• 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.

CK3 Dev Diary #17 - Governments, Vassal Management, Laws, and Raiding

Good afternoon, everyone. I’m Magne “Meneth” Skjæran. You might know me from the CK2 dev diaries or the Paradox Wikis, but for the last couple of years I’ve been working on CK3 as a programmer. Today we’re going to cover a number of topics closely related to government types: governments themselves, vassal management, laws, and raiding.

Let's start off with a familiar concept from CK2: governments. For the player, we have three playable governments: Feudal, Tribal, and Clan, which each have some significant differences in how they play.

The Feudal government type is based on European feudalism, and is heavily based around the idea of obligations: you owe service to your liege, and your liege owes you protection in return. It is the most common government form in the game. Feudal realms play pretty similarly to CK2, focusing on claims and inheritance more so than the other government forms.

A new addition in CK3 is Feudal Contracts. Every feudal vassal (except barons) has an individual contract with you, rather than obligations being set realm-wide. These contracts have three levels; Low, Medium, and High, with Medium being the default. High will provide more levies and tax at the cost of an opinion hit, while Low provides less but improves opinion. Higher levels are usually better (though perhaps not if you’re at risk of your vassals revolting), but cannot be imposed unilaterally.

You’ll need to have a hook on your vassal in order to increase their obligations unless you’re fine with all your vassals considering you a tyrant, but you can always lower them. As a result this means you can significantly increase your power if you’re able to obtain hooks on your vassals; perhaps a bit of judicious blackmail might be in order?

Feudal Contract.png

[Modifying a Feudal Contract]

Furthermore we have the Clan government form. This government is the rough equivalent of the Iqta government in CK2, though in CK3 it does have a more Feudal bent than it did previously.

The Clan government type is used by most Muslim realms. This government puts more emphasis on the family rather than the realm, with most vassals being members of your dynasty. Obligations are heavily based on opinion rather than being contractual, with happy vassals providing significantly more taxes and levies than unhappy ones. A happy family is a powerful family.

Clan governments also have access to the Clan Invasion casus belli, which can be used once in a lifetime at the highest level of Fame to invade a kingdom, providing a powerful boon for a well-established clan ruler.

Finally we have Tribal realms. Much like in CK2 these have their own Tribal holding type, providing more troops but less tax. Additionally, most tribals are able to go on raids, which you can read more about below. Tribal realms are unaffected by development, and cause non-tribal realms to have lower supply limits in their lands, making them a tougher nut to crack, but reducing their influence as the years drag on. Tribal realms also pay for men at arms using prestige rather than gold, allowing smaller realms to punch above their weight.

Tribal rulers base their obligations on levels of Fame rather than on contracts or opinion; the more famous your ruler is, the more troops and money your vassals will be willing to provide for your pursuits.

Finally, Tribal rulers have a once-in-a-lifetime Subjugation casus belli, allowing them to forcibly vassalize an entire realm.

As the game goes on, you can eventually reform out of Tribalism, becoming a Clan or Feudal realm instead.

Vassal Overview.png

[The vassal management tab]

To get an easy overview of your realm, we in CK3 have the Realm screen. Let’s start with the Vassals tab of this screen where all your vassals are shown. This gives you a clear overview of where your levies and taxes come from, who might be a threat to you, and allows you to renegotiate feudal contracts.

This is also where you change your crown authority (or tribal authority), which I’ll talk more about later in this dev diary.

Lastly, the screen shows your Powerful Vassals. Much like in CK2’s Conclave DLC, your realm will have some powerful vassals; these expect to be seated on the council, and will make their displeasure known if that is not the case.

Domain overview.png

[The Domain Tab]

Then we have the Domain tab. This lets you easily inspect your domain, showing where you’re earning money and levies, and where you can build more buildings. It also shows the level of development and control in the counties you personally hold, letting you easily tell where you can make improvements.

Finally we have the Succession tab. Due to being a bit of a work in progress, I’m afraid I can’t show you a picture of it right now. Here you can change your succession laws, see your heir(s), and check what titles, if any, you will lose when you die. If you hold any elective titles, you’ll be able to easily get to the election screen from here.

Now with all these mentions of laws, let's go through what laws exist. We’ve trimmed down the number of laws from CK2 as much of what used to be law is handled on a more individual level now, but some still remains.

