>everybody is locked into gavelkind
>when you die your realm will splinter into many kingdoms
>UNLESS, you are able to blob fast enough to form an empire
>when you have formed an empire your realm no longer breaks on your death
What was the big idea there?
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
>de jure empires other than HRE/ERE/Iran/Caliphate/China existing at start
Yes chud
At the very least title formation ought to be approved by your head of faith, and the Pope won't let you form an empire if the HRE is around
Yeah, there is no excuse for it.
Especially when you easily circumvent it by converting to heresy and forming it.
ck3 is just a mess. the devs are hellbent on just adding 'roleplay' gimmicks instead of fixing the fricking game, adding gameplay or balancing the overpowered shiet.
I was wuz hoping CK3 would be better than CK2. But it's simply not. I only play it for its genetics system.
>I was wuz hoping CK3 would be better than CK2
You were a fool from the start
So were the majority of the mod makers apparently.
Crusader Kings is a role-playing game, not a strategy game.
it's a map painter first and foremost
is that way, mate
Vassals pretty much only revolt as claimant factions so AI blobs won't explode, and as a player you can just chuck money at them or befriend the strongest ones to avoid revolts. If there aren't any revolts, there is no threat to you once you've established an empire besides crusades or ridiculously large alliances. Splitting the realm gives you stuff to do besides mindlessly conquer the world as a meme religion because there's maybe an hour max of royal court events for peacetime. At least, I assume that's the logic.
No, I get the idea of splitting the realm, what I don't get is the idea of empires that prevent it.
I reckon the game becomes better if you remove fantasy empires from it.
>Why does my bumfrick nowhere kingdom of 7 provinces got split into my 6 kids?
>Why does my empire consisting of 4 different kingdoms didn't collapse, this is so weird?
American, aren't you?
No, are you?
Smaller kingdoms are easier to keep together, being "bigger" doesn't make you automatically more bureaucratic but actually makes fragmentation and power concretion harder.
>Smaller kingdoms are easier to keep together
Not really, you dense frick, because there is nobody safeguarding that lack of split
Here, some feudal fragmentation for your dumb ass
There is about 350 km between Zagan and Cieszyn. Used to be just a single duchy. And this is not even the final form of the whole clusterfrick
>polish
Theres your problem
>argument: bigger empires fragment more easily
>you: nope, you see there was this one small kingdom that fragmented, hence you are wrong
strawman much?
Tell that to Charlemagne, fricktard.
You should look into the history of Wales son
And also the special title of Prince of Wales
Why are power gamers the most moronic among the moronic?
As if it was about power-gaming. It's just morons being moron. Game offers you dozens upon dozens of ways of dealing with succession, but nope, let's make a billionth thread on how bad it is to have gavelkind. Same shit was going with CK2 literally since release - "waaaaa, I have gavelkind, what an awful game!"
It's like you don't give those c**ts a step-by-step instruction, they won't be able to handle it, and then pretend it's about anything else, but their own incompetence. My favourite is "b-but muh historical realismus!", all while they play Crusader fricking Kings.
No one is complaining about gavelkind, just pointing out the arbitrary system where if you blob a little and die your realm splits up, and if you blob a lot and die your realm stays together.
Also the de jure and demesne system completely works against the gavelkind system where you end up up with moronic borders rather than clean splits.
Thank you, I thought everybody misunderstood the point of this post
Do you mean the moronation where I have to collect as many titles as I can before I die so that my kids get those ones instead carving up my primary title?
and then tank opinion maluses from vassals because I can't fricking make dynamic agreements like the verbal ones rulers made IRL
No. How is this difficult to understand?
The game is designed so that you will be punished for not-blobbing fast enough by partitioning your kingdom, and rewarded for blobbing fast enough to form an empire.
You might argue, "uh, if I remain to one kingdom boundaries the kingdom doesn't get partitioned", good luck with that. I unified Norway, and stopped warring, in theory, that would remain a kingdom, but because the is a ship, my vassals conquered and inherited half of Sweden, which meant that despite not expanding into Sweden, I controlled 50% of Sweden on my ruler's death, resulting half the Norway going to the newly created kingdom of Sweden.
