Tired of fantasy duchies…

[Third Angel]

we know the game can (sort of) handle it due to the Teutonic Order Kings being vassals of Poland, etc.

I haven't given much thought to that usurp idea yet but for one thing, I am not too sure about the game being able to handle the "duke vassal of duke" part. Orders, like the Hordes and the Papacy re-created, are very special cases since they are spawned by events.
There is a bug (or is it WAD?) resulting in them getting "tier = kingdom" in their title entry and "tier = county" in their country entry. So the ruler's face is trickily circled in golden and red like a king should be, but his CoA shows in a count's shield. This only lasts for the first ruler's lifetime during which they can be vassalized. I even had the Golden Horde vassal of a pagan byzantine Empire once, hence also the Pope vassal of the german King. When the second ruler succeeds the buggy first one, the event-made countries behave like normal kingdoms.

 

[Twoflower]

I still think it's both not advisable for humans and rather unimportant as an AI modification.

Considering the silly and extremely unrealistic (I'm not saying "ahistorical" because that seems to be a forbidden word to you) outcomes that weird Duchy bestowment currently produces, this certainly isn't a rather unimportant modification - it is a very badly needed change.

THe reason being that there are only a limited number of Duchies. A player cannot create his own ducal titles. If a player King wanted to make a loyal count from, say, Briesgau, a Duke, but the Duchy of Schwabia was already formed, the game mechanics do not permit any way of elevating that Duke other than assigning him one of the other titles.

Sure you can. Just grant that count a count title from the Duchy that you want to bestow upon him. If neither you nor the count you want to make a duke own any county in the duchy you want to grant to him, why would you be able to do that, and why would anybody in that duchy accept such a move?

Is it ideal to historical buffs that one needs to call Briesgau the Duke of Luxembourg to accomplish this? Not really. But without the ability to rename Duchy tags to fit the developing realities of the game, this is the best that we got. In the particular alternate reality that is your game, it is not necessarily the case that historical Duchies will come into existance. However, since the game engine does not allow us the ability to create new ahistorical Duchies, our next best bet is to use existing duchies in a geographically and historically "wrong" way.

The static duchies are a needed element in CK, the game's logic would have to be a lot more complex in order for non-static duchies to work, and it would probably result in a game with less atmosphere. What is more important: being able to arbitrarily give any duchy title you want to any vassal you want or preventing completely ahistorical and illogical outcomes that ruin the game for many players, including me (in fact, funny things like the magistrate of Nürnberg becoming Governor of Verona currently stop me from playing the game despite the otherwise very nice betapatch changes).

The proposal to curtail where a Duchy arises is, in my humble opinion, a direct attack on the mutability of history that is at the heart of the game. I recognize why many players want the AI to try to place historical duchies in the area they came from, which I think is fine, but I neither think that the AI should always do that nor do I think the players should EVER be forced to do that. As I said earlier, if you personally feel that it is important to do that, you can restrict yourself to doing so. Forcing a personal play preference onto the whole of the CK community, however, is wrong.

Is it better to force the whole of the CK community to accept silly AI behaviour and ahistorical weirdness for the sake of "mutability of history"? There needs to be a balance between mutability and realism, and this balance is disturbed if the one suffers a lot more than the other gains.

Please implement Sheridan's proposal. It is an easy, reasonable and working solution.

 

[Amagaeru]

Anyone else have to republic of franconia somewhere around bologna in every single 1066 game?

 

[Amagaeru]

...which leads back to the argument I've been having since the day I got this game.

Let the Usurp Option Have Teeth

Limit the AI to handing out titles historically, but the player need not.

And then...

If someone has the ability to "usurp" a title (66% of the holdings for that title), let the title pass *immediately* to the usurper.

I keep getting shot down because the game doesn't have a good way to simulate what would happen, but it hit me:

Allow a Duke to be a vassal of a Duke *if and only if* the Duke was a vassal prior to the person being a Duke. IE:

I am King of England. MrT manages to outmanuever me as I'm being daft and his Duchy titles consist of 2/3 of England. He does a "usurp" and is "King of England". The Dukes of Cornwall and Sussex, who were my vassals before, will remain my vassals (unless they revolt, of course). There would likely be major loyalty penalties for a duke being a vassal of another duke, but we know the game can (sort of) handle it due to the Teutonic Order Kings being vassals of Poland, etc.

Now I need to war on MrT to get my title back (Usurp should, of course, give me a claim to the title). If I win, I'll force him to give me back my title. If I lose, well... I'd better start thinking of bowing and scraping.

