Couldn't the de jure realm of Rus be named Novgorod?

[Sleight of Hand]

I might just do that myself, though I understand why they did it.

I remember Doomdark's comment on this, and he himself admitted it was an arbitrary split made for apparent balance reasons, though personally I am unaware as to what they were. Why shouldn't Rus be a huge kingdom? It certainly was historically. I also re-add Khazaria (remember that?) as an empire rather than a kingdom, encompassing all those brownish Steppe kingdoms. Much prefer that setup.

(Oh yeah, and the Russian Empire is obviously removed in such a setup...)

 

[Alerias]

I remember Doomdark's comment on this, and he himself admitted it was an arbitrary split made for apparent balance reasons, though personally I am unaware as to what they were. Why shouldn't Rus be a huge kingdom? It certainly was historically. I also re-add Khazaria (remember that?) as an empire rather than a kingdom, encompassing all those brownish Steppe kingdoms. Much prefer that setup.

(Oh yeah, and the Russian Empire is obviously removed in such a setup...)

Well you've answered your own question. The big kingdoms were all split for balance reasons to accommodate the existence of ahistorical empires. A huge Rus kingdom is too hard to form compared to others in a post-everyones-an-emperor-now setup, and removing the Russian empire without removing the other nonesensical ones would leave the Rus underpowered. In fact, uniting these two kingdoms means one less king-level title for the Rus emperor, which does impact balance.

This also plays a role in terms of balancing gameplay for Emperors who decide to hand out most king-level titles to vassals rather than hoard them. Thats a strategic equation with many variables, and reducing the size of the average kingdom and making sure most were roughly the same size was an important aspect of this balance effort. There's no way anyone would hand out a kingdom the size of former Rus if they held it, its just too big, and Paradox wanted to make sure that this was a viable, if not the preferred, way to play at the imperial tier. Thats why all the France and Rus and Cumania-sized kingdoms had to go. They've also said that gameplay considerations came first, and this was a good example.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

Well you've answered your own question. The big kingdoms were all split for balance reasons to accommodate the existence of ahistorical empires. A huge Rus kingdom is too hard to form compared to others in a post-everyones-an-emperor-now setup, and removing the Russian empire without removing the other nonesensical ones would leave the Rus underpowered. In fact, uniting these two kingdoms means one less king-level title for the Rus emperor, which does impact balance.

This also plays a role in terms of balancing gameplay for Emperors who decide to hand out most king-level titles to vassals rather than hoard them. Thats a strategic equation with many variables, and reducing the size of the average kingdom and making sure most were roughly the same size was an important aspect of this balance effort. There's no way anyone would hand out a kingdom the size of former Rus if they held it, its just too big, and Paradox wanted to make sure that this was a viable, if not the preferred, way to play at the imperial tier. Thats why all the France and Rus and Cumania-sized kingdoms had to go. They've also said that gameplay considerations came first, and this was a good example.

IMHO it's bad for gameplay if you remove the challenge of becoming a king. After all that used to be the most fun part of the game, but now there's no challenge, because kingdoms are so small that creating and usurping king titles is way too easy. I don't even like those fantasy empires much (IMO only imperial titles worth something are Byzantine and Holy Roman), but now that I know they are the reason why kingdom set up was messed up I like those even less.

 

[Alerias]

IMHO it's bad for gameplay if you remove the challenge of becoming a king. After all that used to be the most fun part of the game, but now there's no challenge, because kingdoms are so small that creating and usurping king titles is way too easy. I don't even like those fantasy empires much (IMO only imperial titles worth something are Byzantine and Holy Roman), but now that I know they are the reason why kingdom set up was messed up I like those even less.

Well now your challenge is to become an Emperor. Many people clamored for these to become widely available, and a gameplay-oriented decision was made to make Empires the new Kingdoms as a result. I'm not saying I agree, I was and am part of the old school of thought, that there should be ever only two empires on the map at most and that the most challenging goal imaginable should be to reunite them into one, but if most players disagree, well fine. That's the new reality. If anyone who conquers a large swath of land gets to call it an Empire regardless of it's relationship to Rome in 1100, then you gotta accept the game has limited basis in reality and move on, for better or worse.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

Well now your challenge is to become an Emperor. Many people clamored for these to become widely available, and a gameplay-oriented decision was made to make Empires the new Kingdoms as a result. I'm not saying I agree, I was and am part of the old school of thought, that there should be ever only two empires on the map at most and that the most challenging goal imaginable should be to reunite them into one, but if most players disagree, well fine. That's the new reality. If anyone who conquers a large swath of land gets to call it an Empire regardless of it's relationship to Rome in 1100, then you gotta accept the game has limited basis in reality and move on, for better or worse.

