Converting holdings

[Patriarch of Bub]

Hi,
So the user Prometheus_1 suggested being able to change holding type, in the dev diary for this week (about wonders), so i open a separate thread for people to see it better.

Basically, unless you do your conquests pretty early game, you might find your current counties built up with the Ai choice of structures, and if you cannot burn it to the ground, you have to accept it.


How about adding in this new Wonderful patch, the ability to convert holdings to another one of the 3 types?

How does this sound:
+ a price of 400 goldies
+ no holding negative modifiers, such as "recently conquered".
+ same culture group as county, or same religion (not group)
+ must directly own the barony in question.
+ the rule of at least 1 holding of each type per county, IS respected.
+some improvements are convertable, (castle town - - > temple town/market).
+some improvements are lost as further immediate penalty for changing the town administration (universities, monastery schools, cultural training grounds).

Suggestions and/or support?

 

[DPS]

IMO, if the devs were to even consider something like this, 400 gold is WAY to cheap. I would suggest instead of converting a holding, you'd have to destroy the old holding at a LARGE cost, then build the new holding normally.

So, something like this:

To destroy any holding costs 1000 gold upfront. In addition, if the holding is a castle or tribe, you lose 1000 prestige; if it's a temple, you lose 1000 piety; if it's a city, you lose an additional 1000 gold. After paying the price, it takes 2 years for the holding to be destroyed. During that time, the garrison and levy of holding drop to 0.

Upon payment of the 1000 gold, you suffer a penalty to your relations with your vassal and courtiers, as follows: if destroying a castle, -50 to all feudal vassals for 50 years; if destroying a tribe, -80 to all tribal vassals for 50 years; if destroying a city, -50 to all republic vassals for 50 year; if destroying a temple, -100 to all religious title holders (including the leaders of holy orders and unlanded heads of religion) of your own faith for 100 years; half the size (but not the duration) for heretics of your own faith and apply no penalty for relations with rulers of other faiths. In addition, if the county in which the temple is located is a holy site of a faith, rulers of that faith get a CB on you for 10 years (not sure what the effect of the CB should be if you lose the war--gotta think about that one). Half the size (but not duration) of the penalty if your primary title is of the type of the destroyed holding.

If you lose direct ownership of the holding before the 2-year period is up it isn't destroyed, but you don't get the cost back and keep the relationship hit.

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

But it costs much less than a 1000 goldies to build a holding! Granted it doesn't have to be 400, but i think the penalties you would place, are very very steep.

Plus i don't think razing a holding to the ground would be the best solution in any case.
It's a repurposing a holding it, which is why i suggested some money and direct ownership.

Sure a castle was built in that county, however invasions stopped, so the castle land was sold to a monastery which now makes it a bishopric.

This once frontier castle is now firmly secured in the kingdom? Invest in civic structures, and let population and buildings beyond the safety of the walls, turning it into a city.

I quite frankly don't see why feudal vassals would hate you for 50 years by changing a castle to a city. It was your property to begin with.

If you change a church to a city, you are not razing a holy temple to the ground, you are just changing how the place is run. A hit to piety? Sure. Maybe you could get a letter from the Pope asking you to let the clergy rule, but that should be it.


For changing a city, I'd suggest a county city tax penalty and a slight provincial revolt.

For changing a temple, a hit to piety, religious head disapproves and might ask you something.

You already have the big penalty of losing the holding specific buildings.

 

[Tryvenyal]

I´m totally against it and would never use any such features myself for better optimization...

.. but as the game is built, some cultures and/or governments have the ability to do this and benefit greatly from it. while others have not. As much as I don't like this feature, even more I dislike limits.

that ended up in an "agree" I did not expect when I started to write

 

[Lolofik]

IMO, if the devs were to even consider something like this, 400 gold is WAY to cheap. I would suggest instead of converting a holding, you'd have to destroy the old holding at a LARGE cost, then build the new holding normally.

So, something like this:

To destroy any holding costs 1000 gold upfront. In addition, if the holding is a castle or tribe, you lose 1000 prestige; if it's a temple, you lose 1000 piety; if it's a city, you lose an additional 1000 gold. After paying the price, it takes 2 years for the holding to be destroyed. During that time, the garrison and levy of holding drop to 0.

Upon payment of the 1000 gold, you suffer a penalty to your relations with your vassal and courtiers, as follows: if destroying a castle, -50 to all feudal vassals for 50 years; if destroying a tribe, -80 to all tribal vassals for 50 years; if destroying a city, -50 to all republic vassals for 50 year; if destroying a temple, -100 to all religious title holders (including the leaders of holy orders and unlanded heads of religion) of your own faith for 100 years; half the size (but not the duration) for heretics of your own faith and apply no penalty for relations with rulers of other faiths. In addition, if the county in which the temple is located is a holy site of a faith, rulers of that faith get a CB on you for 10 years (not sure what the effect of the CB should be if you lose the war--gotta think about that one). Half the size (but not duration) of the penalty if your primary title is of the type of the destroyed holding.

If you lose direct ownership of the holding before the 2-year period is up it isn't destroyed, but you don't get the cost back and keep the relationship hit.

Might aswell slap the good ol' "Game over" while you're at it.

 

[Lolofik]

But it costs much less than a 1000 goldies to build a holding! Granted it doesn't have to be 400, but i think the penalties you would place, are very very steep.

Plus i don't think razing a holding to the ground would be the best solution in any case.
It's a repurposing a holding it, which is why i suggested some money and direct ownership.

Sure a castle was built in that county, however invasions stopped, so the castle land was sold to a monastery which now makes it a bishopric.

This once frontier castle is now firmly secured in the kingdom? Invest in civic structures, and let population and buildings beyond the safety of the walls, turning it into a city.

I quite frankly don't see why feudal vassals would hate you for 50 years by changing a castle to a city. It was your property to begin with.

If you change a church to a city, you are not razing a holy temple to the ground, you are just changing how the place is run. A hit to piety? Sure. Maybe you could get a letter from the Pope asking you to let the clergy rule, but that should be it.


For changing a city, I'd suggest a county city tax penalty and a slight provincial revolt.

For changing a temple, a hit to piety, religious head disapproves and might ask you something.

You already have the big penalty of losing the holding specific buildings.

I agree with most of what you have said. I would add a opinion malus for theocracies in your realm for repurposing of bisophrics though. While I agree your feudal lords wouldn't care about you converting your castles, I don't think the local clergyman would be too fond of making their peaceful churches into castles. The provincial revolt risk is definetly the right one to add in terms of converting cities.

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

Might aswell slap the good ol' "Game over" while you're at it.

You made me laugh really loud, i woke someone up
Thanks though, i needed a laugh like this for a long time

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

I´m totally against it and would never use any such features myself for better optimization...

.. but as the game is built, some cultures and/or governments have the ability to do this and benefit greatly from it. while others have not. As much as I don't like this feature, even more I dislike limits.

that ended up in an "agree" I did not expect when I started to write

Well...let's say you want to build tall. You decide not to map paint and maybe limit yourself to 1 maybe 2 kingdoms.
Holding limits are a consequence of your decision, but repurposing holdings could really help that kind of gamestyle.

That said, it would be an extremely secondary option, hardly game changing, especially if limited to the player.

Now that we'll get wonders, building your ideal capital will have much more of a weight fir me.