Did people in the Middle Ages really gave a crap about this? Religion, yes, but culture/nationalism? Isn't that a thing much later in history? Being ruled by a foreigner was more of a rule than an exception in some regions. Of course, difference in culture does not help in a conflict, so the modifiers that also exist in CK2 make sense, but was it really the cause of any European medieval war to 'fight for your own country' and that 'a ruler should be from my culture'?
CK3 Dev Diary #19: Factions and Civil Wars
- Thread starter Baron von Shoes
- Start date
-
Hello Everyone, Today we've upgraded to the latest version of our forum software, bringing more features and better performance to the community. As always, we appreciate your bug reports and feedback, and you can post all of that here, as well as view the list of new features
-
Crusader Kings III Available Now!
The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
Did people in the Middle Ages really gave a crap about this? Religion, yes, but culture/nationalism? Isn't that a thing much later in history? Being ruled by a foreigner was more of a rule than an exception in some regions. Of course, difference in culture does not help in a conflict, so the modifiers that also exist in CK2 make sense, but was it really the cause of any European medieval war to 'fight for your own country' and that 'a ruler should be from my culture'?
Actually it makes alot of sense, at least in my country during the High and Late Middle Ages. And I can also bring some additional examples if you want.
Armies raised in Sweden with a commoner base fought several wars against the kings of the Kalmar Union to not have a king based in Denmark as their king. Now this a matter of how the administration and politics were done rather than nationalistic sentiments but its remained that locals didn't like an administration that pushed out the local nobles from said administration, brought in people used to lording it over serfs, and then the free peasants didn't take kindly to being treated like serfs.
Or getting taxed and having trade cut in the Baltic Sea because the king was warring down in Germany where the spoils would to my knowledge predominantly go to Danish nobles, for that matter.
The result was rejection of rule from a king based mostly in Denmark.
*****
A very important aspect for getting nobles onboard for a rebellion to create a new country is that in a larger realm they may be so far in the margins that their access to honors, privilages and wealth at the court is non-existent. If they would form a smaller realm these guys would suddenly find themselves much closer to a centre of power. I think its kind of like that either you're part of a pack where you get to watch other dogs chew the bones, or you can for a small pack with smaller bones, but where you may get a small bone at least.
The HRE constantly had issues in Italy and Bohemia. And later on Karl V wasn't too popular at first when he inherited Spain. He was certainly seen as a foreigner and had to make a lot of concessions to be accepted.
Realms didn't all function the same. Sometimes they were very centralized with the king having most of the power. Sometimes there was a lot of power with local nobles or assemblies. A foreign king imposing a different way go govern wasn't accepted easily. There could also the usual complaints about taxes, like why should people in some area pay a lot of taxes for military adventures elsewhere.
Realms didn't all function the same. Sometimes they were very centralized with the king having most of the power. Sometimes there was a lot of power with local nobles or assemblies. A foreign king imposing a different way go govern wasn't accepted easily. There could also the usual complaints about taxes, like why should people in some area pay a lot of taxes for military adventures elsewhere.
And the faction we are talking about can be joined by vassals who want to throw off their current overlord. It just can also be joined by counties that are different enough from their ruler to make them mad. So if Al Andalus conquers Castille and leave a christian count in one of the counties and gives the others to family members the counties might form a populist faction and the count might join in. If Al Andalus gets bogged down in a war in Magreb and has its levies constantly depleted for a couple years the populists might see their chance to revolt.
Okay, I'm curious. Given what we know so far, realistically speaking, how likely is anyone here to frequently play a vassal of an AI ruler?
I would certainly give it a try. In CK2, I ended up playing as an independent most of the time, but I would really like to see if playing as a vassal is more interesting in CK3. It certainly could shift the focus away from just expanding your realm and more towards political character-interactions and the stories that arise from that.
I'm fairly certain my first playthrough will be as a HRE count trying to work my way up, I have a whole new intrigue system to test out
Looking at the independence war map. Why is there so much impassible land in Germany and around Czechia? Especially compared to Croatia, Southern France, and the Apennines. Feels like there should be either less impassible land in Germany and around Czechia OR more impassible land in Croatia, Southern France and the Apennines. Either way, love the strategic passes in the Alps
On a more relevant note, glad to see the temporary civil war title is gone. In terms of the factions, could be interesting to have a loyalist faction who have pledged to support you in civil wars (maybe they could also give you optional mission that further increase their opinion). Having a loyalist faction could allow for some parts of your realm to remain neutral at the beginning of a civil war, later picking a side (the parts of your realm not in the loyalist or opposing faction could be neutral at the start of a civil war).
Edit: Also shouldn't the Apennines Mountains stop above the city of Genoa or at least have a pass to give the city of Genoa direct access to the Po Valley
On a more relevant note, glad to see the temporary civil war title is gone. In terms of the factions, could be interesting to have a loyalist faction who have pledged to support you in civil wars (maybe they could also give you optional mission that further increase their opinion). Having a loyalist faction could allow for some parts of your realm to remain neutral at the beginning of a civil war, later picking a side (the parts of your realm not in the loyalist or opposing faction could be neutral at the start of a civil war).
