A king does not vassalize a king. Were you not close enough to a great King to learn by his example?
#4th Tier: Empire
- Thread starter Jolt
- 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.
Yes, although most of that is possible in the first CK. You can demand that another ruler become your vassal in peace talks, but it automatically demotes them to the next level down by transferring the title you're demanding to you. So the King of Wales would be the Duke of Gwynned, or some such. Allowing them to keep the title of Wales would be different, though. Of course, I was thinking specifically of allowing Emperors to have Kings (who are still called Kings) as vassals.
Definately their must be a 4th tier. The Holy Roman Empire is too important to just be considered the Kingdom of Germany plus this effects conversion
Yes, I could see a HRE vassalizing the King of France and the King of France still keeping the title as 'King',
I'd be cool with that. But for a king to vassalize a weakened king, I would prefer the weakened king to retain his king tier but have the title rendered as 'Prince'. In part, it is one of the only ways that I can think of that would emulate the relationship between the Prince of Wales and the King of England before the Edwardian Conquest of 1284.
Guys, the game is called Crusader Kings. It's about Kings, not Emperors. In the Middle Ages, for all purposes, King was the top of the feudal greasy pole. I am quite happy with the 'emperor' title giving the owner just a prestige bonus.
The Byzantine benefit of being able to control double the provinces of a king is just meant to reflect that the Eastern Roman Empire was something completely different. It had a theme (military province) provincial system and emphasized meritocracy while the western system was based on lords and vassals and inheritance.
The Byzantine benefit of being able to control double the provinces of a king is just meant to reflect that the Eastern Roman Empire was something completely different. It had a theme (military province) provincial system and emphasized meritocracy while the western system was based on lords and vassals and inheritance.
I'm against, the Byzantine Emperor and Holy Roman Emperor are exceptions to the rule and are the only ones in need of special rules.
If there are to be more tiers, I'd much rather see more 'in-between' tiers such as baron, viscount, prince, grand duke and the like.
If there are to be more tiers, I'd much rather see more 'in-between' tiers such as baron, viscount, prince, grand duke and the like.
I suppose a lot of this comes down to the question: What makes an emperor?
If it's just holding a whole load of land, then sure, let anyone who holds six king titles become emperor.
But, I think it should be something more than that. Like a claim to being the heir to Rome, like the Byzantines and HRE had. I don't think the "empires" of Canute and the Angevins were even refered to as empires by their contemporaries, while the empire of Spain is only described as empire rarely. The Bulgarian, Serbian and Ottoman empires were really just claims to being the Byzantine emperor, which met with varying degrees of success. Essentially, being emperor was more than a matter of controling a whole load of land, it was a claim to a Roman heritage and all the presteige that came along with that. As such, I'd rather not see creation of emperor titles as anything but a very tricky proposition.
If it's just holding a whole load of land, then sure, let anyone who holds six king titles become emperor.
But, I think it should be something more than that. Like a claim to being the heir to Rome, like the Byzantines and HRE had. I don't think the "empires" of Canute and the Angevins were even refered to as empires by their contemporaries, while the empire of Spain is only described as empire rarely. The Bulgarian, Serbian and Ottoman empires were really just claims to being the Byzantine emperor, which met with varying degrees of success. Essentially, being emperor was more than a matter of controling a whole load of land, it was a claim to a Roman heritage and all the presteige that came along with that. As such, I'd rather not see creation of emperor titles as anything but a very tricky proposition.
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.
Continuation and Christianization. But yes, I agree, the title of Emperor should be kept as something special due to its significance in the Christian and post-Roman world.
The King of England was the vassal of the King of France, but only for the lands he held in Normandy and Gascony.
The system of vassal/lord needs to be less strictly defined and a little more subtle and dynamic than it is in CK, so it can properly represent these strange situations where you can be a King in one part of your realm, but only a Duke in another.
I would also point out that more than one King of Scotland swore fealty to the King of England during Edward I's reign. Possibly in Edward III's too, unless my memory is playing tricks on me.
It would be particularly cool if this could be modelled, as well as the Dukes of Burgundy..
I suppourt the idea of a fourth tier, whether it's realistic or not to call other countries than the byzzies for an "empire", is real not an issue, as it would probably mainly be for modding purposes (read: if they do add a fourth tier it should be made possible to make more empires).
I think a 4th tier should be exclusive to the HRE and the Byzantine.
For the HRE it is necessary in the cases that the King of Bohemia for instance is not HRE. While for Byzantine it could theoretically be a 3rd tier with a special name.
I am not sure if it is a good idea to have lots of immaginary 4th tiers. Then again maybe HRE shouldnt be a 4th tier at all, but rather a prestiege title you can be awarded like in EU3.
Specifically is CK going to be only Europe, ie the Rome map? I personally would prefer it to be a little bigger as some entities in CK1 were only represented by a tiny part of their territory.
