Collection of ideas for CK’s engine in a renaissance/baroque setting (1450 – 1700)

[Aethelred]

[ideas for a new game?] CK’s engine as a base for a renaissance/baroque setting?

Hello everyone! Being a student of history, I must say that – like ageod’s games - CK II is one of the most intriguing games that I’ve ever played. One reason that it is complex in a positive way - it gives you quite a lot of options that are hard to measure out because the world is unpredictable and the options are equivalent. This also provides for an interesting AI. Moreover, it’s the only game that makes a serious attempt to capture the workings and effects of premodern rule and governance. I really like the chaos of titles, „multi-vassals“, claimants and the overall depence of the player on other characters. In this respect I have to say that CK II makes better job than EU III which relies quite heavily on very abstract macro-factors (most importantly „stability“) and - from a historical perspective - gives the player by far too much power (full control over tax-levels, research, trade policy, national ideas, etc.). EU III also restricts diplomacy primarily to an anachronistical inter-national level while missing out the inter-personal and/or inter-dynastical level. In contrast to that, the borders between external and internal affairs are blurred in CK II, which is great!

As my main area of interest are not the middle ages but the premodern age from ca. 1450 to 1800, I was thinking about CKs II potential in such a setting, roughly from 1450 to 1700 (it’s getting more difficult past 1700). In fact I think that the workings of CK II fit quite well to this age, probably even better than they fit to the middle ages. Here I want to present some very sketchy ideas of what could/should be changed/added from the perspective of realism (i.e. not neccessarily game balancing) if CK IIs engine was transferred to the renaissance and baroque ages. Please consider that I don’t know how moddable this game is and that I don’t have any knowledge about modding myself. As a result, some of the ideas might be nothing but utopia. In fact, I think that my proposed ideas actually call for a different game or an add-on. But maybe some talented modder will pick up some parts or inspirations of it . I also apologize for my english – I’m not a native speaker.

I always give a very short introduction in what ways the mentioned aspects are meant to influence the game and why I consider them as important parts of premodern rule. I also try to make some concrete suggestions of how the aspects could be implemented, but the "idea" is more important for me in this topic than the concrete realisation.

POLITICAL HIERARCHIES (ESTATES)
COURT / YOUR HIGH NOBILITY
THE CONFESSIONAL DIVIDE
ARMIES
COLONIALISM
AMBASSADORS AND THE THEATRUM PRAECEDENTIAE (PRESTIGE)
ALLIANCES
THE OTTOMAN BORDER
(PARLIAMENTARISM)
(IMMERSION)
(VARIETY IN COURT STRUCTURES, SIMONY)
(YOUR COURTIERS' INFLUENCE ON YOUR DECISIONS? ADVISORY BODIES vs. PRIVATE SECRETARIES/ROYAL FAVOURITES)


POLITICAL HIERACHIES (ESTATES)

Very generally speaking, the late middle ages saw lords solidifying and intensifying their rule over conclosed territories, extending and fostering their jurisdictions, making formerly independent cities and nobles dependent („landsässig“). They were some attempts to stop the power-expansion of the territorial lords (prominently some knight-alliances/associations in Swabia), but the general tide was quite clear. Formerly independent lower nobles (knights) succumbed to the power of the territorial lord, acquiring positions and rewards at the lord’s court in return.

In CK II, independent cities and nobles on the sub-county-level hardly ever exist (at least according to my gaming-experience so far). 99% of the mayors/bishops/barons are vassals of their respective countys’ lord (also, there don’t seem to be any imperial cities (Reichsstädte) at all). So, actually, you can say that the process of creating conclosed territories is already finished in CK II. In this respect, the game fits well to the renaissance and later epoques, but not to the high middle ages.

However, even though the nobility, cities and clergy had to accept that they were now subordinate to a territorial lord, they were far from powerless. They united as the „estates“ (Landstände) of a county (to speak in CKs II terms), forming a political counterweight to the territorial lord. For example, in Autria’s case, the habsburg emperors, as archdukes of Austria, had to negotiate with the estates of lower Austria and upper Austria. Generally speaking, the territorial lord depended on the estates whenever he wanted to collect taxes (the „contributionale“) and/or wanted to recruit an army. Another prominent example showing the power of the estates is the outbreak of what would later be known as the 30 years war: it all started as the estates of Bohemia rebelled against their territorial lord.

