Could The Estate System Be Used To "Replace" The Holding and Building Systems?

[InsidiousMage]

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. . .

• 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

Just some random thought I had and am curious what other people think.

 

[Silens]

Yes, it could. I posted this mockup before, but it shows how I imagine a future holding could look like, based on the estate/camp system. So I'll repost it here:

I would start by having all holdings be settlements. Period. They would vary in size, bigger ones with more slots, smaller ones with less slots, but a settlements is where people live and that's it.

If you choose to fortify a settlement, that would decrease the growth cap of the settlement. Less room for fancy buildings and for sprawl, when you make a huge fortress. And vice versa; the bare minimum - walls and barracks - would allow for a good sized city. Places like Constantinople would be the exception.

Your court priest would have an expectation on how many settlements he manages as part of his job, so for each county title you hold, he'd expect at least one holding for himself. Those settlements he'd build up to become centers of faith, i.e. with nice churches, monasteries, hospices etc.

I hope that we'll see more changes to holdings with the introduction of trade. At least that carries the promise that we'll get some economic rework.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I hope that we'll see more changes to holdings with the introduction of trade. At least that carries the promise that we'll get some economic rework.

These are some interesting ideas. I like how you specifically have slots for special buildings. Sadly though, I think the fact estates are a DLC feature is probably the biggest obstacle to this happening since the devs seem dead set against adding anything from a DLC to the base game. Like the clash CB from Fate of Iberia would be a great addition to the base game in some limited use but its still locked to the DLC and to Iberia specifically.

 

[Silens]

These are some interesting ideas. I like how you specifically have slots for special buildings. Sadly though, I think the fact estates are a DLC feature is probably the biggest obstacle to this happening since the devs seem dead set against adding anything from a DLC to the base game. Like the clash CB from Fate of Iberia would be a great addition to the base game in some limited use but its still locked to the DLC and to Iberia specifically.

Estates are DLC, but the estate/camp mechanic isn't. The technical framework is available to all as part of the base game. What they made exclusive, that's the admin gov and landless adventurers.

People are completely free to add estates to feudal/clan and use them.

 

[InsidiousMage]

Estates are DLC, but the estate/camp mechanic isn't. The technical framework is available to all as part of the base game. What they made exclusive, that's the admin gov and landless adventurers.

Sure, but available for modding, and the devs actually using them in the base game are different things. Its the same with activities, you can add more intents through modding but all intents are blocked in the base game itself unless you have a mod or DLC.

 

[Silens]

Sure, but available for modding, and the devs actually using them in the base game are different things. Its the same with activities, you can add more intents through modding but all intents are blocked in the base game itself unless you have a mod or DLC.

We have vastly different definitions then of what constitutes "blocked".

Blocked, for me, means inaccessible without paying money. Like specific music tracks that come with the DLCs, or clothing. But the music player, the wardrobe, that's available for everyone for free. The mechanical framework is not blocked, specific content for that framework is.

With regards to estates, they are not blocked. The gov types that include them are. And now they are using the estate/camp UI in Khans of the Steppe. It means they do use the framework in future content updates, even you consider it "blocked" by RoPo.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

With partition succession, each heir would receive a copy of their parent's estate

This one sticks out like a sore thumb. So with this idea how is partition worse than primo?

 

[InsidiousMage]

This one sticks out like a sore thumb. So with this idea how is partition worse than primo?

Because your siblings would get a their own estate so they don't end up with a single county trying to rule an entire kingdom with no gold and no troops allowing me to just march in and retake the kingdom with no effort. Or, if they end up as a vassal they now have the resources to try and take your throne if they want to. The point is to give your siblings resources to challenge you instead of being able to undermine them before they even inherit a single claim.

 

[InsidiousMage]

We have vastly different definitions then of what constitutes "blocked".

I mean, I said they've never made new stuff like intents or estates available to the player with just the base game, you need something else whether that means a mod or DLC. Could they make estates to all rulers in the base game? Sure. Will they? seems unlikely given nothing else from a DLC has been made available simply with the base game and nothing else, which I what I was referring to.

