CK II - 1.05 Development Diary - 2 of 3 - April 6th 2012
- Thread starter unmerged(1823)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I don't know why, but Paradox seems to want more and smaller kingdoms, which can get absorbed by other kingdoms after a while.
I hope it won't be easier to become king because of this, since kingdoms like Brittany, Galicia and Navarra seem very small. For Brittany you only need to conquer (if the 50% rule stays), 3 provinces (assuming the kingdom of Brittany only covers the duchy of Brittany and not Normandy and or Anjou). Now I don't think they will make it easier, so there probably be some extra rules to it (rules we don't know yet).
If it is in areas without already established kingdoms, I also agree. In 1066 the Wendic tribes and other tribes like the Baltic tribes, do not yet belong to any kingdom. The same thing applies for areas gained from a crusade. In established realms this is different, although an imperial vassal with imperial approval could (not very likely though and it should be met with a lot of suspicion if the recipient is from the same dynasty as the emperor) gain one of the imperial kingdoms.
Does the history get wiped out for ALL? Or is it only for titles that are not held for a period of time (there is a break in the exigence of a title, and is recreated later.)
My guess is that the only possible reason for this would be to limit the size of save files. Is there a setting that you can toggle to make sure ALL history remains in the save files?
Last edited:
Actually, a very large part of the Dukes of Brittany styled themselves as Kings until the XVth century - the territory was not a De Jure part of France (which is why Edward III, after signing a five-year-truce with France in 1340, agreeing not to attack the Kingdom for five years, was able to militarily intervene in Brittany in 1341 without breaking the Treaty - because Brittany was not De Jure France).
What happened is that the Pope (who was the peson who had the authority to recognize those things) refused to acknowledge the Kingdom of Brittany - or, for that matter, all the petty kings in the British Isles. Therefore, as much as the Duke of Brittany wore a crown and ruled it as De Facto for many, many years, it was NOT accepted as a Kingdom. This is also why we see it marked as a Duchy in the History books, whereas IRL local people referrred to the Duke as 'King' back in those days.
Ditto for Portugal. The Count DID claim to be a King in 1139, but guess what? Nobody accepted him as such. It was only after having conquered far more land to the South, having managed a truce with his De Jure liege and having sent large donations of gold to Rome for 40 years that the Pope accepted him as King. After Rome agreed, THEN Portugal became a De Jure Kingdom. Until that moment, it was nothing but a Count with a dream.
What SHOULD be created is a De Jure Papacy. By the terms of the Donation of Constantine, creating in the time of Charlemagne and accepted during the Middle Ages as real, NO Catholic ruler, be it the Emperor or any other King, could rule over Rome. Only the Pope could, and nobody could have claims over it (in fact, the Donation gave the Pope power over ALL the area of the Western Roman Empire, plus Greece, Africa and Judaea, and it IS the basis upon which the whole De Jure [Kingdoms recognized by the Pope] system actually existed in the first place. It means NO ruler could be King in these areas without Papal approval).
Adohleas said:
You're totally missing the concept of De Jure. The Kingdom of Jerusalem was not De Jure for 'many Muslims', it wasn't FOR ANY MUSLIM. And why? Because this system only applied for Catholics. Muslims had no concept of De Jure, only De Facto. Which is why they could - and did - declare war on each other at will, even without claims [something missing in CK2] and change their borders to as far as their armies took them. And also one of the reasons why Byzantium is so strong in-game. Historically, that Empire still held the old concepts of Might Makes Right, and anyone strong enough could force his recognition as King (as did the Bulgarians). In CK2, Byzantium uses Catholic ideas - not to mention a westernized version of feudalism - and thus is very easy to keep united despite the civil wars.
Sleight of Hand said:
This is a VERY valid reasoning. Please, please, note that one of the major points of the re-establishment of the Holy Roman Empire by Otto in 962 AD was *exactly* to prevent new breakups of land such as the ones that had hitherto happened (like Lotharingia) AND to prevent the German tribal Dukes (such as Bavaria) from becoming Kings.
