Thoughts on Charlemagne from the Fan Gathering

[riadach]

I don't understand the vassal limit. Why would increasing your crown authority make the realm more unstable?

 

[Talq]

At some point there will be a dev diary on this stuff. Until then, can we avoid the wild conclusions about xyz not being sustainable in game?

 

[Zylathas]

I like the idea of a vassal limit to 'force' you to create vasals in a huge empire. I do think it shouldn't be because there is a softcap. I would rather see a relations penalty on all vasals when they think you have too much power (basicly doing the same as crown authority) besides that crown authority should increase your demense limit, possibly nerfing your advisors as a downside (as it's not strange that you as monarch would have 'more' power over the council, thus it will not work as good anymore).

I think the issue can be solved in many ways, but I would rather see some mechanic you can work around then a soft cap.

 

[n00bypl4y3r]

If you're having trouble with factions as the emperor of the restored Rome, you're objectively bad at the game. You have a free massive opinion bonus from Augustus, Born in the Purple makes it even higher, and you're large enough that even several large de jure kingdom vassals aren't going to be an incredibly dangerous threat.

Spoiler

My Roman Empire:

Factions:

Opinion of Greek duke:

Opinion of Frankish king:

Opinion of Greek king:

I love how you say Augustus gives a huge relations bonus. It is countered (and then some) by the vassal king modifier. And I don't think you got the point; I can deal with revolts, I have in the past, it's the fact that this update is going to force me to have even MORE vassal kings, which are next to impossible to control. I can't afford to continue to reinforce retinues, as well as spend 300+ gold on every king vassal to make them happy, and I already don't have enough honorary titles to hand out.

 

[TL_]

Instead of adding a sensible system, they add another pointless mechanic that will need a lot of patches to even work properly. Awesome.
And it is an abstraction of like... the whole feudal system. It surely helps you get into the mood.

I'm not really interested in the subject you're trying to change this conversation to. I'm mostly interested in the overuse of the word "artificial".

 

[clockworkBabbag]

I love how you say Augustus gives a huge relations bonus. It is countered (and then some) by the vassal king modifier. And I don't think you got the point; I can deal with revolts, I have in the past, it's the fact that this update is going to force me to have even MORE vassal kings, which are next to impossible to control. I can't afford to continue to reinforce retinues, as well as spend 300+ gold on every king vassal to make them happy, and I already don't have enough honorary titles to hand out.

And I could just as easily show you my Roman empire, with bunches of king vassals where they all love me without me having to give them gifts.

If I had to pick any one realm that could handle being composed entirely of King vassals, it would be a restored Roman Empire.

 

[Talq]

My Roman Empire:

I love how you say Augustus gives a huge relations bonus. It is countered (and then some) by the vassal king modifier. And I don't think you got the point; I can deal with revolts, I have in the past, it's the fact that this update is going to force me to have even MORE vassal kings, which are next to impossible to control. I can't afford to continue to reinforce retinues, as well as spend 300+ gold on every king vassal to make them happy, and I already don't have enough honorary titles to hand out.

Diplomacy low = PD low, because they are councillors (and how the hell are you getting an SD of 14?). Short reign -16 = legalism of 2 or 3. Prestige of 600 (that can be fixed in less than a year). Some good traits offset by female ruler. In fact SD+ prestige alone is about 25 below what it should be, and SR will fall at 2 a year.

Nobody said Augustus allowed you to totally ignore opinion.

 

[clockworkBabbag]

I'm too lazy to get all the screenshots up unless I'm pressed for them, but in the game I'm running I have a possessed female ruler. The only vassal kings that have negative opinions of me are ones that I've retracted vassals from to make nice borders, or ones that think I'm dishonorable. Even my vassal Serene Doge is just fine with my rule.

I'm also at the point in that game where I'd welcome internal rebellions, just for something to do.

 

[Carmilla]

The vassal limit decreases with higher crown authority? What the heck? I'm not sure I see the sense in that unless the limit is ridiculously big or personal demesne gets some sort of uberbonus of doom. How will this affect the roman empire? Given the way it worked inRL I don't see how this even makes sense with them. This is starting to feel like that incredibly stupid 10% limit on theocracy and republic vassals all over again. The dev diaries better have one helluva good explanation attached because so far I get more bad vibes from this DLC overall than I've gotten good ones.

 

[Kljunas]

I don't understand the vassal limit. Why would increasing your crown authority make the realm more unstable?

Is it more unstable? I thought it would be more like income/levy penalties.

