Tips on ruling a large merchant republic?

[Harassercat]

I'm currently playing a 769 start game in Scandinavia with the CK2+ mod. The mod makes it a lot harder to transition from tribal to other governments but other than that I feel like most of the gameplay is more or less like vanilla. If you only know vanilla then feel free to respond as if I were playing vanilla.

Anyway so I felt like trying out a merchant republic and founded one at the same time as I founded my Scandinavian empire which now covers most of Scandinavia as well as the southern and eastern Baltic coast. So I have a fairly large realm by now, most of which is pagan and tribal, apart from what is ruled by me (the Doge emperor / High Chancellor) and some of my vassal patricians.

So far I'm finding it quite challenging to rule such a large MR which is also mostly tribal, meaning that the income is still rather low. What I'm having a hard time adapting to is two things: succession and the realm organization:

1. Succession. Seniority is soo bad in my view. My ruler dies, next one is some ~56 year old of my dynasty (assuming I always win the doge elections) who may have very bad stats and likely has a checkered past of fighting other vassals, some tyranny and perhaps some assassinations too. Meaning lots of nasty opinion modifiers for no good reason. I understand that I can designate an heir but can I use that to get a decent young able candidate to inherit my house? If I were to do that, it seems like it would be very hard to also win the doge election, unless I engage in constant murder and mischief to keep the men in other patrician families from living past 40... How do you typically game MR succession in your favor?

2. Realm organization. How should I organize an empire-level MR with 3-4 kingdoms in some sensible manner? Should I promote my patrician vassals and let them have kingdoms or grand duchies and a spot on my council? I'm used to a very nepotist style of play where I systematically have my dynasty take over all titles. Having to share my boat with four other dynasties at all times is a little hard to adapt to. The problem is that the MR government limits my ability to hand out feudal titles (right? - it's a different government type so I can't give kingdoms to feudals or give them more than 10% of my territory), so there's a lack of relevant titles that my dynasty members can inherit. I made the mistake of giving a city to one of my dynasts in this game and then gave him k_Sweden, which then became a burgher title with open elective succession... 2 years later the young prince dies and I get a terrible random lowborn ruling a third of my empire! That made me stop to rethink my policy. How do experienced MR players organize a large multi-kingdom republic?

 

[RagingJaws]

For succession, I keep around 1k to 2k gold in my bank just for that. That's enough to win any Doge election in the early to middle game. I also save 1k per ruler as my "Treasury" so that I have

• Enough for the above election funds
• Money for sudden building sprees
• Money for mercs

For Realm Organization, you have to keep in mind that if you give your patricians higher titles they will also have higher prestige. Costing you more money in elections. If you're fine with that, than by all means. I don't play any of my games "optimally" so I just try to keep de jure borders and land whoever that's same culture/religion. I don't go all out with cities though. I keep a number of feudal "middle dukes" so that some of my vassal armies have better troop balance.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

As a republic you can designate any adult dynast as your heir.

 

[Harassercat]

For succession, I keep around 1k to 2k gold in my bank just for that. That's enough to win any Doge election in the early to middle game. I also save 1k per ruler as my "Treasury" so that I have

• Enough for the above election funds
• Money for sudden building sprees
• Money for mercs

For Realm Organization, you have to keep in mind that if you give your patricians higher titles they will also have higher prestige. Costing you more money in elections. If you're fine with that, than by all means. I don't play any of my games "optimally" so I just try to keep de jure borders and land whoever that's same culture/religion. I don't go all out with cities though. I keep a number of feudal "middle dukes" so that some of my vassal armies have better troop balance.

That's a lot of gold to be keeping in reserve. Hopefully I'll have that luxury later on but in my current game where I only recently transitioned from tribal to MR (in CK2+, where tribes are not instantly converted to 2-3 advanced holdings), my income is too low and there are too many good investments that I need the gold for.