One of the great points of the HRE - far more so than 'Rebuilding Rome', something it never truly attempted - was that it was a true substitute for a unified German Kingdom, and in that regard it worked wonderfully - it gave Germans a point of unity throughout the Middle Ages, as can be proven not only by the fact that all the German lords remained part of the Empire even when there was NO Emperor, during the Great Interregnum of 1254-1273, but also because being a Nothern/Central/Southern German held such little importance within the HRE during the Middle Ages.
These North/South/Renanian (and later Prussian) differences would become MUCH more important in the Modern period, but in the Middle Ages ALL Germans had a common reference in the Empire and had relatively minor antagonism between themselves as such, as the Empire acted as a damper for all the intra-germanic rivalries that would appear after the Reformation and especially after 1648, when the HRE became a mere shadow of itself.
In fact, that is very much the reason why the Emperor gave the crowns of Bohemia and Italy - the Kingdom of Bohemia was to acknowledge the fact that the Bohemians, though part of the Empire, were not German in nature, and the Kingdom of Italy also an admission that the lands South of the Alps were not Germanic. These crowns meant a distinct separation of the German core from the non-German part of the Empire. If German Kingdoms are possible within the framework of the Empire, then the HRE is deprived of one of its most basic cornerstones - do not take that away!
Last edited:
Very good post, khedas. Explains a few things that I sort of knew but not in clear terms. The Capetians failed early on where the Ottonians succeeded, then. West Francia fell apart as a de jure area, with the south of France in 987 becoming many petty principalities while Germany remained united. In that context, the Kingdom of Bavaria should be disallowed.
I find intriguing the idea of making all Orthodox and Muslim kingdoms, if I understand you, de facto and not de jure. In Iberia (the area I know best), the Caliphate of Cordoba extended as far as the caliph could control things directly or through his chief officials. Sometimes it reached as far north as Provence, in others not a hair beyond how far the walls of Cordoba cast its shadow. Same for the Almoravids (that odd coalition of Berber tribes) and in later times the Mameluk Sultanate.
In my own modding, I have considered for Catholics making forming new de jure kingdoms and empires driven by event rather than by paying your gold and piety on the demesne screen.
I find intriguing the idea of making all Orthodox and Muslim kingdoms, if I understand you, de facto and not de jure. In Iberia (the area I know best), the Caliphate of Cordoba extended as far as the caliph could control things directly or through his chief officials. Sometimes it reached as far north as Provence, in others not a hair beyond how far the walls of Cordoba cast its shadow. Same for the Almoravids (that odd coalition of Berber tribes) and in later times the Mameluk Sultanate.
In my own modding, I have considered for Catholics making forming new de jure kingdoms and empires driven by event rather than by paying your gold and piety on the demesne screen.
I must say I'm COMPLETELY BLOWN AWAY! Check out this post I wrote some weeks before the game was released:
Paradox actually took my advice! Damn I never I expected that feature to be in CK2 especially right with patch 1.05! I'm wordless... mother of god!
hmy:
P.S. - I'm sure others also suggested this but I didn't see any post regarding this issue once I became more active here.
Paradox actually took my advice! Damn I never I expected that feature to be in CK2 especially right with patch 1.05! I'm wordless... mother of god!
hmy:P.S. - I'm sure others also suggested this but I didn't see any post regarding this issue once I became more active here.
After all the discussion about whether a particular de jure Kingdom could have existed or did exist or should have existed... I would say the proper bar to clear for the vanilla game is "plausible". If you want strict historical or completely ahistorical... that's what mods are for.
Balancing assassinations would also be nice
Yep, I hope they finally boost the success chance. I have sometimes failed to assassinate someone for over 10 tries in a row. Assasination costing that much is juts crazy when you can hire full mercinary regiments for less!
I must say I'm COMPLETELY BLOWN AWAY! Check out this post I wrote some weeks before the game was released:
Paradox actually took my advice! Damn I never I expected that feature to be in CK2 especially right with patch 1.05! I'm wordless... mother of god!
P.S. - I'm sure others also suggested this but I didn't see any post regarding this issue once I became more active here.
IIRC, this was suggested back in the dev diary that spoke about feudal system.
As a participant in those discussions, I can say, that what is perceived as plausible is affected by preferences, so someone, who prefers historical or a-historical, might also have a different opinion on plausibility. (Just look at the discussions in this thread.)
