Suggestion: Limit on Empire Creation

[pengoyo]

Edit2: The concept has be changed (no limit on empires, under certain circumstances there is an opinion penalty), see my comment down below.

I feel one of the things that made CK2 more blobby the longer you played a game is that there would be more and more empires. Because once a king acquired a couple other kingdoms, they'd form an Empire. Then from that point forward, rebellions might cause the empire to split, but because the empire was formed already, it would often quickly come back together. Now one solution would be to have mechanic that destroy empire titles, but I'd think it'd be more interesting to limit the titles in the first place.

So I propose that there should only be one empire title allowed per religion (with some caveats I'll get to below). The idea being that to be an emperor you need to be recognized as a leader by your faith (whether your faith de facto follows you is another question). Now this wouldn't remove the different regional empire titles (i.e. Britannia, Francia, etc.. would still be possible titles), but this just adds a requirement that prevents characters from forming new empires if another empire of their religion already exist, or more accurately, makes it a lot harder, as I explain below.

Creating an Empire Title:
So if no one of your faith has an empire title, creating an empire title would be similar to how it is now. The only change is that if you have a religious head, they need to have a good opinion of you as they are the one who will bestow you (maybe some leeway if they are your vassal or you have a hook on them). It might also make sense to add an additional holy site or piety requirement for faiths without a religious head to balance it out.

But what if you are Catholic and have united Britain, France, or created your own Kalmar Union, are you doomed to not be emperor cause there is that pesky Holy Roman Empire. No, that wouldn't be fun. So I believe there should be a CB against the Holy Roman Empire to form your own if you would otherwise meet the conditions (for instance a create Britannia CB would require you to control most of Britannia, to have the piety, and as a Catholic you need the Pope to like you a lot more than the Holy Roman Emperor). This war is for you to press your claim to be the emperor of your faith. If you win, then your Empire title is created (note, I think you should pay the cost of creating the title when you declare the war) and the empire title you attacked is destroy (if the old emperor doesn't have a kingdom level title then one should be created, so they only loose their King level vassals). This would make creating a new empire feel a lot more epic as you had to fight the, most likely, largest realm of your faith in order to do it.

Succession of an Empire Title:
Since Empire titles will be associated with a given religion, then if due to succession they could end up with a leader of a different faith then what their title is associated with. To help with this, I think Empire level titles should only pass to heirs of the appropriate faith(s).

Changing Faiths as an Emperor:
You can change your faith as an emperor as long as it compatible with your empire level title (i.e. two faiths that share the same empire level title) or you are changing to a faith that does not already have a empire title. When you change faith to one not compatible with your empire title, the empire level title also becomes associated with your new faith; freeing up your old faith to create a new empire level title. This means as emperor you are free to embrace those heresies you want to create.

Faiths with Religious Heads:
So one problem that some of you might have already realized is that Christianity is one religion in CK3. This means this religion has two empire titles associated with it (the Holy Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire). I think the way to deal with this is to have faiths with their own religious head to have one empire title associated with them (i.e. all faiths without a religious head of the same religion share an Empire title while all faiths that share a religious head share an empire title). This would mean the Holy Roman Empire is a Catholic Empire title and the Byzantine Empire is an Orthodox Empire title (note I think it's best to have events handle the special case of the Latin Empire). This would also mean if you successfully create your own Christian heresy, as all faiths currently have separate religious heads, then you can freely create your own empire.

Secular Religious Heads:
So what happens if your faith has a secular religious head who is already is leading an empire. They wouldn't allow you to become an empire. So I think faiths with secular religious heads should be able to create multiple empire level titles, but this will cause a loss of moral authority for you faith as you have declared yourself a rival religious head (you also have to pay to cost associated with becoming a secular religious head of your faith). This means within your realm, you are the secular religious head. Additionally, if neighboring, this gives both empires a CB against the other to destroy the other's empire level title and claim to be sole religious head. Note if the secular religious head of your faith does not have an empire title, then it works like another faith with a religious head.

This would allow for the multiple competing Caliphates in CK3's time period.

