What if a succesful independence makes you lose the counties, ie. you dont get strong claims on them, that should fix some things.
Sick of the HRE?
- Thread starter stormblind
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I've suggested in a few threads now that the claims you get from independence should be weak. The current use of strong claims both allows blobs like the HRE to just re-absorb nearly everything it loses the majority of the time (cause the league only lasts so long as to gain independence, they stop caring after that), and it allows players to abuse the living crap out of it by intentionally surrendering to independence factions to get the free claims.
Weak claims would leave it so the realm that gained independence would still have to be wary, but at least their ex-liege can't give them a game over screen whenever they please.
Agree with that too. I also totally disagree that all monarchy forms should be equally viable. Elective monarchies were usually the weakest. Just compare France and England to the HRE. If France became the first truly centralized and bureaucratized state in Europe was due to many reasons, and having stable dinasties, unlike the mess that is an elective one, was certainly a reason.
So giving smaller authority to elective and forcing it to evolve if ti wants more is definitedly interesting - if not for vanilla, at least for a mod. Is there any mod who does that already?
I believe I brought weak/strong claims up in regards to the HRE as well, a couple of months ago.
If i remember correctly, the devs didn't feel like changing it
I believe I brought weak/strong claims up in regards to the HRE as well, a couple of months ago.
If i remember correctly, the devs didn't feel like changing it
Well, they need to. I wish I knew where to change it in the files, along with allowing holy wars only against neighbors, and seeing how that effects the world long-term.
I don't get it. My game experience has been worlds apart from everyone in here. HRE has never, in any of my campaigns, ever amounted to anything. They spend the entire campaign fighting each other. It's like a never-ending civil war. Yes, they can field lots of troops when they're united. Thing is, they are NEVER united. I hear stories of HRE taking over Africa, Spain, France, etc... I've never seen any of this and I'm on my 10th campaign. Am I just lucky?
This is me after 250 years. Here, I am Scandinavia and HRE is my bitch. They haven't expanded anywhere, the grey specks in the middle east are all Knights Hospitaller. Golden Horde WAS kicking my ass until I killed their doom stack, now I use Golden Horde and HRE for land grabs in between my own civil wars. One time I put a different king in Bohemia by pressing some random weak claim for absolutely no reason other than boredom, really. When I attack them they barely even fight back because they are constantly defending against independence leagues. My war for Danzig I think all they could muster was a single 8K stack which I swatted with one of my 20K stacks.
And this isn't just a one time deal, every time I start a campaign in CKII, HRE sucks. This forum thread was a huge shock to me lol.
This is me after 250 years. Here, I am Scandinavia and HRE is my bitch. They haven't expanded anywhere, the grey specks in the middle east are all Knights Hospitaller. Golden Horde WAS kicking my ass until I killed their doom stack, now I use Golden Horde and HRE for land grabs in between my own civil wars. One time I put a different king in Bohemia by pressing some random weak claim for absolutely no reason other than boredom, really. When I attack them they barely even fight back because they are constantly defending against independence leagues. My war for Danzig I think all they could muster was a single 8K stack which I swatted with one of my 20K stacks.
And this isn't just a one time deal, every time I start a campaign in CKII, HRE sucks. This forum thread was a huge shock to me lol.
Then you're lucky. Either them or France seems to always explode into Iberia and/or North Africa. Looks like its France doing it this time in your game.
Interesting perspective... weird game dynamics uncovered too. Weird and surprisingly revealing.
GJ op, great idea.
GJ op, great idea.
France got most of that land in Spain from a crusade that happened like 200 years ago. England got their little chunk 50 years later, as did I. They've gotten a little bit here and there in North Africa but they also can't seem to stay united for very long. For me it was Sicily that went on a North African rampage. Unfortunately they seem to have collapsed in this pic but just a few years earlier pretty much everything from Tunisia to Egypt was Sicily.
I agree it's crap how weak the Islamic factions are, because pretty much every campaign they get steamrolled on every front. At present time Ilkhanate is Catholic (kinda unrealistic) so the only Muslim lands left are Egypt and Morocco. All of Arabia is Catholic. I think the Mongols should only be able to turn Muslim. My religion map looks a little far-fetched right now.
Why? Maybe they tasted some delicious sausage or bacon and decided that it isn´t worth it to be muslim
There was nothing set in stone that forced the mongols to convert to islamism. It was mostly due to geography. Likewise, the Manchus didn´t become muslims after invading China. If the hordes invaded only Europe, a different religious outcome would be predictable.
There was nothing set in stone that forced the mongols to convert to islamism. It was mostly due to geography. Likewise, the Manchus didn´t become muslims after invading China. If the hordes invaded only Europe, a different religious outcome would be predictable.
