CK3's Feudal System Feels Too Rigid — It Could Take Notes from Japan's Upcoming Mechanics

[Drogan]

"CK3's Feudal System Feels Too Rigid — It Could Take Notes from Japan's Upcoming Mechanics"


After watching this excellent Kings and Generals video on how feudalism isn’t as clear-cut as games and popular media often portray it, I’ve been thinking a lot about how CK3 models feudal government.


Right now, CK3 treats feudalism as a mostly static, hereditary system: titles pass down generations, and the only major distinction is between feudal and clan. But real-world feudalism—especially in Europe—was far messier. Many lords were appointed or granted titles temporarily, based on loyalty or political convenience, not just birthright. There were layers of vassalage, revocable appointments, and overlapping loyalties, often shaped more by pragmatism than rigid law.


Ironically, CK3 seems to be acknowledging this complexity better with Japan, based on what we’ve seen from their dev diary a month or so ago. The inclusion of both appointed and hereditary vassals in that system feels like a step toward representing feudal governance more dynamically.


It makes me wonder: shouldn’t that flexibility apply to European-style feudalism too? I’m not saying the game needs to simulate every feudal contract, but adding mechanics that allow for more appointment-based vassalage—where rulers can grant land temporarily, replace unruly vassals more easily, or distinguish between noble dynasts and political appointees—would add both realism and strategic depth.


What do others think? Would a more nuanced feudal system make the game feel more authentic and engaging, or would it bog things down too much?

 

[vyshan]

That honestly should be the default everywhere. There were lots of places where you had both appointed lords and herditary lords and stuff in between. It would do better for the European feudalism, especially for the HRE where the nobility wants to make the HRE more hereditary to hold onto power and makes deals during the election to see who will support them and their families, while the emperor wants to keep power in their hands.

 

[giorgosth128]

Modular government is the answer I hope the devs give it to us

 

[Truenorth14]

Yeah honestly the Japanese system would honestly be amazing to represent the Carolingian feudalization

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Imagine if the devs went back to the drawing board for admin, so that its not designed around byz, but around any non feudal gov system, which slowly becomes feudal

 

[giorgosth128]

would be awsome. but i think it will only happen when the fedual system in general gets a rework.

 

[naq29]

"CK3's Feudal System Feels Too Rigid — It Could Take Notes from Japan's Upcoming Mechanics"


After watching this excellent Kings and Generals video on how feudalism isn’t as clear-cut as games and popular media often portray it, I’ve been thinking a lot about how CK3 models feudal government.


Right now, CK3 treats feudalism as a mostly static, hereditary system: titles pass down generations, and the only major distinction is between feudal and clan. But real-world feudalism—especially in Europe—was far messier. Many lords were appointed or granted titles temporarily, based on loyalty or political convenience, not just birthright. There were layers of vassalage, revocable appointments, and overlapping loyalties, often shaped more by pragmatism than rigid law.


Ironically, CK3 seems to be acknowledging this complexity better with Japan, based on what we’ve seen from their dev diary a month or so ago. The inclusion of both appointed and hereditary vassals in that system feels like a step toward representing feudal governance more dynamically.


It makes me wonder: shouldn’t that flexibility apply to European-style feudalism too? I’m not saying the game needs to simulate every feudal contract, but adding mechanics that allow for more appointment-based vassalage—where rulers can grant land temporarily, replace unruly vassals more easily, or distinguish between noble dynasts and political appointees—would add both realism and strategic depth.


What do others think? Would a more nuanced feudal system make the game feel more authentic and engaging, or would it bog things down too much?

how does it make the game feel more authentic though? Was there any struggle between appointed and hereditary vassals in Europe like in Japan?

In England, for example, appointed "vassals" were sheriffs, while hereditary vassals were barons. But sheriffs were often barons themselves. So in practice it was quite similar to CK3 administrative government.

In France, however, big appointed "vassals" had already become hereditary by the beginning of the game. The actual appointed "vassals" at that point were castellans, provosts, bailiffs, seneschals... who managed the king's personal domains, but they were mere stewards, middle managers, and nowhere near the power of the dukes and counts of France. The game omitted them and show the king manage his domain directly. Adding them now will not make the game that much different.

BTW, that Kings and Generals video is funny. The "What Everyone Gets Wrong About Feudalism" turns out to be actually "What Some Historians Gets Wrong About Feudalism", and most of the comments don't seem to have a clue about what the videos says.

