The upper middle class -- the single most fundamental problem with Crusader Kings.

[ray243]

So why are you bringing that up with me? I'm not making the game. You're debating a point that wasn't made. My point was, merchants shouldn't show up as characters cause Europe was feudal, and this era of feudalism didn't have a powerful middle class of merchants.

To equate that to "Byzantium was feudal" is a nonsensical logic leap.

Because Western Europe did not stay feudal as if it is something that's static. Western Europe prior to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire was not feudal. It became feudal because of a number of historical reasons, which in part is influenced by the collapse and shrinking of many urban centres. Once Western Europe became prosperous enough. you start to see a decline in the power of the feudal nobility.

Feudalism in Western Europe is not something that's static. Any player playing the game can reshape Western Europe, if the conditions are right. A successful player that manage to urbanise Western Europe should not be stuck in feudalism just because Europe was still feudal in the 9th/10th century.

 

[Gyrvendal]

It makes absolutely no sense to model burgers / upper middle class as holders of estates. As the name "burger/ bourgeoisie" indicates, those are city dwelling merchants, bankers and the like. They do not own significant estates, because in most feudal systems large land ownership is reserved to the nobility. Instead those merchant families should be tied to major cities, and grow in power and wealth as the cities prosper. They should compete for the position of mayor in the cities.
One way ck3 could model this is to have 2-5 families of burgers in each major city that compete for the wealth and power there. This would not cause too much lag if the number of large cities is limited. Those families could form the backbone for a republic if the city becomes independent, instead if being generated like in ck2.
This would also set of framework for those families becoming playable at some point, and be a source of educated characters for feudal rulers.

Cities could have charters that are the burger equivalent of feudal contracts, setting the tax and levy obligations of the cities merchant class towards the ruler.

 

[the glory of plain]

there should be much less named character in the game
it is ridiculous how every baron have to have a eligible npc generated for them to marry
and every baron level character basically does nothing
it is much better design to remove more pointless things then add them
the game need a better way to represent the interest of province level
the massive group of faceless landlord and merchant

 

[ray243]

It makes absolutely no sense to model burgers / upper middle class as holders of estates. As the name "burger/ bourgeoisie" indicates, those are city dwelling merchants, bankers and the like. They do not own significant estates, because in most feudal systems large land ownership is reserved to the nobility. Instead those merchant families should be tied to major cities, and grow in power and wealth as the cities prosper. They should compete for the position of mayor in the cities.
One way ck3 could model this is to have 2-5 families of burgers in each major city that compete for the wealth and power there. This would not cause too much lag if the number of large cities is limited. Those families could form the backbone for a republic if the city becomes independent, instead if being generated like in ck2.
This would also set of framework for those families becoming playable at some point, and be a source of educated characters for feudal rulers.

Cities could have charters that are the burger equivalent of feudal contracts, setting the tax and levy obligations of the cities merchant class towards the ruler.

I wonder if you have a system that models something in-between the local families and those that essentially came from nowhere. Use the Roman aristocracies and elite as an example. On one hand, you would want to model the great and medium size families of the Roman Republic in the game. But on the other hand, you want a number of new men (Novus homo) to constantly appear in the game. So the game can "spawn" novus homo once in a while, depending on the wealth and education levels of your kingdom or provinces. The wealthier your province are, the more likely it is for people to be educated and be able to function as a member of the administration. But new men are from humble background, so you do not need to model their families. But a player can make a decision on what to do with the novus homo. If the novus homo is not adopted or married into the family of a more well-off family, and receive a dowry, chances are the novus homo will eventually disappear from the game ( representing men who failed to get proper recognition of their talents and ended up back in destitution).

Secondly, a player ought to have an active desire to recruit novus homo into their families, not merely because they can offer their talents as they climb the official hierarchy ( you would want to marry your daughter to someone who can potentially be a great general or leader of the council, but because of infant mortality rates. Infant mortality rate in CK2 is ridiculously high by the standards of the middle age. This makes it relatively easy for families to bloat and dynasties rarely dies off. It should be hard for dynasties to last.

