Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Duchies in England.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69943 Bug Reports 19717 User Modifications 10604 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6373 After Action Reports
So the things I'm taking away from this thread at the moment are:

1. England shouldn't start in 1066 with any created duchies.

2. Titles should be culture-dependent (for example, English counts should be called earls)
 
Well for 1: If given the possibility AI will crate those duchies soon.
Point 2: While i could take being it a little confusing it gets ugly to look at again when you get lands outside of your cultural sphere, like when lets say the scots have lands in the holy land i wouldnt like a ruler there having a scottish title, id prefer the random ones then, as they are clear and IMO fitting very good for every culture.
 
Duke of Bavaria said:
Point 2: While i could take being it a little confusing it gets ugly to look at again when you get lands outside of your cultural sphere, like when lets say the scots have lands in the holy land i wouldnt like a ruler there having a scottish title, id prefer the random ones then, as they are clear and IMO fitting very good for every culture.
Click to expand...
They could be tied to the kingdom title. Lands that are part of the Kingdom of England title would be Earldoms, wheras lands that are part of the Kingdom of France would be Counties. CK1 already tracks which lands are needed to form a given entity. This woulddn't be much different.
The Crusader States in CK1 already have ahistoric titles by the way - the Duchy of Antioch should be a Principality, for example. That could be fixed in CK2 too.
 
Cuthuthulu said:
If CK2 works anything like the original you should easily tell what level of title it is at a glance based on the shape of the shield.
Click to expand...

Well, *I* wouldn't have a problem with that, played a lot of CK over the years. Just thinking of the newcomers and their ability to get into the game before they get so frustrated and shelf-it. :D
 
LordofSaxony said:
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.
Click to expand...

That was actually one of the problems that I had with Rome. I couldn't keep track easily of what units were heavy infantry and whatnot because I'm not familiar enough with the period to keep the different names that were given to the unit types depending on what nation raised them straight.
 
AFAIK 'duke' in 1066 was a title that was only prominent in France and Germany. Norman kingdoms (England and Sicily*) had a (for the time) very centralised system of government; the Barons/Earls of England and Emirs (yes, Emirs) of Sicily were not de facto independent entities (the Sicilian Emirs were not even hereditary)


*I am aware that Sicily was not Norman in 1066
 
Galle said:
2. Titles should be culture-dependent (for example, English counts should be called earls)
Click to expand...

This. Orthodox dukes are called princes, why not have different names for other cultures, not just religions? English dukes could be called Grand Earls, or something of the sort. Not completely accurate, but a good balance between historical accuracy and gameplay balance.
 
Veldmaarschalk said:
1. A count can control less provinces directly then a duke (a duke can control twice as many)

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

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

f.e. the other still existing Anglo-Saxon 'earl' Siward is only a count, because his earldom and his power was small.

The other two had enough power and controlled enough land to be equal to what a duke means in gameplay. Maybe they will be named Earls in CK2, but they will most likely not be 'counts'.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I am being pedantic Veldmaarschalk, but f.e. doesnt mean anything, at least I dont think so, correct me if I am wrong. it is e.g.

I fully agree with you though, about duke count etc, maybe their could be different names for duke in England?
 
I want dukes an counts. This is easy also for newcomers.
 
edit2: emu'd.

i'd like localizing options.
:D



edit1: Speaking of mods...

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.

That sounds like one worth making too. Historical England... who will be the count of Chester this time? Dun-dun-dun!
 
While inaccurate the notion that the simplified version actually existed in any realm of the time is plainly wrong. The feudal system overall was very dynamic and dependant on local and cultural traditions.

E.g. the actual German feudal system had a whole host of titles beside duke and count. Where are the Markgrafen, Reichsgrafen, Landgrafen, Fürsten? Those are all equal to a herzog(duke) in rank and above a common Graf(count). And things only start to get messier from here on out.

Imo an abstracted "idealized" feudal system will be necessary anyhow.
 
My one hope in this matter is Paradox will make titles moddable enough for modders to tinker with. I dont care enough about England to buy into this whole earls and no dukes idea but I personally dislike making powerful counts into dukes rather than modeling powerful counts.
 
I'd be very surprised if customised or country/culture-specific ranks weren't a factor of CK2.

It will be fun as the king of England to choose and ennoble your first duke - from there it's all downhill of course, as ultimately their family will overthrow yours : ]

Austen
 
For my part I'm not especially bothered about whether or not England has Dukes at the start. Yes, it's ahistoric, and it'd be nice to have a bit more historical accuracy, but I'm not bothered enough to argue about it, just so long as Earls are in.

Barons would be nice too, though I'm not sure how the existence of baronies would/could/should be modeled. If we find each county divided into rapes/ridings/lathes etc. then we could find ourselves with a stupid number of provinces (and dynasties), horrendous lag and near-constant revolt, so it's something PI will have to think long and hard about if they want to get it right.

And where does it stop? Do the rapes then get divided into hundreds, hundreds into tithingss, and tithingss into hides? At any rate, the term 'Baron' didn't officially exist in England in 1066 AFAIK. The structure, to my knowledge, was

KING > EARL > TENANT IN CHIEF > SHIRE REEVE > INSIGNIFICANT PEOPLE

but by the end of the timeline was more like

KING > DUKE > EARL > BARON > etc.

Which raises the issue of ranks not being constant, not only across cultures and realms, but also across the timespan of the game, which means that either PI are going to have to really work magic, or else whatever they decide to compromise with will be inaccurate anyway ;)
 
for Barons, id like them to be abstracted, like Parties in V2, with various factions of barons in your country having various amounts of support from the barons and so there being consequences if you let them get to powerful but dont keep them on side
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back