Suggestion for Paradox CHANGE THE FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS

[Ossenbrugge]

This was the big limitation that effected Monarchs historically. Imagine if Edward the Third was able to keep his vassel levys in the field for a decade. There would never have been a Hundred Years War.

The fact is for extended service Lords were obligated to pay for thier vassals levy. In the book, A Distant Mirror for example, there is some clarity shed on this, in which King Edward agreed to pay a set rate for each type of liegeman. A Knight was paid X daily, a Knight Baronet was paid X, a Count whom brought 30 men was paid a set rate according to what equiptment these men had. To pay for food, horses and so on.

And yes, the 90 limit is frankly what made campaigning seasonal. To get beyond this a Lord needed to have deep pockets. Edward the Third resorted to all sorts of clever devices to raise money, and this caused him all sorts of domestic problems.

THIS WAS the greatest limitation of the period. Remember no professional armys existed as we know them today. Some citys hand a trained levy to protect it, as did nobles with professional retainers that did nothing but practice the art of war. Those personal retainers or the nobles personal levy was a fraction of the forces employed in the war cited above. This is also why Mercenarys became so prolific during this period.

Okay, I'm going to refute some of what you said, simply because as much as Tuchmann is a good starter read she gets some of the military history aspects wrong because her focus is Anglo-Norman (for laymen: English). England and France are aberrant in the period. In the sense that vassal levies were paid for by lords, on the continent they were still using the fedual levy where the vassal provided service to the lord OR payment in lieu of. Also what made campaigning seasonal wasn't the 90 limit, it was LOGISTICS. It was seasonal because there is a limited window in which one can fight in armour in Europe without either trashing the armour or yourself. Add into that getting your Knights, their retinue (at least 8 if not more like 10 retainers), a slew of horses, and of course the basic necessities to feed and bed them around was a daunting task in an age where you either traveled by horse, or by boat.

The greatest limitation to warfare in the middle ages (as it was to Rome and is today) was getting the warfighter to the battle in good health and well nourished. Since the medieval army was dependent on the land there was a lot of raiding ("razzia") tactics and scorched land. Tuchmann addresses this in the fact that western France basically got trashed by the hundred years war because of the constant raiding. If you read more about the Northern Crusades you can see that as "invincible" as the Teutonic Knights (ahem a "professional army" of its day) were, the Lithuanians realized than an all powerful Crusading Knight is really pretty easy to kill when he has to eat his horse or starve in hasty retreat in the dark woods of Prussia and Pomerania.

My only complaint with the game (other than the fact that levies get spun up and disbanded way too easily), is that I can march my Saxon army through Luebeck and into eastern Mecklenburg with minimal to no casualties (EU3 was better about losing forces this way). Add to the fact I can do that in December/January (the march I've mentioned was notoriously treacherous and stark in winter time) and yes the combat system isn't highly realistic.

All that being said, I agree that the familial structure is too cutthroat, and I wish there was a tag or attribute that was added to the Dynasty to mitigate/reflect the fact that some dynasties were out to get each other (the Angevins for instance), while others were more tribal/communal the (De Coucys or William Marshal).

 

[unmerged(19220)]

Going to have to disagree with you here. First of all A Distant Mirror isnt a good starter, its a well researched book on the period with details that only a history scholar would be privy to.

Second, the greatest limitation was not logistics, it was getting the people to go...which is precisely what Edward the Thirds problem was, to come up with the MONEY to pay for extended service.

Hell most of his vassals wouldnt even answer the feudal obligation as it in large part had lapsed as the law of the land at that point. Something again commented on in this book. This is why Edward resorted to creative devices to raise money and pissed quite a few important people off during this period.

These creative devices like the wool tax allowed him to pay for the army over brief periods of time. The golden means that Edward eventually arrived upon...was pillage. He raped Normandy. This allowed him to actually persue his claim for the crown of France. Had the campaign in Normandy failed the war would have ended at this point.

It was the sheer volume of loot taken in this campaign that convinced quite a few minor nobles to risk all in his further ventures in the war against France.

The pillage of the countryside was a direct result of the lack of LOGISTICS, even in the 30 years war pillage to sustain a campaign was common practice because NO army has the supply train to support it in this time frame. IF I recall correctly it was Frederick the Great that placed huge importance on supply trains and depots which allowed him to rapidly march from the French frontier to the Russian to the Ausrtian and defeat each in turn as a result.