In history, no matter how big and powerful some aristocratic families were, they eventually lose power and influence and disappear into the commons.

 

[Lord Frost]

Unless I'm mistaken the devs have already stated that barony level characters will not be playable. They will also have less mechanics than CK2. Pretty sure that's covered in the Q&A.

This being the case: what on earth leads you to believe that they're going to create a complicated system of playable characters on a sub-baron level?

 

[Leivve]

Because Western Europe did not stay feudal as if it is something that's static. Western Europe prior to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire was not feudal. It became feudal because of a number of historical reasons, which in part is influenced by the collapse and shrinking of many urban centres. Once Western Europe became prosperous enough. you start to see a decline in the power of the feudal nobility.

Feudalism in Western Europe is not something that's static. Any player playing the game can reshape Western Europe, if the conditions are right. A successful player that manage to urbanise Western Europe should not be stuck in feudalism just because Europe was still feudal in the 9th/10th century.

That didn't come about till AFTER the end date. So yes western europe is feudal, and merchants didn't hold any actual substantive power till just after the end of the game. Also you are extrapolating a lot from "prosparity" prosperity doesn't diectly mean everything is wonderful, that would lead to the rise of a merchant class. Max prosperity could just mean your peasants aren't starving. The lord still takes all excess the people produce, and merchants still pay 9/10ths of their profit in tax. Private ownership was not a thing back then; you weren't selling your goods, you were gifted the right to sell the KING'S goods.

 

[Dlin369]

Unless I'm mistaken the devs have already stated that barony level characters will not be playable. They will also have less mechanics than CK2. Pretty sure that's covered in the Q&A.

This being the case: what on earth leads you to believe that they're going to create a complicated system of playable characters on a sub-baron level?

In fairness they are trying to make the game more about role playing and about character relations - one of the later additions of Ck2 was trying to improve upon the court a bit. While I’m skeptical that they’ll implement a full system to represent the gentry they’ll probably eventually have more things to represent them

 

[Lord Frost]

In fairness they are trying to make the game more about role playing and about character relations - one of the later additions of Ck2 was trying to improve upon the court a bit. While I’m skeptical that they’ll implement a full system to represent the gentry they’ll probably eventually have more things to represent them

If anything we'll likely see generic pop mechanics. This has been hinted at with the religion dev diary suggesting that no county will be entirely of one mindset. From there we can infer that pop numbers may come into play, especially if they're looking to simulate economy. As for pop opinion or stratification outside of religion or dissatisfaction? I wouldn't anticipate as much, this isn't Vicky.

 

[Dlin369]

If anything we'll likely see generic pop mechanics. This has been hinted at with the religion dev diary suggesting that no county will be entirely of one mindset. From there we can infer that pop numbers may come into play, especially if they're looking to simulate economy. As for pop opinion or stratification outside of religion or dissatisfaction? I wouldn't anticipate as much, this isn't Vicky.

Having pop mechanics would be interesting - though I have to wonder how long it'll take before it's implemented. I'm skeptical they'd be able to implement it at release

 

[Lord Frost]

Having pop mechanics would be interesting - though I have to wonder how long it'll take before it's implemented. I'm skeptical they'd be able to implement it at release

I have a hunch that they need something to enable players to "play tall" this time around. Whether that's through economy, trade, a limited pop mechanic, or something else entirely has yet to be seen.

 

[ray243]

That didn't come about till AFTER the end date. So yes western europe is feudal, and merchants didn't hold any actual substantive power till just after the end of the game. Also you are extrapolating a lot from "prosparity" prosperity doesn't diectly mean everything is wonderful, that would lead to the rise of a merchant class. Max prosperity could just mean your peasants aren't starving. The lord still takes all excess the people produce, and merchants still pay 9/10ths of their profit in tax. Private ownership was not a thing back then; you weren't selling your goods, you were gifted the right to sell the KING'S goods.

