CK2's petty kingdoms- confusing for new English language players

[Bulan]

Giving that CKIII's tutorial will take place in Ireland, a region of petty kings, it will surely clear up any confusion that newcomers might have about the terms. Plus, the word 'petty' is there. That's a big clue.

As for the native language localisations? I don't think it helps. For example you would have Anglo-Saxon petty kings called 'cyning' and Anglo-Saxon actual kings called 'cyning', merely changing the problem to Old English.

Just call an anglo saxon king, "King". there is only one anglo saxon king and zero independent anglo saxon dukes in 1066, and zero anglo saxon kings in 860, so it's not really jarring to juxtapose these terms.

 

[Lord Frost]

"Petty king" is not the "right" title. Neither is "King". I challenge anyone to find a middle english source that includes that word with that spelling from around the earlier start date, because there is none. There is no one "right" title and Paradox should use a title that does not pose the dificulties of "Petty King". My issue is not that the term "Petty King" is obscure, rather, it is that it conflicts with an in game keyword "King" with a specific mechanical meaning. Using the term "Petty King" can short circuit the inquisitive process some players use to learn the game. Players will quite reasonably assume that these are King tier titles - because they include the literal word King!- and then later discover that their assumption is wrong.

If a weird cultural title other than Petty King is used, one that has no intersection with keyworded game terms, then yes indeed, players must look for secondary cues like portrait frames or tooltips or googling or whatever to determine the tier. This will be because the name of the title alone will give them no grounds to make an assumption about what tier it is. They must seek additional sources of information. That's better than misleading the player and better than giving them an opportunity to make a bad assumption based on their knowledge of game mechanics. "Petty King" or "King" used for non king tier titles is terribly misleading.

Referring back to my post on the first page, you have the following options and so many more:

Anglo-Saxon: Cynig/cyning, Eoldorman (evolved from independent petty kings to supporters of larger kings), Frea (lord/king), Helm (protector/lord), Theoden (prince/lord/ruler/chief, not just the LotR character), Fengel (lord/prince/king)

If you want to do things your way then find appropriate titles for every ruler tier in every applicable culture and submit them to Paradox. Arguing in a forum for something that the clear majority of respondents don't approve of isn't going to change anything. Personally, I'd cut my losses because realistically it's not feasible to expect this to happen.

 

[Bulan]

"Petty King" is the only title in CK2 that I have a problem with. The other titles in the game are fine.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

"Petty king" is not the "right" title. Neither is "King". I challenge anyone to find a middle english source that includes that word with that spelling from around the earlier start date, because there is none. There is no one "right" title and Paradox should use a title that does not pose the dificulties of "Petty King". My issue is not that the term "Petty King" is obscure, rather, it is that it conflicts with an in game keyword "King" with a specific mechanical meaning. Using the term "Petty King" can short circuit the inquisitive process some players use to learn the game. Players will quite reasonably assume that these are King tier titles - because they include the literal word King!- and then later discover that their assumption is wrong.

If a weird cultural title other than Petty King is used, one that has no intersection with keyworded game terms, then yes indeed, players must look for secondary cues like portrait frames or tooltips or googling or whatever to determine the tier. This will be because the name of the title alone will give them no grounds to make an assumption about what tier it is. They must seek additional sources of information. That's better than misleading the player and better than giving them an opportunity to make a bad assumption based on their knowledge of game mechanics. "Petty King" or "King" used for non king tier titles is terribly misleading.

Of course you will not find anything with "King" as a title with that spelling in early or middle english, because they used the title *in middle english*. But then again you won't find "King" with that spelling used in France, Italy, Germany, or in fact anywhere on the map in their period languages. So that argument is a complete non-starter.

"Petty king" is the nearest that we're going to get without having to use awkward - and in some cases reconstructed - cultural names *everywhere". With the qualification of "Petty" there, it should be obvious it is not a full King title.

If we use the Irish cultural title, all of them from Count to King would use variants of Rí, because the title for even vassal lords and chieftains was based around this word. Effectively you had "King of a tribe", "King of several tribes", "King of a province", "High King". Confusingly the "king of several tribes" level is also known as an overking - despite being potentially a vassal to a higher king.
Similarly Welsh "dukes", independent "priinces", and "kings" would all be known by the same title. They would all be Tywysog, regardless of tier, which would be even more confusing, as all that would change would be the portrait fromans ad so on. This may apply down to the prominent counts as well, as Tywysog <tribe> would apply to a roughly county sized tribe.

Just call an anglo saxon king, "King". there is only one anglo saxon king and zero independent anglo saxon dukes in 1066, and zero anglo saxon kings in 860, so it's not really jarring to juxtapose these terms.

