The 'More Depth' idea thread

Cardinal Sin said:

HRE: Make a new type of succession, HRE elective. Create a special title, elector, which is exclusively inheritable in agnatic primogeniture succession - Maria Theresa, first female elector, only came way after our time frame. Thus, it is made a bit challenging to keep the title in your family! Only electors can vote. There can be only 7; if one electorship dies out, the emperor can grant a new one. Also, make it possible for the Emperor to make some special decisions that reflect medieval laws (promote Roman law as the Emperor's law, Worms compromise with the Pope, Mainz general peace, Golden Bull, Eger general peace, institute Archduchy - only one in the empire - are just examples I came up with off the cuff).

Click to expand...

That would very... not really all correct in this timeline. Firstly... At the start of the game the electors were all princes of the realm. The prince electors first get there right juristically with the Golden Bull. And the emperor don't grant the electorate to another duchy. It's allways the same duchy. The title should be restricted to a special duchy. Not "O I don't like the Archbishop of Cologne... I give the title to the Count of Holland or the Archbishop of Hamburg!". That didn't work. Also archduchies didn't work in this timeline. Austria only get the official title at 1453. And just because the Habsburg were importand and want to be as powerful as the electors. And it was iniciated from the Habsburgs therself. It's not like emperor said "O, we like this duchy we make them a archduchy!". And the only reason why there wasn't any female elector... because the titles (Brandenburg, Palatinate, Saxony and Bohemia) were agnatic. And the Bishoprics would never accept a female. So... No the title shouldn't be restricted to females and should stay in the same Duchy. Your suggestions wouldn't really be perfect. And only work for the post Golden Bull HRE.

Arcvalons said:

More Casus Belli! A CB to marry someone by force, basically steal a girl to be your wife if her father refuses you.A CB to release prisioner, can be any prisioner and not necessarily related to you. CB to take revenge against someone for making your wife/daughter a concubine...

Click to expand...

This, especially the Casus Belli to release prisoners: in my Italia game, I was pushing into southern Aquitaine and eastern Asturias and my wife, the Duchess of Barcelona, was imprisoned by the King of Asturias and I could do nothing about it, not even ask for her to be ransomed. I feel that a liege should be allowed to, at least, negotiate for their wives, or husbands, freedom.

Capulet said:

If not, a dynasty loyalty system that makes it so I don't have to have civil war every time my character dies. It should be both modelled as a dynasty-to-dynasty relation system (ie if your dynasty is rivals with another one, you get a lower opinion of rulers of that dynasty, and AI are far more likely to try and get them out of power). But your dynasty should also get cadet branches; for instance, if you have a bastard child who creates a new dynasty, it should be treated as a cadet branch of yours, and get an opinion boost. Furthermore, your dynasty members AI should be far less likely to oppose you at every turn, as they seem to now.

Click to expand...

While this seems nice, CK II is a game of individual characters. There is ultimately no relationship between two dynasties. There are only relationships between people. My whole family might hate the French, for example. That does not mean I will, too. Sure, there is a large chance I will, because I am taught, educated, if you will, to hate them by my family.

I like your idea, do not get me wrong. I just feel it could use some more depth. For example, dynasty X and dynasty Y are rivals if the heads of both dynasties have the rival opinion modifier. Each character of both dynasty X and dynasty Y can then share in the rivalry, given them a negative opinion modifier of the other dynasty, or not care about the rivarly, giving their own dynasty members who do share in the rivalry a negative opinion towards them.

What decides whether a character chooses to share in the rivarly or not is decided by where and by who they are educated. If a child is educated in a court where the liege is a rivalry sharer and the educator is also a rivarly sharer, the chance that the child also starts to share in the rivarly should be nearly, if not, 100%. If the child is educated by someone who does not care, or in the court of someone who does not care, the chance decreases. If the child is educated in a court of someone who does not care by someone who does not care the chance the child decides to share in the rivarly should be even lower. If you educate the child yourself, you yourself have the say, of course.