Like in CK2, we have crown authority for Feudal and Clan realms, and tribal authority for Tribal realms. Higher levels of authority unlock mechanics like imprisonment (for tribals, the others start with it), title revocation, restrictions on internal wars, and heir designation. However, increasing these levels will make your vassals unhappy. Tribal authority is significantly less powerful than crown authority, representing how Tribal governments over time gradually got supplanted by Feudal and Clan governments.

Succession Laws.png

[Changing succession law]

Then there’s succession laws. To no one’s surprise, Gavelkind is making a return, though we’ve renamed it to Partition to make it more obvious what it actually means. This is the default succession form of most realms in both 867 and 1066.

For added fun, there’s now three variants of Partition. We’ve got regular Partition, which functions like Gavelkind in CK2; your realm gets split roughly equally between your heirs, and any heirs that end up a lower tier than your primary heir becomes a vassal.

However, many realms start with a worse form, especially in 867. This is Confederate Partition, which will also create titles of your primary title’s tier if possible. So if you as Norway have conquered all of Sweden but destroyed the kingdom itself, it will get recreated on your death so that your second heir becomes an independent ruler. Tribals are typically locked to this succession type, with some exceptions.

Finally we have an improved version of Partition: High Partition. Under High Partition your primary heir will always get at least half your titles, so it doesn’t matter if you’ve got 2 or 10 kids; your primary heir will get the same amount of land.

We’ve also done a lot of tweaks to the internal logic of who gets what titles, which tends to lead to far nicer splits than in CK2; border gore will of course still happen, but to a lesser degree than before.

Then we have the other succession forms. There’s Oldest Child Succession (replacing Primogeniture), Youngest Child Succession (replacing Ultimogeniture), and House Seniority. A notable difference from CK2’s Seniority Succession is that under House Seniority, the oldest eligible member of your house inherits, not of your entire dynasty.

We also have a number of variants on elective succession, ranging from Feudal Elective, to Princely Elective (HRE succession), and a handful of cultural variants. Each of these have different restrictions on who can vote, who can be elected, and how the AI will select who to vote for.

Additionally, we’ve got a full suite of gender laws, corresponding to the gender laws in CK2. These are: Male Only, Male Preference, Equal, Female Preference, and Female Only.

Finally, we have raiding. If you’re a Norwegian like me, sometimes you feel your Viking blood coursing through your veins, the noise of it drowning out everything else. Times like this, there’s only one solution: go on a raid.

Fans of Pagan gameplay in CK2 will be glad to hear that not only have we implemented raiding in CK3 as well, we’ve made some improvements to it to make it more fun to play with, and less unfun to be on the receiving end of.

The core system is very similar to CK2. If you’re a Pagan or Tribal ruler, you have the ability to raid other rulers’ lands. To do so you raise a raid army, and march or sail over to your target. Only the Norse can raid across sea; other raid armies will simply be unable to embark.

Rally Point.png

[Raising a raid army]

Once at your target your army will start looting the barony they’re in. This is a pretty quick process, but during it your army will be unable to move, preventing you from running away from any counter-raiding force. This change makes it a lot simpler to deal with raiders if you’ve got enough men and can raise them quickly enough, as the AI won’t just immediately run away.

Raid Lindisfarne.png

[A raid in progress]

While in CK2 raiding was done on a county level, in CK3 it is on a barony level. Another difference is that in CK3 raiding no longer uses the siege mechanics directly, but rather a similar system where things like siege engines do not have an impact since you’re raiding the countryside, not a heavily fortified castle.

Another significant change is that if you beat a raid army, you receive all the gold they’re carrying. This means that even if you cannot respond instantly to a raid, it is still very much worth it to beat up the raiders. Like in CK2, you also become immune to raiding by that enemy for several years.

Just like in CK2, a raid army is limited in how much loot it can carry based on the army size. Loot is deposited once the army is back in friendly lands, after which you might either disband or go raiding once more.

On the quality of life side, we now show on the map what provinces have already been raided when you have a raid army selected. This makes it easy to see what places to avoid. Hovering over a province will also tell you how much loot raiding it would provide.

Raid.png

[Northern England in its natural state]

That’s all for today, folks. Tune in next week to learn more about how war functions in Crusader Kings 3.
 
Last edited:
  • 18Like
  • 9
  • 6
Reactions:
One way to deal with this problem is to have a really robust Game Rules Section, with everything from IWin Buttons at one end, and ILose Buttons at the other end.