But what if I don't want to become an emperor? Why should kingdom set up be messed because of that? Let them have their empires, but let us allow to keep our large kingdoms and no ones gameplay or balance would be messed up, I even assume that revolting large kingdom would spice up the imperial game. Current set up makes Russia unplayable mess which needs urgent fixing, because it's so badly broken.

 

[Alerias]

But what if I don't want to become an emperor? Why should kingdom set up be messed because of that? Let them have their empires, but let us allow to keep our large kingdoms and no ones gameplay or balance would be messed up, I even assume that revolting large kingdom would spice up the imperial game. Current set up makes Russia unplayable mess which needs urgent fixing, because it's so badly broken.

Ehh, no. As much as I liked the old setup better, I can see that they cant really coexist. By multiplying empires, kingdoms had to become something close to "supesized duchies" for gameplay reasons.

As a result, I accepted I'd end up Emperor every game and that being a King was a lame transient state. While I'll admit its not how Id have done things, trying to strike a middle ground would likely make things worse. If I go with the premise that I'll end up Emperor every time (Which has been true since that patch), then its fairly critical that Tier4 gameplay be fun no matter what, and then you need Kingdoms to be more or less in line with each other, the way Dukedoms are. These kinds of decisions have consequences...

 

[Kalderus]

IMHO it's bad for gameplay if you remove the challenge of becoming a king. After all that used to be the most fun part of the game, but now there's no challenge, because kingdoms are so small that creating and usurping king titles is way too easy. I don't even like those fantasy empires much (IMO only imperial titles worth something are Byzantine and Holy Roman), but now that I know they are the reason why kingdom set up was messed up I like those even less.

Yeah, I think Persia might just predate these two by, oh say, just a few millenia or so (The translation of emperor as king of kings is literally derived from Shah an shah).

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Yeah, I think Persia might just predate these two by, oh say, just a few millenia or so (The translation of emperor as king of kings is literally derived from Shah an shah).

Oh man, not this again. (Though I agree entirely...)

 

[Olaus Petrus]

Ehh, no. As much as I liked the old setup better, I can see that they cant really coexist. By multiplying empires, kingdoms had to become something close to "supesized duchies" for gameplay reasons.

As a result, I accepted I'd end up Emperor every game and that being a King was a lame transient state. While I'll admit its not how Id have done things, trying to strike a middle ground would likely make things worse. If I go with the premise that I'll end up Emperor every time (Which has been true since that patch), then its fairly critical that Tier4 gameplay be fun no matter what, and then you need Kingdoms to be more or less in line with each other, the way Dukedoms are. These kinds of decisions have consequences...

I disagree 100% with this sentiment. Becoming emperor isn't the core idea of the game and it's just something extra, it shouldn't ruin the base game which is becoming and playing as king. Game is Crusader Kings not Crusader Emperors and idea of the game is to play as count, duke or king in medieval kingdom not as some fantasy empire. This issue will never be fixed if you just silently accept messed up kingdoms and crawl somewhere and die. Instead you should make sure that Paradox knows the issue and your view about it, so that they can fix the kingdom set up in the future.

 

[Melange_Thief]

And let's not forget that the Arabian Empire has a historical justification in the Umayyad Caliphate. Hate on the ahistorical empires in Europe all you like, but leave the Arabian and Persian Empires out of it.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

And let's not forget that the Arabian Empire has a historical justification in the Umayyad Caliphate. Hate on the ahistorical empires in Europe all you like, but leave the Arabian and Persian Empires out of it.

+1

 

[Alerias]

I disagree 100% with this sentiment. Becoming emperor isn't the core idea of the game and it's just something extra, it shouldn't ruin the base game which is becoming and playing as king. Game is Crusader Kings not Crusader Emperors and idea of the game is to play as count, duke or king in medieval kingdom not as some fantasy empire. This issue will never be fixed if you just silently accept messed up kingdoms and crawl somewhere and die. Instead you should make sure that Paradox knows the issue and your view about it, so that they can fix the kingdom set up in the future.

Eh, welcome to six months ago. Its a given that the scope has changed now. The minute you introduced fantasy empires, you've accepted the need to balance around fantasy empires.

Prove me wrong and I'll be extraordinarily happy to apologize I dont believe it in the slightest, tho. As far as Im concerned, the new scope of the game is what it is, and though I may complain a bit, I dont usually sight against the sea's waves. This feels like a done deal to me.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

Eh, welcome to six months ago. Its a given that the scope has changed now. The minute you introduced fantasy empires, you've accepted the need to balance around fantasy empires.

Prove me wrong and I'll be extraordinarily happy to apologize I dont believe it in the slightest, tho. As far as Im concerned, the new scope of the game is what it is, and though I may complain a bit, I dont usually sight against the sea's waves. This feels like a done deal to me.

I said my view about this issue 6 months ago and I still hold the same view. Fantasy empires were bad idea in the first place, but at least I'm trying to reach a compromise solution, which allows both sides to keep their honour intact. And let me say to you that there is no dishonour in fighting a battle and losing, but it's not particularly honourable if you don't even try and just give up like a sheep.