Once a head of either dynasty X or Y does not care about the rivarly, it opens up options for reconciliation, which may or may not be accepted. If accepted, the head of the other dynasty also stops to care, thus ending open rivarly. Characters who still hate the other dynasty with a passion will continue to hate the them, of course, and might rekindle the rivarly if they take over.

Cardinal Sin said:

HRE: Make a new type of succession, HRE elective. Create a special title, elector, which is exclusively inheritable in agnatic primogeniture succession - Maria Theresa, first female elector, only came way after our time frame. Thus, it is made a bit challenging to keep the title in your family! Only electors can vote. There can be only 7; if one electorship dies out, the emperor can grant a new one. Also, make it possible for the Emperor to make some special decisions that reflect medieval laws (promote Roman law as the Emperor's law, Worms compromise with the Pope, Mainz general peace, Golden Bull, Eger general peace, institute Archduchy - only one in the empire - are just examples I came up with off the cuff).

Click to expand...

What would all those decisions do? Their effects?

When does an electorship die out? If that is when the elector becomes unlanded, what if an elector forms a kingdom, makes it elective, and chooses not his first born? Does the electorship die out then, or does it go with the other titles? What happens if, by some miracle, the HRE becomes absolute cognatic. Would every elector who sires a daughter first lose his electorship?

Sarin said:

I for one would like "Story Events"

A whole crapload of Events that randomly fire and select people around you.

For example, a brothers in conflict storyline, where 2 of your sons decide they are massive rivals and hate each other, and it randomly splits powerful lords of yours and gives them + friendly or - enemy tags based on this.

Story events where a neighbouring kings daughter runs away to marry your son, and you are forced to choose to send her back and have your son hate you and the other reprecussions, or accept her for a claim and risk open war.

Many more story events that effect your family and rule, such as your wife betraying you, your sons being great allies of each other, a bunch of grand conspiracy story events against you.

At the moment it just lacks that "story depth" that medieval europe had.

Click to expand...

Most of this is already there, just not with pop-ups.

This one is not in game, but if a king's daughter runs away to my court, and I happen to be a gigantic multi-Empire, the game has just given me a free claimant.

Brothers can already hate each other or love each other. If one is the king while the other is the most powerful duke in the realm because of gavelkind, you will get the realm splitting up due to factions and/or a succession crisis.

Your wife can already betray you. She does it when she plots against you. Conspiracies are also in the game by intrigue generally. I agree the plot-system can be upgraded to be more ''in depth''. Your intrigue should not only decide the chance of the plot firing, but also how willing people are to join your plot, for example. And of course the chance of succes of the plot. The fact that I am a master of intrigue means I manipulate people into doing what I want, rather than me having to rely on diplomacy. Diplomacy should still play a large role, however.

Capulet said:

If not, a dynasty loyalty system that makes it so I don't have to have civil war every time my character dies. It should be both modelled as a dynasty-to-dynasty relation system (ie if your dynasty is rivals with another one, you get a lower opinion of rulers of that dynasty, and AI are far more likely to try and get them out of power). But your dynasty should also get cadet branches; for instance, if you have a bastard child who creates a new dynasty, it should be treated as a cadet branch of yours, and get an opinion boost. Furthermore, your dynasty members AI should be far less likely to oppose you at every turn, as they seem to now.

Click to expand...

I like this, and it would also make a great representation of the powerful, feuding families in the Byzantine Empire.

kemmy23 said:

My suggestions regarding culture are much more geared towards asthetic issues. For example I believe that a Muslim Persian ruler should have significantly different clothing than a Persian Zoroastrian. Furthermore, the inclusion of Cardinal robes and White and Black turbans for Shia clerics is a must.

Click to expand...

...and Orthodox beards!!!

Traits should have more effect on events. Being cruel or kind should actually reflect the options you get in events. This is a character based game after all, now your character just seems like an intermediary puppet rather than an independent entity.

I don't like the way they are just stat boosts/penalties with the occasional extra option. They should shape the character.

Intrigue DLC:

Permanent groups of conspirators would try to attain their common objectives (titles, money, privileges...) through blackmail, threats, assassinations, kidnapping... More power to regents, which would be nominated in a way that makes sense (depending on votes, intrigue, a character's last will...) instead of picking some random nobody who isn't even of the right culture or religion. As a vassal you would gain power and influence through your network of conspirators, causing wars or decisions that serve your own interests.

