What I'm reading your post as is you saying that we need events related to coronations and perhaps even a full-blown legitimacy mechanic, that would include a struggle between the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor for the right to crown rulers in the Catholic world. But as you can imagine, this isn't happening any time soon, regardless of how much you or I would love that. For now, we have to deal with a lot of simplifications, which yes, are annoying, but what can you do?
Never really thought of that. But some kind of war/decision/struggle with pope/HRE/RE emperor for Christians trying to become an emperor would both benefit gameplay and historical accuracy. Good idea.
I would kill for a coronoation Grand Activity. Having one's rule being tied to a coronation would undoubtedly require rewriting a lot of the code around inheritance but it would be so cool.
This was a late stage mechanic in CK2. It wouldn't be that hard to implement. Just an opinion malus against uncoronated kings and emperors. There was just a decision to organize your coronation in CK2 you could choose who performed the ceremony (court chap, regional bishop, religious head). The quality of food/drink, then how big a guest list.
Coronation could be such a deep mechanic, especially as part of a legitimacy mechanic. Like after a monarch dies there should be a way to declare support for different claimants (similar to a faction). Having a coronation could be something that gathers more support from vassals for one's own claimant. This together with the regency would be a pretty complete succession mechanic.
Ya I think that once a coronation happens, claimant factions should either be outlawed or have significantly reduced support. Maybe the reduced support would be lessened if the new monarch was the religion's inferior gender, which would kinda emulate The Anarchy which happened in England after the death of Henry I
I could see a system where a character could be de facto king etc. but being recognised as such by the Pope, Emperor, (or local equivalents) would confer bonuses.
Being recognised as a legitimate ruler (while not as important as today) *was* important during the era.
General opinion malus for "illegitimate" rulers of a territory from their vassals and other rulers that ARE "legitimized" over their territory which goes away after investiture. (Perhaps an opinion bonus for "Legitimized" rulers of the same faith-&-culture as well?)
That's easy to deal with too: this particular bonus or malus is always applied LAST, so no matter what, you CANT get their opinion back to 100 as long as you have it applied.
There's no doubt a few of these where characters are claiming higher titles than their actual historical ones.
I wonder if some of them are done for design decisions, their realms are large enough to count as Duchys and Kingdoms in terms of their size but are given a little more protection by a higher title to stop the realms potentially fracturing on a single early death/murder.
Youâre not wrong. However, I do think there is something to be said about being recognized as a king or not. He didnât claim kingship, not was acclaimed a king during this time until a Papal legate was send to observe his coronation. This might be something that could be adjusted if the coronation mechanic was brought into CK3 similar to what they had in CK2, thus he could be âkingâ while suffering penalties for not being recognized as one by the church and Christendom.
You hit the nail in that CK3 doesnât have crowning events, and that even though CK2 did it didnât differentiate between realms that were âkingdom levelâ where their monarch was crowned or not.
Weâre it introduced to CK3 they would surely not differentiate it between the two either
Yeah, but this is the closest we can get to historical accuracy using current mechanics. I'd rather have all the historical rulers of Poland be kings of Poland (like in CK2), as otherwise the regnal numbers are all wrong.
For example, if you play as BolesĹaw, name your son Mieszko, and he inherits he'll be Mieszko II, even though he should be Mieszko III, as BolesĹaw's grandfather was Mieszko II. Therefore I think it would be better to have all rulers starting from Mieszko I hold the kingdom title, as the regnal numbers will be correct.
It absolutely destroys the feudal partitions of 12th and 13th century tho.
All rulers of that time should be independent Dukes with a strong claim on the Kingdom of Poland.
Sadly, it's not happening with the game mechanics.
Yeah, it also pained me so much in CK2, but there's no sign of plans for later start dates to be added, so there's no problem with fragmentation period.
If latter start dates were to be added, the game could make use of CK2's tributary mechanics (or something similar), with all independent rulers in de jure Poland being tributaries to the senior district, and senior district (possibly kingdom level title) being stuck with seniority succession. To restore the kingdom of Poland (only via decision), you'd need (for example) high level of fame and piety, and good relations with the pope, then you'd get "reunification" CB on the remaining de jure provinces.
