• 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.
Hello again folks!

It's a new month and high time for another development diary. This time, let's talk about barons. In the original Crusader Kings, characters could only hold titles of three ranks; count, duke and king (though these could be called different things in different cultures). Barons existed indirectly in the form of provincial nobility, which, together with the clergy, peasants and burghers, had different power, loyalty and tax values. The player could fiddle around with the power values of the four classes, which would affect the tax rate and the composition of the provincial levy. As it turned out, this was one of the least successful features in the game, because the micromanagement was tedious and did not have enough impact to make it worthwhile. Therefore, in Crusader Kings II, the whole thing has been cut. Instead, each province will have between one and eight named settlements. A settlement is either a castle, city or church, and characters can hold the title to a settlement just like they can to counties and duchies.

Castles are regular feudal holdings, whose barons are normally in fief to the provincial count. Cities are commercial hubs governed by a mayor. Finally, church settlements are run by a Bishop (or Mufti, or similiar.) Like the four classes of Crusader Kings, the three types of settlement provide different types of troop levies and have different tax rates depending on laws. Unlike the class power of Crusader Kings, the rights of churches and cities - and the investiture of their leaders - should be interesting to play around with. (More on this in a later dev diary.)

Barony tier characters are not playable, mainly for performance reasons. (We do not want barons to have courts of their own, with the explosion of characters this would require.) They have a more rudimentary form of AI than playable characters, but will respond to diplomacy and might raise their army in revolt. Another measure to keep the character count down in Crusader Kings II is that you can have your vassals double as councillors (so there is less need for minor nobles to be created by the game).

What about the level of micromanagement - won't all these baronies require more player attention? Well, the whole point of the feudal system is delegation, so the short answer is that for dukes and above; not much. Granted, the dynamic around cities and churches will require more attention, but of the right kind and infrequently. The existence of baronies will also make playing counts a lot more interesting.

I don't have any baronial graphics in particular to show you, but here's a little something that Aerie is working on...

CK2_Diary002_01.png


That's all for now. Don't miss the next dev diary on December 2!


Henrik Fåhraeus, Associate Producer and CKII Project Lead
 
The only way I see an inheretence law which gives you back vassal territory when your vassal dies working is if that inheretence law has a much lower demense limit. Thus, it would really hurt to actually hold a lot of land, income and military wise. But, the payoff would be that your vassals would be more loyal, as they don't feel entitled and hereditary.
 
Is it really that hard to tie provinces to lieges, allowing lords to have two overlords at the same time, for different provinces?

These provinces would create "kingdom limits", like France, Castille, England, the Empire... Those limits could change thanks to treaties or pacts between kings. Thus, if the Duke of Bourgogne inherits Tirol, Tirol wouldn't become part of France. The lord of Bourgogne and Tirol would have two lieges. Thus, also, you can portray the everlasting conflict between the king of England and the King of France over Normandy, Anjou and Aquitaine.
 
Is it really that hard to tie provinces to lieges, allowing lords to have two overlords at the same time, for different provinces?

These provinces would create "kingdom limits", like France, Castille, England, the Empire... Those limits could change thanks to treaties or pacts between kings. Thus, if the Duke of Bourgogne inherits Tirol, Tirol wouldn't become part of France. The lord of Bourgogne and Tirol would have two lieges. Thus, also, you can portray the everlasting conflict between the king of England and the King of France over Normandy, Anjou and Aquitaine.

Hah, I been having that thought myself and just posted a topic on it here (which also covered related stuff.)
 
I'm not familiar with that term.
Is it a Swedish Count or something?

;)

No of course not!



It was MUCH more equivalent to a Duke title....

Would it be too much like fanservice to shotgun a Dev Diary?
 
Great DD indeed. Over my expectation. I really like the feature of settlements in province.

Most likely only the capital settlement will be represented on the map. This is still not 100% decided though.
Wow, this would be great if possible. I would like, no no no, I would LOVE to see each settlement on map. Hopefully there is still time (and posibility) to change your mind on this.

