• 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.
Hello again folks!

It's a new month and high time for another development diary. This time, let's talk about barons. In the original Crusader Kings, characters could only hold titles of three ranks; count, duke and king (though these could be called different things in different cultures). Barons existed indirectly in the form of provincial nobility, which, together with the clergy, peasants and burghers, had different power, loyalty and tax values. The player could fiddle around with the power values of the four classes, which would affect the tax rate and the composition of the provincial levy. As it turned out, this was one of the least successful features in the game, because the micromanagement was tedious and did not have enough impact to make it worthwhile. Therefore, in Crusader Kings II, the whole thing has been cut. Instead, each province will have between one and eight named settlements. A settlement is either a castle, city or church, and characters can hold the title to a settlement just like they can to counties and duchies.

Castles are regular feudal holdings, whose barons are normally in fief to the provincial count. Cities are commercial hubs governed by a mayor. Finally, church settlements are run by a Bishop (or Mufti, or similiar.) Like the four classes of Crusader Kings, the three types of settlement provide different types of troop levies and have different tax rates depending on laws. Unlike the class power of Crusader Kings, the rights of churches and cities - and the investiture of their leaders - should be interesting to play around with. (More on this in a later dev diary.)

Barony tier characters are not playable, mainly for performance reasons. (We do not want barons to have courts of their own, with the explosion of characters this would require.) They have a more rudimentary form of AI than playable characters, but will respond to diplomacy and might raise their army in revolt. Another measure to keep the character count down in Crusader Kings II is that you can have your vassals double as councillors (so there is less need for minor nobles to be created by the game).

What about the level of micromanagement - won't all these baronies require more player attention? Well, the whole point of the feudal system is delegation, so the short answer is that for dukes and above; not much. Granted, the dynamic around cities and churches will require more attention, but of the right kind and infrequently. The existence of baronies will also make playing counts a lot more interesting.

I don't have any baronial graphics in particular to show you, but here's a little something that Aerie is working on...

CK2_Diary002_01.png


That's all for now. Don't miss the next dev diary on December 2!


Henrik Fåhraeus, Associate Producer and CKII Project Lead
 
Peasant "power" is gone, but there will still be peasant revolts. In fact, they are the only "rebel" type, as such. All other rebellions will be led by characters, for specific reasons.

Character-driven rebellions are a really exciting idea, good to see some stuff being drawn from other games. I'll be interested to see what the consequences of peasant rebellions are though, what are they trying to achieve?

The barony system seems a little complex, since it's implied that Counties will be the smallest map division but the settlements within may have different overlords. Or do they all automatically follow the Count? Hopefully it will all make intuitive sense once we can see a few beta screenshots. The barons themselves are a very valuable addition, it gives a bit of purpose to the courtiers and keeps the local power-plays character driven.
 
Question: Do cities, castles, etc. stand for one attribute (e.g. cities for revenue by trade) or can they contain a set of attributes (e.g. revenue, defense)?
 
Last edited:
I am loving these Dev Diaries.

Now I am just hoping that technology will be significantly improved, especially with regards to bringing technology "back-home" as it were from newly conquered provinces.
 
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, but it sure sounds interesting so far. Good change from the rather static and abstract system in the first game.
 
I love the feature.

I also like that a settlement is the new province for desmene-limit purposes. In my current game of CK my crappy King was able to have half of Ireland in his personal desmene, which is incredibly stupid. In other words with this idea Doomdark gets rid of a major argument for quadrupling the province-count.

It also seems like this idea will reduce the problem of the AI revoking Count-titles to give land to it's sons. Now it can create a settlement to do the same things. This leaves me with two questions:

1) Will Barons have their own Coats of Arms?

2) Will Barons be able to marry? If so who will propose the marriages, the Baron himself or his Count?

3) We know that it will be possible to be a Count in two Countries. Will it be possible to be a Baron in two countries?

Nick
 
A duke of a dukedom on the far reaches of your kingdom may also be your steward back at home?

I think if the duke of Northumbria get's asked to be the steward for the King of England, what's most logical is that he would turn the management of his domains over to his own advisors. Thus his full talents would be felt in London, but only a little bit of his influence is felt at home. However the accompany prestige of the position of being one of the king's closest confidants would compensate him for his reduced ability to tend his own estates.
 
I think if the duke of Northumbria get's asked to be the steward for the King of England, what's most logical is that he would turn the management of his domains over to his own advisors. Thus his full talents would be felt in London, but only a little bit of his influence is felt at home. However the accompany prestige of the position of being one of the king's closest confidants would compensate him for his reduced ability to tend his own estates.

That's really pushing it. Office holders in England in particular are often of quite humble origin, and a "duke" of Northumbria like Siward or Erik is unlikely to benefit from abandoning his army and territorial base for a menial and subservient position at the court of another ruler. Of course, certain European kingdoms maintained nominal court positions for higher magnates ... but this is some time after 1066. Your duke of Normandy is certainly not going to be turning over his duchy to be the French king's butler or steward.
 
