Dev Diary #92 - Orders of Magnitude

[Andrelvis]

Thank you.

However, my question is not if CKII is limited to family-based dynasties, but rather why is that the case.

For example, why not allow players to create a religious dynasty, like the Benedictine Order, seeking to rule the church, rather than a count seeking to rule the HRE. Is the reason political, game design, fear of giving offense, something else, ...?

It's clearly a matter of game design. Theocracies are playable in other Paradox games, so fear of giving offense and etc. are certainly not the issue here.

 

[Urzhail64]

Hopefully they're just an early draft because those French portraits really do not stand up to the German and English ones.

I've found the French female portraits to be too swarthy in skin color.

 

[Tavald]

Thank you.

However, my question is not if CKII is limited to family-based dynasties, but rather why is that the case.

For example, why not allow players to create a religious dynasty, like the Benedictine Order, seeking to rule the church, rather than a count seeking to rule the HRE. Is the reason political, game design, fear of giving offense, something else, ...?

The entire game is based on the idea that you play a dynasty.
It is the foundation of the game.
To play as an organization, not a family, would require to remake the entire design of the game.
Unless you are ok with a half baked solution, then there are mods that already do it.

 

[Andrelvis]

The entire game is based on the idea that you play a dynasty.
It is the foundation of the game.

Is it? The entire game is based on the idea that you play as a succession of characters, but whether who you get to play as next when your current character dies is based on your dynasty or something else is not really that central to the game...

For example, consider that you are playing as the Prince-Archbishop of Mainz. Your character dies, and is succeeded by the next Prince-Archbishop of Mainz, who is of another dynasty... if instead of getting a gameover you just continued to play as the successor to your primary title (in the specific case of a theocracy), it would hardly be as conflicting with the core of the game as you make it out to be.

 

[Ictivion]

Thank you.

However, my question is not if CKII is limited to family-based dynasties, but rather why is that the case.

For example, why not allow players to create a religious dynasty, like the Benedictine Order, seeking to rule the church, rather than a count seeking to rule the HRE. Is the reason political, game design, fear of giving offense, something else, ...?

Because exerting feudal authority, or economic authority over a region, and manipulating people and events to your people's benefit in playing into inheritance and claims, is a fundamentally different concept, as trying to exert social and religious authority over a church, which has nothing to do with maintaining a realm, manipulating inheritance, taking direct military actions or (for the most part) excreting monetary influence over rivals.

Which is to say in more simple terms:
They'd basically need to make a brand new game on top of CK2 with a brand new set of base mechanics on the level of realm management to actually make Theocracies as engaging as feudal realms are, instead of just flipping a switch and saying "'Okay, now you can be the guy wearing the pope hat and hang out in Rome... Have fun doing basically nothing."

Introducing such mechanics is well beyond the scope of a DLC.
Just establishing some sort of power-structure for various religious factions, and seeding them into the history would be somewhat like the the implementation of the Nomad system in Horse Lords, except affecting a much larger number of titles and characters.
Then on top of that, a set of mechanics would need to exist to logically recruit members to your order and in a fashion that does neither make it impossible, nor makes it trivial to attain desirable heirs.
Add onto this, that almost every single event in the game presupposes that the person who gets it, is a feudal lord, or someone else who exerts influence through corporal power (such as a merchant prince, khan, etc). Effectively, this would mean that any such events couldn't fire for theocracies because of this, as their concerns and the ways in which they can go about solving them are much different. The church after all needs to rely on the feudal lords they are sworn to for protection in many cases. So add writing a LOT of new events to the to-do-list, in order not to make playing a theocracy extremely repetitive in terms of events.
And then of course we come to the issue of absolute baseline incompatibilities with what you're suggesting, and what the core mechanic of tiered titles is. A religious organization doesn't directly owe fealty to any lord. You could have members from all sorts of realms, so especially if you're talking about actual temple-holders, mechanics would need to be introduced that somehow completely circumvent said system, as a priest belonging to a specific religious order should have nothing to do with their lieges, yet unlike in the case of such things as Monks and Mystics, they would need to each contribute in a tangible fashion to the faction they're a part of.
And naturally you want to make sure that none of these brand new mechanics which are introduced to a game that from day one of development assumed nothing of their like will ever exist, will end up breaking said game, or any of the features in the many dlc that have came before.

