Sick of the HRE?

[Ruwaard]

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?

It depends, obviously he should be able to do so with a Crusade endorsed by the Papacy. This could also include crusades against the Baltic pagans, but if it is really a more private initiative (probably still welcomed by the Papacy) then it should depend on how much vassals like their liege and they will want some spoils in return, so a penalty if you keep everything yourself (increases per extra holding over a determined threshold). However this system should be a general one not HRE specific.

 

[N Katsyev]

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.

I really like the bold parts. In combination with this I love the idea mentioned earlier that every time there is an Emperor of a different dynasty the CA drops a level.

 

[Darrigan]

I simply change the elective monarchy opinion modifier to -20, which makes the HRE more unstable, As it should be.

 

[wulgman]

HRE in 1066: the most centralized and best governed territory in Europe; by 1300. its central government had lost its power and the Empire had fragmented into a large number of warring states.Starting with high CA and ending with zip.

 

[Ruwaard]

I really like the bold parts. In combination with this I love the idea mentioned earlier that every time there is an Emperor of a different dynasty the CA drops a level.

As noted previously in this thread, I have some issue with the first point made by Anenu, because CA also affects other elements such as succession laws. Maybe if such elements can be separated from CA, then I would find it somewhat better (honestly I'm still not a huge fan though).

 

[Theddude]

Actually I think CA should have some prerequisites, like not being elective monarchy.

This is a really good idea, and could help end the HRE crown authority madness. Maybe Elective Monarchy shouldn't be possible above Low CA, and CA can't be raised above Low with Elective. Lot's of people feel that Elective is OP as it is, this could be a really good check on it, since it doesn't have the major drawbacks of all the other systems.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

This is a really good idea, and could help end the HRE crown authority madness. Maybe Elective Monarchy shouldn't be possible above Low CA, and CA can't be raised above Low with Elective. Lot's of people feel that Elective is OP as it is, this could be a really good check on it, since it doesn't have the major drawbacks of all the other systems.

That's.... a f--king great idea.

 

[Ruwaard]

This is a really good idea, and could help end the HRE crown authority madness. Maybe Elective Monarchy shouldn't be possible above Low CA, and CA can't be raised above Low with Elective. Lot's of people feel that Elective is OP as it is, this could be a really good check on it, since it doesn't have the major drawbacks of all the other systems.

Just see my above post, there are issues with this too. It might solve the 'macro'-external problem some have with the HRE, but internally on the 'micro'-level it IMHO does affect the vassals of the HRE way too much. And thus for me this isn't balanced either, unless these issues can be solved otherwise. (Some mods, which set limits on CA, instead link succession laws to legalism.)

Furthermore I agree that it is much too easy to raise CA, and I even agree, that a dynasty change ought to result in a drop of the CA, as a general rule, so not only in the HRE; but I do not like constraining of specific realms or government types.

 

[Talq]

It depends, obviously he should be able to do so with a Crusade endorsed by the Papacy. This could also include crusades against the Baltic pagans, but if it is really a more private initiative (probably still welcomed by the Papacy) then it should depend on how much vassals like their liege and they will want some spoils in return, so a penalty if you keep everything yourself (increases per extra holding over a determined threshold). However this system should be a general one not HRE specific.

On crusades, pretty much all nobles & a fair number of non-nobles had taken the cross, so technically it was a co-operative enterprise & so normal rules about military service didn't apply (the extent to which taking the cross reflected peer pressure is one that is debatable). Over time, the Papacy granted the same benefits for crusaders to anybody who fought infidels (and heretics, and later anybody he didn't like). That however, didn't get as much cooperation, and much depended on circumstance (obviously the Iberians treated the Reconquesta seriously, but Catholics fought against the crusaders during the Albigensian crusade & at some points in the baltics). Crusading was also a one-shot benefit - you didn't need to crusade more than once, so unless you were a zealous crusader, there was no compulsion for further holy wars.

Furthermore I agree that it is much too easy to raise CA, and I even agree, that a dynasty change ought to result in a drop of the CA, as a general rule, so not only in the HRE; but I do not like constraining of specific realms or government types.