Okay, I'm going to refute some of what you said, simply because as much as Tuchmann is a good starter read she gets some of the military history aspects wrong because her focus is Anglo-Norman (for laymen: English). England and France are aberrant in the period. In the sense that vassal levies were paid for by lords, on the continent they were still using the fedual levy where the vassal provided service to the lord OR payment in lieu of. Also what made campaigning seasonal wasn't the 90 limit, it was LOGISTICS. It was seasonal because there is a limited window in which one can fight in armour in Europe without either trashing the armour or yourself. Add into that getting your Knights, their retinue (at least 8 if not more like 10 retainers), a slew of horses, and of course the basic necessities to feed and bed them around was a daunting task in an age where you either traveled by horse, or by boat.

The greatest limitation to warfare in the middle ages (as it was to Rome and is today) was getting the warfighter to the battle in good health and well nourished. Since the medieval army was dependent on the land there was a lot of raiding ("razzia") tactics and scorched land. Tuchmann addresses this in the fact that western France basically got trashed by the hundred years war because of the constant raiding. If you read more about the Northern Crusades you can see that as "invincible" as the Teutonic Knights (ahem a "professional army" of its day) were, the Lithuanians realized than an all powerful Crusading Knight is really pretty easy to kill when he has to eat his horse or starve in hasty retreat in the dark woods of Prussia and Pomerania.

My only complaint with the game (other than the fact that levies get spun up and disbanded way too easily), is that I can march my Saxon army through Luebeck and into eastern Mecklenburg with minimal to no casualties (EU3 was better about losing forces this way). Add to the fact I can do that in December/January (the march I've mentioned was notoriously treacherous and stark in winter time) and yes the combat system isn't highly realistic.

All that being said, I agree that the familial structure is too cutthroat, and I wish there was a tag or attribute that was added to the Dynasty to mitigate/reflect the fact that some dynasties were out to get each other (the Angevins for instance), while others were more tribal/communal the (De Coucys or William Marshal).

 

[Ossenbrugge]

Going to have to disagree with you here. First of all A Distant Mirror isnt a good starter, its a well researched book on the period with details that only a history scholar would be privy to.

Second, the greatest limitation was not logistics, it was getting the people to go...which is precisely what Edward the Thirds problem was, to come up with the MONEY to pay for extended service.

Hell most of his vassals wouldnt even answer the feudal obligation as it in large part had lapsed as the law of the land at that point. Something again commented on in this book. This is why Edward resorted to creative devices to raise money and pissed quite a few important people off during this period.

These creative devices like the wool tax allowed him to pay for the army over brief periods of time. The golden means that Edward eventually arrived upon...was pillage. He raped Normandy. This allowed him to actually persue his claim for the crown of France. Had the campaign in Normandy failed the war would have ended at this point.

It was the sheer volume of loot taken in this campaign that convinced quite a few minor nobles to risk all in his further ventures in the war against France.

The pillage of the countryside was a direct result of the lack of LOGISTICS, even in the 30 years war pillage to sustain a campaign was common practice because NO army has the supply train to support it in this time frame. IF I recall correctly it was Frederick the Great that placed huge importance on supply trains and depots which allowed him to rapidly march from the French frontier to the Russian to the Ausrtian and defeat each in turn as a result.

I won't argue that "A distant mirror" wasn't researched, but seriously dude, there are much better books on warfare in the middle ages. Tuchmann isn't a dedicated medieval scholar. Her focus is WWI, (the Guns of August was a good book too). I reenact this period, I have friends who go to Kalamazoo, for the Internation Congress on Medieval Studies (which my wife and I keep missing due to scheduling issues), Tuchmann's work is great for someone who wants to START learning about this stuff.

In regards to logistics, you are making my point for me, keep it up.

As far as money and Edward III goes, he had plenty of volunteers, they weren't vassals though. Additionally you are totally wrong on professional armies, the hundred years war saw the development of professional armies in France and England. If you doubt me check out the database online (you can look up the actual contemporary records here: http://www.icmacentre.ac.uk/soldier/database/) , you can read the primary sources, which show, yeah, people wanted to be soldiers, the loot and pay wasn't bad in comparison to say being a serf or yeoman farmer. Lots of captains who got companies together to go fight, the problem Edward had was that money was an issue with campaigning (as it had been and was for centuries before and after), considering the King took a heck of a lot of people with him, had to feed and lodge them and transport them. Crecy worked out the way it did because Edward relied on his archers (after his knights pretty much ate their horses because the campaign went scorched earth.) This wasn't terribly innovative, the Golden Spurs and Bannockburn had shown pike/infantry formations could beat the knight.

I can point out more detailed works if you are interested in this period, this time period is my main hobby (well except for some pesky PI game called CK2 ). Tuchmann did a decent job, but she isn't the BEST author on this period or medieval warfare, the Gies are better, and for the Baltic Crusades William Urban is probably the best English language researcher.