This isn't just adding a few extra events and decisions, with a minor mechanic or two like most DLC that expand in new directions. What you're asking for is revamping the way basically half the game functions behind the curtains. Theocracies aren't just shoved off into the north-eastern corner of the map or limited to a handful of tiny countries that can do their own thing. They're literally everywhere, and changing them carries innumerable possibilities of unforeseen consequences.

EDIT: Also I could specify entire swathes of game mechanics such as raising heirs, choosing good, political marriages and so on going straight out the window, but I felt it was pretty well encapsulated in the events bit.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

That would mean you were playing by title, not character.

Then you would need to add mechanics for whenever you switch titles, because oh look you are no longer that title (Archbishop of Mainz.) Changes the fundamental aspects of the game.

 

[JP5243]

Thank you.

However, my question is not if CKII is limited to family-based dynasties, but rather why is that the case.

For example, why not allow players to create a religious dynasty, like the Benedictine Order, seeking to rule the church, rather than a count seeking to rule the HRE. Is the reason political, game design, fear of giving offense, something else, ...?

Orders =/= Dynasties. The two aren't even comparable.

 

[TheCreator901]

Berbers are often my fave culture to start. Looking forward to a Berber portrait dlc.

That would truly be great

 

[PM Hamilton]

Orders =/= Dynasties. The two aren't even comparable.

Um, thank you ... I think.

However, my question is not if CKII is limited to family-based dynasties, but rather why is that the case.

For example, why not allow players to create a religious dynasty, like the Benedictine Order, seeking to rule the church, rather than a count seeking to rule the HRE. Is the reason political, game design, fear of giving offense, something else, ...?

 

[pengoyo]

Um, thank you ... I think.

However, my question is not if CKII is limited to family-based dynasties, but rather why is that the case.

For example, why not allow players to create a religious dynasty, like the Benedictine Order, seeking to rule the church, rather than a count seeking to rule the HRE. Is the reason political, game design, fear of giving offense, something else, ...?

I think this post I linked below answers your question from a more practical view. But to add my two cents, I believe it's to highlight how the medieval world saw the political landscape, not just in terms of titles, but, more importantly, in terms of family. And thus, by tying your success to the success of your family it helps drive the same kind of decisions that medieval rulers would make. So basically, it's a game design decision to make the player view the world though a medieval lens. And thus, to remove dynastic play, would break with one of the main core themes of the game (that family matters).

Because exerting feudal authority, or economic authority over a region, and manipulating people and events to your people's benefit in playing into inheritance and claims, is a fundamentally different concept, as trying to exert social and religious authority over a church, which has nothing to do with maintaining a realm, manipulating inheritance, taking direct military actions or (for the most part) excreting monetary influence over rivals.

Which is to say in more simple terms:
They'd basically need to make a brand new game on top of CK2 with a brand new set of base mechanics on the level of realm management to actually make Theocracies as engaging as feudal realms are, instead of just flipping a switch and saying "'Okay, now you can be the guy wearing the pope hat and hang out in Rome... Have fun doing basically nothing."

