It is a part of political Scandinavia. In terms of geography you are correct however.
Edit: I also think the empires should be larger. The Norse empire for example should include Britain or the Baltic. My opinion anyway.
Empires!
- Thread starter kevml27
- Start date
-
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.
Edit: I also think the empires should be larger. The Norse empire for example should include Britain or the Baltic. My opinion anyway.
The important word here is history-based. If the USA voted the Silver Legion into power or German spies couped the federal government, the USA could join the Axis. If England has a pro-Catholic monarch, England could remain Catholic. But it is all contingent on sufficiently plausible deviations from history. The aformentioned events are, but the concept of Empire proposed here is not. Empire in the Middle Ages really had nothing to do with size. Byzantium was a still an Empire when the sun rose over it on May 29th 1453, even though it included little else than Constantinople.
Only reason why Finland was included in that was because it was owned by Sweden at the time. If they would have owned half on england during that time they would have included that also. Still don't see the point of having any more emperor tittles. Four is enogh they should be special not something that can be created by any king with little power.
What about an emperor tier title called "King of Spain" for those who unite it if people is not willing to accept the Imperator Totus Hispaniae? I mean, if somebody conquered all Spain, wich is more or less what happened just some years after the game, and having been Spain the historical provinces of Hispania in roman times, wouldn't it be plausible from an historical-legal point of view?
That will depend on how the game stores the title names. If each title has its full name specified, then that would work. If the rank name is stored separately, however, then it won't.
I still like the idea of an Emperor of Spain title, but this could be a good compromise. King of Spain, King of Britain, etc. are historically plausible titles that would probably fit the empire tier in-game.
I think this is best way to do it. As long as we can mod the title High King of Britain or Lord Paramount of Britain (I believe Longshanks tried to bust that out to justify his conquests in Scotland).
Personally I prefer the emperor tier to be limited, the emperor is supposed to be the universal ruler and secular head of Christendom.
Instead I like to have the title of emperor of Spain and other possible alternative imperial titles, handled like the emperor trait in Ck 1; ideally area specific, so that the king of Castille, León, Aragon, Portugal, Navarra and Galica can get the trait emperor of Spain (the titular kingdoms aren't needed, but they make the event more likely to happen), which gives extra prestige. However this does mean, that these titles will be more regionally, so gaining a emperor trait from random titles all over the map will be harder, if included (IMHO not necessarily needed) it will require more titles.
Instead I like to have the title of emperor of Spain and other possible alternative imperial titles, handled like the emperor trait in Ck 1; ideally area specific, so that the king of Castille, León, Aragon, Portugal, Navarra and Galica can get the trait emperor of Spain (the titular kingdoms aren't needed, but they make the event more likely to happen), which gives extra prestige. However this does mean, that these titles will be more regionally, so gaining a emperor trait from random titles all over the map will be harder, if included (IMHO not necessarily needed) it will require more titles.
With everyone understanding now that their can only be one Empire per Religion. Then, perhaps there should still be Empire titles, but you must break apart the current Empire, in order to form your own in a different region.
Well, yes - does not mean it should be ignored though, Finland is a logical place for the king of Sweden to expand. Anyway I would argue that a king of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and the rest of the Baltic would be a person of considerable power.
Guys,
Unless they've significantly changed the country-forming mechanics from CK1 a geographically-based High Kingdom tier title is simply not possible.
Why?
Because in CK1 it was not possible for the game to grant an existing character a title via event. You could create new titles from scratch -- as anyone who saw the Templars spawn and die within a month six times in a row can attest. But you to create titles for existing characters you needed land, which meant you needed the title to be defined ion the map-files, which meant it had to be King or Duke-tier.
Unless the devs have substantially changed those mechanics, without giving us any indication they have done so, this can't be done.
And I hope it can't be done. The major thing that separates the Medieval period from others is that it was s conservative politically. People who acquired a second or third Kingdom didn't think "Great, now I can scrap all political arrangements in all my countries and be founding father of a new nation," they thought "Shit, now I'm gonna have to figure out what a Derbfhine is."
Don't worry that this will make the game boring, or give you nothing to do. The simple fact is that the charm of CK isn't making the map your color, it's that you can make your mother Princess of Polotsk, and two days later find out she's plotting to make your baby brother King.