 

[unmerged(19220)]

I salute you Sir! I never intended to belittle your knowledge, and like you I also enjoy this period to a degree of obsession. Perhaps not nearly as much as you, and I agree there are quite a few other works on the period the delve into the minuta of various aspects of Medieval history that are far more elightening then A Distant Mirror. I cite it as a example simply because it is a rather commonly known work.

And you Sir have made some of my points for me as well. At any rate I think we can agree that some aspects of the game perhaps need to be modified to better reflect the period, Yes?

I won't argue that "A distant mirror" wasn't researched, but seriously dude, there are much better books on warfare in the middle ages. Tuchmann isn't a dedicated medieval scholar. Her focus is WWI, (the Guns of August was a good book too). I reenact this period, I have friends who go to Kalamazoo, for the Internation Congress on Medieval Studies (which my wife and I keep missing due to scheduling issues), Tuchmann's work is great for someone who wants to START learning about this stuff.

In regards to logistics, you are making my point for me, keep it up.

As far as money and Edward III goes, he had plenty of volunteers, they weren't vassals though. If you doubt me check out the database online. Lots of captains who got companies together to go fight, the problem Edward had was that money was an issue with campaigning (as it had been and was for centuries before and after), considering the King took a heck of a lot of people with him, had to feed and lodge them and transport them. Crecy worked out the way it did because Edward relied on his archers (after his knights pretty much ate their horses because the campaign went scorched earth.) This wasn't terribly innovative, the Golden Spurs and Bannockburn had shown pike/infantry formations could beat the knight.

I can point out more detailed works if you are interested in this period, this time period is my main hobby (well except for some pesky PI game called CK2 ).

 

[P.P.A.]

 But backstabbing people is fun! Ask Spy in TF2!

 

[Ossenbrugge]

I salute you Sir! I never intended to belittle your knowledge, and like you I also enjoy this period to a degree of obsession. Perhaps not nearly as much as you, and I agree there are quite a few other works on the period the delve into the minuta of various aspects of Medieval history that are far more elightening then A Distant Mirror. I cite it as a example simply because it is a rather commonly known work.

And you Sir have made some of my points for me as well. At any rate I think we can agree that some aspects of the game perhaps need to be modified to better reflect the period, Yes?

Completely agree. Check out the database, it is really cool to chart many of the yeoman/burgher captains and see them go upwards in mobility based on the "tours" they went on.

I also agree the game could be tweaked. I think EU3 did a better job with the logistics/casualty rate for moving troops. I also find the ridiculously short muster time to be a little unreal, but then again the fact that you can't raise levies until AFTER you declare war seems a bit weird as well (here Victoria 2 seemed to do better with "reserve mobilization"). I know PI is trying to have CK2 be its own game, but if it works elsewhere don't be shy about using what works...

I have to say that this game is probably my favorite PI game, I played CK1, which to some extents was limited by technology and not as good as its successor. I'd like to see more plots and abilities to use your spouse's claims on thrones a bit more (I think the Casus Belli options are a bit light, but then again I've only played a Duke). I am not sure if for instance, playing William the bastard, you can declare war on England to support your wife's claim to the throne.

Another historical concept that would be awesome would be the ability to declare an heir (whether or not this would be accepted after your death is another matter). This was a HUGE issue for England during the Anarchy, in that Stephen claimed that he was really the heir, by being a ward of Henry I, rather than Maud who was declared the heir by her father. Which then begs the question, shouldn't wards get some sort of claim as well? Geez I feel like I'm opening a can of worms

 

[dwillo82]

Agreed, something needs to change with regards to the way families are handled.

 

[unmerged(19220)]

Well it appears quite a bit can be modded here so lets hope for the best!

 

[Ossenbrugge]

For all the griping this is my #1 PI game now, and if EU3 is any indication CK2 will get better with successive mods/patches/dlc's

 

[Mike6979]

The game already has 'higher taxes on nobles' and 'lower levy sizes', this is historic. A feudal levy should only be raisable for 90-150 days.
The game, unfortunately, only has two types of troops; out and out mercs and feudal levy. There should be a third type, semi-professional soldiers from your lands who fight for pay. Byzantine farmer soldiers were much like English Yeoman.

Mike

 

[Ossenbrugge]

I sort of saw the personal levies fall into this category, but yeah I agree as well. I just hate that within moments you can get all your levies up and running. that an you can march them to Jerusalem and back without taking massive attrition. There should also be an event for your leader "fall off your horse and drown on crusade." Just for those Kaiser Fred lovers!

 

[unmerged(19220)]

I sort of saw the personal levies fall into this category, but yeah I agree as well. I just hate that within moments you can get all your levies up and running. that an you can march them to Jerusalem and back without taking massive attrition. There should also be an event for your leader "fall off your horse and drown on crusade." Just for those Kaiser Fred lovers!

