Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Vassals revolt. When the emperor dies, they rebel just because. Some want specific lands, others dont like the Emperor and others want to change the centralization level. If I where to give everything away (and I have tried giving a lot of lands through vassal transfer) I don't think it would fix everything.
What is happening is that I have large revolts, am forced to call everyone to arms and then the fact that I have called people to arms gives rise to further discontentment and further revolts. I have been gaining the revolt wars but the game gets really boring conquering the same lands over and over.
I have now given away all my duchies. let's see if it works
I gave away all duchies and indeed the number of revolts went down to a manageable number, and my income remained the same. Is there any point to having duchies as the Eastern roman emperor?
Then my Emperor died again, and I had 10 rebelious doux , and sent then to be vassals of the patriach, which solved again the rebelious mood, but which leaves the patriarch on top of half the troops in the empire. Any suggestions on how to cut the parthiarchy down to size again?
AFAIK these things hold true for history of HRE and ERE:
1. Almost continuous fight for power both "behind the scenes" and "in the open". IIRC there was hardly a decade in HRE without infighting.
2. Rare rulers which could claim that they were indeed "ruling" the country in the sense many people understand it here (absolute or anywhere-near-absolute power). "Forgetting" to pay taxes or come to help in war a common occurrence with less blessed/influential/powerful rulers.
3. Continuous lack of funds. Large projects only possible during best rulers and used as a "show" for everyone to see that they actually have the finance (and influence) to do stuff. Most infrastructure developed as an effect of economic growth often going against odds produced by ruler such as "tax, tax, TAX MORE!" and arising need for expansion, not "government programs" such as "build harbor here!".
Which means that playing HRE and ERE should be more like "can I still spare troops for expansion even if I'm fighting at home?" type of game, not "ok, it's been 10 years of peace of home, let's go bash some infidels for a change".
Just look up wars in which HREs and EREs participated - it's "own vassals joining enemy side" and "neighbors using unprotected rear" galore.
The nature of the two Empires was so different that a fix to one should not be applied to both. For example, the HRE was destabilized by vassals constantly striving to protect their freedom, while the ERE was destabilized by those trying to gain the throne. About the only thing they had in common was name and size.
Which means that playing HRE and ERE should be more like "can I still spare troops for expansion even if I'm fighting at home?" type of game, not "ok, it's been 10 years of peace of home, let's go bash some infidels for a change".
Just look up wars in which HREs and EREs participated - it's "own vassals joining enemy side" and "neighbors using unprotected rear" galore.