Introducing such mechanics is well beyond the scope of a DLC.
Just establishing some sort of power-structure for various religious factions, and seeding them into the history would be somewhat like the the implementation of the Nomad system in Horse Lords, except affecting a much larger number of titles and characters.
Then on top of that, a set of mechanics would need to exist to logically recruit members to your order and in a fashion that does neither make it impossible, nor makes it trivial to attain desirable heirs.
Add onto this, that almost every single event in the game presupposes that the person who gets it, is a feudal lord, or someone else who exerts influence through corporal power (such as a merchant prince, khan, etc). Effectively, this would mean that any such events couldn't fire for theocracies because of this, as their concerns and the ways in which they can go about solving them are much different. The church after all needs to rely on the feudal lords they are sworn to for protection in many cases. So add writing a LOT of new events to the to-do-list, in order not to make playing a theocracy extremely repetitive in terms of events.
And then of course we come to the issue of absolute baseline incompatibilities with what you're suggesting, and what the core mechanic of tiered titles is. A religious organization doesn't directly owe fealty to any lord. You could have members from all sorts of realms, so especially if you're talking about actual temple-holders, mechanics would need to be introduced that somehow completely circumvent said system, as a priest belonging to a specific religious order should have nothing to do with their lieges, yet unlike in the case of such things as Monks and Mystics, they would need to each contribute in a tangible fashion to the faction they're a part of.
And naturally you want to make sure that none of these brand new mechanics which are introduced to a game that from day one of development assumed nothing of their like will ever exist, will end up breaking said game, or any of the features in the many dlc that have came before.

This isn't just adding a few extra events and decisions, with a minor mechanic or two like most DLC that expand in new directions. What you're asking for is revamping the way basically half the game functions behind the curtains. Theocracies aren't just shoved off into the north-eastern corner of the map or limited to a handful of tiny countries that can do their own thing. They're literally everywhere, and changing them carries innumerable possibilities of unforeseen consequences.

EDIT: Also I could specify entire swathes of game mechanics such as raising heirs, choosing good, political marriages and so on going straight out the window, but I felt it was pretty well encapsulated in the events bit.

 

[PM Hamilton]

Because exerting feudal authority, or economic authority over a region, and manipulating people and events to your people's benefit in playing into inheritance and claims, is a fundamentally different concept, as trying to exert social and religious authority over a church, which has nothing to do with maintaining a realm, manipulating inheritance, taking direct military actions or (for the most part) excreting monetary influence over rivals.
...
Also I could specify entire swathes of game mechanics such as raising heirs, choosing good, political marriages and so on going straight out the window, but I felt it was pretty well encapsulated in the events bit.

My OP did not actually suggest anything. It merely asked the question: Why.

Your post and similar ones suggest that you know the answer to the question, but do not say so clear or say how you know the answer.

Of course, any major change to the game would entail additions to the game. Just like all of the other additions to the game.

 

[PM Hamilton]

Unless you are ok with a half baked solution, then there are mods that already do it.

What MODs are you suggesting?

 

[Ictivion]

My OP did not actually suggest anything. It merely asked the question: Why.

Your post and similar ones suggest that you know the answer to the question, but do not say so clear or say how you know the answer.

Of course, any major change to the game would entail additions to the game. Just like all of the other additions to the game.

I have no idea how to explain it any clearer, so here:

Playing a theocracy:
Marriage game mechanic: Out
Raising Heir game mechanic: Out
Obtaining claims and enforcing them through military might: Out
Realm management through corporeal (military/economic) authority: Mostly out
A vast majority of events that would just make absolutely no sense to fire for a theocratic leader of the Christian world: Out

All of these fundamental game mechanics would be rendered null and void the moment you could play a theocracy in the Christian world. Every one of them would need to be replaced with new mechanics.
Instead of marriage, you'd need a new mechanic for forging political connections.
Instead of raising heir, you'd need a brand new system to obtain desirable successors, one that isn't as trivial as "send a sack of coin in the character finder and invite to court".
Instead of obtaining claims and enforcing them through military might, you'd need something brand spanking new that have never been a part of the game before, and I've honestly no idea how it would even function. Only the Holy Wars would feasibly still be accessible, but that only if there are targets in your vicinity to attack.
Instead of realm management, we'd need some sort of court/faction/religion management system that allows for great enough freedom to be engaging for the player, but also doesn't completely change the political landscape of Europe the instant it is unleashed on it.
Instead of events aimed at rulers who rule through prestige, with heirs and pretenders and a family, with a feudal mindset and feudal problems, brand new ones would need to be made. A lot of them.

If you don't see the issue of why it can't feasibly be done with such simple bullet-points, I don't think you'll ever get it.

