Things I like to see in CK2 (was Top 3 Things You Want ...)
- Thread starter LordofSaxony
- 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.
Bring all the anecdotal evidence you want, but women staying home is still the rule, and women fighting and commanding armies of men are rare. Rare enough, I think, to avoid it altogether in CK.
It's all an Amazon fantasy, really. Even someone ruthless and powergrabber like Empress Mathilda knew that men did the fighting, not women.
the case in which women commanded armies are very few and far between.
You said that. Therefore, you were confirming that it did happen. And if it did happen, it could not be ahistorical, right?
And btw, it might had been rare to see a woman commanding an army, but so it was rare to see a woman with 19 martial stats for example in CK1.
And anyway, whats the matter with this thread? Are people suposed to post the things they would like to see in CK2, or are they suposed to be commenting on the things other people would like to see, or on things they would not like to see?
Just because they are not aware of women that commanded armies with great sucess, it does not mean that such women did not exist. Either way it is my last post on the matter since i already said one thing i wanted to see. And i am not here for endless chatter or to bring light into dark places.
That's my point. There should have been no Martial stats for women. At all.
It is perfectly within my right to oppose you, and women fighting and commanding shouldn't be there in a game set in the historical setting of the Middle Ages.
For your last argument, I cannot prove a negative. But as you are the one making the assertion, extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence. What we know is, except a few random exceptions in which women took command (and even then chances are it was in a figurehead manner, like Joan of Arc, with the strategizing left to more competent men), 99% of the time men did the fighting and commanding and leading, and women were excluded, left home to knit or brought to the camp for washing or whoring.
As much I dislike your love for a certain MAX POWER inhabitant...
I applaud your jest, sir, truly a tremendous effort.
Well, what have you got against Amazon fantasies? It's a game, after all; surely the occasional smokin'-hot female warrior won't interfere with enjoyment of historicity to the point where it should be forbidden.
Mmm... Amazons.
If you get your jollies from the thought of women in leather armour that's between you and God. But with a handful of freak exceptions (perhaps reflected in an extremely rare trait) it has no place in CK.
I'd like to see, not necessarily in this order:
More royal sounding names for children. Or at least, more historically accurate names. i.e. no King Lionel for England, but for a 4th of 5th son it's okay. I would also like to pick the names from a culturally approved list.
Betrothals from birth, and marriage at 16.
Equal marriages. A king needs to marry a daughter of a vassal duke at the very least, and not an orphaned milkmaid from 3 kingdoms over.
Some sort of "equal prestige" where marriages are made with kingdoms in equal prestige with each other.
Playable Muslims and pagans.
"Blended" portraits: if the King of Sweden marries a Persian girl, it doesn't make sense that their child is blonde.
More papal involvement, like marriage dispensations.
More royal sounding names for children. Or at least, more historically accurate names. i.e. no King Lionel for England, but for a 4th of 5th son it's okay. I would also like to pick the names from a culturally approved list.
Betrothals from birth, and marriage at 16.
Equal marriages. A king needs to marry a daughter of a vassal duke at the very least, and not an orphaned milkmaid from 3 kingdoms over.
Some sort of "equal prestige" where marriages are made with kingdoms in equal prestige with each other.
Playable Muslims and pagans.
"Blended" portraits: if the King of Sweden marries a Persian girl, it doesn't make sense that their child is blonde.
More papal involvement, like marriage dispensations.
I agree, while women fighting in the army were an exception rather than a rule, and implementing warrior-women would probably cause amazon armies, I do think some special cases should be allowed(but I don't know how the would work in the game).
Women in the middle ages were not allowed to partake in offensive military activities, but it was known, in fact encouraged for them to help out with defensive duties. I can't remember the name at the moment, but a women, a peer of Joan of Arc, and biographer of King Charles VII wrote a treatise on how women should handle themselves during sieges, which included cultivation of certain vegetables that would become short in a siege, the maintainence of armor etc etc. The Treatise goes on reminding on how women in earlier centuries were sometimes wholly responsible for defending their estates/castles.
Don't forget Margaret of Anjou, Henry VI's queen - she was very much the leader of the Lancastrian faction during the Wars of the Roses and led numerous armies with herself (and later her son) at the head.
Austen
Austen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_in_Medieval_warfare
^^^^^^
There were more than you thought
^^^^^^
There were more than you thought
I agree that women were expected to fight to defend their hearth and their domain while their husbands were away. That was especially the case during the Crusades, in which quite a few domains were robbed or seized in absentio by neighbors or ambitious rivals who didn't go on Crusades to do just that. But not to the point of raising armies and commanding them. They would use a kitchen knife and help from the sargeant-in-arms instead.
