Baronies, one step forward and two steps back?

[Rogan de Auria]

Obviously the step forward is baronies being represented in the map, adding a lot to army movement choices and not less important: immersion. Also it seems very interesting for me that unfortified holdings -cities and temples- will be automatically conquered if the fortified ones fall, so the placing of castle holdings -or fortifying the other types- is now a thing.


My concerns were raised by this statements by Henrik in the article https://www.usgamer.net/articles/paradox-answers-12-major-questions-about-crusader-kings-3

-"It's basically the same number of counties, but fewer holdings"
-"You don't have to pay much attention to these barons..." " We've tried to reduce their import”
“...there's no real negative consequence for revoking.”
-“The idea with barons ...is basically to be a refrigerator for interesting characters."

So, if I understand correctly, we will have LESS holdings per province (and adding new ones will be more limited), and the baron tier characters will be of LESS importance (politically speaking).

I only speak for myself, but adding baronies the “much requested feature by the fans” was more in the line of an extra layer of feudalism (emperor, king, duke, count, baron), even to the extreme of playable full-fledged baronies, not just placing them in the map. Don’t misunderstood me, I like them being in the map, but playable Barons now seems further than ever.

 

[Skales]

The feudal hierarchy in general should have been rebuilt from scratch.

 

[Pied-Noir]

I hope this doesn't mean some of the interesting baron-tier families in the game (or ones we can choose to mod in) are no longer relevant or unrepresented.

 

[Absolute Frenchman]

We might see a playable baronnies DLC in the future, as I think they already said that it won't be in at launch. Although I really look forward to see what kinda building mechanics we'll see, like for exemple modifers for financing the construction of multiple cities in your realm, maybe events, some surt of alternative to a bloodline... Just to make it matter, unlike in CK2 where a city was just more money and a c1stle more troops

 

[Trunting]

I also think they shouldnt be freely revocable but rather playable.

 

[omega20056]

Splitting the provinces up to Imperator-sized units could have easily led to playable baronies, but it seems they've just re-localised counts as barons and dukes as counts.

 

[Torngasuk]

I am pleased by the placement of baronies on the map, tremendously so. I stridently maintain, however, that the game would only benefit from granting them a greater degree of involvement in the game's events, rather than minimizing it. I'm less concerned about making them playable initially, which I would categorize as desirable but not essential, than I am about their role in filling out the game world. Baronies are not quite equivalent to actual barons in the conventional sense: baronies are holdings insufficiently large as to warrant being included as counties on the world map, but are not so insignificant that they can be excluded from the game entirely. Some baronies represent French counts of some wealth and privilege, and others German principalities of note (the sovereign princes of Orange are a baronial castle within the province of Venaissin in CK2, which in the later years of the game also serves as the resident papal exclave, the Comtat Venaissin). These are lords who provided wives to the sons of great families, who counseled and fought for king and country, who sallied forth on crusade, who gave their sons to the holy church, among a host of lesser functions. Their feudal rights were not something to be disrespected without consequence, even by kings. Barons aren't nobodies - they're your neighbors. Without them, even with a larger map, the world itself will feel much smaller.

 

[Dr Gonzo]

I am pleased by the placement of baronies on the map, tremendously so. I stridently maintain, however, that the game would only benefit from granting them a greater degree of involvement in the game's events, rather than minimizing it. I'm less concerned about making them playable initially, which I would categorize as desirable but not essential, than I am about their role in filling out the game world. Baronies are not quite equivalent to actual barons in the conventional sense: baronies are holdings insufficiently large as to warrant being included as counties on the world map, but are not so insignificant that they can be excluded from the game entirely. Some baronies represent French counts of some wealth and privilege, and others German principalities of note (the sovereign princes of Orange are a baronial castle within the province of Venaissin in CK2, which in the later years of the game also serves as the resident papal exclave, the Comtat Venaissin). These are lords who provided wives to the sons of great families, who counseled and fought for king and country, who sallied forth on crusade, who gave their sons to the holy church, among a host of lesser functions. Their feudal rights were not something to be disrespected without consequence, even by kings. Barons aren't nobodies - they're your neighbors. Without them, even with a larger map, the world itself will feel much smaller.

Can't agree with this enough.

 

[Maphibo]

Obviously the step forward is baronies being represented in the map, adding a lot to army movement choices and not less important: immersion. Also it seems very interesting for me that unfortified holdings -cities and temples- will be automatically conquered if the fortified ones fall, so the placing of castle holdings -or fortifying the other types- is now a thing.


My concerns were raised by this statements by Henrik in the article https://www.usgamer.net/articles/paradox-answers-12-major-questions-about-crusader-kings-3

-"It's basically the same number of counties, but fewer holdings"
-"You don't have to pay much attention to these barons..." " We've tried to reduce their import”
“...there's no real negative consequence for revoking.”
-“The idea with barons ...is basically to be a refrigerator for interesting characters."

So, if I understand correctly, we will have LESS holdings per province (and adding new ones will be more limited), and the baron tier characters will be of LESS importance (politically speaking).

I only speak for myself, but adding baronies the “much requested feature by the fans” was more in the line of an extra layer of feudalism (emperor, king, duke, count, baron), even to the extreme of playable full-fledged baronies, not just placing them in the map. Don’t misunderstood me, I like them being in the map, but playable Barons now seems further than ever.