That way, it is to be hoped, people who liked easy games can have that, while those who want never ending struggle can have that too...

Bear in mind the Game Rules were a relatively recent addition that the Devs tacked onto CK2 because one section of the playerbase kept on asking for nerfs to literally everything, whereas the rpers, and those who wanted easier games in general, were beginning to feel left out in the cold. In spite of the fact that it was more of an emergency add-on, the Game Rules were, in my opinion, a rousing success.

For CK3, if the Devs bake the Game Rules right into the initial Game, they'll be able to add all sorts of things to allow for a truly individualistic gaming experience...
I dont care about rules as I nearly always play games unmodded on the default settings as that is likely the closest to the vision of the developers. Also the main reason for me to play the games is to help people here so that is also a reson to play as default as possible.

Stuff like achievements and world conquest is not interesting at all for me.
 
Last edited:
Viceroyalties was one of the main examples of a feature from CK2 that we absolutely did not want to carry over to CK3. Not only was it way too micromanagement heavy and spammy, but you also had to constantly interact with the system to play optimally - even during stressful times such as during wars. Again, if we choose to make a Viceroyalty feature post-release, we're going to start from scratch and do it properly.

Welp, I'll be modding this. Viceroyalties are one of my favorite features in CK2 and really make controlling empires easier. Not all micro is bad, how often do your vassals die anyway? I'm playing an empire with about ten vassal kingdoms right now and it only comes up every five game-years or so. Fortunately, until CK3 gets "proper Viceroyalties", if that ever happens, the simple model CK2 uses seems like it should be pretty easy to implement as a succession type.

Is it not enough options in the contracts? What sort of options would you like to see?
Is it the different government types playing differently? Or not differently enough? What differences or similarities would you like to see?

I think the consensus has been yes, there are not enough options in the vassal contracts. Breaking out many aspects of the vassal relationship -- levies, taxes, vassal powers, etc -- would be a great place to start and would give players a lot more flexibility.

As for government types, I think we would all just like to see more of them, with more acceptable minimal mechanics. No one expects you to "do Byzantium properly" for a day one release, but no one wants to play Byzantium as feudal, that's even worse. Give me a crappy CK2-esque implementation of imperial and tanistry and HRE and improve it in 1.2 or 1.5 or whenever. That's how Stellaris did diplomacy and federations, and though people didn't love the original system, they worked with it and are really happy to be finally getting the "proper version".

I would also say, I agree that people being toxic in the forums isn't acceptable, but I think there's been a lot of good feedback in this thread that you're glossing over in broad strokes of "everyone is being rude and giving no feedback". I'm not expressing new ideas here, I'm restating things other people have already said. I think this is why people are frustrated.
 
Agree with almost everything in your post, except this one small part:
No one expects you to "do Byzantium properly" for a day one release, but no one wants to play Byzantium as feudal, that's even worse. Give me a crappy CK2-esque implementation of imperial and tanistry and HRE and improve it in 1.2 or 1.5 or whenever.
I would think that most of the rage and toxicity came exactly from this. Reading the posts from quite a few people here it appears pretty clear to me, that the biggest problem many people have with this DD is the issue of government of what they often describe as "the most important state in medieval world...."
Then honestly, whatever they add, it must be clear to everyone that people seing Byzantine empire like this won't be really satisfied with half baked Byzantium (or shall I say Rome, shouldn't I?), despite some moderates like you would.
I agree with you that anything would be better than feudal Byzantium. But at the same time, seing reactions of Byzophiles here about so many things it is more than obvious that if Byzantium is crap, they would rage upside down, regardles what kind of crap it is. It's a crap. And franky, half-baked crap is much worse than crap-because-it-wasn't-adressed.
Having nothing done about it gives you some hope it will be propperly addressed in the future. Having it done in crappy way means they did it, but just plain wrong.

Then there's other perspective. First many things in CK3 seem to work differently than in CK2, so I seriously doubt they could have just copy CK2 crap of a Byzantium to CK3. And secondly, as anyone with elementary experience with coding could confirm, it is awfully lot harder to re-design and re-make a crappy system than to design and code a whole new system.
With this in mind I am actually happy that the great empires of medieval world didn't receive no half-baked crappy mechanics, because it leaves us big hope that they will have to be adressed later. The same with nomads and other systems (West African empires for instance)...

