• 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.
Something I was thinking along these lines: maybe if you had sort of two levels of king titles, sort of major kings and petty kings. And major kings could vassalise petty kings but not major kings, and petty kings can only vassalise dukes and below.

This would allow Henry II, for example, to have the kings of Scotland and Wales as vassals, but not the king of France.

You could even make the system dynamic - with major/petty title being decided on de facto rather than de jure kingdom size (or maybe some combination of land area, economic strength, etc). This should allow say a small Iberian kingdom that expands enough to bring other small Iberian kings under its rule.
 
Something I was thinking along these lines: maybe if you had sort of two levels of king titles, sort of major kings and petty kings. And major kings could vassalise petty kings but not major kings, and petty kings can only vassalise dukes and below.

This would allow Henry II, for example, to have the kings of Scotland and Wales as vassals, but not the king of France.

You could even make the system dynamic - with major/petty title being decided on de facto rather than de jure kingdom size (or maybe some combination of land area, economic strength, etc). This should allow say a small Iberian kingdom that expands enough to bring other small Iberian kings under its rule.

I don't know, a king is king...
 
Seeing as an Empire is a legitimate tier now (as opposed to a character trait and a BYZ-exclusive title), any ruler should be able to achieve it, under certain circumstances. Of course, forging an Empire should be significantly harder than forging a mere Kingdom. A Pope or a Patriarch should be the ones with the power to hand out Imperial titles

In my opinion achieving a 4-tier title should be even harder to achieve than the emperor-trait in CK 1 and furthermore the number of available emperors at each time should be limited. Another point is that this new imperial title shouldn't be hereditary, but earned; transforming it to a hereditary title will be as hard or preferably harder than making the title Holy Roman Emperor (in fact the title of the Emperor-Elect, king of the Romans would have been hereditary, it is the pope, who crowns a Catholic Emperor).
The title imperator totius Hispaniae/emperor of all Spain could be purely honorific (like a trait).
 
I don't know, a king is king...

My understanding (and this is from historical novels rather than serious study :) ) is that it is historically accurate - the kings of Scotland did swear fealty to Henry II of England, and he had a good try at vassalising Owain Gwynedd of Wales (although I can't remember if he was successful).
 
My main problem with a proper 4th tier is purely gameplay. Who would want say a France with most of its de jure lands as a vassal? One person rebels and you have a full scale war on your hands. The player's best course would be to neuter their kingly vassals down to manageable size, which would rather spoil the system...
 
Something I was thinking along these lines: maybe if you had sort of two levels of king titles, sort of major kings and petty kings. And major kings could vassalise petty kings but not major kings, and petty kings can only vassalise dukes and below.

This would allow Henry II, for example, to have the kings of Scotland and Wales as vassals, but not the king of France.

You could even make the system dynamic - with major/petty title being decided on de facto rather than de jure kingdom size (or maybe some combination of land area, economic strength, etc). This should allow say a small Iberian kingdom that expands enough to bring other small Iberian kings under its rule.

It's a good idea, I especially like the dynamic part. Regarding kingdoms more equal in size, it could be allowed if a title is regranted after conquest; but these kingdom will probably be the first to break free from this vassalage. Maybe the situation in the Holy Roman Empire should be different, because these kingdoms were a part of the empire (there's difference between a vassal of the empire and a vassal of the emperor).
 
It's a good idea, I especially like the dynamic part. Regarding kingdoms more equal in size, it could be allowed if a title is regranted after conquest; but these kingdom will probably be the first to break free from this vassalage. Maybe the situation in the Holy Roman Empire should be different, because these kingdoms were a part of the empire (there's difference between a vassal of the empire and a vassal of the emperor).

Yeah I don't think that system would work for the real empire(s), more as an addition to whatever is done for them.

I like the idea of a granted king title being able to fit into this system - more Henry II goodness vis a vis his sons (I like Henry II :) ). And I would think that vassal kings should definately be harder to hold than lower nobels (and probably you shouldn't get a claim if they rebel) - perhaps a negative relation modifer plus a huge chance that when your heir inherits, unless he has massive prestige, that the vassal king will refuse to reswear his alligence. Maybe a "You are not your father" event where you can choose either to accept his independence, or pay large bb and prestige for a claim.

