Duchies in England.

[Galle]

If you mean you don't want any of the duchy titles for England created at the start of the game, that's easily possible.

If you mean you don't want it to be possible to create duchy titles for England at the start of the game (and only after some sort of event or decision by the King of England) then things get problematic. How is this implemented mechanically? What would be the requirements for creating the rank of duke? What happens if the King of France conquers Cornwall and wants to make somebody duke of it?

 

[Kaleidoscope]

1. A count can control less provinces directly then a duke (a duke can control twice as many)

This is all assuming a map that is identical to CK1 in both province layout and number of nobles to rule them. If this proposal were taken into account at the design stages (which the game is still in) it could be easily balanced - either by creating more of the historic Earls to take up extra provinces (while I don't know the exact numbers there were more Earls in England at the time of the conquest than are shown in CK) or by tweaking the abilities of nobles to rule numerous provinces.

2. A count can't have vassals, a duke can.

I don't really see how this is an argument against my proposal, but press reports are already indicating that Count-level nobles will have Barons under them. They're vassals, even if they're not directly represented on the map. You could also use this line to argue against the inclusion of Counts in CK1.

So yes making the dukes of Lancaster and Northumbria counts in 1066 impedes gameplay. Especially if you want to play these rulers.

I don't agree.

 

[Kaleidoscope]

How is this implemented mechanically? What would be the requirements for creating the rank of duke? What happens if the King of France conquers Cornwall and wants to make somebody duke of it?

That's exactly the sort of questions I made this thread to discuss. If you had bothered to read the second paragraph of my first post maybe you would have seen that.

edit: here, I'll even quote it for you. Maybe we can start afresh on a new page.:

I think English Duchies should be created by a decision of some kind, but I'm not sure what the requirements should be. If anybody has any suggestions about criteria for such an event I'd love to hear them.

edit2: To directly respond to this:

If you mean you don't want it to be possible to create duchy titles for England at the start of the game (and only after some sort of event or decision by the King of England) then things get problematic.

My personal preference is that there would be no Dukes at the start of the scenario (as is historically accurate), with the creation of Duke as a rank in the English Kingdom tied to an event or decision, the criteria for which I haven't entirely thought through. The second point (the creation of the rank) is less important to me than the first. Even if it's possible to create a duchy from day one they should not be part of the stock scenario.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

This is all assuming a map that is identical to CK1 in both province layout and number of nobles to rule them. If this proposal were takenm into account at the design stages (which the game is still in) it could be easily balance - either by creating more of the historic Earls to take up extra provinces (while I don't know the exact numbers there were more Earls in England at the time of the conquest than are shown in CK) or by tweaking the abilities of nobles to rule numerous provinces.

No, there weren't in 1066.

Three of the earls (the Godwinson brothers) had just died in the battle of Hastings. Only three earls remained

All other rulers (except the one in Norfolk and the king) in England are in fact historically incorrect, none of them held a title yet in England at the start of the game. Some of them didn't even gain that title until 4 or 5 years after the game.

I don't agree.

Because it doesn't effect gameplay ? Or because you don't like it ?

 

[Kaleidoscope]

No, there weren't in 1066.

Three of the earls (the Godwinson brothers) had just died in the battle of Hastings. Only three earls remained

All other rulers (except the one in Norfolk and the king) in England are in fact historically incorrect, none of them held a title yet in England at the start of the game. Some of them didn't even gain that title until 4 or 5 years after the game.

William promised lands and titles in England to the men who fought for him. While the legal wrangling took years those men were still there.

Because it doesn't effect gameplay ? Or because you don't like it ?

I should be specific - it doesn't negatively affect gameplay and the alternative (making them Dukes) is grossly incorrect. I also I don't like it (the situation) for the reasons I've outlined.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

William promised lands and titles to the commanders who fought for him. While the legal wrangling took years those men were still there.


