A Better Way to Handle the Administration of Cities & Castles (and their Vassals)?

[dylanfellows]

I'm just wondering if HIP plans to (or if they already have, and I missed it) implement an easier and (I think) more historical way of handling city and castle vassals? I find it annoying that when I start a game, virtually all of my thanes/thegns are lowborn with no heirs, and then when they die, another lowborn with no heirs and too old to marry takes their place ad infinitum.

I know that technically I can revoke their titles and then hand them out to whoever I see fit, but this is tedious and with Conclave can be quite difficult and time consuming.

And I think it's difficult in a way that detracts from the game, rather than adds to it. After all, it seems to me that historically in Europe, the government of towns would not have been left to random, middle-aged, low-born bachelors.

I'd much rather have my cities and castles governed by members of a Dynastic house.
Or also, maybe there is a better way to achieve this goal that I just haven't realized.

 

[HandicapdHippo]

Barons do have dynasty's, if you want mayors to have dynasty's you can add the line barons_need_dynasty = yes to the republic government. That said I don't really see the HIP devs doing much with barons and mayors as they are basically irreverent and hardcoded to not do much to keep performance from being effected as more holdings are built.

 

[dylanfellows]

Barons do have dynasty's, if you want mayors to have dynasty's you can add the line barons_need_dynasty = yes to the republic government. That said I don't really see the HIP devs doing much with barons and mayors as they are basically irreverent and hardcoded to not do much to keep performance from being effected as more holdings are built.

It's been a looooooong time since I played CK2 without HIP... to be sure, mayors=thegns/thanes (I typically always play Feudal England). I may consider this.

And I guess you meant "irrelevant?"

Yes, I agree, and that's kind of the point of contention. Surely, they aren't as relevant as dukes or even earls, but CK2 at its heart is a political relationship management simulator. It seems that in that vein, there shouldn't be characters with political influence who are as irrelevant as these positions currently are.

Thanks for the reply!

 

[2ndPorphyry]

Yes, I agree, and that's kind of the point of contention. Surely, they aren't as relevant as dukes or even earls, but CK2 at its heart is a political relationship management simulator. It seems that in that vein, there shouldn't be characters with political influence who are as irrelevant as these positions currently are.

While this might be true from an ideal perspective, it's the performance limitations Hippo mentioned that are the real stop on this extra level of detail/depth you're looking for. There's simply a certain degree of abstraction necessary to make a game that will actually run. So while it's a nice dream, neither HIP nor any other mod is going to deepen baron level characters—also because much of that is hardcoded. (Heck, vanilla just forced all barons into agnatic in the latest patch to simplify and clean up successions among these "irrelevant" types.)

 

[Sirrobert1]

Lowborn characters aren't peasants. They are lower nobility. Insignificant families in the scope of the game, so their family isn't rendered.