Why choose anything else besides Feudal Contract?

[Ambigore]

I decided to play as the Duke of Leinster and formed Ireland in the late 1090s. From the beginning of the game to around 1130, I decided to play with Royal Prerogative for a change as I normally play with FC.

After about 70 years, I concluded that RP is junk. The main strength of RP is 100% scrutage, meaning if you have a large empire, you'll be raking in maximum $$$ from them. Perfect for hiring and maintaining mercenaries to crush rebels.

But the main problem with RP is the -1 penalty to loyalty, and more importantly, if you have many vassals you'll run into many "vassal thinks your rule is too heavy-handed" events which destroys your prestige and has a 15% chance of creating a rebel. With around 25 vassals I seem to run into these events every few years.

Conversely, with FC your vassals will REWARD you with prestige when you run into "vassal likes your wise rule" events. Additionally you get the "Calling the Estates General" event which I got shortly after changing from RP to FC.

However, I have noticed that with RP I see many more "loyalist" vassals than with FC. So I guess under RP, you'll have more devout, loyal-to-the-death vassals than under FC.

Has anyone else had experience with other laws besides FC?

 

[TempestDK]

Well it depends on what you want ... but yes, RP is only really useful when you have a small realm. I prefer the army composition of this and PL to FC when I start out small. Better quality.

But as soon as you get above a handful vassals, it becomes bothersome to keep the vassals happy and in check.

I made an overview of the various ruling (and religious) laws as i saw them.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=439469

Hope that would be useful for you

 

[unmerged(84239)]

Has anyone else had experience with other laws besides FC?

There is only 1 downside of FC, an event where the cities (or burghers) are not happy with your rule, and it is either a change to popular law, or revolt.

But in game terms FC is the most easiest to play with.

 

[Damocles]

I always found this amusing, and have often been inclined to change it somehow, because many histories of Byzantium claim that it was the gradual feudalization of the Empire that fractured it, and paid the way to civil war and disunity, and left it without the strength to defend itself against foreign aggressors.

There should be waaaaay more events associated with feudal contract making trouble in the way of rebellious vassals and other such things.

 

[TempestDK]

There is alot that could have been done with the ruling laws ... but it seems that PI lacked the time to finish up on it. This and religious law were sort of sidetracked a bit I guess.

I faintly remember someone (probably either Veld or Jordarkelf) finding references to how a ruler could interfer (or not) in inter-vassal wars depending on the chosen ruling law. But seems to have been not implemented.

I have high hopes of serious fun to be had depending on the ruling laws in CK2. There really should be distict advantages and drawbacks to all of them.

Why would anyone ever select Traditional Custom??

If you want to be annoyed with Feudal Contract, then install the BOPACK event mod ... and you will get pestered constantly by the burghers.

 

[jordarkelf]

A lot was planned, but because Paradox had to rescue CK from the mismanagement at its original developer, many interesting features never made it in. Among them the restrictions on vassal warfare you mention.

I've been planning to overhaul the laws a bit (as much as I can at least), both to make the AI switch more, and to make some of the options desirable. As mentioned there's really no reason ever to use TC, or RP in big realms, but there should be.

 

[Damocles]

I've had the BOPAK mod installed for a while, though I had to go over it with a fine toothed comb to modify events into something less silly in quite a few cases.

I hate large power changes, arbitrary events that seem to have one obviously good, and an obviously shitty outcome, and anything that automatically gives me traits.

There are very few events I haven't gotten to, in one form or another, that now have a percentage chance to give a trait instead of automatic, and where other effects weren't toned down.

A few of them were almost game-breaking to me. My event philosophy is that most events should be able to be sidestepped, given a loss in gold, prestige and piety, without deconstructing your character down to the bone and turning them into a Cruel Forgiving Lustful Indulgent Coward in the space of a month or two.

 

[Snaake]

I used RP back when I was a duke and just became king. Besides raking in cash from vassals (if you have a few, it should be easy enough to populate them with family members, so the +2% familial relations loyalty bonus offsets the effective -2% loyalty of RP when compared to FC... that, or have good diplomacy), I was able to tax nobles more. Even back in the day most nobles in my demesne had loyalty increase rates of +.2 to +.5 at 50% tax.