Perhaps make it a qualifier: Dukes can have Dukes as vassals *if and only if* the Liege Duke has a claim on a King title. A Duke may not vassalize another Duke, only keep a vassal he already has.

And rename it to archduke! that would be great.

 

[Quift]

Core provinces

This to would be solved if the AI is scripted towards control of Title core-provinces. Then the Duke of whayeter, would work his way towards control over the titlelands, by marriage, assasination and claims, which would stabilise the duchys all over europe.
If the duke of flanders is i milano, and the duke of milano is in provence and the french king is duke of provence, then they are all going to move around, by war, inheritance and so forth. So by the end of the game at least one of the titles should have moved to the right place. one of them is transferred (one loses, one wins). This kind of dynamism is much more "historical", or at least logical than the present chaos.
It would also give kingdoms an incentive to get rid of muslim sheikdoms in paris and germans inheriting large chunks of england without the english king doing anything about it.
The important notion is that it doesn't disallow anything, it just makes everybody work in a more coherent direction.

 

[Spruce]

indeed - this is an issue.

however there are 2 things to seperate =

granting a title "off place" and becoming "off place".

example = the king of France grants a dukal title "duke of Flanders" to the count of Brugge. Granting that kind of title should only be allowed in their "core fief" - linking up the already present vassals to that title. So the count of Ypres will become vassal to the duke of Flanders - formerly know as the count of Brugge.

other example = the duke of Flanders inherits a rich fief in Italy. Should it be forbidden to move his capital? I don't know?

So basicly there are 2 questions =

1) do we implement the requirement for vassals to hold a count title in the area of the granted dukal title?

2) do we allow court (capital) movement outside of the core fief? In other words - is it really logical to expose yourself in another part of Europe with more enemies and more easy capture of the capital? Anyhow, you get the money - why move there?

 

[unmerged(27106)]

Sure you can. Just grant that count a count title from the Duchy that you want to bestow upon him. If neither you nor the count you want to make a duke own any county in the duchy you want to grant to him, why would you be able to do that, and why would anybody in that duchy accept such a move?

I think you're arguing past me. I oppose forcing players to create Duchies in their historical bounds because of other limitations of the game. I see the ability to pass out titles anywhere you want as a work-around to this failing. My argument is that a Duke title is a Duke title and, particularly when the Ducal title is tied 1 province which you will never have any intention of giving away (Essex, for example), I think the ability to hand that title out to anyone is a perfectly reasonable way to handle one of the game's (understandable) shortcomings.

To use the example above, though (if you wanted to have a rp justification for doing so) were I the King of England, ruling from London-Towne, I doubt anyone would object to me granting a loyal vassal (or my heir) the title of "Duke of Essex", regardless of where they are. The Duchy would clearly be seen as an honorific title, representing the closeness of a given Lord to the Ruling Crown by designating the noble, in essence, something like "Defender of the Realm" or "Prince of Wales" or something of the like.

The static duchies are a needed element in CK, the game's logic would have to be a lot more complex in order for non-static duchies to work, and it would probably result in a game with less atmosphere. What is more important: being able to arbitrarily give any duchy title you want to any vassal you want or preventing completely ahistorical and illogical outcomes

I recognize the static duchies are an essential element of the game, which is why I support mutable Duchy assignment. And, clearly, I think "arbitrary" duchy assignment is more important.

"Patrick gains the trait 'Arbitrary'."

that ruin the game for many players, including me (in fact, funny things like the magistrate of Nürnberg becoming Governor of Verona currently stop me from playing the game despite the otherwise very nice betapatch changes).

That being the case, perhaps Crusader Kings isn't the game for you. The developers have repetedly stated that CK is a game, not a historical simulation. Because of that, certain "ahistorical" sacrifices need to be made for game play consdierations. Some people think that not being able to create new ahistorical Kingdoms is a game-killer. Others, such as you, argue that deviating from the historical bounds of a Duchy's original area is likewise a game-killer. I think both ideas are extremist, and that the current system is a perfectly workable middle ground. If historicity is important to you, adhere to only passing out titles in designated areas. If it is not, you likely would resent players forcing their game play ideologies upon you.

Is it better to force the whole of the CK community to accept silly AI behaviour and ahistorical weirdness for the sake of "mutability of history"? There needs to be a balance between mutability and realism, and this balance is disturbed if the one suffers a lot more than the other gains.

