Single holding Provinces

[John-Talbot]

From the screen shots shared so far it seems provinces can either have a town, castle or a church. This would be a downgrade from imperators system of having rural and urban provinces in my opinion. It could're remianed the same except with the ability to build churches as an upgrade in either rural or urban provinces. What do you guys think?

 

[Denkt]

Seems like it will be the same as CK2 with a county having several holdings and the holdings seems to be the same. There is also something called development which is new and that could maybe represent how rural it is but we will know what it does later.

 

[Fallofthepurple]

Personally instead of having on-map counties made up of several holdings a la CKII having every holding on the map would be much more preferable to me at the very least, even if that means that not every holding in CKII makes it on the map in CKIII.

(Also the new map looks really gorgeous )

 

[DominusNovus]

I’d really prefer that provinces would be smaller like in Imperator, so that it makes sense for each to only have one holding (and maybe a minor holding in addition). Screenshots don’t look like it, though. Which is too bad, they could more or less just import the Imperator map.

But as long as we don’t have the silliness that is the current holding system of “capital sieged first, then the arbitrary next holding, on down the line,” I’ll be happy.

 

[John-Talbot]

Provinces have the thin black dotted lines between them no? they look pretty small, a big improvement on CK2 at least, but each only has one type of holding visually displayed

 

[John-Talbot]

I think a system where each province can have up to one castle and one city holding would be perfect (the castle visually displayed inside the city if both are present), with churches no longer functioning as holdings but as improvements you build in provinces that give you a priest vassal attached to the province but dont have a garrison or levy. But most provinces should have no holdings at all, visually having farmland with a small village in the centre, a small church being added to the village if you build the church improvement.

 

[DominusNovus]

So, looking at that holding window, there’s definitely plenty of possibilities for additional holdings.
- In the middle left side, you see a tab with a tower icon that is obviously for the castle, and then a house icon that could possibly be for a city.
- In the lower right, there are 4 squares, one of which has a different tower icon. Probably not holdings, but possibly minor holdings or maybe upgrades.

 

[BeyondExpectation]

Damn I'm a bit sad about merchant republics I was hoping they would get them to work better this time.

I think a system where each province can have up to one castle and one city holding would be perfect (the castle visually displayed inside the city if both are present), with churches no longer functioning as holdings but as improvements you build in provinces that give you a priest vassal attached to the province but dont have a garrison or levy. But most provinces should have no holdings at all, visually having farmland with a small village in the centre, a small church being added to the village if you build the church improvement.

See my sig for what I'd prefer to holdings.

 

[John-Talbot]

So, looking at that holding window, there’s definitely plenty of possibilities for additional holdings.
- In the middle left side, you see a tab with a tower icon that is obviously for the castle, and then a house icon that could possibly be for a city.
- In the lower right, there are 4 squares, one of which has a different tower icon. Probably not holdings, but possibly minor holdings or maybe upgrades.

The house icon gives me hope, hopefully the town will be displayed visually alonside the castle in later versions.

 

[John-Talbot]

See my sig for what I'd prefer to holdings.

Yeah something like this would be ideal, from the paradox mission statement it seems that they want the game to be simpler and more intuative for new players though, so it would probably require a more dumbed down pop system

 

[Arcvalons]

It appears to me each province will be one holding, but holdings are not just castle, towns, and churches but hybrids. So it might start as a town, then you will be able to build a keep and a church in it. Or start as a small keep, then grow a town around it, etc.

 

[Torngasuk]

I've tried to label the Scottish map with the most likely settlements: Dingwall is obvious, and Inverness placement is a dead giveaway. Wick I'm almost certain of, same with Nairn, though Elgin's placement is a bit off, but could be preliminary. So that's eight notable holdings, while in CK2 in 1066 there were only seven over the same area, including the area of the map obscured by the Mormaerdom of Ross window and further territory to the west, south, and east. So I would say this bodes very well indeed for holding and provincial density in CK3, although I honestly wouldn't mind a few more historical dioceses and settlements that I can think of squeezed in. Fortrose/Rosemarkie, I'm thinking of you. Scotland had thirteen medieval bishops, which is a low enough number that we might reasonably be able to fit them all in.

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

I talked to devs about this at PDXCON, here's what they said. The Empire-Kingdom-Duchy-County-Barony hierarchy will stay. County borders will be fixed, each county will contain multiple holdings. Each holding corresponds to a province in game. A province can be empty, allowing to construct an extra holding in it. In this case, the name of the holding will be fixed ex ante. While conquering, armies must march and siege/occupy each holding in the county. It seems we can't play as barons unfortunately, at least not at launch.

 

[Torngasuk]

I talked to devs about this at PDXCON, here's what they said. The Empire-Kingdom-Duchy-County-Barony hierarchy will stay. County borders will be fixed, each county will contain multiple holdings. Each holding corresponds to a province in game. A province can be empty, allowing to construct an extra holding in it. In this case, the name of the holding will be fixed ex ante. While conquering, armies must march and siege/occupy each holding in the county. It seems we can't play as barons unfortunately, at least not at launch.

As I suspected, and almost exactly what I had hoped to hear. A bit disappointed that we won't have playable barons, but given their elevation to full provincial holding status, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that change in the future. For now, I'll settle for their increased importance within the game's world. And since each holding has to be sieged separately, I expect this will also help with doomstacks: we'll have to split our forces into several armies if we don't want to be stuck on one siege after another endlessly, which will be a most welcome change, since it will also put more feudal lords into the field as commanders.

 

[the glory of plain]

holding slot are the biggest flaw of ck2
baron level vassal just doesn't actually do anything
so a province can be turn entirely to a city church or castle are a much better system
but a much better system world be just give a province military and civil building
and allow any type of government to rule it

 

[Kashked]

My big question is if they have added any kind of ZOC for the castles, so you can't just bypass the bordercounties and go straight for the capital (like you do in CK2). It could create some interesting gameplay if we could designate "Marches", counties with military benefits, like ZOC, but that won't pay taxes or provide as many levies, being more defensive in nature. European history is full of such borderregions (Breton march in France, Charlemagne had march-regions in pretty much every direction etc.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_(territory)

 

[Austregisel]

Several places in Europe are not just cities, and others just castles, and others just bishops, several places like Paris had a city, a bishopric and a castle within it, like London and York, a better system would be, you Count of York may well make York a walled city as a residence rather than strictly a castle, or it may well have a castle with a city around it, where her mayor would live in his court. This system of separating castles, cities and bishoprics is very unrealistic. Cities have always been a densely populated and highly complex place, not only a trade-focused village governed by a mayor, they always held a bishopric, or a fort, in or on the city side, of course that does not take away the fact that grand castles within the regions functioning as forts, but that does not detract from the fact that the noblest kings of a country had their residence in a city complete with bishopric, fortifications within and around the city.

 

[viola]

I talked to devs about this at PDXCON, here's what they said. The Empire-Kingdom-Duchy-County-Barony hierarchy will stay. County borders will be fixed, each county will contain multiple holdings. Each holding corresponds to a province in game. A province can be empty, allowing to construct an extra holding in it. In this case, the name of the holding will be fixed ex ante. While conquering, armies must march and siege/occupy each holding in the county. It seems we can't play as barons unfortunately, at least not at launch.

Hopefully the map will as granular as Imperator Rome then. From your description it sounds like Counties are the new smallest agglomerate of provinces while Baronies are the new basic province, but unlike CK2 each province will only be able to be a castle, city or church (or empty until something gets built on). If the map isn't quite up to snuff I fear it might end up feeling like a step backward compared to the holding system of CK2 (which was quite clunky, but I feel represented very well the regional fragmentation of the feudal system).

 

[varetta]

I talked to devs about this at PDXCON, here's what they said. The Empire-Kingdom-Duchy-County-Barony hierarchy will stay. County borders will be fixed, each county will contain multiple holdings. Each holding corresponds to a province in game. A province can be empty, allowing to construct an extra holding in it. In this case, the name of the holding will be fixed ex ante. While conquering, armies must march and siege/occupy each holding in the county. It seems we can't play as barons unfortunately, at least not at launch.

That was my theory. I think this is the best way to go and, even if it is unpopular in this forums, i prefer not to have baronies but counties with multiple holdings on them, all showed in the map, but lead by the same guy. It will also allows some degree of specialization and RPG.

Several places in Europe are not just cities, and others just castles, and others just bishops, several places like Paris had a city, a bishopric and a castle within it, like London and York, a better system would be, you Count of York may well make York a walled city as a residence rather than strictly a castle, or it may well have a castle with a city around it, where her mayor would live in his court. This system of separating castles, cities and bishoprics is very unrealistic. Cities have always been a densely populated and highly complex place, not only a trade-focused village governed by a mayor, they always held a bishopric, or a fort, in or on the city side, of course that does not take away the fact that grand castles within the regions functioning as forts, but that does not detract from the fact that the noblest kings of a country had their residence in a city complete with bishopric, fortifications within and around the city.

I think you are seeing it as white/black, while the holding system is a representation of the most important function of a holding. For example, London has the three types, but it is mainly a City, while Windsor has a city, but it is mainly a castle and so on. Anyway, I prefer this new system and overdetailed map

 

[Severvus_septim]

Some of my thoughts about this and other "mapview" screenshot:

1. It seems, that holdings just will be physically shown on map, and single counties will be same size as it was in CK2, but is will be splitted on certain holdings (central castle and other castles\monasteries\cities).
2. On the screen shot as I think there is castle, and in lower-right corner there is slots for certain castle fortifications, and house icon in middle of the window probably is section of castle town civilian buildings, so may be it will be graphically showed town around castle, while it grow large enough.
3. I still hope for playable baronies either on release or in some DLC