Crown Authority

[prithupaul]

Sad to see the return of crown authority as one of the more nonsensical aspects of the Crusader Kings formula.

The authority a ruler has over his vassals should be a dynamic combination of multiple factors based on the individual ruler - the military might of the ruler, his reputations and achievements, current affairs (e.g. if there is a crisis going on uniting / dividing the realm) et al. It makes no sense that it is an attribute of the realm, inherited by heirs. The traditional degree of centralization as a law can be one of the factors, but far from the main factor.

A bloody conqueror with a reputation for brutal vengeance but generous loyalty should assume greater authority over his vassals overriding whatever the laws may say. If he then falls from his horse and loses his marbles, the authority should disappear. His feeble drunkard son should also not inherit that authority, at least not all of it. This, and vice versa, has happened so many times throughout history.

Please consider improving this in the future to better reflect reality and history. Thank you.

On a positive note - individual contracts with vassals is a good move. And unless I am mistaken, crown authority can now be changed using prestige as opposed to a realm-wide vote (which was even more ridiculous). They do alleviate my issue with crown authority quite a bit. Well done on that.

 

[crusaderking]

I think the crown authority mechanic represents the efforts at state-building that many monarchs set in motion during the medieval era. It is qualitatively different from the personal control of vassals which, as you say, is dependent on a variety of the ruler's traits. Crown authority is an attempt to move away from the reliance on personal traits to an institutional control of vassals. In other words, the goal is to reduce any possibility for autonomous action by vassal lords by reducing their powers and privileges.

That said, I do think that raising crown authority seems a bit too easy in CK3, since all it takes is some prestige, and it can be made a bit more challenging. Since there are five levels of feudal taxes and levies available in feudal contracts, the minimum conditions of moving from No Crown Authority to Low Crown Authority could be that all vassals must have contracts enforcing at minimum Normal Feudal Taxes and Normal Feudal Levies for at least five years. This is proof that the crown is sufficiently powerful to prevent vassals from skimping on taxes and levies to their liege lord. Similarly, for Medium Crown Authority, vassals should be paying at minimum High Feudal Taxes and High Feudal Levies for at least five years. And so on. You can add in the different privileges as conditions as well, so that to go to Medium Crown Authority, no vassal must have coinage rights.

The problem with such a change in the mechanic is that it creates a trade-off between expansion and crown authority, so that the addition of a new duchy may violate the minimum conditions required for a certain level of crown authority, which should ideally piss off the other vassals, forcing the ruler to reduce crown authority, and so on. This might make gameplay less fun. A potential solution to that is to tie up crown authority to de jure kingdoms, so that the King of England can have Absolute Crown Authority in the Kingdom of England, but his conquests in France lead to a low Crown Authority in the de jure territory of the Kingdom of France, especially if the King of France exists as the de jure (but not de facto) liege. (This is unless the King of England decides to incorporate, say, the Duchy of Normandy as a de jure duchy in the Kingdom of England, which is bound to cause the problems in crown authority if there is no parity in feudal contracts).

 

[Xenrek]

I think the crown authority mechanic represents the efforts at state-building that many monarchs set in motion during the medieval era. It is qualitatively different from the personal control of vassals which, as you say, is dependent on a variety of the ruler's traits. Crown authority is an attempt to move away from the reliance on personal traits to an institutional control of vassals. In other words, the goal is to reduce any possibility for autonomous action by vassal lords by reducing their powers and privileges.

That said, I do think that raising crown authority seems a bit too easy in CK3, since all it takes is some prestige, and it can be made a bit more challenging. Since there are five levels of feudal taxes and levies available in feudal contracts, the minimum conditions of moving from No Crown Authority to Low Crown Authority could be that all vassals must have contracts enforcing at minimum Normal Feudal Taxes and Normal Feudal Levies for at least five years. This is proof that the crown is sufficiently powerful to prevent vassals from skimping on taxes and levies to their liege lord. Similarly, for Medium Crown Authority, vassals should be paying at minimum High Feudal Taxes and High Feudal Levies for at least five years. And so on. You can add in the different privileges as conditions as well, so that to go to Medium Crown Authority, no vassal must have coinage rights.

The problem with such a change in the mechanic is that it creates a trade-off between expansion and crown authority, so that the addition of a new duchy may violate the minimum conditions required for a certain level of crown authority, which should ideally piss off the other vassals, forcing the ruler to reduce crown authority, and so on. This might make gameplay less fun. A potential solution to that is to tie up crown authority to de jure kingdoms, so that the King of England can have Absolute Crown Authority in the Kingdom of England, but his conquests in France lead to a low Crown Authority in the de jure territory of the Kingdom of France, especially if the King of France exists as the de jure (but not de facto) liege. (This is unless the King of England decides to incorporate, say, the Duchy of Normandy as a de jure duchy in the Kingdom of England, which is bound to cause the problems in crown authority if there is no parity in feudal contracts).

personally, IMO; lower the prestige cost of each stage of authority, but separate it into different authorities to progress down

so an authority over inheritance restrictions, a different one for war, etc; give developing realms some additional flavor and variety. Cause based on religion/culture/geopolitical position, you might want a lot of control over your proto-state in most regards, but continuing to allow your vassals to war against eachother and their neighbors might still be beneficial to you (either due to powerful vassals expanding your lands and religions; or not as powerful vassals goign to war, weakening neighbors, and killing off the older and more established nobility in favor of less-established heirs).