I agree. Which is why I voiced my objection to Sheridan's proposal. The position you are arguiing for is, in my opinion, a gross disturbance of the balance that I think exists.

I have said that I do not object to AI tweaks to encourage the AI to pass out titles in the areas they came from. But I do strongly believe that this problem is a piffling issue compared to the larger issues of military access, naval travel, attribute balance, and a host of other issues which, if addressed, would increase the enjoyability of the game more for myself (and likely for many other players, though I can't speak for them.) After all, if you are indeed someone who finds grossly ahistorical events troubling, would you then assert that having the Duke of Essex in Iberia is more of a bother than Scandinavia being under Fatimed rule?

Please implement Sheridan's proposal. It is an easy, reasonable and working solution.

I strenuously disagree that the solution proposed to Sheridan is reasonable. As I have stated, I see it as an extremist strait-jacket that seeks to force a certain style of play on the whole CK community. Players should NEVER be forced to play the game a certain way. If I want to play as the King of Ireland and want every county in Ireland to be ruled by a Duke, I should be allowed to do that. My doing that will in no way interfere with your enjoyment of the game, since I very much doubt that we will ever be playing together.

 

[Grell74]

I agree with Sheridan and Two Flower on this one and hope that this is included in 1.05.

Patrucio I dont understand your strong reaction against their perfectly logical suggestion. Limiting the AI to handing out Duke titles to a count already holding at least one title that makes up the Dukedom is hardly as you assert "an extremist strait-jacket that seeks to force a certain style of play on the whole CK community". This is a massive over-reaction on your part, restricitng the AI in this manner is hardly forcing something on a whole community. I also dont think that you posit a convincing argument against their proposition, I find the old drawcard of "CK is a game not a historical simulation" lacklustre, unjustified and over-wrought, moreover I fail to see what is gained by Paradox, the community or anyone when you suggest that "perhaps Crusader Kings isn't the game for you". As I see it the purpose of these Betas and forums is to discuss the gamne and try an improve it with dialogue not drive people away when you dont agree with them.

Similarly, I dont see how CK is improved or how what "balance that exists" is maintained by allowing the AI to, for example make the Duke Of Essex in Iberia but with no land holdings in Enlgland?? Nothing that I can see. Making this requirement would not be very coding intensive (to my admitedly limited proramming knowledge), yet would go along way to keeping the historical feel of the game, which I find greatly diminshed by such things. If you play from the 1066 senario to 1266 the patchwork of AI created Duchies across the map becomes completely jumbled with no sense of logical, historical or geograpic rationale. "I recognize the static duchies are an essential element of the game, which is why I support mutable Duchy assignment." This is a contradictory statement, do you suppport mutable counties? Can I be the count of Essex in Coimbra?

Admitedly game occurances like Fatmid Bohemia and the AI marching all the way across Europe kill the historical vibe of the game even more and if there had to be a choice I would rather see the Fatmid of Praha stopped, but dont see why the choice has to be one or the other. Or even why you go so far as to actually support the mutable a-historic duchies.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I don't see the problem with it now, if placement is done with priority 1st on historic placement before "more arbitrary placement."
Several reasons:

• This essentially further cripples the AI's ability to gain prestige that a human certainly could do.
• This doesn't really help or hurt long-term historical accuracy. Because FE say i started as the historic Duke of Essex, but later inherited the county of Venice. My capital may very well move there. Then later on, I lose my holdings in Essex, but not to 1 party, but several. None have enough to usurp my title though, thus i end up in Venice with as the Duke of Essex with no holdings there to represent this.
  Thus the end result is the same thing being debated now!

Now that isn't to say I like the situation now. Personally if those two situations are addressed, then there's no reason to have these, but also that assigning them should be done only to those who have demesne of 2 or more.

 

[Grell74]

Jinnai I agree it would be sufficient to make the AI give first priority to historic placement, then failing to locate a viable candidate giving the title to another noble. Currently it doesnt, I saw Castile give the Duchy of Zamora to some wierdo while his sister who was countess of Zamora was thiking wtf!? In my expereince the the new duke has 1 random province and no vassals (which is not even limited by region tags). Wouldnt the AI be made stronger if it was given to the current count holding a province that makes up the duchy AND also be given any other provinces the liege has which also make up the title, then again this will of course reduce every kings demnse to 1 province, but as you say Jinnai this can only by done by leiges with a demense of 2 or more.