I definitely agree that in order to be a complete game, CK3 needs a lot more governments and that propper bureaucratic Byzantium (as well as various Middle Eastern empires) do need a working bureaucratic system. But as a minority in this forum I do believe that not having some crappy representation of them makes it much better for how will they look in future.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Agree with almost everything in your post, except this one small part:

I would think that most of the rage and toxicity came exactly from this. Reading the posts from quite a few people here it appears pretty clear to me, that the biggest problem many people have with this DD is that, as they write, "the most important state in medieval world...."
Then honestly, whatever they add, it must be clear to everyone that people seing Byzantine empire like this won't be really satisfied with half baked Byzantium (or shall I say Rome, shouldn't I?), despite some moderates like you would.
I agree with you that anything would be better than feudal Byzantium. But at the same time, seing reactions of Byzophiles here about so many things it is more than obvious that if Byzantium is crap, they would rage upside down, regardles what kind of crap it is. It's a crap. And franky, half-baked crap is much worse than crap-because-it-wasn't-adressed.
Having nothing done about it gives you some hope it will be propperly addressed in the future. Having it done in crappy way means they did it, but just plain wrong.

Then there's other perspective. First many things in CK3 seem to work differently than in CK2, so I seriously doubt they could have just copy CK2 crap of a Byzantium to CK3. And secondly, as anyone with elementary experience with coding could confirm, it is awfully lot harder to re-design and re-make a crappy system than to design and code a whole new system.
With this in mind I am actually happy that the great empires of medieval world didn't receive no half-baked crappy mechanics, because it leaves us big hope that they will have to be adressed later. The same with nomads and other systems (West African empires for instance)...

I definitely agree that in order to be a complete game, CK3 needs a lot more governments and that propper bureaucratic Byzantium (as well as various Middle Eastern empires) do need a working bureaucratic system. But as a minority in this forum I do believe that not having some crappy representation of them makes it much better for how will they look in future.

I can't speak for everyone, but what really bothered me was having the feudal system as THE core government of the game again. The whole development of CK2 showed the limits of this infrastructure. I would have expected a new take on governments from a new game above many other features.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I can't speak for everyone, but what really bothered me was having the feudal system as THE core government of the game again. The whole development of CK2 showed the limits of this infrastructure. I would have expected a new take on governments from a new game above many other features.
I agree. If I would read this DD this way, I would be bothered aswell. But I haven't. From the first DD, the vision, the concept and devs statements since then I got the impression that the core of the game now are interpersonal relations and dynasty, not feudalism. And I'm perhaps among the few for whom this DD underlined this.

Governments are something build above that, not a base. And with this POV in mind, I am far more positive about CK3 as opposed to CK2. I agree that if feudalism was the cornerstone of this game, it might potentialy be problematic when creating other governments, like it was in CK2 (You might know how critical I was about the lack and failiure of various CK2 governments to represent what they are supposed to). But I don't have the impression yet, and I do have faith that the devs had the other governments in mind.
I might be wrong or naive or both, of course.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I definitely agree that in order to be a complete game, CK3 needs a lot more governments and that propper bureaucratic Byzantium (as well as various Middle Eastern empires) do need a working bureaucratic system
Although a bit of a Byzantophile myself, I agree fully with the above bit here - what I truly want is (at least to begin) a generic "bureaucratic empire" that suits a broad take on the Eastern Roman Empire, various Muslim states, etc., where you see authority centralized in the hands of the head of state. Vassals, I imagine, might play somewhat similarly to patricians of CK2's republics, being semi-landless, and having them compete for posts throughout the empire, allowing them chances at intrigue with greater posts. More detailed flavor for each sort of bureaucratic empire can come later, but the fact that Byzantium of CK3 is... going back to the very beginning of CK2, not even having some of the improvements made to it by the end of CK2 (viceroys, imperial elective, etc.)... is a troublesome start for me.
I agree. If I would read this DD this way, I would be bothered aswell. But I haven't. From the first DD, the vision, the concept and devs statements since then I got the impression that the core of the game now are interpersonal relations and dynasty, not feudalism.
In my eyes, CK3 is showing signs of having feudalism as a cornerstone of the government mechanics (cause yes, I agree that the devs are striving to make interpersonal relations the core of the gameplay). We can especially see this since all three governments are largely operating around it: a) feudal = feudal, duh, b) clan = iqta + feudal, as admitted in this dev diary, and c) tribal = CK2 tribal... which can become either feudal or clan. Eventually nomads and republics may break the mold, but having nothing but feudal in different flavors to begin with seems a foreboding sign. I really hope I'm wrong, but from what I see in this dev diary, I'm not given much cause for optimism for how much flavor and variety CK3's governments will have at release (only furthered by how this was largely the case with Imperator, too).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm not going to say what is special about this screenshot, but some people would know what I mean as it was talked about earlier in the thread.
index.php
 