 

[Citizen Caen]

This one sticks out like a sore thumb. So with this idea how is partition worse than primo?

IMO its kind of bad game design, just how bad partition is. The ai will never be able to handle succession like a player can, which is part of why they are so woefully weak. They can never accumulate power (domain) across generations, because its always lost upon succession. Would be nice if they had some kind of base they could reliably draw from.

If rulers got a little more of their power from a stable source such as an estate rather than entirely the number of counties, that would be a good thing IMO. losing domain would still be bad, but not crippling.

 

[47pik]

I think of his kind of change is inevitable. Writing is on the wall, the only question is when and what it’ll look like. I hope it’s this year, but I could see it coming next year as part of the economic overhaul that is sure to accompany trade/merchants/republics.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I think of his kind of change is inevitable. Writing is on the wall, the only question is when and what it’ll look like. I hope it’s this year, but I could see it coming next year as part of the economic overhaul that is sure to accompany trade/merchants/republics.

I do hope the devs follow the example of Project Tinto and take in feedback early enough so that they can actually implement it. We'll see how it works with AUH but I'm guessing four to six months isn't going to be long enough for the devs to make use of all the feed back they get.

 

[vyshan]

Yes, it could. I posted this mockup before, but it shows how I imagine a future holding could look like, based on the estate/camp system. So I'll repost it here:

View attachment 1277644

I would start by having all holdings be settlements. Period. They would vary in size, bigger ones with more slots, smaller ones with less slots, but a settlements is where people live and that's it.

If you choose to fortify a settlement, that would decrease the growth cap of the settlement. Less room for fancy buildings and for sprawl, when you make a huge fortress. And vice versa; the bare minimum - walls and barracks - would allow for a good sized city. Places like Constantinople would be the exception.

Your court priest would have an expectation on how many settlements he manages as part of his job, so for each county title you hold, he'd expect at least one holding for himself. Those settlements he'd build up to become centers of faith, i.e. with nice churches, monasteries, hospices etc.

I hope that we'll see more changes to holdings with the introduction of trade. At least that carries the promise that we'll get some economic rework.

I really like that mock up.

One thing that the various estates also do IMO that while minor I do think is a good thing is that the art is just immersive in the era. the art style just feels much more immersive.

 

[Davisx3m]

Yes, it could. I posted this mockup before, but it shows how I imagine a future holding could look like, based on the estate/camp system. So I'll repost it here:

View attachment 1277644

I would start by having all holdings be settlements. Period. They would vary in size, bigger ones with more slots, smaller ones with less slots, but a settlements is where people live and that's it.

If you choose to fortify a settlement, that would decrease the growth cap of the settlement. Less room for fancy buildings and for sprawl, when you make a huge fortress. And vice versa; the bare minimum - walls and barracks - would allow for a good sized city. Places like Constantinople would be the exception.

Your court priest would have an expectation on how many settlements he manages as part of his job, so for each county title you hold, he'd expect at least one holding for himself. Those settlements he'd build up to become centers of faith, i.e. with nice churches, monasteries, hospices etc.

I hope that we'll see more changes to holdings with the introduction of trade. At least that carries the promise that we'll get some economic rework.

Omg! Yes I want this so badly! Have you made a post in the suggestion forum about it?

 

[Silens]

Omg! Yes I want this so badly! Have you made a post in the suggestion forum about it?

No, but I posted it last year in a DevDiary thread, so by now I assume that a number of devs has already seen it.

While I don't expect a 1:1 implementation (for that the idea is still too rough), I do hope that they like the estate system they created enough, to consider doing more with it in the future. So the mockup is more of an inspiration thing than a specific and well thought out suggestion. That often works better with creative jobs, than to tell them what to do.

