I'm sure that this is something that will be addressed in future DLCs, as outdated game mechanics new PDX games tend to be addressed, but this is still something on my mind that I wanna throw out there regarding the way governments are handled in CK3, because it definitely feels like an outdated remnant of CK2 that meshes poorly with the new and nuanced mechanics of culture and religion and whatnot. And no, this isn't about republics or theocracies or nomads, this is more focused on tribal, feudal, and clans.
In particular, I just really take an issue with the way tribal/feudal/clans are handled. Even in CK2, it never really sat well with me that you transition from a tribal society to a feudal one with the click of a button, and suddenly you have castles and cities popping up out of nowhere, whereas before you couldn't even build cities as a tribe, and this seems to be the same system carried into CK3. I know that the Tribal Organization laws are supposed to represent like, steps towards a feudal society, or at least it did more in CK2, but it still seems kind of... eh, to me, because that just isn't really how real world civilizations worked. Tribes didn't just pass a few laws and suddenly castles and cities sprung out of nowhere.
I feel like what would make more sense would be a system similar to the EU4 government reform system, but reworked to better work in the world of CK3 and all its nuances, kind of like how cultural innovations work. Instead of just rigid boundaries saying "this is feudal" and "this is tribal", having it be more like, specific facets of a tribal, clan, or feudal society that you start out with, and can transition towards in various aspects. Like, maybe you start out with an agricultural society where there's no concept of land ownership, and people just work on common land that's within the boundaries of a tribal territory, but to consolidate power and wealth, you reinforce the concept of land ownership and territorial boundaries, leading to lords and territories governed more similarly to what a feudal society does, taking 'common land' away from just normal people and turning them into landless peasants who work land owned by some kind of a lord. Like, rather than just distinctive government types that you change with the click of a button, I feel like having a more gradual transition into either feudal or clan society through individual reforms and innovations would make a lot more sense.
That brings me to the next point, regarding holdings. It always struck me as strange that you just suddenly go from tribes to castles and have a huge dropoff in levies, because that's not really how castles historically emerged, and feudal societies didn't always have castles either, or have castles in a specific style or for a specific purpose. A good example I can think of is Japanese castles, which didn't emerge until after daimyos started fighting each other for control of Japan, even though Japan was already feudal for hundreds of years by then. Even then, castles didn't just emerge as huge fortifications, they began as just wooden fortifications along strategic areas that gradually got built upon more and more as that area faces conflicts time and again, while places that no longer saw conflicts had fortifications fall into disuse, until eventually actual "castles" were built to govern and secure a specific territory.
That's often the case with European fortifications as well, which is why Ireland, Wales, and Northumberland still has a bunch of castles today, because those were often points of frequent conflicts that called for increased fortification. But even then, castles weren't just everywhere, like I'm sure anyone living in London or Paris today would notice that London and Paris are not in fact huge castles, but rather cities that have walls. Even in the Middle East, it wasn't like carpeted in castles, but rather there were forts and "kasbahs" in specific locations, but most places in the world are just walled cities.
I'm getting a little off-track, but the main point is that I just don't really feel like it makes sense for holdings to be specific to government types, and for government types to restrict what kind of holdings you can build and whatnot, and the overabundance and overemphasis on castles. So it seems weird to me that tribal societies can't have castles, while feudal societies MUST have castles, when historically that's just not how it worked. There's no reason a tribal society can't have huge fortifications if they saw frequent conflict and need for huge defensive structures, and there's no reason a feudal society that doesn't see conflict as much should be carpeted in castles.
That said, it's the same deal with cities. Historically, cities often emerged from local trading hubs, because places where people from far away and nearby converge to trade goods will naturally attract people. Merchants need places to stay and food to eat, so people set up businesses to house travelers and provide meals, benefiting from the wealth made from trading. And as that happens, bandits and pirates see fit to raid these areas of wealth, so mercenaries and guards are hired to secure these areas to protect them so merchants can trade. But trading itself is a messy process, and mediation is often required to settle disputes, so a governing body eventually emerges to set rules and regulations about trade, and to designate specific areas for trade so it's easier for merchants to get their wares out. And by then, a city has emerged. So, considering this, it seems really weird that tribes can't build cities and don't start out with cities, because it's not like cities have never emerged naturally out of tribal societies, and I just really don't see any reason for that to remain a restriction.
That was a lot of stuff, but I just hope that I provided some points to think about. I really do love all the nuance CK3 has over CK2 in regards to culture, religion, etc., even if sometimes it's not really perfect. But 'government' is definitely an aspect of the game that I feel like could use a lot more work, same deal with succession laws for that matter, but that's an issue entirely on its own, as I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice the weird cases of gavelkind where the primary heir inherits just one county, the second heir inherits like 3 or 4, and the rest just inherits 1. But I know that there's already people calling for balance changes and whatnot to succession, so that's why I'm just focusing on government types here.