If we're applying cultural titles we should do it properly shouldn't we?

As you consolidate the anglo-saxon lands from 867 you will usually see a situation where there is a "King" and "cyning" titles on the map at the same time, which is jarring as historically *cyning* was used for small kings of the Heptarchy, and kings of the whole of England.
Also the 1066 start can quickly end up with independent, or semi-independent anglosaxon dukes breaking away, *again* putting kings and petty kings on the map at the same time.

 

[J.B.]

I would be enthused if Paradox goes the route of "Europa Barbarorum" with one of its games. The passionately informative levels of detail within those modifications are incredible, although they do rely on native language terms whenever possible to describe military unit names, or administrative titles, and even the names of buildings, with English-language names normally to be found within parentheses, which I am quite comfortable with.

 

[elvain]

Of course you will not find anything with "King" as a title with that spelling in early or middle english, because they used the title *in middle english*. But then again you won't find "King" with that spelling used in France, Italy, Germany, or in fact anywhere on the map in their period languages. So that argument is a complete non-starter.

"Petty king" is the nearest that we're going to get without having to use awkward - and in some cases reconstructed - cultural names *everywhere". With the qualification of "Petty" there, it should be obvious it is not a full King title.

If we use the Irish cultural title, all of them from Count to King would use variants of Rí, because the title for even vassal lords and chieftains was based around this word. Effectively you had "King of a tribe", "King of several tribes", "King of a province", "High King". Confusingly the "king of several tribes" level is also known as an overking - despite being potentially a vassal to a higher king.
Similarly Welsh "dukes", independent "priinces", and "kings" would all be known by the same title. They would all be Tywysog, regardless of tier, which would be even more confusing, as all that would change would be the portrait fromans ad so on. This may apply down to the prominent counts as well, as Tywysog <tribe> would apply to a roughly county sized tribe.


If we're applying cultural titles we should do it properly shouldn't we?

As you consolidate the anglo-saxon lands from 867 you will usually see a situation where there is a "King" and "cyning" titles on the map at the same time, which is jarring as historically *cyning* was used for small kings of the Heptarchy, and kings of the whole of England.
Also the 1066 start can quickly end up with independent, or semi-independent anglosaxon dukes breaking away, *again* putting kings and petty kings on the map at the same time.

This.

And if we want to be super-accurate, it won't get any better, if you look anywhere around the map.

In the muslim world some 98% of rulers which can be played in CK would be called emir. The emirs was a title used for county level vasals, the same title was used for duchy level emirates across the middle east, but even rulers of large territories, such as the Samanids or Tahirids of Khorasan and Transoxiana, Tulunids of Egypt, Aghlabids of Africa/Ifriqiya - they all were just emirs.
But elswhere it might work better maybe?
Let's look at the Slavs - in 845 we learn that 14 princes of Bohemians were baptized in Regensburg. In Slavic their title was known as variants of knez, kniez, knieže or kníže. The same title was used for these local potentates in mid 9th century. The same title was used for rulers of entire Bohemia in the 10th-late 12th century. In the 11th century, there was a "kníže" of entire Bohemia (in CK2 a duke ruling a kingdom), under whom we had subordinated Moravian Přemyslids (counts ruling 1-2 counties), each of them called also kníže. And the same title of kníže was used for rulers of Greater Moravia, which in CK world meets all requirements for a kingdom (it subordinated areas of several whole duchies, ruled by their own rulers, all called also kníže)
Similar chaos was in the Balkans, as well as Russia, where kniazes ruled areas as large as 2-3 CK de jure kingdoms, but also areas as small as county.
Which means - in Slavic world, the title "kníže" and its variations was used for any independent ruler of a duchy or kingdom tier, as well as for rulers of vasals, both for vasal dukes and vasal counts.

That said, if somebody complains that usage of "petty kings" for independent dukes along with regular "kings" is confusing for him, I don't know how using localized titles will make it less confusing. With localized titles he will find himself seing a title which he doesn't understand at all used for all tiers, no matter if vasalized or independent and with no distinctive word such as "petty". This is ridiculously more confusing than having "petty kings" if you ask me.

 

[Heiliges Thüringens Reich]

I was confused at the start as well, but all was solved after I installed the BlueDuke mod.
I really hope the visual difference between counts, dukes, kings and emperors will have more contrast in CK3.

 

[wilcoxchar]

"Petty King" is the only title in CK2 that I have a problem with. The other titles in the game are fine.

