Single holding Provinces

[Austregisel]

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

Apparently there will not be several houses around castles and bishoprics, it seems to be empty, even if you can build Castle Town IV, as much as York is a castle within a city, it will be just a castle.

 

[Severvus_septim]

I still hope, that it will be, like right now map seems a bit empty and lifeless.

 

[cristofolmc]

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 )

Thats what I thought they would be doing. With more provinces in the map + development, theres not such a need of having sevarl holdings inside a big province. You can represent all the cities and baronies and such on the map, which is what you suggest.

 

[cristofolmc]

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.

What I'd interpret is that the new system all provinces have just 1 holding. That holding is divided betwen the castle itself and the military buildings, and then another tab next to it for town around the castle buildings. Which honestly is much more realistic, as it is how it worked in the medieval period. Towns and cities grew around a castle and from a castle.

If they are not different holdings though, I wonder how the game is gonna handle mayors. As they were useless in the game and didnt really do anything, maybe they've removed them altogether, and replaced them with the "popular opinion" modifier?


QUOTE="Ciccillo Rre, post: 25922178, member: 395879"]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.[/QUOTE]

Now that baronies are on the map, and not in some province slot, it seems absurd not to let you play as baronies

 

[TIDM2]

So I would see it as the base provinces on the map are barony level. The selection in this screenshot is a county, composed of two baronies. A castle and a city, and those two tabs below the character portrait are to switch to the respective baronies in the county.

Firstly, this makes little sense to me as then you can't have cities and castles in the same province. How would that make sense for places London or Constantinople, etc?

Secondly I don't actually see any "counties" from the various screenshots that show more than one castle barony in each. From what I see counties are all made up of a castle, a town, and a church. Or if a county only has two baronies then it is made up of a castle and either a church or a town. Does this mean that actual feudal barons are not in the game? If they aren't then I don't see any reason they would let us play as baronies.

 

[EU3NOOB]

From what I could tell, engine improvements since 2012 have made far denser maps in terms of county/provincial count, thus Imperator's dense map. This bodes quite for granularity in CKIII.

For instance in the screenshot of Wales counted 17 possible counties (based on yellow and green lines)! And that's not even all of Wales and we're already above CKII HIP levels of province density over all of Wales!

Here's a edited screenshot of Wales.

Green are county borders I'm 100% confident on.

Yellow are the ones I'm somewhat questionable on, but are still based on some level of logic.

Red is like, yeah, there are some signs of there being separate counties there, but come on, why would there be a county there! Like that second province on that island off the North Coast of Wales, why would you have two provinces there! lol.

 

[TIDM2]

I think you've made too many of those separate counties. It looks to me the double line borders represent counties and the dashed line is baronies

 

[Austregisel]

View attachment 519731

So I would see it as the base provinces on the map are barony level. The selection in this screenshot is a county, composed of two baronies. A castle and a city, and those two tabs below the character portrait are to switch to the respective baronies in the county.

Firstly, this makes little sense to me as then you can't have cities and castles in the same province. How would that make sense for places London or Constantinople, etc?

Secondly I don't actually see any "counties" from the various screenshots that show more than one castle barony in each. From what I see counties are all made up of a castle, a town, and a church. Or if a county only has two baronies then it is made up of a castle and either a church or a town. Does this mean that actual feudal barons are not in the game? If they aren't then I don't see any reason they would let us play as baronies.

if this province are made with a castle and a city, needs buildings that make a city work, besides the image having several houses around the castle to look like a city, and also having several houses around the castle on the map, not to just look like a motte-and-baliey, and asking the same thing as you, how would you make sense for places London or Constantinople, Paris, Baghdad, Palermo, Rome etc?

 

[cristofolmc]

Well they've already confirmed on discord that indeed those are baronies, not counties. Counties is the little silver crown you can see on the other screenshot.

You can even see the blue borders and names. You can see the names of only three of all the holdings on the map inside the county. Why? Well I guess because those are the three fortresess or castles, and the other ones are towns and parishes (or churches) I suppose, whose names don't show up maybe? But yeah, thats the county. The country is a bunch of on-map provinces, or holdings, that are now the baronies, towns and churches.

 

[Austregisel]

Well they've already confirmed on discord that indeed those are baronies, not counties. Counties is the little silver crown you can see on the other screenshot.

