Influence the Estates of the realm?

[unmerged(99452)]

Hello, I wonder if you will be able to influence the social orders of your realm in some way, similar to the provincial micomanagment in CK1? I also wonder if anything has been said about the possibility to centralise your power as Kings started to do in the 14-15th century as a result of the growing cities and the higher tax income they gave.

 

[Spurius]

Decisions like this ought to be possible after making advances in government technology and infrastructure to cover such developments as national laws and judiciary and a literate administrative class. This would help make 11th century France play differently to 11th century Byzantium, but also differently to 15th century France.

 

[RedRooster81]

This is something that needs to be portrayed and as Spurius said, it should be a developing issue, without just one possible timeline or endpoint. Government was vested in many areas in councils of differing size, strength, and power, from municipal councils all the way to the Reichstag. We will have to see what the possibilities are here, but it should be possible, and the internal politics of your realm should give you plenty to do.

 

[unmerged(31881)]

Decisions like this ought to be possible after making advances in government technology and infrastructure to cover such developments as national laws and judiciary and a literate administrative class. This would help make 11th century France play differently to 11th century Byzantium, but also differently to 15th century France.

Government technology? i say it should be more a two-way street.

e.g. attempt to centralise the power by the crown, incessant revolt by the magnates and barons against the king. Either he wins and rolls in gold until the next rebellion... or he loses and runs the risks of the nobles decentralising his limbs over the four corners of what was once his kingdom.

Or by way of other examples, does the king pick all the judges? Can they turns his own laws against him? Are priests exempt from the law or does the Pope get to excommunicate the king? Do peasants resent all the corrupt cronies the king sends to squeeze taxes out of subjects? Do the nobles despise the lowborn commoners who are collecting the taxes the nobles should be skimming from the peasants?

Technology seems a bit too linear and teleological a term.

 

[King_Duncan]

Government technology? i say it should be more a two-way street.

e.g. attempt to centralise the power by the crown, incessant revolt by the magnates and barons against the king. Either he wins and rolls in gold until the next rebellion... or he loses and runs the risks of the nobles decentralising his limbs over the four corners of what was once his kingdom.

Or by way of other examples, does the king pick all the judges? Can they turns his own laws against him? Are priests exempt from the law or does the Pope get to excommunicate the king? Do peasants resent all the corrupt cronies the king sends to squeeze taxes out of subjects? Do the nobles despise the lowborn commoners who are collecting the taxes the nobles should be skimming from the peasants?

Technology seems a bit too linear and teleological a term.

I agree that teleology should be avoided. But remember that administrative and governmental change are tightly linked with technology. The development of parchment and ink and the cheap manufacture thereof enable the spread of literacy and better record-keeping. These in turn allow tighter information and control to be kept in a realm by a central bureaucracy, while at the same time allowing greater and more concrete communication between people and groups in both formal and informal settings. English central government alone highlights this - the meeting of parliaments, decision-making and arbitration, the keeping of Pipe Rolls, the development of the Privy Seal... all were complex products of both shifting conceptions and practices of government and evolving technologies which shaped the opportunities and possibilities available to political actors.

History is a complex mass of actors (human and non-human) and agencies (physical, discursive, ideological...) unfolding and interacting in a contingent manner, according to available opportunity structures (themselves constantly shaped by actors and agencies) at a given time. You rightly highlight the importance of conceptions of power, attempts to govern in a certain way, and the agendas and reactions of individuals and groups within a governmental unit (real or notional); just remember that all of these both shape, and are shaped by, the technological world (and indeed the geographical, environmental etc world) they inhabit.

This, incidentally, is why modelling 'history' tout court in a video game is impossible

 

[RedRooster81]

I would say that developing more institutions would not necessarily weaken royal power; it cuts both ways or rather many ways. Like what the devs have said about bishoprics, it would depend on who controls these positions, but loyalty all the time should not be guaranteed (individuals all have their own agendas after all), but how much this can be modeled efficiently by the AI I don't know. Historically, it's a whole jumble of patronage networks, who is loyal to whom, compounded a hundred times over. Having a greater government infrastructure (whether with necessary technology or not) should alleviate some of the risk to the king and get the nobles, clergy, and commoners more involved in the running of the realm.

