#4th Tier: Empire

@ ADane

Essentially, you're proposing a fourth tier and hence the ability to have kings as vassals. There are a few historical examples of kings as vassals in this period (albeit not many). The Staufen (nb not Hohenstaufen, the Hohen- was added by the Hohenzollerns in the C18/19 to give themselves a better claim to the Imperial title) are not good examples, nor are the other German emperors. Yes, more often than not, their sons were termed king of Germany/Italy/of the Romans or even Emperor. But, this was not a vassalage in the sense you propose. They held the title in name only (the only exception being Henry VI who was king of Sicily through inheritance from his wife, but that was a complicated and unique situation).

Actual examples of kings being vassals include:

John Balliol, king of Scotland was effectively a vassal to Edward I of England. That did not end well.
A couple of the kings of Bohemia were vassals to the German Emperors, but the title was reduced to duke for the early part of the period of the game.
The king of Thessalonica was vassal to the Latin Emperor, but this was not really more than a technicality.

The bottom line is that kings in the CK period were at the top of the social pyramid/tree/whatever. Unlike the Carolingian empire under Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, the Emperor did NOT have kings beneath him in the sense of vassalage. If anything, the emperor could claim to be the first among equals amongst the kings. While this situation could be changed, it should require an immense amount of work on the part of the player. Personally, I'd much rather see an extension of the vassalge system under the king than over it. Of course, then modders would be free to switch the top layer of that system to emperors... Everyone's happy.

@Wobbit,

I think you've missed the point. Of what's been said, not only by me. It shouldn't be easy in any sense, but considering that the game becomes ahistorical the second you press "start", i really don't see the problem.

No one, and i mean no one, can say what would have happened if just 1 thing went down a different road. You can come with an educated guess, but it's not gonna be the truth. If some, very "strong" king actually united, lets say Iberia, France and the british isles, you can't actually say that he wouldn't have succeeded in crowning himself emperor. Now it should ofcourse be extremely difficult, and a weakling king should not be able to do it, but tbh i don't see any logical argumentation for it not being in the game. And once it was done, it should be hard to keep it together, impossible with a "king/emperor" with bad stats. Now, if you decide to give out your king titles (you should not be able to give your main one away), the "lesser" kings should ofcourse scheme dethrone you and split up/claim the empire for themselves.

Anyway: It's already been said, several times in fact, that it should be immense work, and hard to keep together, but since this is not a history simulator (i wouldn't buy it if was), i just can't see what it is people have against it. It's not like the AI is ever gonna succeed at doing it, and the human player isn't forced to do it.

(Btw, In CK1 you could get a trait making you "emperor", considering that they did that, making a 4th tier dosn't sound unlikely in my ears atleast.)

Imperial titles might be appropriate as CK2's equivalent of "union tags", but if it were possible for emperors to subordinate kings as vassals that would be both unbalancing for the game and unrealistic for the period.

More than one emperor in the west was unrealistic for this period, yet it was placed in the game. And besides, Kings subordinating other Kings was not as uncommon in this period as you think. Drachenfire has a few good examples, two off the top of my head being England-Scotland and England-Wales.

Hawkeye1489 said:

More than one emperor in the west was unrealistic for this period, yet it was placed in the game. And besides, Kings subordinating other Kings was not as uncommon in this period as you think. Drachenfire has a few good examples, two off the top of my head being England-Scotland and England-Wales.

Click to expand...

I'm all for king-on-king vassalage if the kingdom being subordinated is vastly less powerful than the other, as in the case of Scotland and Wales vs. England, but that situation shouldn't require an emperor tier and could easily be simulated through the existing system with a few modifications and maybe a few imported features from, for example, EU's vassal mechanic.

Tangent i'm a bit confused. Your main argument for not having a 4th tier seems to be that it would be unrealistic if it could subordinate kings, while you have no problem with a king-on-king vassalage?

Personally, i don't think an "emperor" should be able to make other kings into vassals, just the ones he got when he "formed" it...

However, i wouldn't mind, if i could make one of my kingdom titles a vassal under my current kingdom, without needing an emperor title...

Hawkeye1489 said:

More than one emperor in the west was unrealistic for this period, yet it was placed in the game. And besides, Kings subordinating other Kings was not as uncommon in this period as you think. Drachenfire has a few good examples, two off the top of my head being England-Scotland and England-Wales.

Click to expand...

Yet the king of England wasn't an emperor.

The problem was that this kind of 'vassalage' was impossible to simulate in CK1. Sometimes kings/princes indeed paid tribute to another king (or the Pope) yet they weren't the same kind of vassals as a count, earl or duke. In CK1 this couldn't be represented since there you were either a vassal or you were not.

I think a fourth tier would be cool, but not as "Empire". The only Empire should be the Roman Empire, and it should be unique IMO.

