Any chance of us seeing merchant families in feudal states?

[mudcrabmerchant]

From the interview on PC Gamer, it seems that your republic being the vassal of a feudal lord doesn't affect anything but the goings on of the Doge. That's not what I'm talking about.

IIRC, Florence was still a major center of Medieval capitalism even when it wasn't a republic, and even they weren't it wasn't near the density of the Italian city states, rich merchant families could probably be found nearly everywhere in Medieval Europe.

So, why can't there be a few merchant families based out of feudal provinces, and not just operating trade posts there? Why can't we, as dukes and kings, turn to the wealthy merchants of our realm in our time of need, and rack up some nice historical country-crushing debt? Why can't we pick a merchant family in the middle of a big kingdom or empire, and try to build up our mercantile empire without enjoying the privilege of an entire state dedicated to making its merchants richer? Am I fundamentally misunderstanding something about the new system?


That being said, I don't have my hopes up that this will make it into the official DLC. But I would greatly appreciate it if Paradox gave modders the ability to do this. I know jack all about programming, so perhaps it would just be too difficult to allow a few courtiers or mayors per kingdom to operate like the republican patrician families but without the structure of the actual republic. But if it's feasible, I think this would make the new merchant republic system much more interesting.





PS. Two small related questions:

1. Can we pull a Medici and usurp the republic?
2. Will this open up the door to more possibilities involving unlanded characters?

 

[Talq]

Why don't courtiers have more children? I suspect that is half your answer.

The other half is that barring some controls concievably you could have merchant families in every province, which is somewhat too much of an exaggeration (urban density wasn't that high outside of Italy, the Low Countries and a few other places) and would be a distraction from creating/testing gameplay for the republics that did exist.

 

[yezhanquan]

I would want to be able to conduct business with them as feudal lords. As we all know, everyone cares about gold. I want my kings and emperors to be able to take some share of the profits.

 

[The_Blind_One]

What bothers me more is that as a lord you'll just want to have a vassal republic.

You'll want him to build all those trade posts so they get filthy rich and give you extra tax.

I mean, not having one means ur missing out on some sweat cash. It's not like your being gamey and turning every duke into a doge for the massive money gain and turning your army into a merc on demand type of thing. But it's just so enticing to have one...

And if you don't, it'd be like your nation is some backward country without any trade...

For that matter, it would have been cooler if they just added the trade node network of EU4 and allowed the feudal lords depending on tech or something to be involved in trade on a more direct basis...rather than forcing to be a republic or having a republic as vassal to see any benefit of the DLC.

 

[Wallain]

What bothers me more is that as a lord you'll just want to have a vassal republic.

You'll want him to build all those trade posts so they get filthy rich and give you extra tax.

I mean, not having one means ur missing out on some sweat cash. It's not like your being gamey and turning every duke into a doge for the massive money gain and turning your army into a merc on demand type of thing. But it's just so enticing to have one...

And if you don't, it'd be like your nation is some backward country without any trade...

For that matter, it would have been cooler if they just added the trade node network of EU4 and allowed the feudal lords depending on tech or something to be involved in trade on a more direct basis...rather than forcing to be a republic or having a republic as vassal to see any benefit of the DLC.

We still need a Trade DLC where we can get trade goods, naval combat and so on.

 

[Me_]

We still need a Trade DLC where we can get trade goods, naval combat and so on.

Fat chance. According to the article they have no plans for naval combat to be implemented.

 

[Wallain]

Fat chance. According to the article they have no plans for naval combat to be implemented.

So long DLCs make money they'll keep making them. At some point they'll run out of ideas and naval combat is much requested feature.

 

[Me_]

So long DLCs make money they'll keep making them. At some point they'll run out of ideas and naval combat is much requested feature.

More likely that's when they'll make CK3. Given the current pace and the amount of content they can still add (Pagans, Theocracies, Holy Orders, barons, Russians, Reconquista, expanded crusades, expanded timeline etc.) it seems like they could keep making other DLCs for 3-4 years.

 

[Seli]

What bothers me more is that as a lord you'll just want to have a vassal republic.

You'll want him to build all those trade posts so they get filthy rich and give you extra tax.

I mean, not having one means ur missing out on some sweat cash. It's not like your being gamey and turning every duke into a doge for the massive money gain and

That is assuming that those rich traders will not influence your local politics, line of succession, rebellions, etc.

I cannot imagine that the only effect of the trade posts on gameplay will be some added tax.

 

[yezhanquan]

That is assuming that those rich traders will not influence your local politics, line of succession, rebellions, etc.

I cannot imagine that the only effect of the trade posts on gameplay will be some added tax.

They probably will. As feudal rulers, earn some gold with them, but once they become a problem, time to kick them down a notch or two.

 

[Wallain]

More likely that's when they'll make CK3. Given the current pace and the amount of content they can still add (Pagans, Theocracies, Holy Orders, barons, Russians, Reconquista, expanded crusades, expanded timeline etc.) it seems like they could keep making other DLCs for 3-4 years.

And who's to say they won't squeeze in naval combat in some of that?

 

[Me_]

And who's to say they won't squeeze in naval combat in some of that?

Fair enough. But a Pagan DLC would be easier to make and they already mentioned having ideas for Russian DLC, so I wouldn't expect it any time soon. But it can happen, eventually.

 

[Wallain]

Fair enough. But a Pagan DLC would be easier to make and they already mentioned having ideas for Russian DLC, so I wouldn't expect it any time soon. But it can happen, eventually.

I'm not pushing to have it any time soon. I'm saying the potential is there.

