On de jure CBs and the strict hierarchy of CK2

[Jia Xu]

I think the hierarchy of titles and the power of the de jure CB in CK2 made things easy and kind of dull. By mid-game that are no or few counts left who don't answer to a duke. There are few or no dukes who don't answer to a king/emperor. For example, outside of the capital duchy, you're not going to have Earls who have the King of England as their direct liege. This is ahistorical and not very interesting, IMO.

In CK3, I don't think vassals should be allowed to unilaterally create higher titles for themselves. If you want to be a duke, you should have to petition the king for the title. Earn it through plotting, marriage, being a war hero, using favours, blackmail, or whatever else might be appropriate.

The de jure CB should only be applicable to titles that were once a vassal of yours in the game or historically. Creating a new kingdom with 51% of the provinces shouldn't give you a free pass to annex the other 49%. It's too easy. Incorporating neighbouring lords into your realm should involve a combination of diplomacy and intimidation. If those don't work, then conquering them should have to be done the slow way through marriage or other CBs.

Just some thoughts on these subjects. You're all free to disagree!

I just think that some aspects of the way CK2 was set up held the game back and there were so basic to the way the entire game worked that it would have been very difficult to change them later. I'd like for CK3 to get it right from the beginning.

 

[ernst_earnest]

Sounds like a good idea... Also make all dukes in England Earls since the title duke was introduced there only in the middle of the 14th century

 

[BeyondExpectation]

Sounds like a good idea... Also make all dukes in England Earls since the title duke was introduced there only in the middle of the 14th century

That is just as ahistoric. In England, all Barons, Earls and Dukes swore allegiance straight to the king. (Sub-lords were termed "esquire".)

 

[Herr Doctor]

This is one of the main things that needs to be fixed in CK3 in my opinion.

 

[ernst_earnest]

That is just as ahistoric. In England, all Barons, Earls and Dukes swore allegiance straight to the king. (Sub-lords were termed "esquire".)

No ahistorical at all. I would wish for more variety. So in england earls could be duke-tier and barons count tier for example. It was never as clear cut as the game makes it look like

 

[Rubidium]

No ahistorical at all. I would wish for more variety. So in england earls could be duke-tier and barons count tier for example. It was never as clear cut as the game makes it look like

That runs into user-friendliness issues, though. I really don't want to have to figure out whether random Baron so-and-so that I had an event with is actually a regular baron or really a duke just because he happens to be English. Consistency has its advantages (and of course, baron vs. earl didn't always correspond to "real" power anyway; it's slightly post-1453, but the Earl of Warwick was vastly richer and more powerful than most of the "Dukes" running around during the Wars of the Roses, due to a series of lucky marriages and inheritances).

 

[Weyird]

I agree with the OP. I really want this game to be harder than CK2 became at the end. CB's should be limited. It should be hard to grow as a nation, especially beyond where it has ever been. But historical titles should be a powerful CB

 

[PK_AZ]

and of course, baron vs. earl didn't always correspond to "real" power anyway; it's slightly post-1453, but the Earl of Warwick was vastly richer and more powerful than most of the "Dukes" running around during the Wars of the Roses, due to a series of lucky marriages and inheritances).

One way to implement that detail would be to
1. Allow all independent or immediate (i.e. direct to king) lords to vassalize other lords, whatever their rank is
2. Keep 'count' and 'duke' titles as something similar to EU4 government ranks, i.e. direct promotion from simple lordship, which give you some form of bonus, but do not imply your position in realm structure.

 

[noblehunter]

I would love for more messy feudalism, especially in earlier periods. But I recognize it also needs to be a comprehensible game. Even making counts holding baronies outside their county would be a nice change.