The probably should also be a CA penalty or a voting malus on distant relatives of the ruling dynasty (unless there are no close relatives) to shut down that 'genius second cousin' lark everybody is so fond of.

 

[rashtrakut]

The big problem with the HRE is something done for gameplay - you cannot declare war on a vassal without also declaring war on the Kaiser and therefore every last count and Duke in the HRE. In real life border lords of various countries often had their own private wars without always dragging in their liege. Now while you can declare war as a vassal with low crown authority, the reverse is not true. So that allows the HRE to throw its full weight at a smaller entity without the smaller entity being able to nibble back at you.

 

[Ruwaard]

The big problem with the HRE is something done for gameplay - you cannot declare war on a vassal without also declaring war on the Kaiser and therefore every last count and Duke in the HRE. In real life border lords of various countries often had their own private wars without always dragging in their liege. Now while you can declare war as a vassal with low crown authority, the reverse is not true. So that allows the HRE to throw its full weight at a smaller entity without the smaller entity being able to nibble back at you.

I agree, but it isn't HRE specific. In older discussions I mentioned the situation in the Low Countries, where the count of Flanders (mostly vassal of the king of France, but also held a territory west of the Scheldt as a vassal of the empire), count of Holland (& Zeeland, though for a while Zeeland was disputed between Holland and Flanders), duke of Brabant etc. all had their quarrels without the HRE or France (important too in this regard) getting involved.

 

[ZechsMerquise73]

This is a really good idea, and could help end the HRE crown authority madness. Maybe Elective Monarchy shouldn't be possible above Low CA, and CA can't be raised above Low with Elective. Lot's of people feel that Elective is OP as it is, this could be a really good check on it, since it doesn't have the major drawbacks of all the other systems.

Well, high CA elective could represent senates, like in the ERE, so I don't see a problem with that. What I do see a problem with is that the AI is inclined to elect the same family over and over again for the whole 400 years of the game. There's no selfish interest of the vassals currently, they just want what the emperor wants, or what's best for the nation (one of the only times they ever undermined me was to elect my genius, kind, and content daughter).

Elective monarchies should function like republics for the nobility. In the current state of the game, the Doukas family reigns for 400 years. In real life, they only reigned another.. five(?) consecutive years after the game start because the queen gave his seat to a general. Both the HRE and ERE need to at least try to model how they worked in the period, even if that's a little too complicated for what the game can accomplish.

 

[Ruwaard]

Regarding the Elective monarchies at least in the HRE it usually did stay in the same dynasty, or it alternated between a limited number of dynasties; the only exception on this is period of the count-kings (counts of Habsburg*, Luxembourg*, Nassau etc.;*= these managed to establish themselves as great house by acquiring more territories for a sufficient Hausmacht).

 

[ZechsMerquise73]

Granted, in that regard, the game seems to model the HRE pretty well. I usually see several dynasties on the throne, but also commonly see the Billungs or Premylsids (or whatever they're called) on the throne all game.

 

[unmerged(601350)]

Duchys, Kingdoms, and Empires are too centralized in the game. I think that vassals should be aloud to flat out reject supplying their lieges armies with their men and the armies from the vassals lands should be commanded by the vassal himself unless it combines with the liege's army. In other words, vassals should work like allies, and not armies of the liege. Historically, this is why the Holy Roman Empire, despite its massive territory, never really developed into a strong centralized power like England, France, and Spain. I am always trying to play as Tuscany rebelling against Henry IV, but he ALWAYS sends his juggernaut army south and slaughters me, despite the fact that Matilda of Tuscany and Henry IV did actually fight a series of wars over investiture which Henry IV only kind of won and only after great difficulty.

 

[BBBD316]

Didn't CK1 give you the option of refusing to raise levies and take an opinion hit?

I think that vassals should at least take time to raise there forces based on their martial skill, it should not be a click of a button. Vassals that are further away should take longer to raise troops that nearby duchies, this would mean more smaller battles before forces could be concentrated.

With the HRE, I think once you take an Imperial title you should get a 30% reduction in the levies you can raise as the vassals will be more unruly.