I wholeheartedly agree that this is a big letdown... CK3 was supposed to EXPAND gameplay, not reduce it. In fact, playable baronies in CK3 was almost a given for me.

 

[nick5436]

IDK Everything I've seen about CK3 so far has been worse than CK2 before it. It seems like Paradox is on a roll of half-baked and poorly-thought out games (HOI4, Stellaris, Imperator etc.) as well, which lowers my hopes even more.

 

[TinWiz]

I don't get the reasoning. It seems like Henrik is trying to dumb things down. In the dev diary he said they chose to go deep rather than wide, but then they made barons have less of an impact? I was hoping for playable and fully developed feudal barons.

 

[Dragatus]

I don't understand why people want playable barons. In my typical game if I started as a count I'd spent maybe 5%-10% of the game time at that tier before moving on to duke. Starting as a baron would only delay becoming emperor by a decade or so and I never care about vassals more than 1 tier below my own, which meant that for 95% of the time I paid absolutely no attention to barons and I am glad I'll get free revocations on them.

 

[Frank327]

I was really hoping that every character can only hold baronies in one county and that counts could have a bunch barons in other countries they hold. Basically more spreading of titles and influence, more meaningful characters. It would be a shame if baron level characters get less relevance.

 

[Leyrann]

I just want to remind people that Paradox has said that barons aren't playable because they feel like having vassals is a too important part of the game and that baronies therefore just don't feel good to play, but that it will be possible to mod baronies to be playable - just that people shouldn't expect a complete gameplay experience if they do so.

 

[Nelfe]

I just want to remind people that Paradox has said that barons aren't playable because they feel like having vassals is a too important part of the game and that baronies therefore just don't feel good to play, but that it will be possible to mod baronies to be playable - just that people shouldn't expect a complete gameplay experience if they do so.

Well, I've read somewhere else that they didn't make baron playables due to technical reasons as player's gameplay need vassal to work and baron can't have vassal.

 

[Krajzen]

What exactly are arguments for playable baronies? Unironic ignorant question. At least in ck2 context with holdings not even visible on map it seems they'd barely have anything to do. In ck3 they'd at least exist on the physical map.

 

[Torngasuk]

What exactly are arguments for playable baronies? Unironic ignorant question. At least in ck2 context with holdings not even visible on map it seems they'd barely have anything to do. In ck3 they'd at least exist on the physical map.

Verisimilitude: they're an important part of the game's world and period. Challenge: people love to try and make their way from the lowest rung to the highest seat (see the count-to-emperor phenomenon). Completion: they're the only landed, dynastic characters in the game who remain off-limits to players after the inclusion of Muslims, Byzantines, Republics, etc. I agree that their lack of map presence in CK2 would be a substantial handicap, but elevating them to provincial level in CK3 can be reasonably viewed as a natural progression toward ultimately making them playable in one degree or another.

 

[TinWiz]

What exactly are arguments for playable baronies? Unironic ignorant question. At least in ck2 context with holdings not even visible on map it seems they'd barely have anything to do. In ck3 they'd at least exist on the physical map.

More and deeper gameplay, greater immersion and a "believable world." If barons are not playable in CK3 because they are too boring, that just means it's boring, not that it's impossible to make fun. Isn't there supposed to be an expansion of the RPG aspect?

This is a new game, so new mechanics and design. A count typically has the main holding, and a baron or barons could have one or two other holdings/castles in the county. A baron could play loyal, and there should be enough events and mechanics that it's not a borefest. If there's no vassal management, then make lateral complexity more of an option. An ambitious baron would need to rely on some more intrigue, perhaps gain the support of another baron or the local bishop or town if they want to challenge the count for the title. A count could get other counts or the duke to support him, but maybe a cunning baron has already weakened the ties between them. etc. etc. And they could even make building and designing the castle itself fun. Ideally a player can choose the level of micromanagement: a baron may want to pay more meticulous detail to things that an emperor would delegate (automate) on a much broader scale.

Also, what about knights? Couldn't they be vassals for powerful barons?

 

[The Shacks]

Don't really get Paradox, barons are the major political players in many feudal kingdoms (*Cough* England *cough* No dukes till the end of the period *cough*). The whole 'aaah barons are irelevent you can now remove their titles with no fuss' Erm..... Ok, so I immagined all those historical rebelliosn where kings were toppled or nearly toppled beacuse they pissed off their barons a bit?

 

[Maphibo]

More and deeper gameplay, greater immersion and a "believable world." If barons are not playable in CK3 because they are too boring, that just means it's boring, not that it's impossible to make fun. Isn't there supposed to be an expansion of the RPG aspect?

This is a new game, so new mechanics and design. A count typically has the main holding, and a baron or barons could have one or two other holdings/castles in the county. A baron could play loyal, and there should be enough events and mechanics that it's not a borefest. If there's no vassal management, then make lateral complexity more of an option. An ambitious baron would need to rely on some more intrigue, perhaps gain the support of another baron or the local bishop or town if they want to challenge the count for the title. A count could get other counts or the duke to support him, but maybe a cunning baron has already weakened the ties between them. etc. etc. And they could even make building and designing the castle itself fun. Ideally a player can choose the level of micromanagement: a baron may want to pay more meticulous detail to things that an emperor would delegate (automate) on a much broader scale.

Also, what about knights? Couldn't they be vassals for powerful barons?

I might add: barons are much closer to commoners, so they'd have to be much more careful of peasant rebellions.