Intrigue would be a more complex system of characters with their own interests instead of "yeah I guess I'll kill this guy, I don't like him much". Some characters would just want to put a specific person on the throne and they would stop plotting once they've attained that goal. Deceitful characters are good at intrigue, but they might denounce you to your liege if it's more beneficial to them, etc.

Personally that's the kind of stuff I'd like to see in a "roleplay" DLC, rather than a bunch of flavour events that tend to get old pretty quickly.

a. About the Dinasty Relations, a simple mechanic:

1. Create a relation modificator called "Dinasty memory".
2. The 10% of determined diplomatic actions on dinasty members will be added to the "Dinasty memory" for 100 years.
For example: If you give a count title to a X family (+40 relationship), the X dinasty will have a +4 in their dinasty memory for 100 years. If your asassination is discovered, -3 to their dinasty memory for 100 years.

In this way, the dinasties will have traditional enemies and friends, according with their actions.

PD: Cadet branches, if the system will be improved, could have a permament positive modificator with its "mother house".

If some of you are going to make a large mod (or several mods) to implement your ideas for more depth you could maybe contact the ones behind The Bureaucrat Mod, or what ever it's called, and do something together.

b. About cadet branches, one simple mechanic: If one member of a dinasty have 2000 prestige and a title tier equal or higher of the head family OR one member of a dinasty have 100 prestige, a title equal or higher of the head family and a different culture/religion of the head family, will have a intrigue option to create a cadet branch with the same prestige of the "mother house".

I copy from the other thread, where I've posted about: here is the link

and here is the copied post:

The core system of game lacks some crucial parts, map expansion is good, but it would be nice to have dynastic mechanics improved (or created maybe), the game is about dynasties eventually, why should not there be dynastic head decisions or influence?
You cant even grant lands to you son if he is outside your realm, I don't say he should/will accept that always, you might have terrible relationship with him and he might refuse, but why the hell you cant try that? It isn't that hard to implement technically is it?
You cant arrange marriages or just make suggestion(with some influence factors determined by your power) not only dynasty members but even your closest relatives outside your court(not even realm), while others in your court SHOULD accept any of your marriage decisions about them without any chance of opposition(they can try to flee to other court, some of them at least, they do it randomly anyway, when they like other rulers better).

These are some basic mechanics that makes game more lifelike and is not that hard to implement, its a pity they dont spare time for these kind of improvements.

I really like the idea of dynasty relations and cadet branches. It would definitely be cool if dynasties had relations like characters, influenced by interactions of the characters of these dynasties. Every relation between characters is influenced by that (opinion modifier 'Dynasty opinion', with a bigger multiplicator for dynasty heads or heirs), and most importantly, as someone mentioned, characters of the same dynasty should have a significant bonus. How it is at the moment always means that you will actually like foreigners more than your siblings because they are title claimants. I mean, let's be honest, of course there are ambitious characters, but would Sansa Stark really hate Robb after his coronation just because she has a minor claim on the North and Winterfell?
That would also mean, a big bonus for cadet dynasties that decreases over time (another ASoIaF example are the Karstarks, even when they're a completely independent dynasty they still have some connection). And the naming of these dynasties would definitely be interesting: location (Habsburg of Ulm), title (Burgundy-Capuet), prename (Wilhelminian), generic naming (Younger Line), Bastard naming (Fitzkarolingian) - probably depending on culture and maybe even allowing the player to name them (like the colony naming in EUIV).

The dynasty opinon could get a malus for dynasties with too many holdings, forcing them to form cadet dynasties. That would add a lot of historical accuracy and also increase the individuality of your alternative history, having not only your own house, but also a lot of accurately named cadet branches.

Hm yo.

First of all: Ideas regarding special realms:

HRE

- First of all: Separate the German kingdom and the kingdom of Italy and Burgundy from each other. In history, the Emperor was crowned as the king of Germany and Italy and those two parts of the realm had rather distinct rules of ruling. Remember Barbarossa, when he moved to Italy in 1158, he raised the taxes etc. - Why wouldn't he have done this together with a general tax raise in Gemany? - Because the two parts of the realm were really distinctive.

