Every state in the game should be able to produce vassals of it's own type.

[unmerged(47151)]

I feel a big mistake was made at the begginning of the game when they made it so only fuedal tier Christians could make vassals. Sumererily all vassals should have all the laws, succession, realm and church, that their liege had, their shouldn't be this default traditional, semi-salic primogeniture and eccelarsial balance situation we have at the moment.

Republics that release vassals should create lesser republics which have elective law (as they do).

Arch-bishops shouldn't be able to release anything but bishoprics (the option to grant title would be greyed out), but I am not sure if they should get piety (maybe giving away worldly power to others would make them seem more holy?).

I'm not asking that republics and bishoprics and non-Christians be playable, only that they should release titles.

 

[unmerged(48100)]

You could post the same under CK2 ideas. I don't think Archbishops can grant titles, at least the AI doesn't, maybe the don't have efficiency losses.
But I like the idea.

 

[qvcatullus]

I don't see offhand why Archbishops should only be able to have ecclesiastical vassals. It's my understanding that bishoprics do not represent the diocese of the bishop in question, but rather the land, in addition to any diocese over which the bishop might have ecclesiastical power, over which he holds temporal authority. For example, consider the Papal States -- the 'diocese' of the pope can either be considered to be Rome itself or the entirety of the Catholic Church, but the papal states are that stretch of land which was theoretically given to the Pope by Constantine (although apparently not so much). In-game bishoprics, then, are feudal lords in game terms, and could (to the best of my knowledge -- any medieval legal experts in the house) have temporal vassals, in the same way that the pope held many cities in the papal states in vassalage.

 

[unmerged(29883)]

Problem is that feudal lords and bishops were rarely an either/or option. The Archbishop of York and the Duke of York co-existed for many, many years. Almost certainly still do, in fact. The Archbishop of York was the second-most important clergyman in the Kingdom and wielded a lot of political influence. Technically, he could be singly responsible for crowning a King - something which was used, IIRC, during the Wars of the Roses, where the Archbishop of Canterbury supported the Lancastrians whilst the Archbishop of York sided with the Yorkists (perhaps not entirely surprising).

AFAIK, most (and I am aware this is not true in every case) Archbishops held sway and influence by their position in the clergy rather than their actual ownership of land, which fell to a Duke (or similar rank). The Archbishop, in spiritual matters, could overrule the Duke - he could certainly excommunicate him, if the conditions were right. OTOH, the Duke ruled and taxed the lands (except for the church's 10% tithe) and, generally, had the support of the King whilst the Archbishop had to rely on a distant Pope and local clergy sympathy.

 

[unmerged(48100)]

Problem is that feudal lords and bishops were rarely an either/or option. The Archbishop of York and the Duke of York co-existed for many, many years. Almost certainly still do, in fact. The Archbishop of York was the second-most important clergyman in the Kingdom and wielded a lot of political influence. Technically, he could be singly responsible for crowning a King - something which was used, IIRC, during the Wars of the Roses, where the Archbishop of Canterbury supported the Lancastrians whilst the Archbishop of York sided with the Yorkists (perhaps not entirely surprising).

AFAIK, most (and I am aware this is not true in every case) Archbishops held sway and influence by their position in the clergy rather than their actual ownership of land, which fell to a Duke (or similar rank). The Archbishop, in spiritual matters, could overrule the Duke - he could certainly excommunicate him, if the conditions were right. OTOH, the Duke ruled and taxed the lands (except for the church's 10% tithe) and, generally, had the support of the King whilst the Archbishop had to rely on a distant Pope and local clergy sympathy.

Thats the reason I want a new form of Archbishop in CK2.

 

[unmerged(47151)]

Let me clarify my position of Archbishops, I never said Archbishops should be able to have non-eccelarcial vassals, merely that they shouldn't ever be able to create them. Think of it this way, the archbishop answers basicly to the Church (west or east), that multi-national orginisation that spans Europe. That orginisation doesn't want land and power falling out of it's mits does it? It isn't going to tolerate archbishops giving scraps of land away to secular rulers if they can help it.

Yet there is no reason why a secular ruler can't be a vassal of an arch-bishop. All I am saying is a bishop should only ever produce bishops as vassals.

 

[unmerged(47151)]

Problem is that feudal lords and bishops were rarely an either/or option. The Archbishop of York and the Duke of York co-existed for many, many years. Almost certainly still do, in fact. The Archbishop of York was the second-most important clergyman in the Kingdom and wielded a lot of political influence. Technically, he could be singly responsible for crowning a King - something which was used, IIRC, during the Wars of the Roses, where the Archbishop of Canterbury supported the Lancastrians whilst the Archbishop of York sided with the Yorkists (perhaps not entirely surprising).