It doesn't matter when the end date is. Once you start the game, everything is subject to change. The point of a historical game is that the players can change the variables if the circumstances prevail.

You are fixated on the notion that everything must play out the way it did in history, when the point of the game is to chart a different historical path.

CK2 allows people to revive paganism, the DLCs that allows the Aztecs to invade Europe, and somehow you seem to think just because feudalism didn't end prior to 1453, it is somehow an issue if you develop the mechanics to depict the people below the aristocracy.

 

[treb]

That didn't come about till AFTER the end date. So yes western europe is feudal, and merchants didn't hold any actual substantive power till just after the end of the game. Also you are extrapolating a lot from "prosparity" prosperity doesn't diectly mean everything is wonderful, that would lead to the rise of a merchant class. Max prosperity could just mean your peasants aren't starving. The lord still takes all excess the people produce, and merchants still pay 9/10ths of their profit in tax. Private ownership was not a thing back then; you weren't selling your goods, you were gifted the right to sell the KING'S goods.

The reason it didnt come till after the end date is entirely happenstance, had the right conditions in the 10th or 12th centuries arose It easily could have.

 

[Denkt]

Medieval Europé did have Joint-stock companies which indicate a bit more sophistication than just the king owns Everything.

That didn't come about till AFTER the end date. So yes western europe is feudal, and merchants didn't hold any actual substantive power till just after the end of the game. Also you are extrapolating a lot from "prosparity" prosperity doesn't diectly mean everything is wonderful, that would lead to the rise of a merchant class. Max prosperity could just mean your peasants aren't starving. The lord still takes all excess the people produce, and merchants still pay 9/10ths of their profit in tax. Private ownership was not a thing back then; you weren't selling your goods, you were gifted the right to sell the KING'S goods.

Big powerful merchant republics is a proof it was quite different from what you say. In fact I think it was common for monarchs to support the merchant class since they worked as a nice counterbalance to the traditional nobles and clergy and they was good at bringing in Money, Flanders I think was seen as more important to Burgundy than the actual Burgundy due to its wealth.

Also I have heard medieval Europé may had a lower wealth inequality than early modern period or even today. Obviously everyone was pretty poor during the medieval era but that include even the upper class, the economy today simply is simply on a whole level compared to medieval times.

In fact the economy in absolute term have grown more between 1960 to today than the rest of the human history combined:

GDP Per capita: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD

GDP: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD​

Here is one for long term inflation adjusted estimation of world GDP: https://ourworldindata.org/economic-growth

Some numbers:

• Year 1 $180 billion, population 190 million, gdp per capita $950
• Year 1 $210 billion, population 310 million, gdp per capita $680
  
• Year 1700 $650 billion, population 600 million, gdp per capita $1100
• Year 1900 $3.4 trillion, population 1.7 billion, gdp per capita $2000
• Year 1950 $9.25 trillion, population 2.6 billion, gdp per capita $3560
  
• Year 2015 $108 trillion, population 7.3 billion, gdp per capita $14800

As can be seen, most economic growth happened in a very short span, this is due to increase in both population as well as productivity per person. But modern economic growth simply dwarf everything that happened before and that is not even consider the technologial growth which itself is pretty
exponential. So the world, even decades Before now was very poor in comparison, now think how poor the medieval world was.

 

[Torredebelem]

Here's the deal. The upper middle class doesn't exist in this game, other than a handful of Lowborn created by pushing a button.

In my opinion you can abstract the "upper middle class" as those present in your court that are not titled.

