The way de jure currently works is not realistic and produces some very silly scenarios.
Why is lappland included in the kingdom of Sweden by AD 870? Lappland had never once been owned by any Swedish rulers, nor had there ever been any Swedes living there, nor can it be said to somehow be included within Sweden's natural borders. Does it, in AD 870, make any sense at all that Lappland should count towards being "king of Sweden"? Does it make any sense that lappish rulers or the lappish populace would consider themselves part of Sweden? Is it reasonable that a Swedish ruler would have a legitimate ruler to conquer lapps on the west side of the torne river but not those on the east side of it?
In 870 there was no idea of a Sweden which runs from torne river to småland. The people living in the territory of modern day Sweden, or even the territory of later medieval Sweden, did not consider themselves to have any common swedish identity in 870. The only kind of sweden there was, was the land of the tribe of the swedes (svithjod in-game). In 870, swedes were those of the tribe of swedes, and those who lived under the king of the swedes. That's the only swedish identity that existed back then. If you lived in vestergautland, you were a geat, not a swede for example. But as Sweden expanded to cover the lands it historically did, a swedish identity began to form, and when Sweden had held those lands long enough people started to consider it de jure and core parts of Sweden.
The problem with the current de jure system is that it assumes there is a pre-existing idea of a sweden running from torneo to småland. That's just wrong and unrealistic, and it's putting the game on a rail. Kingdoms didn't at all develop and expand to fit previously non-existing ideas as they do in CK2. Rather, they expanded where they could, and were formed organically, and what was considered de jure developed over time as these kingdoms established themselves. It is a completely different thing with being say king of Gallia or Italia, because there actually existed ideas of what Gallia and Italia were, and lands assocated with them.
In short, Sweden didn't conquer lappland because it was part of the idea of Sweden. Lappland became part of the idea of Sweden because Sweden conquered it. Paradox has gotten it completely backwards.
Now that I've explained how it happened historically and how the current de jure system doesn't model that very well, let me offer my bague idea of how to make a more realistic system. It's actually rather simple, and not very well thought-through as of now, so I'd like it if you'd help me expand upon this idea. And hopefully, paradox can make use of this idea as it will greatly help CK2 if they move away from this unrealistic system which tries to steer development according to history and not realism.
The basic idea is simply that there'd be a requirement of x amount of provinces before you can call yourself a king, and an even higher amount of provinces to call yourself an emperor. As of now, you can own 40% of the kingdoms of mesopotamia, armenia, syria and anatolia and you still can't call yourself king despite your realm being much bigger than other kingdoms. That's just ridiculous, and an obvious flaw. So when you've gotten enough provinces to be able to call yourself king, you'd create a titular kingdom empire which start to assimilate your currently owner provinces, and after a whiole they'll belong de-jure to your kingdom. This simulates perfectly how real kingdoms developed and how they got lands assosiated with them.
In short: 1. get rid of all de-jure kingdoms and empires which hasn't existed prior to start date. 2. a requirement of X number of provinces in order to form a kingdom/empire. 3. Once formed, the kingdom/empire will be a titular title which will begin to de-jure assimilate you current provinces. 4. paradox makes a dlc and profits.
Any feedback on this idea?
Why is lappland included in the kingdom of Sweden by AD 870? Lappland had never once been owned by any Swedish rulers, nor had there ever been any Swedes living there, nor can it be said to somehow be included within Sweden's natural borders. Does it, in AD 870, make any sense at all that Lappland should count towards being "king of Sweden"? Does it make any sense that lappish rulers or the lappish populace would consider themselves part of Sweden? Is it reasonable that a Swedish ruler would have a legitimate ruler to conquer lapps on the west side of the torne river but not those on the east side of it?
In 870 there was no idea of a Sweden which runs from torne river to småland. The people living in the territory of modern day Sweden, or even the territory of later medieval Sweden, did not consider themselves to have any common swedish identity in 870. The only kind of sweden there was, was the land of the tribe of the swedes (svithjod in-game). In 870, swedes were those of the tribe of swedes, and those who lived under the king of the swedes. That's the only swedish identity that existed back then. If you lived in vestergautland, you were a geat, not a swede for example. But as Sweden expanded to cover the lands it historically did, a swedish identity began to form, and when Sweden had held those lands long enough people started to consider it de jure and core parts of Sweden.
The problem with the current de jure system is that it assumes there is a pre-existing idea of a sweden running from torneo to småland. That's just wrong and unrealistic, and it's putting the game on a rail. Kingdoms didn't at all develop and expand to fit previously non-existing ideas as they do in CK2. Rather, they expanded where they could, and were formed organically, and what was considered de jure developed over time as these kingdoms established themselves. It is a completely different thing with being say king of Gallia or Italia, because there actually existed ideas of what Gallia and Italia were, and lands assocated with them.
In short, Sweden didn't conquer lappland because it was part of the idea of Sweden. Lappland became part of the idea of Sweden because Sweden conquered it. Paradox has gotten it completely backwards.
Now that I've explained how it happened historically and how the current de jure system doesn't model that very well, let me offer my bague idea of how to make a more realistic system. It's actually rather simple, and not very well thought-through as of now, so I'd like it if you'd help me expand upon this idea. And hopefully, paradox can make use of this idea as it will greatly help CK2 if they move away from this unrealistic system which tries to steer development according to history and not realism.
The basic idea is simply that there'd be a requirement of x amount of provinces before you can call yourself a king, and an even higher amount of provinces to call yourself an emperor. As of now, you can own 40% of the kingdoms of mesopotamia, armenia, syria and anatolia and you still can't call yourself king despite your realm being much bigger than other kingdoms. That's just ridiculous, and an obvious flaw. So when you've gotten enough provinces to be able to call yourself king, you'd create a titular kingdom empire which start to assimilate your currently owner provinces, and after a whiole they'll belong de-jure to your kingdom. This simulates perfectly how real kingdoms developed and how they got lands assosiated with them.
In short: 1. get rid of all de-jure kingdoms and empires which hasn't existed prior to start date. 2. a requirement of X number of provinces in order to form a kingdom/empire. 3. Once formed, the kingdom/empire will be a titular title which will begin to de-jure assimilate you current provinces. 4. paradox makes a dlc and profits.
Any feedback on this idea?
