• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Will Steel

Centurion First-File
113 Badges
Oct 23, 2010
6.874
7.668
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron 4: Arms Against Tyranny
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Empire of Sin - Premium Edition
  • Empire of Sin
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Island Bound
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Prison Architect
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Surviving Mars
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • For The Glory
  • Pride of Nations
I hope the baronies/holding types would be convertible to other types, because otherwise it could make for a painful gameplay session. In CK2 AI was abysmal when it came to deciding how to efficiently build baronies and of which type.

It always grinds my gears in CK2 where I capture Rome only to find out that the stupid Pope already filled out all the holding slots with little bishoprics from all the free money he got from bishops, and I could never change that to rebuild Rome into a proper city because game limitation. Or when I wanted to build a castle somewhere, only for someone else with more cash to appear before me and build a city there. It affected everything from taxes to levies and the system of vassalage.

This is not how it worked in reality. People shouldn't have to resort to using workaround mods and editing save files to remove stupid AI holding placement.

So I hope we can convert barony types to what we want them to be. If I want to turn city of Bologna into a cathedral town, and turn the small fort of Corinth back into a large city and so on, I should be allowed to convert them provided I or my vassal owns them. :)

It can have many heavy costs, like converting a proper bishopric/parish into something else could cost piety and make priests dislike you for a long time. Turning your majestic castle into a town for burghers should cost prestige. Bringing down a city could add long term economic malus modifiers to an area. Everything would cost lots and lots gold, and it should scale with how developed a place is (so converting a newly built town would be much easier, while converting Constantinople into anything would take generations' worth of money).

...Assuming the game is using a similar system of holdings to the previous game, of course.
 
Last edited:
I agree with this. "Which type of holding should I build?" is one of the few things where the CK2 AI can actually screw up for the player. This shouldn't happen.
 
Are you saying the AI shouldn't be able to screw the player over? Why bother having an AI at all, then?
 
Are you saying the AI shouldn't be able to screw the player over?

I am saying that player should be able to spend things to fix the things AI screwed over with.
 
I am saying that player should be able to spend things to fix the things AI screwed over with.
It sounds terribly unrealistic to my eyes. One cannot "fix" everything, one have to live with what is given by the game. Player is supposed to be clever enough to do so. Quest for perfection sounds like a very boring path.
 
It sounds terribly unrealistic to my eyes. One cannot "fix" everything, one have to live with what is given by the game. Player is supposed to be clever enough to do so. Quest for perfection sounds like a very boring path.

So, here's a question, what is unrealistic about tearing down another religions temple or otherwise repurposing it for secular uses and as a basis for forming a city or castle? I can understand to a general degree as to the realistic difficulty of converting a city into either a temple or a castle, however little prevents a castle from being merely a government building within a larger city (as many were subsumed into being in real life, as towns around them expanded exponentially), and a temple could be readily converted into either given a reasonable budget and time, realistically speaking.
 
So, here's a question, what is unrealistic about tearing down another religions temple or otherwise repurposing it for secular uses and as a basis for forming a city or castle? I can understand to a general degree as to the realistic difficulty of converting a city into either a temple or a castle, however little prevents a castle from being merely a government building within a larger city (as many were subsumed into being in real life, as towns around them expanded exponentially), and a temple could be readily converted into either given a reasonable budget and time, realistically speaking.
Don't get me wrong here, I know that in reality holdings are very often a mix of city+something, sometimes even cathedralcity+city+castle in the same, but it isn't really how the game represents it. The disctinction is even clearer in with CK3 since the different holdings are physicaly spread on the map, I would have prefered it the other way (helping with repurposing) but it would less neat gameplay-wise.
 
My problem with this proposal is that while many of the holdings are, as @Arko mentions, a nebulous city+castle+cathedral blend, some of the holdings are more distinct in what they are supposed to symbolize. For a quick example that comes to mind: the Hagia Sophia holding in the county of Constantinople, which was definitively a "temple" and not a "castle" or "city". Then again, I suppose this is an argument more for breaking away from the arbitrary three type divide, especially with holdings being shown on maps (and thus the Hagia Sophia maybe not being protected by Constantinople's walls?!), rather than against repurposing holdings as a whole. Were holdings entirely the city+castle+cathedral blend, I'd agree fully that we ought to be able to shift a holding's focus.

Edit: And as @Will Steel notes at the end of his post: this is, of course, assuming CK3 uses the three type holding system from CK2!
 
Getting away from the castle-temple-city scheme would implicitly solve the issue.

Just have one holding type ("settlement") which is visualised differently on the map depending on which aspect (military, economic or religious) is dominant in the area.
Which aspect is developed depends on player/AI active investment (building fortifications instead of markets or a church) but also by "environmental factors" (e.g. being constantly raided or being on an active trade route would result in pretty different evolutions).
This opens up a lot of flexibility also for future expansions (i.e. not all cultures actually fit well in the scheme castle-city-temple) and eliminates the problem of having the "wrong holding type": if you have different priorities you have to simply invest to develop the neglected aspect of a settlement.
 
Getting away from the castle-temple-city scheme would implicitly solve the issue.

Just have one holding type ("settlement") which is visualised differently on the map depending on which aspect (military, economic or religious) is dominant in the area.
Which aspect is developed depends on player/AI active investment (building fortifications instead of markets or a church) but also by "environmental factors" (e.g. being constantly raided or being on an active trade route would result in pretty different evolutions).
This opens up a lot of flexibility also for future expansions (i.e. not all cultures actually fit well in the scheme castle-city-temple) and eliminates the problem of having the "wrong holding type": if you have different priorities you have to simply invest to develop the neglected aspect of a settlement.
Yeah, I think the real problem is that the holdings in CK2 kind of treat counties as single cities, which is... very weird, the more you think about it.
 
Yeah, I think the real problem is that the holdings in CK2 kind of treat counties as single cities, which is... very weird, the more you think about it.
Even more weird when CK3 will be splitting holdings out to be separate locations on the map. Hopefully this is addressed in CK3 so that we don't have holdings such as the Hagia Sophia be in a separate location from the city they were actually located in!
 
Even more weird when CK3 will be splitting holdings out to be separate locations on the map. Hopefully this is addressed in CK3 so that we don't have holdings such as the Hagia Sophia be in a separate location from the city they were actually located in!
Honestly the more I think about it the more I realize barony-level holdings don't make any goddamn sense in this series and it's probably best that they're not playable because it would require a ridiculous amount of work to make them make sense first.
 
Honestly the more I think about it the more I realize barony-level holdings don't make any goddamn sense in this series and it's probably best that they're not playable because it would require a ridiculous amount of work to make them make sense first.
I am not sure why they keep baronies for CK3, especialy since they are supposed to be so meaningless.