• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

CK2 Dev Diary #103 - Long live the King!

Greetings.

Today we will put Pagans aside, go back to good old Catholics, and explore one of the new features coming for them with Holy Fury: Coronation Ceremonies.

20180730085127_1.jpg


With this expansion, succeeding to the throne of a Catholic Kingdom or Empire will not be a simple matter of gaining the title itself. The new ruler will need to organize a Coronation Ceremony (via new intrigue decision) and be recognized as legitimate by a notable member of the Catholic Church.
If a Catholic ruler fails to be officially crowned, he will see his popularity slowly fade away each year, as his vassals grow more and more restless under what they perceive as an illegitimate King.

20180730085152_1.jpg


Coronation is divided into two phases: preparation and ceremony.
During the preparation, the ruler will decide whom he wishes to be crowned by, he will meet the Church’s demands, and invest money to organize the ceremony. In the second phase, the ruler will host the ceremony itself, interacting with guests and ultimately receiving his crown.

When organizing a ceremony, a Catholic King can choose between three possible options when it comes to officiant priests: he can be crowned by a low-status theocratic vassal within his realm, by a powerful theocratic vassal within his realm (such as a Cardinal, Antipope or Prince-Bishop), or by the Pope himself. Catholic Emperors who fail to enact the Free Investiture succession on the other hand will be limited in their selection only to the Pope.
While being crowned by a local Bishop is a lot less prestigious, it is also much cheaper, as higher-ranking members of the Church will be prone to make outlandish requests, especially if they dislike the ruler requesting them to officiate his coronation.

Coronation2.jpg


Requests may vary a lot, especially when it comes to the Pope: the Holy Father might ask you to change your realm’s Investiture laws, wage war against an Excommunicated ruler on behalf of the Papacy, or to restore some of the Central Italian provinces to the Holy See.
Be sure to be in good relations with the Pope before asking for a coronation if you wish to receive a more tolerable offer.

Once the demands of your chosen priest have been met, you will be able to select a budget for your ceremony which will determine the kind of coronation you will receive, the kind of flavor events tied to it and the number of guests participating in it.
An extravagant coronation is a prestigious event to which all your vassals, courtiers and even neighboring Christian rulers are invited, a secluded coronation is a private feast to which only your Council will have access to.

20180730091014_1.jpg


Once the ceremony has been concluded, your character will receive a specific trait tied to the priest that crowned him, as well as retain any additional perks granted by the flavor events experienced during the feast leading up to the coronation.

You might have noticed from the screenshots that this new mechanic affects character portraits as well: Catholic Kings and Emperors that have not been crowned will no longer wear the high-tier headgear in Holy Fury, defaulting to the Ducal band instead until their rank has been officially recognized by the Church (naturally, if you do not own Holy Fury, Catholic Kings and Emperors will wear the appropriate gear by default as before).

20180730091758_1.jpg


This is not the only portrait-related addition though: Holy Fury will bring to the game a series of special crown artifacts that will be visible on portraits whenever the characters are wearing them. Most of these artifacts can only be used when the character meets certain requirements and they are often tied to a specific title rather than a character’s dynasty.

Coronation6.jpg

Coronation7.jpg


And this should be about it for this week.
 
Cnut claimed the imperial title ? And cnut had not de jure or custom empires options to unite his empire during centuries and centuries :p. I was more thinking about the carolingian empire or serbian empire where rulers claimed an imperial title and transmitted it based only on their own legitimacy . There is also a large number of kingdoms created from a new situation : england is a good example : created in the context of a divided island only on the basis of a common antic and ethno-geographic history. France is created by the legacy of a conqueror : Clovis or by the division of a pre-existant empire ; the carolingian empire . Spain is created by unification and mariages . What is fantastic in CK II is that the game let us chose our favorite way to unify a territory .
The Carolingians didn't claim an imperial title based on their own legitimacy, though. Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope, so the legitimacy was theoretically transmitted from the Romans. It was probably all political farce, sure, but it still came from somewhere other than Charlemagne's own might.
 
The Carolingians didn't claim an imperial title based on their own legitimacy, though. Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope, so the legitimacy was theoretically transmitted from the Romans. It was probably all political farce, sure, but it still came from somewhere other than Charlemagne's own might.
I Agree . What i wanted to say is that even if it was made in a special context and based on a legitimacy (historic and politic for the carolingian based on the situation at Constantinople and the roman political symbol, geographic for Clovis and based on the unity of Galia , ethnic and geographic for Alfred based on the links between the kingdoms , the peoples and the ancient geographical idea of Brittania.), it was mainly realized thanks to those extraordinary leaders that were Charlemagne , Alfred or Clovis . I don't know if there is a Kingdom or empire based on only the charism of one, that have been build by a lonely men without pre existant ideology and transmitted during centuries without division . The only examples i have is Alexander and Gengis Khan ; their empires have been divided quickly after they died . It is something that is difficult to represent in a game like CK2 . The corronation is something that seems to happen with the transmission of a Kingdom or after the creation of a new title . I have no idea how to represent someone like Alexander in a "what if " scenario , how to represent a legitimation and unification process based on a single man . I don't even know if it is really possible IRL.
 
I Agree . What i wanted to say is that even if it was made in a special context and based on a legitimacy (historic and politic for the carolingian based on the situation at Constantinople and the roman political symbol, geographic for Clovis and based on the unity of Galia , ethnic and geographic for Alfred based on the links between the kingdoms , the peoples and the ancient geographical idea of Brittania.), it was mainly realized thanks to those extraordinary leaders that were Charlemagne , Alfred or Clovis . I don't know if there is a Kingdom or empire based on only the charism of one, that have been build by a lonely men without pre existant ideology and transmitted during centuries without division . The only examples i have is Alexander and Gengis Khan ; their empires have been divided quickly after they died . It is something that is difficult to represent in a game like CK2 . The corronation is something that seems to happen with the transmission of a Kingdom or after the creation of a new title . I have no idea how to represent someone like Alexander in a "what if " scenario , how to represent a legitimation and unification process based on a single man . I don't even know if it is really possible IRL.
Got it. Yeah, I definitely agree with that.
 