In terms of the estates, it behooves the monarch to have a formal setting in which his decisions can be approved and the grievances of the realm's movers and shakers aired, as well as their plans and aspirations.

 

[Spurius]

Government technology? i say it should be more a two-way street.

e.g. attempt to centralise the power by the crown, incessant revolt by the magnates and barons against the king. Either he wins and rolls in gold until the next rebellion... or he loses and runs the risks of the nobles decentralising his limbs over the four corners of what was once his kingdom.

Or by way of other examples, does the king pick all the judges? Can they turns his own laws against him? Are priests exempt from the law or does the Pope get to excommunicate the king? Do peasants resent all the corrupt cronies the king sends to squeeze taxes out of subjects? Do the nobles despise the lowborn commoners who are collecting the taxes the nobles should be skimming from the peasants?

Technology seems a bit too linear and teleological a term.

Changing how your realm's government operates should be a major decision and you are absolutely right to point out that the people who lose out will make their displeasure known. Indeed, I want to see these kind of tensions in the game because it will add to the challenge and make the game feel more lifelike.

There should be some element of governmental development in the game, whether it is through researching technology, investing in governmental infrastrusture or some other method. I would see the development of government as offering new ways to run the realm more effectively at the cost of significant discontent and the need to invest personal backing for several years, thus denying that backing to alternative developments. In practice, it would be like moving a slider in EU3.

 

[RedRooster81]

Changing how your realm's government operates should be a major decision and you are absolutely right to point out that the people who lose out will make their displeasure known. Indeed, I want to see these kind of tensions in the game because it will add to the challenge and make the game feel more lifelike.

There should be some element of governmental development in the game, whether it is through researching technology, investing in governmental infrastrusture or some other method. I would see the development of government as offering new ways to run the realm more effectively at the cost of significant discontent and the need to invest personal backing for several years, thus denying that backing to alternative developments. In practice, it would be like moving a slider in EU3.

I've thought about governmental development. I would almost take an opposite view than what EU3 does (this should reveal some things about how my mind works). Rather than a gradual but ultimate move towards greater state power, I would say that things like this should respond to changes in your realm. So let's say that you are the Count of Aargau in 1066. Small alpine county, not much problems. You keep your five barons content, guarantee the future of the Habsburgs with a healthy heir, and pay your taxes to the Emperor. Following the great civil war in the empire, your support for Heinrich IV garnered you the fiefs of your not so loyal neighbors, namely Neuchatel and Bern as well as the new title of Duke of Upper Burgundy. Now you are count of three provinces and a duke, with sixteen barons and two counts as your vassals. Such a swing of good fortune requires some rethinking of how you operate as a feudal lord. Previously, you only had to worry about your little corner of the Alps, with very little concern for what goes on beyond your own borders. Now, you are a prince of the realm with many more demands on your time and patience. If we use a measure like administrative efficiency (of EU3 mods, originally SRI but later MMU among others), you have fallen from very good to bad in a matter of years, and you cannot afford to wait until you reach government level 25 to gain a more efficient form of government. You should be able to appoint viscounts to manage your affairs in Bern and Neuchatel (yes, that old debate, but stay with me) and have a wider scope in what your councilors should be able to do. That is, bureaucracy, bureaucracy, bureaucracy.

So, in sum, government should develop as a matter of necessity in each realm, in response to changes in how much responsibility your character finds himself weighed down with, rather than depend on research that reveals over time historical advances in governance. Such changes should take place through laws that in many if not most cases involve some uncomfortable new power arrangements, with expected outbursts of resistance to change (e.g., threatening letters, rumors of plots, revolts). Achieving a new tier in your primary title should involve new possibilities for creating state infrastructure (this excites me, maybe not you). So going from a simple knight with only a squire and two pages to feed is one thing. Then becoming a baron, which involves managing a proper household, then a count with a number of barons under you, to a duke, then a king. And the jump to emperor should denote something more than just a bonus in yearly prestige. Or at least the possibility of something more. And of course if you stay a count for four hundred years (nothin' wrong with that), why would you need to bother with a more complicated government technology. You can just gather your five barons around your table over a cask of good wine and a roasted boar and settle matters there, just like your tenth-grandpappy did back in 1066 or so you imagine.

