Is Dissolution too common?

[Orkonkel]

In a few recent games, I've seen things like Byzantium or Abbasids or even Italy just shattering into a bazillion duchies, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

In most cases, shouldn't the old realm remain just under new leadership?

And in the few cases where dissolution did happen, wouldn't the breakaways all be new kingdoms at the very least? I feel like a bunch of duchy vassals saying 'nah we don't want to be part of this anymore' must have had some awareness of the political realities of stable neighbour kingdoms hungry for expansion?

Am I just wrong? Is this feature good?

 

[Scrambles]

In my game the Abbasids do, but this is consistent with history.

I have literally never seen the Byzantines dissolve.

western European realms do it sometimes but it’s about as common as it happened IRL so I’m okay with that.

 

[Tschobo]

Yeah. The Carolignian Realms Shattered eventually. Some Kingdoms in Europe only lasted for a generation or a few generations but that changed as time went on.

But gamewise it seeems to be more common for the Byzantines and the Abbasids and for the latter it is rather consistent.

For the Byzantines it is for me just a placeholder. They only shattered once historically in the CK3 timeframe and that was under Alexios III rule (yes, before the 4th Crusade).

There they should just go for a: another contender of the Byzantine Throne Solution where, when the situation is dire they search for a plausible and extremely competent successor in their realm and push him on the throne.

 

[Bisonmask]

Slightly but I personally don't think that's a big issue I think the problem is how rarely dissolution results in a long-term alteration to the map. Nothing rises from the hole left by dissolved powers and I've seen the Byzantines dissolve plenty but nobody ever reunites the resulting states.

If dissolution was a trigger for nearby rulers to go on conquest sprees or even the former vassals to start jockeying for position I think it would be fine at the current rate

 

[IanReSc]

I was thinking the exact same thing the other day. 100 years into the game, no Empire existed. None. Even most kingdoms shattered into duchies. Yes, I do think that the dissolution scheme is way too common and way too powerful.

 

[The Mysterious Dr. Butter]

I think it should only happen under the right conditions. Very unpopular ruler with a bad claim (like if a cousin takes control or a bastard) combined with very powerful vassals with big titles. So like if your ruling dynasty is deposed it could dissolve or something like that. I also think that there should be more of a chance of the empire being reunited, lets the byzantines get big and then collapse. There should be a decision that is maybe easier than the normal empire making decision that maybe gives and a bonus to vassalization once you've reclaimed enough of the core, making it less likely that empires stay permanently balkanized.

 

[Scrambles]

I was thinking the exact same thing the other day. 100 years into the game, no Empire existed. None. Even most kingdoms shattered into duchies. Yes, I do think that the dissolution scheme is way too common and way too powerful.

I’ve had the opposite experience.
It feels like 2/3s of my games 1 of the HRE or the Empire of Francia expands well into Spain or Italy, Sweden bites awkward chunks out of Norway, The Byzantines control large parts of Ukraine without anyone to contend with.

the only realms I see disintegrate often are the Abbasids and Rurikids.

 

[Gobla]

Dissolution feels overall a bit too sudden I'd say.

Perhaps if instead of outright removing the title it could instead put the realm into a dissolved state, essentially a negative crown authority, where vassals don't pay taxes and suffer no restrictions on their actions but do still belong to the larger realm. It could even, for example, unlock the claim throne scheme for any vassal.

The "liege" could have a decision requiring, for example, strong hooks on powerful vassals, a certain amount of military power or some other condition to take the realm out of that dissolved state and if that decision isn't taken in a certain timeframe or, for example, succession happens only then is the title destroyed.

So rather than a title just disappearing from one day to the next there's first a period where the title itself still holds value but the person holding it has lost all authority.

 

[Bisonmask]

I was thinking the exact same thing the other day. 100 years into the game, no Empire existed. None. Even most kingdoms shattered into duchies. Yes, I do think that the dissolution scheme is way too common and way too powerful.