Unreformed Religions:
Not fully sure what to do with unreformed religions. Part of me think to just leave them as a normal religion (with maybe some additional requirement to create an empire title). But due to the limits on converting, it might make sense to only allow reformed religions to create empire level titles. Ideas for this would be much appreciated.

Wrap up:
I think this would be a cool mechanic for adding some interest to the empire level title to make it feel more epic than just a level above king. It would also help with blobbing and IMHO help with realism by limiting the number of empire running around (again, I feel CK2 had too many empires in a given play through).

Edit: Would love to hear what parts people like and dislike

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

(if the old emperor doesn't have a kingdom level title then one should be created, so they only loose their King level vassals).

I like the general idea of your post, and recognize more or less the historicity in it (Napoleon's empire was formed after he triumphed over the HRE IIRC), but I think maybe you should consider leaving this particular line out because this would end up with the mega-Kingdom of Germany if the HRE Emperor is defeated, leaving him with, depending on the age ... what, lands from the North Sea to the Tyrrhenian, which essentially means no change absolutely in terms of territory.

 

[viola]

One empire per religion is an unreasonable arbitrary limitation: for Christian faiths it's definitely an aspect of Medieval political ideology that can take a backseat for the sake of gameplay (not that realistically that shit was ever going to be enforceable anyway, if a powerful enough realm claimed an imperial title that was it and the HRE wouldn't have collapsed because of it) and for non-Christian religions it's just complete nonsense.

 

[kviiri]

I agree with weakening empires but I think this won't really do it. My #1 suggestion would be to make using vassal levies much more expensive since it's super cheap in CK2, to the point where the AI always raises all available levies for absolutely any war regardless of the power of the enemy. Vassals should be apprehensive of being summoned to wars that don't concern them frivolously.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

I agree with weakening empires but I think this won't really do it. My #1 suggestion would be to make using vassal levies much more expensive since it's super cheap in CK2, to the point where the AI always raises all available levies for absolutely any war regardless of the power of the enemy. Vassals should be apprehensive of being summoned to wars that don't concern them frivolously.

I believe this could be more or less implemented in CK2, that AI lieges will not summon levies from the vassals that don't like them too much (like <10 or negative).
If the B R wasn't so weak already I'd even add that this seems a reasonable way of slowing a Roman resurgence.

 

[MinotaurWarrior]

One empire per religion is an unreasonable arbitrary limitation: for Christian faiths it's definitely an aspect of Medieval political ideology that can take a backseat for the sake of gameplay (not that realistically that shit was ever going to be enforceable anyway, if a powerful enough realm claimed an imperial title that was it and the HRE wouldn't have collapsed because of it) and for non-Christian religions it's just complete nonsense.

Don't you remember when Tibet Collapsed because the Yuan Khaganate became Vajrayana Buddhist?

I think maybe you could write up a different clause to suit faiths with no religious head, but I think it's really an idea that only makes sense for catholicism and orthodoxy, and isn't just a historical elsewhere, but prevents the game from allowing you to do historical things (like convert the Khagan to your faith)

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

Don't you remember when Tibet Collapsed because the Yuan Khaganate became Vajrayana Buddhist?

I think maybe you could write up a different clause to suit faiths with no religious head, but I think it's really an idea that only makes sense for catholicism and orthodoxy, and isn't just a historical elsewhere, but prevents the game from allowing you to do historical things (like convert the Khagan to your faith)

For starters I would suggest that you make clear who you are replying to, because the second half of your post seems like it is addressed to the OP. Anyway, I believe it was stated somewhere that khagans wouldn't start out as empires anymore, so maybe your concern is alleviated.
(Well, they also don't start as nomads anymore ... but nomads are just a special form of tribal, yes?)

 

[viola]

Don't you remember when Tibet Collapsed because the Yuan Khaganate became Vajrayana Buddhist?

