Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

How to Play Republics and Bishoprics?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69946 Bug Reports 19719 User Modifications 10605 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6374 After Action Reports
th3freakie

th3freakie

Commissar for a European People's Economy
75 Badges
Apr 23, 2004
5.948
6.589
vicentedelisboa.wordpress.com
  • For The Glory
No, no, I'm not requesting Paradox to allow this, not as of Vanilla at least.

It is just something I've been giving some thought lately.
Gameplay-wise, how could a game like CK accommodate playing these states?
How would it be fun?

You can fight wars and conquer land of course, but that's not the main course. The personal relationships and family management are. But the game doesn't seem equipped to deal well with those, and quite honestly I can't think of any mechanic that would. But you lads are smart and know the game. Anyone has any bright notions?

The best I could come up with was to have a succession law based on "nomination" of some sort, but that just offers no challenge. Building up legitimacy, political power or political religious power would be sweet, but too unpredictable in CK as we know it.

...so, thoughts?
 
What if you simulate Religious Orders as the bishop's equivalent to the dynasty? I guess it wouldn't work since the Dominicans and Franciscans come somewhat late...

Or what about values? The Pious, The Zeelous could be titles you could pass on, dynasty-like.
 
What if you choose a "successor" or your "protege" at some time, it doesn't matter if they're related, and that will be unchangeable until said protege dies or when election comes. Just like when you're a king in CK, you choose his education and hope he turns out okay. If he turns out to be a heretic uncharismatic coward, good luck when election comes. That's for republics btw.
 
Zzzzz... said:
What if you choose a "successor" or your "protege" at some time, it doesn't matter if they're related, and that will be unchangeable until said protege dies or when election comes. Just like when you're a king in CK, you choose his education and hope he turns out okay. If he turns out to be a heretic uncharismatic coward, good luck when election comes. That's for republics btw.
Click to expand...
Hm... could work, if combined with an increasing "instability" penalty while there is no chosen successor. But when you chose, all the big boys start fighting amongst themselves (and against you) to force you into changing successor. Maybe even including blackmail for infidelity cases 'n stuff :D
 
Originally Posted by Doomdark
There is a succession law in CK2 called "Feudal Elective" (i.e. Elective Monarchy.) The current ruler gets to throw his weight behind a candidate, but this only counts as one "vote". If he is a king, each duke also gets to nominate a candidate (from among the dukes and the children of the king.) Mind you, this is still somewhat tentative, but expect something very similar to be in the game.
Click to expand...

This, but with regular elections rather than upon death. So roleplay this a bit. (The ultimate goal here being to turn a merchant republic, slowly to a elective monarch, to a salic primogeniture monarchy, i.e establishing a dynasty!) A Govenor (you) can continue to run and support yourself, but as you become aged and weak, you decide to throw your weight behind a relative (because if you were to die in office it would be a bit of a crapshoot).

The biggest issue is that there would need to be some sort of events to allow a landless noble to acrue prestige. Something like if your son gets a trait that makes him very intelligent, or a charasmatic leader, it would trigger events that would make him a likely candidate. This would also be cool for Monarchies because then you son could go conquer or become well known in the realm for his charisma, possible leading to vassals supporting him for heir rather than the cruel, selfish king who justs sits in his castle. Just chucking out ideas to give landless characters more flavor than just an employment pool.

In my opinion this would be one of the most challenging and satisfactory games to play. Imagine having to manipulate your way to keeping a Ruling dynasty in a republic but also taking your dynasty so far as too remove the "senate" or whatever governing body and replace it with a monarchy. (Shades of Julius Caesar?) This would require a specific mechanic that would need to be the product of an expansion but thats just my two cents.
 
Well there is actually alot u can do as a character in a republic, but it all depends on how Paradox decides to handle other stuff. For example, strong merchants could fight over influence or positions etc. A "republic" a very vague description of any form of government, same as for example word "democracy" means alot of different stuff. If those republics have something like senate - some sort of body that elects characters for different offices u can compete with other guys, if they have some sort of parliament u can fund ur own political party, bribe people etc. If u think about there is no much difference between "republic" and "monarchy", the final instance that holds power is different, apart from that, whole pyramid of structure is basically the same - alot of greedy people fighting over what little power there is to be had.
 
I think EU: Rome actually made republics pretty cool, so in a potentiale expansion I guess Paradox could transplant that into CK. And making republics and religious orders playable would certainly be an expansion I'd be willing to pay for... just like a "Jihadi Sheiks" expansion would the great.
 
The senate/council idea sounds cool, but tricky to pull off in a game.