 

[ChaosOnline]

BTW, that Kings and Generals video is funny. The "What Everyone Gets Wrong About Feudalism" turns out to be actually "What Some Historians Gets Wrong About Feudalism", and most of the comments don't seem to have a clue about what the videos says.

Yeah, while I like Kings and Generals, they can be a bit clickbaity when it comes to titles sometimes.

 

[Rémerod er Bannt]

On an intresting note related to this topic, did you guys ever take the latest Survey they made? In that survey they went through 4 possible expansions/DLC's for chapter 5 (most likely) Trade & Merchants, Feudalism & Crusades, Empires & Laws, Religion. While i think that what they do with Japan will be a building block for a more.. updated and possible moduler government form, i think if they do "Feudalism & Crusades" & "Empires & Laws" will get a more varid playable fuedal government.

While i did do the servey i dident take notes, but this post on the Survey thread summerizes what the survey went through;

So for anyone who can't view it right now (or who is looking back at this in the far future), the topics that are focused on (i.e., have their own question about what you would expect on the topic) in the survey are:

• Trade & Merchants
• Feudalism & Crusades
• Empires & Laws
• Religion

Edit: Have a little bit more time now, so here are the potential features that they asked about for each category of the survey:

• Trade & Merchants
  • Economic Diplomacy (embargoes, trade deals)
  • Landless Merchants gameplay
  • Merchant republics
  • Trade Routes
  • Land trade
  • Trade goods
  • Production Chains
  • Banking
  • Non-merchant Republics
  • Non-merchant trade (trading as a Feudal ruler)
  • Buildable infrastructure (markets, ports, trade posts)
  • Naval trade
• Feudalism & Crusades
  • Loyalty system
  • Vassal Directives
  • Temporary buildings during crusades
  • Crusade Situation (more roles and and actions)
  • Vassal management (marches, principalities, etc)
  • Feudal contracts and obligations
  • Council
  • Holy Orders
  • Peace negotiations
  • Alliance pacts
  • Edicts (e.g., liege decrees that taxes will be increased for the next 10 years)
  • Dread and Tyranny
  • Crusader States
  • More focus on playing as a vassal
  • Vassal stances (vassal agendas)
• Empires & Laws
  • Vassal integration and autonomy options
  • Imperial administration and bureaucracy
  • Legal reforms and codification
  • Religious and cultural freedoms
  • Empire-wide policy implementation
  • Council roles and decision-making powers
  • Customizable succession laws
  • Army laws and military reforms
• Religion
  • Religious councils and synods
  • Church hierarchy and influence
  • Interfaith relations and diplomacy
  • Religious Casus Belli and warfare
  • Heresy development and suppression
  • Monostatic orders and their roles
  • Religious building / Great Projects / artifacts
  • Pilgrimages and holy sites

While the survey more hint into adding stuff rather then possible changing stuff, i do belive that it will "take Notes from Japan's Upcoming Mechanics" and expand on it in a dlc for chapter 5, so i wouldent hold my hopes for chapter 4 in this regard. Just us maybe getting some proper law mechanics would be amazing for variation in governments.

so while I agree with many points of "CK3's Feudal System Feels Too Rigid — It Could Take Notes from Japan's Upcoming Mechanics" I do belive that the devs are already aware and already planning on more for the fuedal mechanics, but that's just my take, it's always good to make our wishes heard!

 

[DeanTheDull]

Before it takes note from Japan, I'd like to see if Japan actually plays fun.

As it was initially described, a lot of Japan sounded, well, potentially boring. Or rather- the administrative-count system could be the sort of thing that is very unfun to play as a player. Being a single-county count is both militarily and economically constrained in doing, well, stuff. Being a count who can't conquer and form your own duchy- since title creation is locked in administrative- is even more not-fun, since it limits the vassal game (and the privileges of rank). At the same time, being the ruler of tons of micro-vassals is the sort of thing that can be tediously bothersome (if it's a lot of micro-management) or tediously trivially (if management of the group can be done easily- such as via dread). A common critique of early CK3 development was there wasn't much to do outside of war, and the Japanese administrative minor-vassal system is, well, built around them not going to war. But, as micro-vassals, they also probably lack the econ for much else.

There is also the question of what the point of the mixing is supposed to be, from a gameplay / campaign perspective.

The Japan gameplay loop is- if you aren't at the top / able to dominate administrative appointments- is to escape from administrative, become feudal so that you can become a duke, build a feudal power base, and take over. When you are on top, however, the gameplay loop is the inverse- to week out / force reversion of all the feudals back into administrative counts and such. This is because the advantage comes from lots of weak counts / administrative vassals, and with minimal / no real reason to deal with the feudal complications.