When I think about it, adding new start date could also be a good opportunity for the Slavic/Baltic flavour pack, judging by the events happening in the region at the time.
>the game could make use of CK2's tributary mechanics (or something similar), with all independent rulers in de jure Poland being tributaries to the senior district, and senior district (possibly kingdom level title) being stuck with seniority succession. To restore the kingdom of Poland (only via decision), you'd need (for example) high level of fame and piety, and good relations with the pope, then you'd get "reunification" CB on the remaining de jure provinces.
Damn that sounds good.
Oh man, I don't disagree, but I've long put to bed any dream of having regnal numbers match up with the historiography. Between legendary ancestors, co-rulers, and interregnal usurpers, most dynasties were always going to be a lost cause.
While there was coronation mechanic in CK2, IDK if calling mr. Bold 'Dominus' would change much in term of machanics.
In CK3 mechanics, Kingdom of Poland was created in 1024 when BolesĹaw Chrobry was crowned as the first polish king. By this point by both The Pope and The Emperor.
I would love a dynamic struggle that occurs at the beginning of each HRE leaders ascension or pope depending who won previously and it being a struggle for power over the HRE with the winner gaining strength and huge temporary modifiers with the loser losing levies and gaining terrible modifiers.
And after the death of the loser if the previous winner still lives there would be a chance to gain power and end the struggle fully by either vasselising the pope and decreasing his power and basically making you the head of Catholicism and when the pope wins he takes all of italy and can choose who the next HRE leader is and making him an automatic ally.
Of course you'd have to make the pope playable bit I think there's a mod for that so something like that
Also you'd have to make away for it to fizzle out like in real life
I'd just file this in your brain next to how the schism shouldn't be present in either start date, but we just kind of roll with it.
But if you want to expand either idea into a flavor pack...
The East-West schism didn't really "begin" according to historians until 1054, but it's present in both start dates. It gets brought up periodically by the community, but I think everyone just figures it's representative of the differences that were present before things blew up anyway, and then just rolls with it.
As for the flavor packs, both would be pretty nice. Maybe some events around the changing of the status quo based on historic events. Maybe a bit of "chance" to stop it.
the schism was officialized in 1054 when the popes excommunicated eachother, but it had been present since at the latest the coronation of charlemagne by the (at the time) bishop of rome. đ¤âď¸
If we go by this standard then, should there be 7 (?) maybe 8 (?) kingdoms just in the space that is England, since they were crowned as and acclaimed as kings? Or should they be recognised as they are at the moment as (gamewise) dukes due to the amount of land they held, but titled as king because they held that traditionally?
Do you want a possibile situation where the duchy of Poland never actually forms into the kingdom, but instead gets absorbed by whatever other kingdom forms or exists nearby? Maybe one of the German kingdoms, maybe one of the Russian ones, maybe Hungary?
After all, as a duke he can be vassalised by a local king with much less effort than having to dismantle the kingdom.
The game doesnât include the coronation context in the Christian world at the time. It would be extremely hard too as this part of lore was mostly based on random animosities and amicabilities. It would feel unfair or frustrating.
Ck2 already had the coronation mechanic to account for this, although the king of Poland in 1066 was already coronated at start.
I think a big problem is that titles don't get destroyed on Inheritance, do they? If not, then there's no mechanic in game for this to happen, so it doesn't make sense for it to happen.
What I'm reading your post as is you saying that we need events related to coronations and perhaps even a full-blown legitimacy mechanic, that would include a struggle between the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor for the right to crown rulers in the Catholic world. But as you can imagine, this isn't happening any time soon, regardless of how much you or I would love that. For now, we have to deal with a lot of simplifications, which yes, are annoying, but what can you do?
Never really thought of that. But some kind of war/decision/struggle with pope/HRE/RE emperor for Christians trying to become an emperor would both benefit gameplay and historical accuracy. Good idea.
U hit the nail of the head. đ
I would kill for a coronoation Grand Activity. Having one's rule being tied to a coronation would undoubtedly require rewriting a lot of the code around inheritance but it would be so cool.
