What I am talking about is how there are pre-existing de-jure empire and kingdoms (and certain duchies, but that's not what bugs me most and I understand that from a practical perspective) which might never have existed as actual political entities or even as regions (a la gallia, or hispania) prior to the starting date. For example, at the time of charlemagne, there quite simply was no idea of a sweden which stretched from småland to lappland, yet CKII gives all rulers within the completely anachronistic and arbitrarily defined area of "sweden" the option to choose an ambition to "unite" sweden, even though there has never previously been such a realm to re-unite, and even though the area in question can't be said to form some kind of natural region (as the italian or iberian peninsula would), even though ther didn't even vaguely exist an idea of such a sweden in anyone's minds except people from the future. This system leads to totally ridiculous things, such as counts within "sweden" feeling that the swedish king is their de-jure liege, even though their lands might not ever previously have been a part of Sweden. It means that the Swedish king has a "right" to sami inhabited lappland, but not a similar right to claim other sami lands which also had never been part of Sweden before. It means that alfheimr (bohuslän) arbitrarily belongs to the swedish king, but jämtland belongs to the norwegian kings.
The de-jure system lead to "claims" and "rights" that are utterly ridiculous, and an anachronistic division of the scandinavian peninsula based on ideas of kingdoms that hadn't existed before, and didn't even exist as vague ideas or regions or even identities. But a punch in the face of historical realism isn't the only problem, it also leads to railroading, as the de-jure system will obviously steer the game towards the same pre-existing kingdoms and empires game after game, even though these kingdoms and empires are completely artificial and/or anachronistic creations. It makes the game much more predictable and thus less fun. It makes it harder to change history, as the de-jure system steers rather forcefully in one direction. What's worse, it's not always even a historically plausible or realistic direction. in the 8th century, it was not at all a given that europe would develop to have the kingdoms it did: it could very well have turned out very differently. CK2 doesn't really give us that freedom, atleast not without much cost and arbitrary obstacles and bonuses. What fun is a game if you can't change history?
And one last thing is that it's very OP. As you of course have noticed, the norse are rather OP, and that's reinforced by that the swedish king (for example) can "unite" sweden, giving him free CBs on everyone in Sweden, including the innocent samis who've never been part of any viking realm, nor which anyone at the time could honestly say were a part of Sweden in any way.
Of course, this new system of creating custom kingdoms when you're big enough is a step in the right direction (I haven't actually tried it myself so I don't know exactly how it works), but the pre-existing de-jure realms are still a problem, as I showed with the sweden example, for both gameplay reasons, and in terms of realism and historical plausiblity. What I'd like to see done is quite simply to get rid of all de-jure empire, kingdoms and maybe even duchies which doesn't have a justification. And with justification I mean either that the entity in question had previously existed and could thus be re-formed, or that it forms some kind of natural region (like the italian peninsula, or pannonian plain). Also, very importantly, allow de-jure entities of the same rank to overlap. That would be more realistic, and give reasons for conflict. For example, does syria belong to the arabian empire, or the eastern roman empire, or maybe even the persian empire? All three I say. All this would mean that a large part of the world which haven't had any experiences of previous empires or kingdoms -the northern part of the map- simply wouldn't have any de-jure empires/kingdoms to form, as I believe was the case for some regions in early versions of CK2. it would simply be grey, and kingdoms would form naturally and realistically by rulers which grow powerful, and not railroaded in particular directions.
And that's my rant about the de-jure system. Thank you.
The de-jure system lead to "claims" and "rights" that are utterly ridiculous, and an anachronistic division of the scandinavian peninsula based on ideas of kingdoms that hadn't existed before, and didn't even exist as vague ideas or regions or even identities. But a punch in the face of historical realism isn't the only problem, it also leads to railroading, as the de-jure system will obviously steer the game towards the same pre-existing kingdoms and empires game after game, even though these kingdoms and empires are completely artificial and/or anachronistic creations. It makes the game much more predictable and thus less fun. It makes it harder to change history, as the de-jure system steers rather forcefully in one direction. What's worse, it's not always even a historically plausible or realistic direction. in the 8th century, it was not at all a given that europe would develop to have the kingdoms it did: it could very well have turned out very differently. CK2 doesn't really give us that freedom, atleast not without much cost and arbitrary obstacles and bonuses. What fun is a game if you can't change history?
And one last thing is that it's very OP. As you of course have noticed, the norse are rather OP, and that's reinforced by that the swedish king (for example) can "unite" sweden, giving him free CBs on everyone in Sweden, including the innocent samis who've never been part of any viking realm, nor which anyone at the time could honestly say were a part of Sweden in any way.
Of course, this new system of creating custom kingdoms when you're big enough is a step in the right direction (I haven't actually tried it myself so I don't know exactly how it works), but the pre-existing de-jure realms are still a problem, as I showed with the sweden example, for both gameplay reasons, and in terms of realism and historical plausiblity. What I'd like to see done is quite simply to get rid of all de-jure empire, kingdoms and maybe even duchies which doesn't have a justification. And with justification I mean either that the entity in question had previously existed and could thus be re-formed, or that it forms some kind of natural region (like the italian peninsula, or pannonian plain). Also, very importantly, allow de-jure entities of the same rank to overlap. That would be more realistic, and give reasons for conflict. For example, does syria belong to the arabian empire, or the eastern roman empire, or maybe even the persian empire? All three I say. All this would mean that a large part of the world which haven't had any experiences of previous empires or kingdoms -the northern part of the map- simply wouldn't have any de-jure empires/kingdoms to form, as I believe was the case for some regions in early versions of CK2. it would simply be grey, and kingdoms would form naturally and realistically by rulers which grow powerful, and not railroaded in particular directions.
And that's my rant about the de-jure system. Thank you.
.png){kind=avatar}
