Indeed. And this is why I asked for a simple button that allows us to demolish or change only the feudal holdings, not changing the form of government entirely.
I beg ye Paradox, please allow us to remove holdings...
- Thread starter Will Steel
- 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.
Pretty sure that Paradox has never ever released a hotfix to add a feature. That's really not what hotfixes are about
Yes, @Will Steel thats a concept you need to be cautious about. Neither hotfixes or minor patches are going to add features (unless its a feature that is meant to be there but unavailable for some buggy reason), and the devs are not going to drop everything to add something you want - software development does not work like that.
- 1
I think dismantling a holding should net some cash (some small fraction of what the holding and improvements were originally worth to build).
It should also take time and create very serious revolt risk in the affected province.
Finally, dismantling a holding should provide
- opinion penalty with characters who share province's culture;
- opinion penalty with vassals of the same type (except, maybe, if you dismantled an owned holding that did NOT have "wrong holding type" penalty).
It should also take time and create very serious revolt risk in the affected province.
Finally, dismantling a holding should provide
- opinion penalty with characters who share province's culture;
- opinion penalty with vassals of the same type (except, maybe, if you dismantled an owned holding that did NOT have "wrong holding type" penalty).
Mosques, and that is because Muslim nobles can hold them without penalties. So where regular AI would be building castles usually, Muslim AI prioritizes temples and castles both.
Is there actually any point in building a temple when you can have a castle or city instead? (provided you can rule them all, no penalties)
.png){kind=avatar}
Maybe the Muslem also get religion authority out of them? Not sure.
But isn't the bonus on MA from building temples rather short lived?
Temples provide piety to Muslim holders, don't they?
While personally holding wrong types of titles won't affect much, having vassals would, and this could affect gameplay. If the AI spams temples, you are forced to stick with a lot less levies and money (plus bad vassals) for the rest of the game.
Meanwhile at the same time you get awesome councillors/teachers from temple vassals.
While personally holding wrong types of titles won't affect much, having vassals would, and this could affect gameplay. If the AI spams temples, you are forced to stick with a lot less levies and money (plus bad vassals) for the rest of the game.
Meanwhile at the same time you get awesome councillors/teachers from temple vassals.
- 1
Mhmm... I'm just wondering... did anyone do a comparison between having 2 castles fully built up, 2 cities fully built up, 2 bishoprics fully built up and 1 castle+1 city fully built up?
They get 0.2 piety a year from them. But that they can be used as demense (& given to relatives) is one of the main factors why the Muslim AI likes building them over other religions
I've noticed something somewhat related to this in my most recent game (769 start), and I'm very surprised that I've never seen anyone bring it up before: "wrong" holding make up in provinces.
In several provinces in Wales there was too many castles - i.e. two castles and a city. Or (even worse), two castles and a temple. It's really annoying.
A tribal ruler can't build new holdings, but as I understand it this can happen a tribal ruler with a feudal liege? I suppose what happens is that there is a tribal holding, and a temple. Then the feudal liege(?) builds a castle holding and finally the tribal holding is upgraded to castle. Hmm I suppose you (or rather, the AI) could actually do this in all other provinces you own that's not the (converted) capital.
In several provinces in Wales there was too many castles - i.e. two castles and a city. Or (even worse), two castles and a temple. It's really annoying.
A tribal ruler can't build new holdings, but as I understand it this can happen a tribal ruler with a feudal liege? I suppose what happens is that there is a tribal holding, and a temple. Then the feudal liege(?) builds a castle holding and finally the tribal holding is upgraded to castle. Hmm I suppose you (or rather, the AI) could actually do this in all other provinces you own that's not the (converted) capital.
Last edited:
Just encountered the problem I mentioned in the OP again. Playing as Pala I finally managed to conquer most of the Gangetic plain. Then I thought of moving my capital to the county of Kanyakubja (or Kannauj, one of the largest Indian cities of the time)...
...only to find that it has been spammed to death by castles. It has much less economic value. Le sigh, this feature is something I gravely need to keep this game playable for myself when I form empires.
Someone should do this. It will be interesting to see the stats.
Also, remember that even max built holdings are not final, they are modified by ruler's stats.
...only to find that it has been spammed to death by castles. It has much less economic value. Le sigh, this feature is something I gravely need to keep this game playable for myself when I form empires.
Someone should do this. It will be interesting to see the stats.
Also, remember that even max built holdings are not final, they are modified by ruler's stats.
Direct rulers and also liege, right?Also, remember that even max built holdings are not final, they are modified by ruler's stats.
The inability to convert holdings and to develop my personal provinces to their full potential (7 holdings) has always bothered me. A year ago I tried making a mod to resolve these issues but the first part was impossible because there were no commands to destroy/convert holdings back then.
After a long pause of CK2, I came back two weeks ago and saw that it was now possible to make the mod. It was fairly simple to make but I'm still looking for realistic reasons to convert the holdings. There are 6 possible conversions:
castle -> city
castle - > temple
city -> castle
city -> temple
temple -> castle
temple -> city
I see the holding conversions as a change in administration. So far, I've found three distinct reasons to convert holdings:
1- Converting a castle into either a city or a temple is a harsh punishment for the baron. Castles are inheritable unlike cities and temples which means that the baron will lose his lands if converted.
2- Converting a city/temple into a temple/city simply means a change of administration.
3- Converting a city/temple into a castle means that a castle has been built in the region and that a noble is now ruling it.
Does this makes sense?
After a long pause of CK2, I came back two weeks ago and saw that it was now possible to make the mod. It was fairly simple to make but I'm still looking for realistic reasons to convert the holdings. There are 6 possible conversions:
castle -> city
castle - > temple
city -> castle
city -> temple
temple -> castle
temple -> city
I see the holding conversions as a change in administration. So far, I've found three distinct reasons to convert holdings:
1- Converting a castle into either a city or a temple is a harsh punishment for the baron. Castles are inheritable unlike cities and temples which means that the baron will lose his lands if converted.
2- Converting a city/temple into a temple/city simply means a change of administration.
3- Converting a city/temple into a castle means that a castle has been built in the region and that a noble is now ruling it.
Does this makes sense?
Well I listed some possible historical reasons back on the second page of the thread:
"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."
I had CK2 text style events in mind when writing this.
"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."
I had CK2 text style events in mind when writing this.
But converting a castle into a city also implies that the baron's dynasty will lose the barony after his death.
Also, how were bishopric established in real life? Why would a king give the rulership of a region to a bishop?
The pope creates bishoprics.
The problem ingame is... the game didn't divide between ecclastical hierarchy and secular hierarchy... Historically we had abbeys with county sized territories... ingame this is impossible, because it would became an bishopric...
Yes, I believe it makes more sense for a revokation (with economic/military reasons feigned event) instead of this:
"1- Converting a castle into either a city or a temple is a harsh punishment for the baron. Castles are inheritable unlike cities and temples which means that the baron will lose his lands if converted."
Especially in the case of castle->bishopric. What did you mean? The liege forces a baron to become a bishop, ergo forces the Pope (if Catholic) to appoint his baron as a bishop(what happens to his wife and children?) as a form of punishment?
As for 2) I am not sure of any case, while there's plently evidence of the opposite phenomenon, in a sense, with local dioceses growing to rule large territories, over time.
The reason for giving land to bishops (and ultimately the reason why clergy can't get married) is so the liege gets to pick who gets the land when the bishop dies instead of the bishop. If you gave it to a feudal lord, his heirs would get it. So basically, bishoprics on free investiture are mini-viceroys...The pope creates bishoprics.