CK's gameplay depends a lot on uncertainty. But if you have to put your weight behind only one successor, it's a win-or-lose situation.
If the currents that influence this are too random, it isn't fun. If it is too rigid, it isn't fun. In monarchies the middle ground is reached by allowing the player to (usually) have second choices in the form of brothers, nephews, etc. In Reps and Bishs... donno.
 
It would have to be an expansion so that we dont get an EUIII thing where exerything plays the same. CK is all about characters and dynasties, period. Bishoprics, Republics and KOs do not fit into the current character system. If you get booted out of office, well your done! They need to specifically focus on the Muslims and KOs and Republics if they are to be playable. Biggest issues with Republics is in a merchant republic like say Venice, what do you do?

What I mean by that is how do you justify as a govenor starting an unprovoked offensive war, like Venice just deciding, "I feel like conquering Austria today." Its not a like a Govenor can claim marital or birth rights to Austria, unless some how an Austrian Duke decided to exile his eldest son, disinheriting him, and the son went to Venice and became govenor.

Knighly Orders have more room as long as the target is a heathen group.

Muslims are a beast of their own.

Point being, focus needs to be on making playing as a Feudal Lord, (King, Duke, Count) more fun. Playing a count in CK1 was extremely boring because you had nothing to do but respond to spammy court events. I understand that they could go someplace if you waited for a prim opportunity, like realm duress, but there was absolutly nothing to do in the meantime. You just sat there answering spammy events while waiting for a king's daughter to age or just found something else to do while you waited.
 
Stratagyfan101 said:
It would have to be an expansion so that we dont get an EUIII thing where exerything plays the same.
Click to expand...
This. The mechanics that drives CK's feudal states are vastly different from republics and religious orders. So different that they deserve a lot more attention than Paradox can afford to assign them in the core game. Better to have a few unplayable nations than every type of state playing out the same way.
 
Republics:

When the first map mods come out for CK2 you could create several (very small) provinces to represent each of the big republics (Venive, Genoa, etc). Each of these mini-provinces could then be run by a different family (at Count level) and would function like city districts. The overall republic would have a Duke-level title with elective succession.

That is the best solution I can think of within the current game mechanics. However, I don't know what you would do to stop a normal feudal state from conquering one of the mini-provinces that make up the city.
 
yourworstnightm said:
They don't really fit in the dynastic system.
Click to expand...
Sure they do. Medieval republics were oligarchic institutions dominated by a small number of aristocratic families. Bishoprics, especially in the early part of this period and on the fringes of Europe, were often inherited offices. Even when they weren't inherited in a formal way, they were often informally dominated by certain families. Not only do these things fit in with the dynastic system, they are important as a demonstration of how much diversity and complexity that system had.
 
I acctually siad in my post that Doges and Bishops could, and did create dynasties that potentially ruled for centuries (de Medici an example), I just don't know how the game would be able to handle it, either all bishoprics would be dynastic (which certainly wasn't the case) or none is. And for republics: Genua, Venice, Florence, the Swiss, the Icelanders all had completely different systems of government, and in sióme cases it did create important dynasties, I'm just not sure how the game with it's Game Over if you don't inherit function would handle it.
 
I don't care about Republics or Bishoprics, but I really would like to play as the Pope :(
 
yourworstnightm said:
I acctually siad in my post that Doges and Bishops could, and did create dynasties that potentially ruled for centuries (de Medici an example), I just don't know how the game would be able to handle it, either all bishoprics would be dynastic (which certainly wasn't the case) or none is. And for republics: Genua, Venice, Florence, the Swiss, the Icelanders all had completely different systems of government, and in sióme cases it did create important dynasties, I'm just not sure how the game with it's Game Over if you don't inherit function would handle it.
Click to expand...
Why does the game have to end if a different house comes to hold the office? Just because CK worked that way doesn't mean CK2 has to. I was thinking that the system in republics, for example, could work something like the old Holistic Design Merchant Princes series, where you have several player families competing for offices within the republic. There's also the 'holdings' from EU:Rome, where characters could draw income from individual provinces, representing their private estates. It would be easy to expand on this concept.
 
yourworstnightm said:
They don't really fit in the dynastic system. Sure a bishop or a Doge could create a powerful dynasty that can rule for centuries, I just don't know how to handle it in game.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if the game could be made so that you can play without owning land and still run your dynasty.

And then the head of your dynasty becomes whoever you load up as.
 
Examples like the de Medici and the Borgia were four hundred years after the time-frame of Crusader Kings. That is the issue, many people are thinking of "EU3" time-frame in some of the examples. This is the 1066 (era), where things were far more basic and after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West and the Viking expansion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back