Sick of the HRE?

[Anenu]

Most the problems mentioned here could be fixed with some simple steps.

1. Under electoral succession laws the nation cannot raise its CA past medium and duke or higher level vassals are given the option to not participate in a war with similar results to refusing an allies call to arms only with the vassal being called to arms by the Emperor/King.

2. Holy Wars cost piety to start and the amount of piety increases the farther you get from the capital city. After all if your capital is located in northern Europe than your area of primary concern is northern Europe not southern Spain.

 

[Comradebot]

I don't have a problem with the HRE having the potential to expand.

My issue comes with the fact that they always do, and the Kaiser is universally capable of organizing the full might of every Imperial vassal to go and fight Muslims in North Africa and Iberia. And HRE naval invasion of Tunis is just silly, and it happens in every single game it feels like. It's incredibly rare to see North/West African states survive as both the HRE and France are all too happy to load up their massive levies onto ships and land in Algeria or Morocco. I don't know how to fix it, but something needs to be done here. Few nations should have that kind of naval power and launch overseas invasions, and the HRE shouldn't be among those powers (at least not until later in the game).

 

[Aramel]

One big problem in the game right now is that the emperor gets a free strong claim on any territories that leave the empire through a successful independence war. This means that every territory that rebels gets incorporated back into the empire after ten or twenty years, no matter what. It's an inheritable claim too, so even if the emperor dies, his son will end up taking back the provinces for himself. The only time the AI can actually get out of the empire is when the emperor dies a few years after an independence war AND the new ruler that gets elected is from a different dynasty. And so in most games Italy ends up being ruled entirely by Germans by the twelfth century.

Imagine if lieges got no claims when they lost an independence war. None. Not even a weak one. This would make it pretty likely that most of Italy and Burgundy would end up independent, and without those Mediterranean coastal provinces I imagine the AI wouldn't be as interested in taking Africa.

 

[markmid]

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

Well that idea sits on about the same level as my current plan, which has been to plot against and assassinate every emperor, every emperors son, and their siblings. Since they warred over the succession laws its been a good plan to keep the HRE in check, they are only blobbing mildly. I had a helpful mayor who constantly gave me 95% plot chance as I went through the emperor and his three sons, he was remarkably keen and oddly nobody suspected him as a series of random accidents happened after each of his visits. Due to a bug I had to assassinate one emperor twice :/, so I think perhaps the undead did pay a visit after all.

However I made a slip up and the current guy who has the title, he has a million titles of his own, so we are starting the laundry list again, so far I have a 200% plot chance and myself and my spymaster are taking bets if the mayor will join again.

 

[Prince Michael]

There have been quite a few good suggestions in the thread to keep the HRE in check. But the most urgent thing to do is changing the requirements for changing the crown laws. Yes, currently there are none and raising the crown authority is only a matter of announcement (some vassals may hesitate to approve the law but it passes always eventually unless the emperor dies before or is totally stupid = tyrant).

Just make them oblige the same rules as the inheritance laws do: Reign minimum of 10 years, no vassals have negative opinion of you and at peace (and not having had the law changed before). Possibly it could have the law approval system that it currently has.

Currently it is very silly that going dictator is a lot harder than making your daughter eligible, for instance. I am not advocating easing the inheritance laws, just apply the system for the crown laws (CA mainly, I have no problem with the Free Investiture, it is just sad that the AI never ever wants to have it...).

This change could also add to realism also outside the HRE. Currently Croatia, Castille, etc usually have High Crown Authority before 1100 which is really annoying.

 

[Comradebot]

One big problem in the game right now is that the emperor gets a free strong claim on any territories that leave the empire through a successful independence war. This means that every territory that rebels gets incorporated back into the empire after ten or twenty years, no matter what. It's an inheritable claim too, so even if the emperor dies, his son will end up taking back the provinces for himself. The only time the AI can actually get out of the empire is when the emperor dies a few years after an independence war AND the new ruler that gets elected is from a different dynasty. And so in most games Italy ends up being ruled entirely by Germans by the twelfth century.

Imagine if lieges got no claims when they lost an independence war. None. Not even a weak one. This would make it pretty likely that most of Italy and Burgundy would end up independent, and without those Mediterranean coastal provinces I imagine the AI wouldn't be as interested in taking Africa.

This too. Though Id say weak claims would be a better balance between strong and no claims. Gaining independence shouldnt free you from all worry from your old liege. But strong claims result in most of the rebels getting reabsorbed, and players absolutely abuse the crap out of it. The fact that people grant factions independence so they can just take all the land with claims is evidence enough of that. You should actually fear losing folks to independence, not actively seek to grant it in order to become stronger.

 

[Swxpert]

IMO the only real problem is the HRE.. The byzantines crumble in most of my games because of OP fatimids

Right now, I think the DLC I want to see the most, is a HRE and or generic empire DLC, dealing with the way the HRE is represented.