Edit: Also shouldn't the Apennines Mountains stop above the city of Genoa or at least have a pass to give the city of Genoa direct access to the Po Valley
Last edited:
- 1
This looks nice, but I am kinda worried we don't see a larger improvement over what was already there in CK2. The CK2 factions were single-issue rebels that sometimes had no real coherence, and their function was awkwardly given to conclave's councils. Instead, the factions from CK2+ mod (and HIP, AGoT and others) were far more interesting as they were not just simple rebels and they had actual functions.
I was hoping for things like -
- Factions that are based on positions rather than single-issue rebellions. Like the prosperity faction of CK2+ which wants rulers to focus on development of trade and infrastructure (i.e. buildings) or capture trade routes. Or the militarist faction, which wants to launch a large war of conquest. Or the zealot faction. And probably a few more.
- The same factions mentioned above should have the ability to be pleased or annoyed based on player action. If pleased they would reward you, if annoyed their members would start joining actual rebel factions.
- If possible, factions should sometimes give out quests like societies do in CK2. After all, PDS wants to make CK3 more RPG-ish and this would be a perfect opportunity.
- Happy, pleased factions contributing money and resources to liege in times of dangerous invasions, and their members who are also on the council would support your vote. Each faction could also have its own unique reward if they are satisfied for a long time - like a special conquest CB, or a truckload of money, or bonus papal influence and clergy relations and so on.
- Inter-faction management. Like faction members electing their leader instead of basing it on a "first come first serve" where whoever forms faction first becomes leader. Or faction members contributing money to the leader. Or the leader gaining the power to kick out a member from their own faction at the cost of influence and such. This is actually one scenario where mana points would work.
- Debate events and such within factions, where factions can change their claimant/target.
- Factions that have actual influence in councils and their decisions.
- Traits, claims, opinions, attributes etc. being taken into account when deciding which AI character joins which faction. Greedy, kind and diligent would likely go for prosperity faction. Martial education warlords would likely go for militarist faction. Zealots and theologians would probably go for the religious faction and so on.
...And if possible, inter-faction wars.
Now those would look like a real faction rework. And would be very enjoyable to play with.
Also, what about two Clergy themed factions? Keeping the clergy on their side was very important for a lot of medieval rulers, including outside Abrahamic religions. They could be -
A) Clergy faction - If your clergy hates you enough, the landed clergy characters could have their own faction where they rebel for concessions that would vary. They could ask for Papal/Ecclesial primacy, reduction of clerical taxes/levy duty, or forcing the ruler to pay to churches/mosques/temples, forced abdication of a heretic/heathen lord and so on.
B) Heresy/Heathen county faction - Just like peasant rebellions, these would build up in heretic/heathen counties (rather than characters) and seek to rebel with much more powerful forces on their side, with a chance that sympathetic same-faith lords in the realm could join them. Like an upgraded version of CK2's religious revolts, working like small but dangerous wars.
This! It is such an excellent opportunity to make the game more engaging. I'm actually quite shocked they didn't go this route.
- 1
Here's what I really wish they had / would add:
- Allow factions to have outside allies - especially nationalist and religious factions. If I'm the Tengri King of Bulgaria, and Orthodox rebels are rising up against me, it might make sense for them to call in the Basileus.
- Program factions to save up and treat the rebellion like the all-or-nothing event it usually is, and e.g. not quit until all their gold has been spent on mercs
- If MaA play like retinues did (and the math works out that top level lieges can virtually always outnumber their angry vassals with skirmish troops) give commanders who join factions a chance to lead your MaA in rebellion
It would be absolutely infuriating if you're the target, and thus probably won't get in for gameplay reasons, but it would be fascinating to see a successful rebel faction go directly to being the vassal of a (King-tier or above?) ruler rather than an independent ruler in exchange for backing, yeah. (Peasant leader: "If you help us liberate the Orthodox duchy of So-and-so from the heathen Tatars, we'll gladly become your vassal, mighty Basileus.")
At the very least there should be some way for you to support the rebels. If you outright join, that should mean that others should be able to join in as well on both sides.
Currently, is the reason that you cannot ignore the hook because it is not something that can be coded properly for the AI to do when interacting with a human player who has a hook on them?
It appears that a lot of things that you as a development team are trying to implement accentuate and double down on role playing elements. I think it would be a good fit for this reason that players (and the AI) have a choice to ignore a hook at the consequence of a severe opinion penalty. Perhaps for some characters (ones who are cynical) and are in the faction, those people would have a lesser penalty towards someone ignoring the hook.
- 1
Unless there's some other common way to gain independence, that faction is far too restricted. Historically, times of crisis routinely gave effective independence to most vassals, and even strong empires often had vassals on their fringes seize independence.
Some sort of "vassal disobedience" mechanic where, if the time is right, vassals can cease granting their liege anything, putting the onus on the liege to bring them back into the fold would be historically accurate and counter blobbing.
Some sort of "vassal disobedience" mechanic where, if the time is right, vassals can cease granting their liege anything, putting the onus on the liege to bring them back into the fold would be historically accurate and counter blobbing.
I think you'd need a realm stability and realm collapse system for that to work. As well as maybe something where a fringe lord can get free independence while there's something seriously distracting going on but can be reconquered without being very annoying to the player.
STOP! COOKIE TIME