I agree with having a reasonable number of feudal vassals to bolster the troop counts with vassal levies. I would ideally have them members of my dynasty and make sure to keep them loyal; they would help me keep troublesome patricians from rebelling.

What I was wondering about is whether patricians would be preferable to regular burghers as vassals holding good "cash cow" regions. The pro's and con's are something like this:

Patricians, pro's: Form trade zones that they can get a lot of income from (meaning more tax to me); function like a dynasty so I can know heirs in advance and plan accordingly (and/or assassinate undesirables).
Patricians, con's: Patricians are at half tax relative to regular burghers - does the trade income make up for it? Are my competitors for the doge election so I don't want them to have too much wealth and prestige.
Regular burghers, pro's: Are not a dynasty so if I mistreat a burgher vassal he has no family to hold a grudge; lots of tax income from well developed cities boosted by trade.
Regular burghers, con's: Ugh, I can tolerate random lowborns with terrible stats holding baronies but as dukes or even kings?

What I want to try out is to spread my patricians out between some of peripheral regions of my empire where they can form their own trade zones that don't overlap with my own. In the case of my Scandinavian empire, that would for example be the Atlantic coast of Norway; the arctic coast facing the Barents and White Seas; Iceland and the Faroes; and the inner part of the Baltic (North Sweden and Finland). That leaves the core area around Denmark for me to dominate trade there. Then I could have a collection of minor burgher vassals holding parts of the southern and eastern coasts of the Baltic, with lots of cities to cash in on the trade bonuses.

 

[RagingJaws]

That's a lot of gold to be keeping in reserve. Hopefully I'll have that luxury later on but in my current game where I only recently transitioned from tribal to MR (in CK2+, where tribes are not instantly converted to 2-3 advanced holdings), my income is too low and there are too many good investments that I need the gold for.

Well, at the establishment of your Republic you shouldn't need more than 400-500. Which isn't a lot for a Patrician, unless you are in a very poor area or not focusing on income growth first. It really isn't that much gold after a hundred years.

What I want to try out is to spread my patricians out between some of peripheral regions of my empire where they can form their own trade zones that don't overlap with my own. In the case of my Scandinavian empire, that would for example be the Atlantic coast of Norway; the arctic coast facing the Barents and White Seas; Iceland and the Faroes; and the inner part of the Baltic (North Sweden and Finland). That leaves the core area around Denmark for me to dominate trade there. Then I could have a collection of minor burgher vassals holding parts of the southern and eastern coasts of the Baltic, with lots of cities to cash in on the trade bonuses.

I've never given any of my patricians clear cut areas to develop trade zones. The stronger your rival patricians are, the more expensive it is to keep your successors in charge. If you're running conclave, they become a nightmare to deal with. Losing the election is another nightmare, as you lose the Capital and a significant chunk of income.

You've already given some thought to what you want to do, so try it out. Just a piece of advice for your trade zone, if you haven't planned it out yet:

• (10 ports) The Sound (Sjælland, Skåne, Lubeck, Rastoku, Fyn, Weligrad)
• (7 ports) Kattegat (Jylland, Vestergautland, Akershus, Vestfold)
• (6 ports) Gulf of Heligoland (Slesvig, Holstein, Bremen, Agder)
• (9 ports) Waddenzee (Brugge, Friesland, Gelere, Holland, Breda)
• (10 ports) Straight of Dover (Middlesex, Essex, Kent, Yperen, Boulogne, Rouen)

26 trade posts all together, ideal ones listed. That's towards the end of the middle game, beyond that is up to where you decide to go.

 

[Harassercat]

Thanks for your comments. The trade zones in your list are exactly what I've had my eyes on. So with that in mind my thinking was that I could leave the inner Baltic and the northern seas around Norway to the patricians. My rationale for allowing the patricians some space to grow their income is that it would result in more tax income for me. I'm somewhat confident that by keeping the best area for myself I can keep control of the throne without too much expense. If they get out of line I can always just brutalize them -- provoke them to rebel and then execute, revoke, etc to cut down a patrician house that has become too strong. Especially if I make sure to keep a strong and loyal feudal vassal around. If their oldest male member is an 18 year old, they won't stand a chance to win the election will they?

