I didn't mean for my HRE / Vassal post to come across as demanding, I just tend to lay ideas out in a very frank manner as there is less chance of a misunderstanding then. Please do not take these as requirements for the mod, they are just suggestions. I have some experience in game design myself, and I tend to put out a "dream version" of a product, then try and whittle down what is actually possible / feasable through discussion after that. I absolutely love what you have done with the EU3 -> V2 Converter, and am really enthusiastic about the possibilities of this one, and would like to contribute in whatever ways I can, which at this point would primarily be idea development and analysis.
Also I see that you replied to some of this stuff two days ago, but for some reason my browser didn't refresh so I've not been able to get back to you until now :S Great news on the test game though, I am pleased that most of the things listed are working as intended (particularly the Papal issue!)
While I'm inclined to agree, you should provide justification for why the HRE gets the HRE mechanics (I agree that probably no-one else should). CK2 mechanics tend to drive the CK2 HRE in a different direction than the RL one, and there's really nothing that is similar to the Golden Bull in the mechanics.
Personal preference more than anything concrete. I just like the fact that EU3 already has mechanics to handle the Holy Roman Empire, and as a result it makes it a more interesting institution. Additionally the HRE is the only empire which really has the size to make these mechanics worthwhile (at least in your average game). It might be possible to give players the option to define a different empire to use the HRE mechanics in the configuration, this would definitely create alternative scenarios in EU3.
I would contend that CK2 HRE territory should always be EU3 HRE territory. The HRE mechanics in a 1399 start are pretty similar to what I always picture autonomous vassals are intended to be in CK2.
I admit to being a little unsure of how to handle the autonomous vassals level, particularly with regards in how to differentiate between the different Crown Authority levels. Another method might be to have all HRE vassals begin as HRE territories, but start them off with a relations penalty (and thus less likely to help each other out). I think the primary problem is that the "lowest" level of HRE unity in EU3, doesn't seem to scale very well with the lowest CK2 one. At least that is my impression, I always think that the HRE in 1399 is more like Low CA, because there is a centralised power base, a centralised military (the Emperor gets free troop allowance from the other princes, its close enough!) and joint diplomatic status (in the form of a massive defensive military alliance), though they do have the freedom to act outside of it. Another potential solution is to start the HRE with some Imperial Territory (without cores), though this could cause it to implode VERY quickly due to the badboy hits, and with an automatic converter could be a nightmare to balance. If however we can pull that off, then this could certainly be a mechanic to use in one of the CA steps.
I'm of the opinion that vassals should always be vassals. Take France as an example. At the latest point you can start in CK2, it has autonomous vassals (which I understand covers the RL history pretty well), and at the start of EU3, everything in its cored territory is vassals (or held by another kingdom).
Again, im afraid I disagree with the definitions again, though this maybe because of my lack of knowledge of early renaissance France. Purely mechanics-wise, having a Vassal is a big step towards diplo-annexing them, and having them cored just makes this step even easier (especially due to the Reconquest CB). My problem with them all beginning as a vassal, is that nations will begin to cluster far too quickly in my opinion, though I will grant you that all the stages could do with being upped by one (ie drop the current Autonomous stage, and move the others down a step). With Autonomous / Low CA, my impression is those states are more like a confederation rather than actually owing their liege much of anything. I think we should make the road to unification for low CA nations significantly harder, and stripping them of vassal relations is certainly one way of doing this. Remember, to diplo-vassalise someone, you need high relations, a royal marriage and an alliance, so most of these nations will already be 2/3 of the way to that.
PUs should be one of the ways we handle multiple same-level titles held by the same character (the other way being a merging of the titles).
Yup, this works. Nice one!
I wouldn't give any non-CK2 Empire title the EU3 Empire government. They can take the decision on their own if they like, or else get their hands on a CK2 empire. But the other government ideas are interesting. I'll revisit them once I've implemented a few more things and seen how the current government methods are working. It really could be the distinction we need.