You can even see the blue borders and names. You can see the names of only three of all the holdings on the map inside the county. Why? Well I guess because those are the three fortresess or castles, and the other ones are towns and parishes (or churches) I suppose, whose names don't show up maybe? But yeah, thats the county. The country is a bunch of on-map provinces, or holdings, that are now the baronies, towns and churches.

Hopefully the larger theocratic holding is not a cathedral (but unfortunately it should be, since the theocracies in the game are led by bishops, archbishops, and others, not a monastery). Do the devs think there were cathedrals in the middle of nowhere inside country, without a city around? Cathedrals were made in population centers and not in the middle of nowhere in England.

 

[cristofolmc]

Well they've already confirmed on discord that indeed those are baronies, not counties. Counties is the little silver crown you can see on the other screenshot.

You can even see the blue borders and names. You can see the names of only three of all the holdings on the map inside the county. Why? Well I guess because those are the three fortresess or castles, and the other ones are towns and parishes (or churches) I suppose, whose names don't show up maybe? But yeah, thats the county. The country is a bunch of on-map provinces, or holdings, that are now the baronies, towns and churches.

Hopefully the larger theocratic holding is not a cathedral (but unfortunately it should be, since the theocracies in the game are led by bishops, archbishops, and others, not a monastery). Do the devs think there were cathedrals in the middle of nowhere inside country, without a city around? Cathedrals were made in population centers and not in the middle of nowhere in England.

Well obviously, but I think its just a map representation of a church owned holding. Like in CK2, its just now on the map

 

[Kingsleydale]

Well they've already confirmed on discord that indeed those are baronies, not counties. Counties is the little silver crown you can see on the other screenshot.

You can even see the blue borders and names. You can see the names of only three of all the holdings on the map inside the county. Why? Well I guess because those are the three fortresess or castles, and the other ones are towns and parishes (or churches) I suppose, whose names don't show up maybe? But yeah, thats the county. The country is a bunch of on-map provinces, or holdings, that are now the baronies, towns and churches.


Well obviously, but I think its just a map representation of a church owned holding. Like in CK2, its just now on the map

Aren't the silver crowns duchies?

 

[Vohen]

The one thing I dislike about having on map holdings is that every county will have a fixed max number of holdings, being impossible to increase them.
I love turning my tribal two max holdings capital into a seven holdings megalopolis through the course of a game in CK2.

Hopefully the map will as granular as Imperator Rome then.

It seems you're in luck then, in Imperator there are 16 territories in Wales, but in the screenshot I counted ~30 "provinces" (holdings) there.
So CK3's map seems to be even more granular than Imperator's.

So I would see it as the base provinces on the map are barony level. The selection in this screenshot is a county, composed of two baronies. A castle and a city, and those two tabs below the character portrait are to switch to the respective baronies in the county.

This makes a lot more sense to me, I was in some serious doubt, thinking "how could each 'province' be a holding, with the selected 'province' having multiple holdings?", but seeing your post, it seems to be correct, the selected holding shows in the county window.
Even going into CK2 to check the county of Ross, it is precisely where those borders indicate as you pointed out, with exactly two holdings (difference being that one of them is a bishopric, not a city, though I doubt the house symbol would be a temple).

London seems to be the city right under the castle that's besides the English banner, which should be Westminster. Those two, together with the bishopric below the word "Berkhamsted" and what seems to be one or two empty holdings, should to be the county of Middlesex.
From the current setup in CK2, it seems that only the barony of Tottenham is missing.

Constantinople could be dealt in a few ways.
As the map is more granular, the holding of Constantinople itself (should be a city instead of a castle, with a special upgrade that represents the Theodosian walls, giving it very high defensiveness) should be located only where the golden horn is, perhaps tightly packed with the bishopric of Constantinople, but surrounded by the many cities that compose the county of Constantinople to encompass roughly the same area as the county does in CK2.

You can even see the blue borders and names. You can see the names of only three of all the holdings on the map inside the county. Why? Well I guess because those are the three fortresess or castles, and the other ones are towns and parishes (or churches) I suppose, whose names don't show up maybe? But yeah, thats the county. The country is a bunch of on-map provinces, or holdings, that are now the baronies, towns and churches.