I think maybe you could write up a different clause to suit faiths with no religious head, but I think it's really an idea that only makes sense for catholicism and orthodoxy, and isn't just a historical elsewhere, but prevents the game from allowing you to do historical things (like convert the Khagan to your faith)

Even just with Orthodoxy, let's consider this scenario: at some point in time the Orthodox Kievan Rus manages to centralize and become an even more massive power in Eastern Europe, whoever rules this realm wants to formally elevate his position to emperor. What of these two outcomes sound more plausible in reality?

a) Whoever rules in Kiev proclaims himself emperor and gets crowned by loyal local clergy. The Byzantine Empire down south might dislike the idea but it's not like they can do anything about it, so a new imperial title is formed and that's the end of it.

b) Whoever rules in Kiev just can't do the above for some reason, as he's first legally obliged to start a massive war between Kiev and Byzantium over kilometres of land because it's literally impossible for the Kievan ruler to shove a bigger hat on his head without first taking it from the decapitated head of the Byzantine Emperor. Upon Kiev's victory the Byzantine Empire just seemingly ceases to exist, even though the ruling dynasty and administration is likely all still there.

And that's assuming that creating an imperial title in Crusader Kings is equivalent to claiming descendance from Rome or to be this universal Christian empire, which isn't necessarily the case at all. An empire in Crusader Kings is a vague name that might refer to a polity that claims that kind of universal legitimacy like the Byzantines and the Holy Roman Empire tried and mostly failed, it could be a polity that gets big enough to the point they claim a title equivalent to an emperor without getting any idea about universalism, or it could even be just a way to represent very large kingdoms that gets expansive and prestigious to the point they should be able to have king-tier vassals.

 

[LordofLight]

One empire per religion is an unreasonable arbitrary limitation

I'd second this.

It's different for everyone but to me what defines an empire is a Realm that is large and powerful enough to have others call it an Empire. At least that's how I see it in CK2 especially, where 3 kingdom titles are just a simplification of "I'm this strong/large. Do you really want to not acknowledge me as an Empire? Or by not acknowledging my realm as an Empire are you implying your realm is somehow on the same level as mine?"

Honestly with that line of thought it'd be kind of cool having to make enough kingdoms acknowledge your empire or else basically being a false empire/petty empire whatever. And your realm size and strength would help determine that. Political maneuvering amongst royalty wouldn't hurt and add some limited depth.

Perhaps your claim to Empiredom offending other existing empires, or them seeing it as an obstacle if you are within the same region/religion. A less arbitrary limit and a flexible one. Also a possibility of war that could curb some player blobbing. Or make it bigger.

 

[oreopirate]

I don't agree, because, historically, empires are kind of vague. Many of which are termed after they flitted out of existence, like the French Empire. So having a French (or Frankish) Empire as de jure before Napoleon is already ahistorical. And one per religion seems ridiculous, especially since in Catholic Europe, just from 769, you can fit like five du jure empires. I would rather they lessen the amount of Empires that du jure at the start of the game. Empires often some form of legal descent or blood descendant from another previous one as legitimization. This is not case for Germania, and Brittania, amongst others. Now I understand that CKIII will have a new start date, but I would rather have the following:
Not everything starts out under a du jure Empire.
If an Empire is founded, you can not inherit without a claim on it. Doesn't matter if you are the same dynasty, or the eldest of your dynasty, you have no claim. In the case of no claims, all vassals are released and memebers of the dynasty get a special "claim Empire" cb.

I just had a game where I got pretty unlucky with child generation. For like six generations (A lot of warrior Empress who died young, and one who was incapable for 35 years) I had one kid, occasionally two. Then I had a king who had twelve. Cue black plague. All my kids die, and my character is ill. So I take a look at who my heir is. It's a duke, who is eight generation removed from the Imperial line.
I start sleuthing through the family tree, turns out the Pope would have been my heir, except he was pope, at only four generations removed from the Imperial line.
When you are that far removed from the Imperial line, you just shouldn't even inherit.

 

[the glory of plain]

never understand this obsession with empire
a much bigger regime then kingdom level get a empire level
and de jure base on geography are only thing that make sense

 

[Ezumiyr]

I feel one of the things that made CK2 more blobby the longer you played a game is that there would be more and more empires.

The issue with empires isn't that you see more and more of them, it's that existing empires only tend to grow bigger and stronger.
If we had the same number of empires as in most CK2 games but the vast majority of them didn't last very long, it would be good. If there were more, but smaller empires that don't grow exponentially, it would work as well - and it would probably be more historical.
Something like an initial expansion phase followed by a more stable era.

