Welcome to early modern age. That absolutism is starting to sound real good now?
- 10
- 1
Estates and newly conquered territory
- Thread starter Simmstur
- 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.
Welcome to early modern age. That absolutism is starting to sound real good now?
20292213, member: 106989"]Nobles behaving like that seem like the way it should be, though? When Spain inherited Aragon or when England took over Ireland, they both spent huge amounts of effort to control or change the local landholding elites. I'm sure the same is with PLC or Habsburgs in the Lowlands. For Clergy, it's probably unwise to take away a Catholic monasterys lands and privileges just because they were handed out by another country that was since defeated. You can do it, but not simply by right of conquest.
Between religions this would make less sense.[/QUOTE]
I would agree with all of this but the caveat is that I don't think it will be much fun trying to figure out what combination of territory I can take without getting one of those estate rebellions. If the UI allowed you to see the 'aftereffects' of your conquests then I wouldn't mind so much
Between religions this would make less sense.[/QUOTE]
I would agree with all of this but the caveat is that I don't think it will be much fun trying to figure out what combination of territory I can take without getting one of those estate rebellions. If the UI allowed you to see the 'aftereffects' of your conquests then I wouldn't mind so much
- 4
Frankly this sounds like the most historically accurate feature Paradox has included in EUIV to date. Mind you I don't own The Cossacks, but nevertheless it sounds great. This is what happened in early modern Europe, people. Just because you conquer Paris doesn't suddenly mean the nobility leave, unless of course you force them to. It is then on you to suffer the consequences of your actions.
- 6
- 1
I think people are exaggerating the micromanaging side of the issue. It doesn't take too long to figure out which province belong to what estate and act appropriately. It's just something new to take into consideration.
Personally, I like having to shake things up from time to time, losing influence/loyalty, etc. It makes for more decisions to make even after war and such, which was the point of estates.
Personally, I like having to shake things up from time to time, losing influence/loyalty, etc. It makes for more decisions to make even after war and such, which was the point of estates.
The main problem with estate isn't the mechanic itself but the UI. Being able to visualize foreign estates would improve the situation by enabling the player to visualize the consequences of conquering territory in advance.
- 1
Keep one thing in mind about the time period. The nobles are, for the most part, localized. When you take a province it comes with the noble land holders who lived there so of course they would resent their rights being rescinded. Other nobles throughout the country would also take exception to it because all would fear it could happen to them if they don't stick together. That was one of the most powerful dynamics of the age after all.....lesser nobles trying to balance the power of the king to keep as much as they could.
The same could be said of the merchants but it's a bit different. They were more mobile by nature than either nobles or clergy. If they control a province in the game sense that would mean that a big horde of them are based there and trading across the continent. They wouldn't be replaced just because a new king is in charge. In large part the economy depends on them maintaining the flow of trade. Even more so than with the nobles word would spread of their perceived mistreatment to merchants all over the kingdom and beyond. They too would likely band together to help each other. It was the only way they had of protecting their fortunes.
It's already been mentioned that the church in this time period crossed country lines. Am a bit curious though why some events and decisions don't affect their loyalty as an estate. With Milan I put the king above the pope and then seized the monostaries without a peep of protest. Would have thought that would have got them howling mad but business went on as usual.
The same could be said of the merchants but it's a bit different. They were more mobile by nature than either nobles or clergy. If they control a province in the game sense that would mean that a big horde of them are based there and trading across the continent. They wouldn't be replaced just because a new king is in charge. In large part the economy depends on them maintaining the flow of trade. Even more so than with the nobles word would spread of their perceived mistreatment to merchants all over the kingdom and beyond. They too would likely band together to help each other. It was the only way they had of protecting their fortunes.
It's already been mentioned that the church in this time period crossed country lines. Am a bit curious though why some events and decisions don't affect their loyalty as an estate. With Milan I put the king above the pope and then seized the monostaries without a peep of protest. Would have thought that would have got them howling mad but business went on as usual.