The issue is that if you bring the ability to mix between feudal and administrative to most realms, then that dynamic also becomes the issue for most realms. Every campaign becomes either a series of efforts to defang/revoke/force your feudal vassals into non-feudal- and thus leaning into domestic tyranny / dread / civil war cycles. CK2's vice royalty system comes as an example failure point, as once you had vice royalties, you had- maybe- a generation of difficulty in forcing vassals into the appointment state, after which they were never a meaningful challenge to yourself or their intermediaries.

Or- worse- you can just ignore it all entirely.

I'm not saying it can't be done enjoyably. Maybe something like the HRE could do a system where you can't have all one admin, but select free cities or such for a small number of dependent admin vassals who you get limited ability to wage war internally to protect. But it could also be done poorly, especially if everyone can be forced in administrative subjugation, and it's not clear yet if Japan is actually the example we want to take after.

 

[LAF1994]

In France, however, big appointed "vassals" had already become hereditary by the beginning of the game. The actual appointed "vassals" at that point were castellans, provosts, bailiffs, seneschals... who managed the king's personal domains, but they were mere stewards, middle managers, and nowhere near the power of the dukes and counts of France. The game omitted them and show the king manage his domain directly. Adding them now will not make the game that much different.

Was that already true in 867 though? By 1066 the system of very autonomous hereditary dukes and counts was well established, but I think said establishment happened during the early part of CK3's time period as power became progressively more decentralised.

 

[rboetto]

I will play Devil's advocate here: The fantasy matters more than the historicity.

CK3 is more of a role-playing game than a simulator, and as such leans heavily on feudalism as it occurs in popular culture. From a design perspective, "familiar" constructs hold greater value than medieval esoterica.

As a westerner, I am not as familiar with pop culture regarding Japanese feudalism -- I couldn't name more than 1 or 2 differences, mostly in naming conventions and an extremely simplified understanding of the shogunate. But that lack of familiarity lends itself to more design space.

 

[Citizen Caen]

In France, however, big appointed "vassals" had already become hereditary by the beginning of the game. The actual appointed "vassals" at that point were castellans, provosts, bailiffs, seneschals... who managed the king's personal domains, but they were mere stewards, middle managers, and nowhere near the power of the dukes and counts of France. The game omitted them and show the king manage his domain directly. Adding them now will not make the game that much different.

No, what you are saying here really only applies in the 10th and 11th centuries. The French monarchy mostly lost its power with the fall of the Carolingians. A series of ineffectual rulers allowed the remaining royal power to collapse and the local nobility stepped in to fill the vacuum making their positions hereditary. Robertines inherited a mess, and their weak position is what allowed the near anarchic state of the 900s to occur. (Much to the shock of commentators in the HRE by the way, which under the Ottonians was recentralizing authority under the Emperor.)
This is the period that Crusader Kings bases its feudalism on. With its counts and dukes waging private wars of conquest within a Kingdom’s borders.

However this situation began to change in the 1100s and culminated in the 1200s with Phillip Augustus, who dramatically increased Royal power, expanding the Royal Domains to include Normandy, Maine, Anjou, Touraine, Artois, and parts of Poitou and Langdoc. These were administered by royally appointed Bailiffs and Seneschals. As you say they were relatively weak at first, but overtime power once again accumulated and jurisdictions expanded. By the 1300s Bailiff's power had expanded considerably, they were the chief representative of the King in a province and were administering justice, supervising the collection of taxes, raising and leading armies, and managing royal lands. Basically the exact description of CK’s Administrative governors.

This is made even more complicated because sometimes the king was appointing family members or favorites to these positions and granting them extraordinary powers in the process. For example John, Duke of Berry was granted the role of Lieutenant-Governor for Languadoc, Normandy, and Poitou. These were not his property, though he administered them as though they were during the regency of his nephew. Charles VI. When Charles came of age, he overcame his uncles’ regency and revoked them of their governorships. But in a moment of weakness his Uncles reasserted their influence including retaking those governorships, which they ruled until their deaths.

So all’s that to say I’m of the opinion that administrative and feudal governments should not be seperate systems, but should be able to be mixed. Which I’ve best seen illustrated with the new Japan features.

 

[Citizen Caen]

Before it takes note from Japan, I'd like to see if Japan actually plays fun.