So I believe there should be a CB against the Holy Roman Empire to form your own if you would otherwise meet the conditions (for instance a create Britannia CB would require you to control most of Britannia, to have the piety, and as a Catholic you need the Pope to like you a lot more than the Holy Roman Emperor).

That would mean that all new empires are defined by their conflict with an existing empire. But I'm not sure there's enough historical basis for that.

You can change your faith as an emperor as long as it compatible with your empire level title (i.e. two faiths that share the same empire level title)

That would mean giving a lot of credit to ahistorical titles. If we're going to accept ahistorical titles, I see no reason why they wouldn't stay within the hands of the powerful individual holding them.

I think that you're trying to fix the wrong issue with inappropriate solutions. The problem is blobs, because they are often too stable and too big. The solutions involve making them more interesting (with internal dynamics and a risk of failure) or harder to form. Your solution would make the title of empire harder to get, but it wouldn't prevent blobs under rulers holding multiple kingdom titles. Your proposed solution is in fact an attempt at making empire creation more historical... since we don't really have enough examples, I guess we can agree or disagree with your opinion, but in any case it doesn't seem to fix any issue to me. In fact, we would end up with fewer but stronger empires. So bigger and fewer blobs. Not really a fan of the idea.

 

[Heiliges Thüringens Reich]

No, I'd like to form an Catholic empire in the 1066 start, an Orthodox or Muslim empires in both starting dates, etc

 

[Mackus]

It's largely sensible suggestion.
It obviously should apply to Christians, since there was supposed to be only one "Roman Empire", albeit divided into western and eastern part. There were of course multiple claimants to same empire at times, like Latins vs Niceans, but they both claimed to be "Emperor of Romania".
If you're not claiming universal sovereignty over Christendom, you're not an emperor under medieval meaning of the term.
It should apply to Muslim (and hypothetical fylkir-like faiths), your proposal even supports Caliph vs anti-Caliph mechanic we've begged for since version 1.0 of CK2

I'd however loosen restriction of religions with multiple religious heads (albeit we have none in release CK3, they'll eventually be added), like autocephalous Orthodox or Coptics. While obtaining your own autocephalous patriarch from the one under whos jurisdiction you're currently should be difficult, requiring hooks or good relations or such, once you're religiously independent, approval of your own patriarch should be sufficient to become emperor, even if there already is one of your faith.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

I'd however loosen restriction of religions with multiple religious heads (albeit we have none in release CK3, they'll eventually be added), like autocephalous Orthodox or Coptics. While obtaining your own autocephalous patriarch from the one under whos jurisdiction you're currently should be difficult, requiring hooks or good relations or such, once you're religiously independent, approval of your own patriarch should be sufficient to become emperor, even if there already is one of your faith.

Problem is Patriarchal authority rarely stretches beyond one de jure kingdom. Do they really have the clout to create Emperors?

 

[pengoyo]

I like the general idea of your post, and recognize more or less the historicity in it (Napoleon's empire was formed after he triumphed over the HRE IIRC), but I think maybe you should consider leaving this particular line out because this would end up with the mega-Kingdom of Germany if the HRE Emperor is defeated, leaving him with, depending on the age ... what, lands from the North Sea to the Tyrrhenian, which essentially means no change absolutely in terms of territory.

You are right the CB to dethrone an empire is based on Napoleon, but I also included it so there would be a path for the player to create a new empire if the slot for their religion is already taken. Maybe though there should be the possibility to declare yourself emperor, though it might cause some religious strife.

One empire per religion is an unreasonable arbitrary limitation: for Christian faiths it's definitely an aspect of Medieval political ideology that can take a backseat for the sake of gameplay (not that realistically that shit was ever going to be enforceable anyway, if a powerful enough realm claimed an imperial title that was it and the HRE wouldn't have collapsed because of it) and for non-Christian religions it's just complete nonsense.

I was debating limiting it to only religions with a religious head (and effectively non-secular as religions with a secular religious have a work around). I exapanded it based on the idea of mandate of heaven in China (though I realize it's not in the game). But thinking about it more I would say limiting it to only religions with religious heads makes more sense.