This is really unusual do you have realm stability on low? I agree with the Scrambles it's much more common to see the HRE, the Byzantines, or Francia expand ad infinitum than it is to see no empires

I think it should only happen under the right conditions. Very unpopular ruler with a bad claim (like if a cousin takes control or a bastard) combined with very powerful vassals with big titles. So like if your ruling dynasty is deposed it could dissolve or something like that. I also think that there should be more of a chance of the empire being reunited, lets the byzantines get big and then collapse. There should be a decision that is maybe easier than the normal empire making decision that maybe gives and a bonus to vassalization once you've reclaimed enough of the core, making it less likely that empires stay permanently balkanized.

I agree with the second half of this. Any dissolved title could produce some kind of "leadership" tag(s) that notes the most powerful successor state(s) and gives them a bonus to vassalizing same culture/heritage/language rulers if they reach some threshold of power

 

[heliostellar]

The ERE collapsing is too common right now. It actually makes the game super easy too. You can easily gob up those duchies. In one game, I was playing as Emperor of Italy and I was literally able to diplo-vassalize all of the successor duchies (including the erstwhile emperor, the Duke of Thrace) to the prior empire in about a year.

 

[IanReSc]

This is really unusual do you have realm stability on low? I agree with the Scrambles it's much more common to see the HRE, the Byzantines, or Francia expand ad infinitum than it is to see no empires

No. I even checked the game rules. Usually I play on default or even to the point where I turn down conversion and the likes. It happens a lot in my games. Empires and even kingdoms are shattered left and right in the 867 start. At least for me. And that has nothing to do with me.

Maybe there should be a mechanic to prevent it. Maybe a title in itself could hagve prestige adn the more prestige the title has, the harder it is for a faction to dissolve it.

 

[Cedwig]

For the Byzantines it is for me just a placeholder. They only shattered once historically in the CK3 timeframe and that was under Alexios III rule (yes, before the 4th Crusade).

There they should just go for a: another contender of the Byzantine Throne Solution where, when the situation is dire they search for a plausible and extremely competent successor in their realm and push him on the throne.

For Byzantines I alway thought the struggle mechanic would make a lot of sense for internal affairs.

Every time the old emporer dies they should slide into an "interregnum" phase which could be solved either way by the nominal succesor fullfil certain criterias which would bring them back to the "stability" phase or to an open "hostility" phase with a lot of pretenders and internal civil wars going on.

 

[The Shacks]

Byzantines dissolve a little too regularly for my liking. Happy with Muslim Caliphates dissolving though, they often did (a little more gradually I suppose but eh)

 

[Tuo]

For Byzantines I alway thought the struggle mechanic would make a lot of sense for internal affairs.

Every time the old emporer dies they should slide into an "interregnum" phase which could be solved either way by the nominal succesor fullfil certain criterias which would bring them back to the "stability" phase or to an open "hostility" phase with a lot of pretenders and internal civil wars going on.

I saw the diarch mechanism, used for regencies, as also future-proofing co-emperorship as practiced by the Byzantines. Under this hypothetical Byzantine Struggle, perhaps the interregnum phase would be skipped if a co-emperor succeeded the primary emperor?

 

[haritos90]

I noticed the same in my last Rurikid game. Byzantium dissolved in about 30 years which kinda killed my roleplay... Now I am going to pin the emperor and pillage his enemies to keep the ERE from dissolution.

Also upon succession I had my fellow brothers new kingdoms dissolved almost immediately! This seem to be a very strange mechanic when I still have claims to their destroyed kingdoms with the only way to restore titles by conquering them once again bit-by-bit.

 

[FishieFan]

In my game the Abbasids do, but this is consistent with history.

I have literally never seen the Byzantines dissolve.

western European realms do it sometimes but it’s about as common as it happened IRL so I’m okay with that.

Which western European realms often splintering are you thinking of that its accurate for? There's italy, maybe iberia, and wales