Per title. I think this is a great feature that adds to the historical immersion of the game, even if I don't use it often.
However, I've noticed that Tribal Confederations nearly always take the "Elevate Confederation" decision within only a decade or two of their formation.
In the dev diaries describing Confederations, they mentioned real-life Tribal Confederations like those of the Baltic. Such confederations often stayed disunited for centuries, without any real "king" governing them.
Put simply, Tribal Confederations should only rarely unite as Kingdoms, and should be much longer-lasting than Nomadic Confederations, which are prone to falling apart with the changing of the seasons. This would more accurately model real-life behavior of such entities and make the map look more interesting. Not every loose collection of circumstantial allies needs to unite into a giga-empire, and long-term Tribal Confederations would help ensure this doesn't happen for many far-flung, underdeveloped regions which historically took centuries to organize under central authority.
However, I've noticed that Tribal Confederations nearly always take the "Elevate Confederation" decision within only a decade or two of their formation.
In the dev diaries describing Confederations, they mentioned real-life Tribal Confederations like those of the Baltic. Such confederations often stayed disunited for centuries, without any real "king" governing them.
Put simply, Tribal Confederations should only rarely unite as Kingdoms, and should be much longer-lasting than Nomadic Confederations, which are prone to falling apart with the changing of the seasons. This would more accurately model real-life behavior of such entities and make the map look more interesting. Not every loose collection of circumstantial allies needs to unite into a giga-empire, and long-term Tribal Confederations would help ensure this doesn't happen for many far-flung, underdeveloped regions which historically took centuries to organize under central authority.
- 7
- 1