Sick of the HRE?

[Alerias]

I'll be the contrary voice here and say I find the current balance of empires is almost ideal, minus OP Fatimids which need to start with 75% decadence or something.

The HRE is very well modelled. The problem is people applying what they know of Renaissance-era HRE to 1066 and expect similar mechanics and results. The Middle Ages WRE was not at it's Carolingian heights but it was definitely not yet a patchwork of weak squabbling states without any central authority. Depending on whom ruled it, it's potential was pretty enormous. Under competent leadership, it should not be uncommon for it to defy history and end up centralized.

 

[Talq]

No, HRE, Byz & Fatamids are just plain OP, especially compared to historical performance.

HRE was never able to dump 80k troops on and overpower all its neighbours at will (let alone incorporate France, England or Poland as it does with tiresome regularity). Manzikurt was not a minor interuption to the Byzantines overrunning the Balkans, the Steppe, the Levant, Sicily and everything else they felt like (let alone the Doukas hegemony over the emperorship) and the Fatamids are oddly strong for a nation the decline of which created the conditions for the first crusade.

 

[A_Dane]

I'll be the contrary voice here and say I find the current balance of empires is almost ideal, minus OP Fatimids which need to start with 75% decadence or something.

The HRE is very well modelled. The problem is people applying what they know of Renaissance-era HRE to 1066 and expect similar mechanics and results. The Middle Ages WRE was not at it's Carolingian heights but it was definitely not yet a patchwork of weak squabbling states without any central authority. Depending on whom ruled it, it's potential was pretty enormous. Under competent leadership, it should not be uncommon for it to defy history and end up centralized.

I have to completely disagree with this.

There's several reasons as to why the HRE is OP. One of them is mentioned above, but I think that might just be a problem with how the levy system works. The number of troops the HRE can muster up is just insane.
Another thing is, that the HRE can
a) just press claims for it's vassals, who'll be generating claims all over the place. The HRE never really exhibited as much centralized expansion, as it does in this game. Sure some emperors fought in northern Italy, but it was far from what we see in game.
b) Once something is swallowed by the empire, it's extremely hard to wrestle it back. As an example, it's completely impossible to do what Valdemar Atterdag did, as you can't fight with the individual dukes for non-de jure HRE lands held by them.

There's probably plenty more to list, but I'm afraid I have to go.

Lastly: I'm not doubting that the HRE should be capable of transforming into a much more centralized power than it did historically, but it should be way, way more difficult, and it happens way too frequently.

 

[grumphie]

This can be solved easily by just decreasing the ridiculous supply limits for provinces (especially desert and mountain provinces).

wha? NOOOOO! supply limit was FINALLY fixed with millitary organisation to amanagble level, you go call for a decrease. its fine as it is. if anything, attack the HRE in its ability to call on all its vassels in offensive wars. imo representing it as in EU3(where its wehere independent states who elected an emperor state) would be best, with the inependent nations being able to called into war by other independent nations, the emperor not being able to call on all its vassles when it wages wars. just force the emperor state to honor defensive wars against teh HRE from outside and give a declinable call to arms to all other vassels. should severly limit the HRE's ability to wage war at all.

 

[triplethr34t]

My only real problem is with the HRE.

Playing 1.8 with only minor cosmetic and trait mods, the Byzantines seem to rise and fall naturally over the course of the game. They either get drawn into epic wars with the Fatimids or the Kingdom of Sicily.

Now the HRE on the other hand just sits in the center of Europe like an inoperable cancer. Every time there's an independence movement, it always fails. If I aid the upstarts, a few new countries are formed, but they crumble within a decade as the HRE reconquers them. The Mongols may make a dent in the empire, but after a few decades they re consolidate their losses and end up allying with the Golden Horde through marriage. Sometimes I've actually seen them inherit the Hordes holdings.


I'd like to see the three empires compete against each other, but the Byzantines are wiped out by the Fatimids, and the HRE just gobbles up it's neighbors at whim.

 

[stormblind]

My only real problem is with the HRE.

Playing 1.8 with only minor cosmetic and trait mods, the Byzantines seem to rise and fall naturally over the course of the game. They either get drawn into epic wars with the Fatimids or the Kingdom of Sicily.