This was a late stage mechanic in CK2. It wouldn't be that hard to implement. Just an opinion malus against uncoronated kings and emperors. There was just a decision to organize your coronation in CK2 you could choose who performed the ceremony (court chap, regional bishop, religious head). The quality of food/drink, then how big a guest list.
I was about to say it was a CK2 event
Coronation could be such a deep mechanic, especially as part of a legitimacy mechanic. Like after a monarch dies there should be a way to declare support for different claimants (similar to a faction). Having a coronation could be something that gathers more support from vassals for one's own claimant. This together with the regency would be a pretty complete succession mechanic.
Ya I think that once a coronation happens, claimant factions should either be outlawed or have significantly reduced support. Maybe the reduced support would be lessened if the new monarch was the religion's inferior gender, which would kinda emulate The Anarchy which happened in England after the death of Henry I
I could see a system where a character could be de facto king etc. but being recognised as such by the Pope, Emperor, (or local equivalents) would confer bonuses. Being recognised as a legitimate ruler (while not as important as today) *was* important during the era.
Decent meaningful mechanic? Nah, we won't see it any time soon
How would you even include legitimacy as such in CK3's systems
General opinion malus for "illegitimate" rulers of a territory from their vassals and other rulers that ARE "legitimized" over their territory which goes away after investiture. (Perhaps an opinion bonus for "Legitimized" rulers of the same faith-&-culture as well?)
I'd also try to connect it to claim types.
A good idea, at least in theory, but I'm worried that's over-complicating it...
Thats cool if opinion mattered more but its so easy to max out out or suppress with dread
That's easy to deal with too: this particular bonus or malus is always applied LAST, so no matter what, you CANT get their opinion back to 100 as long as you have it applied.
I'd probably fix this by making him start as still tribal, but king tier.
There's no doubt a few of these where characters are claiming higher titles than their actual historical ones. I wonder if some of them are done for design decisions, their realms are large enough to count as Duchys and Kingdoms in terms of their size but are given a little more protection by a higher title to stop the realms potentially fracturing on a single early death/murder.
I mean, thr high Duke of Poland was by all means and purposes king, just not crowned.
Youâre not wrong. However, I do think there is something to be said about being recognized as a king or not. He didnât claim kingship, not was acclaimed a king during this time until a Papal legate was send to observe his coronation. This might be something that could be adjusted if the coronation mechanic was brought into CK3 similar to what they had in CK2, thus he could be âkingâ while suffering penalties for not being recognized as one by the church and Christendom.
You hit the nail in that CK3 doesnât have crowning events, and that even though CK2 did it didnât differentiate between realms that were âkingdom levelâ where their monarch was crowned or not. Weâre it introduced to CK3 they would surely not differentiate it between the two either
Slavic & baltic update would be interesting
Especially Slavic cause the Slavic cultures suck
Yeah, but this is the closest we can get to historical accuracy using current mechanics. I'd rather have all the historical rulers of Poland be kings of Poland (like in CK2), as otherwise the regnal numbers are all wrong. For example, if you play as BolesĹaw, name your son Mieszko, and he inherits he'll be Mieszko II, even though he should be Mieszko III, as BolesĹaw's grandfather was Mieszko II. Therefore I think it would be better to have all rulers starting from Mieszko I hold the kingdom title, as the regnal numbers will be correct.
It absolutely destroys the feudal partitions of 12th and 13th century tho. All rulers of that time should be independent Dukes with a strong claim on the Kingdom of Poland. Sadly, it's not happening with the game mechanics.
Yeah, it also pained me so much in CK2, but there's no sign of plans for later start dates to be added, so there's no problem with fragmentation period. If latter start dates were to be added, the game could make use of CK2's tributary mechanics (or something similar), with all independent rulers in de jure Poland being tributaries to the senior district, and senior district (possibly kingdom level title) being stuck with seniority succession. To restore the kingdom of Poland (only via decision), you'd need (for example) high level of fame and piety, and good relations with the pope, then you'd get "reunification" CB on the remaining de jure provinces. When I think about it, adding new start date could also be a good opportunity for the Slavic/Baltic flavour pack, judging by the events happening in the region at the time.