Although a bit of a Byzantophile myself, I agree fully with the above bit here - what I truly want is (at least to begin) a generic "bureaucratic empire" that suits a broad take on the Eastern Roman Empire, various Muslim states, etc., where you see authority centralized in the hands of the head of state. Vassals, I imagine, might play somewhat similarly to patricians of CK2's republics, being semi-landless, and having them compete for posts throughout the empire, allowing them chances at intrigue with greater posts. More detailed flavor for each sort of bureaucratic empire can come later, but the fact that Byzantium of CK3 is... going back to the very beginning of CK2, not even having some of the improvements made to it by the end of CK2 (viceroys, imperial elective, etc.)... is a troublesome start for me.
I guess we both want the same.
And I also understand you that anything given to make Byzantium (or empires in general) look different than regular feudal kingdom would be much better.
And since the devs said they have found viceroyalties problematic, I believe they do wish to improve them... I mean give us something better. And here we are at the point I mentioned above. It is better and more effective to create new propperly working system, than spend time on a half-baked crap which you know will have to be reworked very soon.
I understand that not having anything feels really bad, but I'm inclined to support the devs decision not to waste time on half-baked crap which would have been removed in the first patch (I suppose you understand that you can't simply import viceroyalties from CK2 because CK3 certainly works differently).

PS: I would label myself as Byzantophile too, in a way. Heck, how can one not be one after learning the history of the empire?! I just acknowledge also acheivements of others :)

In my eyes, CK3 is showing signs of having feudalism as a cornerstone of the government mechanics (cause yes, I agree that the devs are striving to make interpersonal relations the core of the gameplay). We can especially see this since all three governments are largely operating around it: a) feudal = feudal, duh, b) clan = iqta + feudal, as admitted in this dev diary, and c) tribal = CK2 tribal... which can become either feudal or clan. Eventually nomads and republics may break the mold, but having nothing but feudal in different flavors to begin with seems a foreboding sign. I really hope I'm wrong, but from what I see in this dev diary, I'm not given much cause for optimism for how much flavor and variety CK3's governments will have at release (only furthered by how this was largely the case with Imperator, too).
Agree.
feudalism does seem to be the ground for governments. But as I mentioned above, the devs keep explaining that it is not the cornerstone of the game., like it was in CK2. And that's what keeps me positive about feudalism not being the cornerstone of all governments in the future.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
I have three requests based off this Dev diary. Firstly, I want the feudal obligation split so I can have none, low, medium, or high obligation on individually set for troops and taxation. At long last I will be able to tax people into space!

This would be easy to implement and allow for min-maxing and choice. I think having high taxation would be roughly equivalent to no levy obligation and could prove a costly trade. Imagine having a vassal so powerful under you that you afford them no obligation in an awkward bid to keep them docile towards you while you shore up your power base else where and revisit their contracts after they have a nasty succession.

Second request is an option on the feudal obligation or perhaps a 'shamed' trait that disqualifies someone from being considered a powerful vassal. An option that should reset upon death so the inheriting lord isn't hit with it. Could also tie this disqualification in with voting rights. It's a nice reason to have a hook on someone even when they already give max obligation. The opinion pentalty should be high though. You're more or less negotiating them out of their right to weigh in matters of state. But certainly worth it if one of your powerful vassals is a rival or something. No pleasing that guy anyway. Gives you the ability to deal with that situation without dishonoring yourself with a murder plot or risking your life with a duel.

Thirdly, if you have high enough authority, your feudal obligation should be where you disallow internal or external wars for vassals. I would want members of my house waging internal wars and I would want border vassals waging external wars.