I should be specific - it doesn't negatively affect gameplay, the alternative (making them Dukes) is grossly incorrect. I also I don't like it for the reasons I've outlined.

It does negatively effect gameplay, since you will get less money, you won't able to create vassals, f.e. the duke of Lancaster has a son who needs a title in 1066.

Also it is bit strange that you want to have the game historically correct (when all we are talking about is the name of a title) while in other fields you accept historical inaccuries like f.e. who is the ruler of Chester in 1066. Which IMHO is a much more serious thing than the name that is given to a title.

 

[LordofSaxony]

I'm wondering how the game would balance that. I have no idea how they will be doing the system either soo... what I'm wondering is..

If France (with Dukes) attacks England, and England only has a bunch of Counts (Earls) at their disposal, would England get crushed because it's not balanced?

 

[Kaleidoscope]

It does negatively effect gameplay, since you will get less money, you won't able to create vassals, f.e. the duke of Lancaster has a son who needs a title in 1066.

Make him a Baron, if CK2 will allow it, or give him a Earl title if you have one spare. As for money, I seriously doubt that CK2's economy will be much like CK1s.

Also it is bit strange that you want to have the game historically correct (when all we are talking about is the name of a title) while in other fields you accept historical inaccuries like f.e. who is the ruler of Chester in 1066. Which IMHO is a much more serious thing that the name that is given to a title.

The name of the title will persist for 480 years (assuming the same length as CK1) and is a part of a nation's national culture. The legal issues surrounding William's Earls and when exactly they were legally considered to be the rulers of those lands is something that is important for less than a generation. Less than a decade, maybe.

All of your arguments are basically arguing against any improvement to CK2 because it would make CK1 harder to play. Don't you think that's a touch strange?

If France (with Dukes) attacks England, and England only has a bunch of Counts (Earls) at their disposal, would England get crushed because it's not balanced?

I don't see why that should be so. Dukes don't create new provinces from which to draw men or cash. They work lands that would otherwise be owned by Counts.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

All of your arguments are basically arguing against any improvement to CK2 because it would make CK1 harder to play. Don't you think that's a touch strange?

No, not at all since that is not what I am arguing.

I could make another post, but since you will most likely not convince me and I won't convince you I leave it at that.

 

[Kaleidoscope]

Please feel free. I'm all for friendly debate, and maybe by bashing our heads together we can come up with something workable.

 

[LordofSaxony]

I guess we'll have to wait and see how the system works, for all we know they might actually make England have Earls and make a royal decision to have Dukes later. I have no idea if being a Duke adds bonuses, more prestige, more soldiers, higher combat rating, or anything like that either for CK2. If the soldiers are purely based on the amount of population that you control as well as your income, then I guess it would be ok.

I don't mind if they make that work the way you want it, but I know that I'll be hoping that the AI King makes the decision to make Dukes really early on.

 

[Keinwyn]

@ the OP if we ignore for the moment the inaccuracies of the English title names, and look at the game play. The situation in 1066 gives 2 powerful Northern Earls who were able to command the loyalty of the remaining Saxons in the north and launch a civil war. The key there is loyalty - in order to launch a civil war you need the loyalty of other vassals, otherwise it is just the usual mess of random individuals declaring. So yes it would have been game breaking to have them as counts in CKI

If however, moving on to CKII we can establish better, more complicated networks of loyalties, patronage and factionalism then it might not be game breaking to have them as Earls/Counts.

I'm wondering how the game would balance that. I have no idea how they will be doing the system either soo... what I'm wondering is..

If France (with Dukes) attacks England, and England only has a bunch of Counts (Earls) at their disposal, would England get crushed because it's not balanced?

Well in CKI it would work the other way around as AI France wouldn't mobilise its Vassal's Vassals.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Please feel free. I'm all for friendly debate, and maybe by bashing our heads together we can come up with something workable.

Well here it goes

1. Yes, you are correct there were no dukes in England before Edward III

2. But there were a lot of different levels of rulers in England before that, some where very powerfull and some where not so powerfull. The game needs to address this.