So you have absolutely no problem with Mayor, Grand Mayor, Prince Mayor, and Grand Prince, but Petty King is somehow too confusing for you.

 

[Bulan]

So you have absolutely no problem with Mayor, Grand Mayor, Prince Mayor, and Grand Prince, but Petty King is somehow too confusing for you.

That's a great point which I can't really refute, except to note that many of those titles are scarcely encountered in the game without player intervention, are not encountered in the english language stating area at any start date and many are not playable or are only playable with a DLC. In contrast, Petty King occurs in the starting area that many English language players pick.

 

[Aquamancer]

Perhaps while talking about whether or not it'd be a good idea to include petty kingdoms, it'd be a good idea to discuss which titles the "Petty Kingdom" title is meant to represent? As a result, I compiled a list of all petty kingdoms in CK2's bookmarks and looked into which historical titles they were meant to represent. Being well-informed about the actual nations which the game labels as "petty kingdoms" might be a good way to provide solutions for the issue at hand.



In CK2, a petty kingdom is a simply an independent duchy whose ruler has a culture which enables petty kingdoms, these cultures and culture groups being:
* North Germanic (Norse, Swedish, Norwegian & Danish)
* Anglo-Saxon
* Celtic (Irish, Scottish, Pictish, Welsh & Breton)
* Sogdian, Tocharian, Saka
* East African (Ethiopian, Somali, Nubian & Daju)
* Nepali
* Tibeto-Burman (Bodpa, Tangut, Zhangzhung, Sumpa)



NORTH GERMANIC
In bookmarks from 1066 onwards, there are only two North Germanic petty kingdoms (technically three, if you count Erik the Heathen's revolt in 1066 as a kingdom): Iceland (which is a misnomer, since Iceland was never actually a kingdom, but rather a commonwealth), and Kingdom of the Isles, which could simply be represented as a kingdom-tier title instead (as HIP and a bunch of other mods do). In the bookmarks before 1066, however, there are plenty of Norse petty kingdoms.

Since the history of Norse political entities prior to the formation of Norway, Sweden and Denmark is spotty at best, I'm not trying to map out which historical kingdoms each petty kingdom match. Instead, I'll just list the petty kingdoms and name their in-game rulers.

In 936 bookmark, there are six Norse petty kingdoms in addition to Iceland and the Isles: the Swedish petty kingdoms of Sviþjod (ruled by Ring of Sweden), Hälsingland (ruled by Borkvard Ulvo), Småland (ruled by Frodi Wulfing) and Vestergautland (ruled by Skoglar Toste); the petty kingdom of Nordreyjar (AKA Northern Isles, ruled by Torf-Einarr), and Namsborg (ruled by Hakon of Namsborg), represenging Viking occupied Nantes.

In 867 bookmark, there are a total of ten Norse petty kingdoms, most of which appear to me to exist solely to allow legendary or famous Norse leaders to have the power-base they need to do their historic antics, and either are the nucleuses for historical kingdoms like Norway or Kievan Rus, or were minor historical states. Four of the petty kingdoms are ruled by Ragnarssons: Sjaelland (ruled by Sigurdr 'Snake-in-the-Eye'), Sviþjod (Bjorn 'Ironside' af Munso), Jorvik (ruled by Halfdan 'Whiteskirt') and The Isles (ruled by Ivar 'the Boneless'). Five more are ruled by famous or legendary Norse rulers of whom I was able find sources for: Jylland (ruled by Bagsecg), Viken (ruled by Haraldr 'Fairhair'), Vestergautland (ruled by Hrane the Geat), Holmgardr (ruled by Rurik), and Könugardr (representing the principality of Kiev, ruled by Dyre 'the Stranger', also known as Askold). Finally, there's one more petty kingdom of whose ruler I was unable to find sources, which could imply that the kingdom might be fictional: Smáland (ruled by Vagn Njudunge).

And in 769 bookmark, only 4 Norse petty kingdoms exist: Sjaelland (ruled by Harald Wartooth), Sviþjod (ruled by Sigurd Ring), Austergautland (ruled by Hjörvardr Ulfing), and Vestergautland (Oddr Gautske [supposed ancestor of Hrane the Geat, of whom I couldn't find easily-accessible sources]).



ANGLO-SAXON
There are only seven Anglo-Saxon petty kingdoms in 769 and 867 bookmarks, which represent the Heptarchy (apart from Sussex) and Hwicce. However, since 769 bookmark is not going to be in CK3, we don't have to worry about representing the Heptarchy in its prime. CK3 will have 867 bookmark, however, which features the last four surviving Anglo-Saxon kingdoms: Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia, and Northumbria.

