However, the actual title itself would be heritable.
No, that would take away all the interest in Imperial Diets and Papal coronations.
However, the actual title itself would be heritable.
I think there should be a 4th tier but, as you said, very rare. Mayhap two titles: Roman Emperor (for the Byzantines) and Western Emperor (for the HRE) [names obviously not decided upon, just possible suggestions]. The HRE title could be contested by decision with enough prestige and/or piety and high relations with the Pope/low relations with the current HRE. Something similar could be done for the Orthodox countries if/when Constantinople falls. The claims wouldn't be inheritable so that way if a powerful ruler claims to be the real Emperor his pathetic son won't be able to carry on the claim since nobody would back him. However, the actual title itself would be heritable.
Bollocks, this game is supposed to provide a historical flavour and experience. Accuracy is what gives it its flavour.
Alternate history is not about making up things, is about taking the patterns you have at a certain date, alter some parameters and imagine or see what's gonna happen. The appearance of a Feudal "Imperial State" with no connection to Rome makes no sense at all.
This is not true. Historians also speak of the Venetian Empire, and it only contained some isles and coastlands in the Eastern Mediterranean. Also they speak of the Aragonese Empire (but not anymore, it's too pretentious and pointless)...
In the end, calling some country an "empire" or not is a matter of tradition. In Spanish, the Egyptian Kingdoms (the Old Kingdom, the Middle Kingdom, etc) are called "Empires".
Exactly. I totally support this.
No, that would take away all the interest in Imperial Diets and Papal coronations.
I would prefer the option of creating our own by incorporating multiple king titles. Those two empires are already a part of history, and since events change after the start of the game that may be similar or totally different than actual history, it would be nice to have the ability to do it. After you establish your own empire, you determine if it's hereditary or not with the succession laws given in the game. I do agree, it should be rare and hard to do, though.
The idea of making the fourth tier just a greater king (as the Persians would say, a "king of kings") and then making the Imperial title something greater achievable through only grave difficulty and with only two powers (well, three perhaps, including the Seljuks or the Caliphs) starting out with it seems pretty good to me, and would probably take care of everyone's concerns.
All I was referring to there was what it was called on the map. And its cool to think that in 800 years your conglomeration of kingdoms and duchies will be known as an "empire". It wouldn't affect the actual name of your state (the Kingdom of all these different places).
As you pointed out, at least two different people made claims to be Emperors (or Empresses) in the period without any sort of Roman connection whatsoever. They were ignored, but mostly because they "failed the political test"--they didn't have enough swords, enough domestic support, or enough foreign support (or all three). If the player could create the right conditions, those titles *could* stick to them.
As it happens, so do I. Titles on maps aside, taking the title of Emperor and actually making that stick (as didn't happen in Maud's case) would require quite a lot of work, and that should be reflected in the game.
Aside from the HRE and Byzantines (which seem to most obviously meet the criteria for a 4th tier of some sort), a 4th tier seems appropriate to replace some of the massive eastern king titles (Khazaria and Rus) so that the actual political fragmentation (especially of the latter) could be better represented, and to make the process of gaining the title in the first place more sensible (and also more difficult, as it should be). The idea of making the fourth tier just a greater king (as the Persians would say, a "king of kings") and then making the Imperial title something greater achievable through only grave difficulty and with only two powers (well, three perhaps, including the Seljuks or the Caliphs) starting out with it seems pretty good to me, and would probably take care of everyone's concerns.
While I have no problem with a fourth tier, I still don't think that kings should be on anything other than the top tier by default. I think this is one of the major flaws in the tier system: while it is a useful simplification of the feudal system, it makes it very tricky to show nuances within it. You can't show lesser kings being vassalised by stronger kings for example. Perhaps a better way of representing it could be to keep the three tiers but allow vassalisation of those on the same tier (if you're a vassal of someone on your own tier you can only have vassals on tiers lower than your own). I think this may have been floated somewhere else. Being a vassal of someone on your tier should spark a lot of events that would undermine the vassalage to reflect the social difficulties in accepting a supposed equal as your superior (especially if your Lord's prestiege takes a big hit). In this way Russia could be united but with great difficulty.
Well, the default 4th tier title would be king, so...
Besides, as I said only the HRE, Byzantine Empire, and (possibly) the Seljuk Empire or Abbasid Caliphate would start off as 4th tier titles. All the others would have to be created by grabbing a bunch of king titles (and having effective control over the land). So you would still have a fun time of forcing other kings to submit, which if the other Clausewitz games are any indication will be much harder than in CK I.
I would prefer the option of creating our own by incorporating multiple king titles. Those two empires are already a part of history, and since events change after the start of the game that may be similar or totally different than actual history, it would be nice to have the ability to do it. After you establish your own empire, you determine if it's hereditary or not with the succession laws given in the game. I do agree, it should be rare and hard to do, though.
But the Abbasid Caliphate was pratically a 'vassal' of the Seljuks. The Caliph was a puppet in their hands.
I concur. I want the historical elements and I want to option of doing my own thing should the fancy strike me.
Given that the first CK is still the single most sand-box game Paradox has made (by a very wide margin), I'm not sure why we should expect the design of the sequel to be different, unless and until they say so. Remember that in the first game it was not uncommon to have the Fatimids invading England or the Mongols in France.
The Byzantines already have an Imperial bureaucracy, so if such an alternate government is gonna be in the game, it would be in from the start.
But yeah, 1066 is too long from the days of the Western Empire; when the Eastern Romans reconquered Italy barely fifty years after Rome fell, the reinstatement of imperial bureaucracy led to revolts (mostly because taxes went up, compared to the barbarian rule).
Also, you should not be able to declare yourself "the new Roman Empire". There's already the legitimate Emperor ruling from Constantinople and a half-legit Emperor in Germany crowned by the Pope. The goal for Western/Catholic rulers who want to be Roman Emperors should be to go for the HRE title.