3. The game will most likely do this by given those rulers another title-level then the lowest one. Such a title can (unlike CK1) have different names in different cultures. So that f.e. in England they are named Earls and in Scandinavian countries Jarls and in Scotland (Gaelic) Mormaers.

 

[LordofSaxony]

3. The game will most likely do this by given those rulers another title-level then the lowest one. Such a title can (unlike CK1) have different names in different cultures. So that f.e. in England they are named Earls and in Scandinavian countries Jarls and in Scotland (Gaelic) Mormaers.

Hmmm.. that may make it confusing to people who don't know what those titles mean. The game would need a message saying "Count Equivalent" or something of that nature, otherwise I'll be looking everything up in the Wiki.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Hmmm.. that may make it confusing to people who don't know what those titles mean. The game would need a message saying "Count Equivalent" or something of that nature, otherwise I'll be looking everything up in the Wiki.

A tool-tip telling you what a benefits a title gives you should be easy to do.

 

[Kaleidoscope]

2. But there were a lot of different levels of rulers in England before, some where very powerfull and some where not so powerfull. The game needs to address this.

3. The game will most likely do this by given those rulers another title-level then the lowest one. Such a title can (unlike CK1) have different names in different cultures. So that f.e. in England they are named Earls and in Scandinavian countries Jarls and in Scotland (Gaelic) Mormaer

If you're suggesting a structure of King > Earl(Duke) > Earl(count), well that's not so offensive to me. It's not exactly a perfect solution, but it's much better than Counts and Dukes in 1066.
There could be an event or decision to rename the middle tier to Duke, perhaps with an increase in the prestige attached to the title, to represent the events that occured in Edward III's reign.

Actually the more I think about it the more I like it.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

If you're suggesting a structure of King > Earl(Duke) > Earl(count), well that's not so offensive to me. It's not exactly a perfect solution, but it's much better than Counts and Dukes in 1066.
There could be an event or decision to rename the middle tier to Duke, perhaps with an increase in the prestige attached to the title, to represent the events that occured in Edward III's reign.

Actually the more I think about it the more I like it.

Such a decision could give the ruler some extra prestige, chances to gain a trait (proud f.e.) or lose one (modest f.e.)and cost some gold.

 

[LordofSaxony]

A tool-tip telling you what a benefits a title gives you should be easy to do.

I wouldn't mind a tooltip, but I'm still concerned about the ease-of-play concerning newcomers, and the feeling of being swamped with all these titles flying around.

If you're suggesting a structure of King > Earl(Duke) > Earl(count), well that's not so offensive to me. It's not exactly a perfect solution, but it's much better than Counts and Dukes in 1066.
There could be an event or decision to rename the middle tier to Duke, perhaps with an increase in the prestige attached to the title, to represent the events that occured in Edward III's reign.

Was there any such thing as a "Greater Earl" over a "Lesser Earl"? I think there would need to be some type of visual distinction between the two if there will be two tiers of Earls.

 

[Kaleidoscope]

Such a decision could give the ruler some extra prestige, chances to gain a trait (proud f.e.) or lose one (modest f.e.)and cost some gold.

One of the original ideas I had poorly sketched out in my mind was that if the King had x number of children and the Proud, Indulgent or Arbitrary traits he could take the 'create the Duchies' decision. I think your proposal of the event causing the trait works just as well.

Was there any such thing as a "Greater Earl" over a "Lesser Earl"? I think there would need to be some type of visual distinction between the two if there will be two tiers of Earls.

It could be done with the shield shapes, as Counts, Dukes and Kings are in CK1.
A title like "Great Earl" while not strictly accurate, could also get the idea across.

 

[Duke of Bavaria]

So you wanna fix an historically not correct situation and invent a title that is historically totally incorrect?

I really think this is a case where gameplay once goes before historical accuracy even for me.