Sick of the HRE?

[Lord Finnish]

^ While the HRE was powerful and capable of raising countless men for war, it never existed as a single, centralized and nearly absolutist fighting force as it does in the game. When HRE joined a crusade they didn't do it to expand their own borders, and a HRE victory in a crusade should result in creation of an independent kingdom, not just an extension to HRE. The way HRE expands beyond its borders makes no sense. They should stick to their historical regions (Germany, Burgundy, Benelux, North Italy) and tread no further except to assist in religious wars.

 

[Andaries]

^ While the HRE was powerful and capable of raising countless men for war, it never existed as a single, centralized and nearly absolutist fighting force as it does in the game. When HRE joined a crusade they didn't do it to expand their own borders, and a HRE victory in a crusade should result in creation of an independent kingdom, not just an extension to HRE. The way HRE expands beyond its borders makes no sense. They should stick to their historical regions (Germany, Burgundy, Benelux, North Italy) and tread no further except to assist in religious wars.

You are right and the biggest problem is most kingdoms not just the HRE were really not that centralized in the early portion of the Game what makes the HRE special is the never really were centralized. Which is hard for Ck II to show honestly with out doing a multi player game.
As for expanding the HRE would of Expanded further historically what stopped it was the constant internal wars that broke out. Rebellion and internal war didn't happen as much it would actually expand rather well. Again this problem is caused by the Crown authority in HRE getting to strong which it never really should.

 

[Battle bunny]

Lately I've also become sick of the HRE - it made me quit a few games out of frustration. My most successful experience with dealing with the HRE was in CK+, where at least the HRE didn't become an absolutist superpower, and as of the late 1100s it still has Limited crown authority only with an elective monarchy. I'm playing as the Premyslids, and I've managed to break away with Bohemia, but only by having the Premyslid king of Hungary (a move of intrigue I'm quite proud of) inherit Bohemia and thus pull Bohemia out of the empire with zero combat. Since then, while I'm powerful enough to at least deter the HRE from attacking, whenever I have a succession crisis or another weaker period it attacks me and slowly chips off every single German-culture holding of mine. When I broke away I had all of the Duchies of Swabia, Switzerland, Carinthia and most of Austria. Now I only have Carinthia and am expanding east, away from the HRE. Despite the changes CK+ made to make the Empire weaker, it still won't fall apart - once the King of Lotharingia tried to separate and nobody came to his aid at all. I'm hoping 1.09 will incorporate the changes of CK+ and go further in weakening the HRE.

 

[Ruwaard]

@ Andaries: The CA never should get strong? I beg to differ, why would to outcome of the HRE be set in stone? Back in 1066 the HRE could become more centralized and France could disintegrate further; nothing was predestined.

 

[unmerged(519337)]

I like the suggestion that changing crown authority laws should be at the level of difficulty of changing succession laws.

 

[Andaries]

@ Andaries: The CA never should get strong? I beg to differ, why would to outcome of the HRE be set in stone? Back in 1066 the HRE could become more centralized and France could disintegrate further; nothing was predestined.

Never said it never could. I am saying it never did historically If you had one dynasty stay kaiser long enough it very will could of centralized if it solved its internal problems.. The problem was HRE suffered from a ton of internal bickering that never allowed it to centralize. Even at its strongest it was hard to keep all part of the empire on the same page. CKII just does not have a good way of representing this right now.

My stance on it in this game is it does need to be EUIII like however it needs more internal strife and a little harder for it to rise up past Low CA. Factions was actually a good start to solving the problem still not right their yet.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Here's an idea: what about knocking CA down to minimal whenever a new dynasty comes to power?

 

[BBBD316]

I still think that large empires should have a malus, each Duke should be trying to force the emperor to make them a king and each king should be desperate to secede.

Most of the HRE independence movements I see for the HRE are in Italy which makes sense, but surely some of the German dukes must want to be free.

Also I think each potential elector should start a faction to replace the emperor with themselves once they get negative relations. Hell everyone in this era was in it for themselves.