RP gives you a LOT more rebellious vassals than FC, since they resent that you have all the power. You might also think that you get a lot of rebellious vassals with FC, but it's more likely that you have a larger kingdom at that point.

 

[unmerged(94161)]

I think it depends on whether you're looking at CK as more of a strategy game or a simulator. If it's a strategy game, then no, some of these decisions DON'T make much sense.

If you're looking at it as a simulator, though... realistically, people are bad at making sense, and curiosity is a VERY good reason for doing things.

 

[unmerged(76802)]

Because I am the Roman Emperor, and those rat-bastard princes are going to sit down and shut up.

 

[Nick B II]

I always found this amusing, and have often been inclined to change it somehow, because many histories of Byzantium claim that it was the gradual feudalization of the Empire that fractured it, and paid the way to civil war and disunity, and left it without the strength to defend itself against foreign aggressors.

I'm sure there are histories that say that.

But prior to the feudalization of the Empire they didn't have much strength, either. Look up Manzikert if you don't believe me.

RP combined with their byzantine politics doomed them. The Konemni were able to recover much of their losses by moving towards a more feudal system, tho.

There should be waaaaay more events associated with feudal contract making trouble in the way of rebellious vassals and other such things.

In gameplay terms that makes sense.

In historical terms, tho, it doesn't. The reason countries in the CK era all moved towards feudalism is simple: in 1100 it worked better than anything else.

Take England. And they didn't really have any significant problem with Burghers or peasants rebelling against the evils of feudalism. Problems happened when their Kings tried to move away from feudalism to a system more akin to RP. Same with Scotland.

That said there were major problems with feudalism for a King. He'd have very specific rights and priveleges, and the only way those are simulated in CK is via scutage. They are also virtually impossible to simulate in the CK engine -- you could use an event with a MTTH of 40 days to simulate the limited military duty most feudal levies expected, but in a game where it takes weeks to sail across the English channel that would be extremely stupid.

Nick

 

[unmerged(76802)]

I'm sure there are histories that say that.

But prior to the feudalization of the Empire they didn't have much strength, either. Look up Manzikert if you don't believe me.

Huh? The Empire was the most powerful state in Europe before Manzikert, even with the slump for the Dukid dynasty's reign.

 

[Count of Reval]

It's kind of cool that in Paradox's forums you can find discussions like this... about feudalization process of Byzantine Empire and its possible consequences. (Sometimes it's hard to believe that you are just in PC game forum.)

 

[Count of Reval]

I give my modest contribution as well.
"History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453, Volume 2" By A. A. Vasiliev.
About Byzantine feudalism, pages 563-579 (some of the pages are not part of this Google books' preview sadly).
http://books.google.ee/books?id=2X8LtjDLNl8C&printsec=frontcover&hl=en&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

[Damocles]

Well. It seems to me that it was the powerful Byzantine magnates whose large personal standing armies, immense fortunes and land holdings, more often than not ended up getting the Empire into the most trouble.

It's supposed to have gone downhill starting in 1025 with the death of Basil II. Then half a century later in 1071, you see an entire third of Diogenes' army being comprised of the personal armies of rival Anatolian lords (Ducas), abandoning him. Then deposing him immediately thereafter, invalidating the peace he just made.

RP seem to me, to imply strong, firm handed control of the monarch over the apparatus of state, including its standing army. Whereas feudal contract is the reliance of a collection of magnates and barons to supply their personal retinues, often numbering into the thousands.

Thus, FC should be more unstable and prone to civil wars. But I guess it'd be cheaper and easier in some respects.

 

[wobbit]

In game there's one form of ruling law that will keep asking you to switch to elective law or get pissed off vassals- I think this is FC. But basically it seems that FC is the best law for large realms for anything but roleplaying and possibly army composition.

