• 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.
Maybe something like elected council members?

i think the council laws are on another page, I assume it's got to do with what things upset vassals when you do them? how much power you have vs them or etc?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It is probably best to read from the historians here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori..._historians_say_feudalism_never_existed_what/

To summarize things neatly:


Feudalism is a post-medieval construct that like most of popular history concerning the middle ages (and CK2 is built on popular history because actual medieval history would be impossible to simulate on the clausewitz engine in a remotely fun manner) is at best, massively oversimplified, and at worst flatly invented centuries after the fact and has only come into question in the 20th century.

Vassals and fiefs, as Susan Reynolds explains, are essentially born of 16th century misunderstandings of 13th century academic legal papers. Fiefdom was not even the primary means of owning land and Homagery was not necessarily a system of vassalage. Nor did we actually have a nice, neat hierarchy of pretty little ranks. It was a very fluid, constantly changing structure that essentially worked through common assent.

It's hardly nonsense if it's the current dominant viewpoint in medieval academia and it's hardly academia's fault that popular culture and scholastic education is slow to catch up to discoveries made by medieval historians.

I was in academia at one point. Advisor was a medievalist. Close confidant in the department focused on medieval studies. To say that this is the current and dominant idea is ridiculous. It's tenure fishing at its worst, really.

Saying that there were not neat ranks and that some systems functioned differently doesn't mean the feudal system as we know it is totally wrong. It just means that it's sometimes simplified for things like, say, a game.

The idea that our our concept of feudalism derives from a single 12th-century source as stated in that reddit is ridiculous. There is a plethora of literature that attests to the classical concept. Some ofit is very famous and I've mentioned it in this very thread.

N.B. part of why I left academia pursuits is the number of people willing to believe their own bullshit just so that they could get a tenure track position. Social sciences are sadly overpopulated and people will whore themselves out to get a paycheck.

Anyway, the whole thing is a strawman for a semantic argument. It's beyond silly. As another academic once said, it's sometimes hard to see the forest with all those damn trees in the way.
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Been waiting for a DLC like this for a long time.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Ok, Dracos shall remain sleeping but ever vigilant.
For all the jokes about fantasy
I would buy a DLC where 100% accurate to the literature and folklore of the period, Elves, fairies, demons, magic and trolls, were added in to the game.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Its always a busy year thanks to Paradox!
 
I was in academia at one point. Advisor was a medievalist. Close confidant in the department focused on medieval studies. To say that this is the current and dominant idea is ridiculous. It's tenure fishing at its worst, really.

Saying that there were not neat ranks and that some systems functioned differently doesn't mean the feudal system as we know it is totally wrong. It just means that it's sometimes simplified for things like, say, a game.

The idea that our our concept of feudalism derives from a single 12th-century source as stated in that reddit is ridiculous. There is a plethora of literature that attests to the classical concept. Some ofit is very famous and I've mentioned it in this very thread.

N.B. part of why I left academia pursuits is the number of people willing to believe their own bullshit just so that they could get a tenure track position. Social sciences are sadly overpopulated and people will whore themselves out to get a paycheck.

Anyway, the whole thing is a strawman for a semantic argument. It's beyond silly. As another academic once said, it's sometimes hard to see the forest with all those damn trees in the way.
I'm going to dismiss your anecdote out of hand for the reason that it is an anecdote. I'm going to have to ask if you've ever actually read Susan Reynold's Fiefs and Vassals which is the basis for the school of thought that feudalism was not a real thing. If not, I'm entirely willing to send you a copy over email. At the very least, check out Elizabeth Brown's essay on why Feudalism is a word without meaning because everyone was basically using their own private definition.
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
most words are like that though so no worries
To the people who thought feudalism was always an abstract simplification, nothing has changed for them.
100 years ago there were books saying it didnt exist but is an easy way to say it. it's not like it's new. So saying, anything saying feudalism is now bunk and outdated, like most of them were using saying it to mean the exact same thing the new dont say it's mean. Cos you know, words. no worries you know
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
How did we get from "new CK2 dlc" to "let's discuss whether feudalism was X or Y"?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Coalitions? Is this EU4?

I was waiting for this since a game I played a couple of years ago. Middle Francia was on an expansion spree, and faced three East European kingdoms. While I agree that CKII is not EU4, I found extremely unrealistic that three neighboring kings menaced by a common enemy didn't talk between themselves and form some kind of alliance/unified front. Been waiting for this feature since then.
 
  • 9
  • 2
Reactions:
Go read the previous dev diaries.

Well, if I am not mistaken, the defensive concept only applied to coalitions, which is basically an AI thing
I saw no reference to player alliances being differentiated, so I guess there still won't be a difference between being able to call on your allies if you are the victim of an unlawful aggression, or enlisting your allies to do kindly most of the paying and bleeding in your expansionistic undertakings...
Does anything suggest I am wrong in assuming that?
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
I'm going to dismiss your anecdote out of hand for the reason that it is an anecdote. I'm going to have to ask if you've ever actually read Susan Reynold's Fiefs and Vassals which is the basis for the school of thought that feudalism was not a real thing. If not, I'm entirely willing to send you a copy over email. At the very least, check out Elizabeth Brown's essay on why Feudalism is a word without meaning because everyone was basically using their own private definition.
Feudalism, like a lot of other words, has a broad definition. Here's how Wikipedia (and any other internet source) defines it :

"Feudalism was a combination of legal and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the 9th and 15th centuries. Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour."

So this as you can see is a wide definition offering a lot of possibilities for the details, but the basic concept of vassalage and hierarchy stays. If you disagree with a description this wide, then please give an example of how a state would actually be organised in the Middle Ages.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
While they may try to address bugs with the DLC patch, each DLC has also added new bugs to the mix. Bugs I've seen:

-Muslim decadence invasion intended for a specific muslim ruler's dynasty declared against me, the catholic holy roman emperor, instead. (I've posted this one in the bug forum since its impact is significant, allowing decadent muslim empires to stay intact.)
-A strange "NO_TITLE" barony holding that is treated like a king-level holding that keeps popping up every generation that screws up certain inheritances
-As a ruler with the homosexual trait, I keep getting spammed with homosexual romance events.
-I've noticed certain tooltips with incorrect info. I have vassalized the pope and I receive a +10 opinion for "Free Investiture" but I really think it means to say Papal Investiture, since that's what's in place and I believe that's what he'd want to see, anyway.
-Most female courtiers in my court, by the age of 17, have Lover's Pox. And not because it's my character's fault.

I'm not a gametester, so these are just the bugs or imbalances I've noticed, which would most certainly be just the tip of the iceberg. I am not trying to be a killjoy, but I just want things fixed before they're broken again. It's gotten to the point where I wait a month after a DLC is released before I even try a fresh ironman for fear of game-breaking bugs.

In a game that is almost completely 100% scripts and code working off of more script and code, and the player directly influences those scripts and codes, and you have thousands being processed every few seconds... Games like this are 10x more likely to have bugs with every update compared too games like Battlefront, or Dragon Age, etc, due to the massive intensity of the scripting and codes that's being manipulated by the player in virtually unlimited ways.

They could spend 6 months smashing all the bugs, but the moment they release a new DLC after that, there's going to be more bugs.. It's not worth it. WHat they're doing now makes sense, smash bugs as they, and work on the new DLC while making sure the DLC runs well, and limit the amount of bugs it brings to the table. Again, won't be 100% bug free, but smashing old bugs, and minimizing new ones while releasing new content is the best option.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions: