As an avid CK player, just want to put my vote/plea/beg/notice in for CK II.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Calanctus said:
Very true. Before the European Renaissance, common law marriages were still, well, common, at least in the vast rural regions of the area. Marriages were as easily annulled as both parties simply declaring it at an end before the local secular leader. It was only after the RCC began inculcating the idea of marriage as a holy covenant, and therefore requiring sanctification of the Church, that in turn annulments became nearly impossible to achieve.
Bertouch said:
Considering the focus is on nobility, annulment via the church would be necessary at any period in CK, unless one might risk unsavory problems like excommunication, since it's not about 'rural people' breaking off a common law marriage (and that's not entirely accurate either; common law marriage didn't exist in all societies in the same capacity, and was in some cultures more lax or more serious in character, but, I understand the need to be a bit broad). The option should exist in the desmense's menu.
With a more skilled diocese bishop (or an exceptionally diplomatic leader of the desmense), the chance to recieve the right to an annulment would be increased (as well as based upon other factors, like infertility, which was among a number of considerations in the annulment process). If denied, the player (or AI) should still be allowed to attempt it, though at risk of excommunication, or at least some form of lighter censure by the Church. And that wouldn't be limited to the Catholics, but also work with the Orthodox (and any other Christians for that matter, if some of the smaller churches were available). Depending on laws (I'd say culture but that'd be a bit odd, if the laws were set to something ahistorical for the culture), children of annulled marriages would either be seen as bastards or not. Though, in that same vein, it'd be nice if laws affected how bastards were treated (like being allowed to inherit under some; perhaps have it unpopular with vassals who don't allow bastards to inherit, but it was hardly universal that bastards could not).
Somairle said:
Then you should also understand by re-reading my quote that I was responding to a purely historical comment. Not one about gameplay implementation.
Bertouch said:
I'm aware, but I'm just noting for the purpose of the thread's topic, it's largely irrelevant. It was an attempt to keep on subject, and expand on an idea for the game, as it is relevant to the topic.
Fortunae Gratia said:
I don't think it would be good for the game, nor more historically plausible.
I'd rather like more diplomacy and emphasis on dynastic ties than such absolute rules.
The duke/count hierarchy has never been so rigid, and never been as important as family ties. Direct count/king vasselage should at least be kept when members of king's family are granted count titles, and when someone of the family of a duke has a county in neighboring duchy, I find very logical to see him pledge to the one his family rather than the geographic theorical liege.
In other cases, vasselage was mostly a contract, you need protection and pledge to someone able to give it. If a duke don't have a sufficient army to protect vassals and is in a bad political situation (ie : rebel against the king, excommunicated, etc) I can't see why local counts should auto-pledge to him, they should rather seek protection of another one.
I think a better system would link each county with the 3 or 4 closest duchies, and make counts pledge to the one most appropriate (taking in consideration military power, family ties, relations, traits...), if they are not direct parent of a king in which case they should tend to be direct vassals (except if the duke is of the royal family too).
I'd also like, when a king give a county to someone to let him chose the liege in this list ("I give you the county of X under the duke of Y"), with the option for the count to pledge to someone else only after a while. And when a king vassalise a count in a war to force him to pledge to one of his dukes.
It would allow players to make more coherent realms if they wish, without things being automatic.
I agree that there should be more flexible diplomatic options for the players but the option of pledging to a list of rulers is historically inaccurate. If your giving out any lands from your domain, you always where the liege to whom you gave it to.
But also most of the things you mention are already in game(I had seen a Welf on the throne of Denmark. When the Welfs of Brunswick rebelled, I let them go, and made peace. They immediately instead of pledged to Denmark)
But also most of the things you mention are already in game(I had seen a Welf on the throne of Denmark. When the Welfs of Brunswick rebelled, I let them go, and made peace. They immediately instead of pledged to Denmark)
And maybe we should also not have the 'pay for sea voyage'-thingie.
It costs allways too much money.
You can not afford effective crusading.
Kings take boats, not build them.
It costs allways too much money.
You can not afford effective crusading.
Kings take boats, not build them.
Enewald said:
No, kings had to pay for their boats (take a look at the 4th Crusade and see what Venice made the Crusaders do because they couldn't pay), just like any person. People weren't crazy back then and kings didn't have absolute powers. And currently there is so much money going around in the game and you can easily afford to go crusading. After about a 100 years the treasuries of most AI-rulers will be full and you can earn 10,000s of gold in war.
But I suspect and hope that in CK, we will have the oppurtunity to built ships and navies ourselves. So that we also can see some naval warfare and so on.
A game-tip: Always move your army to a coastal province first and only from that coastal-province move it to antother coastal-province and then to your target-province
If you let your army move directly from its starting province to its destination province, then you have to pay the full price for that distance, even if 1/3 of that travel is across land
Well, navies could help also.
And maybe some professional army?
Not mercenarie, but cheaper and better.
And as it sometimes is, some courts just do not have any good marshals, nor any leaders at all.
Maybe you could hire generals from the ranks of soldiers and lower nobility?
And maybe some professional army?
Not mercenarie, but cheaper and better.
And as it sometimes is, some courts just do not have any good marshals, nor any leaders at all.
Maybe you could hire generals from the ranks of soldiers and lower nobility?
Enewald said:
Well in real life not every kingdom always had good leaders. Some realms had mediocre or even poor leaders.
Veldmaarschalk said:
But maybe some laws should affect this, or the powers inside provinces.
But any leader is still better than a dark figure leading your armies.
There usually was allways some noble available to lead your forces.
Not maybe good statts, but still a leader.
Enewald said:
This is a very rare thing to happen in the game though. Maybe in the first 50 years, but after that most courts will be crowded with people.
Well, they should be usually full of people, but when you really need many leaders, they are not to be found.
And why can not minor lords send their representatives into their lieges courts?
or a Emperor could ask for a vassal to give his marshal into his service.
And maybe marshalls could also revolt against their rulers, trying to use the army against their rulers if they are not enough capable to make anything against the marshall before such things would happen.
Like in eu:r, army commanders desire allways for more power.
And why can not minor lords send their representatives into their lieges courts?
or a Emperor could ask for a vassal to give his marshal into his service.
And maybe marshalls could also revolt against their rulers, trying to use the army against their rulers if they are not enough capable to make anything against the marshall before such things would happen.
Like in eu:r, army commanders desire allways for more power.
Create some counties in eastern Russia or Persia and give the posts to your extended family.
Then, when the Mongols come, watch your court get crowded with hundreds and hundreds of refugeeso
Then, when the Mongols come, watch your court get crowded with hundreds and hundreds of refugees
o
Btw, why can't kings appoint governors instead of counts?
Magistrates?
Would be funnier. Or not.
But not that much inbreding.
And mroe families involved.
Magistrates?
Would be funnier. Or not.
But not that much inbreding.
And mroe families involved.
I would like to have (moddable or optional) a feudal mode where offices and titles revert to the crown after the office-holder dies. That way the game could be extended further back into the carolingian era. Also a mode where you can have something like the anglo-saxon and germanic kingship model discussed earlier in the thread (agreement of the Witan or Kronrat needed to secure the crown for your heir).