Just kind of a random thought but, could it? The building and holding system feels like it belongs to a version of the game doesn't really exist anymore and, honestly, feels less fun to interact with than estates are. I like that estates have more variety, in both buildings and upgrade paths, than holdings currently do. They also feel personable (probably not the right word) in a way that the current holding system doesn't. Like, the variety makes it feel like its connected to what I want to do in the game rather than the current "applicable military buildings, applicable economics buildings" the current holding and building system has.
Some thought on how the system could work. . .
Some thought on how the system could work. . .
- Holdings wouldn't go away but would offer different benefits
- The county capital would have a few slots for special buildings and a duchy building, if applicable
- Castles would still need to be sieged and provide some minor, generic levy and MAA bonuses
- Cities boost your economy, maybe as a percentage modifier or maybe a small amount of gold per turn
- Probably get rid of temples but maybe the could provide a small boost to prestige, piety, and renown
- Maybe allow for the construction of a family mausoleum
- Holding benefits should probably scale with eras
- Domain limits would be strictly tied to innovations and title rank, with no increase from stewardship
- With partition succession, each heir would receive a copy of their parent's estate
- The estate system would need to be expanded to add more building slots and upgrade paths and to deal with the lack of gold from buildings
- Tie some estate buildings to specific traditions, like Caravaneers
- The estate exists wherever a ruler's capital is
- Damaged if a ruler loses their capital in a war
- Destroyed if unlanded
- 16
- 2
- 2
- 2