Keeping the middle ground OTOH is probably easier said then done.
Furthermore I totally agree with the post of Khedas.
Last edited:
Well, IMHO, if HRE would spectacularly explode, I find it rather plausible that many smaller kingdoms (size of Spain's) could pop up. And because titles cannot be made from thin air in the game, it would be nice to have smaller possible kingdom titles inside HRE.
Great post khedas. Totally agree.
As for assassinations -- honestly, just make them more expensive. That will do much of the balancing work for you. I've said this to many people on here but simply raising the cost from 50 to 200 gold makes a world of difference as very few rulers can afford to spam attempts at 200 gold a throw.
As for assassinations -- honestly, just make them more expensive. That will do much of the balancing work for you. I've said this to many people on here but simply raising the cost from 50 to 200 gold makes a world of difference as very few rulers can afford to spam attempts at 200 gold a throw.
I know we probably won't agree on this
. Just see the post of Khedas and my previous remarks on the Great Interregnum in the HRE; and IMHO I find that a lot less plausible. Furthermore it is good that a title cannot be made out of thin air, that also couldn't IRL; regardless of that however in a game that IMHO should be an achievement and that's why I IMHO are a fan of too small kingdoms, unless there is a historic basis like Navarra.Regarding perceived plausibility see my previous post.
I think the best way to represent the Empire would be to have the usual de jure kingdoms (Germany, Italy, Burgundy, Bohemia and Lotharingia) and with Germany divided into the old stem duchies:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Central_Europe,_919-1125.jpg
(I won't show the image here because it's massive, but you can just click the link)
The kingdom of Lotharingia can consist of Upper Lorraine, Lower Lorraine and Friesland; with the stem duchies making up the kingdom of Germany.
The other duchies that exist already (Luxembourg, Brabant, Holland, Alsace, etc.) can be titular and become de jure if held for 100+ years... I am assuming that's how the system works.
This is how I will mod things after the patch anyway. I think it will look better and feel more balanced with the Empire being divided into the traditional kingdoms and stem duchies.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Central_Europe,_919-1125.jpg
(I won't show the image here because it's massive, but you can just click the link)
The kingdom of Lotharingia can consist of Upper Lorraine, Lower Lorraine and Friesland; with the stem duchies making up the kingdom of Germany.
The other duchies that exist already (Luxembourg, Brabant, Holland, Alsace, etc.) can be titular and become de jure if held for 100+ years... I am assuming that's how the system works.
This is how I will mod things after the patch anyway. I think it will look better and feel more balanced with the Empire being divided into the traditional kingdoms and stem duchies.
I know we probably won't agree on this
Regarding perceived plausibility see my previous post.
Well, this leads to strange results like HRE exploding in 1075 and four mega dukes all holding one corner of Germany for 300 years can't make themselves kings because there just doesn't happen to be any king titles there.
Which is totally realistic!
Even the over-mighty Habsburgs knew how the game was played; they had to wait for an existing crown to up their stake in the Empire -- they didn't just decide that they held more land than anyone else so they'd create the kingdom of Austria.
De jure kingdoms are there for a reason: they represent generally accepted borders attached to an historical crown and set of laws. You don't just gobble up territory and crown yourself what you like.
Khedas said:
Many emperors of the HRE also claimed the right to grant kingtitles and did so, like f.e. the kingtitle of Poland and that of Cyprus and those kingtitles were accepted by others as being legitimate. In fact this 'right' was one of the main causes of troubles between the Emperors and the Papacy. Since many people in the Middle Ages already suspected that the Donation of Constantine was (and truely as it turned out to be) a forgery.
This does make me wonder about duchies, which did exist at later dates than 1066. For instance Brabant became a duchy in 1183, so after that date it should be de jure, likewise for other duchies after their historic creation date, if that happens to be in the 1066-1337 period.
Furthermore the Alsace was a part of the kingdom of Lotharingia, but after conquest it became a part of the stem duchy of Swabia.
Either disallowed, or seen as a direct attack on the Emperor's power, who should never create nor give such a Kingdom, and attack as much as possible any ruler that dares create it or any other crown in Germany proper.
