What motivated making baronies county-exclusive?

[VineFynn]

Given that they are now represented on the map, why would CK3 effectively take a step backward from ck2 in terms of barony interactions? Were the new siege and attrition systems really worth it, assuming that's why?

Honestly I'm surprised that ck3 didn't give us the ability to chop up counties by elevating baronies (not dissimilarly to how vicky3 handles states), but I guess that's a separate topic.

 

[Fac0810]

IIRC, performance

 

[tsr-aph]

I always thought it was weird in CK2 that you could lose a barony to a foreign nation and not have it seen on the map. Honestly, why would you make baronies inheritable out of the realm? Imagine if some foreign king in a distant realm became heir presumptive to a tiny barony, are they going to care if they get the land?

 

[Montelbon]

I see you've never experienced the pain of wondering why you didn't get the SPQR achievement in ck2 and having to hunt through every single country to find the baronies owned by holy orders, foreign lords or have otherwise gone independent.

 

[Amtep]

I always thought it was weird in CK2 that you could lose a barony to a foreign nation and not have it seen on the map. Honestly, why would you make baronies inheritable out of the realm? Imagine if some foreign king in a distant realm became heir presumptive to a tiny barony, are they going to care if they get the land?

My impression of feudal nobility is that yes they would care, deeply. The powerful ones had bits of land all over the place and kept track of all of them. It went way smaller than ck3's baronies, too.

 

[klopkr]

I always thought it was weird in CK2 that you could lose a barony to a foreign nation and not have it seen on the map. Honestly, why would you make baronies inheritable out of the realm? Imagine if some foreign king in a distant realm became heir presumptive to a tiny barony, are they going to care if they get the land?

If anything it's the opposite.

It's just that CK2 couldn't represent it well without baronies on the map. Now counties feel like duchies and duchies feel like small kingdoms it makes more sense than ever... at least internally.

There's a really cool mod called barons war that let's barons actually rebel and fight like normal rulers.

I think that barons are intentionally not real AI for performance reasons because they can't really make proper families, fight, etc. In a lot of ways they're simpler than they were in CK2.

I love the map size and zoom in but sometimes I wonder if we actually gained much from the baronies on the map other than some visuals and the ability for every army to walk around each other.

 

[pengoyo]

I think that barons are intentionally not real AI for performance reasons because they can't really make proper families, fight, etc. In a lot of ways they're simpler than they were in CK2.

Note that the reduced decisions that barons can take for performance reasons in CK3 are inherited from CK2 (there were also mechanisms to reduce the number of kids barons had in CK2 too).

And Barons are actually more likely to at least be involved in events in CK3, as CK3 does a better job of grabbing existing characters for events than CK2 did.

 

[klopkr]

Note that the reduced decisions that barons can take for performance reasons in CK3 are inherited from CK2 (there were also mechanisms to reduce the number of kids barons had in CK2 too).

And Barons are actually more likely to at least be involved in events in CK3, as CK3 does a better job of grabbing existing characters for events than CK2 did.

Sure but barons can't inherit anything or ever become real characters or ever rebel like CK2. They're more like courtiers than landed characters.

 

[tsr-aph]

Sure but barons can't inherit anything or ever become real characters or ever rebel like CK2. They're more like courtiers than landed characters.

What do you mean barons can't inherit? They absolutely can! I have seen many AI make their primary heirs barons only for them to go on and inherit the kingdoms they inhabit. This can also apply to republican and theocratic barons.

 

[Blk82]

Baronies exist so that the lowest playable level character has vassals. If playable baronies existed, then you need to add another level of unplayable characters below them, which leads to the same situation, just one level down.

 

[VineFynn]

I see you've never experienced the pain of wondering why you didn't get the SPQR achievement in ck2 and having to hunt through every single country to find the baronies owned by holy orders, foreign lords or have otherwise gone independent.

Like I said, now that they're represented on the map this doesn't really make sense any more.

 

[VineFynn]

IIRC, performance

Why did they bother representing baronies on the map then, I wonder.

 

[Fac0810]

Why did they bother representing baronies on the map then, I wonder.

they add to the granularity of the map and more maneuverability to the armys, plus is cool to just look at (better if it had city sprawl)

 

[Jia Xu]

The consequence of people whining about "border gore", daily, for 8 straight years.

 

[klopkr]

The consequence of people whining about "border gore", daily, for 8 straight years.

All they'd have to do is make all external war CBs county level or higher but internal ones can be on the barony level for that glorious internal border gore.

 

[CrabHelmet]

Baronies exist so that the lowest playable level character has vassals. If playable baronies existed, then you need to add another level of unplayable characters below them, which leads to the same situation, just one level down.

It's already possible to be a player with no vassals, though - any count-level title which has no baronies constructed aside from the main holding itself.

I think a far more realistic reason is just performance. If barons had a wide range of decisions and activities they could be doing, the game would grind to a halt. Since barons can't be allowed to do anything, they're not much fun for the player and so are made non-playable.

 

[pengoyo]

Like I said, now that they're represented on the map this doesn't really make sense any more.

There is a a second part to that problem that would still apply. That of once you figure out you are missing a barony or ten, you often had to fight a giant war for a single barony, multiple times. If the large scale wars over a single county feels weird, imagine what it was like when you had to fight over a single barony.

Were the new siege and attrition systems really worth it, assuming that's why?

I don't think this is the sole reason they made barons connected to counties, but I do think it does make wars in CK3 more interesting and less tedious. And considering barons being able to be separated from their county was a bit of a mixed bag, I think it's definitely worth it

Sure but barons can't inherit anything or ever become real characters or ever rebel like CK2. They're more like courtiers than landed characters.

Pretty sure barons never became real characters in CK2. Sure they'd move around realms, but that was the result of the luck of inheritance, not the barons actively doing anything.

But I do agree it would be nice to see barons try to rebel in CK3, at least if you try to take their title while they hate you. But even this was a reactive thing in CK2, they never could create factions or take other proactive steps in CK2.

 

[pengoyo]

All they'd have to do is make all external war CBs county level or higher but internal ones can be on the barony level for that glorious internal border gore.

But what happens when a vassal title with baronies below them that's de jure are part of another county or a vassal title that is missing baronies becomes independent?

That internal border gore can easily become external border gore through inheritance or independence factions.

 

[Lordy's]

Baronies exist so that the lowest playable level character has vassals. If playable baronies existed, then you need to add another level of unplayable characters below them, which leads to the same situation, just one level down.

Yes. Yet they don't make for particularly interesting vassals: You can revoke their titles and and time and they will always accept (even if you're weaker). They simply cannot fight any rebellions.

I'm fine with baronies not being inherited out of county, as I can understand the problem with bordergore. The problem here is that while in reality, many rulers held small parts of land in distant realms, it never was considered part of their primary realm. But since there's no title based vassal hierarchy (multiple lieges), it simply doesn't work in CK3.

But I agree that they should be more important and should be able to fight wars. That wouldn't even cost performance.

 

[klopkr]

But what happens when a vassal title with baronies below them that's de jure are part of another county or a vassal title that is missing baronies becomes independent?

That internal border gore can easily become external border gore through inheritance or independence factions.

Ya lose em. Counties have one capital and baronies can't leave the realm their county capital is in.