- King gets coronated by Pope. Would make the entire Pope-Emperor relation a bit more fleshed out since the king would have to promise the Pope a gift, depending on the Pope's opinion of the king. This could be the task of revoking free investiture or granting the Pope a country in Italy etc. Or simply just money.

- Guelphs and Ghibellines system for northern Italy, firing whenever the investiture conflict starts. The people in Italy would get this trait, granting them a +20 opinion bonus towards either Pope or Emperor and also a -20 towards the opposite of the former. Also, the cities in northern Italy could form the Lombard bound to oppose the Emperor.

- In the late game (13-14th century) one could add the opportunity to limit the electors to 6 or 7, which would both add a nice feature to achieve and would also make the late game a bit more different.

- The Pope should be able to join factions inside the HRE.

Spain

I always had the feeling, that the clash between Muslims and Christians in Iberia was a bit too TW-like. Therefore I'd add the possibilities of small muslim Lords (like counts or dukes) to ally with Christians and minor Christians to ally with Muslims, which could be a counter-weight to massive realms taking over the whole region.

Byzantine Empire

How to model a bureaucratic system without losing the dynasty apparatus?

- Make doux being appointed by the Emperor similar to the appointment system under free investiture so that an Emperor player hasnt to appoint them all by himself, but CAN appoint them, if he wants to do so.

- Add a rank value for each family in the Byzantine Empire (created of prestige, members holding titles etc.)

- Add more court ranks like fleet master etc. which would have administrative functions like impacting the fleet size.

- The counts and barons will compare for the doux ranks and honoring titles and court titles. Each title gets three pretenders, two being chosen from the dynasties with the highest value as mentioned above and one being chosen from either the local nobility or from the court of the Emperor. If one candidate is chosen, he and his family'll get an opnion bonus (+20) of the Emperor, while the losers and their families will receive a malus (-10). Also add events around all this comparing like one guy promises gold to get a title etc.

- If a family's loyalty falls under a certain value, they'll join either a revolt or a coup d'etat faction, the latter of which murdering the Emperor and replacing him with a guy from the nobility.

This system could also be used for other rather administrative than feudal realms.

Decadence

In my view, the complaints about the drastic effects of decadence are partially justified, since it might be too prejudicial. Hwever, it is true, that there needs to be a way to prevent the player from spreading his dynasty all over the map. I think, one problem might be, that the way muslim realms are organized is strictly limited since there is only one formof succession.


In my opinion, there could be at least three:


1. The Tribalistic system


Here the ruler controls a tribe of nomads, most times living in a small area. The tribe will have a permanently standing army (e.g. there are no troops which can be raised since the troops have a standing army):


- The plundering system is added to the tribes


- As a tribal ruler, you can choose your heir freely from your dynasty

- You will have two types of vassals: Tribal and and normal. Tribal vassals belong to your original tribe or are nomads, who are integrated into it lateron. Normal vassals represent the non-modaic countries, which you have conquered. Tribal vassals give you their full amount of troops, but they dont give you any income. non-nomadic vassals will give you only 10% of their regular troops, if you call them to arms


- The whole decadence system doesnt effect you at all

- You can freely attack everyone you want


- You can have as many wives as your tier allows, but your fertility is greatly reduced (due to te lack of advanced medicine and the time you have to ride around and leading armies, which you cant spend with your wives)


- Your vassals (whose standing armies you control) will be loyal to you according to your plundering success

- If you start to grow and control more and more countries, the income you get from your non-nomadic will decrease as well as the amount of troops you gain from your tribal vassals alongside with the and your vassals will less like you,too due to your administrative inability.

Finally, you will have to change your governmental system into one of the two following options.