That's literally what I said you fricking brainlet. It IS the same problem. I was right in assuming we were in agreement. You're just being moronic like /vst/gays usually are being a board of people who think they're smarter than everyone else. Frick you.
Better question is how can they fix it? What's a better gameplay loop than racing to consolidate your power?
The loop is fine, the problem is that it is too easy to obtain the power and the ai cant compete with the player
How about make tribals more realistic? How many tribals empires or even kingdoms there were?
The obvious solution would be to add more tiers to the loops to extend gameplay.
It still dumbfounds me that Paradox made baronies visible on the map, but chose not to make them playable. If it was performance they were worried about then they should have scrapped Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and even the snippets of East Asia they included for god knows why.
Anyway, a county should be a pretty big deal in terms of power and an average county should ideally have way more baronies than it does now.
You could even just erase the current (arbitrary) distinction between tribal/city/temple/castle holdings and have it expressed through unique buildings that different government-types can construct. This should open up many existing baronies for feudal gameplay.
I'd even go so far as to make landless knights or deposed rulere playable for one generation. Game over if you die landless. You'll have to (re-)gain a title through service, scheming, invasion, begging another ruler for a claimant war, marriage to a female ruler, etc. That could make losing a title fun. Deposed rulers didn't just fade from history - they tried to retake their shit, like Tostig Godwinson.
Barony and landless (Venetian merchant families, Viking adventurers) gameplay is something I've been wanting since CK2.
wat is multiliege
The weird thing is that Paradox acounts for things like Viking adventuring with actual mechanics, not just random events, then makes them NPC-only. Rollo of Normandy is in both CK2 and 3 yet you can't play as him unless RNG elects for him to start his adventure. He then gathers troops to himself, selects a target, gets paid off here and there, etc. All completely closed to the player.
>wat is multiliege
Let's propose you are this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theobald_II_of_Navarre
There are two types of properties in medieval Europe, alods and fiefs. The alods are independent properties, in contrast, fiefs are partitions of an alod rented in exchange for obligations (such as the military) to the alod holder.
So, the alod holder is the landlord of the fief holder (aka. vassal or tenant).
So, you can own alods and rent fiefs simultanously without the landlord having nothing to do with your alod.
Think it like inheriting a mansion abroad and renting an apartment, your apartment's landlord has nothing to do with your foreign mansion.
Oh, that would be extremely cool.
So (historically speaking), could someone have fiefs part of different alods (renting apartments from different landlords)? Did this ever happen?
Yes, you have things like William's companion, Roger the Bearded, who is made the duke of Leicester (in England) and inherited the county of Meulan.
Meulan was a border county between Normandy and French royal domain, held directly from the French King. The situation was particularly tricky because French king often fought the Normans, putting Roger and his son Waleran in an awkward position. Much like his father Waleran held fiefs in England from the English kings and Meulen from French kings.
Waleran tries to play both sides but ultimately became very unpopular amongst Normans, leading to his arrest, and deprivement of his lands in England. Leaving him with only Meulen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_de_Beaumont,_1st_Earl_of_Leicester
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waleran_de_Beaumont,_1st_Earl_of_Worcester
Damn that sounds like it could be interesting. Really wish that was part of CK3. Doesn't seem like it would be hard to do if they had designed it into the base systems, guess we'll have to wait and see if they do a CK4 that has it.
If nothing else they could at least limit the inheritance in order to limit bordergore.
At the moment, if an English vassal count inherits a county in Holy Roman Empire, the English county becomes a part of the Holy Roman Empire, making its recovery extremely difficult as HRE would send all their troops to defend the county in England.