Widows were also problematic. This is why they were a prime target for roaming juvenes seeking an estate to settle themselves. Contrarily to what we might think, it was mutually beneficial: The juvenes (who sometimes can be "young" as late as their fourties) finally found a land of their own to settle to and a wife to create a family, while the widow found a new husband to defend her and her children, and hopefully a man to take care of her and her estates. And as they were very rarely arranged by a higher power, the chances these were marriages of love were quite higher.
But European women were not like the female Samurai of Medieval Japan. They were not trained to fight, at all, and they were extremely vulnerable to males around her if there was no one to defend them or champion them. And they especially rarely commanded armies.
Last edited:
At least a third of women on that list are from outside Europe. Others are mythical, and some simply accompanied their husbands or were mothers of military rulers.
If you read Eleanor of Provence's wikipage, for example, nowhere is it mentioned that she led troops into battle, but only that she raised troops in France for the fight against the Montforts.
Quibble all you like 
but the truth remains that a good number of female monarchs involved in wars commanded armies as well.
The reason why the list isn't very long is:
1) There haven't been that many female monarchs compared to male monarchs
2) Not all of those monarchs were involved in wars
3) It's unusual in this era for women to take charge of an army so many left that up to some other noble.
So essentially only a female monarch with a high military score (or traits that would make them quite confident in leading an army) should be able to take command of an army, but it should happen from time to time.
but the truth remains that a good number of female monarchs involved in wars commanded armies as well.The reason why the list isn't very long is:
1) There haven't been that many female monarchs compared to male monarchs
2) Not all of those monarchs were involved in wars
3) It's unusual in this era for women to take charge of an army so many left that up to some other noble.
So essentially only a female monarch with a high military score (or traits that would make them quite confident in leading an army) should be able to take command of an army, but it should happen from time to time.
1. Being able to choose your primary title
2. Claims you have, but haven't contested are lost after 50 years or so.
2. Claims you have, but haven't contested are lost after 50 years or so.
On your #2....
I like the idea of, after each kings death his heir is evaluated and has a percentage chance to automatically keep his predecessors claims, if one of them fails, he can grab onto it using prestige/piety/wealth/ or any other options that may be applicable for whichever title it is.
That way if your king dies and he had a claim on a title for reasons that do not concern the new king (let's say it's his nephew), now the nephew after failing the check to see if the claim would remain can choose to renew the claim. Now lets say it's a claim on Rome, he would have to spend piety to renew his claim on said province, or perhaps enough gold to convince the other catholic rulers that it is indeed rightfully his.
I like the idea of, after each kings death his heir is evaluated and has a percentage chance to automatically keep his predecessors claims, if one of them fails, he can grab onto it using prestige/piety/wealth/ or any other options that may be applicable for whichever title it is.
That way if your king dies and he had a claim on a title for reasons that do not concern the new king (let's say it's his nephew), now the nephew after failing the check to see if the claim would remain can choose to renew the claim. Now lets say it's a claim on Rome, he would have to spend piety to renew his claim on said province, or perhaps enough gold to convince the other catholic rulers that it is indeed rightfully his.
What, at least for me, will make or break this game is the system for internal diplomacy. In CK there were very few ways for lords and vassals to interact and for vassals of one lord to interact with each other. So, what I'd like to see the most (pretty much more than everything else put together) is to have these sort of diplomatic options expanded, for example:
-Limited rebellions in which counts rebel for limited objectives short of outright independence such as less centralized government, the firing of unpopular advisors, having the king step down in favor of his son, etc.
-Vassals being able to ally with each other and rebel as a league with unified demands (for example like the noble rebels who demanded the Magna Charter).
-Vassals being able to conspire with foreign powers, for example invite in rival claimants.
-More ways for lieges to manipulate vassal loyalty.
-More ways for vassals to get under their liege's skin that fall short of outright rebellion.
-Limited rebellions in which counts rebel for limited objectives short of outright independence such as less centralized government, the firing of unpopular advisors, having the king step down in favor of his son, etc.
-Vassals being able to ally with each other and rebel as a league with unified demands (for example like the noble rebels who demanded the Magna Charter).
-Vassals being able to conspire with foreign powers, for example invite in rival claimants.
-More ways for lieges to manipulate vassal loyalty.
-More ways for vassals to get under their liege's skin that fall short of outright rebellion.
1. I would like, that the mechanics of game corresponded to the epoch and that the gameplay was realistic!
2. I would like, that the mechanics of game corresponded to the epoch and that the gameplay was realistic!
3. I would like, that the mechanics of game corresponded to the epoch and that the gameplay was realistic!
2. I would like, that the mechanics of game corresponded to the epoch and that the gameplay was realistic!
3. I would like, that the mechanics of game corresponded to the epoch and that the gameplay was realistic!