The other laws could really do with greater depth- maybe a presteige bonus for RP along with a higher demense limit and possibly less severe penalties for revoking titles. Maybe have popular law give loyalty boni to your vassal republics and remove some of the events that make them likely to revolt. Possibly add events to have provinces ask to become republics. TC could be left as the vanilla law while FC could be given some events relating to overlong use of vassals troops (obviously more than 40 days, but something to make them get upity if you keep their troops in the field for years) and more severe penalties for revoking titles and changing religious and inheritance laws (and possibly for being excomunicated).

In real life, Byzantium was a special case in the Christian world in 1066 in that it was the only kingdom with the necessary beauracracy and culture to really pull off what the game terms as Royal Perogative. Various other states would reach this situation over the timeframe of the game- France is the example that springs to mind- or at least aspire to it- Imperial Germany.

Thing is, having powerful vassals- what the game refers to as Feudal Contract (or possibly Traditional Custom)- wasn't a "bad thing" in and of itself. As long as it was clear that the vassal's power was granted by the king (and there were plenty of ways to do this), then his strength became an expression of his master's authority. This relationship generally made it fairly easy for the king to keep his vassals onside and their strength could be a positive thing- it made them more able to defend their territory from invaders and provided the king with more troops in time of war. It was only when the relationships between the king and his vassals broke down and the vassals began claiming power without acknowledging that it came from the crown that the king's position became unstable.

 

[Snaake]

In the long run, the slight advantage of RP to FC in army composition really isn't that important, since sieges are decided by numbers alone, so the 20% or so extra troops, all light infrantry IIRC, are worth more than that amount of light infantry usually would be in a battle. And they are *free*, except for upkeep.

The other laws could really do with greater depth- maybe a presteige bonus for RP along with a higher demense limit and possibly less severe penalties for revoking titles. Maybe have popular law give loyalty boni to your vassal republics and remove some of the events that make them likely to revolt. Possibly add events to have provinces ask to become republics. TC could be left as the vanilla law while FC could be given some events relating to overlong use of vassals troops (obviously more than 40 days, but something to make them get upity if you keep their troops in the field for years) and more severe penalties for revoking titles and changing religious and inheritance laws (and possibly for being excomunicated).

This.

Give RP something like easier revoking of titles or demesne bonus, or extra money from scutage (or vassals field more troops than they usually would with high scutage) to make a reason for sticking with it with a mid-size realm at least. I did as a fresh king, since I had so good diplomacy and a chancellor my vassals got +4% loyalty from diplomacy. The 2% difference between RP and FC didn't matter that way. They still rebelled eventually, after they got the rebellious trait. And I think this has been done correctly, in that vassals should covet your absolute power in FC and become rebellious. There should be something slighty different with rebellions in FC, maybe make the elective law event more frequent or something, it's more in the style of how a FC realm might start to deteriorate.

In general, as has been discussed in other threads too, there should be more of a sliding scale between a king being an autocratic ruler and a figurehead, eg. inter-vassal wars should be possible under the right circumstances.

 

[gardel va]

What we're seeing is that the game does a pretty bad job of modeling different types of feudalism. The clearest example is that feudalism in England worked very differently than in France. The English King had a network of officials -- the sheriffs -- who could enforce the king's law down into every fiefdom. The French had no equivalent. That meant that, while England had powerful families, they rarely became a law into themselves, as Burgundy, Acquitaine, and Toulouse did at various points in French history.

 

[unmerged(94161)]

Part of the problem with that is that if you want to emulate the specific differences with every country, you're going to get bogged down in the details really fast. However if you mean something like replacing the existing governments with four different broad categories of feudalisms that'd work.

Anyway, I don't have DV, but I hear it adds stability. Do you get stability hits from changing government/law/things? One idea I had -- that should probably be doable -- is that you'd have events that would force you to change government type based on which of your four population classes is more annoyed at you when they fire or something. Since FC is the 'best' government, the one that would induce that could be seen as a good event, whereas the other three would be 'bad' events that result from bad governing.

Or finding some way to lock government changes entirely except via event.

 

[Saulot]

I think that these differences between countries discussed in this thread that are not yet well-modelled in CK are excellent avenues for Paradox to explore when they bring us CK2.