However, with a simple change it could work like this:
>if a non-independent ruler inherits a title that is abroad or non-adjacent
>they receive an event where they have to decide if they want to keep old titles or the new inherited titles
>titles that they didn't choose pick, are abdicated (going to their children, siblings or cousins)
This would mean, that in the English vassal example either:
a) the English county would remain under the same vassal and the inherited Holy Roman county would go to the English count's relative
b ) the Holy Roman county would go to the vassal, while the vassal's English county would go to their relative
Independent rulers inheriting independent titles would work the same as they do in the game.
Independent rulers inheriting abroad vassal titles (or vice versa) however would work differently, the vassal titles would automatically be abdicated on the inheritance of independent titles.
E.g. of how the system would work in real life.
>Eleanor of Aquitaine is a vassal of France, in 1204 she dies, her heir would be John Lackland
>but because John is already an independent ruler of England, Duchy of Aquitaine is abdicated to his niece, Eleanor the fair maid
>but because John is already an independent ruler of England, Duchy of Aquitaine is abdicated to his niece, Eleanor the fair maid
Wasn't the actual legal justification that the Duchy of Aquitaine is subject to France, and that the English kings would be classified as rebels/traitors for opposing the French crown?
The multi-holding system like all PDX mechanics is a good idea executed poorly.
It is moronic that you begin with besieging the county capital and then proceed to capture castles and cities within the county.
IMO (pic related), you should start with capturing the rural castles and looting the rural monastery before proceeding to besiege the city.
After taking the city the siege still wouldn't end because you would have to take the rich cathedral (cathedral used to be fortified inside of a city) and then the castle (citadel) within the city.
Taking the citadel was even more difficult than taking the city, because citadels were designed to give chance for the defenders to reclaim city, there are multiple cases of garrisoning the citadel driving the besieger away from the city. Mongols themself rarely bothered with the citadels and would just sack the city and retreat.
It isn't a gameplay loop.
Having your kingdom partitioned on your death and having to put it back together is a gameplay loop.
But forming an empire makes it so it no longer get partitioned, ending the gameplay loop.
this isn't entirely true.
see, if you're playing a count with multiple counties then your realm will split on your death, but if you manage to gain a duchy title before you die then your other sons simply become count vassals under your duke heir.
see what I'm saying here isn't that this is an empire thing exclusively but rather you gaming the mechanics of the game to maintain progress.
if you as an emperor form a 2nd empire title with gavelkind succession then your realm will split in two when you die.
you already know all of this so why are you making me point it out to you?
>2nd empire title
Sorry I only play HIP, the patrician choice, which only allows to hold 1 single imperial title at the same time.
Also it simply erases those gamey ahistorical empires.
I like how countries are splitting - being a blob isn't that fun but wish there was some other system that isn't cheesable with creating a single top title. The game should offer more benefits for having relatives everywhere (Maybe allow free body surf between them, or at least let me pick any character on death) and stricter, bit more flexible administrative limits.
Why don't gavelkind empires fracture like Charlememe's empire? Sure the eldest son might be able to maintain the empire but majority of it will be kingdoms under his brothers.
It's impossible for the ai to plan anything. You get told right away a character wants your title and he become outwardly hostile there should be way more options for intrigue in this game then there is.
That's simply not true. You get informed of malicious plots if you or your spymaster succeed in a passive background check dictated by their stats against the stats of the plotter/s. I've had plenty of malicious plots happen to my characters without being warned of their existence.
If you mean
>Why no clean borders like Francia/Lothairingia/Germany
It's because often dukes inherit or conquer lands outside of their de jure duchy. So if duke of Toulouse inherits or conquers Aachen, which is in Lothairingia, Aachen goes to Francia upon the division because it is under the duke of Toulouse which is under Francia
now, if you mean
>Why don't kingdoms go independent from the Empire
Historically they didn't either. After Louis the Pious' death, Lothair not only was King of Lothairingia but also Emperor of the Romans, and the other two Kings were vassals of his. Only they did the in-game equivalent of an independence revolt and seceded.
