Philosophy of Kingdoms

[NeilJT]

It seems to me that in CK one could have one of two possible philosophies for the location of Kingdoms in game:

i) The CK 1.01 approach:

A kingdom is all land which at some point in CK was within a ruler's 'Sphere of Influence'. Thus France extendends into Provence and Brittany. Hungary included Wallacia and Moldavia, and Germany includes the baltic coast, and lands down to Croatia.

This was an appropriate approach to take in CK1.01, as the only influence Kingdoms had upon gameplay was when they were claimed or Usurped. However, due to the new 'stop kingdoms falling apart rules' I propose a new philosophy of what a kingdom in CK should be:

ii) The 'Core Lands' approach:

This states that a kingdom should be those lands which historicaly represented the regions in which the authority and influence of a king was highest, and whose rulers would be reasonably expected to pledge alligence to the throne.

Thus:
Hungary loses Wallacia and Moldavia as these lands were often under the control of quasi-independent Dukes who sought vassalage not only of the Hungarian king, but also of Poland/Lituania and the Ottoman empire (although this was later in game).
France loses control of Savoy, Provence and Langudoc.
Germany/France/Italy lose Switzerland.
etc.

I favour this approach to kingship as it seems to make more sense that an independent liege would seek vassalage only if he was inside the land in which a neighbour could exert a powerful influence. If the 'king' in whose lands his county resided was far away it would make no sense for him to seek vassalage, especially in the case of for instance, Languedoc which share more culture with the Catalans in Aragón that with the Frankish north.

Removing borderland (such as these) provinces from Kingdoms would allow for a more interesting game (IMHO) as Europe becomes more of a patchwork of independent states than the stable kingdoms which currently seem to develop (although the recent patches adding more indepence events have done much to help this situation).

Recent patches have moved towards this approach somewhat, for instance removing Brittany from France, but I think more needs to be done.

Any thoughts from anyone else? Any chance of getting this into an official patch, or will I have to create a 'core kingdoms' mod?

 

[Duuk]

Whoa! I was going to post something similiar!

Since we know that "Kingdom = None" works fine (Brittany/etc), why not make:

1) Ahistorical kingdoms go away (Tunisia, North Africa, Cumans) Keep Egypt, break "Byzantium" down into Anatolia, Greece, etc. I'd love to see "Emperor of Byzantium/Roman Empire" be a title that, should it disappear, isn't re-creatable. After all, once Constantinople fell, many people claimed to be heir to it, but no one actually was recognized.

2) Smaller areas for Kingdoms, especially Hungary which seems to fall apart quite often.

3) "new" kingdoms (which can use the existing tags freed up) such as "Russia" being divided into "Russia" and "Kiev Rus".

4) Navarre going away as re-creatable.

I'd also like to see Lotharingia added, but I'm not holding my breath

 

[ulmont]

\1) Ahistorical kingdoms go away (Tunisia, North Africa, Cumans)

I really hate this idea. If I can grab 12 or so mostly contiguous counties, I should be able to set myself up as a King, no matter where the territory is. If not 12, certainly by 24. So there's room for several extra Kingdoms in North Africa. Of course, by this model France, Germany, Rus, and Byzantium are way larger in counties than they should be...but they are.

-Richard Campbell.

 

[Duuk]

I really hate this idea. If I can grab 12 or so mostly contiguous counties, I should be able to set myself up as a King, no matter where the territory is. If not 12, certainly by 24. So there's room for several extra Kingdoms in North Africa. Of course, by this model France, Germany, Rus, and Byzantium are way larger in counties than they should be...but they are.

-Richard Campbell.

But "historically" speaking, the Pope was the only one that could make someone a "King". (See also "King *in* Prussia"). And what (from my experience) these titles actually do is expand the power of someone who is *already* a King. If this were coupled with my suggestion for additional titles costing more to get ($$, not prestige for claims) so the King of Germany, Italy, and Burgundy would need several thousand to make himself King of Tunisia as well, then fine.