 

[prithupaul]

I think the crown authority mechanic represents the efforts at state-building that many monarchs set in motion during the medieval era. It is qualitatively different from the personal control of vassals which, as you say, is dependent on a variety of the ruler's traits. Crown authority is an attempt to move away from the reliance on personal traits to an institutional control of vassals. In other words, the goal is to reduce any possibility for autonomous action by vassal lords by reducing their powers and privileges.

That said, I do think that raising crown authority seems a bit too easy in CK3, since all it takes is some prestige, and it can be made a bit more challenging. Since there are five levels of feudal taxes and levies available in feudal contracts, the minimum conditions of moving from No Crown Authority to Low Crown Authority could be that all vassals must have contracts enforcing at minimum Normal Feudal Taxes and Normal Feudal Levies for at least five years. This is proof that the crown is sufficiently powerful to prevent vassals from skimping on taxes and levies to their liege lord. Similarly, for Medium Crown Authority, vassals should be paying at minimum High Feudal Taxes and High Feudal Levies for at least five years. And so on. You can add in the different privileges as conditions as well, so that to go to Medium Crown Authority, no vassal must have coinage rights.

The problem with such a change in the mechanic is that it creates a trade-off between expansion and crown authority, so that the addition of a new duchy may violate the minimum conditions required for a certain level of crown authority, which should ideally piss off the other vassals, forcing the ruler to reduce crown authority, and so on. This might make gameplay less fun. A potential solution to that is to tie up crown authority to de jure kingdoms, so that the King of England can have Absolute Crown Authority in the Kingdom of England, but his conquests in France lead to a low Crown Authority in the de jure territory of the Kingdom of France, especially if the King of France exists as the de jure (but not de facto) liege. (This is unless the King of England decides to incorporate, say, the Duchy of Normandy as a de jure duchy in the Kingdom of England, which is bound to cause the problems in crown authority if there is no parity in feudal contracts).

Institutional control like that is fundamentally opposed to a feudal setting. No law would prevent a powerful vassal from going to war against another if the king is weak, or from withholding troops or funds from the king if it is not in his personal interest. Neither would a fearsome newly crowned conqueror need to wait 40 years to incrementally improve a law before he can stamp out infighting. Look at Henry II or Edward Longshanks - they wielded absolute authority, but their children squandered it away quickly.

It works for other forms of governments in the game, e.g. the Byzantine Empire for instance. But it is completely out of place in a feudal government.

I support the general idea of rulers attempting to increase centralization throughout generations as it was in history, but it would not possibly influence "liege levies" or taxes as those can only be enforced at an individual level. It should be inspired by history - gradual weakening of ancestral rights of vassals (e,g, reduced penalties for revoking titles, or for holding land in a vassal's domain), royal standing armies gradually becoming larger and feudal armies becoming smaller, etc. Look at, sticking to the theme of English monarchies, House of Tudor.

 

[Xenrek]

Institutional control like that is fundamentally opposed to a feudal setting. No law would prevent a powerful vassal from going to war against another if the king is weak, or from withholding troops or funds from the king if it is not in his personal interest. Neither would a fearsome newly crowned conqueror need to wait 40 years to incrementally improve a law before he can stamp out infighting. Look at Henry II or Edward Longshanks - they wielded absolute authority, but their children squandered it away quickly.

It works for other forms of governments in the game, e.g. the Byzantine Empire for instance. But it is completely out of place in a feudal government.

I support the general idea of rulers attempting to increase centralization throughout generations as it was in history, but it would not possibly influence "liege levies" or taxes as those can only be enforced at an individual level. It should be inspired by history - gradual weakening of ancestral rights of vassals (e,g, reduced penalties for revoking titles, or for holding land in a vassal's domain), royal standing armies gradually becoming larger and feudal armies becoming smaller, etc. Look at, sticking to the theme of English monarchies, House of Tudor.

and a weak king *wouldnt* hold onto it; vassals would see he is weak, and demand the king back down from his expectations. then the king either aquiesces, or mans up and beats the vassals down.

 

[prithupaul]

and a weak king *wouldnt* hold onto it; vassals would see he is weak, and demand the king back down from his expectations. then the king either aquiesces, or mans up and beats the vassals down.