AFAIK, most (and I am aware this is not true in every case) Archbishops held sway and influence by their position in the clergy rather than their actual ownership of land, which fell to a Duke (or similar rank). The Archbishop, in spiritual matters, could overrule the Duke - he could certainly excommunicate him, if the conditions were right. OTOH, the Duke ruled and taxed the lands (except for the church's 10% tithe) and, generally, had the support of the King whilst the Archbishop had to rely on a distant Pope and local clergy sympathy.

The archbishops in CK are those who actually rule the provinces as theocrats.

 

[unmerged(48100)]

Let me clarify my position of Archbishops, I never said Archbishops should be able to have non-eccelarcial vassals, merely that they shouldn't ever be able to create them. Think of it this way, the archbishop answers basicly to the Church (west or east), that multi-national orginisation that spans Europe. That orginisation doesn't want land and power falling out of it's mits does it? It isn't going to tolerate archbishops giving scraps of land away to secular rulers if they can help it.

Yet there is no reason why a secular ruler can't be a vassal of an arch-bishop. All I am saying is a bishop should only ever produce bishops as vassals.

The archbishops don't have the efficiency loss, so they won't give titles to anybody.

 

[unmerged(47151)]

The archbishops don't have the efficiency loss, so they won't give titles to anybody.

Then they should have an efficiancy loss. Everyone should have an efficiancy loss, archbishops, republics and all the rest. One man and his handful of buddies can't administer the entire world on their own.

 

[unmerged(48100)]

Then they should have an efficiancy loss. Everyone should have an efficiancy loss, archbishops, republics and all the rest. One man and his handful of buddies can't administer the entire world on their own.

I agree they should, then your idea makes sense and is good.

 

[unmerged(47151)]

I agree they should, then your idea makes sense and is good.

Exactly, in order to administer his vast territories our budding theocrat is going to have to hand out the task of governing the outlying areas to fellow men of the cloth. Hence vassal bishoprics would be created.

 

[unmerged(48100)]

While I would like to see another form of Archbishoprics though, maybe stay with the Archbishops in your form and make these too. (But thats a CK2 idea!)

A form of an Archbishop who doesn't own that much land but the events for courts in his sphere of influence get him as eventbuilder instead of the pope and get influenced by his traits (like a sceptical bishop wouldn't mention your scepsis, a tolerant bishop wouldn't blame you for having a heathen in your court etc.) and you get a big diference when the current bishop dies and the next one has really differnt stats.

 

[unmerged(47151)]

Combine that with my relation bar system, and we could have quite a good system. The effects of a happy bishop or an unhappy bishops (bishops for counts, archbishops for dukes and kings) should have some effect on the game.

 

[unmerged(48100)]

Combine that with my relation bar system, and we could have quite a good system. The effects of a happy bishop or an unhappy bishops (bishops for counts, archbishops for dukes and kings) should have some effect on the game.

Why not, I always liked the idea I just think it should only be for rulers their families and their succesors to get a ok gamespeed, I think the CPU will have problems with 5000 relations, better have just 1500-2500.

 

[unmerged(47151)]

Why not, I always liked the idea I just think it should only be for rulers their families and their succesors to get a ok gamespeed, I think the CPU will have problems with 5000 relations, better have just 1500-2500.

So long as we keep the courts fairly small through getting rid of unemployed courtiers, we should be able to have relations within courts as well.

I think the game could come with quite a few relations calculations, other games such as Europa 1400 run a two way system with quite a fair number of characters.

 

[unmerged(48100)]

OK then I have no problem with it.

 

[qvcatullus]

Problem is that feudal lords and bishops were rarely an either/or option. The Archbishop of York and the Duke of York co-existed for many, many years. Almost certainly still do, in fact. The Archbishop of York was the second-most important clergyman in the Kingdom and wielded a lot of political influence. Technically, he could be singly responsible for crowning a King - something which was used, IIRC, during the Wars of the Roses, where the Archbishop of Canterbury supported the Lancastrians whilst the Archbishop of York sided with the Yorkists (perhaps not entirely surprising).

AFAIK, most (and I am aware this is not true in every case) Archbishops held sway and influence by their position in the clergy rather than their actual ownership of land, which fell to a Duke (or similar rank). The Archbishop, in spiritual matters, could overrule the Duke - he could certainly excommunicate him, if the conditions were right. OTOH, the Duke ruled and taxed the lands (except for the church's 10% tithe) and, generally, had the support of the King whilst the Archbishop had to rely on a distant Pope and local clergy sympathy.