Gameplay wise I was thinking of it as something the player wouldn't particularly want to do, there would be much greater benefits in aquiring the king title for yourself. But if you don't have a claim, or can't afford to prosecute it, you could get them to swear fealty even though the situation is likely to be unstable over the long term.
 
In my opinion achieving a 4-tier title should be even harder to achieve than the emperor-trait in CK 1 and furthermore the number of available emperors at each time should be limited.

(note that the Empire is a 5th tier

Barron (1) -> count (2) -> duke (3) -> king (4) -> emperor (5).
And that the old demesne limit of CK1 will not be counted in counties but in baronies.)
 
My understanding (and this is from historical novels rather than serious study :) ) is that it is historically accurate - the kings of Scotland did swear fealty to Henry II of England, and he had a good try at vassalising Owain Gwynedd of Wales (although I can't remember if he was successful).


Well historically it was possible.
The Kingdom of Bohemia was vassal of the HRE. Also Bosnia was at point hungarian vassal, while Serbia was Ottoman vassal. So it could happen.

My problem is the initial setup of petty and major king titles. In the game, you cannot tell who will become a major player and who will become a weakling. Like Scotland turn out to be the major king in the partnership not England, or you as Bohemia could simply kick the arse of the HRE and become a much more important player...
 
Well historically it was possible.
The Kingdom of Bohemia was vassal of the HRE. Also Bosnia was at point hungarian vassal, while Serbia was Ottoman vassal. So it could happen.

My problem is the initial setup of petty and major king titles. In the game, you cannot tell who will become a major player and who will become a weakling. Like Scotland turn out to be the major king in the partnership not England, or you as Bohemia could simply kick the arse of the HRE and become a much more important player...

The position of Bohemia as vassal of the empire was different from the postition of the king of Scots as 'vassal' of the king of England. Bohemia was an autonomous member of the empire (a non-germanic stem duchy with a king), the king of the Bohemia was the most important 'prince of the empire' with only the king of the Romans and/or Holy Roman Emperor being more important and because of the elective nature the ruler of Bohemia could be elected as the next emperor. For instance Emperor Charles IV of Luxemburg was king of Bohemia.

The relationship of kings and the Holy Roman Empire should be different outside the historic HRE region, for instance the Holy Roman Empire claimed a similar relation with Poland and Hungary, but they were alomost never really in a position to impose this.
Bohemia OTOH was a part of the empire and played a its part in the imperial politics; breaking this relation should be harder and at more severe costs, than for instance for Hungary or Poland if they would renounce the empire/emperor as their suzerain.
 
Last edited:
My problem is the initial setup of petty and major king titles. In the game, you cannot tell who will become a major player and who will become a weakling. Like Scotland turn out to be the major king in the partnership not England, or you as Bohemia could simply kick the arse of the HRE and become a much more important player...

I think you missed my bit about having the major/petty status determined by de facto rather than de jure kingdom size - in other words being dynamic and reflecting the current balance of power, rather than that game start. Or possibly that is what you were objecting to? :)

But I would think that a very strong king of the Scots should certainly be able to vassalise a weak king of England.

Perhaps it could even be more EU3-like, with relative power being the deciding factor rather than absolute levels, and a hard limit being imposed in force-vassalisation by war score limits. Maybe you could even get a 3 king chain if you worked at it :)
 
Totally agree, the position of Emperor was a continuation of the Roman concepts of Emperor, having more than two is not accurate and is highly anachronistic. I'd far prefer we have more of the inbetween ranks.

There can be many roman emperors in one empire ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrumvirate

However I would be happy with an "emperor" trait for Kings who fulfill some conditions and rule 3+ kingdoms as is
and instead have something like arch- or granddukes to make the middletier more interesting.
 
There can be many roman emperors in one empire ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrumvirate

However I would be happy with an "emperor" trait for Kings who fulfill some conditions and rule 3+ kingdoms as is
and instead have something like arch- or granddukes to make the middletier more interesting.