It seems to me like the blue lines are the realm of the player character, with the banner resting on top of the capital (making her, in this case, the countess of Bedford).
The character seems to own three counties (as we can see with the double lines), and the names appear in the county capitals, the castles.
The harder lines seems to indicate the realm of direct vassals of the ruler (in this case, the King of England) with their respective banners, and an even harder external border, as we can see in Wales.
Though it's strange how England seems to own more chunks of Wales than it did in 1066 in CK2, and even more strange how there isn't a banner for the vassal who owns the central part of Wales.

 

[Austregisel]

Well obviously, but I think its just a map representation of a church owned holding. Like in CK2, its just now on the map

Yes, but you know that bishoprics are not in the middle of nowhere right? they are always around a town or city, and this is not represented on the map. For it is certainly not a monastery by the way. My 2 major problems with this is that 1. It is not depicting castles and bishoprics around towns or cities on the map (as they should be). Except for military-focused castles that would serve as a fortress in the region. 2. Buildings that represent this are needed, not just a Castle Town IV building to do.

 

[Federalist girl]

Aren't the silver crowns duchies?

Silver crown is duchy -- you can tell by looking at the screenshot with "de jure hierarchy," it shows empire-kingdom-duchy crowns and shields.

 

[CirclePete]

This barony-level map makes me wonder how they are going to deal with holdings for tribal and (hopefully future) nomad governements, especially for provinces conquered from feudal rulers.
Will we still be able to raze castles and cities? In ck2, it was impossible to convert a holding, so we had to raze then build.

 

[Torngasuk]

Will we still be able to raze castles and cities? In ck2, it was impossible to convert a holding, so we had to raze then build.

I've heard it remarked that a province can be empty until you build a holding there, so I would assume yes.

 

[Vohen]

This barony-level map makes me wonder how they are going to deal with holdings for tribal and (hopefully future) nomad governements, especially for provinces conquered from feudal rulers.
Will we still be able to raze castles and cities? In ck2, it was impossible to convert a holding, so we had to raze then build.

Functionally, I don't see exactly how this new system would work differently from CK2's tbh.
In fact, I'm worried that we'll actually have less to work with than in CK2.
Those four slots in the holding would make me think that there won't be a great variety of types of buildings, or that I won't be able to build many.
And I don't see anything that could stand as replacement for forts, hospitals and trade posts.
So holdings, despite being featured in such detail on map, looks actually quite simplified in comparison to its CK2 counterpart.
It is, of course, too early to come to any conclusion, with the only available info being a screenshot and all, so I'll hold until DDs properly explain those mechanics in detail, but I sure am hoping to be proven wrong here.

 

[John-Talbot]

Very disappointing that provinces will only have one holding type each, this will be such a wrecking ball to immersion that it would make me reconsider purchasing it, which i say with a heavy heart since CK2 is one of my most favourite games of all time.
Why not a much more realistic and not much harder to implement system where all three types of building can be present in a province and integrate the three types with eachother? So adding a castle to a province which already has a city adds their garrison and levy together, they would be seiged as one just with a longer timer, and the baron representing the region would be whichever holding in the province is the most develpoed, so if its a grand city with a tiny castle the player would get a mayor type baron leading the province, this would be in keeping with their goal to prevent character gult and making individual vassals more important. (Also the map would be way more beautiful with giant cities with cathedrals and looming castles within them)

 

[Austregisel]

Very disappointing that provinces will only have one holding type each, this will be such a wrecking ball to immersion that it would make me reconsider purchasing it, which i say with a heavy heart since CK2 is one of my most favourite games of all time.
Why not a much more realistic and not much harder to implement system where all three types of building can be present in a province and integrate the three types with eachother? So adding a castle to a province which already has a city adds their garrison and levy together, they would be seiged as one just with a longer timer, and the baron representing the region would be whichever holding in the province is the most develpoed, so if its a grand city with a tiny castle the player would get a mayor type baron leading the province, this would be in keeping with their goal to prevent character gult and making individual vassals more important. (Also the map would be way more beautiful with giant cities with cathedrals and looming castles within them)

It's kind of non-sense to leave holdings alone in the middle of nowhere on the map, bishoprics were always surrounded by towns or cities, the same with most castles, which were on the side or inside the city, like London, Paris, Constantinople, Milano, Caen, Rouen, York, and others.