As I tried to explain above, the in-game archbishops are not plain old archbishops. These exist outside the structure of the game except perhaps as so-called diocese bishops. The in-game bishops and archbishops are bishops who also have temporal power -- instead of the land being held in vassalage by a feudal lord, it's given to the church and overseen by a bishop. This sort of thing was common in Germany, and as I pointed out, in the papal states. Such bishop-lords could, as I pointed out, distribute land to normal vassals, not just to other ecclesiasts.
So, archbishops should be able to hand titles out to vassals like everyone else, but they should be able to have count vassals, not just bishops.

Myself, I think that the biggest problem with the system is that since the normal structure of the archbishops and bishops of the church is abstracted in-game, the pool of papabiles in the game is far too small.

 

[unmerged(47151)]

As I tried to explain above, the in-game archbishops are not plain old archbishops. These exist outside the structure of the game except perhaps as so-called diocese bishops. The in-game bishops and archbishops are bishops who also have temporal power -- instead of the land being held in vassalage by a feudal lord, it's given to the church and overseen by a bishop. This sort of thing was common in Germany, and as I pointed out, in the papal states. Such bishop-lords could, as I pointed out, distribute land to normal vassals, not just to other ecclesiasts.
So, archbishops should be able to hand titles out to vassals like everyone else, but they should be able to have count vassals, not just bishops.

The problem is that the Church doesn't tend to think kindly of giving land to laymen, think about when clerical celibacy was introduced to keep land within the hands of the church (for instance).

If the arch-bishop hands land to a secular lord, then that land is out of the hands of the church. The land is owned by the church, if it is given to a secular ruler then it is effectively owned by the king, not by the church.

If a bishop is given the land, then the land is still in the hands of the church, hence arch-bishops should only ever create bishops.

 

[amcl]

The problem is that the Church doesn't tend to think kindly of giving land to laymen, think about when clerical celibacy was introduced to keep land within the hands of the church (for instance).

You haven't understood Qvcatullus's previous reply. Bishops and archbishops holding land in CK are doing so as temporal rulers. The land is not all owned by the church. Just like every other county, a county owned by a bishop is subinfeudated to lesser feudal lordships, which are never represented in CK. Some of these will be temporal - barons, knights, cities, whatever - and some may be ecclessiastical - monasteries, cathedral chapters, rectors, whatever - but this is true of all land in CK. There may be more land owned by the church in a province ruled by an eccelesiastic, but not necessarily.

If the arch-bishop hands land to a secular lord, then that land is out of the hands of the church. The land is owned by the church, if it is given to a secular ruler then it is effectively owned by the king, not by the church.

But most of it never was in the hands of the church as has been said.

If a bishop is given the land, then the land is still in the hands of the church, hence arch-bishops should only ever create bishops.

As Qvcatullus previously explained, your understanding of what a bishopric or archbishopric represents in CK is wrong. The Wikipedia article on prince-bishops is not very good, but it should do as a starting point.

Angus

 

[unmerged(47151)]

You haven't understood Qvcatullus's previous reply. Bishops and archbishops holding land in CK are doing so as temporal rulers. The land is not all owned by the church. Just like every other county, a county owned by a bishop is subinfeudated to lesser feudal lordships, which are never represented in CK. Some of these will be temporal - barons, knights, cities, whatever - and some may be ecclessiastical - monasteries, cathedral chapters, rectors, whatever - but this is true of all land in CK. There may be more land owned by the church in a province ruled by an eccelesiastic, but not necessarily.

Yet it is reasonable to assume that were an arch-bishops temporal power to grow too great for him to handle personally, he would sub-let the most important positions to bishops rather than secular counts, beacause that way he can mantain his religious power aswell as the bishops are his eccelarsial vassals as well as secular vassals. If he were to give it to the count, then his interests could potentially clash with the local non-temporal bishop, leaving him with his loyalty divided between both of his vassals (in both his roles). Creating lesser bishoprics is not only easier (beacause he moves in those circles already), but also avoids possible difficult to resolve conflicts of interests between bishop and count in the province. It simply makes politically more sense for a temporally reigning arch-bishop to confuse his structures of power and not to take advantage of his dual role in this way.

But generally it's as the title says, I want each kind of ruler to create vassals of it's own type (and with all the same laws), in order so there is three different visions of goverment, fuedal, republican and theocratic all of which have their own structures of power and are able to spread.