I was very pleased to see that the current mechanics can represent the power-relations between lord and estates very well! It’s already in the game! Your taxes and your levies depend on your vassals’ opinion. But I’d create a new and very powerfull type of vassal/holding: the estates. Each county should have one holding of the "estates"-type, which should be very powerful in terms of tax and levy power, as estates don’t represent individual powers but rather the collective of nobles/cities/clergy within the county. However, for the same reason, one would need to adapt the diplomatic options (e.g. grant/revoke concessions of confession) and heritage mechanics for such an estates-holding/vassal. You certainly can't arrange marriages for estates and you can't invite them to court, etc. I guess one could just add some conditions to political options to have two diplomancy-gorups (estates-collective versus individual noble)? The rebellion or plotting of a county’s estates should be a very very dangerous situation for any lord, and also the religion of a countys’ estates should be quite important when it comes to the relalationship with their lord. What I’d also consider very important and realistic is to make levy- and tax-laws county-specific instead of realm-specific. Demanding taxes from your estates in times of peace should give you a big relation malus.

I would suggest to replace the "city"-holding-type with the "estates"-holding-type, which represents the collective of cities, nobles and clergy within the country and should thus be extremely powerfull in terms of tax and man-power. Every county should have exactly 1 such estates-holding, not more, not less. You should never be allowed to have a "estates"-holding as part of your demesne (by means of an extremely high "wrong holding type penalty?). All the other holdings in a county should be turned into "nobles", who represent the most influential and powerful nobles within the county (i.e.: I would drop bishops completetly). The more nobles, the more interesting the "court"-aspect of the game will be (see the following post). The nobles will present the most important lordships within the county. Of course, they should be connected to the estates in some way (see the chapter "Court" in the next post) because they formed part of the estates and their opinion would have been very important.

I've also thought of setting the estates at the "county"-level, but this is impossible as it would mean that the territorial lord would always have the estates-holding as part of his demesne, if I'm correct?

* sorry for the typo in Bohemia

 

[Aethelred]

COURT / YOUR HIGH NOBILITY

The court was a place of integration, a place where the mutually dependend high nobility and crown interacted. The crown needed the nobles as agents and arms/intermediaries of its rule: the nobility was its pool for recruiting all the agents that it needed in order to exercise and maintain power (diplomats, generals, councilors, financiers). In return, the nobles demanded prestige/rank and economical advantages/privileges, two types of rewards which were connected anyway. It is also important for me to stress that a king could not distribute titles and privileges without any consequences.

To put it in a nutshell, the court-mechanics should allow you to influence your relationships with individual members of the high nobility. Whereas your ressources in terms of taxes and manpower should primarily depend on your demesne (camerale) and your relationship with the estates of your territories (contributionale), the nobility will be of importance because 1. you'll have to recruit all your functionaries from it, and 2. estates and nobility should be connected. If you anger all your bohemian nobles at court (e.g. by always passing over them when distributing honorary titles), your relations with the bohemian estates in general will deteriorate as well, the bohemian nobles will probably leave your court, start plotting and finally revolt. Here are some ideas in what ways crown-nobility relationships could matter:

Effects of a positive relation
1. increases likelihood to give financial support (already sufficiently represented by the tax/levy modifier?)
2. makes the noble give his best in his service for the crown
3. will make the noble almost certainly attend your court
4. increases the relation with the noble's estates and confession-group (the exact effect depending on the nobles' prestige/influence)?

Effects of a negative relation
1. makes the noble less likely to give you financial support (see above)
2. will make the noble carry out his duties in a lackluster way
3. makes the noble likely to stay away from or leave your court; will be loyal to the estates instead, and might even become the courtier of a different lord
4. deteriorates the relation with the nobles' estates and confession-group (the exact effect depending on his prestige=influence?)?​

The "quality" of service could be modeled like this: a character’s natural ability-values can be modified positively or negatively. If he doesn’t like you very much, he won’t try very hard, and all his abilities will deteriorate in accordance with his opinion of you to a minimum um 50%. On the other hand, if he appreciates you and/or owes you something, he will try harder, thus increasing his abilities up to 150%.