And you know, yeah, maybe when CK3 comes around, Theocracies could/should be playable from the start. There are ways to do it, if you're starting from scratch.
That is the core thing you need to understand: Any expansion for CK2 is starting from a baseline. And that baseline is built around dynasties, and they can't change that now, this many years later without undertaking an endeavour far beyond any previous one they exerted in expanding the game.


However, if I'm mistaken, and if you're asking the simple question of "Why is this how they original made it?"
Because it's called "Crusader Kings", and they wanted to make a game about dynastic gameplay. Might as well ask why D&D 3.5 Edition didn't include spreadsheets for being lord or mayor of a territory and ruling over it. Sure, it fits into the setting, and sure they COULD have thought it a good idea to include the option, but in the end that is not the game they set out to make.
We're playing video games, not holodeck simulations. Maybe one day.

 

[Andrelvis]

I have no idea how to explain it any clearer, so here:

Playing a theocracy:
Marriage game mechanic: Out
Raising Heir game mechanic: Out
Obtaining claims and enforcing them through military might: Out
Realm management through corporeal (military/economic) authority: Mostly out
A vast majority of events that would just make absolutely no sense to fire for a theocratic leader of the Christian world: Out

That's not really true, though. Only the marriage game and raising heir mechanics are out, but none of the other ones you mention are. "Obtaining claims and enforcing them through military might" is something theocracies very much did, and the same is true for the latter two points. We are talking about theocracies here, spiritual rulers with temporal power, not just unlanded religious leaders.

 

[Thure]

That's not really true, though. Only the marriage game and raising heir mechanics are out, but none of the other ones you mention are. "Obtaining claims and enforcing them through military might" is something theocracies very much did, and the same is true for the latter two points. We are talking about theocracies here, spiritual rulers with temporal power, not just unlanded religious leaders.

Here I have to agree. Theocracies even had sucession crises:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münster_Diocesan_Feud

This is also a good exemple how dynasties were important in Medieval Prince-Bishoprics.

 

[Ictivion]

That's not really true, though. Only the marriage game and raising heir mechanics are out, but none of the other ones you mention are. "Obtaining claims and enforcing them through military might" is something theocracies very much did, and the same is true for the latter two points. We are talking about theocracies here, spiritual rulers with temporal power, not just unlanded religious leaders.

Here I have to agree. Theocracies even had sucession crises:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münster_Diocesan_Feud

This is also a good exemple how dynasties were important in Medieval Prince-Bishoprics.

The problem isn't that these mechanics wouldn't have an equivalent for Theocarcies, its that they would be vastly different from a theocratic standpoint, compared to a feudal one.
I mean for crying out loud, the article linked is literally a Dynastic Feud between the counts of Hoya and Moers, instigated by the COUNT of Hoya, because he wanted his DYNASTY to rule the Archbishopric in question, and the suggestion brought up is that we should play without dynastic elements.

What rightfully belongs to the Church, and what rightfully belongs to a fuedal lord is very different. There are examples, sure of people with dynastic claims rising to power within a theocratic system and then exerting the power of their church/church lands to obtain their claims, but that's once again dynastic play. What's more, it's nothing to do with the way claims were designed in this game.
In CK2, you'd need to position your heirs to obtain these claims, you'd need to manipulate other dynasties and other thrones to the best of your dynasty's benefit. That is the mechanic of claims I'm talking about, not the base fact that some characters have a flag with a green outline, and some don't on their character sheet.
If your successor can be from any dynasty, can bring any claims, this mechanic is broken in half, entirely removed from the purpose it served. What's more, even if you'd have a claim, you don't posses the same right to rule as other claimants. This is handled in the game by generally reducing or removing the chances of theocracies using certain casus belli, but to make theocracies playable without making the player's realm ridiculously overpowered in an immersion breaking way when in relation to every other theocracy, the mechanics would need to be reworked.

 

[ogarrr]

With regards to the hard cap, I presume there'll be a game rule to get rid of it? One that turns off achievements but allows those of us who don't like arbitrary limits and dont care about achievments to play without them. You did the same for republics.