LOL! No kidding, those sorts of events would spice it up and make you want to kick your computer at the same time. Hell one of my characters died of disease crusading in Sicily and he was only there for a month. I probably would have laughed at least if it was a event like this; You were struck in the head by a falling piece of masonry while attending the siege.

Or better yet, while peering at the enemy battlements a arrow pierces your knee...(lol skyrim) it becomes infected and you die.

 

[Ossenbrugge]

Masonry? Wow... At least you could have gone out like Richard the Lionheart and gotten an arrow to the eye... Or even boiling oil... Masonry just feels like being cheated...

And I thought my conversation with a vassal about his impotence was odd... :unsure:

 

[Arizal]

I totally agree with the OP. I checked Alexios Komnenos biography on wikipedia and they are saying his brother was actually supporting him during most of his reign. There is no reason that a brother which isn't suited for power, is shy or just recognize the primogeniture rule, should try to destroy his own brother and after that trying to reign on a destabilized, weaker country. It may happen in some case, but this is clearly not the "rational" (meaning the most successful in the long term) way to act. It destroy all confidence you can have in your family and it was clearly super important at the time, when you arranged to have your brother on another throne to help you, not to destroy you (example: Even Napoleon at the eve of the modern times appointed his brother on the Spanish throne).

The idea of giving educationnal and childhood traits linked to one person or another seems fine to me. However, most of the traits in the game seems generic and related to all the other characters. Multiplying the individual traits could eventually pose problem to the game engine. It seems on the other hand that the game is simply unrealistic if we don't have such traits.

My prefered solution would be, if it is feasable, to give to characters those individual modifiers, but if it isn't, I would just like the "pretender" trait to be limited to ambitous characters, or for more possibility that characters that are shy, slothful*, etc. would not have this trait.

*In my opinion, a slothful wouldn't want to be in charge and risking his life. However, it can be argue that he precisely want to enjoy all the wealth of royalty (or of having the little poor county for himself...)

 

[Duke of Bavaria]

I just realized with having a horde of boys as the Morgan dynasty in Wales , your brothers and uncles arent actually a big problem if you dont give them land in your realm. I just marry them off to some foreign lonely countesses or baronesses or keep them at my court without any land. Somehow makes sense even i guess , because in real life brothers normally didnt get a power basis big enough to really compete too or where married of to try to establish a secondo-geniture. Still remains the problem they might plot against you, but i only saw this a problem with landed powerful guys too again. At firs ti thought its very stupid too your family is your biggest enemy but i guess i jsut play their game now and try to cope with their power lust by refusing them power. ATM i have like 5 brothers and 7 uncles plus endless cousins and i can keep them all in check easily so far, if my son want land i tell him to f''k off and marry him away to some distant lonely female ruler, can be a baroness i dont care as long as he is out of my sight and earns hus spurs and causes trouble somewhere else.

 

[Arizal]

You are not wrong, Duke of Bavaria, in saying that it's playing with fire to allow your brother or your direct heir to have a great power (just see poor Lothair...), but what I don,t like is that at the very time one character become the third or the second in the succession line, he dislike you. They could also add different chain of events leading (or not) to the trait pretender, and not just making it automatical. Like someone was saying, it makes no sense that a one years old boy at the end of the world is pretender and thus dislike you. Maybe his mother could have a trait encouraging her to plot for him (and I think she already have that), but this poor baby don't even have the ability to speak at the moment he is "plotting" against you.

 

[Duke of Bavaria]

I would like some sensible system too , where not all brothers would go all out for the kill, but as long as it is like this its a challenging and fun game to play too. It definately keeps you more on your toes than in CK 1 where you just gace titles to family all the time. And as i said, in my current game my kin isnt any problem , i learned how to handle them...in demo i gave my brother the Duchy of Moravia as King of Bohemia..now that was a desaster haha.

 

[HolisticGod]

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think it should be handled delicately. Intradynastic rivalry is one of the most interesting things in the game and while it is presently much more prevalent in the game than in history, it's also much too easy to structure titles. If your family isn't coming after you, you're unlikely to have much domestic difficulty. Add to this that the game does not simulate many realities of medieval politics (you mention term of service; throw in estates refusing taxes or vetoing wars).

What would be better is a more convoluted system in which it is basically imperative to take care of family members, including at least close degrees of extended family members. The males should all want land, the females land for their husbands and good marriages, and close relatives should demand large roles in government and commands in war, and it should cause events and relations hits with all relatives when these things aren't done.

Fully blown succession crises should, I agree, be setup in advance by events, traits and relationships.