The idea of another Germanic crown in the Empire was such an anathema that even in 1701, far beyond the scope of the game, the Elector of Brandenburg had to have a territory outside the Empire [Prussia] in order to proclaim itself King (King IN Prussia, more accurately). To do anything other would be a direct provocation of the Emperor.
Also, note that the Netherlands rebelled against the Habsburgs only when the Spanish and Austrian crowns became separated, and even then the Dutch rulers of the House of Orange only dared to hold the title of 'Stadholder', not King - the first actual King of the Netherlands was only proclaimed by Napoleon [it was his brother Louis] in 1806, AFTER the official dissolution of the HRE in the wake of the Austrian defeat at Austerlitz.
The game as is now has a model (the Catholic one) and, for gameplay reasons, uses it as a template for everybody. In reality, the De Jure Kingdoms should only be valid for Catholics, and everybody else should ignore them. As you can see by looking at sucessive maps of the era 1066-1453, the Islamic world is in a constant turmoil, with borders and Empires changing and falling quickly; the absence of De Jure makes politics very... fluid.
What the De Jure system is meant to do was to crystallize Kingdoms. The Papacy started to use it in force after 1054, and in essence it means: "the borders of Western Christendom are now fixated. There is no reason anymore to try to carve crowns by force. If you want new crowns, stop fighting your brothers of the Faith and get infidel/heathen lands". This made the Crusades possible, and even desireable by the Catholic lords, hitherto more concerned about waging war amongst themselves.
It also consumated for good the schism between Catholics and Orthodox that had been off and on since the 8th century, as Byzantium refused to recognize the Donation of Constantine.
Basically, to create a new kingdom, a Catholic ruler should have taken the land from non-christians and then pay money for the papacy (and I suppose piety too) to get Rome to acknowledge it. Then it would become a De Jure Kingdom.
HKFlash said:
Except that it has nothing to do with the post-1054 AD medieval world, I'm afraid... like I said, what Rome wanted was to show very clearly to Catholic rulers that borders were static, and that they should go off and attack the enemies of Christianity.
What this means is that De Jure borders were completely unchangeable (the only exceptions were in recently-conquered territory, where some leverage was allowed, as was the case of Pomerania), the Kingdom of Galicia being one of the last attempts by a monarch of creating a crown without Papal approval (and because of that, it was gone within just a few years), no matter how long time passed.
While CK2 does a good job of replicating what would be the De Facto situation should you rule a territory, tecnically if you, say as a English King, held a French Duchy, is that the borders of England actually REMAIN THE SAME. You would be just a vassal of France for your French holdings.
When you're playing, you see the borders change as if you were expanding (and, De Facto, you were), but legally, the territories you are taking from another Kingdom *remain in that Kingdom*. And its King could revoke those titles if he wanted to. The time a ruler held the titles was irrelevant - because, again, the idea is to force Catholics to stop trying to grow inside Western Christendom and make them direct their military might elsewhere.
Take the Dukes of Burgundy as an example - they held counties and Duchies in both France and the Empire. While they De Facto acted often as an independent Kingdom, De Jure they were vassals of both the King of France and the Emperor.
The problem, like what happens with Byzantium - which plays nothing like the real Byzantium - is that many concessions are being done to please players who want to play a 'Conquest game' with their 'favourite' state with no regard for plausibility.
It's like setting a strategy game in the XXth century and allowing for the creation of a mega-state in the US called 'Confederacy' UNDER the authority of the Federal Government of the United States, just because some players 'want to play' the Confederates and use the argument 'but it existed before' - it would make NO sense in the framework of the era!
If these impossible 'Kingdoms' are to exist, the best would be to create an 'options' button in the game menu, with 'Ahistorical Kingdoms' and 'Historical Kingdoms' at start - like that, historical players could keep the strict De Jure system and play a more realistic game, while gamers could go and play Fantasy land as they liked (now my Duke of Bavaria inherits the Duchy of Anjou and I proclaim myself King under the Emperor, and in a century Anjou would be De Jure Bavaria, and then I'll conquer Byzantium and make half of it De Jure in a century... what do you mean, go on Crusades? What for? I'm conquering everything here!)