 

[RagingJaws]

Generally, no, though the AI will throw money into the campaign fund if they think there is a shot. Young AI patrician heirs don't have the prestige, so they have a low rating. More dangerous is last minute elections where the AI has a 88 year old with 2k prestige crawling out of the dynasty. As time passes and your dynasty pulls ahead in prestige, it'll start to create a wider gap between you and the other patricians.

To deter AI campaign funding, I've found having 2k more "respect" than the next candidate is enough for them to pull their money. I'm sure there is someone out there who has a better understanding of the numbers but I just normally throw a grand or so into the fun for safety. Additionally, you should put honorary titles on your designated heir, like High Judge and Designated Regent so his prestige skyrockets. Unless he's already landed, don't land him if you want to control education for his children.

 

[Sergeant Flutter]

One word: Delegate.

Give your patricians King titles. Below them, in the duchies, will be members of your Dynasty. This'll maintain a balance between keeping the patricians happy, and keeping your dynasty the most powerful.

Always use Viceroyalties!

Try to keep interior realm borders the cleanest they can be.

Encourage wars between vassals, it keeps them weak. However, keep them balanced.

 

[Terramancer]

Or would it be better to keep internal borders as messy as possible so that your dukes or vassal kings are always squabbling over de-jure counties?

 

[RagingJaws]

Or would it be better to keep internal borders as messy as possible so that your dukes or vassal kings are always squabbling over de-jure counties?

There is that too. The AI isn't competent enough to take a messy de jure situation and great a truly dangerous super duke block.

I stopped caring about internal borders a long time ago. As long as my Merchant Republics and Arch-Bishops aren't beaten around too hard, I don't bother to notice vassals fighting.

 

[Terramancer]

Plus then they'll hate each other from conflict and be less likely to join each others factions!

 

[Aries666]

Some of the big ones for me are to designate my heir as a good young ruler as soon as I have the cash to get him elected, never give any land to patrician families and land as many dynasty members as dukes and give out king level viceroyalties. Oh and deliberately give vassals land across duchies to promote conflict.

 

[CaptainPolyp]

Is it better to give landed titles (count, duchy and kingdom tiers) to feudals, bishops, mayors or patricians vassals?
- I guess that it is easier to take back titles to feudals without revoking, since you can play around with succession to take back a title (kill all potential heirs for instance). They supposedly give more levies but is it really the case when taking the opinion penalty for wrong governement?
- Is there any advantage in founding vassal theocracies?
- Mayors seem safe to land, although it is harder to take back a title.
- Or is it better to just land patricians; although they will gain more prestige and be annoying for the election.

Some of the big ones for me are to designate my heir as a good young ruler as soon as I have the cash to get him elected, never give any land to patrician families and land as many dynasty members as dukes and give out king level viceroyalties. Oh and deliberately give vassals land across duchies to promote conflict.

When landing dynastic member, do you land them as republic or feudals?

 

[Aries666]

Is it better to give landed titles (count, duchy and kingdom tiers) to feudals, bishops, mayors or patricians vassals?
- I guess that it is easier to take back titles to feudals without revoking, since you can play around with succession to take back a title (kill all potential heirs for instance). They supposedly give more levies but is it really the case when taking the opinion penalty for wrong governement?
- Is there any advantage in founding vassal theocracies?
- Mayors seem safe to land, although it is harder to take back a title.
- Or is it better to just land patricians; although they will gain more prestige and be annoying for the election.


When landing dynastic member, do you land them as republic or feudals?

Republics, if you took the county in a holy war landing someone will default them to republic.

 

[sigeena]

Not sure about your mod. But I usually reserve minor titles, such as Admiral or High Judge for family members, especially potential young heirs being groomed. They accrue prestige pretty quickly over a period of time.