• 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.
jordarkelf said:
"Battle" is just like "Graviate" a mediaeval subdivision higher than county, but lower than king/prince/etc..
Ergo, the second tier, implying the title above them is the third tier -- or rather that pesky "archduke" tier we'd need.

But those 'graviates' didn't have the power that dukes have in CK. That is f.e. the reason why the Irish kings are all 'dukes'. The fact that no 'duke' is known (and the 'duchies' existed for over 100 years, as you say) should indicate that there power was very limited. Probably just an administrative matter and not a 'fuedal' division of the land.

Brittany's loyalty/alliegance switched between France and England, a thing that can best be represented by keeping it a duchy. Since then you can switch alliegances.

Brittany can't be compared to Bohemia since Bohemia did have kings, while Brittany had not, so that is also not a good example. Or just as bad an example as you claim Flanders is. :)
 
Veldmaarschalk said:
But those 'graviates' didn't have the power that dukes have in CK. That is f.e. the reason why the Irish kings are all 'dukes'. The fact that no 'duke' is known (and the 'duchies' existed for over 100 years, as you say) should indicate that there power was very limited. Probably just an administrative matter and not a 'fuedal' division of the land.

Brittany's loyalty/alliegance switched between France and England, a thing that can best be represented by keeping it a duchy. Since then you can switch alliegances.

Brittany can't be compared to Bohemia since Bohemia did have kings, while Brittany had not, so that is also not a good example. Or just as bad an example as you claim Flanders is. :)


But why could not this occolating alliegence switch back and forth be represented on the kingship level?

The same diplomatic stratigy was used by the Scottish kings and Welsh princes, according to Professior John Davies. If we remove the title "king, duke, count" and assign the characteristics of house these rulers behaved, Brittany would fall closer under a "third tier" then a "second tier."
 
Drachenfire said:
But why could not this occolating alliegence switch back and forth be represented on the kingship level?

The same diplomatic stratigy was used by the Scottish kings and Welsh princes, according to Professior John Davies. If we remove the title "king, duke, count" and assign the characteristics of house these rulers behaved, Brittany would fall closer under a "third tier" then a "second tier."

Because a king of Brittany can't become a vassal of the king of France or the king of England.

And the main difference between Scotland and Brittany is, that Scotland was a kingdom throughout the entire era, Brittany was not.

Brittany behaved just like the other main 'French' duchies, when there was a strong French king they were a 'vassal' when there was a weak French king they acted independently.
 
Veldmaarschalk said:
Because a king of Brittany can't become a vassal of the king of France or the king of England.

And the main difference between Scotland and Brittany is, that Scotland was a kingdom throughout the entire era, Brittany was not.

Brittany behaved just like the other main 'French' duchies, when there was a strong French king they were a 'vassal' when there was a weak French king they acted independently.

But thats my point, the exact same argument would apply to scotland and the Welsh principalities (and in other regions a simular argument can be made). Strong English King (i.e Edward Longshanks) dependent Scottish and Welsh rulers. Weak or moderate English King (Henry I, II, Henry III) You get a more independent Scottish king and the formal establisment and recognition of the Prince of Wales (i.e Kingdom of Wales per game terms).

This, along with the fact that there is a distinctive Breton culture and polity throughout the CK time frame, is reason Brittany should be an independent and recreatable kingship title.

To model your example, the English or French king would still take over Brittany, and assign the dukedomes (upper and lower Brittany) and the result would be the same. The Duke of Lower Brittany and/or the Duke of Upper Brittany would be assigned by the French or English ai or player king. Thus, the model of a vassilating Brittany is maintained, while allowing the plausability of a resergent Brittany in line with Scottish and Welsh examples.
 
And why then should Brittany become a kingdom ? If we follow your argument Scotland and Wales should be duke-level titles. Since only then, can they become vassals of the king of England.

In the game the king of Scotland will always be independent and never a vassal of the king of England. That is just not possible in the game-system.

Creating a kingdom of Brittany will either mean he stays independent or that the king of France becomes king of Brittany. And since that will be his secondady title he will most likely not lose it. A Breton duke who will rebel against the king of France, will get a claim on the kingtitle of France, not on the kingtitle of Brittany.

A human player playing Brittany will create the title king of Brittany and will then never be able to become a vassal to anyone.
 
Veldmaarschalk said:
And why then should Brittany become a kingdom ? If we follow your argument Scotland and Wales should be duke-level titles. Since only then, can they become vassals of the king of England.

In the game the king of Scotland will always be independent and never a vassal of the king of England. That is just not possible in the game-system.

