The biggest failing in my opinion so I really hope it'll be something more EU3-like, with more medieval mechanics (like clashes with the pope etc.)
-
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.
The biggest failing in my opinion so I really hope it'll be something more EU3-like, with more medieval mechanics (like clashes with the pope etc.)
Well, again, the HRE was not really much different from other countries. Some kingdoms also elected new kings when the old dynasty died, and some kept on electing them regardless of the dynasty (in theory, just like the HRE).
Before the Golden Bull, the HRE was nothing like EUIII's HRE.
This post is a good post.
It seems that a large part of why the CK HRE was so poorly represented is because the game was literally rushed out and unfinished. I can't imagine that Paradox will be happy with just another kingdom of Germany that plays no differently from any other kingdom.
What you wrote describes the HRE pretty well in 1066 forward, at the beginning of the Investiture Controversy, the conflict between Heinrich IV on one hand against Rudolf of Swabia and Gregory VII (and his partisans) on the other. You should be able to make all kinds of decisions regarding imperial centralization/decentralization (which should at least in the beginning be separate from your own domain as in EU3 HTTT), on an ad hoc basis (the Archbishop of Cologne demands a tax break) or affecting the whole realm (diets held on a more or less regular basis, where you will be forced to act, with an emperor's party of your loyalists needed for reform in your favor).
They did the set-up quite well in CK. The problem was that in general big states did not function very well in the game. CKII needs to find a way of having larger self-protecting but decentralized units like Germany/HRE, Rus, France, and so on, without these things turning into hyper-centralised all-conquering or all-collapsing monsters.
I hope that it will be possible that the there will the (most likely) possibility that the kingdom of Bohemia remains a part of the empire. Since the king of Bohemia remained a subject of the empire. This may even be expanded to Burgundy (or even Lotharingia etc.).
Last edited:
Doomdark has said elsewhere that elective feudal monarchies will have some interesting rules in place to make the succession an actual election, and not just a "most titles win" mechanic like elective law in CK1.
This single revelation tells me that the HRE will get some love, even if there are no other changes. An elective law like the one he describes in the other thread (I'm lazy and don't feel like linking at the moment) would allow for internal bickering over succession and actual "elections" with the powerful magnates of the realm supporting candidates. This would give us a mechanic for the HRE at some points of its existence by default, without even factoring in empire specific game mechanics.
While I have no real concern with the number of tiers in the game, I do hope that CK: DV's mechanic for the Pope giving the imperial crown to powerful secular rulers (regardless of HRE affiliation) is still in CK2 in some form. While the HRE is important, I feel that opening the game up to allow for other possible emperors is important, as the HRE and Byzantium can both be wiped out in-game. Any Catholic ruler with enough political clout should be able to become an emperor... if the Pope wants to cooperate.
This single revelation tells me that the HRE will get some love, even if there are no other changes. An elective law like the one he describes in the other thread (I'm lazy and don't feel like linking at the moment) would allow for internal bickering over succession and actual "elections" with the powerful magnates of the realm supporting candidates. This would give us a mechanic for the HRE at some points of its existence by default, without even factoring in empire specific game mechanics.
While I have no real concern with the number of tiers in the game, I do hope that CK: DV's mechanic for the Pope giving the imperial crown to powerful secular rulers (regardless of HRE affiliation) is still in CK2 in some form. While the HRE is important, I feel that opening the game up to allow for other possible emperors is important, as the HRE and Byzantium can both be wiped out in-game. Any Catholic ruler with enough political clout should be able to become an emperor... if the Pope wants to cooperate.
This. Most of the larger states in 1066 were rather decentralized and didn't function as unified nations as we think of them. I don't think the HRE was that dramatically different from France at the time.
Yes, as far as I understand it, generally the emperor has his own duchy, which is his in his role as duke not king (so I hope the developers don't merge them like in CK1), and a series of rights throughout the German kingdom, such as control of imperial cities, patronage of great monasteries and bishoprics, and some palaces. This is substantially more than the kings of France have in the period, but significantly less than the kings of England, since he exercises only overlordship over the remainder. This however can be important. The king has the right to forfeit dukes, appoint new dukes when a line ends, split duchies and often has direct overlordship of counties within duchies. But certainly it is not within the king's rights to demand national levies for foreign wars whenever he chooses, and bring the might of the whole of Germany on every corner of Europe.
