Poland: Kingdom of Duchy

[Tskb18]

Meh. There's no need for superflous pedantry. Poland was a kingdom-sized realm with (for most of CK the timeline) kingdom-level of autonomy. For gameplay reason, Poland works best as Kingdom.

But what if the pedantry is necessary? Or adds to gameplay?

e.g. good relations with the Pope might get you a King title (e.g. a Rus' prince who offered to convert to Catholicism) whereas bad relations might get your king title lost in a flurry of excommunications (e.g. Norman conquerors of Sicily employing rather than persecutng Muslims).

[Andrelvis]

But what if the pedantry is necessary? Or adds to gameplay?

e.g. good relations with the Pope might get you a King title (e.g. a Rus' prince who offered to convert to Catholicism) whereas bad relations might get your king title lost in a flurry of excommunications (e.g. Norman conquerors of Sicily employing rather than persecutng Muslims).

What would happen to your duke vassals if your title is demoted? Become independent?

[Gwyn ap Nud]

What would happen to your duke vassals if your title is demoted? Become independent?

I would say it depends whether the vassal in question contests the demotion or not. Many vassals might take the opportunity to take independence, but others would remain loyal to the ex-King, and still consider him the King.

[Andrelvis]

I would say it depends whether the vassal in question contests the demotion or not. Many vassals might take the opportunity to take independence, but others would remain loyal to the ex-King, and still consider him the King.

Dukes can't be vassal to other dukes in Crusader Kings...

[Ruwaard]

Dukes can't be vassal to other dukes in Crusader Kings...

That's why, if it will be implemented, I would prefer a title high duke of Poland, which by event can change in king of Poland (same tier, but maybe high duke is less prestigious); however once promoted the ruler and his successors normally stay king.

[Leviathan07]

Is it really such a hassle for players if the Polish High Duke is displayed as "King of Poland" in the game?

It sounds like there really is no difference at all other than the title and some prestige

[RedRooster81]

Is it really such a hassle for players if the Polish High Duke is displayed as "King of Poland" in the game?

It sounds like there really is no difference at all other than the title and some prestige

It's semantics, but maybe enough to get someone to change the localisation files. It's similar to "Count of Barcelona" or "Count of Flanders"--But they will likely be called Duke (or the local equivalent) in CK2 as they were in CK1. And we could go on.

[TempestDK]

Sounds more like something for a modder to do than something the devs should look into

[Enravota]

Meh. There's no need for superflous pedantry. Poland was a kingdom-sized realm with (for most of CK the timeline) kingdom-level of autonomy. For gameplay reason, Poland works best as Kingdom.

King/Emperor title is a big deal in CK time period. Owning a lot of land did not make one king and creation or recreation of of kingdoms was a significant diplomatic effort. A title even empty of power and land provided the holder at least nominal prestige, and great domain by itself did not provide the right to the title.

The most famous example would be the duchy of Burgundy. Whilst quite a large and wealthy realm, it was unable to get a royal crown. Another example is Kaloyan who whilst inheriting from his brothers an already free state and cemented rebellion, was only able to get international recognition as a king/tsar because of the influence games of Byzantium and the pope (and obviously the Fourth crusade), getting a Rex title from the Pope (the only Bulgarian king btw) and later a Caesar from Byzantium before its fall. The imperial title of Russia was not exactly recognised outside of Moscow for a long time after Ivan the Terrible.

Places like Navarra and Corsica were also sought after because they had royal titles both ending in personal unions with richer duchies. One of the main benefits of the Normans and Plantagenets from England was exactly the royal title putting them on the same footing with the king of France.

One of the main weaknesses IMHO of CKI was that gaining higher tier tittle was oversimplified to a landgrab. Which is especially not true for king or emperor tier titles.

EDIT: Another example is also the Polish-Lithuanian union. The dynasty was Lithuanian, the larger realm was Lithuania, but the union was dominated by the Polish part exactly because of the royal title.

[the_hdk]

so what is your opinion on this Enravota?

[Enravota]

so what is your opinion on this Enravota?

I think that the last tier of titles should be able to “switch” between Prince/Grand Duke etc. and King/Tsar etc. depending on events or other circumstance (royal titles can be given from the emperors (HRE and Byz) or the Pope) and to be able to be promoted to kingship or demoted back to ducal level. Maybe some of the more established kingdoms should not be able to be demoted (most notably France). I think such system should be able to represent the dynamics of certain places (Poland, Galich and Bulgaria) and the hardship of creating a new state.

Obviously the King should get significat bonus (prestige and relations) over the Grand duke, to signify that the given state is now on the “grown up's table”.

[the_hdk]

but the current tier system is

Baron - Count - Duke - King - Emperor

Tsar was a Emperor title not an King title. So thats a tier promotion.
I think the dynamics of switching titles within a tier (Gran Duke -> King) is too much to ask for vanilla. Maybe an expansion.

