Thoughts on Charlemagne from the Fan Gathering

[keynes2.0]

Some players dont exploit and find the game enjoyable. True story. I rather like the sound of the vassal limit mechanic.

 

[Chattus]

Me too. Adds a tiny bit of challenge to uncontrollably blobbling.

 

[Kumicho]

Some players dont exploit and find the game enjoyable. True story. I rather like the sound of the vassal limit mechanic.

But this is getting into the same argument every single time PDX nerfs something - If you want to play with fewer vassals, then play with fewer vassals. Or, at the very least, I hope that PDX allows us to mod things the way we want. They've made a bunch of changes recently (not being able to call in former vassals when you revolt, levy nerf when playing over your demesne limit, etc) that AREN'T moddable, or at least not that I've been able to figure out in the defines file.

 

[Autokrator48]

I don't like the logic of having huge vassals when at absolute crown law; absolute crown law means that the crown (you) can have a higher domain limit, not that your vassals need more land.

 

[Lord Roivas]

It's more taking away from the game than adding to it. I see it as a nightmare I don't want to spend $20 on.

 

[lukesilveira]

Tribal Holdings

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.

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

Elective Gavelkind

Another interesting new feature, designed for the breaking up of blobs: elective gavelkind. Empires being too blobby has always been a big concern, and even more so with the introduction of a start date that may very well include the entirety of Francia as one huge empire. At least one response to this, which also adds to the susceptibility of tribal civilisations falling apart without a leader, is elective gavelkind.

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.

The exact nature of this hasn't been settled on yet, since they're still testing it out, but it may be based on the power of the vassal relative to liege, the opinion of the vassal, or perhaps even a choice that everyone is given regardless, and then acted on appropriately. In any case, this serves to make early empires more likely to break apart, and perhaps constantly try and put themselves back together, in a way that current succession laws don't.
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. One possible solution is:

Vassal Limit

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.

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.

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.

Could this possibly represent the decentralizated state of the France, and more importantly, of the HRE?

 

[AJ2009]

Thanks for sharing. I like the concept of limiting the number of vassals, its far to easy to blob once you reach a certain threshold. I like it when my Kingdom collapses into infighting (occasionally) and you have to then claw your way back to the top. I think the increased instability that this mechanic will create will also help further distinguish from EU IV whereby power is based on personality rather than early statecraft.

 

[NewbieOne]

But this is getting into the same argument every single time PDX nerfs something - If you want to play with fewer vassals, then play with fewer vassals. Or, at the very least, I hope that PDX allows us to mod things the way we want. They've made a bunch of changes recently (not being able to call in former vassals when you revolt, levy nerf when playing over your demesne limit, etc) that AREN'T moddable, or at least not that I've been able to figure out in the defines file.

The game is about the experience of a mediaeval dynasty sim, not world conquest. Even your final score is calculated from prestige and piety, not realm size.

 

[Talq]

But this is getting into the same argument every single time PDX nerfs something - If you want to play with fewer vassals, then play with fewer vassals. Or, at the very least, I hope that PDX allows us to mod things the way we want. They've made a bunch of changes recently (not being able to call in former vassals when you revolt, levy nerf when playing over your demesne limit, etc) that AREN'T moddable, or at least not that I've been able to figure out in the defines file.

By all means abandon the argument then. Most of us realise that when Paradox nerfs something they don't want the pre-nerf situation to be part of the game. Otherwise, they wouldn't have nerfed it.

 

[keynes2.0]

But this is getting into the same argument every single time PDX nerfs something - If you want to play with fewer vassals, then play with fewer vassals.

If you want to play without rules just pick up a pencil and start drawing on paper, man; the sky is the limit.

 

[Kenlin]

Oooh. I wonder how close the proposed vassal limit mechanic is to the one I suggested a little while ago...

 

[Jorlaan]

When it comes to the vassal limit and personally holding counties with lots of barons, I would hope that maybe only count and higher would matter. Barons can be seen as "free" vassals in that they only control a single city within your own personal domain. Counts and up however have a great deal more power and can exercise that power much more effectively.

 

[Kljunas]

But this is getting into the same argument every single time PDX nerfs something - If you want to play with fewer vassals, then play with fewer vassals. Or, at the very least, I hope that PDX allows us to mod things the way we want. They've made a bunch of changes recently (not being able to call in former vassals when you revolt, levy nerf when playing over your demesne limit, etc) that AREN'T moddable, or at least not that I've been able to figure out in the defines file.

Some people want their games to be challenging without them having to invent rules.

Also this affects the AI as well, so they'll probably be more reluctant to go for high/absolute CA now.

 

[Ozamu]

It's more taking away from the game than adding to it. I see it as a nightmare I don't want to spend $20 on.

You serious? Charlemagne will be a day one purchase for me :happy:

 

[Voy]

It's more taking away from the game than adding to it. I see it as a nightmare I don't want to spend $20 on.

Lucky for you, this nerf will most likely be included in the patch. You won't have to pay a penny for it.

 

[WanderV]

I'm thinking it's going to be based on Stewardship, to represent your organisational ability for dealing with a number of vassals, rather than Diplomacy, which already affects their opinion. This way Diplomacy won't be doubled up for the same thing, and Stewardship becomes more important again.

How about Learning? Diplomacy affects your direct interaction with vassals, Stewardship affects economical management. Learning has quite broad meaning but now it's mostly neglected stat. So it could represent ability to understand whole scheme of your kingdom and to plan vassals' management.

 

[Thure]

How about Learning? Diplomacy affects your direct interaction with vassals, Stewardship affects economical management. Learning has quite broad meaning but now it's mostly neglected stat. So it could represent ability to understand whole scheme of your kingdom and to plan vassals' management.

Yes. Stewardship is already to powerful. And it's affect how much you can controll yourself. To make vasall numbers depending on this stat to would be to powerful. Dpilomacy would my choice. But learning would be okay to. But NOT Stewardship.

 

[Maginor]

But this is getting into the same argument every single time PDX nerfs something - If you want to play with fewer vassals, then play with fewer vassals. Or, at the very least, I hope that PDX allows us to mod things the way we want. They've made a bunch of changes recently (not being able to call in former vassals when you revolt, levy nerf when playing over your demesne limit, etc) that AREN'T moddable, or at least not that I've been able to figure out in the defines file.

It's not the same thing. I want to be mostly confined to having few vassals, but to have the opportunity to go over the limit (which may be needed in some circumstances) at great risk. If I just roleplay that there is a limit there, there is no real risk in exceeding it, and so it adds no new strategic dimension to the game. There would be no challenge in how far you could really press your realm size. There would be no challenge in going to the limit with a good character and then having to keep it all together with his idiot heir (who has a lower limit). It is also important that it changes the way AI realms work, as well as how multiplayer games work. Sure, you can play with house rules, but how to enforce them? The vassal limit will also probably force other aspects of the game to be balanced in such a way that it is well integrated into the game as a whole.

 

[Thure]

If I click on 'Buy now' on the paradox page... The price for the DLC is 10 Euro not 20.

https://www.paradoxplaza.com/crusader-kings-ii-charlemagne

 

[Ozamu]

If I click on 'Buy now' on the paradox page... The price for the DLC is 10 Euro not 20.

https://www.paradoxplaza.com/crusader-kings-ii-charlemagne

I guess that's not final. An expansion of Charlemagne's size should be about 20 €/$.