For the HRE it is necessary in the cases that the King of Bohemia for instance is not HRE. While for Byzantine it could theoretically be a 3rd tier with a special name.
I am not sure if it is a good idea to have lots of immaginary 4th tiers. Then again maybe HRE shouldnt be a 4th tier at all, but rather a prestiege title you can be awarded like in EU3.
Specifically is CK going to be only Europe, ie the Rome map? I personally would prefer it to be a little bigger as some entities in CK1 were only represented by a tiny part of their territory.
In favour of Byzantine empire (since it's the only real empire) and Holy roman one, but last one NOT as territorial entity but rather something which gives ruler other bonuses, such as prestige, etc
Empires would bring more fun and extra challenge to the game, either historical or not. But I don't think it should simply be a 4th tier. I think it should be a whole different system of governing. I dont know much about the historical HRE or Byzantium, but the Byzantine in the original CK was not good to play for this reason; it used the same feudal mechanism with the other kingdoms. The Roman Empire before or the Ottomans after the period of this game were not merely bigger feudal kingdoms. By contrast, they were (rather) centralized bureaucratic bodies. Emperors had governors and generals, not vassal landlords.
As EU:Rome had different political mechanisms and different politics windows for republics and monarchies, an Empire in CK2 can also bring a change in the whole structure. And hence forming an Empire should require much more than conquest, but should involve some societal transformation, which shouldn't be too difficult to model simply in Paradox's engine (talking about ahistorical sand box empires here. HRE and Byz may have unique specialities). If the player does not choose to go that way vassalized kings should have the title duke or prince, if you ask me. I don't like the idea of a king answering to another king, and this happening regularly.
As EU:Rome had different political mechanisms and different politics windows for republics and monarchies, an Empire in CK2 can also bring a change in the whole structure. And hence forming an Empire should require much more than conquest, but should involve some societal transformation, which shouldn't be too difficult to model simply in Paradox's engine (talking about ahistorical sand box empires here. HRE and Byz may have unique specialities). If the player does not choose to go that way vassalized kings should have the title duke or prince, if you ask me. I don't like the idea of a king answering to another king, and this happening regularly.
The problem with having Empire as a 4th tier is that Empires in history have for the most part not been different to kings.
The Byzantine Empire was called an Empire but while larger than lets Say Norman England and France, it was not different government wise.
The only country where I can see a 4th tier as useful in anyway apart from name alone is the HRE, as there were kings below the emperor but the HRE is a bit of a strange entity anyway, with the Emperor title being more a prestige rank rather than a proper 4th tier.
Thats why I dont see it. I just find it a little silly that for instance in CK2 the king of Bohemia must be HRE otherwise he can only be Duke, for all other cases I cannot think of a proper king being subservient to an Emperor.
The Byzantine Empire was called an Empire but while larger than lets Say Norman England and France, it was not different government wise.
The only country where I can see a 4th tier as useful in anyway apart from name alone is the HRE, as there were kings below the emperor but the HRE is a bit of a strange entity anyway, with the Emperor title being more a prestige rank rather than a proper 4th tier.
Thats why I dont see it. I just find it a little silly that for instance in CK2 the king of Bohemia must be HRE otherwise he can only be Duke, for all other cases I cannot think of a proper king being subservient to an Emperor.
I like the idea of a 4th tier, but, like I said earlier and others are saying now, the crown of the Byzantines and a Western imperial crown should be different. Emperors shouldn't have increased demesne limit, at least nowhere as large as the Byzantine Emperor's special case. The main benefits should be prestige related. Maybe also some minor manpower bonuses (maybe more against heathens?). It'd be fun to see the emperor be able to vassalize Kings, but that should mean that the other benefits are quite minimal to balance it....
There should also have to be -something- unique about a king before becoming 4th Tier. Ownership of Rome, claiming HRE, ownership of the Holy Land, relationship with the Emperor of the Byzantines (if your King is E. Orthodox), equivalent of Defender of the Faith... I don't know. Something. It shouldn't just be based on size. There needs to be some legitimacy to it, or else it'll hardly be an interesting end game goal or realistic at all.
There should also have to be -something- unique about a king before becoming 4th Tier. Ownership of Rome, claiming HRE, ownership of the Holy Land, relationship with the Emperor of the Byzantines (if your King is E. Orthodox), equivalent of Defender of the Faith... I don't know. Something. It shouldn't just be based on size. There needs to be some legitimacy to it, or else it'll hardly be an interesting end game goal or realistic at all.
I think you meant " Empire of Scandinavia " ?
But sure, I'd be happy to conuqer Scania and claim my imperial title
This, the game will be ( I hope) a sandbox style game, ahistorical empires and a 4th tier would just add more fun to the game.