As a result, it might not be out of question to simply represent the four Anglo-Saxon kingdoms as kingdom-tier titles. "HIP - Historical Immersion Project" mod does so by having all four Anglo-Saxon kingdoms be de jure titles in 867 bookmark, but once the Kingdom of England is formed for the first time, all four Anglo-Saxon kingdoms will immediately de jure shift to England (apart form the northernmost part of Northumbria, which becomes de jure part of Scotland instead). Personally, I'd like to see this approach being taken in CK3, as it'd make the formation of England feel more impactful.

CELTIC
The minor Celtic kingdoms on the British Isles and in Brittany are basically the text-book definition of a petty kingdom: independent states which were described as kingdoms at the time of their existence, but were significantly smaller than later, more centralized kingdoms. Given that many of these petty kingdoms exist across multiple start dates, I'll just list them here and provide links to the kingdoms they're meant to represent.

• Irish: Mumu (representing the Kingdom of Munster), Connachta (representing the Kingdom of Connacht), Mide (representing the Kingdom of Meath), and Dal Riata (representing the Gaelic kingdom of Dál Riata)
  
• Cumbric: Strathclyde (representing the Kingdom of Strathclyde)
  
• Manx: Manaw (representing the Isle of Man under the rule of Elidyr, the father of Gwriad Manaw, the mysterious founder of the Merfynion dynasty)
  
• Cornish: Cornwall (representing the Kingdom of Cornwall/Dumdonia prior to the English conquest of Cornwall)
  
• Welsh: Gwynedd (representing the Kingdom of Gwynedd), Powys (representing the Kingdom of Powys), Glywysing (representing the kingdom of Glywysing), Morgannwg (representing the kingdom of Morgannwg, the successor-state of Glywysing), Seisyllwg (representing the petty kingdom of Seisyllwg), Deheubarth (represents the kingdom of Deheubarth, the successor-state of Seisyllwg)
  
• Breton: Brittany (representing the Kingdom of Brittany, although Breton-ruled dukes of Brittany are still listed as petty kings)

SOGDIAN, TOCHARIAN & SAKA
There are only two independent Sakan petty kingdoms: Hvamna and Kashgar, representing the Kingdom of Khotan and the Shule Kingdom, respectively: presumably Tocharians have petty kingdoms in order to give a more accurate name for the Tocharian oasis states in Tarim Basin (which by 769 had lost their independence). In addition, there's a Sogdian petty kingdom in 769 bookmark, which represents the domains of Abbasid official Salim of Farghana.



EAST AFRICAN
There are a total of 11 different petty kingdoms in East Africa, but since many of them stay the same across bookmarks and I don't have much to say about them, I'll quickly summarise which states they are meant to represent.

• Nubian petty kingdoms represent the kingdoms of Nobatia, Makuria and Alodia. These could potentially be represented as de jure kingdoms instead: after all, an unified kingdom of Nubia never existed.
  
• I was unable to find any records of a Somali petty kingdom called "Berbera", so I presume that the title is just used to represent the Somali clans that controlled the area.
• The Ethiopian petty kingdoms represent historical kingdoms which frequently were vassals to the Ethiopian Empire: Gojjam, Damot, and Gondar (also known as Begemder). Solomonic petty kingdom of Axum probably represents the rump Axumite state.
  
• The petty kingdom of Shewa appears to represent the Sultanate of Showa, while the Jewish petty kingdom of Semien/Axum represents the Kingdom of Semien.
• The Daju petty kingdom of Wadai appears to represent the Daju kingdom.

NEPALI
There were not a single petty Nepali kingdom in the bookmarks I checked, so I cannot verify which historical nations the title was meant to be used to represent.



TIBETO-BURMAN
There are a total of seven Tibeto-Burman petty kingdoms available across different bookmarks, of which I was able to find historical matches for only four: Maryul (representing the Maryul of Ngari), Sumparu, Nagchu, Qampo, Dege (representing the Kingdom of Derge), Minyak (representing Dingnan Jiedushi, the predecessor of Western Xia) and Yartse (representing Khasa Kingdom).

 

[Tsar Monarchist]

"Petty King" is the only title in CK2 that I have a problem with. The other titles in the game are fine.

And you know what? That's the only problem that really exists in here. That YOU have a problem. With THIS particular thing. And you found some few other threads that makes you think that this is a common issue. And like you admitted, it is not actually a problem for you with what developers are doing for other strange titles like Grand Princes, Grand Dukes or Prince Mayors, because you don't care much about them, only this particular one is a real salt grain in the eye... your eye. And so many people showed you a totally different opinion, some tried you to explain them why and how your "genius" solution may be better than what already is in the game, and some have given you arguments why current status quo is actually a good thing. But maybe we are all wrong and you are right.