In particular, I just really take an issue with the way tribal/feudal/clans are handled. Even in CK2, it never really sat well with me that you transition from a tribal society to a feudal one with the click of a button, and suddenly you have castles and cities popping up out of nowhere, whereas before you couldn't even build cities as a tribe, and this seems to be the same system carried into CK3. I know that the Tribal Organization laws are supposed to represent like, steps towards a feudal society, or at least it did more in CK2, but it still seems kind of... eh, to me, because that just isn't really how real world civilizations worked. Tribes didn't just pass a few laws and suddenly castles and cities sprung out of nowhere.
I feel like what would make more sense would be a system similar to the EU4 government reform system, but reworked to better work in the world of CK3 and all its nuances, kind of like how cultural innovations work. Instead of just rigid boundaries saying "this is feudal" and "this is tribal", having it be more like, specific facets of a tribal, clan, or feudal society that you start out with, and can transition towards in various aspects. Like, maybe you start out with an agricultural society where there's no concept of land ownership, and people just work on common land that's within the boundaries of a tribal territory, but to consolidate power and wealth, you reinforce the concept of land ownership and territorial boundaries, leading to lords and territories governed more similarly to what a feudal society does, taking 'common land' away from just normal people and turning them into landless peasants who work land owned by some kind of a lord. Like, rather than just distinctive government types that you change with the click of a button, I feel like having a more gradual transition into either feudal or clan society through individual reforms and innovations would make a lot more sense.
That brings me to the next point, regarding holdings. It always struck me as strange that you just suddenly go from tribes to castles and have a huge dropoff in levies, because that's not really how castles historically emerged, and feudal societies didn't always have castles either, or have castles in a specific style or for a specific purpose. A good example I can think of is Japanese castles, which didn't emerge until after daimyos started fighting each other for control of Japan, even though Japan was already feudal for hundreds of years by then. Even then, castles didn't just emerge as huge fortifications, they began as just wooden fortifications along strategic areas that gradually got built upon more and more as that area faces conflicts time and again, while places that no longer saw conflicts had fortifications fall into disuse, until eventually actual "castles" were built to govern and secure a specific territory.
That's often the case with European fortifications as well, which is why Ireland, Wales, and Northumberland still has a bunch of castles today, because those were often points of frequent conflicts that called for increased fortification. But even then, castles weren't just everywhere, like I'm sure anyone living in London or Paris today would notice that London and Paris are not in fact huge castles, but rather cities that have walls. Even in the Middle East, it wasn't like carpeted in castles, but rather there were forts and "kasbahs" in specific locations, but most places in the world are just walled cities.
I'm getting a little off-track, but the main point is that I just don't really feel like it makes sense for holdings to be specific to government types, and for government types to restrict what kind of holdings you can build and whatnot, and the overabundance and overemphasis on castles. So it seems weird to me that tribal societies can't have castles, while feudal societies MUST have castles, when historically that's just not how it worked. There's no reason a tribal society can't have huge fortifications if they saw frequent conflict and need for huge defensive structures, and there's no reason a feudal society that doesn't see conflict as much should be carpeted in castles.
That said, it's the same deal with cities. Historically, cities often emerged from local trading hubs, because places where people from far away and nearby converge to trade goods will naturally attract people. Merchants need places to stay and food to eat, so people set up businesses to house travelers and provide meals, benefiting from the wealth made from trading. And as that happens, bandits and pirates see fit to raid these areas of wealth, so mercenaries and guards are hired to secure these areas to protect them so merchants can trade. But trading itself is a messy process, and mediation is often required to settle disputes, so a governing body eventually emerges to set rules and regulations about trade, and to designate specific areas for trade so it's easier for merchants to get their wares out. And by then, a city has emerged. So, considering this, it seems really weird that tribes can't build cities and don't start out with cities, because it's not like cities have never emerged naturally out of tribal societies, and I just really don't see any reason for that to remain a restriction.
That was a lot of stuff, but I just hope that I provided some points to think about. I really do love all the nuance CK3 has over CK2 in regards to culture, religion, etc., even if sometimes it's not really perfect. But 'government' is definitely an aspect of the game that I feel like could use a lot more work, same deal with succession laws for that matter, but that's an issue entirely on its own, as I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice the weird cases of gavelkind where the primary heir inherits just one county, the second heir inherits like 3 or 4, and the rest just inherits 1. But I know that there's already people calling for balance changes and whatnot to succession, so that's why I'm just focusing on government types here.
- 6
- 3