Fine then. The guy in Germany can be Augustus, the one in Toledo can be Caesar. Seems fair enough to me. :D
 
I think the 4th tier should just be used for the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Empire. Those were the emperors of the Middle Ages. Also, they should only be able to vassalize certain kings within their historical demense. (Such as Serbia and Bulgaria for the Romans, and Bohemia for the HRE). However kings should be able to become vassals of other kings, such as Bosnia, but it should not have anything to do with any emperors.
 
The Middle Ages is obviously not without Empires. In Medieval Law, usually an Empire was an entity which claimed to be the successor of the Roman Empire. Empires were seen as something above that of Kingdoms, though in CK 1, there was only one true Imperial title, which was the "Emperor of the Byzantine Empire", though this was treated pretty much like a King-tiered title.

Now this title gave an extra bonus that a regular King title did not, which was having an increased desmesne limit.

You could also be crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope (By being King of Germany, Burgundy and Italy at the same time or any 5 king titles AND having good relations with the Papal States), but your character would not gain a title, but a trait confirming that it was Emperor. If I'm not mistaken, all that title gave was a Prestige boost.

Now with CK 2, there is an opportunity to have a 4th tier, which is the Empire itself.

I wonder which Empires did historically exist during the Middle Ages, and what CK 1 King titles (Kudos to Veldmaarschalk for the map) did they encompass?

The ones that I can recall are:

- The Byzantine Empire: a sui generis creation, that is given its own Royal Demesne, going from Albania to Eastern Anatolia which in its full size (discounting owning the whole Roman Empire), was the rightful heir of the whole Eastern Roman Empire, which means it would roughly also encompass Bulgaria, Serbia, Armenia, Syria, Jerusalem and Egypt. Including the Byzantine lands and title itself, 7 King titles would be needed to form this Empire.

- The Holy Roman Empire: Created in the Carolingian period, and after the partitions of its huge Empire, the Holy Roman Empire settled through the duration of the Middle Ages with the territories under the King titles of Germany, Bohemia, Burgundy and Italy. That would be 4 King titles needed to claim this Empire.

- The Empire of all Spains: Created in the 9th century, the Spanish Emperors then embarked into the possibility of establishing Iberian Kings and Emirs as their own vassals, and they were highly treated in the Iberian peninsula at least, as having the Imperial Authority to submit Kings. In this case, it encompasses the King titles of Portugal, León, Castille, Aragón and Navarra. That is 5 King titles.

- The Serbian and Bulgarian Empires: These two were brief empires created by the rulers of the Slav populations which had settled on the borders of the Byzantine Empires and after occupying large tracts of Byzantine European territory, took advantage and increased their legitimacy to that the Imperial tier. Overall, they never managed to overtake enough Byzantine territory to allow them to claim the Byzantine title in CK 1's terms, though the Bulgarian Empire did occupy the territory of Serbia, though that on its own (two King titles) isn't enough in my point of view to make it worthy of having a fourth tier Empire title.


Possible semi-fantasy Empires:

- The Great Britain Empire: Using the United Kingdom as a benchmark, anyone who would possess the King titles of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland could suffice to declare a 4th tiered Empire of the Great Britain. This would involve having 4 King titles.

- The Empire of Scania: Unifying the Nordic King titles (Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland) under a single person would probably suffice for the creation of this Empire. That would be another Empire needing 4 King titles.

- The Cnutian Empire: Putting the same titles as Cnut the Great under the same person, namely Denmark, Norway, England (and then either Wales and Scotland or just Sweden). That would take 4 or 5 King titles needed to create this Empire.

I would however be against stacking Imperial titles, like King ones as these were frequently counter-intuitive (Like Holy Roman Emperor and Byzantine Emperor), since many claim the same lands.

I'm sure there are other real or semi-fantasy Empires that could be viable during this time and I'd like to hear your suggestions.