The game needs multi-lieges
I don't know why Paradox shit is even allowed on this board. Like I don't know why the mods don't delete threads about HoI4, CK3, etc. They aren't strategy games so I don't know why they're allowed on this board. HoI4 and CK3 are open-world roleplaying games played on a map. They aren't strategy games.
>WOWIE ZOWIE I JUST HECKING CONQUERED THE ENTIRE MEDITERRANEAN COASTLINE FOR THE #132354 TIME THIS IS SO COOL
Good. CK2 was too easy because you could go from an ooga booga tribe to a sophisticated kingdom in like two generations.
You can do that in CK3 in one, that's the problem
That’s unironically how it worked IRL. Look at the Magyars
Did any decent porn mods ever end up coming out for this thing? I remember there being some hype when CK3 first came out because people speculated that you could mod the in-game cutscenes to show sex, but some time later people were saying there wasn't enough interest in CK3 for porn modders to properly mess with it.
>I think that gavelkind sucks
You're a gigantic homosexual. Gavelkind is the only aspect of CK that makes it anything other than a brainless moronfest.
What if succession worked like this
>Nominate heirs. Succession type determines how many claimants and who those claimants are and whether they need to be related or not.
>Can see how much your vassals support your nominated heir in his claim, see what vassals support another relative or just themselves
>Can influence and manage this before dying, to a point.
>Crown Authority 1
>Top title is destroyed unless it's count-tier, all titles split up between the most powerful claimants, whether those claims are legitimate or not. All successors are given a CB against all other successors.
>Crown Authority 2
>Top title is destroyed unless it's duke-tier or lower, all titles are split up between relatives and powerful vassal claimants. All successors of a duke-tier title are given a CB against all other successors.
>Crown Authority 3
>Top title is destroyed unless it's king-tier or lower, all titles are split up between relatives. All successors of a King-tier title are given a CB against all other successors.
>Crown Authority 4
>Top title is retained. No CBs are given to successors.
Special succession types lock you into specific heirs, but they also reduce the number of people who can actually inherit anything on death.
VGH the historical empires of CVRPVTHIV, SOVTHERN BVLTIC EMPIRE, TVRTVRIV, TVRVN, SIBERIV VND VOLGV-VRVL
VGHVGHVGHVGHVGH
on a technical, "ackchually note", Carpathia would've been a thing if Hungarians didn't consider the HRE and Byzantium the only lawful empires in Europe, because on paper they ruled the land they have de jure, for like 200 or 300 years.
Wrong. The concept of empire is particularly interesting. The term evolved over the course of centuries and we generally operate under the Napoleonic definition.
The Roman concept of the emperor, the imperator was the title of military dictator, not a monarch. Romans didn't have a concept, an emperor. Sure, Cyrus and Alexander might have called themselves king of kings, but wasn't seen as rank, but rather a regional title related to the ruling of Iran.
Meanwhile, the barbarian hierarchy ended with the high king, who was essentially a cultural hegemon, not a multi-cultural hegemon, furthermore, there was no realm for the high king, no "high kingdom". This means that the high king was simply a random king who was able to subjugate a few other kings, but when he died his successor was unlikely to continue being recognized as such.
When the Pope crowned Charlemagne as an imperator, it must have been confusing for everybody. Because the Franks didn't know anything about the title, far as the highest title in the universe was "king of the Franks". Pope knew that the title referred to a military dictator, but sold it to Charlemagne as the:
>"super special supreme ruler and protector of the Christians, who must be crowned by the pope and only by the pope"
Which is how it continued being perceived by the West Latins until the Napoleonic wars.
So, Hungarians randomly claiming to be an empire wouldn't have made any sense. That being, the Hungarians died invading Italy a few times between Charlemagne and Otto the Great, if they had succeeded, the pope would have likely crowned Hungarian kings as emperors, and he would have had "Holy Roman-Magyar Empire", which would have included Italy and Hungary, but not Germany, and it would have still been called Holy Roman Empire, not "Empire of Carpatia".
>Romans didn't have a concept, an emperor.