2. Feudalistic system


In this system, you rule over a state comparable to western realms, with vassals, who govern their own territory like small princes:


- Your heir will be chosen among your sons brothers (youself can choose, if you assign your brother or your son)


- You can have as many wives as your tier allows


- The amount of troops you can raise from vassals will be reduced by 30% due to your decentralized rule and you will get a high relationship penatly for having their troops raised

- The amount of income you get from your vassals is also reduced by 30%


- If you start a non-claimant war against muslim realms, you will face a piety loss as ten times high as regular

- All decandence penalties are reduced to 1/10 of the regular value

- If your decandence grows too high, those of your vassals, who like you +50 or less will automatically go independent.


3. Centralized realm

The centralized realm represents a state with absolute power of the monarch. It is the most effective governmental form of the era. Hence, you will get a significantly higher base tax value (the absolute (real) value depending on your laws) than any feudalistic realm. Instead of having vassals, who give their lands to their children after death, you will be able to appoint governors on the county level. Governors will rule until death, after which you are allowed to appoint a new governor. However, the local authorities (barony tier level in the country) will expect that you choose a governor out of their own ranks. If you dont choose a governor, who has lived in the province before, all barony-tier level inhabitants as well as their courtiers will like you and the newly appointed governor -50 less. It will also cost you 20 piety as well as 10 prestige to appoint a non-local governor. Due to the immense effort a player would have to face by reassigning every governor, the game will automatically select a person from the province or an administrat, depending on a special setting by the player. However, if you allow a local governor to rule his province, this will strengthen the tendencies towards feudalism. Your decandence will increase by a value like 10/X (X being the number of provinces in your realm) Due to being part of the local noble clique, a local governor will also give you -30% income and you will lose 20 prestige.

- Within a centralized realm, there is also an administrative elite, having a seperate special holding in the capital called 'Administrative Center'. This holding is like a pool of randomized courtiers with higher stats than regular, who from the ruler can choose his governors. The courtiers within the Center expect to be appointed as new governors. Everytime, a local governor is appointed instead, all of the AC courtiers will like your ruler less by 50/X (X being the number of provinces in your realm). Bigger realms have a greater pool of AC courtiers, smaller realms have a lower one. In the AC holding, you can also build buildings to support your diplomatic and administrative efficiency (higher tech increase and in all your provinces by affecting the tech buildings, decadence reduction etc.).

- However, if you rely to strong on your bureaucracy, the clergy will feel discomforted and you will lose piety by month.

- The decadence system will have its full effect.

- Every centralized realm will have its own mercenary band (strength 20% of the total amount of /the base value) raisable troops inside the realm), representing the tribes, which originally helped to conquer the realm as well as the personal army of the ruler in a centralized way. Due to this fact, the levies (not the base value) of raisable troops in the realm are reduced by the same 20%.

- Instead of facing a random decadence attack, if your decadence is too high, you will have to face a revolt of those mercenary troops, while your vassals will either support you or the rebels, depending on who they like more.


Now to the more depth in general:

Vassal-interaction

- Perhaps, CA should be splitted into levies and diplomatic issues. In case of the HRE, you somehow need to represent the inner opposition better. I think, a CA higher than medium is really unhistorical for the HRE. So here is my solution for CA: Instead of forbidding vassals to fight each other at CA-level 3, the liege should instead be able to intervene in wars between his vassals:

- If two vassals of the same rank fight each other, the liege would have two options: (1) Either to help one side or (2) to try to forbid the war.

- (1) In this case, the relation between the liege and the vassal should be increased highly, while the hostile vassal should really hate the liege. But also the relation to all other vassals in the realm decreases by -30. This would prevent a liege from overusing this feature to bring his relatives into high positions.

- (2) In the more likely case the liege decides to intervene to create peace. Both vassals are asked, if they want to continue the war. If both agree, there will be peace. If one or both disagree, the war will continue, resulting in a huge prestige loss for the liege. However, the liege will have the choice to take part in the conflict by helping the vassal, who wanted peace. If both vassals didnt want peace, he wont be able to do so.

Perhaps, this would represent a medium king's peace better than the disability to fight other vassals on medium CA (it could be modified a bit, so that it would fit to CA-level 2,too, with slight disadvantages for the liege). And it would also give the liege the opportunity to rule more in his realm, to fight opponents etc. Also, this would prevent the AI from expanding too much and give the player another interesting interaction field.