Here's my idea (forgive me if it's been said, I don't want to read 9 pages though):

Let the fourth tier be a kind of a "Super King" title tied to a collection of titles. For instance, the Kings of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway would have their own third-tier King titles, however if one ruler were to obtain all three King titles, that would allow him to form the "King of Scandinavia" title, which would be a further boost to his prestige and stats, etc. This could be repeated in the British Isles, with one needing the King titles to Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England to form the King of Britannia (or whatever else) title. And again in Spain...having the Aragon, Castille, Leon, and Portugal titles would make you King of Spain (or Iberia, I don't care about the specifics). Not sure how this would work out in Germany, Italy, Russia, or the Balkans, but I'm sure something could be worked out.

CamilliusCaesar said:

I think a fourth tier would be cool, but not as "Empire". The only Empire should be the Roman Empire, and it should be unique IMO.

Click to expand...

Which Roman Empire, the Holy one or the real one?

@A_Dane

I think I may well have missed the point, or at least part of it. This is the problem with multi-page discussions with multiple ideas and arguements flowing through them.

You're absolutely right that the game is about alternative history, and I completely agree that a pure historical simulator would not be fun (this was my main issue with EU2). But, being in the business of making educated guesses, I prefer not to see anything too ahistorical happen. This means that for an Empire to come about in game it should follow similar development to those that came about in real life and shouldn't grossly undermine fundamental aspects of the period.

As I've said before, I have issues with placing a tier above kings as a king's whole schtick is that he's answerable to no-one. If you have a king as a vassal is he really a king, or just a glorified duke? If he's just a glorified duke, which I think is the case, then is his lord not just a king with a fancy title and a few fringe benefits?

There is also an issue with the existance of multiple Emperors. He's supposed to represent the absolute secular authority, therefore there can be only one emperor. This caused all manner of problems in the relations between HRE and Byzantium from Charlemagne onwards. This is also why when someone wanted to call themselves Emperor, they challenged the present emperor rather than simply claiming the title.

If you go messing with either of these concepts then you undermine very key aspects of medieval society. At that point you start to lose the basis of the game.

(Another issue I have is that this will esentially be creating something that the player can do but the AI cannot. I don't think the player needs any more advantages (unless the AI is beefed up, but given that that probably involves letting the AI cheat then that's really not viable).)

I liked the concept of the "Emperor" trait in CK1, but thought it was poorly executed. I prefer it as a landless title that can be inherited or claimed through various means. It would have boni attached to it as well as various events/decisions that it could trigger. It would possibly start off attached to the kingdom of Germany but this link could be weakened by certain situations.

As I said before, I have no issue with a fourth tier as long as the top tier is still occupied by the king.

wobbit said:

@A_Dane

I think I may well have missed the point, or at least part of it. This is the problem with multi-page discussions with multiple ideas and arguements flowing through them.

You're absolutely right that the game is about alternative history, and I completely agree that a pure historical simulator would not be fun (this was my main issue with EU2). But, being in the business of making educated guesses, I prefer not to see anything too ahistorical happen. This means that for an Empire to come about in game it should follow similar development to those that came about in real life and shouldn't grossly undermine fundamental aspects of the period.

As I've said before, I have issues with placing a tier above kings as a king's whole schtick is that he's answerable to no-one. If you have a king as a vassal is he really a king, or just a glorified duke? If he's just a glorified duke, which I think is the case, then is his lord not just a king with a fancy title and a few fringe benefits?

There is also an issue with the existance of multiple Emperors. He's supposed to represent the absolute secular authority, therefore there can be only one emperor. This caused all manner of problems in the relations between HRE and Byzantium from Charlemagne onwards. This is also why when someone wanted to call themselves Emperor, they challenged the present emperor rather than simply claiming the title.

If you go messing with either of these concepts then you undermine very key aspects of medieval society. At that point you start to lose the basis of the game.

(Another issue I have is that this will esentially be creating something that the player can do but the AI cannot. I don't think the player needs any more advantages (unless the AI is beefed up, but given that that probably involves letting the AI cheat then that's really not viable).)

I liked the concept of the "Emperor" trait in CK1, but thought it was poorly executed. I prefer it as a landless title that can be inherited or claimed through various means. It would have boni attached to it as well as various events/decisions that it could trigger. It would possibly start off attached to the kingdom of Germany but this link could be weakened by certain situations.

As I said before, I have no issue with a fourth tier as long as the top tier is still occupied by the king.

Click to expand...

Well, in my view when you become an Emperor through gathering several King titles, that there wouldn't be any King's under you because you were the King in all of them before you converted over to an empire. At that point, you can't create King's under you, yet you can still create Dukes, Counts, etc.