Now the HRE on the other hand just sits in the center of Europe like an inoperable cancer. Every time there's an independence movement, it always fails. If I aid the upstarts, a few new countries are formed, but they crumble within a decade as the HRE reconquers them. The Mongols may make a dent in the empire, but after a few decades they re consolidate their losses and end up allying with the Golden Horde through marriage. Sometimes I've actually seen them inherit the Hordes holdings.


I'd like to see the three empires compete against each other, but the Byzantines are wiped out by the Fatimids, and the HRE just gobbles up it's neighbors at whim.

Largely forced to agree. I despise the HRE, which was the majority of the reason I did what I did. The byzzies don't both me much, as you sort of need them to exist to either hold off the muslims, or atleast be a tasty treat to delay their invasions into more central europe. The HRE however is just annoying, takes over half of France most games, half of Iberia, Italy, Africa, Mali, Hungary.

It's just not fun, and entirely too bland from a pure gameplay perspective (not even taking the historical end of things into account).

 

[dorukdorucu]

Actually i LOVE the HRE, especially if i am playing as king of England/France/Norway/Hungary/Whatever. You can easily multiply your realm by 2 if you manage to get an invasion. At least, that's how it works in 1.07, not sure if they changed it though.

 

[Ruwaard]

I'm actually more inclined to agree with Alerias. Sure there are some issues, besides I do get the impression that at least some are biased against the HRE. Furthermore though historically not very centralized and in game terms with a low CA, the HRE was in the territory, which in game is made de jure, rather stable and in they East they actually expanded. Areas like Burgundy and Italy were parts of the HRE too, but especially in Burgundy they weren't that stable; however modelling these regions in the de jure system might be too complicated.
Another issues raising the CA is way too easy for every realm, so the HRE isn't unique in that regard; it might be an idea to make raising CA harder for larger realms in general and not just the HRE. I especially agree with the comment of Alerias, that many project the 'Renaissance' HRE on the 'Medieval' HRE.

 

[cobrabb]

In one of my recent games (and I've actually seen it a few times), the Holy Roman Emperor created the Kingdom of Lothargnia, which wasn't elective, so it passed to his son. Somehow, all of the titles in the HRE became vassals of Lothargnia, so the hierarchy was HRE->Lothargnia->every other title. This changed virtually nothing at first, but eventually someone who wasn't the HRE's first son got elected, and his demesne was the only thing which escaped from Lothargnia. Lothargnia pushed his claims and became the HRE again.

I don't know how he managed to do it, but it basically meant the title wasn't elective at all. If the King of Lothargnia didn't get elected, he took the throne anyways. Eventually he revolted instead of pushing his claims, and now the HRE is destroyed and all that is left is Lothargnia (controlling all of the HRE territory, and some of Africa).

How did this happen? It seems pretty imbalanced to me.

 

[Siegkrieg]

Yes the HRE is really too stable. Whenever an Independance War succeeds (which is rare) they usually get reconquered the next year.
It should be possible to attack border counts or pushing de jure claims (for example on Vivarais as France) without involving the whole empire. Or perhaps if you're playing as a non-HRE duke you should be able to attack another duke inside the HRE, sort of like small-scale conflicts ?

 

[Ruwaard]

@ cobrabb:

Well elective monarchy do not have that open successions, it often stays within a dynasty or it alternates between a select group of dynasties. The only exception in the HRE was the period of the count-kings (around the time of the interregnum), which resulted in the Habsburgs increasing their Hausmacht into Austria & Styria, the Luxembourgs gaining the throne of Bohemia and these small houses managed to promote to large houses. OTOH the house of Nassau failed to keep the landgraviate of Thuringia (their claims on Meissen were much weaker or even disputed, but the Nassau king of the Romans legitimately bought Thuringia). However these count-kings were deliberately chosen by the prince-electors (all great houses) to have a weak monarch, but it turned out that even a minimally effective monarch needed a certain minimum Hausmacht in the HRE.
After that period the HRE returned to the elective system within a dynasty or between a limited group of dynasties. However the Luxembourgs and Habsburgs were the winners of that period, since it had enabled them to become great houses.

 

[magritte2]

I like the idea that somebody suggested earlier in the thread of there being prerequisite crown laws for higher crown authorities. I think the concept of the vassals choosing the successor to the throne implies a fair degree of decentralization of authority. I'd be in favor of restricting elective monarchy to medium or lower crown authority. But the real reason the HRE and all the big kingdoms are overpowered is that it's just easier to get troops from all the vassals than it typically was historically. And it's too cheap to maintain them, though I guess that was a change made to prevent the money management problems the A.I. had in CK1. Still, it bothers me that I often continue to make money during wars.