- Vassal interaction between realms: Vassals from different realms could be invited to a faction in another realm if the realm they originate from has a low CA.

will add more this evening

my pet wishes for more depth are how communication works and personal domain management.

At the moment we don't really interact with our personal holdings. And i think there should be some draw backs to holding several holdings.
I would like to see some council system with holding court for your personal domain. Would make playing in peace time more interesting. Well just anything more to do while not being at war or being a vassal. Other than plotting your next revolt.
Was thinking to something similar as "The Guild 2" political system. This could enable playing as an unladen dynasty or baron. Voting on issues new laws, holding court and resolving issues within the domain. Add in a rework of the law and punishment system.
Would make your court do something else than plotting a death.

This would even have impact on empire level management. Making big realms even more tedious to manage than smaller realms could help balance them out more.

Would be quite interesting if each holding hat special seat's to fill. Requiring you to have a bigger and bigger court if you have more and more personal holdings. And those seat's affecting your tax, levy and revolt risks.
So you can't have the best ppl in place for every of your holding's

Here are a few major things I would like.

1. The ability to play as an adventurer: Pretty much you can start out as say Edgar the Aethling, or one of any number of individuals with claims to lands but no actual titles. You can go through event chains inviting people to join you, hiring mercenaries, taking loans to fund your expedition, and instead of inviting people to your court you can invite them to your expedition (assuming they hold no titles and aren't the first heir to a title), they will give you some of their wealth and expect a title should you win your invasion. Once you have enough money, men, and supporters you can invade the country you have a claim on and attempt to conquer it.
2. New starting dates: To name a few, Otto the Great, Canute the Great's invasion of England, the Seljuk invasion of Persia
3. Specialized Successions: The Holy Roman Empire gets actual Electors instead of everyone voting, Anglo-Saxon England can have the Witengemot, etc. Overall the ability to make cultures and countries feel more unique. Tie them either to specific titles (eg. Holy Roman Emperor) or cultures (English, Celtic)

I've always liked the idea that once a character reaches 16, education could possibly continue at one of the medieval universities that had already formed, for a stat boost or for some positive (hopefully) traits.

More interaction. Basically having a beer every couple of years with the other king, as opposed to never. Your vassals bugging you about stuff, warming up to you or showing resentment, needing or offering guidance. Possibly with some consequences in the long run depending on the outcome.

More complicated trade for republics, especially trade routes and multiple types of resources. As in by now the trade post mechanic plus high cash events are pretty transparent and appear straightfoward, so some spicing up would be good (no pun intended but yeah... spice?).

More development/diversity for holdings on the map (there are mods for this, by the way).

Some sort of peaceful things to do with your neighbours, as in some form of ability to achieve peace in the region for a couple of decades. Like negotiating and granting access for pilgrims, some sort of negotiation to disable holy wars for a number of years within a certain area (not just some two parties actually finishing a war).

Non-conquest formation of kingdoms and empires: basically something like a plot to form a kingdom or empire, perhaps also combining some elements of election. Basically get Ireland to form or the Norse or Slavic rulers to erect a king above them as opposed to needing to repeat a chain of spurious claim wars and outright claim fabrication (or wait for female heirs etc.) in order to unite.

Another warfare-limiting device: enable trade-offs in negotiation, especially in order to loosen up the current rigid and non-intuitive diplovassalisation mechanic.

Claims: claims need some looking at. Rightful heirs are downgraded to weak claimants too quickly with the passing of one generation (at least the male-line grandkids of your elder brother should probably have a better claim than your 90 year old self in primo). On the other hand, just simply declaring a war in order to replace the current king with his younger brother, son or some other junior dynast is too easy right now. A more complex, hierarchical claim system that traces succession lines in a bit more detail would be great.

Badboy: we do have prestige and piety but some badboy would be good, e.g. leading to an excommunication or an easier CB against you. Just simply declaring wars to replace current rulers with their own younger siblings really should lead to some consequences. As a minimum there should be a piety hit for flagrantly disregarding existing succession laws in your claimant wars.