I agree with Raubritter. Granted, I haven't played that many games until now, but in most of them the HRE ends up as a Bunch of small independent country by 1300 with the HRE Remnant smaller than e. g. Denmark and even if not an its able to hold the status quo it still breaks up every 5 to 10 years in civil war (independence factions, reduction of crown authority factions, someone for emperor factions). The Fatimids are way worse, conquering nearly the complete Byzantine Empire by 1100-1150.
But, to ad something constructive: I would support tying the mode of succession to the authority of the crown. Would also be historic, e. g. the time after the Interregnum of the HRE, when the elective was on its high the german King (who wasn’t always crowned emperor in this time (see for example Albrecht I. of Habsburg)) the King/Emperor was nothing without the support of the electors (see for example Wenzel of Luxemburg, who was even disposed by the electors).
But, to ad something constructive: I would support tying the mode of succession to the authority of the crown. Would also be historic, e. g. the time after the Interregnum of the HRE, when the elective was on its high the german King (who wasn’t always crowned emperor in this time (see for example Albrecht I. of Habsburg)) the King/Emperor was nothing without the support of the electors (see for example Wenzel of Luxemburg, who was even disposed by the electors).
This.
People complain about the Fatimids and the Iberian Emirates, but those seem to be outliers and often its only an early game issue. The Fatimids are just another realm capable of crazy feats of blobbing, no different than the HRE, ERE, or France who I've seen be just as disgusting just as often. The invasion CB helps the Fatimids, but they also have a tendency to eventually explode, and then they get ganged up on as there are no Muslims left to help them.
The Andalusians, meanwhile, are great at winning Iberia from the Catholics there, but once that happens they get stomped by the HRE and France with regularity, often times because their North African allies have already been steamrolled in the first century of gameplay. More than once I've seen the Muslims collapse because the HRE takes North Africa, leaving the Andalusians alone against France.
It takes an active effort usually from the player, it seems, to keep Islam alive in well in more places than Egypt. I'm trying right now with a North African sultanate, but with my typical luck the Andalusians are failing against the original Catholics in Iberia. France just jumps in now for shits n' giggles.
Really need to figure out how to mod holy wars to be against neighbors only. I'd love to see how the world plays out when France and the HRE aren't allowed to storm North Africa at the start of the game. Might make things screwy for the Danish, but whatever... the Pagans get holy war'ed at an unrealistically aggressive rate anyways.
The evidence of this is extremely obvious just by looking at the historical starts, and seeing all the Rumova/Suomesusko lands still alive and well as late as 1337. In an actual campaign, 99.999% of the time both of these religions are wiped out by 1150 or so.
In my experience the more games I play in the new patches, its not a this faction or that faction issue so much as an empire title issue of blobbage. Any can do it, it's just three start as decent sized empires and are more prone to doing it, HRE near always due to its size, with the ERE about 60-70% of the time and the Fatimids about 50% of the time in my games. Though I have muslim crusades enabled at early dates, so maybe less or more without for the Fatimids. Some report the Fatimids less likely to stay cohesive when crusades were rolled back, as they had more fractured holdings to try and keep, and thus more wars to deal with + crusades.
The reason for the blobbing is because the distance penalty for vassals has been removed, which except for certain key areas taken in holy war is unrealistic. So in my current game in the mid 1100's, The HRE has Norway, the midlands of england, southern France and is now parading their merry way around Finland. This is a little faster than usual granted, but common in my games.
One suggestion is - the distance penalty comes back, if for instance a vassal is powerful enough to stand against his neighbors. So if the HRE takes Greece as an example, and a very powerful duke exists there, then the Duke should be prone to joining independence factions. This would be ideal, but failing this, making people way outside of the usual sphere of influence have the negative modifier back. If I hold counties the other side of the continent, I should have more trouble with them, especially if one becomes powerful.
The reason for the blobbing is because the distance penalty for vassals has been removed, which except for certain key areas taken in holy war is unrealistic. So in my current game in the mid 1100's, The HRE has Norway, the midlands of england, southern France and is now parading their merry way around Finland. This is a little faster than usual granted, but common in my games.
One suggestion is - the distance penalty comes back, if for instance a vassal is powerful enough to stand against his neighbors. So if the HRE takes Greece as an example, and a very powerful duke exists there, then the Duke should be prone to joining independence factions. This would be ideal, but failing this, making people way outside of the usual sphere of influence have the negative modifier back. If I hold counties the other side of the continent, I should have more trouble with them, especially if one becomes powerful.
