Once you form an empire, doesn't switching to Imperial pretty much take care of the vassal limit problem, at least until you cover over half the map?
Question About Filling Out Empty Slots in Holdings
- Thread starter Jim41
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
It helps a lot, but (assuming you have Conclave) you need to get up to Absolute Rule in order to implement Imperial Administration, which screws you vassal limit for a while and tends to destabilize the realm.
Build Cities, always, the tech bonus spread makes you're other counties develop better, plus gold for mercenaries makes you have a shit ton of troops.
So many variables. First of all, yes, you should definitely build in your capital first. ALWAYS focus on your capital first.
Second, always give away things that you aren't the correct type for. If you're a noble and you build cities, obviously give them away.
After that, a lot depends on who you are. If you're a Viking Norse, you really don't wanna do too much at first beyond maybe one temple. If you're a Nomad, obviously build nothing except cities on the Silk Road.
Some locations have bonuses, and of course you should bend towards those bonuses, and then there's whether or not RP'ing matters to you (I'd never remove the cities from Venice).
But if you're a regular old Christian Feudal lord, then I say go ahead and give it a good mix. There are plenty of responses here and they're at least partially right. I will say, however, build your castles FIRST.
Having the enemy have to go through your holdings in this order: Castle--->City--->Temple--->Castle is just defeating the purpose of the second castle.
That is, of course, if you're able to do so.
Second, always give away things that you aren't the correct type for. If you're a noble and you build cities, obviously give them away.
After that, a lot depends on who you are. If you're a Viking Norse, you really don't wanna do too much at first beyond maybe one temple. If you're a Nomad, obviously build nothing except cities on the Silk Road.
Some locations have bonuses, and of course you should bend towards those bonuses, and then there's whether or not RP'ing matters to you (I'd never remove the cities from Venice).
But if you're a regular old Christian Feudal lord, then I say go ahead and give it a good mix. There are plenty of responses here and they're at least partially right. I will say, however, build your castles FIRST.
Having the enemy have to go through your holdings in this order: Castle--->City--->Temple--->Castle is just defeating the purpose of the second castle.
That is, of course, if you're able to do so.
Additional note; But yeah, near end-game you almost always find yourself replacing castles with cities. How far ahead you want to plan for that is up to you.
Your first three holdings have to be one of each before you can build another castle, though, right?
Christian feudal lord.
I don't have Conclave, just basic CK2 with no DLC.
I realized that about 10 minutes after I posted. It..... depends on a lot of variables. Initially there is *usually* a "must be even" factor going on, but it isn't there for everyone and it goes away over time for various reasons. I'm currently trying to find a list of all the things that effect that, though I'm certain someone else will be able to conjure that up pretty quickly. Then again, maybe I'm completely misremembering...
There are some provinces around that start with 2 of the same holding in the first three slots but if you are building you have to have one of each before you can add a second of any.
Okay I *THINK* what I meant to say was that if you're going to build a second castle, it should be the first repeat holding you build. I was probably very distracted when I wrote that, I apologize. I think those provinces that start w/ repeats in the first three are special cases, like certain parts of East Anglia if I recall correctly.
Carry on, I'll just be quiet and watch
Carry on, I'll just be quiet and watch
I think, based upon the opinions of everyone here, that I'll end up filling out my capital county with baronies, and putting cities everywhere else in my demesne.
We'll see how that goes.
We'll see how that goes.
I always prioritize cities, for the money. If it's needed, I can spend money on mercs to make up for the missing levies, but I can also use that money for other things if I'm above my war reserve amount.
There's probably something to be said for making a ridiculously concentrated group of baronies, that you know will produce cultural troops with the full combat modifier from your buildings... but where are you going to get the money for it? The thing about focusing on city holdings is that you get money even from holdings that you don't own, while baronies only provide you with troops unless you're Muslim. And money can buy troops anyway.
There's probably something to be said for making a ridiculously concentrated group of baronies, that you know will produce cultural troops with the full combat modifier from your buildings... but where are you going to get the money for it? The thing about focusing on city holdings is that you get money even from holdings that you don't own, while baronies only provide you with troops unless you're Muslim. And money can buy troops anyway.
I took the advice of the forum once and filled my capital county with castles. A single minor war bankrupted me from how much that glut of levies cost
Money is what makes the world go round.
The thing with this approach is that factions only care about your current available troops to activate so you get much less deterrent effect from the spam cities/hold counties approach as you'll have far fewer troops then a similar demesne made of baronies in the capital/cap duchy. Sure you can merc up and beat them down (and sometimes want to) but constantly fighting revolts keeps you from doing other things.
I don't fear my vassals. Even if all I build are cities, my capitals will field enough troops to keep my subordinates in line. The only time they'd get disgruntled enough for a civil war is if a few inevitably get ambitious, start buying favours to get happy vassals into their factions, or if they end up with a child liege fresh-out-the-womb with poor demesne/vassal limit management. And that's going to happen anyways, whether you push castles or cities. Free prestige from winning easy wars, free money from ransoms, free title revocations.
Even if I don't buy mercs to beat them back down, 1 fully-invested capital in each county is all I need to make them submit. Making bank while doing it is a very nice bonus.
Unless you plan on moving to a different de jure duchy for your capital, castles. The combination of going deep in your duchy and the bonus of the marshal on the capital is enough to keep you strong enough to buck off every vassal that challenges you and make you look dangerous to the AI.
You do get less money, for sure, but I'm a veteran of CK. I always have a war chest relevant to my troop number for war costs alone. Having money is nice but not as nice as crushing your vassals underfoot with martial superiority. Mercs are not always available.
Did you raise all your troops for a minor war?
You do get less money, for sure, but I'm a veteran of CK. I always have a war chest relevant to my troop number for war costs alone. Having money is nice but not as nice as crushing your vassals underfoot with martial superiority. Mercs are not always available.
I took the advice of the forum once and filled my capital county with castles. A single minor war bankrupted me from how much that glut of levies cost
Did you raise all your troops for a minor war?
The problem is that you have to wait longer for your war chest to recharge. But perhaps the math does end up working out in your favor (fewer vassal wars + ultimately cheaper cost of using levies vs. mercs). I'll have to try this out.
The main thing that concerns me is that it'll take a very, very, very long time to save up the money to upgrade all the holdings. Significantly moreso than for cities, which already take a long time to upgrade (although mayors are happy to help out). And you'll also have much slower econ tech advancement in your capital, which means it'll take longer to reach the highest infrastructure levels.
I don't pursue aggressive wars in my games all that often, so I war less. Further, I make strong vassal dukes or kings as needed. When I do engage in wars, if I have the luxury, I rotate my vassals to the front lines first, weakening them compared to my own troops. Then I stagger in my forces, raised only to what I need. You don't need to raise the entire personal levy to deal with weak opponents or kingdoms that meet your vassals combined strength.
As for development, it's a serious investment to throw 800 gold at city universities as a Fedual in the early starts. I find myself out of stuff to build at around 950 ad - 1000 ad, which is usually when I start upgrading my eco points.
I don't bother upgrading my baron's holdings. Though, with the new patch giving +modifiers for upgrading vassal holdings, I may change things around slightly.
I took the advice of the forum once and filled my capital county with castles. A single minor war bankrupted me from how much that glut of levies cost
Definitely. If there are advantageous cultural troops, make sure you can afford them BEFORE you undermine yourself. But... build up citie sin the non-culturally-advantageous-troops areas FIRST. And then it's fine to barony the heck out of those cultural areas.