When I think about ways how noble's opinions can be influenced, several factors come to my mind. I think that the „court“-aspect is best represented by the „honorary titles“- and the „precendece“-system:

How to improve relations
1. grant honorary titles (see „honorary titles“-system below)
2. grant functionary titles (chancellor, spymaster, ambassador, etc.)
3. send gifts (representing money, economical privileges)
4. fulfill ambitions (e.g. grant titles to a nobles’ son)
5. prefer him over other nobles (see „precedence-system" below)
6. have the same religion
7. have good relations with the nobles’ county estates and/or confession group(assuming that nobles also form certain local/confessional factions at court)

How relations can deteriorate
1. reject/ignore ambitions (especially if the noble bears functionary titles or has been your ambassador - a lesser additional penalty for bearers of honorary titles)
2. revoke functionary and/or heredariy titles
3. prefer other nobles (see "precedence-system" below)
4. decrease the prestige of a noble’s honorary title (see "honorary titles"-system below)
5. have a different religion
6. have bad relations with the nobles’ county estates/ confession-group​

Honorary titles-system

In a world crazy for prestige and recognition, titles played a very important role. Historically, honorary titles were often the prerequisite to being allowed to the privy chamber and thus gain personal access to a king (at least in the spanish ceremonial). So it was no wonder that every noble in the Habsburg monarchy tried to become chamberlain, which in turn made the number of chamberlains sky-rocket during the 17th century. Apart from honorary court-positions, you can also think of noble orders (order of the garter, order of the golden fleece, etc.). However, the effect of titles depended on their exclusiveness. In order to represent that in the game, I had the following idea:

There is a limited number of honorary titles available, just like it is in the game now. Each honorary title gives a predefined opinion-bonus, also as before. However, I suggest to make honorary titles splitable, if that is scriptable. So, for example, imagine that there is one „honorary title“-class of chamberlains with an opinion-bonus value of 40. You can now decide to have only one chamberlain who would then get the +40 opinion modifier, or you can designate 4 chamberlains, each of which would only get a +10 (40/4) opinion modifier.

Once split up, you shouldn’t be allowed to decrease the number of title-bearers very easily. It should probably come at the cost of a general opinion-malus across all your courtiers (except for those who already have and keep the respective title). There would be lots of courtiers waiting for a title who would surely be dissappointed if their chances to get a title decreased.

Likewise, a title-bearer won’t be very pleased to hear that he’s getting collegues. Everytime you split up a title, those who already bear the title should get a considerable opinion-malus, in accordance to the overall opinion-value of the respective title class. It won’t matter a lot if you have 5 or 6 chamberlains, but adding a second court-master will certainly upset the first one!

The number of titles should stay the same even if the ruler changes. There shouldn't be a reset of title-numbers with a new ruler, as the court structures and orders outlived monarchs. However, titles should not be inheritable by the children of their bearers.

Precedence-system

Admittedly, this one is a bit complicated, but, as I’ve said before, it’s just a collection of ideas and utopies. Whenever you grant a honorary or functional title to a courtier, the game should compare the courtiers prestige to the prestige of all your courtiers (or their dynasties?) without titles. Those un-titled courtiers who have a higher prestige than the recently nominated one should get an opinion-malus in accordance to the prestige-difference. You know, prestigious families and courtiers are not easily let down without consequences. Likewise, the nominated should get an additional opinion-bonus, equal to the prestige-difference to his most prestigious concurrent-courtier. He will certainly notice the risk that you’ve taken by nominating him, and therefore, he’s likely to fulfill his duties with more energy ( better service!).

In my eyes, this system captures the enviousness that predominates in a court-society very well. And it should create some prestigious families, a typical court-nobility, loyal to the crown, who manages to reserve all the highest functions to itself.

Court-attendance / Loyalty of your nobility

Last but not least, I also had the idea to make nobles either loyal to you or to their respective estates. The system is already in the game (bishops’ loyalty to their liege or the pope - we just change the name, and set a different person of reference, if that's possible? But I fear you would have to create a new religion group for each and every province...). My dream is to have only those nobles available to you as courtiers who are loyal to you. Other nobles (those who are more loyal to the estates) will stay in their manors (malus on attempts to imprison?) and keep away from the court as potential plotters. Notice that the realtionship with a noble can be improved by having a good relationship with the estates that he's part of (i.e. the estates of the county that his holding is in). In this way, you could try to establish a certain county from which to recruit most of your courtiers and functionaries, which was not uncommon.

I don't know what to do with nobles without any possession, as they won't even have any estates to belong to...

