Baronies
- Thread starter Kvanvik
- 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.
They should just make serfs playable already. That way, we can really start at the bottom of the feudal ladder and work our way up. I'm absolutely sure it would be enough fun to make up for the fact that game years would pass in real time.
- 10
- 2
- 2
Check this:
forum.paradoxplaza.com
Full county map and data
Hello everyone! I am very excited about the CK3. After all the years CK2 is still an enjoyable game, yet now it seems to be upgrading itself to the new decade of grand strategy gaming. I am pretty sure everyone here is somewhat interested about...
- 1
Paradox's own attempt at "Rise to Power" would be interesting, I admit. But let them first implement currently unplayable governments, add societies, and make a game rule allowing county partitions (so that free cities and stuff like PLC's southwestern border can be a thing).
In theory, sub-baron vassals are already ingame in form of knights, and since single-holding counties exist in at least the 867 game start, we technically can play as baron-level character in all but title. But I really doubt such characters would be interesting in a long term without RtP-like mechanics adding flavor.
- 1
The 3D map is begging for a Mount and Blade mod, now that baronies are actual places on the map. Sprinkle some bandit man-at-arms than wander around and give a landless character the ability to recruit man-at-arms and voila! Joking, of course. But I do think that would be interesting.
- 1
- 1
No, they don't. Baronies are the smallest independent feudal unit.
Edit: I acknowledge baronies are subdivided into even further units know as the manors, hence I specified "independent" unit, as manors would belong to baronies, unlike them, baronies could be held directly from the lord paramount.
Last edited:
- 5
- 3
There's a CK2 nós that gives you the óptimo to play as an unlanded character, adding stuff like having a job so you can have some tiny income. I doubt the devs would make something like this, but If modders made ir on CK2, I bet they can make on CK3 as well
- 1
So playable barons have no vassal interactions, essentially no court, and essentially no real interaction with underlings.
And yet they're meant to play like counties and be as fun as counties, when they're missing a good half of the gameplay?
- 5
- 4
Barons have vassals: knights, who either live at their liege's castle or in their own small estates, and villages that provide baron with food.
I agree that playable barons, as of yet, might be very boring. So do one-holding counties though – in CK2 when you start in Canaries you just raid and wait until Muslims vassalize you. Until there are fun gameplay possibilities for minor counts, I don't think playable barons are necessary.
- 4
- 1
If you seriously think interactions with barons were half the comital gameplay in CK2, you must have played a different game.
Interactions with barons in the game were non-existent, barons wouldn't join factions, they wouldn't make demands, you'd be discouraged from even marrying with them, their role was to sit there and pay taxes. If you didn't appoint them in your council, they'd contribute marginally less in taxes and levies, but considering their input was always minuscule, it hardly mattered. If you tried and failed to imprison them, they would auto-revolt. That's the full extent of their interactions. You could thus play as a count and not even once interact with a baron and lose nothing.
About no courts... Most tribal holdings in CK2 start with no baronies, and somehow they had courts, so...
- 3
- 1
Barons wouldn't automatically have their own vassals, they could have, but nobody forced them to do that. In fact, in Iberia lords tended to avoid subinfeudation, instead they employ knights with cash, instead of land grants.
Furthermore, there is a drastic difference between counts and barons, and barons and knights. You see, the knights weren't nobles, they didn't hold their land by the tenure of barony, but by knight-service, they lacked the status of a peer of the realm and all the privileges that came with it.
- 2
- 1
Knights were nobles, just with the lowest possible title. The concept of nobility was not tied to land but to blood – petty nobility without any fief existed throughout Europe and was still distinguishable by law from peasantry and citizenry even if less wealthy than some successful patricians.
You are talking about the continental concept, I'm talking about the English concept, in which the "petty nobility" was the gentry, that is everything below a baron. In which:
A knight could refer to either a medieval tenant who gave military service as a mounted man-at-arms to a feudal landholder, or a medieval gentleman-soldier, usually high-born, raised by a sovereign to privileged military status after training as a page and squire.
Furthermore, the monarch retained a right to force any landholder whose estate produced L20 per annum to accept a knighthood.
- 1