I'm getting increasingly annoyed by the micromanagement required in dealing with the entire world going to war with you when you add territories too fast. This kind of balance of power approach isn't historically accurate.
Instead, it seems to me, that the approach should be to have an increased chance of distant provinces breaking off upon the sovereign dying and a new one taking over:
1) distance from the capital (especially if in a different empire)
2) relationship between the vassal and both the current and last liege (i.e., ,if your old king just went on a "revoke everyone's title" spree, you have a much higher chance of border provinces breaking away.)
3) cultural and religious differences, both of the vassal and the provinces ruled
4) the capital's trade tech level (as it increases, so does the region that you can comfortably rule).
I'd suggest that distance be calculated differently over land than over sea provinces to reflect the greater ease of ruling, say, Egypt or Italy from Constantinople than it would have been to also rule Nubia or Middle Frankia.
I would give the new sovereign a claim on the breakaway title, but taking it back would require a war, and if you have multiple vassals on all sides who have broken away, that will keep you trying to maintain control over the same border provinces rather than blob across the map. It will also force you to think more strategically as you expand.
Another positive is that, unlike the current system, there wouldn't be a benefit from creating nice, neat, straight borders, but rather allow the far more historically accurate mixed ownership that was common throughout Europe, but especially in the HRE.
I also believe that this would address the concerns about blobbing in a way that is less contrived and more fun from a game play aspect. "Do I create a strong border kingdom to protect my imperial flank, or am I better off with more, weaker, vassals, who may not break away? Will this bring me over my vassal quota, requiring me to decentralize still more?
Instead, it seems to me, that the approach should be to have an increased chance of distant provinces breaking off upon the sovereign dying and a new one taking over:
1) distance from the capital (especially if in a different empire)
2) relationship between the vassal and both the current and last liege (i.e., ,if your old king just went on a "revoke everyone's title" spree, you have a much higher chance of border provinces breaking away.)
3) cultural and religious differences, both of the vassal and the provinces ruled
4) the capital's trade tech level (as it increases, so does the region that you can comfortably rule).
I'd suggest that distance be calculated differently over land than over sea provinces to reflect the greater ease of ruling, say, Egypt or Italy from Constantinople than it would have been to also rule Nubia or Middle Frankia.
I would give the new sovereign a claim on the breakaway title, but taking it back would require a war, and if you have multiple vassals on all sides who have broken away, that will keep you trying to maintain control over the same border provinces rather than blob across the map. It will also force you to think more strategically as you expand.
Another positive is that, unlike the current system, there wouldn't be a benefit from creating nice, neat, straight borders, but rather allow the far more historically accurate mixed ownership that was common throughout Europe, but especially in the HRE.
I also believe that this would address the concerns about blobbing in a way that is less contrived and more fun from a game play aspect. "Do I create a strong border kingdom to protect my imperial flank, or am I better off with more, weaker, vassals, who may not break away? Will this bring me over my vassal quota, requiring me to decentralize still more?
- 2
