I want to see Kings vassals to other Kings

[Morboth]

Thing is, medieval Kingdoms didn't quite work as the ingame kingdoms do. Take the infamous Edward II Plantagenet as an example: he was Duke of Aquitaine and as such a VASSAL to the King of France. Hell, he even had to swear an oath of fealty to the quick succession that were the last of the Capets and even pay them a tithe, tax, or whatever you wish to call it.

In game, however, this doesn't quite work this way, depriving the liege King from calling this potential duchy into a war or even having the prestige bonus associated with it. Perhaps having something like the 'baronies in other kingdom' mechanic would work here, and it would reflect the historical reality all the better.

[nyah]

Take the infamous Edward II Plantagenet as an example: he was Duke of Aquitaine and as such a VASSAL to the King of France.

And how well did that end? I seem to recall something about a war...

Besides the game goes some way to model this kind of situation by making counties held in another country subject to that country's crown laws.

[Morboth]

And how well did that end? I seem to recall something about a war...

Besides the game goes some way to model this kind of situation by making counties held in another country subject to that country's crown laws.

Edward did get his a*se handed back to him on a plate, yeah. But his son did score one of the greatest medieval victories against the French now, didn't he? Besides, what has it got to do with the thread's leit motiv?

And yes, I know the game does go some way... but I know P'dox can model it better. As of now only crown laws affect them, but use is that? You can't raise their levies, nor have any sort of tax or prestige bonus from them... so? You can only affect them indirectly and most of the time in manners of which none bear any use to the liege King.

[DreadLindwyrm]

It's a deliberate design choice.

In the same way that you can't be a vassal to different kings for different areas of land, you can't vassalise someone of the same level. It also stops the potentially silly situation where two kings are vassals of each other - for example the king of England being Duke of Normandy and subject to the French Crown, whilst the King of France holds the Duchy of Cornwall and is thus subject to the English Crown. A possible situation in real life, but enormously complicated for who is actually in charge when it comes to programming.

Incidentally, the Homage from the king of England wasn't for Acquitaine, it was (at least primarily) for Normandy and the Channel Islands. Acquitaine was a separate holding essentially outside of France's control.


Besides, if you take this to the limit, everyone ends up bound as a vassal to either the Pope, Byzantium or the HRE...



A second thought - if you want their land back, use your claims/de jure claims on Normandy as France.

The England/France vassalisation was only ever technical in any case.

[NewbieOne]

Thing is, medieval Kingdoms didn't quite work as the ingame kingdoms do. Take the infamous Edward II Plantagenet as an example: he was Duke of Aquitaine and as such a VASSAL to the King of France. Hell, he even had to swear an oath of fealty to the quick succession that were the last of the Capets and even pay them a tithe, tax, or whatever you wish to call it.

In game, however, this doesn't quite work this way, depriving the liege King from calling this potential duchy into a war or even having the prestige bonus associated with it. Perhaps having something like the 'baronies in other kingdom' mechanic would work here, and it would reflect the historical reality all the better.

That's just because you were able to hold multiple titles, including multiple tier titles, with different lieges. In theory you could be your own vassal's vassal in your capacity stemming from a minor title at the end of your title list. But you're only vassal when it comes to that single specific vassal title and you're independent when it comes to all the rest. It's only humiliating that you may actually still have to bend your knee if you want to keep the minor titles.

On the other hand, Scotland was for a moment considered a vassal kingdom of England. The Celts also had vassal kingdoms. Poland had dukes as vassals of other dukes (in-game, the highest of them is represented as king, in real life, he was the "prince/lord of the kingdom of Poland"). Also, while this would be very rare, you could have vassals with higher titles than their lieges, e.g. Brandenburg was a margraviate while being the liege of Pomerania, a duchy, from 12th century onward. I think this was before B. became an electorate (which made the ruler of it a very high prince, above a duke in honour).

In Slavic countries as well as in Germany, you'd also preserve the highest title (although not king, only prince/duke or lower) for all the junior sons in gavelkind, although they could end up being vassals to their older brother, even if holding the same tier title (e.g. all sons as dukes but the eldest as at least nominal overlord of all), which is especially true of princes/dukes (counts were basically magistrates, royal appointees, who followed different rules even if hereditary; in contrast, princes/dukes were proper rulers, monarchs). In-game, they'd just get a county, barony etc. and forego the higher title.

I'm also pretty sure it wouldn't be unheard of for barons (i.e. lords not good enough to be counts while still higher than a simple knight) to have other barons as vassals.

[Closet Skeleton]

I'd like independant de jure vassals to count as allies that you can call to war.

[Roguedemon]

And how well did that end? I seem to recall something about a war...

Besides the game goes some way to model this kind of situation by making counties held in another country subject to that country's crown laws.

