I beg ye Paradox, please allow us to remove holdings...

[zbyrne]

Should the smaller holdings in a county not just represent the local power over a chunk of land within the County? So either the Baron/Mayor/Bishop has the regional control? So rather than considering it destroying a town, could it not be perceived as a regional change of local autonomy, especially in a post conquest context. I come in and take the power away from the Bishop, and give it to a Baron (who happens to be my man of course).

Obviously this could be offset by modifiers to dissuade this being over used (obviously the argument against the destruction of the holding outright would be the financial penalty). Penalties could include severe tax and unrest modifiers while the new administration establishes itself (could potentially take decades), prestige hits (medieval world was ultra conservative and opposed to almost any change), national malus towards other vassals (if you deprive a bishop of his holding and establish a baron instead, then every other bishop might suddenly become very unhappy with you - same with the Pope in this case.) Finally, the counties would still be subject to standard balancing - one of each, so this could only affect counties with a third baronial level holding.

This way we can still have the desired change without resulting in the notion that an entire city and everyone in it just disappeared one day. They'd all still be there, just under a new administration.

 

[incognitus]

The buldings are different.
In game, a bishopric is actually more of a castle holding with a bishopric in place of a castle.

Obviously what you describe is akin to how bishopric actually were. In fact there's lots of in-game bishoprics in game in place of actual historical cities, which in turn often became "cities" in the CK2 sense later or were before.

Yeah, CK2's bishoprics always seem to me like they were supposed to be monasteries or something like that with arable land attached to them.

 

[Chancellor Ocato]

In my humblest opinion, it would make much more sense to have the possibility to convert the holdings, not destroy them and start from scratch.
With a pretty long time requirement for full conversion. Different buildings would be converted to lower level equivalent ones like for the tribal/feudal shift.

Example: Castle holding started out as a pure castle, then it was decided/it happened its strategic importance lessened or disappeared but the town and economic activities warranted its continued existence as a "CK2 town/city" with later development.

Bishopric turns into a town/comune with the emergence of the usual economic buildings due to its well placed location near a trade route.

City becomes depopulated or no longer economically important but still strategically turning into something akin to a castle.


For bishoprics you'd need papal approval if Catholic and that would remove penalties and whatnot, be it opinion or rel authority.


Do not also be fooled by reading such and such place was "razed" in history articles/books. More often than not it doesn't mean the settlement was completely demolished rendering inhabitable forever.
Yes it happened, mostly due to the population emigrating to other places instead of repairing, due to the economic importance of the place being too little to warrant any investment both by them or the local/regional political powers.
There's cases of this in relation to Viking raids, but it isn't the norm.



Edit: think of the M:TW (2) mechanic for holdings for instance

 

[incognitus]

Of course on the other hand, it would be nice, if paradox just... like... balanced the game and there wasn't a type of holding that is so clearly superior to everything else...

 

[Redwulf_Storm]

Great idea! every holding after the 3rd should have a button that allows us to change what type it is. It should cost a little, maybe a combination of gold/prestige/piety (maybe gold to change into city, prestige to change into a castle, and piety to change into a temple holding.) In any case I agree with you, and we should be able to at least raze the holding and replace it, at the very least, though that makes little sense, it would be better than nothing though.

 

[Ruwaard]

Great idea! every holding after the 3rd should have a button that allows us to change what type it is. It should cost a little, maybe a combination of gold/prestige/piety (maybe gold to change into city, prestige to change into a castle, and piety to change into a temple holding.) In any case I agree with you, and we should be able to at least raze the holding and replace it, at the very least, though that makes little sense, it would be better than nothing though.

If you mean, that each province should at the minimum have one of each type holding, then I agree.

 

[incognitus]

Great idea! every holding after the 3rd should have a button that allows us to change what type it is. It should cost a little, maybe a combination of gold/prestige/piety (maybe gold to change into city, prestige to change into a castle, and piety to change into a temple holding.) In any case I agree with you, and we should be able to at least raze the holding and replace it, at the very least, though that makes little sense, it would be better than nothing though.

I would propose the other way round... you should lose piety, of you change FROM a bishopric, etc.

 

[Redwulf_Storm]

I would propose the other way round... you should lose piety, of you change FROM a bishopric, etc.

Yeah, that makes sense. So say 300 piety to change a temple holding, 300 prestige to change a castle holding, and 300 gold (or maybe 150 piety AND 150 prestige) to change a city holding, of course one may enter any number they want instead of 300, I just like that movie myself.

 

[lordvagrant]

It would be nice to be able to convert a holding back into a Tribal holding.

 

[Will Steel]

It would be nice to be able to convert a holding back into a Tribal holding.

Now that would be seriously game-changing in not so good way.

 

[Will Steel]

Any devs seen this? Next patch might be far away, but they could probably release some kind of a hotfix to add this feature.

 

[NewbieOne]

There’s already a button in the game that turns a tribe into a city or a castle. It would make a lot of sense to allow the city around a castle or cathedral to expand to the point where it becomes a city with a really spiffy old building in the middle.

That's more vassal type than holding type. Castles contain not even Castle Villages but Castle Towns and eventually Castle Cities inside their walls, same goes for temples. A Castle City in a feudal barony might even be a larger than city than a brand new city barony.

 

[Dakk]

Any devs seen this? Next patch might be far away, but they could probably release some kind of a hotfix to add this feature.

Pretty sure that Paradox has never ever released a hotfix to add a feature. That's really not what hotfixes are about

 

[Will Steel]

Pretty sure that Paradox has never ever released a hotfix to add a feature. That's really not what hotfixes are about

This means, I'll have to keep my hopes up for a new patch within a month.

 

[Rationalsanity]

Now that would be seriously game-changing in not so good way.

Could make sense to represent the Mongol conquests, some parts of Persia were depopulated in a way that made the Second World War look tame.

 

[Ciniod]

Could make sense to represent the Mongol conquests, some parts of Persia were depopulated in a way that made the Second World War look tame.

Most eco-friendly war ever they say... lots of trees came to life from all the deaths.

 

[incognitus]

Most eco-friendly war ever they say... lots of trees came to life from all the deaths.

Did you hear that on QI as well?

 

[Will Steel]

Could make sense to represent the Mongol conquests, some parts of Persia were depopulated in a way that made the Second World War look tame.

That's true. Not only in Persia, the Mongols flattened so many cities of northern China (Jin Dynasty) that for a while it seemed that nothing had existed there at all. It was not until Ming Dynasty came to power that those cities were rebuilt.

Same goes for Mesopotamia, and that was even more devastating. Mesopotamia lost an enormous amount of infrastructure that had been built up over since the early bronze age and over 4-5 thousand years. The Mongols destroyed some very clever water and irrigation mechanisms that are now completely lost. It took over 2 centuries to be repair the damage, but Mesopotamia (including modern Iraq) never ever fully recovered or gained the same level of riches it had.

Converting those areas into tribal holdings might do the trick to represent this. But I bet there will be problems and big glitches, since you'll have to go through feudal-conversion events again.

 

[Lord_P]

Converting those areas into tribal holdings might do the trick to represent this. But I bet there will be problems and big glitches, since you'll have to go through feudal-conversion events again.

I think this is the biggest problem. Can you imagine building up a power base in the Pontic Steppes for generations, only to have it reduced back to a tribal holding by the Mongols? While historically accurate (maybe), it would be gameplay hell.

 

[Thure]

I don't think it would be historically accurate. I mean... The Muslims in Mesopotamia after the Mongol conquest didn't start to use tribal government again. And this is the reason for tribal holdings ingame. To represent tribal government.