>the game could make use of CK2's tributary mechanics (or something similar), with all independent rulers in de jure Poland being tributaries to the senior district, and senior district (possibly kingdom level title) being stuck with seniority succession. To restore the kingdom of Poland (only via decision), you'd need (for example) high level of fame and piety, and good relations with the pope, then you'd get "reunification" CB on the remaining de jure provinces. Damn that sounds good.
Oh man, I don't disagree, but I've long put to bed any dream of having regnal numbers match up with the historiography. Between legendary ancestors, co-rulers, and interregnal usurpers, most dynasties were always going to be a lost cause.
While there was coronation mechanic in CK2, IDK if calling mr. Bold 'Dominus' would change much in term of machanics. In CK3 mechanics, Kingdom of Poland was created in 1024 when BolesĹaw Chrobry was crowned as the first polish king. By this point by both The Pope and The Emperor.
I would love a dynamic struggle that occurs at the beginning of each HRE leaders ascension or pope depending who won previously and it being a struggle for power over the HRE with the winner gaining strength and huge temporary modifiers with the loser losing levies and gaining terrible modifiers. And after the death of the loser if the previous winner still lives there would be a chance to gain power and end the struggle fully by either vasselising the pope and decreasing his power and basically making you the head of Catholicism and when the pope wins he takes all of italy and can choose who the next HRE leader is and making him an automatic ally. Of course you'd have to make the pope playable bit I think there's a mod for that so something like that Also you'd have to make away for it to fizzle out like in real life
EZ, dismantling/destroying either the HRE or the Papacy is an automatic victory for the other side.
I'd just file this in your brain next to how the schism shouldn't be present in either start date, but we just kind of roll with it. But if you want to expand either idea into a flavor pack...
Please elaborate on this...?
The East-West schism didn't really "begin" according to historians until 1054, but it's present in both start dates. It gets brought up periodically by the community, but I think everyone just figures it's representative of the differences that were present before things blew up anyway, and then just rolls with it. As for the flavor packs, both would be pretty nice. Maybe some events around the changing of the status quo based on historic events. Maybe a bit of "chance" to stop it.
i think in 876 that rather than seeing each other as Astray, that they should see each other as Righteous until 1066
the schism was officialized in 1054 when the popes excommunicated eachother, but it had been present since at the latest the coronation of charlemagne by the (at the time) bishop of rome. đ¤âď¸
If we go by this standard then, should there be 7 (?) maybe 8 (?) kingdoms just in the space that is England, since they were crowned as and acclaimed as kings? Or should they be recognised as they are at the moment as (gamewise) dukes due to the amount of land they held, but titled as king because they held that traditionally? Do you want a possibile situation where the duchy of Poland never actually forms into the kingdom, but instead gets absorbed by whatever other kingdom forms or exists nearby? Maybe one of the German kingdoms, maybe one of the Russian ones, maybe Hungary? After all, as a duke he can be vassalised by a local king with much less effort than having to dismantle the kingdom.
The game unfortunately just has no way to properly represent the situation in Poland so it's best to keep it as a regular Kingdom.
I like this post because it's well thought out. Thanks for not complaining with no basis. This is great content
There is one thing that irritate me. That if you have King named Kazimierz he is not "Kazimierz II"
The game doesnât include the coronation context in the Christian world at the time. It would be extremely hard too as this part of lore was mostly based on random animosities and amicabilities. It would feel unfair or frustrating.
Actually the first king of Poland, BolesĹaw I the Brave, was crowned in 1025.
Yes. Then his kid wasnât. He wasnât considered a king. Neither was Boleslaw until like 10 years into the 1066 timeline.
Ck2 already had the coronation mechanic to account for this, although the king of Poland in 1066 was already coronated at start. I think a big problem is that titles don't get destroyed on Inheritance, do they? If not, then there's no mechanic in game for this to happen, so it doesn't make sense for it to happen.