Dukes and their power.

[DukeWilleo1630]

In naming this thread I chose Dukes, but I suppose you could throw in Counts as well. It is just that, imo, there will be Duchies in the game with significant power. Power as in money and military. Now, it seems that CK2 will be focused on kingdoms. That is fine. But, I personally wonder just how playable duchies will be. I assume that you can fight for you king. I also assume that you can fight in civil wars. My real question is whether, as a Duke, you can instigate wars on foreign power yourself! I think there is some historical basis for this. High ranking nobles, which I kind of lump into the Duke category, had varying powers even in the same kingdoms. It has been discussed on the forum already about 'border rulers'. Dukes who are on borders with enemies(religious perhaps) who should perhaps have more independence. If you control a march, should you be able to instigate warfare on your enemy without the Kings direct involvement? Will Dukes be able to go on crusade while their kingdom does not?

Basically, I think it would be interesting if there were different sorts of Duchies. Some Dukes might merely be court officials with their lands not very independent except in times of civil war or crusades, while others might have a strong amount of independence to fight wars on bordering regions.

 

[Cocco81]

I second the idea of playable dukes and counts, but as soon as I read this post I couldn't but remember the norman conquest of Ireland (XIII century, if I remember right), when some english vassals asked the king for permission to conquer irish lands.

since the king had bad relations with them, he agreed to get rid of them, except when he noticed that they were being successful.

Epilogue? The king, fearing for a new rival norman kingdom, went to Ireland with his own army, thanked his vassals, took their new lands and finished the conquest by himself.

so... the king MIGHT get involved... as an uninvited guest!

 

[kanzlooz]

Bit offtopic maybe

I assume that you can fight for you king.

correct me if I'm wrong but if I remember correctly in CK1 you borrowed your troops to your liege without having control over your own troops. I like to control them myself in CK2, maybe you could get objectives like siege this province or attack there for loyalty if you do it and a drop in loyalty if you don't. It would be great for roleplaying, you could actually betray your liege in battle

 

[Ruwaard]

I second the idea of playable dukes and counts, but as soon as I read this post I couldn't but remember the norman conquest of Ireland (XIII century, if I remember right), when some english vassals asked the king for permission to conquer irish lands.

since the king had bad relations with them, he agreed to get rid of them, except when he noticed that they were being successful.

Epilogue? The king, fearing for a new rival norman kingdom, went to Ireland with his own army, thanked his vassals, took their new lands and finished the conquest by himself.

so... the king MIGHT get involved... as an uninvited guest!

Could you explain, what you mean by that? Counts and dukes are playable; or do you mean that vassals should be better playable? (Since being a independent count or duke has few restrictions, but is much riskier.)

 

[Spruce]

Interesting thread, obviously the question comes down to two levels =

Level I =

- are the kingdoms in CK2 based on historical kingdoms ? If yes, the king of Navarra has more options then the duke of Burgundy - in reality the Burgundy House was stronger then the French king at their peak, but fell due to succession isssues (and a little overconfident duke off course). So why should Navarra be more powerfull then Burgundy ?

- are kingshiptitles possible for stronger dukes - so deviation from historical evidence is possible. This comes up for many "boundary" duchies that could grow strong and could justify a kingshiptitle under some conditions. I know many historical buffs oppose the idea,

- or are king and ducal titles basicly the same if the duke is strong enough - f.e. a certain level of income or strength is reached. Perhaps the duchy gets some bonuses so it can hold itself together.

Basicly I would favour the second and lost option.

Off course we don't know the difference in power, settings etc. But there are huge differences in both the king and ducal titles - either looking trough history glasses and trough the glasses of the game engine.

Level II = a duke (renegade) and a duke (independent one) are really different stuff. Again the Burgundy house can be taken as example. At the beginning the Burgundy dukes were vassals to France, then they became somewhat more "influencial" when they got Flanders, then became more renegade "intrigue" - Jean Sans Peur f.e., and finally they gained a certain state of independance (peace negotations were French King had to give up some of his counties to Burgundy).

 

[yourworstnightm]

Of course it's really a pity a vassal can only be the vassal of one liege, and his territory would automatically all be a part of the same Realm. imagine how interesting it would be to play as Burgundy, when the dukes held territory in both France and the HRE, or playing as the count of Flandern, who at one point was a vassal of France, England and HRE simultaneously.

 

[Galaahd]

I don't get it. Why do you think CK 2 will be more focused on kingdoms? What have the developers said about it?

 

[Cocco81]

Could you explain, what you mean by that?

I was writing wuth mu mobile from a bus so I didn't elaborate.

I should have said "enjoyable"... i.e. something different from simple aim "obey or revolt"... but I don't have many ideas right now...

 

[Nick B II]

I
Basically, I think it would be interesting if there were different sorts of Duchies. Some Dukes might merely be court officials with their lands not very independent except in times of civil war or crusades, while others might have a strong amount of independence to fight wars on bordering regions.

Ideally the autonomy of vassals will depend mostly on the realm's legal system, and partly on their strength relative to their overlord. Countries like France and Ireland only functioned as countries when the King (or High King) was strong because their legal systems gave everyone else a lot of autonomy. It didn't help that the desmene of the Kings of France was smaller then that of several of his nominal vassals, or that the Irish crown had virtually no land attached to it

It's somewhat interesting to speculate on precisely the game mechanics involved, but it's pretty pointless until we know exactly which legal systems are in the game.

Nick

 

[Woody Man]

I don't get it. Why do you think CK 2 will be more focused on kingdoms? What have the developers said about it?

AFAIK they haven't, Doomdark himself said the games focus would be on characters.