Distant Realms

[Duuk]

If I could make one suggestion,

Please give each province an actual X,Y coordinate and then a way to get actual distance between provinces.

The reason I suggest this is because "distant vassals" in CKDV is a kludged add-on system which sometimes worked, but sometimes resulted in strangeness. F.ex. the King of Hungary was nearly unable to hold on to the Duke of Venice (mere inches from Hungary) but perfectly able to hold on to Byzantium because both were "Eastern Europe" while Venice was "Italy".

 

[VenetianPriest]

I don't know exactly what game mechanics were at play in your example, but I believe a player's ability to hold on to a distant realm should be nearly impossible. Of course, this would depend on one's definition of 'distant.' I would define distant as any demesne outside of the kingdon in which your dynasty began the game. Even the Norman/Plantagenet possessions in France should be difficult to hold indefinitely; the character/dynasty should have to expend a significant amount of resources to maintain this kind of an empire.

 

[Secret Master]

I know what you mean, Duuk. My personal favorite was the Count of the Canary Islands who decided that the Kingdom of Castile was too far away to make a good liege.

I've never really been fond of the "too far away" to rule mechanic. It was a good stopgap measure to prevent the silliness of a Swedish Acre or an English Baghdad, but it never felt right to me. The historical problem with distant vassals isn't that there is a magical moment of independence. The problem is that you, as the liege, cannot really protect them and they can't really support the your wars. At the same time, there was not a graceful way to setup crusader states in CK1, so you would get a Swedish Acre for a few years, then it would become independent, get overrun by its neighbors, and then you were back to square one.

Perhaps what the game needs is a "You can't conquer this province directly; would you like to make it a crusader state for a bonus of X prestige?" function. That way, instead of getting provinces from too far away that have to be problematic, you simply can't annex provinces that are too far away. And perhaps a technology could modify this distance.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

I know what you mean, Duuk. My personal favorite was the Count of the Canary Islands who decided that the Kingdom of Castile was too far away to make a good liege.
.

Which seems perfectly OK to me, since it would take several weeks across the ocean, for a message from the king of Castille to reach the Canary Islands.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Perhaps what the game needs is a "You can't conquer this province directly; would you like to make it a crusader state for a bonus of X prestige?" function. That way, instead of getting provinces from too far away that have to be problematic, you simply can't annex provinces that are too far away. And perhaps a technology could modify this distance.

Perhaps a function to let you pass either your original lands or your new crusader conquests to one of your heirs? There are plenty of examples of crusader lords leaving their original lands to their kinsmen and grabbing up new (and usually greater) titles in the Holy Land.

Of course it should also be possible to claim, say, the crown of Jerusalem while also ruling as King of France, England, etc., but there should be penalties in whichever kingdom ultimately gets ignored.

And maybe regents could come into play for crusader lords traveling great distances? For example, something very roughly akin to Prince John seizing the reins while King Richard was off gallivanting?

 

[Calgacus]

One idea is that the head of a crusading army should simply be a different player than any territorial title-holder ... for the First Crusade anyway, and so long as there is no kingdom of Jerusalem. I.e. you can contribute to a crusading army, but if you wish to lead the army you must transfer your county/duchy/kingdom to an heir. You will then become the count/duke of whatever you capture, and if appropriate king of Jerusalem. If there is a king of Jerusalem you can go on Crusade, but any gains go to the kingdom either because you give it directly, or because the vassal you appoint becomes the vassal of the king.

I believe this problem would be helped, as would so many other simulation problems, by having the "body of the ruler" as part of the game. I.e. the ruler exists in space and time (only be in one place at one time), can get hurt, and can die. If the ruler leaves a kingdom, the kingdom should be under the rule of someone else ... a regent. Everything you do in the kingdom must be through that regent/steward/whoever and, while he should usually obey, he may not always, and there should be risk of his power [and thus yours] being undermined by another prince. But until technological developments help you, you can only rule in a place if you go there ... at least from time to time.