As it was initially described, a lot of Japan sounded, well, potentially boring. Or rather- the administrative-count system could be the sort of thing that is very unfun to play as a player. Being a single-county count is both militarily and economically constrained in doing, well, stuff. Being a count who can't conquer and form your own duchy- since title creation is locked in administrative- is even more not-fun, since it limits the vassal game (and the privileges of rank). At the same time, being the ruler of tons of micro-vassals is the sort of thing that can be tediously bothersome (if it's a lot of micro-management) or tediously trivially (if management of the group can be done easily- such as via dread). A common critique of early CK3 development was there wasn't much to do outside of war, and the Japanese administrative minor-vassal system is, well, built around them not going to war. But, as micro-vassals, they also probably lack the econ for much else.

There is also the question of what the point of the mixing is supposed to be, from a gameplay / campaign perspective.

The Japan gameplay loop is- if you aren't at the top / able to dominate administrative appointments- is to escape from administrative, become feudal so that you can become a duke, build a feudal power base, and take over. When you are on top, however, the gameplay loop is the inverse- to week out / force reversion of all the feudals back into administrative counts and such. This is because the advantage comes from lots of weak counts / administrative vassals, and with minimal / no real reason to deal with the feudal complications.

The issue is that if you bring the ability to mix between feudal and administrative to most realms, then that dynamic also becomes the issue for most realms. Every campaign becomes either a series of efforts to defang/revoke/force your feudal vassals into non-feudal- and thus leaning into domestic tyranny / dread / civil war cycles. CK2's vice royalty system comes as an example failure point, as once you had vice royalties, you had- maybe- a generation of difficulty in forcing vassals into the appointment state, after which they were never a meaningful challenge to yourself or their intermediaries.

Or- worse- you can just ignore it all entirely.

I'm not saying it can't be done enjoyably. Maybe something like the HRE could do a system where you can't have all one admin, but select free cities or such for a small number of dependent admin vassals who you get limited ability to wage war internally to protect. But it could also be done poorly, especially if everyone can be forced in administrative subjugation, and it's not clear yet if Japan is actually the example we want to take after.

I see your point. But Remember as a Japanese Ritsuryo, the main gameplay pattern is not immediately trying to become feudal, it’s about expanding your house bloc. Cultivating political alliances with fellow clans to join your bloc, and helping them get appointments in governorships to increase your combined power. As Kampaku you won’t be dealing with 60 tiny vassals, you’ll be dealing with 2 or 3 rival house blocs, that all want to coup you and usurp the regency for their side.

We shall see how it plays in practice but I like what I’ve seen.
And this kind of system would have very similar western analogues the devs could use as inspiration to rework the faction system.

 

[Rémerod er Bannt]

Hopefully with what they plan for chapter 5 will see more modular governments. Where Feudal can incorporate elements from admin(/other governments) and vice-versa through system such as a new law mechanic and maybe a slightly reworked tech-tree. Maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part. I am starting to think we are getting to many governments now, it would make more sense to build systems that makes the current governments more modular and help showcase diversity through regions, cultures and ages that way.

While i think the new japanese government system seems very intresting for that area. I do honestly think a 1:1 copy of that system to europe would not fit well. Europe needs some hands on love from the devs, which i personally think it'll get in chapter 5, just getting a rework on economy and trade (with Merchant republics) is gonna be huge, (which the survey hints to, but the devs have publiclly stated is most likely comming after chapter 4) and i dont think they'll stop there for the game-development for the european part of the game next year (and while i think europe is gonna get more love, of course stuff that improves europe and work well for other areas is also gonna get updates).

 

[LAF1994]

While i think the new japanese government system seems very intresting for that area. I do honestly think a 1:1 copy of that system to europe would not fit well. Europe needs some hands on love from the devs, which i personally think it'll get in chapter 5, just getting a rework on economy and trade (with Merchant republics) is gonna be huge, (which the survey hints to, but the devs have publiclly stated is most likely comming after chapter 4) and i dont think they'll stop there for the game-development for the european part of the game next year (and while i think europe is gonna get more love, of course stuff that improves europe and work well for other areas is also gonna get updates).

Frankly, with the addition of East Asia in particular, CK3 seems to be developing a problem of being a kilometer wide and a centimeter deep. The expansion of the map scope means that it becomes harder for individual areas to be better modelled.

 

[MummyMonk]

...a problem of being a kilometer wide and a centimeter deep.

'A problem of being a mile (or a furlong) wide and an inch (or a barleycorn) deep', might I correct you – we are hardened roleplayers here, after all!