The Carolingians didn't claim an imperial title based on their own legitimacy, though. Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope, so the legitimacy was theoretically transmitted from the Romans. It was probably all political farce, sure, but it still came from somewhere other than Charlemagne's own might.
Didn't Charlemagne first want to be acclaimed by his people and then have the Pope crown him Emperor?
 
It has been speculated that winter time off would dictate when it would likely come out, so that people would be on hand for post-release patchwork or whatever...

...so maybe January :D
I'd rather that than a repeat of the Way of Life release.
 
I have always liked to maintain at least one Prince-Bishop or Prince-Archbishop in among my vassals to be my default Court Chaplain and go-to Cardinal/Pope candidate. Now it sounds like that will be a good idea in general - it will save a lot of drama not just on the council, but also when it comes time for a coronation.
 
I have a question and I didn't think it was covered in the Diary.

I understand that you only get one coronation and that is it.

What if you somehow end up with 2 or 3 different crowns from 3 different previous kings of your dynasty that got merged into one realm due to something like Seniority. Then what? Can you wear all 3 or only one at a time?

IE for example: You are Emperor of Brittania and you just inherited King of Francia's crown and King of Lombardy's Crown. Now you have 3 in treasury from 2 different dynasty family members and one you were crowned with.
 
I have a question and I didn't think it was covered in the Diary.

I understand that you only get one coronation and that is it.

What if you somehow end up with 2 or 3 different crowns from 3 different previous kings of your dynasty that got merged into one realm due to something like Seniority. Then what? Can you wear all 3 or only one at a time?

IE for example: You are Emperor of Brittania and you just inherited King of Francia's crown and King of Lombardy's Crown. Now you have 3 in treasury from 2 different dynasty family members and one you were crowned with.
250px-Towering_Pillar_of_Hats.png
 
Dorne has a special treatment because of the way they joined. Certain terrotories have had different treatments through history, principalities and such, that's normal. Being called Prince is fine, but being called King is another thing entirely. In the HRE we have tons of princes, several king electors and a king, who happened to be the Emperor until 1439 (And then is how this unusual situation happened, but a duke declaring himself king... that's a big NO). A King would be an equal, an equal is a potential pretender, you as king can't have that, it's a threat to your power.

There is a quote from the, I don't know if it's from the books or from the show actually, if it's from the show only I wouldn't pay much attention to it, where Renly says to Catelyn "I don't care how your son calls himself as long as he swears fealty to him". But even then it comes from a king in a dire situation, very exceptional. (And ASOIAF is not a valid historical source either).

Sorry about the off topic derail here but my point was that in GoT vassals of the Iron Throne have two "setting": with or without royal privilege. Without it they're all, even Dorne, called Lords Paramount. With it, they're all called by their king title. Which to my knowledge is king for everyone except Dorne who use "prince" even when they're empire-tier. Of course some of the empire tier independent kingdoms get special titles like the Iron King.
 
Is the vassal negative opinion modifier about coronation affected by traits? Say, a zealous vassal gets mad at you faster than others, and cynical vassals not at all?
 
I'd honestly support a system that to get a coronation for a new title as a vassal of the emperor, you need the emperor's approval. Though slightly outside the CKII timeframe, that's exactly what Charles le Temeraire was going for. He had all the "de jure" territory of Lotharingia, and needed the Kaiser's approval to become a proper king rather than a superduke - but he died and left a shitty heir, who screwed everything up. Then the shitty heir died and all the lands went their own separate ways again.
 
I'd honestly support a system that to get a coronation for a new title as a vassal of the emperor, you need the emperor's approval. Though slightly outside the CKII timeframe, that's exactly what Charles le Temeraire was going for. He had all the "de jure" territory of Lotharingia, and needed the Kaiser's approval to become a proper king rather than a superduke - but he died and left a shitty heir, who screwed everything up. Then the shitty heir died and all the lands went their own separate ways again.
Something like a commendation ceremony would be very nice.
 
Sorry about the off topic derail here but my point was that in GoT vassals of the Iron Throne have two "setting": with or without royal privilege. Without it they're all, even Dorne, called Lords Paramount. With it, they're all called by their king title. Which to my knowledge is king for everyone except Dorne who use "prince" even when they're empire-tier. Of course some of the empire tier independent kingdoms get special titles like the Iron King.
That has to be new, I don't remember it from when I played (around Horse Lords). There is one quote (I don't know if from the books or the show, Martin tends to be rigurous with this stuff, the showrunners not so much) from Renly when he tolds Cat that Robb can style himself however he wants as long as he swears fealty to him. But a king sworn to another is an open challenge, there can't be two. One would diminish the autority of the other and make him appear weak.

Still AGOT devs sometimes put things in the game they deem as cool, but have little to no basis. Don't get me wrong, the mod is great. It was this mod what made me buy CK2 in the first place, so there's that. But sometimes there's stuff like that. To put one example if all Starks die there's an event that can make the Kastarks the new Starks, with the name and sigil. That's unprecedented. When the Capets died out and the Bourbons took power they didn't declare themselves Capets, if you form a new House you don't "go back".

And in general people used the same argument people are using here for vassal king coronations: "It's better to have something that to not have it". But I'd rather have something that makes sense historically and it's justified. One could make the same argument for dukes, counts and barons, right? It would be better for them to have it too than not having it. I'd keep it only for independent kings and emeperors.