 

[keynes2.0]

I love how you say Augustus gives a huge relations bonus. It is countered (and then some) by the vassal king modifier. And I don't think you got the point; I can deal with revolts, I have in the past, it's the fact that this update is going to force me to have even MORE vassal kings, which are next to impossible to control. I can't afford to continue to reinforce retinues, as well as spend 300+ gold on every king vassal to make them happy, and I already don't have enough honorary titles to hand out.

You are rocking High Crown authority, Feudal Tax, Primogeniture rule, have a Female Heir and are sitting on high short reign penalty and you have an opinion just slightly negative of you. So yes, if you keep deciding one consolidating power at your expense of your vassals, they'll be restless right after a succession by a female heir. Shocking.

 

[riadach]

Is it more unstable? I thought it would be more like income/levy penalties.

Larger vassals would give more instability I'd have thought, especially considering factions.

 

[glaivemaster]

The way I'm reading this, it seems like the crown authority stuff was speculation on the part of the OP. Could we have some clarification on that?

And once you're big enough to start needing to hand out kingdoms, those kingdoms will probably not be threats by themselves.

To clarify, the crown authority was specifically mentioned by Doomdark. It was loud, and I could have misheard, but I'm about 99% sure that this is what was said, because he was making a point about it being a trade-off.

Well it's easier to make 5 vassals follow your rules than it is to make 50 vassals follow your rules.

This exactly. Under autonomous vassals, it's easy to get a lot of people to agree to your laws, because they don't really exist. Under Absolute crown authority, you need to have a few people who are willing to suffer your laws, and then let those people pass that down to the people who will suffer them.

 

[balmung60]

To clarify, the crown authority was specifically mentioned by Doomdark. It was loud, and I could have misheard, but I'm about 99% sure that this is what was said, because he was making a point about it being a trade-off.



This exactly. Under autonomous vassals, it's easy to get a lot of people to agree to your laws, because they don't really exist. Under Absolute crown authority, you need to have a few people who are willing to suffer your laws, and then let those people pass that down to the people who will suffer them.

Well, sounds like I may as well drop from medium to low or autonomous vassals. I don't need or want anyone's levies, just their taxes, and the wider the tax base, the better. If any of my vassals would maintain my own policy of harsh feudal taxation instead of immediately abolishing feudal taxation, I could at least somewhat live with adding another layer since some of that dosh would filter up to me, but as it stands, fewer vassals means less income, pretty much no matter what.

 

[klopkr]

I think you guys are miss understanding how the vassal limit will work. You'll still be able to blob with huge amounts of land under you, it's just gonna force you to give the land to existing vassals so that you have fewer but more powerful vassals, if you want to take the relations hit to have more weak vassals you can do that too. You don't need to give them any higher titles though they might create them themselves. It also seems like it will give you a pretty large limit at low crown authority since it would need to make room for lower limits at much higher crown authority. I assume that they'll work it so that you wont often have fewer vassals than de jure duchies in a kingdom.

In the end I think it's a great idea because it guides players into a certain playstyle that is much more challenging in some ways.

 

[Ruwaard]

@ klopkr: not every kingdom has the same size. And sometimes one will end up holding multiple kingdoms, perhaps even under an emperor.

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

I think you guys are miss understanding how the vassal limit will work. You'll still be able to blob with huge amounts of land under you, it's just gonna force you to give the land to existing vassals so that you have fewer but more powerful vassals, if you want to take the relations hit to have more weak vassals you can do that too.

And I don't like exactly this, because I like to keep "nice" de jure ducal borders. The game has already mechanics that encourage the player to respect de jure borders, the vassal limit would conflict with that. I would call this poor design.

 

[DingoWalley]

I am already seeing myself handing out duchies to megadukes in such a way that they cannot form de jure kingdoms This will make for ugly borders but I like ugly borders. Take a look at the fiefs in France or the HRE in 1400. Pretty it ain't, but this is how medieval feudalism rolled.

That won't work. Didn't you hear? They're going to add custom Kingdoms and Empires! Your Megadukes will just form Odd Kingdoms when they feel like it. So that won't work.

 

[Ruwaard]

That won't work. Didn't you hear? They're going to add custom Kingdoms and Empires! Your Megadukes will just form Odd Kingdoms when they feel like it. So that won't work.

Vassal dukes (re-) creating de jure and/or historic (with previous kings) is one things, elevating their duchies to a kingdom, IMHO is something their Imperial Liege should always have to have to decisive say in.

