I think so long as CK3 focus on the matter of characters with estates to manage, and you have go manage those characters, that is all you need in the end.
Character and land/manpower should be the key foundation of CK games.
- 3
-
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.
I think so long as CK3 focus on the matter of characters with estates to manage, and you have go manage those characters, that is all you need in the end.
Character and land/manpower should be the key foundation of CK games.
It’s funny, you guys (@Silens @ray243) are talking about ideas I have also been mulling around in my head independently. Great minds think alike and all that
My general idea was that a rulers capital should be their personal estate with the coinciding RTP building system.
To prevent bloat Any additional baronies would not provide more estates with the assumption that while owned by the lord, would be in reality managed by a bailiff or castellan. (Perhaps these could be given to courtiers to provide them a concrete place to originate from and give them income).
In my wildest dreams I’d prefer if barons were the lowest form of playable feudal title which then had a number of estates under it as vassals depending on terrain type and population. But I recognize that paradox has made the conscious decision to not do this.
(which as an aside, it’s funny they said they didn’t want to make playable baronies because it would add another title level for no reason, but now they are adding Hegemonies as another title level on the other end)
But if they did do the above I think it would much better integrate the feudal, landless, and administrative systems into an overall cohesive simulation. A man can dream
My general idea was that a rulers capital should be their personal estate with the coinciding RTP building system.
To prevent bloat Any additional baronies would not provide more estates with the assumption that while owned by the lord, would be in reality managed by a bailiff or castellan. (Perhaps these could be given to courtiers to provide them a concrete place to originate from and give them income).
In my wildest dreams I’d prefer if barons were the lowest form of playable feudal title which then had a number of estates under it as vassals depending on terrain type and population. But I recognize that paradox has made the conscious decision to not do this.
(which as an aside, it’s funny they said they didn’t want to make playable baronies because it would add another title level for no reason, but now they are adding Hegemonies as another title level on the other end)
But if they did do the above I think it would much better integrate the feudal, landless, and administrative systems into an overall cohesive simulation. A man can dream
- 6
This is exactly what I imagined as soon as I saw the estates. Finally can get over the weirdness of places that are known for having big towns, big towns, and big temples without having to just ignore it, cram in a special building, or create micro baronies. I really hope this gets done.
- 3
Hmm while it would certainly be interesting from a design perspective to swap over to estates completely with holdings just being settlements. I do not think that the nomadic example is really a good indication that this is what the future of CK3 holds. Since the nomads are supposed to be almost landless, just with land, the holdings they have are supposed to not really be the main attraction since they are moving around all the time.
I think it is less so that the journey is heading there, and moreso that coincidentally we are currently doing nomads. and there isn't really another way to keep progress while moving to different holdings all the time except by using the estate system. So it is a natural fit.
- 1
This is why I think the two main resources are either land or manpower.
I actually miss both things here from CK1
As you constructed buildings, they appeared and I also like how you see the loyalty, etc from the peasantry, burghers, priests and nobles. People just don't exist the same way in CK3.
As you constructed buildings, they appeared and I also like how you see the loyalty, etc from the peasantry, burghers, priests and nobles. People just don't exist the same way in CK3.
- 9
- 1
I would really like if the barony building system became more like the domicile system. I think the current Duchy Building/Special Building system is really limiting. I really enjoy that mock up of Constantinople up above. Cities such as Constantinople, Baghdad, Rome, Paris, etc should be a bigger deal for how you manage them compared to how it is now. Hopefully now that domiciles will be tied to titles and not characters in the upcoming expansion at least modders will be able to use the domicile system as a CK2 wonder system.
- 3
Possibly, but domiciles have a serious problem in that they can get destroyed permanently. In all seriousness if domiciles, or rather estate domiciles, should not be destroyable because there are plenty of palaces, manors etc in Byzantine Empire that changed hands, transferred from one family to other through inheritance or sale or other ways.
Kalamanos family for example held Botaneiates palace, very likely inherited through a female ancestor, the palace was later owned by, if I recall, Venetians.
As for the current holding system, I find it really absurd considering we already have a government system. Government should impact what kind of buildings you may build or how much you benefit from buildings common to all but barony itself should not be a say, giant church building.
Kalamanos family for example held Botaneiates palace, very likely inherited through a female ancestor, the palace was later owned by, if I recall, Venetians.
As for the current holding system, I find it really absurd considering we already have a government system. Government should impact what kind of buildings you may build or how much you benefit from buildings common to all but barony itself should not be a say, giant church building.
Last edited:
- 4
- 2
I would love for something like that to happen and if any devs are seeing this please respond if this will be posible
- 2
I like this idea.
Since estates can be anywhere, not just inside the owner's domain, this can model something like the English feudalism, where each noble owned multiple estates across the kingdom (unlike the current system where you can't even own baronies in others' counties).
Since estates can be anywhere, not just inside the owner's domain, this can model something like the English feudalism, where each noble owned multiple estates across the kingdom (unlike the current system where you can't even own baronies in others' counties).
- 1
England does need administrative at least before conquest, why it didn’t get it, I don’t know. As for nobles having multiple estates, it’s true for both before and after conquest, worth mentioning is some of the wealthiest nobles were of Scandinavian origin(or at least thought to be as such because they had Scandinavian names), which is something we don’t have in the game. I’ll try and add a source for this later on that mentions this, no promises though.
Edit: couldn't find the source I wanted but found an example among my notes, Azur, son of Thorth/Thoreth. He is among the wealthiest land magnates of England, holding over £530 worth of land across southern England in 1066. The richest and most powerful earl at the time, Harold, owned estates worth around £3,300.
Below is his Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England page
PASE
Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England (PASE) is a database which aims to provide structured information relating to all the recorded inhabitants of England from the late sixth to the late eleventh century
pase.ac.uk
Edit2: Also it is curious it seems I am the second person ever to use PASE as a source in the entire forum so far as the search function yields, the first being in 2017.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
- 1
The above point really makes me miss the messyness of CK2 Baronies. I wish even if just for feudal they brought back the abilty for Count A to own Barony C in Count B's territory and vice versa. It felt messy and feudal having to slowly wheedle out foreigners' baronies within your own territory. Or actually having powerful barons with dozens of baronies across your realm....yknow....like how England ACTUALLY worked till like the 14th century? Dukes were nearly non existent through most of this timeframe in England and counts were a big deal.
- 3
- 1
Yeah my ideal would be to have barons as the lowest playable title level, and the smallest province unit on the map; for exactly that reason. I dont think bringing back the multiple baronies in a single province would be a good idea because it was more annoying in CK2 than it was helpful. Especially when you got blocked from forming a title because some far away king inherited a barony. But I do think CK3 misses out some of the interesting chaotic messiness that was the scattered feudal holdings. My thought is baronies as the main map unit avoids both ck2 and Ck3’s pit falls, while adding additional realism and granularity. I think it feels better intuitively that the next step up for an adventure would be a barony rather than all the way to count.
CK3 and even ck2 kind of title inflates everything. In real life Counts were effectively CK3’s dukes. In fact many of the ingame duchies were in reality counties. Being a duke was something between a count and a king in status (more often a recognition of princely heritage than anything else), but they weren’t necessarily more powerful than a count materially.
- 3