I don't see why not. The only issue is how exploitable or effective the mechanics work in the hands of human players.Was it ever answered whether playing vassals will get more features and mechanics too, and not only the overlords?
I'm guesing late is late feudal, we should really have early feudal too.lol so are people still going to call this a solely "feudal" simulator now that we have both non feudal government types as well as non feudal administrative types?
I don't see why not. The only issue is how exploitable or effective the mechanics work in the hands of human players.
Not really sure what you want from parliaments in CK2. All of your vassals already get a vote when you try to change laws around taxes and levies.Does this mean we can get a Magna Carta like events and Parliments?
Probably council members who don't have any specific role. They could be just there so you can keep vassals happy.
"Why is Pdox punishing players? Why can't they expand vassal management? Game ruined!"
Heh.
Those were included in Charlemagne.
Actually on the contrary early in the era the coincils held more power. Look at france and the HRE at the begining of eu4, france has just went through a major restructuring (our of nessecity due to the HYW), centrlaised it's power to the monarch, becomming more absolute, while the HRE still functions in the old feudal model.I'm sorry, I can't get excited about this. More rebellions does not make this game more enjoyable. It slows down the game and distracts from the fun core of the game. I'm not even sure it makes the game more historical, as council politics generally didn't find much ground in mid eval world until around the latter part of the time covered by Crusader Kings II,
Time to back up towards expanded game play, not limiting play.