Also, I did not understand this: will the settlements be prescribed for what kind they will be in each province? I mean, if province AB have 7 settlement f.e. do we know that two will be cities three churches and two castles? Or this is random and we only know number of settlements and they can be in any combination (including all 7 to be cities)?

Damocles; said:
Sadly, I'm a couple days late to this thread, which means that the tedious debate over something related to obscure Eastern European heraldry has already begun..
:D Don't worry, you ride in on time to save us from a plague.:D

PS: Look like there will be a diferent type of warriors as this one on pick says Light-Infantry but I can see a possibility to change to PIKEMAN. coooool!! That may be leading us to a KNIGHTS (and archers) ?? :)
 
Last edited:
Sorry if I'm being a pest, but is it possible a Paradoxian could answer this question?

Question to Doomdark (if you're still reading) - will church "barons" take any specific actions based on instructions from the church hierarchy/the Pope?
 
Sorry if I'm being a pest, but is it possible a Paradoxian could answer this question?

This is great news but one more question remains.
What if I have, say a monastery, and choose to delegate it so that it doesn't fill up my 'demesne limit'. Will it be ruled by a baron, or will it be 'ruled' by a monk/bishop?
 
This is great news but one more question remains.
What if I have, say a monastery, and choose to delegate it so that it doesn't fill up my 'demesne limit'. Will it be ruled by a baron, or will it be 'ruled' by a monk/bishop?

I think that's already explained in the development diary

Doomdark said:
Castles are regular feudal holdings, whose barons are normally in fief to the provincial count. Cities are commercial hubs governed by a mayor. Finally, church settlements are run by a Bishop (or Mufti, or similiar.)
 
The last question that remains is will there be enough priests to match up with the number of churches? I always rember that potential bishops were pretty thin on the ground in CK, as creating Bishophrics was the best way to burn off infamy and I could never do it as often as I liked...
 
The last question that remains is will there be enough priests to match up with the number of churches? I always rember that potential bishops were pretty thin on the ground in CK, as creating Bishophrics was the best way to burn off infamy and I could never do it as often as I liked...

Just a historical comment on this. Provinces are perhaps better off with archdeacons or rural deans rather than bishops ... but there could be no one set rule. A priest is too insignificant to be in the game, while bishoprics in northern Europe are typically too large for the typical province. But it is the "rural dean" who is one priest representing lots of priests in a particular region [very much like a reeve represented other farmers] smaller than an archdeaconry but larger than a parish, regions often corresponding to CK provinces. In some regions, the archdeaconry corresponds better to CK provinces. A bishop's deputy for management matters of course is the "archdeacon", who doesn't even need to be a priest I don't think. The archdeacon is not usually dependent on the cathedral chapter either, so is basically the "bishop's man". Two distinct position, but both plausible for use in the game.

But to illustrate the complications ... the shire of Kent has two bishoprics, but the diocese of Lincoln before the creation of the Ely bishopric [when it lost only 1 each] had 9 shires and 9 archdeaconries, with the same number of parish churches as the whole of Scotland. Scotland, with three exceptions among its 13 bishoprics, usually has only one archdeacon per bishopric, but owing to historical chance and human geography the rural deanery corresponds to the province in the large dioceses (deanery of Gowrie, deanery of Angus, deanery of Fife, dearnery of Mearns, and so on, in St Andrews diocese); in Scotland bishoprics were often ad hoc conversions of monastic corporations, so many regions have several bishoprics competing in the same province. E.g. in Gowrie, Scotland's wealthiest and most importance province, the bishoprics of Dunkeld, St Andrews, Brechin and Dunblane have churches under their dioceses, each with their own "dean of Gowrie", while in Angus one church is with St Andrews and the next Brechin, and so on.
 
Of course.

This begs a followup question: if counts (and dukes) can be appointed as officers of the court to higher ranks of noble, does this mean that the mechanics exist for player counts might find themselves offered positions as Marshal or Chancellor to their liege lords? Might the Duke of Argyll have the opportunity to serve as Marshal of Scotland, for example, or are these positions for AI characters only?