As for Emperor-to-Emperor diplomacy, they can institute a negative diplomacy penalty for communicating between Emperor's. Basically, for example, they would automatically get a -20 in relations, and the only way that they can actually agree on something (trade agreements, alliances, etc) is that they need to be maxed in relations, which itself would be very rare and probably extremely expensive.

@wobbit, I do see your point, but i can't disagree more. There is already an example of a "kingdom" being under an "empire" (The HRE, while it wasn't truly an empire, it was still "above" the king within).
Now i understand some people are reluctant to do overly drastic things, like a 4th tier, but since (this is just me hoping) not one playthrough is gonna end up in a historical manner, i can't see how you can discard it.

If we were talking just plain alternative history, not inside a game, I'd agree, It wasn't remotely likely to happen.

But anyway, as I've already said 2 or 3 times, it should not be easy at all, and it should be even harder to keep it together.

It's way too easy in CKV to keep 5-6 king titles together without trouble, even if you have a crappy diplo ruler. If you actually form an empire, it should probably crumble upon the rulers death, or one of his immediate successors.

I do love history, but when I'm playing a game, i really don't want to be restricted by it. Especially not when the outcome of my current game, might be going down a road that isn't remotely historical.

In EU3, you can form Russia and GB, Germany, Italy and Romania several 100 years early, you can bring back the Byzantine Empire from the brink of destruction. How likely were any of those scenarios to actually happend? many of them near zero I'd believe.

On top of that, you can form Scandinavia, a nation that never existed in history, and was an extremely unlikely event. Now tbh, i havn't seen many threads/people yelling about those features being ahistorical, and those few have been a minority.

Whether or not empires should be able to make vassal "kings" is a different matter, i think it should, provided it gives some interesting game improving scheming behind the scenes. Now it shouldn't be able to vassalize new kings, unless these were extremely weak or something like that.
If an "empire" (or whatever the hell they choose to call it), can't make vassal kings, then so be it.

Also, i seem to recall, that the rulers of Leon-Castille claimed to be "Emperors of all Spain"?

In any case, I do realise that i probably can't convince you with anything i can come up with, and unless you come with other arguments than the ones you have already come with, (which to me looks more like something that would make the game frustrating), then you arn't gonna convince me either.

So can we agree to disagree and let this lie? They've probably made up their minds anyway

I don't want to see any Emperor popping out that is not crowned by the Pope and has a claim to the Roman Imperial title. That's the way it should be.

For example, you want Alternate History? Try to become HREmperor like Alfonso X of Castille did. Had he succeeded, a pre-Charles V chould have existed. A king with the economical resources of Castille and the prestige, manpower and capacity of the HRE when it was still somehow a real kingdom, what a fearful man! Alfonso the Wise would be a man to be remembered in European History, not only in Spanish History.

Maybe, as king of Norway, you would like to become HREmperor. Maybe you could try and emulate Charles of Anjou and conquer Sicily from the last of the Hohenstaufens, defeat Peter III of Aragon, avoiding his conquest of Trinacria, and succeed where Charles failed: take over the Byzantine Imperial title.

You don't need to create an Emperor from nothing. It's not historical at all, and it doesn't give historical feel to the gameplay. If you want to be an Emperor, earn it. Become an anti-Emperor crowned by your own Pope, or try to get a crown from the true Pope, like Otto of Brunswick did, overthrowing Philippof Swabia.

Also, i seem to recall, that the rulers of Leon-Castille claimed to be "Emperors of all Spain"?

Click to expand...

Only one king, Alfonso VI, king of León (only king of León) did it. He did it to get support and vassalage from other Spanish kings and sovereigns, Christian and Muslim alike. And he didn't really succeed. Others pledged vassalage to him, but when the time came, they turned away from him. But in game, this title would mean actual abilities and power, like better administration, etc, that wouldn't make sense at all.

Cèsar de Quart said:

I don't want to see any Emperor popping out that is not crowned by the Pope and has a claim to the Roman Imperial title. That's the way it should be.

For example, you want Alternate History? Try to become HREmperor like Alfonso X of Castille did. Had he succeeded, a pre-Charles V chould have existed. A king with the economical resources of Castille and the prestige, manpower and capacity of the HRE when it was still somehow a real kingdom, what a fearful man! Alfonso the Wise would be a man to be remembered in European History, not only in Spanish History.

Maybe, as king of Norway, you would like to become HREmperor. Maybe you could try and emulate Charles of Anjou and conquer Sicily from the last of the Hohenstaufens, defeat Peter III of Aragon, avoiding his conquest of Trinacria, and succeed where Charles failed: take over the Byzantine Imperial title.

You don't need to create an Emperor from nothing. It's not historical at all, and it doesn't give historical feel to the gameplay.