 

[Aethelred]

AMBASSADORS AND THE THEATRUM PRAECENDENTIAE
(this chapter certainly belongs to the realm of utopia…)

The renaissance saw the establishment of permanent ambassadors instead of ad-hoc-messengers. This new mode of diplomacy was first practiced by the Italian powers in order to preserve their fragile power-balance, but was soon copied by Castille and Aragon and other major powers. Any power worthy of mention had an ambassador in Rome and at the big courts of Europe. It is unnecessary to say that ambassadors were some of the most important actors on the inter-dynastical diplomatic stage, and that they directly corresponded (often in an encrypted way) with their kings about the scheming of hostile ambassadors, about useful courtiers, potential marriages, the physical constitution of important people, about their constant lack of money, about operas, about talented castrato-singers, chinchillas, unicorns and other wonderful objects for their lord's cabinet of wonder, etc. etc. As ambassadeurs plenipotentiaires, ambassadors were direct representatives of their king. Thus, they had to be of high rank and they had to show off their kings power. Usually, they had to raise the funds that were necessary for this task all by themselves, but in turn, they could reckon on being rewarded with high positions and the favour of the king once they returned.

In game terms, you should be allowed to create ambassador-positions for as many courts as you want, as long as you're a souvereign power or fighting for independence (Portugals ambassadors at the Westphalian Peace Congress really upset Spain!). However, I’d restrict ambassador-positions in two ways:

1. Ambassador-positions should cost quite a lot of money. The more prestigious the target-court/king is, the more an ambassador-position should cost per month. As the king of France, you don’t really want to have your ambassador walk on foot, without any servants, bare of any slush-money, whereas the Spanish ambassador is posing in his 6 horse-carriage, do you?

2. If you happen to be in debt (which should be very likely) or if your money somehow gets lost on its way to your ambassador, then your ambassador should be prosperous enough to keep the show running. Choosing poor nobles as your ambassadors should be a rather bad idea!​

In return for their high cost, ambassadors should play quite an important role. I can imagine a system like this:

Every sovereign has a diplomacy-pool of, let’s say, 100 points (directly translating into opinion-boni). He will distribute these points amongst all the ambassadors who are present at his court. The higher the skill of an ambassador, the higher his means (in terms of money/prestigious consumption) and the more prestigious/important his lord is (republics should get a big malus here!), the more points he will be able to claim for his liege – and, in turn, the less points other ambassadors will be able to claim for their lords. Each sovereign can also choose to favour one of the ambassadors at his court, giving him a slight bonus on his competition-skill.

If you conceptualize diplomacy as zero-sum-game, it becomes really competitive and interesting. It works a bit like the trade-center-system of EU III.Lesser powers will have to consider the expense and gains of embassages, as they will lack the prestige of greater powers and thus will not be able to claim as many diplomacy points and prestige.

Moreover, a high amount of ambassadors gives your court a very prestigious air. A sovereign should get a prestige-bonus for every ambassador present at his court. (He could also loose a bit money for every sovereign present).

Conflicts over rank and status between sovereigns were also part of the day-to-day-business of premodern ambassadors. The coming together of a number of ambassadors in a "european theatre" raised several issues because, in the eyes of the contemporaries, their relationships had to be considered and they had to be ranked. The nuntius usually held the uncontested first place and often acted as a mediator between quarreling ambassadors, second came the emperor, but from the third place downwards, things became very diffícult. Intellectuals spent their time writing "discorsos" over the rank of this or that power, bothering their heads over the aciety/seniority of christendom and other obscure indicators of rank and the ius praecendentiae in general. To us today it might sound ridiculous, but questions about seating plans, right of way for carriages, etc. were of such a great importance that they jeopardized peace congresses before they had even begun, and they could also result in downright street fights. In fact, the only way to get peace congresses working was often to have a mediator negotiate with all the ambassadors individually, so that the ambassadors didn't have to show off their monarchs rank in a general assembly, or to have ambassadors meet "incognito", without ceremonial at all. It’s hard to model any of these precedence-quarrels in a game. Here is what I came up with:

A sovereign gets a prestige-bonus from his ambassadors, depending on their rank at and the prestige (relevance) of their respective courts. For example, it doesn’t really matter if the spanish ambassador gets the better of your ambassador at the court of Neu-Braunschweig-Unterwolffenbüttel. But having your ambassador sitting on the left of the pope, while the Spanish ambassador grinses and sits on papa’s prestigious right hand side should make you angry! In order to foster the direct rivalties of rank a bit more, I’d spice up this system even further:

The ranking of the ambassadors (according to their competitive values) at the papal court is checked (protestant powers should probaböy take the most prestigious court that they have sent ambassadors to as the "relevant" court?). For example:
1. the imperial ambassador von Trautmannsdorf
2. ambassador del Rodriguez of Spain
3. ambassador du Bois of France
4. ambassador Boticelli of Venice
etc. etc.