- 3
How do the nobility work if the conqueror is a different religion? Historically, local nobility basically kept their privileges in Christian Europe, but when an area was taken over by a different religious group, the existing power structure could be completely overthrown and nobody in the core of the empire would care (e.g. Turkish beys would be indifferent at worst to Christian nobles in the Balkans losing their land). So it would make sense for revoking estates in this case to cause local unrest, but not a global loyalty problem.
This, basically. Having entire provinces belong to one estate or the other leads to odd situations where a change in a single province can totally overthrow the established balance of power in a country. Of course, in reality everything was much more nuanced.
But in the case of conquest in Europe - estates in control of a province before a conquest should absolutely retain their control after the province is conquered. Nobilities were not uprooted whenever a region was conquered, they retained their position and the new state had to accommodate them, though it may have tried to reduce their power over time. If anything the transfer of rulership would increase the power of the local nobility, as the new regime would be less entrenched and more reliant on their support, be they the local bishops, nobles, or urban elites.
The Christian nobility in the Balkans also held on for quite some time after the Ottoman conquest, and we find some Christian landholders serving in the Ottoman army as late as the end of the fifteenth century. Sure, it was easier to usurp their authority than it would have been for Christian conquerors, but neither did it happen immediately.
- 2
I would argue that noble estates in land with separatism ought to be handled as a separate estates (for each set of separatists within a culture group?), with bonuses to unrest reduction perhaps?
Something like that. If France conquered a large part of Castile and Aragon, the Iberian nobility ought not be the same estate as the French nobility until integration has finished (separatism is gone).
Might do something similar for clergy, but with different religions (similar to dhimmi?).. Dunno how to handle burgers though.
If nothing else it would make a good mod...
- 1
The end of C15 isn't that late in the EU era. Also, I think they lasted as long as they did to a large extent because the Ottoman rulers were pragmatic about who ruled at a local level. That's why I think there should be some local penalty for getting rid of them, but not a global disaster. It wouldn't have caused the *beys* to rise up in revolt if the Ottoman padishahs had pursued more aggressively pro-Muslim policies in the Balkans. (Incidentally, why are they called 'sultans' in English? Surely 'padishah' outranks 'sultan', and the Ottomans were emperor-tier rulers by any reasonable definition.) I'm also thinking about the Muslim states in India, where similar issues applied (except that some rulers were more forceful about replacing the previous power structures with a Muslim aristocracy), and even more so Christians when they took over Muslim lands.
So, basically... The UI of peace-talks needs to show how this will affect the balance of your estates? 
- 4
Would it be possible to add more ways of influencing the loyalty of the various estates? It's one thing to have to make concessions or pay them or whatever, but in the current build your only options are to either never take any influence-increasing estate interaction options, or remove provinces from any estates that get too much influence. It is very hard to make them just slightly weaker without also angering them a lot.
Maybe I'll get used to walking the fine line with the estates, but right now I really feel they are too hard to appease and too easily become a huge problem for your nation.
- 1
Like that idea, sounds interesting.
Though personally, I'd just like revocations of estates in provinces with separatism (or rather un-cored, recently conquered) to not influence the overall estate loyalty and instead have some other ramification like increased revolt risk in the province or increased duration of separatism or whatever.
Paradox games always contain lots of great mechanics, but because they were developed over such a large period of time, new mechanics are usually poorly integrated and do not mesh well with the existing ones.
On my second game s Bulgaria the ware constantly above 100 even if it dosnt show it.It seam that everything depends on the events.
Is their loyalty recalculated though with the newly taken territory?
I've noticed that if I develop a province already controlled by an estate, their loyalty and influence don't change.
I've noticed that if I develop a province already controlled by an estate, their loyalty and influence don't change.
There should atleast be less of a Penalty for removing filthy Danish Nobility provinces. The Swedish Nobility didnt revolt when Charles XI kicked the Danes out of Scania.
(No offense to Danish people)
(No offense to Danish people)
Because "Sultan" is the word in more routine circulation in English. (The game calls them Padishah once they've achieved Empire rank.)
Then we should rather ask for the math to be included in the peace window, imho.
Perhaps if the former, most recent core owner of the land was a rival the nobility and clergy should not lose loyalty but still lose influence up on revoking estate control? This would reflect how castilian/swedish nobles would not be upset if aragonese/danish nobles were ousted.