 

[Denkt]

According to a post made on reddit, both the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire have been estimated to have a gini coefficient of like 40, USA gini coeffient: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=US

In fact medieval socities can't be too inequal because stuff like food is not as plentiful as today in fact access to food is probably more equal today but raw wealth may be less equal, however while it may look bad for USA, now take a look how crazy its economic growth is: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD?locations=US

In less than 30 years it increased its PPP per capita by more than 50% which is insane, medieval World never had that kind of economic growth, so while modern socities may be less equal, they also can afford it since everyone is still getting richer and richer in a crazy speed. The poor in a country like USA may be better of than the nobles in medieval World for example.

But medieval europé did have a strong merchant class with political power as seen by the merchant republics and others which could compete with the traditional nobles or in some cases was the same thing. I think it may be the romans who started the idea that nobles should not engage in trade with their ban on senators owning large ships and thus forcing them to become landowners, but still you could work around that law.

The reason for such law from what I have heard is that trade was very risky and the romans did not want senators to have an unstable source of wealth.

However the romans was not anti trade by any means and wealth determined once social status, especially once everyone got citizenship.

 

[the_nomad]

The middle class or the the middling sort as they were known did not really start becoming a significant percentage of the population, nor begin to accrue significant political clout until the beginnings of the 15th century. The middle class as we know it today is really the result of the social shake up born out of the aftermath of the black death.

 

[Denkt]

The middle class or the the middling sort as they were known did not really start becoming a significant percentage of the population, nor begin to accrue significant political clout until the beginnings of the 15th century. The middle class as we know it today is really the result of the social shake up born out of the aftermath of the black death.

It is not clear there the line between middle and lower class go today. But yes the black Death did change alot, especially the wages seems to have been significant higher after it and maybe higher than the wages of much later periods.

 

[Undead Martyr]

You have stuff like Flanders which had powerful burghers which even defeated the French in the battle of the golden spurs.

Cough Italy cough. But yes Flanderd was a key example of this, and like Italy contemporary eith the era. Both are fundamentally medieval.

 

[Undead Martyr]

That didn't come about till AFTER the end date. So yes western europe is feudal, and merchants didn't hold any actual substantive power till just after the end of the game. Also you are extrapolating a lot from "prosparity" prosperity doesn't diectly mean everything is wonderful, that would lead to the rise of a merchant class. Max prosperity could just mean your peasants aren't starving. The lord still takes all excess the people produce, and merchants still pay 9/10ths of their profit in tax. Private ownership was not a thing back then; you weren't selling your goods, you were gifted the right to sell the KING'S goods.

Lombard league, Venice, swiss revolts against the Habsburgs, battle of the golden spurs... and of course the ERE.

 

[luxfelix]

A potential happy medium option:


How about also modeling the upper middle class as the realm's guild masters -- burgher characters with "charter titles" (granted monopoly on a "resource" or permission to operate within realm by top liege).

In places like ERE, Flanders, and Northern Italy, these characters would have more sway (i.e. landed holdings, access to mercenaries, and able to join factions), whereas in most other realms they have very limited sway (though increasing slowly by game's end).

Any "resources" they have monopoly over need not really exist in the game (not on map/only in title), but the affect of befriending the Merchants' Guildmaster, for example, could lead to cheaper ship costs (or something) for characters.

It might even be interesting to allow for these effects to stack so that characters befriending Merchants' Guildmasters from multiple realms (easier to do with stewardship focus?) can hire ships so much cheaper than those without these upper middle class friends.

Some other charter title ideas...

• Merchants' Guild = Ship Cost
• Coopers' Guild = Supply Limit
  
• Weavers' Guild = Morale Defense (Golden Spurs...? )
• Smiths' Guild = Morale Offense
  
• Money Changers' Guild = Money
• Doctors' Guild = Health/Disease Resistance
• Masons' Guild = Build Cost
• Executioners' Guild = Dread
• Lawyers' Guild = Local Revolt Risk
  
• Inn Keepers' Guild = Mercenary Cost
  
• Artisans' Guild = Prestige
  
• Holy Order = Piety/Learning

In any case, thank you for the discussion.