 

[unmerged(99452)]

Maybe a system similar to the "faction system" used in Magna Mundi could be used to simulate the power/wealth of the 4 estates(nobles, priests, burgers and farmers) in your realm and their opinions of the current ruler.

 

[unmerged(99452)]

What CK1 had was fine, if only there would have been sliders instead of buttons.

I never liked sliders, they always felt so out of content. I dont think real rulers had sliders that they could change in order to get the results they wanted.

 

[RedRooster81]

Well, the sliders would represent all the laws, policies, court cases etc. , it's abstraction. Obviously rulers didn't have sliders, they had knobs. They had clerks and bureaucracy, signets and seals, judges and executioners, guards and shirriffs, etc. You have to have some imagination. And if you don't like sliders, why do you like buttons ? It's just matter of interface and userfriendlyness, nothing else.

I would prefer something more complicated than sliders, as in EU3. I like the individual laws that I have seen on the screenshots, but I know that it would get complicated after a while. So some level of abstraction would be nice, but what does it mean to have centralization +3? Something descriptive would be nice: skeptical of papal power; open to new ideas; tolerant of Muslims; encourages commerce... I don't know exactly how to put it, but the six or seven sliders in EU3 would not fit so well. Then you would really need a separate set of sliders for each kingdom title if you have more than one royal title.

@Einh: I like the faction idea, but maybe not so much along the four "stands" but more vertical in nature, respecting for example the church aligning itself with the nobility against the burghers. Something closer to republican politics in EU Rome.

 

[RedRooster81]

But I think that would overestimate how much knowledge you would have of conditions in your realm. I would prefer for things to be much more ad hoc. So you could enact this law, but the results would be hard to predict, because politics is much more personal, and what you base your decisions on is what your vassals and advisors are telling you. So I think a certain degree of uncertainty needs to be preserved. EU3 errs too much in giving you a sense of control, of being able to predict how things will go.

Without knowing how the developers have tackled this problem, it is hard to debate over sliders or buttons. From this thread, I think what is important is that you need to create some way to consult your vassals before you make decisions, because it seems that balancing all your vassals' likes and dislikes will be a big part of the game. Then there is the common people who would not have much of a voice in your government (if one at all). So peasant or plebeian revolts would occur as they occurred to medieval and early modern rulers: from local problems that the sovereign would be ignorant of unless there were a revolt or a petition outlining abuses by this or that sheriff or judge against the peasants of the Barony of X. So that is what I will say about my sense of what it should feel like to be a medieval ruler. Rather paranoid or blissfully ignorant or somewhere in between.

 

[Spurius]

I've thought about governmental development. I would almost take an opposite view than what EU3 does (this should reveal some things about how my mind works). Rather than a gradual but ultimate move towards greater state power, I would say that things like this should respond to changes in your realm. So let's say that you are the Count of Aargau in 1066. Small alpine county, not much problems. You keep your five barons content, guarantee the future of the Habsburgs with a healthy heir, and pay your taxes to the Emperor. Following the great civil war in the empire, your support for Heinrich IV garnered you the fiefs of your not so loyal neighbors, namely Neuchatel and Bern as well as the new title of Duke of Upper Burgundy. Now you are count of three provinces and a duke, with sixteen barons and two counts as your vassals. Such a swing of good fortune requires some rethinking of how you operate as a feudal lord. Previously, you only had to worry about your little corner of the Alps, with very little concern for what goes on beyond your own borders. Now, you are a prince of the realm with many more demands on your time and patience. If we use a measure like administrative efficiency (of EU3 mods, originally SRI but later MMU among others), you have fallen from very good to bad in a matter of years, and you cannot afford to wait until you reach government level 25 to gain a more efficient form of government. You should be able to appoint viscounts to manage your affairs in Bern and Neuchatel (yes, that old debate, but stay with me) and have a wider scope in what your councilors should be able to do. That is, bureaucracy, bureaucracy, bureaucracy.