Doomdark has said elsewhere that elective feudal monarchies will have some interesting rules in place to make the succession an actual election, and not just a "most titles win" mechanic like elective law in CK1.
This single revelation tells me that the HRE will get some love, even if there are no other changes. An elective law like the one he describes in the other thread (I'm lazy and don't feel like linking at the moment) would allow for internal bickering over succession and actual "elections" with the powerful magnates of the realm supporting candidates. This would give us a mechanic for the HRE at some points of its existence by default, without even factoring in empire specific game mechanics.
While I have no real concern with the number of tiers in the game, I do hope that CK: DV's mechanic for the Pope giving the imperial crown to powerful secular rulers (regardless of HRE affiliation) is still in CK2 in some form. While the HRE is important, I feel that opening the game up to allow for other possible emperors is important, as the HRE and Byzantium can both be wiped out in-game. Any Catholic ruler with enough political clout should be able to become an emperor... if the Pope wants to cooperate.
I agree, but the number of emperors at any given time should be limited, this in part can be solved by requirements. OTOH I wouldn't mind if the Catholic and Orthodox group could get one extra emperor; so that at maximum there are two Catholic emperors (one of which is the Holy Roman Emperor) and two Othodox emperors (one of which is the 'Byzantine' emperor of the Romans). Furthermore becoming or restoring these historic imperial crowns IMHO should be easier than creating (the) new a-historical ones.
Last edited:
Great posts here but I want to share that my hope is to be able to be king of the germans without being holy roman emperor. So that maybe you could stop that fancy holy roman empire titlery that was to no good neither for germany or italy and just stick with your king title and never worry about some pope wanting to control you via the crowning.
Agree. And the circular play with power, where an Emperor can influence Pope and the Pope can influence an Emperor, has a potential to be one of the key intrigue aspects of the game on grand scale. By making a balance of power depend on personal traits and skills of the two men, it may become a dynamic and epic struggle (as it should be).
The problem is the HRE of 1066 is a whole other baby than the HRE of the 1360s. The HRE must be something with the ability to transform. A skilled player might hold the old HRE together, never giving up power, never allowing the vassals to become virtually independent states, while an inexperienced player risk to see the changes happen much earlier. Also, the countless conflicts between emperor and pope need to be represented somehow. I think the HRE is something worth working on for CK2.
This is exactly the way it was. France, in fact, was far more scattered in 1050 than the HRE (at the same time), being the House of Blois semi-independent and against the king of France, the allmighty and rich Duke of Aquitaine being almost King of Aquitaine, the Count of Toulouse playing with the small Pyrinean counties, the Normans in England owning Normandy and Anjou...
exactly guys. The holy roman empire had gained the advantage under the ottonians by handing out lands to the church which was the better option as at that time they could name bishops but not nobleman. However as we all now that plan backfired horribly when the pope demanded that he retained the rights to name bishops for the church land paving the way for the failure of the empire. The stage is already set for the fall but its the question wether the player can hold out against the church and the vassals at the same time.
I was wondering if in crusader kings 1 when you had the worst kind of religious laws, the one that gives the pope the power to appoint your bishops, could you get troops or gold from the bishoprics?
I was wondering if in crusader kings 1 when you had the worst kind of religious laws, the one that gives the pope the power to appoint your bishops, could you get troops or gold from the bishoprics?
None of the religious laws in CK1 worked as described in the tooltips. f.e. appointing new bishops worked the same under all religious laws and you got both troops and gold from all bishoprics under all laws.
What you call 'the worst law' was in fact the one I used the most, since it gave me events that gave me piety.
Heh i see i always went for the balanced thing as I thought that it did what it said. But yes it would be awesome if this time you really were in trouble if you were forced to give up the bishoprics as you would get no taxes and would not be able to call up troops from their lands. And if you tried to keep full control over them the pope would threaten excommunication. Then you really could get the same situation the Salians where in at the beginning of the game.
Cèsar de Quart and RedRooster have made some fantastic posts in this thread. They seem to have established some very good ideas about how the HRE should work.