Nick
Unless they've significantly changed the country-forming mechanics from CK1 a geographically-based High Kingdom tier title is simply not possible.
Why?
Because in CK1 it was not possible for the game to grant an existing character a title via event. You could create new titles from scratch -- as anyone who saw the Templars spawn and die within a month six times in a row can attest. But you to create titles for existing characters you needed land, which meant you needed the title to be defined ion the map-files, which meant it had to be King or Duke-tier.
Unless the devs have substantially changed those mechanics, without giving us any indication they have done so, this can't be done.
And I hope it can't be done. The major thing that separates the Medieval period from others is that it was s conservative politically. People who acquired a second or third Kingdom didn't think "Great, now I can scrap all political arrangements in all my countries and be founding father of a new nation," they thought "Shit, now I'm gonna have to figure out what a Derbfhine is."
Don't worry that this will make the game boring, or give you nothing to do. The simple fact is that the charm of CK isn't making the map your color, it's that you can make your mother Princess of Polotsk, and two days later find out she's plotting to make your baby brother King.
Nick
As a universal protector of all of pagans from Canada to Africa? I hope you aren't serious about this. If Pagan Emperor makes the cut, Emperor of all Unicorns should be in too.
I agree for the most part, but an event or decision to create or re-create 'smaller' kingdoms like Navarra, Sardinia & Corsica and Cyprus, would be an idea; it could also compensate for the fact that these kingdoms are smaller by having extra requirements.
This is what I tryed to say. But I would like to know (if anyone knows) how will this be done ingame? Dusan title was Emperor of Serbs and Greek, if I start the game at the date of his rule as crowned emperor will he be emperor tier or king tier? And also if I counquer Constantinople with him and destroy Byzantine Empire will Dusan's title be just a new Emperor of Byzantine or will he have Emperor of Serbs and Greek title like he was crowned?
I think that can be done with the claim mechanic. In CK1, you can have characters have a claim on a title, you fight for that title or you fight for your courtier to have his title. Of course, these pretenders would call themselves emperor even if they weren't crowned, which is the case of your Emperor of the Serbs. To have the "Emperor of the Serbs", I don't think this wouldn't be possible in-game. If the title is not in the game's database or something (e.g. emperor of Serbia or even King of Spain) then it cannot be created, claimed nor usurped.
So basicly he would just be Byzantine emperor if I win war for claim?
In game files there are titles that don't exist at the start of the game, like King of Serbia ( at least I think there are, never played ck1). Thats kinda the same case with Dusan's emperor title. It existed and he was crowned by Patriarch(so we need to wait for game itself to see will it be in game files I gues). Orthodox faith is different from Catholic at the time becose there was no Orthodox pope. To be crowned Dusan just raised Serbian Archbishop to Patriarch (highes rank in Orthodoxy) with support of other orthodox officials. (which is little different than AntiPope, pope can be only one) I dont know how many Orthodox Patriarchs were there at the time but none had direct controll over another so any could crown emperor. What Im getting at is, that Dusan usurped Roman imperial title ( I dont think he just tried to be emperor of Serbs), just with another name. But I gues I will have to wait for the game to see will the title be in it altough Im not optimistic -_-. I just think that if history shaped differently and Dusan lived longer and counquered Constantinople he would officialy be Emperor of Serbs and Greeks as a new Orthodox emperor ( Like Russian emperor later), not just another Byzantium emperor but thats just my pure guesing.
Was this claim of Dusan acknowledged in the West? I suppose it wasn't in Constantinople.
Well, depending on how the title names are stored, you might be able to make it so that for Serbian cultures, the title appears as "Emperor of the Serbs and Romans" instead of "Emperor of the Romans" (or whatever it will normally be).
A "titular" Empire, with no de jure provinces, would be possible under the game mechanics. The Crusader version of the Byzantine Empire is present this way. I'd assume this could be done by event.
The problem is that if there is no actual Emperor of Serbia it's possible you won't be able to claim the title.
I also question whether it's really justified. Was the Serbian Emperor recognized as an actual Emperor by the HRE? How about the Pope?
I suspect that the title was not really recognized by the West, because even the much more militarily powerful Russian Czars had t deal with Western refusal to recognize their Imperial rank nearly two centuries after they assumed it, and the Empire only lasted a few decades.
Nick
Last edited: