Crusader Kings II: Conclave to be released early 2016!

[durbal]

The Feudal system as presented by the game is based on a model of medieval society that likely did not exist. Even the closest things to it were much more complex. To the point that the game is built on such a massive (inaccurate) abstraction of reality that calling it a simulator is quite simply laughable.

You've said that about 5 or more times in this thread already, and frankly it's nonsense based upon a strawman (i.e. 'feudalism' as taught in schools is inaccurate).

We know very clearly what feudalism was. That there might be an outlier here or there or some nuance that isn't mentioned often doesn't make the whole system 'not exist'. This game is based upon hereditary titles and dynasties. Are you saying those 'did not exist'?

 

[Orinsul]

You've said that about 5 or more times in this thread already, and frankly it's nonsense based upon a strawman (i.e. 'feudalism' as taught in schools is inaccurate).

We know very clearly what feudalism was. That there might be an outlier here or there or some nuance that isn't mentioned often doesn't make the whole system 'not exist'. This game is based upon hereditary titles and dynasties. Are you saying those 'did not exist'?

We know that it was a system of interlocking social and private contract, but what those were and how they worked were changeable and different from place to place and time to time, not a single coherent thing. And some places didnt have them, but still had the dressings, and others had them without the dressings. because simple is easy, reality is harder.

Dynasties kind of didn't exist though, families did but the dynasties thing like CoAs and other stuff, are imposed backwards also titles, lots of the time people just knew he was the guy so never bothered to work out a formal name for the thing he was the guy of. So like they existed, but not like, absolutely for realzies

 

[Deaghaidh]

I'm withholding judgement on whether or not the council changes merit a full blown dlc. Potentially it's a game changer, since council positions could have to balance ability, power, and loyalty. Ie, should I appoint a moderately skilled buthe powerful vassal, or a loyal, skilled nobody?

The question I want to see answered is how much power being on a council really means. Can it propel a minor Lord into a major power, can a powerful vassal become the kingmaker by exploiting it, etc. I'd like to see it depends on the centralizatuon, where a council seat in say the ERE is way more important than in a decentralized feudal realm.

Ideally this could open up doors to palace coups and court politics, two areas which could use the attention.

 

[Thure]

I'm withholding judgement on whether or not the council changes merit a full blown dlc. Potentially it's a game changer, since council positions could have to balance ability, power, and loyalty. Ie, should I appoint a moderately skilled buthe powerful vassal, or a loyal, skilled nobody?

The question I want to see answered is how much power being on a council really means. Can it propel a minor Lord into a major power, can a powerful vassal become the kingmaker by exploiting it, etc. I'd like to see it depends on the centralizatuon, where a council seat in say the ERE is way more important than in a decentralized feudal realm.

Ideally this could open up doors to palace coups and court politics, two areas which could use the attention.

In the law tab there is a council tab. So most likely we will have own laws for council rules.

 

[The_Red_Star]

You've said that about 5 or more times in this thread already, and frankly it's nonsense based upon a strawman (i.e. 'feudalism' as taught in schools is inaccurate).

We know very clearly what feudalism was. That there might be an outlier here or there or some nuance that isn't mentioned often doesn't make the whole system 'not exist'. This game is based upon hereditary titles and dynasties. Are you saying those 'did not exist'?

It is probably best to read from the historians here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori..._historians_say_feudalism_never_existed_what/

To summarize things neatly:


Feudalism is a post-medieval construct that like most of popular history concerning the middle ages (and CK2 is built on popular history because actual medieval history would be impossible to simulate on the clausewitz engine in a remotely fun manner) is at best, massively oversimplified, and at worst flatly invented centuries after the fact and has only come into question in the 20th century.

Vassals and fiefs, as Susan Reynolds explains, are essentially born of 16th century misunderstandings of 13th century academic legal papers. Fiefdom was not even the primary means of owning land and Homagery was not necessarily a system of vassalage. Nor did we actually have a nice, neat hierarchy of pretty little ranks. It was a very fluid, constantly changing structure that essentially worked through common assent.

It's hardly nonsense if it's the current dominant viewpoint in medieval academia and it's hardly academia's fault that popular culture and scholastic education is slow to catch up to discoveries made by medieval historians.

 

[Orinsul]

It's not just slow to catch up, Medievalists have been being deliberately ignored by popular culture and scholastic education from the start. and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Most fields of historians are.

 

[Zolotaya]

@Orinsul and @The_Red_Star - Many here will never believe, no matter what is said or cited. Much like there are people that will believe that Crusader Kings is more than a title and that the devs meant much more than they did with the title.

Anyways, thanks for the info provided.

 

[Orinsul]

@Orinsul and @The_Red_Star - Many here will never believe, no matter what is said or cited. Much like there are people that will believe that Crusader Kings is more than a title and that the devs meant much more than they did with the title.