 

[NewbieOne]

I'd say it would make sense for burghers not to be as integrated with the nobility as they are now. Leading families from Italian city republics generally are nobility, as are patricians from Imperial free cities, and there are some counterparts and analogies in other countries, but the way it is, "government type" seems to matter little (along with heirs of nobles serving as married court chaplains just because their Learning stat is high).

 

[knppel]

Having read the sneak-peak I must say I'm not actually looking forward to play as a Doge to be able to build some fancy family estate Emperors (!!) can not build for their family.

 

[magritte2]

What bothers me more is that as a lord you'll just want to have a vassal republic.

You'll want him to build all those trade posts so they get filthy rich and give you extra tax.

I mean, not having one means ur missing out on some sweat cash. It's not like your being gamey and turning every duke into a doge for the massive money gain and turning your army into a merc on demand type of thing. But it's just so enticing to have one...

And if you don't, it'd be like your nation is some backward country without any trade...

For that matter, it would have been cooler if they just added the trade node network of EU4 and allowed the feudal lords depending on tech or something to be involved in trade on a more direct basis...rather than forcing to be a republic or having a republic as vassal to see any benefit of the DLC.

But isn't that at least partially accurate historically? Surely that's why medieval monarchs issued royal charters creating cities and freeing the burghers of feudal obligations to the local lord.

 

[NewbieOne]

From the interview on PC Gamer, it seems that your republic being the vassal of a feudal lord doesn't affect anything but the goings on of the Doge. That's not what I'm talking about.

IIRC, Florence was still a major center of Medieval capitalism even when it wasn't a republic, and even they weren't it wasn't near the density of the Italian city states, rich merchant families could probably be found nearly everywhere in Medieval Europe.

So, why can't there be a few merchant families based out of feudal provinces, and not just operating trade posts there? Why can't we, as dukes and kings, turn to the wealthy merchants of our realm in our time of need, and rack up some nice historical country-crushing debt? Why can't we pick a merchant family in the middle of a big kingdom or empire, and try to build up our mercantile empire without enjoying the privilege of an entire state dedicated to making its merchants richer? Am I fundamentally misunderstanding something about the new system?


That being said, I don't have my hopes up that this will make it into the official DLC. But I would greatly appreciate it if Paradox gave modders the ability to do this. I know jack all about programming, so perhaps it would just be too difficult to allow a few courtiers or mayors per kingdom to operate like the republican patrician families but without the structure of the actual republic. But if it's feasible, I think this would make the new merchant republic system much more interesting.





PS. Two small related questions:

1. Can we pull a Medici and usurp the republic?
2. Will this open up the door to more possibilities involving unlanded characters?

You can generally find ways to turn a burgher vassal into a castle vassal if you want the social mobility. The game has more equality/mobility than real life did. For example, you can start as France or some other traditional feudal kingdom and receive a mayor as your marshal. Just imagine a mayor as a marshal of France, with lords of Champagne, Anjou, Toulouse etc. reporting to him. Yeah, right.

On the other hand, it's not like you can't marry all your seven sons (or even daughters) each into a different family in Venice and make sure the next doge is your ally. I almost did that with regard to Genoa in my Poland AAR (I had to hit the Muslims and Mongols with holy wars instead to be able to lift their sieges on Genoese territory) but didn't have kids. As far as great republics in Italy go, those guys were considered noble (effective rank having little to do with official title, which tended to be on the low side for even the most powerful of them) and not beneath intermarrying with high lords. You can have it in your game really.

 

[Divi]

>urban density wasn't that high outside of Italy, the Low Countries and a few other places

This is tempered by the fact that provinces outside of Italy and the British Isles tend to be quite big, with some exceptions.

 

[NewbieOne]

Having read the sneak-peak I must say I'm not actually looking forward to play as a Doge to be able to build some fancy family estate Emperors (!!) can not build for their family.

I think the game lets you play somebody who would normally be too low ranking to be playable. For example, you can't play any of the barons who may well be power brokers in a county and sometimes duchy, especially one with elective succession. All of whom have a holding, generally a castle.

On the other hand, a celebrated burgher, I mean, noble patrician, from Venice, Genoa or Pisa, doesn't really have a piece of feudal jurisdiction, theoretically, while in reality they eventually did sometimes come into possession of a feudal manor or castle, sometimes with a title (the doges do have castle barons under them, sometimes even normal counts). That "palace" they're going to have, which is by no means an oh so better centre of administration and power than whatever edifice the HRE emperor rules from, is basically an Italian palazzo, a palatial residence, something about the size of a manorial house (Saxon hall etc.) located in a city, to simulate a holding for them. I can assure that His Unstoppable Salian Blobness and the Pwnprpleborn both have an adequately impressive place to live. If you load the 1337 start, you'll probably find some of the Western kings' capital baronies as level 8 forts with 3000 people on garrison duty inside and the same size of levy, with a Large Castle City, Megakeep, Triple Moat and High Titatanium Wall. That's as big a hazienda as you can get. Let the burgher have his "palace".

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

Why don't courtiers have more children? I suspect that is half your answer.

The other half is that barring some controls concievably you could have merchant families in every province, which is somewhat too much of an exaggeration (urban density wasn't that high outside of Italy, the Low Countries and a few other places) and would be a distraction from creating/testing gameplay for the republics that did exist.

I know that urban density wasn't that high, and I wasn't suggesting that the density of non-republic merchant families shouldn't be high. It would just be nice to have a handful in the biggest realms.

And proliferation wouldn't be a problem. Ideally such a feature would be implemented by tying the families to a single province from the start of the game, and either not allowing new ones to be created mid-game, or only allowing them to arise by rare events or decisions.