The problem with the crown laws thing is that it raises all sorts of problems though. While legislature in medieval times was of course highly complex, the game is supposed to be a simplified version; sacrificing some realism for the sake of enjoyment and playability. Surely a different solution could be applied, or at least the current one could be improved somewhat - there is nothing more irritating than being attacked by the duke next door but not being able to launch a counter attack because you are both under different crown laws. While I'm sure someone could dig up instances of legal oddities or similar incidents like this, it doesn't actually add anything to the game. If you are playing the duke being attacked it is frustrating, as your only way to declare war involves either plotting or warring against your leige first, and if you are the duke on the attack, it is more an exploit than anything, being able to harrass your enemy with no fear of real retribution, beyond prestige and money. While other similar occasions can happen ingame, these usaully involve a low tier vassal attacking a king (like 1066) and this is very rare anyway, and almost always in the favour of the one who cannot gain much from it.

[Morboth]

Incidentally, the Homage from the king of England wasn't for Acquitaine, it was (at least primarily) for Normandy and the Channel Islands. Acquitaine was a separate holding essentially outside of France's control.

Normandy? AFAIK they lost those when the Angevin empire was undone, and just retained Aquitaine by the time of the accession of Edward III. And he too had to pay homage, so...

The England/France vassalisation was only ever technical in any case.

Indeed, however from a gameplay perspective this could very well mean more troops for the King of France in the event of a war NOT against the King of England. Or, perhaps some form of homage paying.

That's just because you were able to hold multiple titles, including multiple tier titles, with different lieges. In theory you could be your own vassal's vassal in your capacity stemming from a minor title at the end of your title list. But you're only vassal when it comes to that single specific vassal title and you're independent when it comes to all the rest. It's only humiliating that you may actually still have to bend your knee if you want to keep the minor titles.

On the other hand, Scotland was for a moment considered a vassal kingdom of England. The Celts also had vassal kingdoms. Poland had dukes as vassals of other dukes (in-game, the highest of them is represented as king, in real life, he was the "prince/lord of the kingdom of Poland"). Also, while this would be very rare, you could have vassals with higher titles than their lieges, e.g. Brandenburg was a margraviate while being the liege of Pomerania, a duchy, from 12th century onward. I think this was before B. became an electorate (which made the ruler of it a very high prince, above a duke in honour).

In Slavic countries as well as in Germany, you'd also preserve the highest title (although not king, only prince/duke or lower) for all the junior sons in gavelkind, although they could end up being vassals to their older brother, even if holding the same tier title (e.g. all sons as dukes but the eldest as at least nominal overlord of all), which is especially true of princes/dukes (counts were basically magistrates, royal appointees, who followed different rules even if hereditary; in contrast, princes/dukes were proper rulers, monarchs). In-game, they'd just get a county, barony etc. and forego the higher title.

I'm also pretty sure it wouldn't be unheard of for barons (i.e. lords not good enough to be counts while still higher than a simple knight) to have other barons as vassals.

Indeed! And shouldn't we strive to have a game that reflects history the better?

[Kynaz]

Indeed! And shouldn't we strive to have a game that reflects history the better?

Not at all costs.



Honestly playability is my number one concern. Having equal tier kings as vassals, i just can't see any way of making that work.




My biggest issue is the what if scenario's. France was an established kingdom at the time of those situations. BUT why stop at France if we are following this logic. What if Scotland invades Ireland and takes some holdings. Should his recently captured lands than force him to pay homage to Ireland's King till dejure shift happens?

To me thats not a very suitable design , nor is it entirely realistic. By all rights if we continued this logic , the successor to the ROMAN empire would have to have sovereign over everything. Since technically , at one point , the ROMAN empire controlled most of the game's geographical locations. SO basically , HRE and ERE are overlords of Europe..... permanently...........

[Akjosch]

You're slightly misunderstanding or misrepresenting the situation, at least as it applies to Christian Europe.

A king couldn't usually be (nominally) a vassal of another king, though of course in practice there were some ways around it.

The situation with Edward II was no exception: Edward II, King of England, was independent. So was Edward II, Lord of Ireland. Edward II, Duke of Aquitaine, was a vassal to the French king. That's the same person, but three different titles, two of them independent and one a vassal.

Titles shouldn't and couldn't have more than one liege. People could and did, all it took is to have more than one title. It would be nice if the game made this distinction.

[gimel]

And, sometimes, King in his own demesne was not sovereign, but a vassal to another King (think John Toom Tabard Balliol and Edward Longshanks Plantagenet).

[Morboth]

You're slightly misunderstanding or misrepresenting the situation, at least as it applies to Christian Europe.

A king couldn't usually be (nominally) a vassal of another king, though of course in practice there were some ways around it.

The situation with Edward II was no exception: Edward II, King of England, was independent. So was Edward II, Lord of Ireland. Edward II, Duke of Aquitaine, was a vassal to the French king. That's the same person, but three different titles, two of them independent and one a vassal.

Titles shouldn't and couldn't have more than one liege. People could and did, all it took is to have more than one title. It would be nice if the game made this distinction.

No, no, I don't want a King to be a vassal to another King in its ENTIRETY, just to have that portion of land that is indeed vassal to the other king, well... be of some use to him!

I will once more use the example of Aquitaine: should the French King be at war with anyone that is NOT the English King, then why wouldn't he be able to call for Aquitaine's levy? Also, shouldn't he receive a homage for it?

