is there for them to go fight the powerful Muslims in the Middle East to get new lands?

As we say here in Brazil, you re raining into the wet:
Nobody wan to discard the medieval rules, what we don t want it just accurate historical recreation.(beyond the starting settings)
And since ahistorical development occurs, its ahistorical all the way...under historical rules.

Eu sei o que é 'chover no molhado', cara. E o problema é que o pessoal não tá entendendo que assim vão mudar um dos conceitos mais básicos da Idade Média.

You say you don't want to discard medieval rules, just get ahistorical developments. But the problem is that the De Jure system is an extremely core rule for medieval Europe. Without it, you won't just get 'different results', you'll be playing by a different set of rules. It's like wanting to play a game about today's world without Human Rights and the UN, claiming it's just 'ahistorical'.

A example on how monarchies take the issue seriously can be seen in the UK: has anyone noticed that Scotland, even today, isn't De Jure part of England? If you sign a contract in Scotland today and later want it annulled, don't go to London for it - the courts there will say it was made under Scottish Law and that they, being English, have no jurisdiction over it, they only handle English Law. You have to handle contracts done in De Jure Scotland in Scotland, you can't deal with that in De Jure England.

Static de-jure borders aren't historical, look at a bunch of maps from 1066 to 1399

The maps often reflect De Facto rule (as they are made for modern audiences) and not De Jure rule; one of the reasons why so many people just don't understand the system.

If you look at maps from the Hundred years war, they'll often separate English and Burgundian holdings from those of France, in order to reflect what was happening in the ground. But tecnhically all that territory was always part of France. Which is why Edward III and Henry V had as a priority to become Kings of France, not to 'conquer everything'. Same for almost every war in Europe. They are made by people our time, to modern readers.

Also, they also are often made to reflect national identities: you will see maps of the XVIth century showing Poland-Lithuania as a single nation, while Portugal and Spain will be separate countries. Yet all those nations were under personal unions at the time (and technically were different countries). But Portugal and Spain ended up separating early, while Lithuania only managed to return to independence in the XXth century (twice, and as of yet not for a long time). So they get different treatment in the historical maps.

And wars against non-catholics were different, borders were meant to change (and intra-muslim wars even more, as can be seen from any encyclopedia).

 

[Snaake]

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?

Initially I was sort of assuming the "Emperors can now create Kingdom titles" thing would only apply to player ones, but I guess not. Could also be that AI emperors would be coded to give away kingdoms if they had more than one, and an emperor could get a "too many kingdoms" opinion penalty (it's currently -10 per holding over demesne limit and -15 for too many duchies, so -20 or more), so players would be disinclined to do so either.

I think what I personally will do, is put a bunch of titular titles within the HRE that require independence. If the HRE isn't controlling bavaria anyway, I could see a pope maybe declaring it de-jure independent.

Since none of the new German kingdoms such as Bavaria exist at the start, they'll be assimilated into Germany, assuming a stable HRE. As has been suggested, kingdoms that lose all their de jure lands could become titular, so essentially at later start dates the situation is as you described earlier. In 1066 it's almost the same, but just represents lower HRE control over those areas.


I find it strange how several people are saying they agree 100% with Khedas, even though I seem to recall their earlier posts using different arguments, sometimes towards what I read as different conclusions. Not to say he doesn't raise good points, but I for one don't view the de jure kingdoms thing as purely defined by what the Pope (attempted to) set in stone. I prefer the idea that was stated even earlier in this thread, that it's about which (crown) law applies where: if Normandy is assimilated into England, it means (among other things) that English law now holds more power there than French law.


That being said, there's several things that can still swing this either way for both groups (fans of static/dynamic de jure). Perhaps the greatest is the ability to mod this with a simple defines.lua value (time_to_switch_de_jure?), but others definitely include:
- Can titular kingdom titles become de jure and vice versa?
- Is the change automatic, a MTTH event (REALLY hope it's not), or a decision in the intrigue/de jure title screen (the one with create, usurp etc.). If anything else than automatic, and even then, who's to say that it won't eg. cause opinion penalties with the Pope/former de jure liege (if he exists) and maybe de facto liege, cost gold/piety/prestige, require geographical contiguity/appropriate culture, or grant the former de jure liege a claim to said duchy (again, if he exists)? Not to mention that hopefully/probably any of these combinations can be modded.
- Likewise for creating eg. the Kingdom of Bavaria: it could have vast consequences, such as giving the HRE claims to the duchies in it, possibly even a chance to start a "War of Imperial disapproval over the formation of the Kingdom of Bavaria" (although that exact name is probably too long), that causes the king title to be un-created, and him stripping you of those duchy titles, since you're a filthy traitor.


Finally, I'd like to say that people are stressing too much about this 1.05, especially whether the exact mix of Kingdoms, their balance effects etc. are going to turn out ok. It's Patch 1.05 people, not the penultimate version after which Paradox is going to stop patches and disable modding. Given the current rate of patching and the balance changes therein (a small example being the constantly-shifting status of Brittany) I have no doubt that this feature will be continued to be tuned as well. And if you're really inpatient, minor modding should help meanwhile.