The HRE is meant to make you sick. Welcome to cold hard reality of 10-12th century but also later. They meddled, they meddled hard and not always diplomatically. Sometimes they fabricated a claim and sent a doomstack with it. And you had to live with it. At least they tended to leave you alive and with some measure of power.
Last edited:
It's ahistorical and overpowered the way it is, but then again that doesn't bother me in the slightest. Its the predictable nature of all Empire blobbing which makes it non optimal for interesting gameplay. I think that's been well discussed here as to why however.
@ markmid: I agree that it is more a large realm issue, than a HRE specific. Re-instating some kind of distance penalty for every realm, especially for non de jure areas (or at least for those it should be higher) would IMHO be a good idea.
That´s a very critical point.
Communications by land were terribly inneficient and thus not only amassing armies over huge territories was difficult (instead of the insta-raise of the current game - seriously, pigeons carry messages faster than the internetz it seems), but, above all, territories and interests simply weren´t THAT well integrated. Would a lord, who lives hundreds of miles away, care that much about sending troops to a war totally far from his interests, specially if there are hostile neighbours, or even worse, infidels? Hell no. It´s possible he didn´t ever even seen his master face to face. Would he be THAT loyal? He could claim there were threats to his realm, and thus refuse to raise any levy at all.
So yes, distance to the lord should give some kind of malus. At least, levies should take more time to raise to represent communications delay. It could also be argued that the malus for having different cultures should be even larger than it is now.
Communications by land were terribly inneficient and thus not only amassing armies over huge territories was difficult (instead of the insta-raise of the current game - seriously, pigeons carry messages faster than the internetz it seems), but, above all, territories and interests simply weren´t THAT well integrated. Would a lord, who lives hundreds of miles away, care that much about sending troops to a war totally far from his interests, specially if there are hostile neighbours, or even worse, infidels? Hell no. It´s possible he didn´t ever even seen his master face to face. Would he be THAT loyal? He could claim there were threats to his realm, and thus refuse to raise any levy at all.
So yes, distance to the lord should give some kind of malus. At least, levies should take more time to raise to represent communications delay. It could also be argued that the malus for having different cultures should be even larger than it is now.
HRE during the middle ages was the power of Europe. While the HRE was weakened overtime and eventually its outdated system was killed by napoleon. You have to remember it was powerful and it was influential.(just not centralized heavily like the rest of Europe.) It also possessed one of the largest armies in Europe at the time so it was crazy at the time to attack the HRE straight up unless you had a plan. While HRE wasn't very centralized nether was any of the other major kingdoms. What historically killed the HRE was it didn't upgrade with the times and while others took absolute Crown Authority of the Central state the HRE was stuck in the past.
Historic examples of the large size of HRE troops is the Third Crusade and How they had to march to the holy land since no fleet could carry the HRE force their on the more traditional route.
Their are times when good rulers rose to the election of kaiser and expanded the borders of HRE in great stride. most of the expansion got bugged down in internal civil wars and conflicts of independence or pushes for a new kaiser. Which thanks to factions do happen in the HRE more now.
My other point is their are non war ways to play CKII the HRE is manageable if you realize this. Maybe some people should spend less time in a sledgehammer match with one of the people with the large sledgehammer. Play the HRE against its weakens. (hint: its the massive amount of Vassals the Kaiser has. especially the Italian republics)
On side note on Crown authority ( a separate issue in my mind):
Out of everything here best suggestion I think is if the Election for Kaiser goes out side the Ruling Kaisers Dynasty you lose one slot of crown authority that should help keep it in check. Since if a family kept power for long enough they would try to centralize. While changing the dynasty would somewhat decentralize it. (Also in my opinion crown law votes need a complete Revamp just not sure what the revamp should look like.))
Historic examples of the large size of HRE troops is the Third Crusade and How they had to march to the holy land since no fleet could carry the HRE force their on the more traditional route.
Their are times when good rulers rose to the election of kaiser and expanded the borders of HRE in great stride. most of the expansion got bugged down in internal civil wars and conflicts of independence or pushes for a new kaiser. Which thanks to factions do happen in the HRE more now.
My other point is their are non war ways to play CKII the HRE is manageable if you realize this. Maybe some people should spend less time in a sledgehammer match with one of the people with the large sledgehammer. Play the HRE against its weakens. (hint: its the massive amount of Vassals the Kaiser has. especially the Italian republics)
On side note on Crown authority ( a separate issue in my mind):
Out of everything here best suggestion I think is if the Election for Kaiser goes out side the Ruling Kaisers Dynasty you lose one slot of crown authority that should help keep it in check. Since if a family kept power for long enough they would try to centralize. While changing the dynasty would somewhat decentralize it. (Also in my opinion crown law votes need a complete Revamp just not sure what the revamp should look like.))