I didn't demand that they should remove Scandinavian or British Empire or not even that they should remove those annoying German minikingdoms, I just asked that they would fix Kievan Rus, because with current set up it's broken and after few years there are two petty kings, when the area should be battleground of superdukes.

 

[DLFebin]

As mentioned above, it would be a bit weird to allocate all that land as de jure Novgorod from 1066, when they only came to power late in the game. It's a bit deterministic.

I've never been completely happy with the Ruthenia / Rus split though - seeing 'Ruthenia' on the map every game just seems odd for some reason. But then, I also appreciate that when the area was just one large kingdom of Rus, the Russian principalities always looked a bit of a mess as it was too hard for them to consolidate.

Maybe the Russians could have a dynamic state-naming system like the Muslims do, but tied to the capital province or primary duchy instead of the ruling family. So if Kiev consolidates enough land to get the third-tier Ruthenia title, it is instead called "Kiev". Ditto in the north - if Muscovy claims the whole of Rus, it becomes Muscovy - but if Novgorod takes control, the king-level title is named Novgorod.

Would simulate the fluid power struggles between Russian princes, and for gameplay is possibly better then giving every principality a potential king title just in case.

Maybe you should post it in the Bug Forum as suggestion, because it is such awesome idea.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I think the ideas of Empires would be more acceptable to some if they were considered to be super-powerful kingdoms, rather than actual Empires. For instance, the Empire of Hispania would simply be called Kingdom of Spain instead, and even the Empire of Francia a Kingdom of France that's more powerful than the actual Kingdom of France. It might make more sense, anyways - basically to represent Kingdoms that had gotten so powerful they commanded the same level of prestige and power on the level of the actual empires, but through some silly legal voodoo could never actually become an empire per se.

 

[grommile]

kingdoms are so small that creating and usurping king titles is way too easy.

k_bohemia - which has not changed in size since 1.00, and which on day one kneels in its entirety to a single duke - is smaller than most of the new kingdoms.

 

[Alerias]

I said my view about this issue 6 months ago and I still hold the same view. Fantasy empires were bad idea in the first place, but at least I'm trying to reach a compromise solution, which allows both sides to keep their honour intact. And let me say to you that there is no dishonour in fighting a battle and losing, but it's not particularly honourable if you don't even try and just give up like a sheep.

I didn't demand that they should remove Scandinavian or British Empire or not even that they should remove those annoying German minikingdoms, I just asked that they would fix Kievan Rus, because with current set up it's broken and after few years there are two petty kings, when the area should be battleground of superdukes.

Lmao. Okay, I'm dishonored, and proud to be. A game is a commercial product, and should be ultimately what it's likely market wants it to be, and on this, the shot has been called awhile ago. Once its a done deal, its time to move on. Adapt or move on, thats how it works.

 

[DLFebin]

I think the ideas of Empires would be more acceptable to some if they were considered to be super-powerful kingdoms, rather than actual Empires. For instance, the Empire of Hispania would simply be called Kingdom of Spain instead, and even the Empire of Francia a Kingdom of France that's more powerful than the actual Kingdom of France. It might make more sense, anyways - basically to represent Kingdoms that had gotten so powerful they commanded the same level of prestige and power on the level of the actual empires, but through some silly legal voodoo could never actually become an empire per se.

It also could be combined with Translatio Imperii for Christians, for example: if HRE ceases to exist, "Kingdom of Francia" can be named Empire, if it "inherits" the Empire status.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

Lmao. Okay, I'm dishonored, and proud to be. A game is a commercial product, and should be ultimately what it's likely market wants it to be, and on this, the shot has been called awhile ago. Once its a done deal, its time to move on. Adapt or move on, thats how it works.

If you want to laugh at me, then so be it. I won't continue this argument further, because it seems to be going to personal level. Personally I don't find it unreasonable if I ask them to fix set up in Rus, because current set up creates gameplay and balance issues. Paradox has reversed their decisions earlier, for example when they removed Kingdom of Brythonia, and I believe that I have right to make similar requests, without demands that I should adapt and accept the broken set up. But let's just agree that we disagree about this in a civilized manner.

 

[gja102]

Maybe you should post it in the Bug Forum as suggestion, because it is such awesome idea.

Maybe, though I can see some issues with trying to tie the name of the third-tier title to whichever duke created it. Would you base it on where the capital holding was? Because then you would see the Kingdom of Novgorod change to, say, Kingdom of Muscovy just because you moved capital, which might be odd. Still preferable to seeing Ruthenia every game, though.

Regarding the Empires debate - I would be interested to see how a game with no fourth-tier titles at all played (but with the larger kingdoms like Actual France and Actual Germany reinstated, maybe have the two Christian Emperors as titular only). Is there a mod that does this?