I dont think I agree with you second point, the Duke of Essex inheriting Venice then losing all of his English provinces with no one else having enough to usurp is going to be rare and absolutely no where near as frequent as the AI just handing them out in the random fashion it does now. In your example history has been subverted by "fairly" plausibe and logical events as opposed to a lacklustre AI throwing the Duke title at a random courtier.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Well like i said, i don't like it now as the placement does seem entirely random. So yes, i agree that the current situation is bad. If AI placement is done first by historical precident, then for the most part I'd be a lot more happy.

 

[unmerged(27106)]

I agree with Sheridan and Two Flower on this one and hope that this is included in 1.05.

Patrucio I dont understand your strong reaction against their perfectly logical suggestion. Limiting the AI to handing out Duke titles to a count already holding at least one title that makes up the Dukedom is hardly as you assert "an extremist strait-jacket that seeks to force a certain style of play on the whole CK community".

I don't object, as I have said before, to AI tweaks to restrict where the non-human realms put their Duchies, though I don't think they're that big of a deal. What I strongly object to is Sheridan's suggestion of placing the same restrictions on human players. Encouraging the AI to stick to the historical lands tied to a Ducal title is fine. Forcing human players to is not. Human players should be free to play their game any way they want

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I don't object, as I have said before, to AI tweaks to restrict where the non-human realms put their Duchies, though I don't think they're that big of a deal. What I strongly object to is Sheridan's suggestion of placing the same restrictions on human players. Encouraging the AI to stick to the historical lands tied to a Ducal title is fine. Forcing human players to is not. Human players should be free to play their game any way they want

If anything then that just makes the AI even more crippled. And the AI isn't that well off to begin with.

Making them prioritze historical placement is fine. Giving them artifical restictions humans wouldn't have to cripple them isn't.

 

[Grell74]

"Encouraging the AI to stick to the historical lands tied to a Ducal title is fine."

Oh I think we all pretty much agree then Lets hope that improvements to the AI distribution of duchies can be worked into the 1.05 patch, Mr T your thoughts...

 

[unmerged(27913)]

I agree with those who said we should somehow bound AI to stick to the historical titles.

What I am having in mind is that we should make it that you can't give(AI included) a Duchy title if the one to whom you are giving the title doesn't have at least one county of that Duchy demense you are giving it to. So if a 'Duke of Flanders' inherits a county in Tunisia he will remain the 'Duke of Flanders' but only as long as he owns at least one county in the Flanders demense, the moment he looses the last county in D.of Flanders demense he will loose the Duchy title. I mean you can't be a Count of Tolouse if you don't own 'County of Toulouse', so why would one be able to be a 'Duke of Anjou' if he doesn't own at least one county in Anjou demense is beyond me and I find that some sort of cheating actually. It should definately fixed.

 

[Hyzhenhok]

There's no reason why I should be forced to go with strict guidelines when handing out ducal titles. Usually I do go with the area of the duchy, but not always. Is it impossible to make the AI usually do the same, but not always? This would solve most problems but not be too horribly deterministic. Most importantly, it would neither restrict the human nor 'cripple' the AI.

Go ahead and encourage the AI to focus on historical duchies if it bothers you - but don't force me to do anything. If I want to give two of my duchies from my recently conquered Kingdom of Jerusalem to my two counts in Iceland, I should be able to. People mention their enjoyment being spoiled by this 'fantasy duchies', but other people's enjoyment will be spoiled if they can no longer create these.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

So you enjoy when you have Duke of Anjou in Palestine? Come on....

 

[Hyzhenhok]

It appears that the AI has been changed in the beta patch. Have yet to test it, but this may no longer be an issue.

In game, a duchy is a duchy to me. The tags only differentiate different dukes from eachother - I could care less about the name in relation to where it is. Its nice for historic accuracy, but history must sometimes be sacrificed for gameplay. If I want Iceland to be ruled by two dukes instead of one, I have to break history and put one of my other duchies there. But I have my two dukes - I don't really care if one of them should be somewhere else.

 

[unmerged(6777)]

Mr T your thoughts...

See the April 1 patch notes.

It may not fix the issue 100% to your satisfaction, but it should be a significant step towards it. I'll be interested to read your observations after having played with the patch for a bit.

 

[unmerged(485)]

So you enjoy when you have Duke of Anjou in Palestine? Come on....

In the late 13th century the Duke of Anjou was based in Sicily, invaded Byzantine territory and my mind is a bit fuzzy on this but he also had something to do with the Kingdom of Jerusalem.