I agree with weakening empires but I think this won't really do it. My #1 suggestion would be to make using vassal levies much more expensive since it's super cheap in CK2, to the point where the AI always raises all available levies for absolutely any war regardless of the power of the enemy. Vassals should be apprehensive of being summoned to wars that don't concern them frivolously.

This is not meant to be the only way to lessen blobbing, but possibly an additional tool. I hope CK3 makes vassal management harder for empires. But the problem with empires is that the ruler pretty much has only one, which mean succession, which plays a huge role in CK2, hardly ever causes an empire to split. If someone inherits one of your kingdom titles, that kingdom almost certainly stays within your realm. So empire level titles do add a level of more stability just by existing. So having less empires (even if with a different way then I suggested) would make realms less stable.

Don't you remember when Tibet Collapsed because the Yuan Khaganate became Vajrayana Buddhist?

I think maybe you could write up a different clause to suit faiths with no religious head, but I think it's really an idea that only makes sense for catholicism and orthodoxy, and isn't just a historical elsewhere, but prevents the game from allowing you to do historical things (like convert the Khagan to your faith)

Even just with Orthodoxy, let's consider this scenario: at some point in time the Orthodox Kievan Rus manages to centralize and become an even more massive power in Eastern Europe, whoever rules this realm wants to formally elevate his position to emperor. What of these two outcomes sound more plausible in reality?

a) Whoever rules in Kiev proclaims himself emperor and gets crowned by loyal local clergy. The Byzantine Empire down south might dislike the idea but it's not like they can do anything about it, so a new imperial title is formed and that's the end of it.

b) Whoever rules in Kiev just can't do the above for some reason, as he's first legally obliged to start a massive war between Kiev and Byzantium over kilometres of land because it's literally impossible for the Kievan ruler to shove a bigger hat on his head without first taking it from the decapitated head of the Byzantine Emperor. Upon Kiev's victory the Byzantine Empire just seemingly ceases to exist, even though the ruling dynasty and administration is likely all still there.

And that's assuming that creating an imperial title in Crusader Kings is equivalent to claiming descendance from Rome or to be this universal Christian empire, which isn't necessarily the case at all. An empire in Crusader Kings is a vague name that might refer to a polity that claims that kind of universal legitimacy like the Byzantines and the Holy Roman Empire tried and mostly failed, it could be a polity that gets big enough to the point they claim a title equivalent to an emperor without getting any idea about universalism, or it could even be just a way to represent very large kingdoms that gets expansive and prestigious to the point they should be able to have king-tier vassals.

Russia was actually the empire that got me thinking about this as they did not take the title of Czar until after the Byzantines were destroyed by the Ottomans. Note, I'm trying to make a distinction between de jure empire and de facto. A kingdom can grow huge and be a de facto empire, but I'm arguing to get the increased stability that comes with an empire title (i.e. larger de jure area, succession is less likely to split the realm) you need to be seen as a legitimate empire and not just a powerful state. And often in this time period legitimacy came from a religious backing.

It's different for everyone but to me what defines an empire is a Realm that is large and powerful enough to have others call it an Empire. At least that's how I see it in CK2 especially, where 3 kingdom titles are just a simplification of "I'm this strong/large. Do you really want to not acknowledge me as an Empire? Or by not acknowledging my realm as an Empire are you implying your realm is somehow on the same level as mine?"

Honestly with that line of thought it'd be kind of cool having to make enough kingdoms acknowledge your empire or else basically being a false empire/petty empire whatever. And your realm size and strength would help determine that. Political maneuvering amongst royalty wouldn't hurt and add some limited depth.

Perhaps your claim to Empiredom offending other existing empires, or them seeing it as an obstacle if you are within the same region/religion. A less arbitrary limit and a flexible one. Also a possibility of war that could curb some player blobbing. Or make it bigger.

Yeah this might be a better path, that declaring yourself an emperor offends other empires of your religion.