Creating a kingdom of Brittany will either mean he stays independent or that the king of France becomes king of Brittany. And since that will be his secondady title he will most likely not lose it. A Breton duke who will rebel against the king of France, will get a claim on the kingtitle of France, not on the kingtitle of Brittany.

A human player playing Brittany will create the title king of Brittany and will then never be able to become a vassal to anyone.


Agreed, Scotland and Wales should not be represented as duchy "tier level 2" tags. But neither should Brittany.

I see no issue with France eventually taking the Breton title... eventually they did inherit it. French interest in Brittany is akin to English interest in Wales and Scotland, to prevent anyone else from taking it. So the scenario you illistrate is not out of line, and in my opinion no reason to not represent the full diplomatic options for a Breton player as a kingdom level "3 tier."

Creating a kingdom of Brittany will either mean he stays independent or that the king of France becomes king of Brittany.

Is this not the mechanism used for the Emporer of Germany title too? Im not seeing a conflict with France ... or England eventually becoming "king of" Brittany myself. It represents the inherit geographic position that Brittany has that it is viewed by these two powers.
 
jordarkelf said:
Basse = Lower, Haute = Upper. So Lower would be the west, Upper the east (the march).
Exactly.
Note that Lower Brittany is higher in altitude than Upper. The reason is that "Upper" regions in France (like Poitou or Alsace) are called like that because of the capitals.
And I think it is the same for Upper and Lower Lorraine from old Lotharingia.

---

About kingdoms, I agree with Veldmaarschalk : french rulers may quickly become kings of Brittany or Aquitaine if those crowns are introduced to the game, or a breton player never be re-vassalized.


And, for your SERG example, Drachenfire, the emperor was indeed king of Germany, Italy and Bourgogne (which is remnants of south Lotharingia). French or English rulers didn't claim Aquitaine or Brittany crowns, while they did for Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Navarra...

:)
 
What I'll do is the following:
-In the DVIP, Brittany will remain a duchy belonging to NONE.
-I will upload a mod the same day I release the DVIPv7 that adds a recreatable Breton kingdom to the game, and will keep it up-to-date with future updates.

This should satisfy everyone (I hope!).

If people are interested, I could upload my heavily modified Province.csv by the way... besides Brittany, I also have Aquitaine, Lotharingia, and Andalusia as kingdoms. And Navarra is recreatable.
I'm thinking it's better to do all of these as one mod, than each separately -- as province.csv would need to be edited for every one of these.
 
Last edited:
Jordarkelf,



I'm using your improvment pack and it seems most duchies have odd borders. And there's a multiplication of them too.

Also may I suggest to redraw France's map of duchies according to the 1228 list of 12 peers of the kingdom:


Duke of Aquitaine (or Duke of Guyenne)
Duke of Burgundy
Duke of Normandy
Count of Champagne
Count of Toulouse
Count of Flanders

Archbishop of Reims
Bishop of Langres
Bishop of Beauvais
Bishop of Châlons
Bishop of Noyon
Bishop of Laon



G.
 
jordarkelf said:
What I'll do is the following:
-In the DVIP, Brittany will remain a duchy belonging to NONE.
-I will upload a mod the same day I release the DVIPv7 that adds a recreatable Breton kingdom to the game, and will keep it up-to-date with future updates.

This should satisfy everyone (I hope!).

If people are interested, I could upload my heavily modified Province.csv by the way... besides Brittany, I also have Aquitaine, Lotharingia, and Andalusia as kingdoms. And Navarra is recreatable.
I'm thinking it's better to do all of these as one mod, than each separately -- as province.csv would need to be edited for every one of these.


Dont do this, for crying out loud. Two copies of the scenario is too cumberson. Just... lets continue where we were and leave Brittany for later, and create a mode down the road. Jesu.
 
jordarkelf said:
What I'll do is the following:


If people are interested, I could upload my heavily modified Province.csv by the way... besides Brittany, I also have Aquitaine, Lotharingia, and Andalusia as kingdoms. And Navarra is recreatable.
I'm thinking it's better to do all of these as one mod, than each separately -- as province.csv would need to be edited for every one of these.

Ill wish a copy of this myself. I trust your instincts on the mods... I just dont understand why we can have a "fantasy Ireland" and "fantasy Wales" kingdoms, but there is such resistance for raising Brittany to kingship. /rolleyes.


I very much look forward to your mod.
 
jordarkelf said:
If people are interested, I could upload my heavily modified Province.csv by the way... besides Brittany, I also have Aquitaine, Lotharingia, and Andalusia as kingdoms. And Navarra is recreatable.
I'm thinking it's better to do all of these as one mod, than each separately -- as province.csv would need to be edited for every one of these.