It just feels too much like any other state in the game.

This right here. What we have gentleman is a case of powercreep. This is not something I necessarily mind as long as something happens to give support to those things that become weak later on. I do not know if I necessarily want a generic empire DLC as I feel DLCs really are worthwhile as opposed to using mods when they DON'T feel generic. I have played 4 games, in all of them the HRE implodes and is conquered slice by slice by ERE, Norway, Denmark, (insert muslim here as the muslims never can agree for long periods of time), or France. That and after ERE has there own uniqueness now it would be nice for the HRE to get some love. I do not need it to be the next DLC, I don't need it to be the one after that, I just need the assurance that somewhere down the line they are on the list of things to get their own $5-10 DLC.

 

[stormblind]

This too. Though Id say weak claims would be a better balance between strong and no claims. Gaining independence shouldnt free you from all worry from your old liege. But strong claims result in most of the rebels getting reabsorbed, and players absolutely abuse the crap out of it. The fact that people grant factions independence so they can just take all the land with claims is evidence enough of that. You should actually fear losing folks to independence, not actively seek to grant it in order to become stronger.

I wonder if it's possible to program that it's weaks instead of strong? If so, I'd love it. Right now, I'd love to be able to assist people in rebelling from HRE and have it matter, as it is, it just slightly redirects their attention to italy for a few years and then they're back to bullying everyone around. Hell, I've had italy become entirely german a few times, which removes them as revolters half the time. -_-;

 

[Comradebot]

I wonder if it's possible to program that it's weaks instead of strong? If so, I'd love it. Right now, I'd love to be able to assist people in rebelling from HRE and have it matter, as it is, it just slightly redirects their attention to italy for a few years and then they're back to bullying everyone around. Hell, I've had italy become entirely german a few times, which removes them as revolters half the time. -_-;

In nearly all my games they end up completely German. At most, maybe a couple duchies/counties will remain independent. The only times they don't is if the Kaiser is quickly replaced/killed.

But I love the idea of it being weak claims instead of strong. The revolter gets their independence, players can't outright abuse it as easily, and there has to be a certain set of circumstances for the old liege to get their land back. The newly independent realms don't have to worry about being gobbled up unless they give an opportunity for a weak claim to be pressed (which means, ideally, they'd then only revolt if they feel they have a strong enough person on the throne to get away with it). Which is also a point: the AI would then need to be smarter about it. While Matilda of Tuscany may love to revolt against the HRE, she should also recognize that she'd then be one of the only realms easily re-absorbed into the HRE due to her having lady parts.

So yeah... those are the two changes that could go a long ways towards helping balance the HRE (and other large realms): changing claims from independence to weak, and making naval invasions a bit more difficult. The Reconquista started in Iberia and "continued" into Northwest Africa through Iberia for a reason, and that should be reflected in CKII. If the HRE pushes down into Trinacria, sure, then maybe they can make an argument for pressing into North Africa. Maybe make holy wars only possible against neighbors like Muslim invasions, or within a certain "distance" using a similar formula to the old revolt rules... though I guess that already exists to some extent, given that you don't see England declaring holy wars for Fez.

In addition, the latter one would also help make Crusades a little more "special", in they'd grant a non-Muslim neighboring realm the rare opportunity to snatch up overseas territory. Instead, right now as a player, if I wanted to I could start off a game with France by immediately stomping the crap out of the North Africans. And the North Africans should really spend their early game worrying about the Shia Caliphs, each other, and the Sicilians... not the French and Germans.

 

[No idea]

HRE should really drop a level in crown authority whenever a new emperor is elected who is NOT of the same dynasty as the previous emperor.

The electors had a fancy for electing whichever emperor who was least capable or ambitious and least interested in messing with their personal affairs.

Whenever they elected a new king/emperor, it was usualy to the benefit of the lower nobility and many of emperor had to bribe their way in by granting favors and exemptions from imperial rule to the electors. Often just crippling any further potential for centralised authority and control.

This seems a good idea to avoid the HR Emperor from becoming ahistorically powerful and dominant. And your historical argument makes a lot of sense.

PS. I think this game would have worked better if the HRE and possibly France worked more like the EU III HRE and less like the ones we get in CK II

 

[BBBD316]

I think that perhaps an elective monarchy should have a malus for the son/dynasty of the ruling family so that the electors look to place someone else on the throne. Heck 8/10 times they should be voting for themselves or someone of their dynasty.

It should become incredibly hard to maintain an elective monarchy within a single dynasty instead of it just being a choose your own dynsatic heir system at present.

Also choosing to form an empire should reduce the maximum levies you can call up by 30% or so, showing that whilst your vassals kneel before you they all want your power for themselves.

 

[Ruwaard]

@ Anenu: IMHO the problem with limiting CA for elective monarchies, is that CA is also linked with other matters such as succession laws. Making it harder for monarchs is one thing, but if CA isn't detached from succession laws, then it would put vassals of an elective monarchy in an unfair position.