Fair enough. I did actually have it that way at first, but though some nations might be large enough to warrant Empire status, but then if that were true then they would likely have adopted an imperial title in CK2, so its really a moot point.
Hmm…possibly. Though if you check the wiki page on governments, it's not really a matter of stronger benefits, but different benefits.
You misunderstand me here, this was primarily to be applied to Counts and Dukes. I don't believe there should be much difference between the two with the exception of size, so either give them the same government, or introduce a new government type which is a clone of the Ducal one, but with lesser bonuses / restrictions to account for the smaller governmental ability. That said, having read how you are handling advisors, this shouldn't really be neccesary, as Dukes will have a pool of better advisors and therefore have the advantage I was trying to create here anyway.
Completely agree with your comments on this.
HRE
The HRE is tricky. Historically, it remained highly decentralized, but in CK2 it tends to evolve to Absolute CA pretty frequently. As well, there's no mechanic that's equivalent to the Golden Bull. So I think HRE conversion should always be somewhat configurable, simply because CK2 doesn't model it very well.
My primary concern with making the HRE too unified / strong at the start, is that it will give HRE players very little to actually do in EU3 except curb-stomp everyone. My personal opinion on this is, that it would make a very boring game indeed. If however this is what people want then that's fine. We also need to consider however, that the AI will often be the HRE player, and if they get absolute CA (with Primogeniture as some have suggested) as often as people claim, then we will be faced with massive Germanic blob most of the time, and this sounds unbalanced to me.
A related comment on Vassals and unification here, there is a reason that the 2nd to last HRE decision is to make all the member states a vassal, because it is a massive step towards total blobbing unity. I strongly feel this is a state of affairs we should hold off as long as possible, or else make it possible only in very rare / exceptional circumstances.
Your points about what constitutes HRE territory vs HRE members is good, likewise how to determine the emperor!
One last thing to consider for the HRE... this is the one model which lets us play with three tiers of control. Member states can have their own vassals. Therefore we could have an Austrian Emperor, with a Brandenburg member state, and Brandenburg's vassal Thuringia. We might be able to play with this if we wanted to add extra depth to one particular player / empire / group / whatever.
I still disagree with you about the vassals under an autonomous state for the reasons given above
We could certainly bump the vassal status up a CA tier or two, and offset the power of this with the decentralisation slider, this is a good idea. I would still urge that we do not make Autonomous CA have vassals though, but rather start this process with Low or better yet, Medium CA.
In EU3, you can diplo-annex vassals, which could be considered the equivalent of using a combination of these techniques. If we convert CK2 vassals as EU3 nations that are not vassals, then you can only use war or add the step of diplo-vassalization first. And the CK2 mechanic of asking an independent (lower-titled) ruler to become your vassal is fairly equivalent to diplo-vassalization.
This is a good example of why I disagree with you. In CK2, your vassals tend to be Counts / Dukes, or Kingdoms only if you are REALLY powerful. However, in EU those vassal states are usually going to be entire nations (ie Kingdoms). I guess it really comes down to how quickly you want large nations to form in EU3, if they start out with vassals then this process will be quick, I estimate 50 years maximum. If you start them with good relations, in an alliance, with a royal marriage, then it will be significantly longer (roughly 100 years probably?). A good intermediary step is to have them in the Sphere of Influence, from observation AI nations tend to try to diplo-vassalise SoI nations more quickly, probably not least because of the relations bonus this grants.
My proposal as such would be;
Autonomous - Alliance / SoI
Low - Alliance / SoI / Cored
Medium - Vassal
High - Vassal / Cored
Absolute - Unified (with cores remaining)
Or;
Autonomous - Alliance / SoI / Cored
Low - Vassal / Decentralised
Medium - Vassal / Cored / Moderately Decentralised
High - Vassal / Cored
Absolute - Unified (with cores remaining)
Again, I really do love what you are doing with the converter, these are just meant as suggestions and just one player's impression of their "dream" version, though ultimately the content of such is determined by you, and I have absolute faith that it will be great either way