This ranking will then set the standard for all the other “diplomatic” courts. If there is a discrepancy in the ranking, it will result in relationship-mali between the respective ambassadors’ sovereigns. Taking up the example from above: if the French ambassador in London manages to come up second, leaving the spanish ambassador on the third place, this should have negative consequences for the spanish-french relationship, and perhaps even slight negative consequences for the spanish-english relations (if the english sovereign doesn’t favor the spanish ambassador). Again, the effect should depend on the prestige of the respective court. At a royal court, a precedence conflict could even give you a casus belli if the pretender doesn't apologize (thereby loosing a big amount of prestige and acquiring a big competition-malus for the respective ambassador for several years). On the other hand, any souvereign should be asked whether he really wants to press his claim on a rank at a certain court. Otherwise it would be too easy to create a casus belli by appointing incompetent ambassadors to European courts while claiming a high diplomatic rank in Rome. If a souvereign refrains from pressing his rank, however, his ambassadors should be ranked behind his competitor with the corresponding negative effects on relationship-gain and a his souvereign should even get a prestige penalty from this ambassador, given that all the world can see that he's not strong enough to maintain his formal rank, i.e. his rank at the Curia. The prestige malus should refer to the prestige of the respective diplomatic court and the prestige of monarch who doesn't want to press his rank (the higher the total prestige, the higher the malus - a prestigious power has to keep up face!). There could also be a diplomatic option for a ceremonial truce. In this situation, the ambassadors of both sides should get a BIG competitive-malus, thereby decreasing their diplomatic ranks and their sovereigns’ prestige-gains, but therefore, ceremonial discrepancies should not result in a relationship-deterioration.

PRESTIGE

As you can see, gains of prestige play quite an important role in the diplomacy-system that I’ve thought up here. In order to make it really relevant, one would still need to make prestige more useful for sovereigns. Actually I think that prestige should be AT LEAST equally important as money because we're talking about a society of princes. Prestige shouldn't be just a measurement for a players' success in the game. Also notice that in this system, a high prestige gives you the chance to gain even more prestige, but it also puts pressure on your ambassadors to press your rank. If invested correctly, prestige helps you to gain prestige. Last but not least, having events such as peace congresses and imperial diets as temporary diplomatic courts at which ambassadors quarrel with each other and strain their lords purse would be great.

SUMMARY:

ambassadors competitive power:

+ prestige of his souvereign
+ natural diplomatic skill (modified by his opinion of his souvereign)
+ favoured by the sovereign of the diplomatic court
- lack of funds
- ceremonial truce with another power present at this diplomatic court
(if refraining from pressing a claim, an ambassador is automatically ranked behind the respective rival ambassador and will get a high prestige malus!)​

All ambassadors present at a diplomatic court are ranked according to their competitive power, and are alloted relationship-boni from the limited pool of the diplomatic courts' souvereign accordingly. An excellent ambassador will grab off a lot of the boni available and leave less for all the other ambassadors (zero-sum-game!).
Ambassadors give their souvereigns prestige boni in correspondance to their rank at, and the prestige of the diplomatic court that they're attending. If they're ordered not to press a rank, however, they bestow a prestige malus on their souvereign.
Dicrepancies between the ranking at the Curia and the ranking at other diplomatic courts can deteriorate relationships and even give a casus belli.
Every ambassador present at a souvereigns' diplomatic court gives the souvereign a prestige bonus.
Maintaining ambassadors at foreign diplomatic courts cost money. The more prestige the souvereign of the diplomatic court has, the more expensive it is to maintain an ambassador. (an option to lower the expenses in return for less competitive power would be a good idea)

(Louis XIV "accepting" the public apology of the spanish ambassador after the "Guerre de préséance". The Spanish had conquered the first place for their carriage in the welcome procession for the arriving Swedish ambassador in London, 1662. This precedence conflict between Spain and France left several injured and even some dead.)

 

[Orinsul]

Great Idea and well written. I always thought the only way to go outside of the period would be to presume an alternative history where the reainsaance grows into a second middle ages. But this all sounds pretty awesome though probably beyond the range of the mechanics, atleast without a terrible amount of work and struggle.