Well... exactly my point. Crown authority as a law is utterly meaningless in a feudal setting.

In any case... it seems like a lost cause, looking at the response here and the other threads in the forum. This community's only primary concern is some arbitrary notion of "fun" and "balance" which can be highly subjective, as opposed to realism or historicity as it used to be,

Perhaps from a gamification perspective mechanics like this make sense, much like farming and "producing" knights in the middle of a battle in Age of Empires.

 

[wolfgag]

It was changed in CK2 eventually, and I think that was something of a positive change.

Maybe this is just the initial "good-enough" system they went for that they know works and they knew they could balance in time for release. The more realistic and more logical system would be based on a multitude of factors adding up to the specific legal framework of a given kingdom, with some having more authority in some areas, and in others less. But I suppose it would be a nightmare to balance before release. Total speculation, but I think that's why it's not developed to an "ideal state" from the get go.

Meanwhile I would like to see what they could do to make it more "dynamic" so to speak. I would like to see crown laws being able to be violated somehow. It may be technically illegal for vassals to go to war but if vassals perceive the king as weak or favourable to their cause why shouldn't they try it anyway? The king could get an imprisonment reason and try to prosecute the outlaw noble, and failing would result in a revolt to overthrow the king or achieve independence. That could function as a way to break up blobs. The king could get a CB to re-vassalise.

Who knows what the future might bring? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Xenrek]

well, at the end of the day; the game runs on "gamification" mechanics not just because "le obviously not as cultured as *I* players" think its fun; but because gamey mechanics are easy to code for. And as we all know, late in CK2, the AI had a tendency to drown itself anytime it got involved in more complex mechanics.

so while i would *like* a "super realistic and historically accurate feudal legal system", I want a game that the AI can actually play, more.

 

[wolfgag]

Yeah, simplicity is good for the AI. Having a straightforward linear progression helps. I wonder if you could have the AI check the number of laws instead? You have a variety of laws which if passed go into a simple numerical value that determines AI behaviour. Fewer rules = happy; more rules = unhappy. The advantage to that is you can choose which specific things to go for first, like getting better succession laws earlier. You could put weights on the laws so some count for more. Could be worth thinking about.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Yeah, simplicity is good for the AI. Having a straightforward linear progression helps. I wonder if you could have the AI check the number of laws instead? You have a variety of laws which if passed go into a simple numerical value that determines AI behaviour. Fewer rules = happy; more rules = unhappy. The advantage to that is you can choose which specific things to go for first, like getting better succession laws earlier. You could put weights on the laws so some count for more. Could be worth thinking about.

One issue is that some rules are positive under some circumstances, and negative under others.
It might even be positive to have more rules in some cases.

If you make primogeniture the only legal succession for vassals in the kingdom this *might* be considered a positive thing that makes vassal rulers happy.
Similarly if your rules were to make it legal for vassals to revoke titles from disloyal or heretic vassals of theirs.

 

[wolfgag]

I don't know why but I find it amusing the idea of balancing all the laws vassals hate against the laws they love and seeing in the opinion tooltip:

Laws they like: +12
Laws they hate: -13

It seems wrong somehow lol. If it works I'm good with it.

 

[Battlex]

and a weak king *wouldnt* hold onto it; vassals would see he is weak, and demand the king back down from his expectations. then the king either aquiesces, or mans up and beats the vassals down.

You kinda get it, but not really, with how high crown authority lowers vassal opinion, and so might have to lower it to prevent a mass rebellion

personally, IMO; lower the prestige cost of each stage of authority, but separate it into different authorities to progress down

so an authority over inheritance restrictions, a different one for war, etc; give developing realms some additional flavor and variety. Cause based on religion/culture/geopolitical position, you might want a lot of control over your proto-state in most regards, but continuing to allow your vassals to war against eachother and their neighbors might still be beneficial to you (either due to powerful vassals expanding your lands and religions; or not as powerful vassals goign to war, weakening neighbors, and killing off the older and more established nobility in favor of less-established heirs).

Crown authority in ck3 is like it was in vanilla ck2 no? With your proposal being merely how it works in conclave

 

[Tuo]

and a weak king *wouldnt* hold onto it; vassals would see he is weak, and demand the king back down from his expectations. then the king either aquiesces, or mans up and beats the vassals down.

This - as is, crown authority must be enforced in the game, either by dealing with any who would question it by diplomacy or intrigue (got strong hooks on all your vassals? Of course they're not going to act against the authority you claim), or by denying their demands and beating them down in a civil war (as in effect, you respond to the demands by ordering the imprisonment of the ringleader, who in return raises in rebellion against you). Similarly, if you claim a level of authority, that comes with the expectation that you'll enforce it if breached - so, a vassal going directly against it would be in effect declaring a war for independence against the liege.