 

[unmerged(605409)]

The HRE makes the game boring, there is almost no point in even playing with the empire due to the fact you can't wage war to vassals within the empire.

 

[Talq]

Well, high CA elective could represent senates, like in the ERE, so I don't see a problem with that. What I do see a problem with is that the AI is inclined to elect the same family over and over again for the whole 400 years of the game. There's no selfish interest of the vassals currently, they just want what the emperor wants, or what's best for the nation (one of the only times they ever undermined me was to elect my genius, kind, and content daughter).

Elective monarchies should function like republics for the nobility. In the current state of the game, the Doukas family reigns for 400 years. In real life, they only reigned another.. five(?) consecutive years after the game start because the queen gave his seat to a general. Both the HRE and ERE need to at least try to model how they worked in the period, even if that's a little too complicated for what the game can accomplish.

ERE was in no real sense an elective monarchy. A lot of new emperors were usurptions or palace coups (there were a couple of regencies and 1 or 2 end of dynasty adoptions, but they were rare). Regrettably paradox forgot to put this element in LoR, and even gave the Byzantines helpful mechanics to spread the ruling dynasties influence, so after the first 50 or so years, only the Doukas have claims (unless the player gets involved, or the AI decides to usurp with a woman in a regular marriage.) CK2s dodgy fertility mechanics don't help (if every emperor, king and duke has 5 kids (per spouse) and every courtier only has 1 or 0 then ruling dynasties spread like wildfire and disinherited houses simply vanish in a generation or two). As an aside, I'm not sure it even had a senate by 1066 (not that it was more than an infrequent political player when it did exist).

Having vassals get narky if a dynasty holds too many duchies could help the latter (especially in the revoke-with-no-consequence ERE).

But 3 things missings from CK2 that slowed down the HRE.
1) Feudal obligations were for 40 days & furthermore, it wasn't feasible to take castles in a week with a big army and human wave attacks. Or put another way, the HRE shouldn't be able to dump 80,000 troops on everybody - he couldn't use them for prolonged campaigns. One CK compromise would be to increase the opinion penalty for vassal troops. That said you also would need to teach the AI to use (& disband) them more intelligently.
2) In practice, the results of independance revolts in CK2 are frequently trivial. If there is a white peace, the emperor can revoke as he pleases (courtesy of free revoke for revolt/strong claims) if they succeed they will frequently be reabsorbed (due to being an emperor and strong claims). And revokation tends to breed Salians (or at best Germans) everywhere. Solution: the emperor does not get claims unless they succeed, and don't get free revokation on a white peace (its a negotiated settlement that should preclude the revolters being punished after the event.). Also emperors shouldn't be able to pull major difference in rank on dukes. CK having a little more respect for the culture of the province would also help (and the problems that would entail for foreigners trying to rule them- its not the peasantry, its the minor nobility & court).
3) Elective monarchies were invariably bad for crown authority, as the nobles (as a group) worked out they could demand concessions to vote for your successor. I'm also pretty sure they couldn't be persuaded to vote for your distant relatives, over your close relatives. So limit crown authority to low or medium (and of course, reduce the requirement on primogeniture), and cut out distant relatives (if any children or brothers) and daughters (if any sons).

 

[Ruwaard]

@ Talq: I agree with most, however the first two points you raised, regarding Feudal Obligations and independence revolts are general points and should be applied to all realms and not just the HRE. I also agree, that a white peace should result in a ''status quo ante bellum'', however the reputation of the revolter should be ruined with the traitor trait (will go away in time though).

I'm still not a huge fan of a CA ceiling, but in general raising CA ought to be harder for every realm.

 

[Lord Finnish]

The HRE makes the game boring, there is almost no point in even playing with the empire due to the fact you can't wage war to vassals within the empire.

This. HRE makes the game incredibly tedious because it's basically a huge black hole in middle of the map which sucks everything in but lets nothing out except once in 50 years maybe. Most realms don't stand a chance against HRE and if you can beat them 1-on-1 you know you have become the most powerful realm.