But in reality, it just results in massive prestige gains for someone who doesn't need them.

For CK2: Make it so King tier titles are event-driven and based on Piety and Papal Controller status.

 

[Inostra]

The 'Core Lands' approch is something I myself have thought of, now for a way off killing Germany for my EU2 games

 

[lenny]

1) Ahistorical kingdoms go away (Tunisia, North Africa, Cumans) Keep Egypt, break "Byzantium" down into Anatolia, Greece, etc. I'd love to see "Emperor of Byzantium/Roman Empire" be a title that, should it disappear, isn't re-creatable. After all, once Constantinople fell, many people claimed to be heir to it, but no one actually was recognized.

These a-historical Kingdoms are needed for the possibility to create crusader kingdoms à la Kingdom of Jerusalem, and I am very much in favor of keeping them. If you don't want "über-realms", you should set these up after a successful crusade, and ideally, the AI would do the same.
I like the idea of making the Byzantine Emperor un-creatable though. But its current territory should not be split up into too many individual kingdoms, to prevent exploits. Also, the emperor should already hold these at scenario start.

EDIT:
Regarding an unclaimable Emperor: Maybe the simplest and a feasible solution would be to make a "Kingdom of Greeks" associated with the currently Byzantine lands, and give that title to the Emperor in all scenarios.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

I don't want 'interfere' with theories for reformatting kingdoms but I think the Canarias probably should be a 1 province Duchy. Your asking probably, 'why'? Well in 1402, the Norman explorer Jean de Béthencourt led an expedition to the islands, landing first on the north side of Lanzarote. From there, he conquered Fuerteventura and Hierro. Béthencourt received the title King of the Canary Islands but recognized King Henry III of Castile, who had provided aid during the conquest, as his overlord. This just SCREAMS, Duchy, more then a count but not a real king. Even though it probably should have been divided into two provs in the first place, the Canary Islands should be a duchy unto itself. It never had any real connection to Morocco (the title it's currently attached to) and there are already a few 1 province Duchies, like Luxemburg, Belgrade, Artois, Essex, Moskva, Berwick, Gotland, Steiermark, Karnten and Krain.

 

[Duuk]

Also, the emperor should already hold these at scenario start.

That I disagree with, because there is nearly no way to "lose" a single title.

Once created, titles pretty much stay around. I've been trying to think of a proposal that wouldn't break the game to allow for them being lost, but I'm still at a loss for one.

This mainly affects the 1066 Germany, who starts as King of Burgundy and Italy but isn't in later scenarios. I'm wondering "How did these titles disappear... in game terms?"

 

[Havard]

I'd love to see "Emperor of Byzantium/Roman Empire" be a title that, should it disappear, isn't re-creatable. After all, once Constantinople fell, many people claimed to be heir to it, but no one actually was recognized.

Byzantium did fall during the game period (1204), and one of the many claimants was recognized (1253).

 

[Lord Prime]

These a-historical Kingdoms are needed for the possibility to create crusader kingdoms à la Kingdom of Jerusalem, and I am very much in favor of keeping them.

I just wish that the name "Kingdom of North Africa" could be changed to something else, perhaps Kingdom of Numidia would be suitable?

 

[Duuk]

EDIT:
Regarding an unclaimable Emperor: Maybe the simplest and a feasible solution would be to make a "Kingdom of Greeks" associated with the currently Byzantine lands, and give that title to the Emperor in all scenarios.

That was my thought, too for the "Greeks/Greece" title. Make it the "default" actual title of the Byz Emperor but with the added, unclaimable "Emperor of Rome" title.

 

[Havard]

But "historically" speaking, the Pope was the only one that could make someone a "King".

As a general rule this is true, but there are many exceptions.

For CK2: Make it so King tier titles are event-driven and based on Piety and Papal Controller status.

I'd like that too.

