Currently, the term "knight" in the game has almost no connection to what a knight actually was in reality. I am guessing this is because, like many other things, the same system needs to fit within all cultural and political traditions from France to Tibet. To me, this is another example of a gameplay system that is significantly more shallow than it could be due to the unnecessarily huge scope of the playable map, but I digress...
The King should not be temporarily selecting Counts, Dukes and random lowborn people within his realm to be called his "knights," giving and taking that title at will. A knighthood was (generally) an inheritable title of minor nobility and should be represented as such in the game.
Each noble in the game (Counts, Dukes, Kings & Emperors) should have a personal retinue of professional warriors (knights) for which they give small portions of their land (fiefs) to in exchange for military service. The more land the noble has, the more fiefs he can grant and the more knights he can field. The knights do not need to be represented as actual characters in the game, since if we are going by actual history, a King would sometimes command hundreds of them or more. Again, the amount of possible knights should be determined by the amount of baronies in your demesne, as well as the development of those baronies. Less developed land supports less available fiefs. The more fiefs you grant, the less tax you get.
BUT, the player (and AI) should also have the option to NOT grant a lot of fiefs and keep more of the land (and taxes) for themselves. The cost for doing that would be that you would obviously have less highborn warriors and be more reliant on untrained, unskilled lowborn manpower for campaigns. With more money at your disposal in that case, maybe you opt to spend your resources on providing weapons, armor or training to your fighting age population. Is that a good trade-off? Who knows.
I think recruiting "regiments" of professional men-at-arms from day 1 like we do now is a poor representation of how an army was fielded for most of the Middle Ages and should not become a thing until later in the game's timeline, meaning that for most of the game, the primary sources for military manpower are your highborn warriors who are paid in fiefs, and your lowborn general population, along with those of your vassals. In exchange for not being able to always recruit regiments of soldiers of your choosing, I would propose that the player (and AI) get much more granular control over the weapons and tactics of their lowborn levies. The King can make a decree that all common men in X region must understand how to use a longbow... or bring a pike on campaign... I think there is a lot of opportunity here for the game to give us challenging and interesting ways to try to make sure your army is as well equipped, trained and effective as possible for future conflicts. This is a challenge that I would bet many medieval Kings spent a lot of time pondering. As time goes on and professional men-at-arms become more prevalent, you can slowly ween yourself away from a dependence on levies and knights fighting for you because of a Feudal contract and more towards a professional standing army paid in gold. This happens pretty much right away in current Ck3.
Along with merc companies available for hire, each region should also have a certain number of Knights Banneret - Aka Knights fighting under their own banners for fame and glory. Depending on how well liked you are as a King, or the amount of Glory to be won in an upcoming war, perhaps a certain number of Bannerets will flock to your army. Others, you might be able to pay to join you. Hosting Tournaments should be another way to attract more Knights Banneret to your realm.
I understand that "knights" and "knighthoods" were concepts that underwent a lot of change over the course of the Middle Ages and that the system I described above does not perfectly represent reality from the 9th century to the 15th. However, I think something like this would be an improvement over what we have now. Realistically this would be almost a total revamp of the warfare system in Ck3, so maybe an its an idea for Ck4. Lol.
What do you think?
The King should not be temporarily selecting Counts, Dukes and random lowborn people within his realm to be called his "knights," giving and taking that title at will. A knighthood was (generally) an inheritable title of minor nobility and should be represented as such in the game.
Each noble in the game (Counts, Dukes, Kings & Emperors) should have a personal retinue of professional warriors (knights) for which they give small portions of their land (fiefs) to in exchange for military service. The more land the noble has, the more fiefs he can grant and the more knights he can field. The knights do not need to be represented as actual characters in the game, since if we are going by actual history, a King would sometimes command hundreds of them or more. Again, the amount of possible knights should be determined by the amount of baronies in your demesne, as well as the development of those baronies. Less developed land supports less available fiefs. The more fiefs you grant, the less tax you get.
BUT, the player (and AI) should also have the option to NOT grant a lot of fiefs and keep more of the land (and taxes) for themselves. The cost for doing that would be that you would obviously have less highborn warriors and be more reliant on untrained, unskilled lowborn manpower for campaigns. With more money at your disposal in that case, maybe you opt to spend your resources on providing weapons, armor or training to your fighting age population. Is that a good trade-off? Who knows.
I think recruiting "regiments" of professional men-at-arms from day 1 like we do now is a poor representation of how an army was fielded for most of the Middle Ages and should not become a thing until later in the game's timeline, meaning that for most of the game, the primary sources for military manpower are your highborn warriors who are paid in fiefs, and your lowborn general population, along with those of your vassals. In exchange for not being able to always recruit regiments of soldiers of your choosing, I would propose that the player (and AI) get much more granular control over the weapons and tactics of their lowborn levies. The King can make a decree that all common men in X region must understand how to use a longbow... or bring a pike on campaign... I think there is a lot of opportunity here for the game to give us challenging and interesting ways to try to make sure your army is as well equipped, trained and effective as possible for future conflicts. This is a challenge that I would bet many medieval Kings spent a lot of time pondering. As time goes on and professional men-at-arms become more prevalent, you can slowly ween yourself away from a dependence on levies and knights fighting for you because of a Feudal contract and more towards a professional standing army paid in gold. This happens pretty much right away in current Ck3.
Along with merc companies available for hire, each region should also have a certain number of Knights Banneret - Aka Knights fighting under their own banners for fame and glory. Depending on how well liked you are as a King, or the amount of Glory to be won in an upcoming war, perhaps a certain number of Bannerets will flock to your army. Others, you might be able to pay to join you. Hosting Tournaments should be another way to attract more Knights Banneret to your realm.
I understand that "knights" and "knighthoods" were concepts that underwent a lot of change over the course of the Middle Ages and that the system I described above does not perfectly represent reality from the 9th century to the 15th. However, I think something like this would be an improvement over what we have now. Realistically this would be almost a total revamp of the warfare system in Ck3, so maybe an its an idea for Ck4. Lol.
What do you think?
Last edited:
- 20
- 8
- 3
- 3