Summary of possible Empires and needed King titles:

- Byzantine Empire: 7 (Byzantine King title (LOL), Armenia, Bulgaria, Egypt, Jerusalem, Serbia and Syria)
- Holy Roman Empire: 4 (Germany, Burgundy, Bohemia and Italy)
- Spanish Empire: 5 (Castille, Aragón, León, Navarra, Portugal)
- British Empire: 4 (England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales)
- Scandinavian Empire: 4 (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden)
- Cnutian Empire: 4/5 (Denmark, Norway, England and [Sweden or Scotland and Wales])
- Islamic Caliphate: 9 (Arabia, Jerusalem, Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, Africa, Armenia and Mauritania)
- Persian Empire: 5 (Persia, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Syria, Jerusalem)

For fun, I want here to thank the OP by remenbered us all my ancestors were once Emperor of SpainS (House of Burgundy, minor branch of the Anscarids).

More seriously, I believe those empires may be possible :

Franckish Empire (corresponding more or less to the old Carolingian Emprire : Catalonia + France + most part of the HRE + Italy + Corsica + Sadigna). Notice it is Frankish, not french ... so

Angevin Empire (did not exist as per se in history, but would have been possible) Western part of France + England + various minor possessions of the Plantagenet kingdom to be defined).
 
I think the 4th tier should just be used for the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Empire. Those were the emperors of the Middle Ages. Also, they should only be able to vassalize certain kings within their historical demense. (Such as Serbia and Bulgaria for the Romans, and Bohemia for the HRE). However kings should be able to become vassals of other kings, such as Bosnia, but it should not have anything to do with any emperors.

In the beginning of the game, they will be the only two rulers holding the title of Emperor. But who's to say that, under the player's influence, a new Empire might not arise? This game is all about the ahistorical possibilities which arise from the characters' mutual interactions, putting an arbitrary constraint on the title of "Emperor" seems silly.
 
I'd be more interested in a 4th tier that exists as a result of an Emperor-Papal power continuum. If the bar ever slides all the way in one direction, then the Emperor/Pope respectively gains 4th tier status and is able to take on kings as direct, legally-bound vassals.

Otherwise I'm fine with multi-kingdom empires being abstracted away with the emperor holding all king titles in question (as it worked in CK1).
 
I'd be more interested in a 4th tier that exists as a result of an Emperor-Papal power continuum. If the bar ever slides all the way in one direction, then the Emperor/Pope respectively gains 4th tier status and is able to take on kings as direct, legally-bound vassals.

Otherwise I'm fine with multi-kingdom empires being abstracted away with the emperor holding all king titles in question (as it worked in CK1).

Well, the emperor already will start like that, and by the XIII century the Pope has a similar status (as suzerain of Naples, Sardinia, and Sicliy, among other places), but I agree that it should be a process, like everything in this game.
 
I'd be more interested in a 4th tier that exists as a result of an Emperor-Papal power continuum. If the bar ever slides all the way in one direction, then the Emperor/Pope respectively gains 4th tier status and is able to take on kings as direct, legally-bound vassals.

Otherwise I'm fine with multi-kingdom empires being abstracted away with the emperor holding all king titles in question (as it worked in CK1).

Yes, one reason there should only be two empires is so the developers can put some focus on them. The ruler who hold the title of Holy Roman Emperor, claim to be the Universal Ruler, whilt the Church claims to be the Universal Church. And then the obvious conflict on which of them is more powerful can really begin. I'd love if there'd be some dualism between the pope and the Holy Roman Emperor.

The Emperor titles should be about claiming the Universal Emperor Title. Not just some regional flavour.
 
Well, the emperor already will start like that, and by the XIII century the Pope has a similar status (as suzerain of Naples, Sardinia, and Sicliy, among other places), but I agree that it should be a process, like everything in this game.

True, but from a gameplay standpoint I think it would be a fine abstraction for true emperorship to be off-limits unless the ruler has truly vanquished questions of split loyalty. If the King of Germany wants to force his vassal King of Bohemia into a direct regime, he can do so by directly seizing the claim or by proving fully that he is without a doubt the true ruler of the temporal.

This mostly arises out of my desire to see Pope vs. Emperor action; we know there will be religious politics but not that the HRE will be any different than France or Hungary in that sphere.