 

[Duuk]

Byzantium did fall during the game period (1204), and one of the many claimants was recognized (1253).

Game question (since I've never run into it):

A title that can't be recreated should it disappear. Can it still be "usurped" and do claims still exist to it?

If so, the above situation represents someone with a valid claim. If not, then you've just proven an issue.

 

[lenny]

That I disagree with, because there is nearly no way to "lose" a single title.

But if they are not held by the Emperor at scenario start, it is only a matter of time until he creates them, thus giving him an (unwanted) prestige boost.

This mainly affects the 1066 Germany, who starts as King of Burgundy and Italy but isn't in later scenarios. I'm wondering "How did these titles disappear... in game terms?"

Isn't there a King of Italy in the 1187 scenario, who is son an heir of the King of Germany? And by 1337, the German claims to Italy where probably already lost, or at least the King's position was so weak that making him King of Italy is not justified.

 

[Duuk]

Isn't there a King of Italy in the 1187 scenario, who is son an heir of the King of Germany? And by 1337, the German claims to Italy where probably already lost, or at least the King's position was so weak that making him King of Italy is not justified.

I agree. But in game terms... "How"? There is no way in game terms for someone to "lose" a title without surrendering it to someone else.

I've been trying for days now to figure a way that could cause that to happen, and I don't have a good way yet.

Especially with the "country reforming code" (which I love!), it makes it tough to figure out how the German King suddenly lost King of Italy and Burgundy.

See my point there?

 

[NeilJT]

Woo Hoo! My post created quite a response.

To be honest personally I have no problem with imaginary kingdoms exisiting in lands which were never historicaly conquered.

Mr T. has commented (several times) in the 'New Kingdoms' thread that the only difference current being considered for 1.05 is to remove Navarra as a creatable title; I'm choosing to interpret this as meaning there will be no new kingdoms or any removed; however, I hope that debating the boundaries of exisiting kingdoms is an appropriate subject for commentary.

To get the ball rolling on what I think the 'core' lands of Kingdoms are here are some of my thoughts:

Norway: Should lose the Faeroes and Iceland.
Sweeden: should lose Finland.
France: Should lose Languedoc, Provence, Brittany (which is already gone) and Savoy.
Germany: Should lose Switzerland, possibly the Baltic coastline, possibly lands near Italy in the south (i.e. become comparable contemporary Austria and Germany)
Hungary: Should lose Wallacia and Moldavia (i.e. be reduced to the boundaries with which it starts in 1066).
Catile and León: Should lose lands in the extreme south of Iberia. León should also maybe lose Galicia (I'm not sure if an independent ruler of Galicia would choose León or Portugal - it would most likely depend upon culture).
Aragon: Pretty good as is.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

there are already a few 1 province Duchies, like Luxemburg, Belgrade, Artois, Essex, Moskva, Berwick, Gotland, Steiermark, Karnten and Krain.

Belgrade, Artois and Gotaland should not be duchies.

 

[unmerged(6777)]

Um...we already have an 18+ page kingdom thread on the go, so please do not turn this thread into yet another re-hash of possible kingdoms and/or kingdom boundaries. A discussion of mechanism for creating/claiming/losing/etc a kingdom is fine, but let's keep focussed on that aspect of things -- the mechanisms -- please, and not the specifics.

As per the FAQ thread in this forum, any discussion of kingdoms, boundaries, etc. should happen in the S&M forum, although to a limited degree I'll allow it in the existing "kingdom petition" thread.

Thank you.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Belgrade, Artois and Gotaland should not be duchies.

Well these where just an example about how prevalent 1 province duchies are I'm justing stating that another 1 province duchy is a viable and historicaly correct option.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

But "historically" speaking, the Pope was the only one that could make someone a "King". (See also "King *in* Prussia").

The Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire could also make someone a king I believe.

The King of Cyprus was made king by the Emperor, while Armenia Minor was made a Kingdom by the Pope just a little bit later.