I will say it one last time: I DO NOT WANT A KING TO BE A VASSAL TO ANOTHER KING JUST BECAUSE ONE OWNS A PORTION IN THE OTHER'S DE JURE LAND, ONLY THAT THE DE JURE LIEGE SHOULD HAVE RIGHTS OVER THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF LAND.

Sorry for the caps, but had to make it clear. It seems an awful lot were getting my idea wrong.

[riknap]

No, no, I don't want a King to be a vassal to another King in its ENTIRETY, just to have that portion of land that is indeed vassal to the other king, well... be of some use to him!

I will once more use the example of Aquitaine: should the French King be at war with anyone that is NOT the English King, then why wouldn't he be able to call for Aquitaine's levy? Also, shouldn't he receive a homage for it?

I will say it one last time: I DO NOT WANT A KING TO BE A VASSAL TO ANOTHER KING JUST BECAUSE ONE OWNS A PORTION IN THE OTHER'S DE JURE LAND, ONLY THAT THE DE JURE LIEGE SHOULD HAVE RIGHTS OVER THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF LAND.

Sorry for the caps, but had to make it clear. It seems an awful lot were getting my idea wrong.

the problem is the game modelling
Paradox made it that each person cannot be both lord and vassal of the same tier, e.g. the Norman-England issue
it's been discussed time and time again that it a deliberate design choice was made against this very thing as it adds needless complexity. Sure, a modular DLC/expansion might work, but not for vanilla,

[Diet of Worms]

The de jure system is meant to be a nod towards this. Which I think is good enough, since the game needs to have a relatively simple model. It is a game not a simulation after all.

Something I would quite like though would maybe be the option to "do homage" for lands you own that are de jure the property of another ruler. The de facto ruler could have a decision to do homage or not. Doing homage could stop de jure drift, and increase relations. Refusing would be a relation hit and de jure drift could happen as it does at present. Also, to make it a real choice, there could be a malus to all your vassals' opinion when you hold lands for which you could do homage but choose not to: this would make sense IMO since you would be going against feudal norms and denying the rightful liege lord his due - this sort of thing would give your own vassals ideas. Edit: Possibly also, doing homage would remove the de jure CB from the rightful liege.

[DreadLindwyrm]

Perhaps if the de jure king of the land were to be able to request homage (once per liege/"vassal" combination - unless they get deposed and reclaim the land), and it gave some choices to the "vassal".

[Diet of Worms]

Something like that would make sense - it should be a choice for both parties if it is going to mess with things like CBs. Perhaps either side could offer/demand it, and the other party could say yes or no (with some sort of penalty for refusing). Then if accepted it would remain in force until one of them died/got deposed, and perhaps a war between them over another matter should require reswearing as well.

Problem would be I don't see much that is in it for the liege. He gets to stop de jure drift, and he gets a relation boost which might be important. But most players in most situations would probably just prefer the de jure CB.

[Wallain]

I'd prefer if the titles you held had up to one designated liege. That way the king of England can be independent, while the duke of Normandy can be a vassal of France even if the King of England and Duke of Normandy was the same person. That way the king of England could always fight a war of independence for Normandy if he did not want to answer to the French king.

[DreadLindwyrm]

Well, normally that would have to have happened to be holding land in another country. The only other way to get the land would be by inheritances, or by a Duke/Count conquering another kingdom with something like an invasion CB, or a crusade.

Most areas are going to end up with CA prohibiting inheritance taking land outside the kingdom, so it is unlikely to crop up that often in the game.

[Herl]

it's amazing how people keep asking for this feature over and over again even though it was in the DD's that it wasn't going to work like this.... umm...

[Ruwaard]

The de jure system is meant to be a nod towards this. Which I think is good enough, since the game needs to have a relatively simple model. It is a game not a simulation after all.

Something I would quite like though would maybe be the option to "do homage" for lands you own that are de jure the property of another ruler. The de facto ruler could have a decision to do homage or not. Doing homage could stop de jure drift, and increase relations. Refusing would be a relation hit and de jure drift could happen as it does at present. Also, to make it a real choice, there could be a malus to all your vassals' opinion when you hold lands for which you could do homage but choose not to: this would make sense IMO since you would be going against feudal norms and denying the rightful liege lord his due - this sort of thing would give your own vassals ideas. Edit: Possibly also, doing homage would remove the de jure CB from the rightful liege.

Something like that would make sense - it should be a choice for both parties if it is going to mess with things like CBs. Perhaps either side could offer/demand it, and the other party could say yes or no (with some sort of penalty for refusing). Then if accepted it would remain in force until one of them died/got deposed, and perhaps a war between them over another matter should require reswearing as well.

Problem would be I don't see much that is in it for the liege. He gets to stop de jure drift, and he gets a relation boost which might be important. But most players in most situations would probably just prefer the de jure CB.

The de jure system is a nod to this, but certainly in the areas in Europe with 'established feudalism' IMHO the de jure shift isn't. De jure shift make most sense in areas where Christian realms border non Christian states. A de jure shift between Christian (Catholic) realms was rare, but it could happen.
IMHO the previous static de jure system , though not perfect either, IMHO did a better job representing this situation, than the current flexible de jure one.