Claimable duchy & kingdom setups for CK 1.05

[tommassi]

If we are nitpicking I think you cannot find a single name for any of the kingdoms that isn't slightly funny, weird etc. Byz? France? Germany? The Sicily controversy, finland?, not to mention the Rus, bolgar, etc.

The thing is that the kingdoms of France, Germany, Aragon, Castilla, León... existed and continued to do so for some centuries... As for kingdom of Andalucia, Regnum Vandalorum, Vandalusia... well, they simply didn't ever exist. That's why they're funny.

 

[Quift]

So you would prefer the area to be none?

 

[tommassi]

So you would prefer the area to be none?

As I've said a few times already, I'd rather have them exactly as they are: part of Castilla and León (two separate kingdoms, I mean, I'm not with Lucius about making León non recreatable).

 

[Quift]

As I've said a few times already, I'd rather have them exactly as they are: part of Castilla and León (two separate kingdoms, I mean, I'm not with Lucius about making León non recreatable).

And whar arguments can you give that won't result in byz losing hmore than half of anatolia to Rüm?

 

[Lucius Sulla]

You have understood that they will be as much kings as navarre? Just that the recreatable title is Castilia-Leon. They will both start as kings of Castilia, and on the other hand, Leon. Well, since no title needs to make sense in 1066. The question is what would a christian who conquered that area proclaim himself? Duke of XX,NN, YY; and BB, or king of Andalusia/granada? Since there seems to be a factual basis for Granada, why can't we go with it? It would exaclty be the first historical atrocity in this thread so...

Ah, sorry, I definitively did not understand you. I actually understood that they would start as dukes, not as non recreatable tittles.

As such, I would find the game balance part solutioned and valid, but then it would be a bit redundant to have around the non-recreateable tittles of Leon and Castilla AND have a claimable tittle of Castille&Leon. If them starting as kings would not be an issue, why not having Castille as the only recreatable one and Leon as the non recreatable one?

Anyway, I must say that while I could agree to this last agreement, there is not an uninamous oppinion in this matter as with the Aragon/1066 issue.

 

[tommassi]

And whar arguments can you give that won't result in byz losing hmore than half of anatolia to Rüm?

I'm completely lost now... what has Byz and Rüm to do with Castilla and South Iberia? I now close to nothing about Byz and Rüm... so I limit myself to Iberia

 

[Quift]

I'm completely lost now... what has Byz and Rüm to do with Castilla and South Iberia? I now close to nothing about Byz and Rüm... so I limit myself to Iberia

You give Leon AND Castilia cores on land they didn't own during the timeframe, and most of their cores they are in no way clear to be theirs at gamestart. Thus you motivate your claims with the fact that they in fact DID conquer alot, so Castille is given cores on the other side of the peninsula despite being about 6 provs away from it. And with that argument byz in entity should have ottomans written all over it.

and since we cannot have 5 kingdoms in iberia my proposal was to merge castilia-leon (which tends to happen anyway) into the sole recreatable kingdom, give the reigning "kings" "beefed" duke titles as with navarre, and proportion the assigned lands so that the real kingtitle can be created immidiatly after reunion. since some surplus is possible (the 66% rule), they will have cores on all their southern provinces which makes for a logical expansion southwards. Also i means that any other christian who has carved out a realm there will autopledge when Castilia-Leon is united, shows some muscle. Castilia-Leon would then be the biggest of the iberian kingdoms, placed well in the centre, north. And framed by portugal, granada, and aragon.

Since the south cannot all be Castilia-Leon if we want it to be creatable with the starting CL lands, we have room for a southern kingdom. Granada makes more sense than any other, aslong as it doesn't use any of the moslem's tags.

 

[Duuk]

I am very much opposed to making Castille or Aragon or Leon upped-dukes.

If you give the Duke of Catalonia a claim on King of Aragon, he won't pledge to Aragon.

I am not opposed to making Leon non-recreatble, but if we do that Castille becomes a monster and I would definitely want Andalusia set up to reduce Castille's province count.

If Andalusia is out, then I oppose ANY changes to the Kingdom setup (number, creatableness, etc) from the default, and I support the borders included in Byak's map in the 1st post.

 

[Quift]

Ah, sorry, I definitively did not understand you. I actually understood that they would start as dukes, not as non recreatable tittles.

As such, I would find the game balance part solutioned and valid, but then it would be a bit redundant to have around the non-recreateable tittles of Leon and Castilla AND have a claimable tittle of Castille&Leon. If them starting as kings would not be an issue, why not having Castille as the only recreatable one and Leon as the non recreatable one?

Anyway, I must say that while I could agree to this last agreement, there is not an uninamous oppinion in this matter as with the Aragon/1066 issue.

I said "upped" dukes. ie as navarre. but since "upped" dukes pledge fealty to their natural liege you would have a situation of king of leon being a vassal of Castilia-Leon. Doesn't seem to extraordinaire to me. And I prefered to have Castilia-Leòn as the recreatable one instead of just leon since I figured people would be less reluctant to this. (since I propose in fact to merger them).

 

[Quift]

I am very much opposed to making Castille or Aragon or Leon upped-dukes.

If you give the Duke of Catalonia a claim on King of Aragon, he won't pledge to Aragon.

I am not opposed to making Leon non-recreatble, but if we do that Castille becomes a monster and I would definitely want Andalusia set up to reduce Castille's province count.

If Andalusia is out, then I oppose ANY changes to the Kingdom setup (number, creatableness, etc) from the default, and I support the borders included in Byak's map in the 1st post.