I would expect at least marshals to be of noble origin (counts or dukes), considering a great many marshals also held landed titles of their own. Stewards I would expect to occasionally be of somewhat lower origins (though they ranked quite highly in England and Scotland, holding important land and titles too). Chancellors, at least at first, I would expect to be clergy or clerically-educated due to the need for literacy when running a chancery. And Spy Masters... I'd expect whoever got the job done best, since it's not exactly an overt position.
 
That's really pushing it. Office holders in England in particular are often of quite humble origin, and a "duke" of Northumbria like Siward or Erik is unlikely to benefit from abandoning his army and territorial base for a menial and subservient position at the court of another ruler. Of course, certain European kingdoms maintained nominal court positions for higher magnates ... but this is some time after 1066. Your duke of Normandy is certainly not going to be turning over his duchy to be the French king's butler or steward.

Meh, I don't know much about medieval politics but it's interesting to learn about.

Was England just a bad example to pick or would this be the case everywhere? I vaguely recall from French class that there were a bunch of noblemen from this period who became important enough in service to the king that I was supposed to learn about them.
 
I love the feature.

I also like that a settlement is the new province for desmene-limit purposes. In my current game of CK my crappy King was able to have half of Ireland in his personal desmene, which is incredibly stupid. In other words with this idea Doomdark gets rid of a major argument for quadrupling the province-count.

Nick

At least for me it doesn't reduce the need for added counties. Rather the contrary as the maximum of 8 settlements per county means most historic counties still could not be portrayed entirely realistically (I hope I don't have to list up the castles, towns and major monasteries in the old county of Luxembourg as an example ;-) ). The more I research, the more I discover counties that were left out of CK-I. While not all need be added, many should...

One question also remains concerning whether settlements within a county can be vassals (or independant off) to someone other than the county's ruler. That might slightly alleviate the need for added counties for historicity as some of the smaller counties always dependant on others could be portrayed that way, but only some...
 
That's really pushing it. Office holders in England in particular are often of quite humble origin, and a "duke" of Northumbria like Siward or Erik is unlikely to benefit from abandoning his army and territorial base for a menial and subservient position at the court of another ruler. Of course, certain European kingdoms maintained nominal court positions for higher magnates ... but this is some time after 1066. Your duke of Normandy is certainly not going to be turning over his duchy to be the French king's butler or steward.

Agreed. The same applies to France and Germany. Most offices were held by members of the lesser nobility (barons in CK-II terms) or the simple knighthood. It's only late in the game period that these positions gained sufficient prestige for some of the upper nobility to become interested...
 
Meh, I don't know much about medieval politics but it's interesting to learn about.

Was England just a bad example to pick or would this be the case everywhere? I vaguely recall from French class that there were a bunch of noblemen from this period who became important enough in service to the king that I was supposed to learn about them.

Don't forget that 99% of the characters in CK-I or CK-II would be noblemen, certainly when it comes to popular history (medieval history would probably differentiate and consider the servile origin of much of the german and french knightood and lesser nobility)...
 
This looks great! Curious . . . these features are similar to what peeps were asking for in the old "Crusader Kings Wishlist" thread (e.g. http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?258246-Crusader-Kings-2-Wishlist&p=10834966). When you said earlier "I would not say that's our purpose with opening up forums early (the CK2 design is done and we are happy with it.) We just want the community to thrive. However, it is very interesting to see if your ideas are similar to ours, which might indicate whether a feature will be popular or not. Of course, sometimes someone comes up with a new idea that is both brilliant and fits our own design philosophy, in which case we might add it in. We've picked one such from this forum so far." Are the features referenced in this developers diary what you were alluding to at the end of this quotation?
- w

Nope, this one is mine.
 
Would the number of settlements have an impact on the possibility of claiming/usurping a title?

For example, if Count A of X holds only the capital, but Count B of Y holds the rest of the settlements, would he be able to claim or usurp the title of "Count of X" because his troops are all over the county and it makes it his de facto?

Yes.

For instance, what if France owns half of Normandy and England the other half... could two characters be "Duke of Normandy", one in France and the other in England, each with his own capital settlement?

No, each title can only be held by one person. There are claims like in CK though.

Finally, can barons fight each other inside a county, as it routinely happened before in private feudings? Can they marry? Can they switch allegance if disloyal?

Yes. Lower level vassals are allowed to squabble without calling in their liege, or the liege of their liege, etc.
 
Hum, about these scripted lower settlement limits, could you tie them to techs? I was thinking along the lines of improved farming technology alowing you to build more sttelments for example. One place that I know will have realy smal amounts of settelments is Scandinavia, especially the densly forested Småland and Norrland, not to talk about Finland:D It would be cool if improved africulture could raise the cap on settlements for these places.