For a final suggestion, it sounds like the Byzantium-piles basically want north Korea mode with landed vassals. Maybe a full obligation unique to the Byzantine empire and beauracratic states for levy that can't be altered as a vassal of the empire. At that point you're basically just being paid to manage the land and waging your wars with knights, men-at-arms, and mercenaries which means your only viable targets are likely to be within the empire against others with so little. Limit the amount of land the emperor can hold so factions of disgruntled Lord's are dangerous since they get their troops when they rebel. I don't know how well it models Byzantine nobility, politics, and beauracry but it's a thought. Sounds difficult to balance against the fluctuating nature of everyone else's power bases
 
For some reason this have been ignored.
index.php


index.php

Thanks for taking the time to put it side by side! I thought they had some new art but wasn't 100% sure. Liking the style in general. Still something about the clean and dark UI that cheapens the effect of everything but maybe that's also a lack of polish / tweaks or maybe I'm just too used to the other games :p
 
When a raid or small battle is going badly, what we really need is a button to "Run Away."

giphy.gif
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It would really be a shame to fully remove primogeniture single heir succession. Even with keeping half your titles, you won’t be able to keep a consistent crown land territory (even a single Duchy) presuming you have more than one son/heir without conquering/seizing land every generation (and heaven help you if you ever have a sickly/short-lived ruler).

It also makes keeping double kingdoms basically untenable without destroying one of the titles or they will get split up every generation. Why should the English King fight for his rightful claim to conquer France if the dual kingdom he forges will just end up split up again anyways (admittedly between his heirs, but sill)?

Primogeniture should at least be an option. Maybe have prestige penalties for unlanded sons/make them more likely to plot against you if you don’t give them something to do, but dividing your land shouldn’t be mandatory. Arguably following something closer to single heir succession is what allowed the English kings to have comparable power to their French counterparts, who would see their domains split each generation (despite a less large/wealthy realm).
 
Only the Norse can raid across sea; other raid armies will simply be unable to embark.

Forgot about Berber pirates?

Furthermore we have the Clan government form. This government is the rough equivalent of the Iqta government in CK2, though in CK3 it does have a more Feudal bent than it did previously.

Will Clan government be locked into one inheritance law like CK2 Iqta did?
 
Last edited:
I don't know if it has been asked or not, but can you make it possible to manage which of your children will inherit which title in Gavelkind? I'm fine losing territories as long as I can assign which titles I keep to myself. It has always irked me that I lost some of my best lands while keeping some of the worst.
 
It would really be a shame to fully remove primogeniture single heir succession. Even with keeping half your titles, you won’t be able to keep a consistent crown land territory (even a single Duchy) presuming you have more than one son/heir without conquering/seizing land every generation (and heaven help you if you ever have a sickly/short-lived ruler).

It also makes keeping double kingdoms basically untenable without destroying one of the titles or they will get split up every generation. Why should the English King fight for his rightful claim to conquer France if the dual kingdom he forges will just end up split up again anyways (admittedly between his heirs, but sill)?

Primogeniture should at least be an option. Maybe have prestige penalties for unlanded sons/make them more likely to plot against you if you don’t give them something to do, but dividing your land shouldn’t be mandatory. Arguably following something closer to single heir succession is what allowed the English kings to have comparable power to their French counterparts, who would see their domains split each generation (despite a less large/wealthy realm).

Then we have the other succession forms. There’s Oldest Child Succession (replacing Primogeniture), Youngest Child Succession (replacing Ultimogeniture), and House Seniority. A notable difference from CK2’s Seniority Succession is that under House Seniority, the oldest eligible member of your house inherits, not of your entire dynasty

My understanding is that it is the same thing, just simplified wording.
 
My understanding is that it is the same thing, just simplified wording.

They still have where birth order will determine who is the primary heir, but they no longer have single recipient inheritance as even high partition will lose you 50% of your titles if you have more than one child of the inheriting gender.

Finally we have an improved version of Partition: High Partition. Under High Partition your primary heir will always get at least half your titles, so it doesn’t matter if you’ve got 2 or 10 kids; your primary heir will get the same amount of land.

High Partition is basically still Gavelkind, but the primary heir gets to keep a larger chunk, and gets this regardless of how many children.
 
They still have where birth order will determine who is the primary heir, but they no longer have single recipient inheritance as even high partition will lose you 50% of your titles if you have more than one child of the inheriting gender.
I'm pretty sure they did not say who will be the primary heir.

High Partition is basically still Gavelkind, but the primary heir gets to keep a larger chunk, and gets this regardless of how many children.
The difference is the primary heir get atleast half the titles vs probably an rather equal split of titles between the heirs.