Click to expand...

Somehow you managed to completely ignore the fact, that Some spanish kings claimed to be "emperors of all Spain", and that there were rulers styling themselves "Tsars" (emperors), in eastern europe...

EDIT: seeing you added something to your post: It dosn't really matter whether he was acknowledged or not, the fact that he did it, makes your entire argumentation, null.

@A_Dane

I think you're right and we may have to agree to disagree. Esentially I'd prefer to see a bonus for being an emperor rather than having it as a way to go up a tier.

I will say though, that I agree with the notion of combining kingdoms as per EU3 and would like to see that extended so f.e. France could absorb Burgundy or the Spanish kingdoms could merge. Of course, I'd also like the possibility of kingdoms emerging whether old (Britany, Aquitaine, Provence, Northumbria etc) or new (Holland, Flanders, Austria for example). (In fact, under the right conditions, I'd like to see most dukedoms have the potential to ascend to kingship).

I think the stumbling block between our points of view comes in the issue of kings as vassals. I can see the benefits of having a system that enables this and I agree that this should lead to some heavy intrigue. Perhaps being vassalised as a king could be a major burden to your prestige and fire off a series of events. But I don't think this would be best modelled with a fourth tier as I can see some mechanical problems with that.

I'm not against a fourth tier per se, I just want to have the kings on the top tier.

Merging kingdoms is actually a good idea, as long as they are capable of breaking apart.

But as i see it: Emperors were always considered of a "higher" rank than kings. Now while i'm open to emperors not being able to have kings as vassals, i just really think it would add to the gameplay. The kings would have dukes beneath him, which might choose to suppourt him in a bid for independence, or betray him to you.
But again, it's not really a "must" for me, just something I think could really add to gameplay.

Now, taking the "Emperor of Spain" business from earlier, he might not have been a "true" emperor, but what if someone had been more succesful? What if someone had actually managed to unite all of the british isles, would it lead to "Great Britain" coming into being centuries earlier, or perhaps a "Empire of all Britain"? Or perhaps it would simply have stayed a union of England, Wales, Scotland And Ireland's crowns, I don't know, but looking at the iberian example it just dosn't sound as unlikely as it's been made out to be, IMO ofcourse.

How about an Emperor who can't vassalize Kings. Honestly P'Dpx is more than likely adding aHistorical Imperial titles. This is my guess because they were in CK1.

So what we are debating is if Emperor is a 4th tier or a prestige bonus. In my mind it should be a fourth tier. But it shouldn't be as generic as the other three.

If an Emperor decides to grant a "kingdom" to a vassal that vassal would have total control of that area.

So, the Emperor cannot raise the armies of vassals of his king. But he will gain a monthly (or yearly) tribute. You can still ask the king to raise his armies for you but it will be more of a alliance CtA than a direct control.

So to sum up. If you choose to have an unbelievable large realm and be emperor you can choose between keeping all the power and dealing with massive revolts or choose to give up some "real" power but keep the ability to say "Look how big my realm is!"

Any ideas/comments/criticisms/insults/questions?

A_Dane said:

Tangent i'm a bit confused. Your main argument for not having a 4th tier seems to be that it would be unrealistic if it could subordinate kings, while you have no problem with a king-on-king vassalage?

Click to expand...

To clarify, I think a king should be able to forcefully vassalize another king if the second party is very weak - more of a client state than an actual vassal. I do not think, however, that a theoretical "emperor" should be able to peacefully vassalize kings willy-nilly in the same way a king vassalizes counts and dukes. Historically, whatever emperors there were during this period were no more than kings with fancy titles, and they should be treated as such in the game.

I never said that it should possible for an emperor to peacefully vassalize a king. What i suggested, was that he could give out his current ones. As i said in the posts above, It's not something i would consider a neccesity, just something that I think could add to the gameplay.

Stratagyfan101 said:

How about an Emperor who can't vassalize Kings. Honestly P'Dpx is more than likely adding aHistorical Imperial titles. This is my guess because they were in CK1.

So what we are debating is if Emperor is a 4th tier or a prestige bonus. In my mind it should be a fourth tier. But it shouldn't be as generic as the other three.

If an Emperor decides to grant a "kingdom" to a vassal that vassal would have total control of that area.

So, the Emperor cannot raise the armies of vassals of his king. But he will gain a monthly (or yearly) tribute. You can still ask the king to raise his armies for you but it will be more of a alliance CtA than a direct control.

So to sum up. If you choose to have an unbelievable large realm and be emperor you can choose between keeping all the power and dealing with massive revolts or choose to give up some "real" power but keep the ability to say "Look how big my realm is!"

Any ideas/comments/criticisms/insults/questions?

Click to expand...

What ahistorical imperial titles were in CK1?