OTOH in the latest EU4 dd they mentioned the concept of overextension, which might be an idea for large kingdoms and empires in CK2 too.

 

[Swxpert]

Now in 1,08 I have noticed in the last 250 years in game that there seems to be about a 50/50 chance as to who will win any given war between the HRE and France. Since when has France been able to summon up 20k armies.

 

[Comradebot]

Now in 1,08 I have noticed in the last 250 years in game that there seems to be about a 50/50 chance as to who will win any given war between the HRE and France. Since when has France been able to summon up 20k armies.

Since ever? France has always had a shot to start calling up ridiculously large levies, particularly late game, its nothing new. If they can avoid Aquitaine breaking free, France can (and will) be just as bad as the HRE or Fatimids in their ability to be a disgusting blob that can pour out massive army sizes.

 

[Talq]

Development (remember even at tech level 1 baronies can contribute between 200 & 1500 & cities 200 & 1000), and absolute crown authority (screw relations, 80% levies are a go!).

The HRE is also prone to be sent bankrupt by its retinue & to lose vast armies fighting some obscure byzantine war on the other side of the Caucasus which isn't great for vassal relations.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

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.

What you suggest was, under the medieval vassalage system, high treason, and perfect grounds for revocation. Refusing to supply ones obligated levy of troops was essentially a declaration of war on ones liege. Even in cases where the vassal was de facto independant (e.g. Burgundy at the time of Agincourt) the vassal generally obeyed the call to arms in time of need.

 

[A_Dane]

What you suggest was, under the medieval vassalage system, high treason, and perfect grounds for revocation. Refusing to supply ones obligated levy of troops was essentially a declaration of war on ones liege. Even in cases where the vassal was de facto independant (e.g. Burgundy at the time of Agincourt) the vassal generally obeyed the call to arms in time of need.

I'm fully aware of this, but perhaps I was going a bit overboard, my point is just that you have no real way of working against your liege, without directly revolting against him.

However, as it is now, the amount of troops big empires can call up from their vassals, through the entire game is just off.

Early game there will be low crown laws, which will (unless the ruler has a lot of bad traits) make your vassals like quite a bit, and provide you with a lot of levies because of it.
Once you get to the higher crown laws, you'll be getting some 60-80 % of their levies, whether they like you or not.

You have no way of controlling whether you like your liege or not in the early game, and in the late game it won't matter, as he'll just take most of your levies anyway. You have no way of just sending a token force to your liege, even though your suppoused to be an "autonomous vassal", which I find a bit problematic, as it makes it quite easy to strengthen your power as a liege.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

You have no way of controlling whether you like your liege or not in the early game, and in the late game it won't matter, as he'll just take most of your levies anyway. You have no way of just sending a token force to your liege, even though your suppoused to be an "autonomous vassal", which I find a bit problematic, as it makes it quite easy to strengthen your power as a liege.

I think what is truly needed is a way to change the entire liege-vassal relationship, like what the Magna Carta and (after the time frame of the game) Wars of the Roses did in England. While the lords still remained vassals of the king, their service obligation was slowly morphed from providing a warband, to a tax and public service obligation (i.e. serve as officers in the national army/royal navy) and responsibilities of governance with the king through the House of Lords.
This of course would need strong support, and probably massive rebellion, but some sort of mechanism to change the game, rather than just the tweaking of the rules (i.e. lower CA faction) is I think more appropriate for the game, and (if it can be modelled) better for gameplay reasons.

Remember in reality a medieval monarch had awesome powers over his vassals, stemming partly from them only holding the land on his sufferance, partly from the religious backing he had, and it was mainly the individual monarch himself which dictated whether CA (or the real life analogue) was high or low. A strong vigorous king with a strong retinue had much power, a weak vacillating king (or worse queen) had very little power.

 

[Jeltz]

About feudal levies, could any Emperor really call up so many soldiers for his private holy wars? The HRE was not very expansionist historically and there must be a reason for why. And I suspect this reason might be due to the levy system. Anyone know when the Emperor could call his vassals to war?

 

[Talq]

Feudal obligations were for a limited time (usually 40 days, after which you needed to be paid (this wasn't as easy as it sounds, given that kings didn't have regular taxation), which cut down on what you could use feudal levies for (you can't actually march an army that far in 40 days, and prolonged operations were problematic- eg Edward ultimately used a mercenary army in Wales because trying to suppress the Welsh with an army that was really only active for a couple of months proved impossible).

Also while the obligation usually specified numbers, type (cavalry/infantry) and quality of armaments, quality was difficult to enforce (also as obligations were inherited, you frequently ran into poor knights who could barely arm themselves, while richer lords (and merchants) with minimal obligations who could easily afford to do more. Thus the shift towards taxation & 'paid service'.