More mediaeval lifestyle events would be cool. Perhaps with a slider (like in EU3) to decide how often you want to have them (which could basically be a multiplier for MTTH, like 0.5, 0.8, 1.2, 2 etc. times the default frequency). Increased frequency could be really cool when playing as vassals and minors while perhaps too distracting for larger realms that are frequently in the middle of a tactically demanding conflict to manage. (This includes message events without choice, like the one about the steward's justice bringing peace and prosperity to a province.)

J.E said:

a. About the Dinasty Relations, a simple mechanic:

1. Create a relation modificator called "Dinasty memory".
2. The 10% of determined diplomatic actions on dinasty members will be added to the "Dinasty memory" for 100 years.
For example: If you give a count title to a X family (+40 relationship), the X dinasty will have a +4 in their dinasty memory for 100 years. If your asassination is discovered, -3 to their dinasty memory for 100 years.

In this way, the dinasties will have traditional enemies and friends, according with their actions.

PD: Cadet branches, if the system will be improved, could have a permament positive modificator with its "mother house".

Click to expand...

This is a good idea that shouldn't be to hard to implement

Something i posted in the thread The Three Estates of The Realm (link to the thread found above). Maybe it could be of your liking now when you're interested in making a large mod.

Very interesting to read about this mod. I've been thinking a little about the divition of nobles, burgers and clerics. Is there a very narrow limitation of how many provinces there can be on the map? If there isn't some duchies could maybe have two kinds of provinces?

Type one: larger provinces containing cities and churches (for the capital)
Type two: smaller provinces containing a castle or limited number of castles (to defend the larger provinces)

If someone decides to attack a neighbour using mercenaries and begin besieging the capital (a city or religious holding) there will still be provinces of castles not under siege from where the defender can rally his troops. Today it's easy to send mercenaries to a province, declare war just before they enter the province and start besieging the castle in it preventing the defender from rally his troops inside it. These castles which are used for defending the land could also be given away to characters as a reward. Which means that the ruler builds a new castle somewhere and then entitles it to a lord or someone else who deserves it.

If that would be possible to do with the map it of course requires a lot of work. So maybe the idea is ok but making it not so ok. That of course also requires a change to the "Wrong type of holding" thingy.

Click to expand...

i think tribals and nomads should be represented through a new mobile nomadic holding. it would be regenerating and roaming horde like group with its own lord, like any other holding and it could rebel against its liege unlike conventional event troops or retinues. non nomadic lords could have nomadic vassals and vice versa, but relations would be severely affected by wrong government type. the nomadic horde would migrate within and outside the realm, often provoking war with whomever theyre tresspassing. they would also have a pechant for raiding and pillaging.

so youd have four holdings representing the four major parrs of the economy.
1. cities for the plutocrats
2. castles for feudal lords and their farmers
3. temples for the spiritual lords and their farmers
4. hordes for the pastoral nomads

and so thus, the major segments of society are represented.

nomadic groups would be limited by geography, so none would be found in scotland or france. nomadic holdings would be destroyed if the horde is wiped out in battle, but the steppes would always respawn new independent hordes.

The horde holding should take up an empty holding slot, and the horde shouldn't be able to migrate there if there aren't any empty holding slots.

I like the idea though: it might be a migration mechanic that can be implemented in CK2. Hordes have a Tribal Migration CB to move into any empty or horde holding slot, displacing any existing horde there. Once there, they get levy and gold bonuses for city and temple holdings in the county (raiding!), a levy bonus for more empty holdings (grazing area!), penalties for castles (enemy troops!), and a CB to conquer the whole county. Once they conquer the county, they have the ability to turn their horde holding into a city if they think it's safe to settle down. Maybe they eventually spawn other hordes, I don't know how that would work. Meanwhile, the holder of the county gets penalties for having a horde there, and has a CB to boot them out. The horde holding itself is treated like any other, but with low fort value and very high garrison.

Something would have to stop the horde from migrating deeper into your territory, though. It would be partially organic, as the interior would have more holdings built up. Something would have to make it particularly undesirable though, and I don't know what. Perhaps, if you're ever driven from your home, you suffer greatly for every enemy-held province you have to move through to get to a safe place?