Forming an empire

[brxbrx]

Is it possible to form an empire of your own? I currently am in control of Jerusalem and Egypt, and will likely get a hold of Arabia Petra and Abyssinia.

I'd like to bring it all together but right now it seems that the only way to do that would be to join Byzantium and somehow finagle my way onto the throne. And I don't want to be emperor of Asia Minor, I want to be emperor of my three point cross of Jerusalem, Egypt, and Ethiopia.

 

[neondt]

No, but 1.6 is adding some new formable empires.

 

[brxbrx]

You know, I just read that, and I'm kicking myself for posting this first. A shame none of those empires really correspond to my current holdings, though. Maybe Arabia, but that would require a lot of painful conquest on my part.

 

[neondt]

It won't matter anyway, save games won't be compatible with the new patch.

 

[Kernest]

The next patch will add plenty of additional ahistorical empires to create, such as Scandinavia.
But I think it will only be released simultaneously with Sword of Islam DLC.

 

[brxbrx]

It won't matter anyway, save games won't be compatible with the new patch.

Actually, the dev diary says it will be semi-compatible: the balance of the game will be way different and new provinces may not be usable.

 

[HobbesMkII]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...-(and-Empires)-Abound-Titular-Title-Generator

You can use this mod utility to allow you to form Titular Empires (they become de jure after 100 years) when you own three (or however many you set it to) kingdoms. I'm not sure if it's compatible with a vanilla save game. Also, it allows the formation of Titular Kingdoms for people holding 4+ duchies (don't worry--the computer doesn't go overboard).

 

[leksu]

The next patch will add plenty of additional ahistorical empires to create, such as Scandinavia.

...which is a shame.

 

[brxbrx]

...which is a shame.

I disagree. All empires start without a historical precedent, don't they?

 

[leksu]

I disagree. All empires start without a historical precedent, don't they?

It just doesn't fit into this timeframe. Historically, an "Empire" was a state that claimed legitimate inheritance from imperial Rome as the ultimate sovereign to which all kings were subject. From that perspective, it makes sense why only the HRE (papal claims), and the ERE (legitimate descent) are the only two de jure empires.

 

[Jahasrad]

...which is a shame.

I'm happy that they are adding the possibility into the game. No one has to create the new empires if they don't want to. Though I did like the suggestion that the titles not be Imperial.

 

[neondt]

It just doesn't fit into this timeframe. Historically, an "Empire" was a state that claimed legitimate inheritance from imperial Rome as the ultimate sovereign to which all kings were subject. From that perspective, it makes sense why only the HRE (papal claims), and the ERE (legitimate descent) are the only two de jure empires.

If the word "emperor" bothers you so much, just edit the localisation files so that the non-"historical" emperors are called kings. The emperor-tier is just that - a feudal tier. It means a ruler who can have king-tier vassals. The in-game title of this ruler really doesn't matter, or else you'd be complaining that Caliphs and Khan's shouldn't have emperor-tier titles. All this "decent from Rome" stuff is extremely tedious.

 

[nyah]

If the word "emperor" bothers you so much, just edit the localisation files so that the non-"historical" emperors are called kings. The emperor-tier is just that - a feudal tier. It means a ruler who can have king-tier vassals. The in-game title of this ruler really doesn't matter, or else you'd be complaining that Caliphs and Khan's shouldn't have emperor-tier titles. All this "decent from Rome" stuff is extremely tedious.

You could go further than that and mod them out altogether.

 

[brxbrx]

It just doesn't fit into this timeframe. Historically, an "Empire" was a state that claimed legitimate inheritance from imperial Rome as the ultimate sovereign to which all kings were subject. From that perspective, it makes sense why only the HRE (papal claims), and the ERE (legitimate descent) are the only two de jure empires.

It seems silly to not be able to have subordinate kings, though.

 

[leksu]

It seems silly to not be able to have subordinate kings, though.

Historically, there were kings who claimed sovereign over kings, however, they didn't call themselves Emperors, so I think a tier that is in-between should be included.

 

[neondt]

Historically, there were kings who claimed sovereign over kings, however, they didn't call themselves Emperors, so I think a tier that is in-between should be included.

Once again, the word "emperor" is just a localisation thing. Khans and Caliphs also have that tier, and nobody complains. There's no need for another tier when the emperor/khan/caliph tier works just fine.

 

[leksu]

Once again, the word "emperor" is just a localisation thing. Khans and Caliphs also have that tier, and nobody complains. There's no need for another tier when the emperor/khan/caliph tier works just fine.

Khans aren't emperor tier, only Khagans are.

 

[neondt]

Khans aren't emperor tier, only Khagans are.

Whatever. My point stands. Would you even be complaining if all the new emperor-tier titles had rulers named "high king" instead of emperor, despite the fact that the name has absolutely no gameplay impact?

 

[raichudl]

Instead of calling oneself emperor why not use the title of High King ruling over the lower kings?

 

[brxbrx]

Whatever. My point stands. Would you even be complaining if all the new emperor-tier titles had rulers named "high king" instead of emperor, despite the fact that the name has absolutely no gameplay impact?

Instead of calling oneself emperor why not use the title of High King ruling over the lower kings?

I like that. High King of Jerusalem.