Anyways, thanks for the info provided.

One day, the world will bow down to my will, and acknowledge that some castles were painted bright pink and others decorated, completely covered, with ridiculously ornate and expensive wooden flowers and looked really silly, and no one at the time thought that was weird.
Medievalists have always agreed it was so

 

[LoyalistRedcoat]

One day, the world will bow down to my will, and acknowledge that some castles were painted bright pink and others decorated, completely covered, with ridiculously ornate and expensive wooden flowers and looked really silly, and no one at the time thought that was weird.
Medievalists have always agreed it was so

Please no. That's worse than feather-dino purists.

 

[Angeleyed]

Dlc announcement videos shouldn't be like this.

It should be Johan sitting on a couch with a sword in hand asking Groogy what's new.

 

[Yvanoff]

looks good to me.
Time for another CKII playthrough I guess

 

[Keizer Harm]

-snip-

So, I have read through the reddit thread (quite fuzzy in some places), and I think it boils down to this:

Lower nobles often had multiple kinds of ties to different nobles and royals at the same time, and not simply loyalty to one king above them.

Do I have that correctly?

 

[Sahraine]

ohhh myyy gawwd

*back flips*

 

[Communitnerd92]

awesome

 

[migalhone]

Dlc announcement videos shouldn't be like this.

It should be Johan sitting on a couch with a sword in hand asking Groogy what's new.

Unrelated, this makes me wonder how good of a DLC title would Sword of Damocles?

 

[Emperor Ike]

This will make playing with Ironman even more pleasureful. In a masochist way of having coitus with a cactus kind of pleasureful. But what counts as early 2016? Is it like Q1?

 

[pesco77]

I'm not suggesting you're a killjoy, but each DLC pays for the bug fixes that comes with it. Otherwise the game would cease development. So they can't just make a patch to fix bugs, and not look at the next expansion.

When I pay for a DLC, I am paying for its new features. Ones that I expect to be relatively bug-free. And I would expect the developers to follow-up and fix bugs as they are discovered.

When I pay for a DLC, I am NOT paying to fix the bugs introduced by the previous DLC.

As for your other points, fair enough, I will follow through bug reports once I can document properly.

 

[Dracko81]

When I pay for a DLC, I am paying for its new features. Ones that I expect to be relatively bug-free. And I would expect the developers to follow-up and fix bugs as they are discovered.

When I pay for a DLC, I am NOT paying to fix the bugs introduced by the previous DLC.

As for your other points, fair enough, I will follow through bug reports once I can document properly.

Here is the problem with your assumption of getting bug fixes for free.

It used to be that you bought Expansion Packs. If you wanted the most recent bug fixes, you must buy the new expansion. This is how it used to work. The new model with modular DLC, you chose what DLC you want, but the purchase of DLC pays for each patch and free content. You never used to get free content, nor did you used to get fixes.

The DLC pays for bug fixes and content, there is no getting around this.

The DLC Horse Lords, actually had a hot-fix patch applied before it was released. Every release has had fixes before the announcement of the next DLC. You need only look at the current Version number 2.4.5. That is 5 patches for free already.

 

[yezhanquan]

So, I have read through the reddit thread (quite fuzzy in some places), and I think it boils down to this:

Lower nobles often had multiple kinds of ties to different nobles and royals at the same time, and not simply loyalty to one king above them.

Do I have that correctly?

Simply put: there is no single "system". The system of allegiances changes with time and location. Logically deducing, the darn system might even change several times in a person's lifetime, and not just when another related individual dies.

Probably the one constant in all this is the fact that as long as anyone in charge think that they can get away with abusing whatever system is in place at the time (coupled with inadequate or corrupt supervision), they will do so, for profit or simply because they can (perhaps, by the grace of whatever they worship).

 

[R'hllor]

It is probably best to read from the historians here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori..._historians_say_feudalism_never_existed_what/

To summarize things neatly:


Feudalism is a post-medieval construct that like most of popular history concerning the middle ages (and CK2 is built on popular history because actual medieval history would be impossible to simulate on the clausewitz engine in a remotely fun manner) is at best, massively oversimplified, and at worst flatly invented centuries after the fact and has only come into question in the 20th century.

Vassals and fiefs, as Susan Reynolds explains, are essentially born of 16th century misunderstandings of 13th century academic legal papers. Fiefdom was not even the primary means of owning land and Homagery was not necessarily a system of vassalage. Nor did we actually have a nice, neat hierarchy of pretty little ranks. It was a very fluid, constantly changing structure that essentially worked through common assent.

It's hardly nonsense if it's the current dominant viewpoint in medieval academia and it's hardly academia's fault that popular culture and scholastic education is slow to catch up to discoveries made by medieval historians.

So is there anything you agree with the popular understanding of medieval society?