 

[Sn3ipen]

Only kings are able to vote in the HRE. What if they made it so also dukes could vote? Make it harder for the emperor to maintain his status.

 

[Ruwaard]

Only kings are able to vote in the HRE. What if they made it so also dukes could vote? Make it harder for the emperor to maintain his status.

No, in the HRE de jure kings and dukes can elect the emperor, just as in any other elective empire.

 

[maidros]

The major problems with all the empires is the insane amount of troops they can whistle up. In fact, IOTL, the more provinces outside your core regions you had, the less troops you could actually field, because your troops would be mostly needed for garrison duties, and just to keep those uppity foreign peasants from overthrowing your country. In the game, since Italy and Burgundy start outside the de-jure HRE, I would actually make them act as drains on the HRE manpower, by requiring huge garrisons to just keep them in the empire. Similarly, I would make all the non core regions of the Byzantine empire and the Fatimid kingdoms act as money and manpower sinks, just to keep them inside the empire.

To give an example, when Heinrich Salian IV invaded Matilda of Tuscany's territory in 1081, the number of his troops only slightly outnumbered those of Matilda's. In fact, because she held the western passes over the Apennines, Heinrich IV was forced to march east of the mountains, just to avoid her troops. She was never outnumbered a million to one as routinely happens in the game and it is not as if Heinrich could simply denude Germany of every male of military age for a campaign into Italy. Similarly, when Emperor Otto invaded Flanders around 1200, he had 25K troops as opposed to King Philip Augustus (of France) having 19K troops. Next, the Pope is extremely passive in the game. In reality, he should be a pain in every king's neck, a hot potato that none could swallow or spit. The Guelphs and the Ghibbelines, along with papal meddling, are conspicuous by their absence in the game. Finally, and most importantly, while Italy and sometimes Burgundy revolt, I have never seen the German vassals move a finger against the emperor. IOTL, the Italians fought against the emperor for independence, while the German vassals fought him for the throne. Even Fredrick Barbarossa was unable to keep them all in check and his fights with Heinrich der Lowe are legendary.

 

[A_Dane]

Well, imo that is a problem related to the levy system.

currently, you don't have much control of whether you like your liege or not, and if you for some reason like him quite a bit, even though you're plotting against him, you'll provide him with almost all your available levies. Once you get to higher crown authority, he'll simply have it by default, and you don't have much of a say in it.

One thing I'd like to see, is the ability to defy your liege when he wants your levies. Currently you might be plotting to lower crown authority or soemthing similar, but have no interest in independence. But you might still have an interest in Italy & Burgundy breaking free, as it could weaken the emperor further, making your plans more likely to come to fruition. But you have no real way of helping the independence movement at all, except A) joining them and B) throwing a faction you lead into war with the emperor prematurely.

 

[markmid]

If ever I play central Europe it's to wipe out the HRE, I wasn't biased against it until I played enough CK2 . It always blobs, always gets too powerful so its always my target at game start in central europe. I wish I had the opposite experience sometimes, and even wanted to save it on occasion but no it's far too predictable. I would happily buy a HRE DLC if it made it more unpredictable, however satisfying those that like to always see it swallowing up the map, and those that like a bit more movement of borders is difficult...

This is of course personal preference on gameplay and I think at the end of it all, will only be solved with options and checkboxes. A few more invasion scenarios may do it for me, I have Zulu and Aztecs and the map changes plenty. I just need one for central europe now and I'll be all set.

--edit
I also like crown laws being harder to get, and perhaps being influenced by other factors.

 

[Sn3ipen]

This is of course personal preference on gameplay and I think at the end of it all, will only be solved with options and checkboxes. A few more invasion scenarios may do it for me, I have Zulu and Aztecs and the map changes plenty. I just need one for central europe now and I'll be all set.

It would have to be zombies attacking the emperor. Suddenly every dead soul come to life.

No seriously. There have to be another way to fix blobs, than fantasy DLC's.

 

[Sn3ipen]

No, in the HRE de jure kings and dukes can elect the emperor, just as in any other elective empire.

Thats true. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[MartinSWE]

Main issue is the crown laws and to big levies in general (that´s true for every single nation). fact is that not a single kingdom/empire went above medium crown laws until very late in timeframe and to even have the 'absolute' crown law which wasn´t enacted anywhere before the 17th Century is just silly.