I also hope that there is a way to burn all of the Template. They look like heretics to me, and they have loads of gold. Jacques de Molay needs to watch out, Philippe IV is on the way.

 

[Andrelvis]

The problem isn't that these mechanics wouldn't have an equivalent for Theocarcies, its that they would be vastly different from a theocratic standpoint, compared to a feudal one.
I mean for crying out loud, the article linked is literally a Dynastic Feud between the counts of Hoya and Moers, instigated by the COUNT of Hoya, because he wanted his DYNASTY to rule the Archbishopric in question, and the suggestion brought up is that we should play without dynastic elements.

What rightfully belongs to the Church, and what rightfully belongs to a fuedal lord is very different.

We are not talking about churches here though, but about landed theocracies. Those, by definition, have temporal power, and in that sense share a lot with lay rulers. They have to rule over taxation, and do indeed exert military and economic might.

Your claim that "Realm management through corporeal (military/economic) authority" mechanics wouldn't apply to theocracies just plain doesn't make sense, since by definition a theocracy has temporal power and thus has both military and economic authority.

There are examples, sure of people with dynastic claims rising to power within a theocratic system and then exerting the power of their church/church lands to obtain their claims, but that's once again dynastic play. What's more, it's nothing to do with the way claims were designed in this game.
In CK2, you'd need to position your heirs to obtain these claims, you'd need to manipulate other dynasties and other thrones to the best of your dynasty's benefit. That is the mechanic of claims I'm talking about, not the base fact that some characters have a flag with a green outline, and some don't on their character sheet.
If your successor can be from any dynasty, can bring any claims, this mechanic is broken in half, entirely removed from the purpose it served. What's more, even if you'd have a claim, you don't posses the same right to rule as other claimants. This is handled in the game by generally reducing or removing the chances of theocracies using certain casus belli, but to make theocracies playable without making the player's realm ridiculously overpowered in an immersion breaking way when in relation to every other theocracy, the mechanics would need to be reworked.

I don't really see what the problem is there. Make theocracy rulers be unable to inherit dynastic claims (e.g. claims their feudal parents may have), and have characters becoming theocracy rulers lose all previous claims. That isn't a major overhaul, but a simple, small change. And theocracies would still have access to all other forms of casus belli (e.g. via claims generated by chancellors, which could then be inherited by theocratic successors).

So there's no reason to say "obtaining claims and enforcing them through military might" would be out for theocracies.

Your last point, that "a vast majority of events that would just make absolutely no sense to fire for a theocratic leader of the Christian world" is likewise not applicable. There is no reason why landed theocracies wouldn't seek, say, to improve their taxation incomes by supporting artisan workshops, or why a theocrat might not have to decide whether to lodge a hedge knight or not. The is an enormous amount of events in the game that are applicable to theocracies.

Now, playing as a theocracy that happens to be head of religion has certain particularities which need to be adapted to make it playable. For example, for a playable Pope there should be limits or costs to excommunicating people, to prevent abuse of the mechanic. But that's an argument against making heads of religion playable, not theocracies per se; and heads of religion are a minority of theocracies (albeit an important one), and an even smaller minority of landed theocracies.

At the bottom, theocracies not being in CK2 is a game design issue: the devs don't want to have non-dynastic successions of rulers being playable. Your particular points about implementing theocracies being oh-so-difficult, however, are by far and away not really applicable.

 

[XYN]

Why did you allow your grandson to be raised by an infidel while taking Faith or Heritage?

The AI is bugged and does this sometimes.

Could be overlooked.

 

[Lupo Protospata]

Hopefully the Holy Orders will be a tad more interesting with some of these changes. Next week we will take a look at… Let me take a look at my notes here… “Shepherds, zealous kids and Venetians burning down Byzantium”? Surely that’ll be exciting news!

Now that's some really exciting news. I hope there's some 4th Crusade-related stuff incoming! It would really add to the game's realism and historicity.