Good idea





grallonsphere said:
I'm using your improvment pack and it seems most duchies have odd borders. And there's a multiplication of them too.

Also may I suggest to redraw France's map of duchies according to the 1228 list of 12 peers of the kingdom:

Duke of Aquitaine (or Duke of Guyenne)
Duke of Burgundy
Duke of Normandy
Count of Champagne
Count of Toulouse
Count of Flanders

Archbishop of Reims
Bishop of Langres
Bishop of Beauvais
Bishop of Châlons
Bishop of Noyon
Bishop of Laon

What do you mean with odd borders ? The duchy-setup hasn't changed compared to vanilla DV.

And do you want to make those 5 bishoprics 'duchy' level title ? Not a very good idea, since there never were 'dukes' (or other secular lords) of Langres, Beauvais and so on.

And which provinces should belong to which duchy ?

Also if you give France just 12 'duchies' then those duchies would have

I wouldn't start with redrawing the whole duchy-setup map. Once you start doing that you will never have a finished mod, since there will allways come new players who don't agree with the set-up and then want it changed.
 
Veldmaarschalk said:
And do you want to make those 5 bishoprics 'duchy' level title ? Not a very good idea, since there never were 'dukes' (or other secular lords) of Langres, Beauvais and so on.


Well I can only refer you to what I found on Wiki concerning this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage_of_France

Apparently Reims, laon & Langres were considered equals to dukes while Beauvais, Châlons & Noyon were equals to counts.

The article also mentions this:

Early in the 13th century the Duchy of Normandy was absorbed by the French crown, and later in that century two more of the lay peerages were absorbed by the crown, so that in 1297 three new peerages were created, the County of Artois, the Duchy of Anjou and the Duchy of Brittany, to compensate for the three peerages that had disappeared.

However due to the limitations of the CK engine we can't really play with the hierarchy. It would have been better to have 2 distinct variables (title *and* rank* to determine the actual value of a fief - thus we could've had a count with ducal authority and so on... But the game wasn't thought out this way.

Anyhow regarding those 'duke-bishops' (or archbichops in CK) - one province titles could easily be made (such as Artois in vanilla). Generally I think the archbishoprics are under represented in the initial set up.

Finally I wasn't suggesting to limit France's (or any other realm's) duchy list to 12 - but rather its initial setup in any of the scenarios (although I only ever play the 1066 one).


G.
 
Apparently Reims, laon & Langres were considered equals to dukes while Beauvais, Châlons & Noyon were equals to counts.

That they were equal to dukes doesn't mean that they ruled large territories or were important secular lords

Further all those bishoprics (except Langres) were located in northern France, it is impossible to make them all, or even just the 3 most important ones into 'duchies'.


bishoprics.jpg



Anyhow regarding those 'duke-bishops' (or archbichops in CK) - one province titles could easily be made (such as Artois in vanilla).

One of the main changes of the first IP was to remove 1-province duchies, they are to exploitable. I don't think adding them again would be a good thing
 
Last edited:
Veldmaarschalk said:
...

One of the main changes of the first IP was to remove 1-province duchies, they are too exploitable. I don't think adding them again would be a good thing


*shrug* Be that as it may it was merely a suggestion. I am less after playability (the anti-blobbing thing kindda kills it anyway) than accuracy.


G.
 
Veldmaarschalk said:
Further all those bishoprics (except Langres) were located in northern France, it is impossible to make them all, or even just the 3 most important ones into 'duchies'.


bishoprics.jpg


Ah I see what you mean - the CK map is clearly not suitable for this. I always thought most of Paradox's game maps were less than adequate (provinces too large - liberties taken with the geography, etc). Gigau did a much better job drawing an accurate map in his EUIII mod.

*sigh*



G.
 
grallonsphere said:
Ah I see what you mean - the CK map is clearly not suitable for this. I always thought most of Paradox's game maps were less than adequate (provinces too large - liberties taken with the geography, etc). Gigau did a much better job drawing an accurate map in his EUIII mod.

*sigh*



G.
I suspect it would not work for this design.

more counties=more characters=more titles=more cpu load=longer between month lag time=an unplayable game?
 
Because we can't change the map, I don't think we can improve the French duchy setup, sorry.
There are a few free duchy tags, but I don't want to use these for single-province duchies. All duchies should have two to four provinces, with three as an average, wherever possible.
 
Reuploaded it -- the only update is an altered country.csv with a few changed country colours.
I never noticed before that just about all crusader kingdoms except Jerusalem used the same fugly gray, so I picked a few new colours for them.