[Andrelvis]

but the current tier system is

Baron - Count - Duke - King - Emperor

Tsar was a Emperor title not an King title. So thats a tier promotion.
I think the dynamics of switching titles within a tier (Gran Duke -> King) is too much to ask for vanilla. Maybe an expansion.

AFAIK King and Emperor are in the same tier.

[the_hdk]

AFAIK King and Emperor are in the same tier.

In CK1 not in CK2

[Andrelvis]

In CK1 not in CK2

In CK2 too, no? Where has it been said something to the contrary?

[RedRooster81]

AFAIK King and Emperor are in the same tier.

Nope. Emperor is now a fifth-tier title. And emperors can hold kings as vassals. See the developers' comments thread under the heading "Religious Counterweight to the Pope." There are reportedly to be four emperor-level titles, including Byzantine Emperor and Holy Roman Emperor. It might be possible to mod in a Tsar title.

Which makes for five playable tiers of titles, from count to emperor. Titles will have culture-specific names, so you can call these five titles anything you like for all members of your culture. Then below there is of course baron and below baron, well we don't talk about those people.

[Enravota]

but the current tier system is

Baron - Count - Duke - King - Emperor

Tsar was a Emperor title not an King title. So thats a tier promotion.
.

While tsar is theoretically equivalent to emperor, there was no king equivalent in Eastern Europe, while tsars had more in common with the kings in the west, rather than with the HREmperor. If the example of Kaloyan is sufficient, the distinction was not that obvious for the rulers of the time also (although in that case, he had quite obvious reasons not to see difference). I would be satisfied with imperial titles be reserved for HRE and Byz as in CKI, as I do not think it realistic to create other imperial tiltes during the timeframe.

I think the dynamics of switching titles within a tier (Gran Duke -> King) is too much to ask for vanilla. Maybe an expansion.

The main difficulty would be to create a balanced event/decision chain for the change (if it is a simple relation-based decision it is meaningless). Still there is quite some time to CKII release and hopefully PE has though out some resolution to the problem.

Sticking too much to cold mechanics like tier system or dukes cannot be vassals of dukes, was on of the bane's of CKI (Jihading sheiks was another one ).Lack of flexibility of the title system will make things bland and predictable. In CKI you could inherit enough duchies and recreate a kingdom, and your liege wouldn't mind at all, Your neighbours wouldn't mind. The powers that be will be (pope and the emperors) silent. When a ruler dies he is succeeded by a very specific heir and none of the other heirs will say “but he is actually a bastard” or “but the old king asked for me to take his place on his deathbed”. And that is the main thing that should be added in CKII fluidity, change, semantics of such matters. Creating a new independent kingdom was shattering the medieval and feudal cosmology, holding a title and actually being recognised as such in a world governed by tradition, symbolism and semantics are two very different things and that and similar stuff should be represented in the game.

[the_hdk]

5 playable tiers? you mean 4

[the_hdk]

While tsar is theoretically equivalent to emperor, there was no king equivalent in Eastern Europe, while tsars had more in common with the kings in the west, rather than with the HREmperor. If the example of Kaloyan is sufficient, the distinction was not that obvious for the rulers of the time also (although in that case, he had quite obvious reasons not to see difference). I would be satisfied with imperial titles be reserved for HRE and Byz as in CKI, as I do not think it realistic to create other imperial tiltes during the timeframe.


The main difficulty would be to create a balanced event/decision chain for the change (if it is a simple relation-based decision it is meaningless). Still there is quite some time to CKII release and hopefully PE has though out some resolution to the problem.

Sticking too much to cold mechanics like tier system or dukes cannot be vassals of dukes, was on of the bane's of CKI (Jihading sheiks was another one ).Lack of flexibility of the title system will make things bland and predictable. In CKI you could inherit enough duchies and recreate a kingdom, and your liege wouldn't mind at all, Your neighbours wouldn't mind. The powers that be will be (pope and the emperors) silent. When a ruler dies he is succeeded by a very specific heir and none of the other heirs will say “but he is actually a bastard” or “but the old king asked for me to take his place on his deathbed”. And that is the main thing that should be added in CKII fluidity, change, semantics of such matters. Creating a new independent kingdom was shattering the medieval and feudal cosmology, holding a title and actually being recognised as such in a world governed by tradition, symbolism and semantics are two very different things and that and similar stuff should be represented in the game.

I agree with you on that but I doubt that flexible tier system is realistic gamewise. Kinda an utopia IMO but who knows

[Andrelvis]

Nope. Emperor is now a fifth-tier title. And emperors can hold kings as vassals. See the developers' comments thread under the heading "Religious Counterweight to the Pope." There are reportedly to be four emperor-level titles, including Byzantine Emperor and Holy Roman Emperor. It might be possible to mod in a Tsar title.

Which makes for five playable tiers of titles, from count to emperor. Titles will have culture-specific names, so you can call these five titles anything you like for all members of your culture. Then below there is of course baron and below baron, well we don't talk about those people.

Thanks