So, in sum, government should develop as a matter of necessity in each realm, in response to changes in how much responsibility your character finds himself weighed down with, rather than depend on research that reveals over time historical advances in governance. Such changes should take place through laws that in many if not most cases involve some uncomfortable new power arrangements, with expected outbursts of resistance to change (e.g., threatening letters, rumors of plots, revolts). Achieving a new tier in your primary title should involve new possibilities for creating state infrastructure (this excites me, maybe not you). So going from a simple knight with only a squire and two pages to feed is one thing. Then becoming a baron, which involves managing a proper household, then a count with a number of barons under you, to a duke, then a king. And the jump to emperor should denote something more than just a bonus in yearly prestige. Or at least the possibility of something more. And of course if you stay a count for four hundred years (nothin' wrong with that), why would you need to bother with a more complicated government technology. You can just gather your five barons around your table over a cask of good wine and a roasted boar and settle matters there, just like your tenth-grandpappy did back in 1066 or so you imagine.

This is a really interesting point, and a Government Technology system like EU3 certainly doesn't look very medieval.

Perhaps a solution to this, whilst keeping 1066 France different from 1066 Byzantium and from OTL 1453 France, would be a system of institutions that would take time to develop and embed. In RedRooster's case, the Duke would institute the Viscountcy institution. He would then be able to appoint viscounts to Neufchatel and Bern. For 20 years or so, the institution would be developing. Barons would be more likely to plot and revolt, the objective of which would be to have the Duke abolish the viscountcy institution. Eventually, an event would happen that embedded the institution: it's full benefits would be received and the revolt risk and other effects associated with it being developing would be removed.

There would be the scope for players who wanted to become an absolute monarch to do so, but two factors would make it very difficult to achieve:

1) Several other institutions would need to be developed first, e.g. national code of laws, royal courts, national bureaucracy.
2) Your nobles would be very, very unhappy while this institution was under development, i.e. expect major revolts.

This system could also be linked to your military, so if you want pikemen like the Swiss you also have to develop a free yeomanry like them. Similarly, making the longbow the focus of your armies brings significant military advantages but a wise ruler will have made some concessions to the people using them as they make a peasant revolt much more dangerous.

Finally, a 15th century count may manage his barons like his 11th century forefather but will have had to deal with the opportunities and threats of such things as an expanding merchant class.

 

[RedRooster81]

@Spurius, I am happy that you found some value to my suggestions. In EU3, bigger nations definitely have the advantage, in terms of research money and manpower (though counteracted by stability costs). I think that the evolution of government should not rely on historical landmarks but as you say certain prerequisites. There should be some incentive along the way to keep within your demesne limit and keep your own direct vassals happy.

There should be decisions like you say towards supporting certain sectors of your population. So if you want phalanxes of pikemen that march with iron discipline then you need to build up your towns (which by the way also gives you access to privateers on the coast and a higher naval transport limit). This sort of thing will contribute to replayability and keeping those small realms interesting. So you won't get bored playing the King of Navarra, the Duke of Ferrara (with the good people of Bologna at your behest or conspiring against you), or the Count of Saluces, without having to expand; in fact, expanding should work against government development because suddenly you have a lot more vassals to deal with. Expanding slowly over time might not be such a problem, but jumping from count to emperor in a generation or two should upset some of your vassals, at least those who don't see themselves getting a cut of your good fortune.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

Well, RedRooster explained the very essence of Feudalism: I cannot rule all my lands, I'll appoint viscounts, counts and dukes to ast as governers.

After many years, the governors don't recognise you anymore as their superior. Rather, they claim the lands you granted them are theirs and they have private armies to match your formerly Statal army.

So, the State is reduced to one family, which becomes private, not public anymore, The concept of State disappears, since every dynasty is a State in itself, with lands, powers and prerogatives in justice, army and legislation.

From the XIIth to the XVth Century, many dynasties get to gather the kingdoms together again and to develop a new form of State. The Capetians in France achieved that.

