I'm emperor. Should I delegate kingdoms to vassals or not?

[unmerged(394433)]

Should I delegate kingdoms to vassals or not?

And, on the same topic, Should I delegate counties to dukes or not?

Please, enumerate the pros and cons under the latest rules (patch 7.0?)

Thanks!

 

[Dracko81]

1 King to keep happy or 10 Dukes? King please.

Also King means when I raise levies from his "realm" they all appear in the same location. So 1 army instead of 10.

Heres a big con for you though...if you have a small empire and vassalise a large kingdom, that kingdom has a large army and as such will increase its size contribution when creating or supporting a faction against you.

If you have 13 kingdoms, one angry king is no problem. If you have 3 kingdoms and 12 dukes, you are more likely to have internal troubles.

 

[Sam L]

I prefer Kingdoms but like above it depends on their size.

 

[unmerged(394433)]

Yes, we're talking about a dozen kingdoms I could guive away.

 

[Hackworthy]

I rule over most of the eastern world as Basileus but I haven't created any kingdoms other than Greece; which I hold. Yes, it means I have to contend with a ludicrous amount of Douxoi but it also means that I don't have to deal with men who rule over huge chunks of my empire conspiring against me. After all, vassals seek only to piss you off usually at little to no personal gain and the last thing I want is one with such a huge demesne.

 

[Acularius]

I find kings easier to deal with in rebellions than a multitude of dukes.

That's just me though.
I would rather one large pitched battle, than a dozen of tiny annoying ones.

 

[Dracko81]

I find kings easier to deal with in rebellions than a multitude of dukes.

That's just me though.
I would rather one large pitched battle, than a dozen of tiny annoying ones.

I know what you mean. Although that is a crusade but still.

 

[Acularius]

Yeah, that's a pretty damn decent battle, its how my battles against the HRE as the RE work.
That and it is SO much easier dealing with the raised levies of, 10 kingoms, than 40 dukes.

That, and with the few titles I have, the less vassals to choose from (the somewhat angry ones), the better.

It also supplies a pretty bountiful pool of marriage candidate producers so I don't need to take a hit to prestige from marrying into a lesser house.

I figured the pros outweighed the cons.
I preferred the more manageable amount of vassals, which is a godsend. (Biggest pro, outweighs the cons in itself for me)

 

[nyah]

Destroy the kingdom titles. If only because another tier of government means less money getting to the top.

I prefer to keep my vassals weak.

 

[Lord Finnish]

Destroy the kingdom titles. If only because another tier of government means less money getting to the top.

I prefer to keep my vassals weak.

This. When conquering new areas I never even create duchies, just on count per one province and leave it at that. The more tiers of taxation and levies you create - say count->duke->king->you - the less of them you get and the more civil wars both you and your vassals will be fighting. And heaven forbid if two of your three Kingdom vassals revolt against your rule! If your ruler dies and leaves an infant on the throne, prepare to lose half your Empire in just a few days, and the rest of it by Sunday.

 

[riknap]

This. When conquering new areas I never even create duchies, just on count per one province and leave it at that. The more tiers of taxation and levies you create - say count->duke->king->you - the less of them you get and the more civil wars both you and your vassals will be fighting. And heaven forbid if two of your three Kingdom vassals revolt against your rule! If your ruler dies and leaves an infant on the throne, prepare to lose half your Empire in just a few days, and the rest of it by Sunday.

conversely, having few direct vassals means that you have to spend generally less money bribing people (since the most I've had to spend making a king like me was around 150 or so, which could be the same amount you need to spend for duke vassals).

 

[Adelhard]

Pros:
1. Smaller number of vassals are easier to manage (keeping them happy, raising levies, etc).

Cons:
1. Less tax and levy, due to extra tier of governance;
2. Smaller pool of council/guardian candidates;
3. Little control over vassal kingdoms' internal troubles, the realm will likely be weaker overall;
4. Separate, small rebellions are easier to beat than single large ones (albeit tedious micro-management wise).

Conclusion:
Delegate when the amount of vassals becomes painful to manage. Delegate well-settled(all dukes control only their de jure counties, all dukes are at least third-generation rulers so that no lack of heirs and no outsiders have strong claims on them, etc), trouble-free, small, periphery kingdoms, and keep others under your direct control.

 

[Lord Finnish]

conversely, having few direct vassals means that you have to spend generally less money bribing people (since the most I've had to spend making a king like me was around 150 or so, which could be the same amount you need to spend for duke vassals).

