Bazti said:I think you meant " Empire of Scandinavia " ?
But sure, I'd be happy to conuqer Scania and claim my imperial title
To the best of my knowledge, Scania was the medieval name given to the whole peninsula.
#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.
To the best of my knowledge, Scania was the medieval name given to the whole peninsula.
Agreed, but.. well... let me put it this way: the Byzantine Empire operated very differently than the Western monarchies. The Holy Roman Emperor, for example, did not have the same role to play in terms of all-encompassing power that the Byzantine Emperor exercised. In the former, feudalism was at its height, while it was only beginning to take some shape in the Byzantine Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronoia). The Holy Roman Emperor and, likely, any other western emperor would've been prevented by the feudalistic system and culture from going too far with imperial rule, such as having as much of a demesne as the Byzantine Emperors.
I like the idea of a 4th Tier, but the Byzantine Imperial Crown should remain distinct.
I agree with this post absolutely, not too many "in-betweens" mind you!
Does anyone know how the Muslim tiers were organised back then? I think it would be interesting if they took that into consideration.
What about using a concept similar to Vicky2? Let's say that only the top 4 "great powers" can potentially claim the title Emperor (and only if they already control 4 or more kingdom titles) and be entitled to certain perks this title gives you. The AI will then try to gain this title himself, depending on the ambition of the individual characters. Certainly one can imagine an uber-ambitious Duke who wants to create an Empire to rival that of Charlemagne.
I like the idea expressed here but do you really think an empire formed in the British Isles would be called British? I do not think this reference falls into the CK2 time line.
From what I understand there were not any, as there are no laws in Islam which aim at keeping the property in the hands of particular persons. The feudal system was really just a way to divide up property amongst the nobility.
Gameplay in CK II from a Muslim perspective would have to be entirely different.
The holy roman empire
The holy roman emperor was selected from and of different electorates. It would be absolutely wonderful if they could include something like this in CK2. I hope they do!
The holy roman emperor was selected from and of different electorates. It would be absolutely wonderful if they could include something like this in CK2. I hope they do!
I hope it will be something like in EU3. But more detailed of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great
(The above link does not prove that there was a Scandinavian Empire, just where I got the basis for the idea)
Anyway, the title was ahistorical, but it was very close to an Empire with its large number of territories, and vassals (Kingdom of Dublin, Kingdom of the Isles, etc).
As for the other two, I think a title tied to prestige/military might/piety works perfectly, especially for cases like the "Angevin Empire."
And, towards the end, the Byzantine Empire (at that point consisting of almost nothing other than the city) being a vassal of the Ottoman's.
It should be the Angevin empire, and you should have to own england and france to do it.
I think the point with a tier 4 is to distinguish exceptionally powerful kingdoms from the rest. One would still need many specialized rules for Byz, HRE, and Mongols, but the nice thing would be one could create some plausible though ahistorical entities as well such as aforementioned scandinavian or spanish "empires". That adds to the depth of the game since one ends up feeling less limited in what one can do. If I am in a position to resurrect combined (west + east) historical Roman Empire, it would be nice to be able to do so rather than simply being called "King of France, _various Iberian kingdoms_, Croatia, Italy, England, etc... It would more or less be the ultimate goal in terms of conquest - it may for instance be fun to start with Byzantium and try to recapture the western parts to restore Rome.
The question is just what to call them (since empire is such a misnomer for many of the proposed tier 4 entities)..
The question is just what to call them (since empire is such a misnomer for many of the proposed tier 4 entities)..
Last edited:
I don't think there is a need of a 4th tier.
Bigger kingdoms should just be allowed to vassalize smaller kingdoms as peace conditions.
I don't see why a theorical "emperor" should have special rules a french or english king has not. France vassalizing king of Navarra or England a king of Wales is not less plausible than the HRE vassalizing Croatia or Denmark.
And as a general rule, the bigger a kingdom is the more feudal contract (or other law giving large powers to vassals) should be the only viable way to manage it ; and private wars between the vassals often allowed without systematic king/emperor intervention. So big "empires" will already function differently than small "kingdoms".
Bigger kingdoms should just be allowed to vassalize smaller kingdoms as peace conditions.
I don't see why a theorical "emperor" should have special rules a french or english king has not. France vassalizing king of Navarra or England a king of Wales is not less plausible than the HRE vassalizing Croatia or Denmark.
And as a general rule, the bigger a kingdom is the more feudal contract (or other law giving large powers to vassals) should be the only viable way to manage it ; and private wars between the vassals often allowed without systematic king/emperor intervention. So big "empires" will already function differently than small "kingdoms".
Last edited:
What if you're a Scottish king of the MacDonald clan who conquered Ireland, Wales, England and France. Would you still be the "Angevin Empire" then?
I cannot agree with this, if i remember correctly, one of the biggest things wanted in CK1 was a 4th tier, was it not?
As the poster above you said, it should be there to, and i quote: "distinguish exceptionally powerfull kingdoms from the rest".
That i whole heartedly agree with. It might not be very historical, but hell after you press "start" nothing is gonna be historical anyway, and it'd be great for the modding community to have it already in place...
What if you're a Scottish king of the MacDonald clan who conquered Ireland, Wales, England and France. Would you still be the "Angevin Empire" then?
the celtic empire shall rise!
What if you're a Scottish king of the MacDonald clan who conquered Ireland, Wales, England and France. Would you still be the "Angevin Empire" then?
I think this shows the problem with the original CK that some of the titles were too deterministic. How hard it was to become a king if you were a Russian prince for example, this limited how you could expand as if you wanted to become the king of russia you could only have counts as vassals untill your country was huge.
In the same way a title like the Angevin Empire is too deterministic, it would be an equally stupid title if the King of Denmark conquered England to reimpose the Danegeld and then went after France and completed the Normans work.
What would be welcome would be a bit of the historical flexiblity that Paradox games have shown in the years since CK. As has been said already 4th Tier titles should be there to distinguish the most powerful countries and should be tied to owning a certain AMOUNT of land, or kingly titles or troops, not about owning SPECIFIC ones.