Or maybe you are simply a discontent petty vassal of PDX, plotting against current realm laws

I think you still need to explain the main issue that others asked you about, or maybe I didn't see the clear answer to it.
So, how much simpler it is for new players who know little or nothing of medieval history and are still learning in-game mechanics to see a tutorial with:
- an independent ruler with duke-tier ribbon (or what else they use in CK3), working like a duke-tier title and showing as duchy on de-iure map view (if it will be in CK3), just named as "petty king" - which this person probably don't understand and would need to Google out to learn what it means - or use the in-game tooltips and/or encyclopaedia,
- an independent ruler with duke-tier ribbon, working like a duke-tier title and showing as duchy on de-iure map view, just named as Rí or what else (just how the "king" was called in local language that time, so should be used for king-tier title as well), which this person probably don't understand and would need to Google out to learn what it means.

Tell me the difference. Please do.

Like you were already told this term is NOT a historically used title, but so as were many other terms used by historians to make difference between things named the same (like antique Roman Empire and medieval "Byzantine" Empire), and many other cases that stuck in the terminology, even if proven wrong. Lusatian culture people probably did not know that Lusatia will exist hundreds of years later, and yet we called them that, so as medieval people not knowing they live in the middle ages... Okay, maybe I overdid it now, sorry, let's back to titles.

History is not as simple as mathematics - chroniclers were often calling every independent pagan ruler as "king" no matter how they called themselves. And there was nothing like a strict feudal system - kings were vassalized by princes, counts by counts, etc.
Like @elvain already explained (great thanks to you), slavic rulers were mostly "knez/kniez/kniz/kniaz" ('cept for some truly crowned kings, like those of Poland or Bohemia, which until late game could be count on your fingers... of one hand... for both kingdoms altogether) and every ruler (independent or sometimes not) was called the same (Polish people even use one word for both dukes and princes in their language). [EDIT: I would rather say that the actual "government" in medieval Poland was veeeery far from CK2's feudal depiction - having more of their tribal features instead.]
Roman emperors ruling in 14th century Constantinople were not the same Roman emperors as Nero or Hadrian, even if using the same name.
Counts of Flanders, Counts of Burgundy or Counts Palatines could be more powerful and ruling over greater territory than many other Holy Roman dukes being electors...
And don't dare me to discuss the numerals of some rulers!

On the other hand, the game and whole IT is binary - while you can build complex simulations of how atoms behave (and use Exaflops to process the data), it does not mean it will run smoothly in a user-friendly UI so everyone can understand and use it.
Paradox developers decided in CK2 to simplify the history by creating only 4 playable tiers of titles (5, if you include "baronies"), and any other titles outside of it are using the existing mechanics. That's why Doges of Venice are holding the king-tier titles while a completely different thing (and suddenly some feudal count could conquer it in his game and call himself a King of Venice, like the title ever existed before). That's why all rulers of Poland are called kings, even though there were only 3 of them until end of 13th century. And that's why you didn't have separate titles for Lithuanian Grand Dukes (a king-tier title), Supreme Duke (a real title used in 15th century, higher than Grand Duke, but still not a king) and truly crowned King (only one in their whole history, despite multiple attempts).
That's also why we were introduced with "petty kings" dukes, so when duchy-tier titles in Ireland and other regions are played as independent state, they are not granted with some special king-tier title to cover 2-3 counties, that would be named like the duchy nevertheless and had to be destroyed when "High King" of Ireland is born - but they are simply renamed. And that... is not that bad.

It isn't good, yes, but it's also not bad. That's exactly how compromises work, you know. CK2 developers have made many of them, you know. So many worse problems I've seen for 8 years of peeking into the CK2 forum, on how the generic empires kill the cat, how Norway should be red instead of blue, or how Aztecs have smashed someone's love to this game into pieces...
For me, much worse is how they added totally generic dukes in Poland in 1066, with the one in Greater Poland using the same name as later historical holders, killing the in-game numeral! Argh, why! ....khem, sorry.

You can complain, you can have your opinion, it's ok and many of us probably appreciate it. But you tried to prove us that this is some common problem for other players and what you offer is better, yet after scrolling posts it did not seem to be the case as I could not see a comment saying "yes, I had so much trouble with petty kings and I hate it", or "your solution is so much better that it would save my day".
That's the answer you were looking for. Like it or not. Just don't suddenly go overzealous to forcefully wololo everyone around you, ok? Thank you in advance!