 

[unmerged(88697)]

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)

Not really sure what the deal is here, is it MP or SP? In SP certain strategies seem to work just fine against the HRE (what he said).

Still, I think the election of Emperor should follow the golden rule; he who owns the gold rules. The new faction system models this fairly well, at least it seems the best way to avoid trouble is the gift of gold. Haven't played the HRE since 1.06, but have played against it.

 

[Ruwaard]

Here's an idea: what about knocking CA down to minimal whenever a new dynasty comes to power?

As a general rule (so not HRE specific)? Then yes, otherwise no. OTOH, again as a general rule, minimal might be too harsh, but a dynastic change should IMHO result in a lower CA.

 

[ConstantineXII]

This game is so close to being an amazing game, the issue for me is the OP blob nations of HRE and France. If I play any minor-ish country on the continent then at some point I'm forced into war with them and inevitably will lose. CK1 had the problem with total decentralization and Europe fragmenting into city states, but CK2 seems to have the opposite problem with centralization into HRE.

 

[Ruwaard]

^ While the HRE was powerful and capable of raising countless men for war, it never existed as a single, centralized and nearly absolutist fighting force as it does in the game. When HRE joined a crusade they didn't do it to expand their own borders, and a HRE victory in a crusade should result in creation of an independent kingdom, not just an extension to HRE. The way HRE expands beyond its borders makes no sense. They should stick to their historical regions (Germany, Burgundy, Benelux, North Italy) and tread no further except to assist in religious wars.

Regarding the HRE during crusades, it was like France and England in the Holy Land; an exception were the Hohenstaufen kings of Jerusalem, but they had a legitimate dynastic claim on the kingdom.

 

[barny]

Yeah, the HRE is an old problem of CKII that Paradox never really tackled. DLCs are good (at least some are), but fixing the game before releasing DLCs would be better. There should simply be a rule, that caps elective titles to rise above low or medium authority or the authority should drop with every new ruler is elected or something. The two big elective realms in Europe (HRE and Poland) both suffered from the fact, that the candidates always had to buy their new crown either literally or by giving the electors new privileges and rights. This weakened them in the long run.

Elective with absolute crown authority is basically a paradox (pun somewhat intended), because the people, that have the right to elect someone, won't be controlled completely by the person, they elect. They might lose the right to elect and than get under some form of absolute control, but both at the same time is nonsense.

An other point is, that it is far to easy for the old ruler to get the heir he wants. My last game now stands around 1370 or so and the Salians never lost the crown. The Emperor of the moment doesn't even have a son (they all died under suspicious circumstances and now some far relative of the Emperor is the new heir.


The overall game would also profit greatly from a weakened HRE, because the HRE makes central Europe rather static, since it gobbles up most of it and never lets go of any land.

 

[No idea]

This game is so close to being an amazing game, the issue for me is the OP blob nations of HRE and France. If I play any minor-ish country on the continent then at some point I'm forced into war with them and inevitably will lose. CK1 had the problem with total decentralization and Europe fragmenting into city states, but CK2 seems to have the opposite problem with centralization into HRE.

Dont forget the muslims. By mid game it´s like a HoI 3 game, the big France and HRE blobs against the big Fatimid and Almoravid blobs, as some kind of medieval fascism vs communism. Playing a minor has no interest. And playing a major feels soooo unhistorical.

 

[Beagá]

Well France at least fails spectacualrly from time to time. Many things totally depend on the king. If he sucks in diplo or for some silly guardian process becomes of other culture or (gasp) religion, the country WILL implode.

My last 1.05 game months ago saw HRE implode due to that as well - why only God knows, but both emperors were greek and orthodox...

 

[Blackluck]

I haven't played in some time, but decided to start a new game. Back when I played, HRE always blobbed so I thought I'd try this suggestion (I removed all the e_ files.) It's maybe 15 years in to my new game, and the Fatmids have already taken over Italy, while France (possibly the only kingdom that might stop the Muslim expansion) has been involved with prolonged rebellions. Doesn't bode well for the Christians this game looks like.