I don't agree, because, historically, empires are kind of vague. Many of which are termed after they flitted out of existence, like the French Empire. So having a French (or Frankish) Empire as de jure before Napoleon is already ahistorical. And one per religion seems ridiculous, especially since in Catholic Europe, just from 769, you can fit like five du jure empires.

So this is me trying to make a distinction between de facto empire and de jure empire. So you can still be a kingdom that unites a really large realm, but still not be recognized as an emperor (kinda how the British monarch where still just Kings and Queens ruling over an empire, though history never playing by a set of rules, Victoria did name herself Empress of India). So the idea is that declare yourself a de jure Empreror, you need some religious backing.

I would rather they lessen the amount of Empires that du jure at the start of the game. Empires often some form of legal descent or blood descendant from another previous one as legitimization. This is not case for Germania, and Brittania, amongst others. Now I understand that CKIII will have a new start date, but I would rather have the following:
Not everything starts out under a du jure Empire.

I'd be fine with this, if new Empires worked more like custom empires and only gave you de jure claim to the kingdoms you already have.

 

[pengoyo]

So refining the idea more. There is no limit on empires. But if you create an empire you'll suffer and opinion penalty with any other empire of your religion. Additionally if your faith has a religious head (maybe unless they really like you) you'll suffer a temporary opinion penalty for creating another empire of your particular faith and your faith will lose some moral authority. Religions with secular religious heads will work before (i.e. allowing you to create an empire, but this mean that if your secular religious head is an emperor you are also trying to claim the title of leader your your faith).

So this won't really help with blobbing, but that will hopefully be handled through other methods. But this will help had some flavour to empires. It should also make being an emperor harder, as the opinion penalty with other empires of your religions, means that while you might not be directly butting heads, you are less likely to be able to secure an alliance with them. It also adds some flavour to Islam, allowing for competing Caliphates. And while empires aren't strictly limited for Christians, they will be harder to create as you'll most likely have to ride out an excommunication from the Pope (or Ecumenical Patriarch), unless of course you butter them up ahead of time or have some good hook on them.

Thanks for the feedback so far.

Question, do you think it would be good to increase the size or piety requirement for creating an empire if one already exist of your religion? Or just leave it an opinion penalty?

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

Question, do you think it would be good to increase the size or piety requirement for creating an empire if one already exist of your religion? Or just leave it an opinion penalty?

I have an entirely different idea on the issue, but I am currently cataloging all the threads I have opened, so I will reply later. Long story short, you need the sanction of God, not an arbitrary size of piety requirement is my stance.

 

[InvisibleBison]

If you're not claiming universal sovereignty over Christendom, you're not an emperor under medieval meaning of the term.

In the real world, maybe, but after hundreds of years of alternate history who knows what sort of philosophical ideas are floating around? Especially with the way that religions can deviate from their historical form.

 

[Mackus]

Problem is Patriarchal authority rarely stretches beyond one de jure kingdom. Do they really have the clout to create Emperors?

Only in Ck2 patriarchs are generally one-per-kingdom, five pentarchs being an exception.
An yes, they do have a clout. Some empires, like Serbian or Bulgarian, were really small compared to CK dejure empires, but they had patriarchal backing.
To accurately represent patriarchs, they'd have to be separate office independent of court chaplain, with their own parallel dejure territory, with dynamic in-game creation and dissolution, and dejure drift.
So, at game's start in 867, there are five Orthodox patriarchates, some of them (like Roman) being technically vacant (but cheap to recreate, unlike creating fresh one), while some in exile (I have no data on Orthodox patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, or Alexandria being in residence, in exile, or vacant).
Independent Orthodox countries without their own patriarch can petition one they're subordinate to for autocephaly (or scheme to get cb on patriarchs host to force the issue), and if granted they get their own patriarch with new dejure territory. If such country, in addition to now being religiously independent, controlls enough dejure territory, can become an empire.
All historical Orthodox Empires, whether Serbian, Bulgarian, or Russian, became fully religiously independent first before claiming an empire.
Such system will also represent issues like Ethiopia remaining subordinate to Alexandrian patriarch, despite its host (Fatimids, Mamluks, etc) not being even christian, but powerfull enough Negus will be able to obtain ahistorical independence.