But every kingdom run different. While France centralised, England retained its particular centralised Feudalism until the War of the Roses, which turned England upside down and prepared the stage for the Tudor's nearly absolute monarchy. Meanwhile, Germany desintegrated totally while the different Emperors tried to get the Princes' support by granting them privileges and public power, and Castile, once quite focused on the figure of the King and the Cities, gave up many "mercies" to the nobility after the Civil War between Peter the Cruel and Henry of Trastámara. Hungary was almost a honorary kingdom until Matyás Corvinus raised a private mercenary army, Poland became an elective monarchy, and Aragon was following its example, had it not been by the new dynasty with a centralising policy, which was source of conflict and civil war.

Every example is different, but all these processes answer to the same concepts: the State is no more, dynasties fight for control. Either to recover royal authority, either to keep the royal authority low and our of your business.

Does the King want more support? Grant privileges, loose authority. Does the king want power? Try to earn the support of others than the nobles. The clergy or the towns. Or foreign countires. Hire mercenaries. Expensive? Improve your administration. Create a Royal Chancery. Ask for loans. With a big army, your noblemen won't stand against you. But then you'll have to pay them and risk to live the fate of Matyás Corvinus: after his death, his Black Army ravaged all of Hungary.

And, of course, any attack on the nobility should lower your vassals' oppinion of you. I don't want to see CK1 ridiculous wars of "the count of Sundgau is rebelling against the Emperor, The Emperor is gathering 1.000.000 men to assault Sundgau and the noblemen agree". That makes no sense at all, and all rebellions were like these.

CK1 was unable to represent something like the Barons' Revolt (either John Lackland's or Simon de Montfort's). Let's hope CK2 can.

By the way, Spurius' ideas are very, very interesting.

 

[Spurius]

CK2 could reflect the two Barons' revolts by giving any such movement objectives of creating a new institution or abolishing an existing one, rather like Victoria 2 war aims. Under this mechanism, the John Lackland barons' revolt had the aim of creating an instutition, most notably that nobles should not be punished without trial. Implementing this would reduce the scope for dealing with undesirable vassals but increase their loyalty. It should also reduce the ruler's prestige.

As I understand it, the main reason behind de Montfort's revolt was that Henry III was perceived to be ignoring Magna Carta. In game terms, this could be represented as the ruler abolishing the institution that was previously created and the barons' aim being to restore it. This started a revolt with objectives of restoring this institution and adding parliament as a new institution. The latter ought to reduce royal prestige but further increase baronial loyalty.

Cesar is right about attacking vassals reducing all vassals' opinion of the ruler, though there should be a facility to mitigate this by having it ratified by parliament if such an institution exists, assuming of course that the majority of the barons agree with the ruler rather than the rebel.

 

[RedRooster81]

Cesar makes some good points about different outcomes. There should be some game mechanics for dynasties, maybe with modifiers like EU3 countries can get. So if your dynasty controls 3/4 or 2/3 of the major titles in a kingdom, the king (of the same dynasty) could get a bonus of some kind (in income, perhaps, or some such), to represent situations like late medieval France, where the Capetians had really come to ascendancy, plus for some time controlling Naples, Hungary, and Provence in its cadet lines. If the game is really about dynasties, then the dynasty should be the major measure of power.

I think too that with plots and ambitions, you could model some nice barons' revolts: ambitions could include for different people in your realm things like dissolve parliament, institute cognatic primogeniture, institute papal investiture, expand the royal bureaucracy, forbid the king from hiring mercenaries. All the different factors that Cesar lists would be good to implement, to model centralization and other factors. And I think that the neighbors should be able to get involved in civil wars and wars of aggression. So for example if the Emirate of Zaragoza declares war on the County of Barcelona, then the King of Aragon could get an event asking if he wants to get involved (for either side maybe). So Zaragoza marches on Barcelona, and Aragon must decide to get involved, attack Zaragoza from behind, or ally with the Muslims against his fellow Christians (the Pope will not be pleased).

Spurius's last point about trying rebels before the estates, or parliament, is a good one, too. There should be some kind of grand council that could be created to advise the king or some mechanism for getting vassals' opinions before taking an action.