Good news is, now that the Mongols do actually use this UI for all of their nomad holdings, it tells me that the journey is going exactly there. You can see that the old holding screen takes an absolute backseat in the new DLC:

I'm rather pleased with the direction. The holding system, together with the army management/manpower system, are the two major mechanics that I want to see remade entirely. Trade, republic gameplay, and the lack of the rest of the map, those were the other three, but the writing is on the wall for those.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

One thing that the various estates also do IMO that while minor I do think is a good thing is that the art is just immersive in the era. the art style just feels much more immersive.

I think that might have to do with holding artworks existing in a buttoned-up minimalist UI while the estate screen is bigger and has more elaborate border art. A framing issue, one could say.

 

[ray243]

Yes, it could. I posted this mockup before, but it shows how I imagine a future holding could look like, based on the estate/camp system. So I'll repost it here:

View attachment 1277644

I would start by having all holdings be settlements. Period. They would vary in size, bigger ones with more slots, smaller ones with less slots, but a settlements is where people live and that's it.

If you choose to fortify a settlement, that would decrease the growth cap of the settlement. Less room for fancy buildings and for sprawl, when you make a huge fortress. And vice versa; the bare minimum - walls and barracks - would allow for a good sized city. Places like Constantinople would be the exception.

Your court priest would have an expectation on how many settlements he manages as part of his job, so for each county title you hold, he'd expect at least one holding for himself. Those settlements he'd build up to become centers of faith, i.e. with nice churches, monasteries, hospices etc.

I hope that we'll see more changes to holdings with the introduction of trade. At least that carries the promise that we'll get some economic rework.

My issue is Constantinople itself isn't owned by just the one owner. Instead, it's a city with different parts of the city being owned by different people. The Hagia Sophia as owned by the Patriarch, the senate owned by the senate collectively, your eparch being in charge of running the city...

Not to mention all the private houses and manors in the city owned by all your noble families as well. How would you represent all the houses and manors in a capital county owned by different noble families?

 

[Silens]

My issue is Constantinople itself isn't owned by just the one owner. Instead, it's a city with different parts of the city being owned by different people. The Hagia Sophia as owned by the Patriarch, the senate owned by the senate collectively, your eparch being in charge of running the city...

Not to mention all the private houses and manors in the city owned by all your noble families as well. How would you represent all the houses and manors in a capital county owned by different noble families?

If I was confident that it wouldn't impact performance too much, I'd actually favor a system of building ownership similar to Vic3. The land (or holding in CK3 terms) is the vessel, and it is filled with buildings belonging to a different set of owners.

The family manors wouldn't be a problem. Similar to how in Stellaris you have different tabs for i.e. MegaCorps owning something, you could have different tabs for estates as well. You know, how it currently is, where the estate is part of a location, without appearing in your holding overview.

 

[ray243]

If I was confident that it wouldn't impact performance too much, I'd actually favor a system of building ownership similar to Vic3. The land (or holding in CK3 terms) is the vessel, and it is filled with buildings belonging to a different set of owners.

The family manors wouldn't be a problem. Similar to how in Stellaris you have different tabs for i.e. MegaCorps owning something, you could have different tabs for estates as well. You know, how it currently is, where the estate is part of a location, without appearing in your holding overview.

I think I like the idea of estates being connected to available spaces on a map. An estate isn't made up of just one piece of house/manor but you expand and acquire different properties all over the map. Byzantine elites often owns lands at different parts of the empire after all.

Then elites fight over each other to buy land from each other or emperor grant land to new nobles from imperial lands or confiscated estates of out of favour nobles.

 

[Silens]

I think I like the idea of estates being connected to available spaces on a map. An estate isn't made up of just one piece of house/manor but you expand and acquire different properties all over the map. Byzantine elites often owns lands at different parts of the empire after all.

Then elites fight over each other to buy land from each other or emperor grant land to new nobles from imperial lands or confiscated estates of out of favour nobles.

I also like it, but realistically speaking, we won't have anything anywhere as deep as Vic3. I'd be pretty happy if we ever get to the economic/management depth of Stellaris, which would mean separate tabs with their own buildings.