It's not that bad. Since developing a count-only realm takes a century or so you will have tens of thousands of gold to bribe people with. And of course if one count rebels, it doesn't matter how many he calls to his aid since all you need to win the war is conquer that one county. But when a Kingdom revolts, you're in for five years of campaigning, complete with vassal doomstacks with the latest patch.

 

[nyah]

conversely, having few direct vassals means that you have to spend generally less money bribing people (since the most I've had to spend making a king like me was around 150 or so, which could be the same amount you need to spend for duke vassals).

Except that this should only be a rare expense. Some time ago I had a large empire and gave out all the kingdom titles. My income went down from 350 per month to 10. Earning large amounts enables you to keep a large war-chest for the difficult times. I often see bribes of 400+.

Also, there is enough of a problem with dukes inheriting other duchies through marriage and becoming overly strong. Kings do it too, and can become very strong if not keep in check.

 

[riknap]

Except that this should only be a rare expense. Some time ago I had a large empire and gave out all the kingdom titles. My income went down from 350 per month to 10. Earning large amounts enables you to keep a large war-chest for the difficult times. I often see bribes of 400+.

Also, there is enough of a problem with dukes inheriting other duchies through marriage and becoming overly strong. Kings do it too, and can become very strong if not keep in check.

that last problem I know very well :laugh:
such as giving the kingdom titles of egypt and jerusalem to different members of my dynasty. after a generation or two those two titles merged. since I didn't really pay much attention to which "cadet branch" one dynasty member was from another, they probably were brothers and one ended up inheriting the other
It wasn't that bad though since he revolted along with the king of crimea, lost, and I got to revoke his egyptian kingdom title and give it to another dynasty-member who was distantly related to him. Then I kept him in prison keeping his jerusalem kingdom title till the end of his life (he was in his 50's anyway). (since I am able to revoke duchies without penalty, probably due to Ck2+, I revoked a duchy from him and gave it to his heir. That way I ensured his loyalty to my character).

As for income, I don't know. Most of my income comes from cities and churches. What I do is that upon conquering new land from a holy war, I give the counties and ducal titles away first, THEN I make the cities and churches my direct vassals. If they ask for control of the city or barony, I either return authority or not depending on their current opinion of me (it also helps as a bargaining chip during successions).
That way, even with zero feudal tax, I have a lot coming from the multitude of mayors directly under me (I have a vassal count of a 150+ despite having eleven kingdom vassals, most of which are mayors)

 

[Bad_Haggis]

Depends on the kingdom, I tend to keep a central group of around 5 dukes around my capital, with Kingdoms on the Poorer borders of the empire. It tends to work out that all places that are Greek in culture stay Duchies, whereas foreign conquests become kingdoms.

 

[Eldorian]

Kings are good if you want to delegate authority. In other words, delegate land management, delegate minor wars, delegate vassal management. You'll get less personal taxes and levies, but your vassals will expand your empire and improve their holdings, if you let them (laws and such).

It does reduce the pool for councilors, but you can still look for tutors in your vassal's lands, just use the people search option instead of the diplomacy screen. A vassal of your vassal will always accept a contract to tutor someone in my experience (assuming they're not already tutoring 2 kids).

Currently, the only issue I find with king vassals is if they move their capital to a stupid place that makes getting their levies annoying ( like away from the coast in a coastal kingdom), or if their levies get so big that they attrition before you can get them into battle, but this is a reported bug that is slated for fixing. Also, if a king gains independence, inviting them back to the empire is either much harder or impossible. Kings in my game have the "I'm a king!" acceptance malus and it doesn't display any of the perks.

 

[Nax24]

Kings cause it helps a lot not to micro manage all those dukes

 

[Andaries]

It depends on the situation. If I ever get a game were I have giant empire holding I have a tendency to let dukes/doux be my vassals in areas were I have a historic stability with few rebellions. I then make kingdoms in the more crazy areas and set up the kingdoms if I can were the king has a large control of the kingdoms but still is threatened by his vassals potintaly. This generally will stabilize the area and make it a little easier to control.

My rule is the higher chance of rebellion the more Liege lords I want between the said rebellious vassal and my self.

 

[Beamed]

This. When conquering new areas I never even create duchies, just on count per one province and leave it at that. The more tiers of taxation and levies you create - say count->duke->king->you - the less of them you get and the more civil wars both you and your vassals will be fighting. And heaven forbid if two of your three Kingdom vassals revolt against your rule! If your ruler dies and leaves an infant on the throne, prepare to lose half your Empire in just a few days, and the rest of it by Sunday.

The money and levy issue is much reduced since LoR