 

[3inar]

I dident read thru all of what you wrote but I am tired so probably tomorow. Still I do like the possibility of a mod continuating from the end date of the game time and continuing to 1700 but I wold like if it continued all the way to 1800. Some sort of power increas to the so kalled lone rulers(Emperors/Kings) past the 1700 date to simulate the overwhelming power(compaired to the vassals) of the Rulers in that time period.

 

[Aethelred]

Thank you for your answers. While writing, I also realised that I’m probably thinking of a different game rather than a mod. Hardly any of the ideas can be implemented via modding alone. But then I just see it as a gedankenexperiment. I’m having fun making up these game concepts, for which the CK II engine would be a great (and better than EU III) basis.

Indeed even CK II, which is supposed to be set in the high middle ages, makes the ruler a bit more powerful than an “absolutist” ruler 200 years later should be (the absolutism-paradigma, by the way, has practically been dropped by more recent historical research). In fact, what I’m trying to achieve is to make the absolutist rulers LESS powerful by implementing some aspects of premodern government and rule that are left out by practically all games (also EU III). Rulers needed to arrange themselves with the estates of their territories and with the nobility of their realms (court-aspect) in order to have people to execute their rule. For this, a character- and family-driven mechanic as well as a political sub-region level are absolutely necessary. CK II offers both. By making rulers less powerful, I’m not intending to give the players less options, but I’m trying to shift the focus of a players/sovereigns actions at another, more realistic (and also RPG-like) level, stressing personal relations and the blurred borders of external and internal affairs over the abstract and dictatoric nationstate-feeling that the EU III series usually gives me.

Extending the game to 1800 might be a bit complicated, for lots of things changed in the century of enlightenment. We would see the creation of more professional administrations (seperated from the courts/royal households), the formation of standing armies (a process already starting by about 1650), the importance of confessions tendentially declined, and in general, I'd say that the characteristics of rule changed quite a lot, from the shining baroque monarch who can't even think of passing on his power to humble bureaucrats and who can't be bothered with small details of governance, to the humble and rational first servant of the "state" who has fallen in love with over-administrating his subjects and maintaining an army of bureaucrats. I think that the maximum date one could go to is around 1750. Also the importance of precedence "slowly" declined throughout the 18th century, and the size of courts began to decrease after mid 18th century. The congress of Vienna 1814/1815 still saw some precedence issues, but they weren't by far as weigthy as, let's say, those at the Westphalian peace congress 1648.

 

[Orinsul]

the issue as i see it is, in CK2 the people who are important are the landed Upper Nobility, whereas in the eras covered by your purposal everything is in the hands of the minor nobility. Who arent represented in the game, and their tool of parliament could not be easily represented in the game.
I think it would work, but it would take so much work and effort that CK4 would probably be out before you were finished, or maybe im just looking at it from the wrong way.

 

[Aethelred]

This diagram summarises many of the hitherto suggested "aspects" so far, showing a monarchs tasks and aspects of his rule as territorial lord (material ressource-management), as souvereign (prestige-ressource-management), and head of the noble court-society (personell-management, so to speak). I agree with you and I'm fully aware that the whole system might be far too complex and impossibble to implement via a mod, and probably it's even too complex for a new game (but hey, if not paradox, who else? :laugh, but perhaps someone finds some inspiration in it. In return for a complex simulation of "inner" and "outer" affairs, technology, trade, region-improvements, and colonialism can be simplified a lot, if not even dropped completely, as these aspects were not under a tight control and not of a very high priority for monarchs in our time frame.

Here's an incomplete example of political hierarchies (in the game, they could be much simpler, with less nobles per county, and the clergy and cities abstracted into the "estates"-holding). As suggested in the diagram above, one could actually establish "governors" (as functionary titles) for every county, who will act as "intermediates" between the estates and the territorial lord/king. For example, you could be forced to consider religion, culture, and perhaps even his belonging (does he have his roots in the county he's supposed to govern?) of your governor, if you don't want to run the risk of a rebellion of the estates. I don't know if we need to differentiate between high and low aristocracy. In fact, I think that this differentiation is already presented by prestige. If you're ignoring the ambitions and title-aspirations of prestigious families, your relations with them should deteriorate (as described in "precedence"-system), they might leave your court and start plotting against you.