Assuming this is true, my faith is restored... HOPE THEY ALSO GIVE US SCOTTISH CLANS!
Tribal Holdings
So, the first thing that I accosted Doomdark about was the suitability of feudal mechanics to represent even the Old Gods start date, let alone the newer, earlier start. In return, I was told about a new type of holding that hopes to rectify this: ‘tribal’ holdings.
Tribal holdings (though I don’t know if that will be their actual in game names) sound like they will be much like castles, bishoprics and cities, although Doomdark also put trade posts in that list, which leads me to believe they might be an over-holding of some sort (to prevent the awkwardness of having one holding change to another later in the game). Essentially tribal holdings will represent lands that aren’t properly fortified yet, more owned by virtue of people living there than by people actually building towns etc.
An interesting aspect of tribal holdings, as Johan later expanded on them to me, is that vassals who are ‘tribal’ (presumably a new title equivalent to count, based on your holding type) don’t provide levies in the way that a feudal vassal does. Instead, a tribal vassal must be called to arms, like an ally. In this way, your vassal management becomes much more important, and vassal ties are much looser. A king can only gain power if he is respected enough by his vassals, even more so than currently, and a vassal maintains full control of his own armies, making war much more scattered.
I don’t know if I can emphasise how much I really, really love this idea. The reign of a king in this era was much more loose than CK2 currently has it (and even later than the 1066 start really), and the idea of a king having to scrounge support from vassals rather than just expect them to provide levies feels much more in keeping. In addition, with the elective gavelkind succession, the idea of a king having very little power over his subjects is expanded.
Tribal Holdings
So, the first thing that I accosted Doomdark about was the suitability of feudal mechanics to represent even the Old Gods start date, let alone the newer, earlier start. In return, I was told about a new type of holding that hopes to rectify this: ‘tribal’ holdings.
Tribal holdings (though I don’t know if that will be their actual in game names) sound like they will be much like castles, bishoprics and cities, although Doomdark also put trade posts in that list, which leads me to believe they might be an over-holding of some sort (to prevent the awkwardness of having one holding change to another later in the game). Essentially tribal holdings will represent lands that aren’t properly fortified yet, more owned by virtue of people living there than by people actually building towns etc.
An interesting aspect of tribal holdings, as Johan later expanded on them to me, is that vassals who are ‘tribal’ (presumably a new title equivalent to count, based on your holding type) don’t provide levies in the way that a feudal vassal does. Instead, a tribal vassal must be called to arms, like an ally. In this way, your vassal management becomes much more important, and vassal ties are much looser. A king can only gain power if he is respected enough by his vassals, even more so than currently, and a vassal maintains full control of his own armies, making war much more scattered.
I don’t know if I can emphasise how much I really, really love this idea. The reign of a king in this era was much more loose than CK2 currently has it (and even later than the 1066 start really), and the idea of a king having to scrounge support from vassals rather than just expect them to provide levies feels much more in keeping. In addition, with the elective gavelkind succession, the idea of a king having very little power over his subjects is expanded.