 

[NewbieOne]

Tribal holdings (though I don't know if that will be their actual in game names) sound like they will be much like castles, bishoprics and cities, although Doomdark also put trade posts in that list, which leads me to believe they might be an over-holding of some sort (to prevent the awkwardness of having one holding change to another later in the game). Essentially tribal holdings will represent lands that aren't properly fortified yet, more owned by virtue of people living there than by people actually building towns etc.

Sounds interesting. Though how does that differ from unfortified inhabited areas in more civilized places and later eras?

An interesting aspect of tribal holdings, is that vassals who are 'tribal' (presumably a new title equivalent to count, based on your holding type)

Worth noting, the converting tribal princes (Chiefs and High Chiefs in the game right now) retained their unique status after conversion to Christianity. For example the Piasts of Poland, Premyslids of Bohemia, Gediminids of Lithuania, Rurikoviches of the Rus, Gryfitas of Pomerania etc. retained the princely status of everybody born into the family — although, on the other hand, it was difficult for them to acquire kingship, especially an hereditary kind. They were usually dukes, although landless ones would probably have been referred to as principes rather than titular duces and perhaps those with only small apanages wouldn't have been referred to as duces, either. They weren't necessarily seen as fully valuable dukes, given as for example the Pomeranians ones were made vassals of the Margrave of Brandenburg by the Emperor in 1190 (IIRC), somebody with theoretically a lower title.

(By contrast, being the son of a king or emperor didn't necessarily make you a prince early on.)

don't provide levies in the way that a feudal vassal does. Instead, a tribal vassal must be called to arms, like an ally. In this way, your vassal management becomes much more important, and vassal ties are much looser. A king can only gain power if he is respected enough by his vassals, even more so than currently, and a vassal maintains full control of his own armies, making war much more scattered.

I wonder if they are real vassals or some sort of tributaries with more of a suzerainty relationship. Those probably shouldn't count as being part of the suzerain's realm proper, and there are examples of such relationships not being reflected in the game, notably in the case of independent Welsh principalities (actually, even Scotland — except it's on the same tier with England).

(Speaking of which, we might need equal-tier vassals and perhaps even multiple vassalage, eventually, with penalties.)

From what I can tell, elective gavelkind is much like what it sounds: it's a cross between tanistry and gavelkind. The new ruler must be selected from your dynasty, but I believe that other dynasty members will also get titles, as gavelkind suggests. In addition, upon succession, some vassals may be given the option to become independent, no war involved, much like the decadence mechanics are supposed to work.

Looks good. Byzzies should also get it by default instead of normal gavelkind, to avoid favouring the eldest son ahistorically.

Speaking of which, perhaps we should have gavelkind vs indivisible realm just like gender laws?

My only hesitation with this is that it will probably still be too easy to get a big mid-late game empire going. Once elective gavelkind is gone, I'm not sure what will be used to try and break apart large empires that have formed under primogeniture, or even normal elective. So, while this should solve the early Karling problem, I don't think it will do anything for the HRE, or for later game blobs. We shall see however: blobbing is clearly something in the forefront of the minds at Paradox, so hopefully this will also be settled.

Historically, the HRE was theoretically always elective, but with the electors nearly always electing the last emperor/king's senior heir anyway. What the HRE needs is anti-kings siding with the Pope whenever the Kaiser has an anti-pope or even Free Investiture (but less often if it's only investiture) and a difficult time managing successions or higher crown authority levels. The problem is that the HRE's real-life setup is hard to represent through CK2's crown laws. You'd need electors to be considered royal, have the right to enter into alliances with the outside just like independents, but still be revocable by the emperor, and at some point wars between vassals would be banned, at least officially. Landfried requires MCA and revocation requires LCA, while AV might not be enough to reflect the independence enjoyed by some of the princes.

A new limit, much like the current demesne limit, will be imposed upon rulers with the introduction of the Charlemagne DLC. This limit does exactly what it suggests: it imposes a soft-cap on the number of independent vassals you can have in your realm before you start taking penalties. To offset this, you will be encouraged to hand out more duchy titles, and perhaps even kingdoms, as your empire becomes too large for you to manage each vassal yourself.

This is a great idea, and as unfortunate as it may be to have to impose rules like this, rather than providing encouragement for playing the game in a certain way, I think it fits in very well with the current demesne limit. It makes sense that if you can only manage so many holdings yourself, you can logically only manage so many vassals as well before you become stretched thin. This is why vassals exist in the first place.