I don't quite think that is entirely true. During the Principate? Sure. The veil of the Republic was still very much there, but once the Dominate period came about, and definitely by the Byzantine period, the Romans did have the concept of the universal Empire. The one source of authority (a.k.a. Imperium). When Charlemagne was crowned, this was seen as an attempt to take away this authority from the East and bring it to the West. Whereas in the past the Eastern and Roman Emperors were simply co-rulers of one authority with a unified justification for existence (the defence of Christendom and Romanitas), here came a barbarian Kingdom which claimed this authority without being fully Roman.
>once the Dominate period came about
There is this brief period in which some imperators took the secondary title of god-king, by declaring themself, god. E.g. Elagabalus, and Diocletian. But ended with Constantine, because it didn't mix well with Christianity.
>the Romans did have the concept of the universal Empire
I think the idea of the universal monarchy was popularized during the Macedonian dynasty because was able to solve many religious disputes and garner unprecedented legitimacy.
I don't know. That wasn't what happened, it was just a hypothetical example of what would happen with the law in the game if was applied to real life.
>Learning is fricking useless
cool
Always have been
It was not useless in CK2 when it's speed up significanly your tech points progress, and several smart rulers would bust your tech significantly. But CK3 with it's new tech system make it useless.
Just like real life.
More piety mana so that you can declare more holy wars
Also, you'd think you'd gain piety for fighting holy wars, but you only get devotion.
>UNLESS, you are able to blob fast enough to form an empire
I did it too well and lost bunch of land to a different empire title I didn't even create
>when you die your realm will splinter into many kingdoms
that's the fun part
Ikr? A lot of these morons just want to snowball and destroy everything in their path with little to no resistance. Just play Total War if you want a linear straight path to victory with no dips/obstacles.
Missing the entire point. I cannot fathom how...
The complaint is literally about empire creation preventing partition, not partition itself.
I do think that if you manage to keep absolute crown authority, it should prevent the realm frag of gavelkind, but otherwise I think it's good. It makes a more dynamic game with less empire blobs / and super duchies.
You can easily send kids to monasteries. It's very easy to avoid your realm from spleating.
not the fricking point
Then what is it? Theres no need to blob.
Even if you create an empire it can still colapse by independence or dissolution factions.
Ally your troublesome vassals through marriage. I like how the game forces you to do internal marriage alliances or collapse. Having a bunch of bastards is worth it just to keep things somewhat stable, internally. There was a recent mod on steam that added a royal mistress court position for monogamous areas. Historically there were a lot of Royal Mistresses that were very important in courts.
The problems with Bastard Claimants can be considered role playing.
There are people that play CK2 without HiP? I won't even count CK3.
Hijacking this thread:
if i want to press a claim for someone on pic rel, how do i keep/make him my vassel so his domain falls under mind?
He is unmarried and I have daughter but im not sure how to make it work to wear it would fall under my kigndom
Make sure his new title is a lower rank than your own, and also give him some land in your kingdom/empire. That way when you press his claim he will remain a vassal.
So if I give him a county under me THEN press his claims I can keep him as a vassal?
Also he is unmarried with no heir, should I let him marry one of my daughters? He is 61 so I doubt they will have children
the last strech between kingdom and empire is kinda big and you have to do it in one generation most of the time
or you have to be super careful decentralized lands away, in which sometime the vassals will just fight each other and turn themselves king anyway
was it the same in CK2? I never played it
In ck2 if you weren't tribal you could easily get primogeniture by the mid game, so I guess that makes it a bit easier. But claims are much harder to come by in ck2 compared to ck3. Even tribals could only subjugate someone once in their lifetime (unless it's inside their de jure kingdom title). I don't get why they made it so tribals can no cb anyone (aka conquest) in ck3
>pick some coastal count
>make him a republic with console shenanigans
>now playing a merchant republic with a standing army of retinues
>blob everywhere
Works on my machine
You can't play as republics in ck3
And who would willingly subject himself to 3 over 2?
prefer newer graphics tho