Nope, if he has a claim he will overflow that puny one province peasant and proclaim himself king instead. Not really the desired result either. Aragon is one province at start. To give him claims all over the eastern half of the peninsula is a bit of a stretch. But Aragon should be sized to be creatable with the combined aragon and catalonia.

And the southern kingdom would give castille less ahistorical provinces and instead give them more sway in the neighbourhood (in leon)

 

[tommassi]

You give Leon AND Castilia cores on land they didn't own during the timeframe, and most of their cores they are in no way clear to be theirs at gamestart. Thus you motivate your claims with the fact that they in fact DID conquer alot, so Castille is given cores on the other side of the peninsula despite being about 6 provs away from it. And with that argument byz in entity should have ottomans written all over it.

Once more... (I'm getting tired of repeating this so many times): Those claims were recognised by 1154 thru a treaty signed by Castilla and Aragón in which thet decided which areas of Southern Spain were going to be conquered by each of both kingdoms. So the claims are perfectly fine with all the scenarios but the 1066... and even for 1066 we can find some justification (do I have to repeat yet again all the visigothian thing?)

I'm not justifying claims by right of conquer. But because they DID HAVE those claims by 1066 and, by that date or little later, most of the taifas were already paying tribute to Castilla.

 

[Quift]

Once more... (I'm getting tired of repeating this so many times): Those claims were recognised by 1154 thru a treaty signed by Castilla and Aragón in which thet decided which areas of Southern Spain were going to be conquered by each of both kingdoms. So the claims are perfectly fine with all the scenarios but the 1066... and even for 1066 we can find some justification (do I have to repeat yet again all the visigothian thing?)

I'm not justifying claims by right of conquer. But because they DID HAVE those claims by 1066 and, by that date or little later, most of the taifas were already paying tribute to Castilla.

And this couldn't just be sorted out by giving them the Castilia-Leon kingship in the alter scenarios, with claims in the south? And if Castille is to have cores on the entire iberia (a bit predestined for me but okay), then they should not start with that title. It's an unbalanced title for the to start with and all the compromises in the kingdom situation make iberia look pinstriped. Which is weird. a northern/central blob is more logical (and reflects history better).

 

[tommassi]

And this couldn't just be sorted out by giving them the Castilia-Leon kingship in the alter scenarios, with claims in the south? And if Castille is to have cores on the entire iberia (a bit predestined for me but okay), then they should not start with that title. It's an unbalanced title for the to start with and all the compromises in the kingdom situation make iberia look pinstriped. Which is weird. a northern/central blob is more logical (and reflects history better).

How making a single kingdom out of Castilla and León reflects history better, when they were two separate kingdoms for all the period, even if they had the same king?

PD.- On a side note, a poster in the Spanish forum rightly claims that the Duchy of Asturias should be a vassal of the King of León. And he's absolutely right. Since the two provinces of the duchy are already split up between Castilla and Leon, I don't see that much of a problem there.

 

[Lucius Sulla]

I am very much opposed to making Castille or Aragon or Leon upped-dukes.

If you give the Duke of Catalonia a claim on King of Aragon, he won't pledge to Aragon.

I am not opposed to making Leon non-recreatble, but if we do that Castille becomes a monster and I would definitely want Andalusia set up to reduce Castille's province count.

If Andalusia is out, then I oppose ANY changes to the Kingdom setup (number, creatableness, etc) from the default, and I support the borders included in Byak's map in the 1st post.

Now it would not be duke of Catalonia, but duke of Barcelona. Apart from that... why not? I mean... what's the difference gameplay wise of having a 1 province kingdom to a 1 province duchy? It's equally puny and far more exploitable by a human, and it produces the Barcelona duchy allegiance trouble.

Simply changing ARAG to duchy in the 1066 scenario would give us a solution for a known ahistorical issue, while not harming game balance in the scenario at all (actually helping it since I thought 1 province kingdoms were not desired).

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

How making a single kingdom out of Castilla and León reflects history better, when they were two separate kingdoms for all the period, even if they had the same king?

Good point here, since if we would apply that rule then the kingdom of Croatia and Hungary could also be made one kingdom, since the king of Croatia was also king of Hungary, or vice-versa of course.

 

[Quift]

How making a single kingdom out of Castilla and León reflects history better, when they were two separate kingdoms for all the period, even if they had the same king?

Then one could argue about the meaning of separate..

 

[Lucius Sulla]

I said "upped" dukes. ie as navarre. but since "upped" dukes pledge fealty to their natural liege you would have a situation of king of leon being a vassal of Castilia-Leon. Doesn't seem to extraordinaire to me. And I prefered to have Castilia-Leòn as the recreatable one instead of just leon since I figured people would be less reluctant to this. (since I propose in fact to merger them).

I think it's too much of a mess to be worth of it, to be frank.

 

[tommassi]

Then one could argue about the meaning of separate..

Then, what the heck, let's take Burgundy out of the game.

 

[Quift]

Then, what the heck, let's take Burgundy out of the game.

Kingdom or Arles was still around (and nominally independant) at the french revolution. Sorry.

Well well, history nuts always win over gamers, if only for the simple reason that those who enjoy gameplay rarely speak up, nor care that much. Give me sweden and I'll fold.

 

[tommassi]

Kingdom or Arles was still around (and nominally independant) at the french revolution. Sorry.

Exactly the same reason why I'll keep defending León to be in as a recreatable kingdom. Nominally, it existed all the way thru XIX century

About Sweden, I've nothing to say, sorry. I'm not an expert on that, so my opinion would be of little value.