Of course that's logical. And there is an incentive in, actually: ducal and higher capitals are the sole beneficiaries of tech points for tech level. Spread works everywhere, but a count doesn't normally have a province with much better tech for the demesne spread bonus, and it takes a duke to make points. You also get less prestige for having counts as vassals than dukes.

I suppose a soft incentive could be provided by doubling or tripling the prestige advantage from having dukes as vassals. Historically, having dukes rather than counts as vassals was one of the marks of kingship. Culture tech could also be set to benefit more from having a duke in place more than econ and .mil.

One could also come up with some actions only allowed to dukes, from which the king at the top would also benefit (or the entire realm).

In addition, this adds a new balancing factor to crown law. As crown law gets higher, and the monarch begins to exercise more direct control over his vassals, the vassal limit will decrease, so that more titles need to be handed out. This means that going up to absolute crown law will not only make your vassals like you less, but also encourage you to give those vassals more power as well, to help maintain the laws you impose.

It sounds logical but only up to a point. According to the description, MCA is already a precarious balance, HCA is dominance of your Lowborn administration in the realm, and ACA means the high nobles have no 'retinues' (language wasn't updated after LoR introduced retinues as we known them now), almost no levies, no wars to fight, no nothing. (Except they still have retinue base.) In such a situation, subjugated dukes shouldn't really be at the same time depicted as the strongmen who hold the counts in line. ACA should look more like the English or French system, where everybody is the king's vassal and baron, count or duke is just a difference of rank. Counts serving as dukes' vassals already seem to be more popular in the game than they were in real life.

Plus, handing out small chunks of land to thousands of people would be a way to keep up high crown authority. Obviously, the king can't oversee all those guys personally, but that's what the Lowborn administration is for.

As said before, I very much hope this will be the way to make empires crumble. With low crown laws, empires can be sprawling, but somewhat weak, with fewer levies to help defend against outside threats and even factions, and less control over their vassals. As crown law increases, larger vassals will come into play, curbing the power of monarchs who they don't like, making factions more likely to spawn. Ultimately, this may see more independence factions firing and being successful. Fingers crossed.

The distance penalty really was a good anti-blobbing device and a very natural one. AI being dumb and declaring war on you only to get annexed by someone with a holy war CB could be solved in some other way than removing the distance penalty. Both distance and different de iure allegiance should contribute to vassals' willingness to join the independence faction. Independence factions need a buff to make it a real challenge to complete the de iure drift — at which point distance should almost cease to matter. A smart version of the distance penalty needs to be reintroduced.

Seasons

Finally, seasonal changes, similar to EU4. I think everyone has been expecting something like this for a while, and I guess that Paradox decided to just throw it in there now. Seasons should have an effect upon attrition in provinces, making war in winter a more dangerous affair, and there was a hint that weather might effect combat, perhaps by changing terrain. Whether this will just affect military educations (fights better in snowy conditions) or whether there will be a weather effect on combat I'm not sure, but in either case this is a change I don't have much to say on other than it's there.

Overall, I think that might be all the information I got out of developers. I didn't have my journalism hat on at the time, so I didn't chase up nearly as many questions as I should have done, but hopefully that puts some fears to rest that people may have had. I know that I started off very disappointed in the idea of a further timeline extension, but having discussed with the devs, this sounds much more thought out than I gave them credit for. Here's hoping that everything goes as well as it does in my imagination.

Warmer cultures should suffer in winter more, colder, boreal ones should find it harder to survive on a crusade in the Med. Spring could cause floods as ice melts. By contrast, winter could make rivers and lakes freeze, denying the bonus, but with a risk of the ice collapsing, drowning the more heavily armed army and especially any expensive Frankish/German/Norman knight retinues. Vikings caught inland with frozen rivers should have a difficult time returning to their homeland. Camels should probably suffer very heavy attrition in winter, probably elephants too. Heavily armoured troops, especially HC, should suffer awful attrition and/or combat maluses in desert terrain in summer.

However, battles and assaults would need to be sped up to some realistic figures, I think, if season modifiers are going to apply.

Vassal dukes (re-) creating de jure and/or historic (with previous kings) is one things, elevating their duchies to a kingdom, IMHO is something their Imperial Liege should always have to have to decisive say in.

The Emperor should hold k_Burgundy and k_Italy, and yes, his vassals in those realms should desire those kingdoms and try to get a claim, claimants should run to foreign courts and come in with French, Hungarian or Polish aid etc. However, the Emperor historically had a say in dukes assuming royal crowns outside that emperor's de facto realm, so all the more should he have a say with regard to his own vassals. Dukedoms shouldn't be up for grabs for counts from a certain crown authority level up.