Duchies in England.

[Kaleidoscope]

At the start of CK1's 1066 campaign there are already a few Duchies in England (Northumbira, Lancaster and York), but the rank of Duke was not present in England until the reign of Edward III (1337 specifically) when he introduced the rank for his relatives. There were 'English' Duchies on the continent - Normandy and Aquitane, but those were really part of the Kingdom of France despite being controlled by the King of England.

The presence of early English Duchies in CK is a serious historical anomaly, so I hope you'll fix it for CK2. 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.

 

[Galle]

How many counts are there in England?

The feudal system in the game is an abstraction. It has to be, because if Paradox tried to incorporate every individual variation on the feudal system practiced by every individual culture they'd go mad. If I had to gather a guess I'd say that the early English dukes represent more powerful earls, but really it's just a game conceit necessary to keep developer heads from exploding.

 

[Kaleidoscope]

How many counts are there in England?

None. There were plenty of Earls though.
As for how many - I honestly don't know exactly, but they don't all need to be represented, and I wasn't asking for that. I'm just asking that the ahistorical rank of Duke not be included.

 

[Galle]

None. There were plenty of Earls though.
As for how many - I honestly don't know exactly, but they don't all need to be represented, and I wasn't asking for that. I'm just asking that the ahistorical rank of Duke not be included.

And my point was that you might as well be asking for the ahistorical rank of Count to not be included. That's just not the way the game's system works.

 

[Kaleidoscope]

And my point was that you might as well be asking for the ahistorical rank of Count to not be included.

I've asked for that too, elsewhere. And that's the way it should be. If you're making a political representation of Medieval Europe it wouldn't hurt to actually get the character of the politics correct. I really don't think it's beyond Paradox's abilities to achieve this is their new game.
The whole point of a sequel is to improve on the original, surely?

That's just not the way the game's system works.

How do you know that CK2's sytem won't work in such a way as to allow this? Was there a dev-diary that I missed?

 

[LordofSaxony]

At the start of CK1's 1066 campaign there are already a few Duchies in England (Northumbira, Lancaster and York), but the rank of Duke was not present in England until the reign of Edward III (1337 specifically) when he introduced the rank for his relatives. There were 'English' Duchies on the continent - Normandy and Aquitane, but those were really part of the Kingdom of France despite being controlled by the King of England.

The presence of early English Duchies in CK is a serious historical anomaly, so I hope you'll fix it for CK2. 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.

What if there were no English Dukes at the start of the campaign, but it's up to the King (AI or you) to decide when to incorporate that? I like playing as England in a lot of my games (my ancestors were from there) and I like playing as a Count (Earl) and working my way up. If there are no Dukes there, and there won't be for a hundred or more years, I would probably not like it for gameplay purposes. If it's an event, I'd be sitting there saying "pop damn you!! Pop!!" waiting for the AI king to open up the opportunity. I understand your point, though, but I'm in a situation of history vs gameplay at the moment with this lol.

 

[TheLand]

While I'm sure the feudal system of Norman England differed in details from that of Norman France, are those details really big enough to warrant different game mechanic and extra classes of people?

Though I suppose it should be possible to change the names of the titles depending on culture: England can have Earls and Barons rather than Dukes and Counts. Scotland can have Thanes and, er, I'm not sure what for the lower level...

 

[Tommy4ever]

This idea doesn't improve the game in any way and needlessly complicates things. I am firmly against the OP's desires for England.

 

[LordofSaxony]

While I'm sure the feudal system of Norman England differed in details from that of Norman France, are those details really big enough to warrant different game mechanic and extra classes of people?

Though I suppose it should be possible to change the names of the titles depending on culture: England can have Earls and Barons rather than Dukes and Counts. Scotland can have Thanes and, er, I'm not sure what for the lower level...

Unfortunately having many countries with their own unique titles would just be very confusing to people, at least I would think. It would probably put off a lot of newcomers.

 

[Kaleidoscope]

What if there were no English Dukes at the start of the campaign, but it's up to the King (AI or you) to decide when to incorporate that?

This could work, though the AI in CK already tends to create Duchies as soon as it possible can, which would amount to largely the same problem.

I like playing as England in a lot of my games (my ancestors were from there) and I like playing as a Count (Earl) and working my way up. If there are no Dukes there, and there won't be for a hundred or more years, I would probably not like it for gameplay purposes.

I think you'd still have the same capacity for personal power by amassing Earl titles. In a perfect world CK2 would also include the Offices of State (Lord High Steward, Earl Marshal, Lord Great Chamberlain) which could be awarded to Earls as a sign of special prestige or respect of the Sovereign. I think they would compensate adequately for the loss of Duchies, while having an actual historical relevance. I'm not actually asking for those, though I would kill for them.

 

[Kaleidoscope]

While I'm sure the feudal system of Norman England differed in details from that of Norman France, are those details really big enough to warrant different game mechanic and extra classes of people?

They're not extra classes - an Earl is equivalent to a Count, and the Dukes would not be entirely removed and could be handled by a Decision - a game mechanic which has been present in all of Paradox's recent games. There are no new gameplay mechanics needed.
And yes, these details are important enough to justify the changes I've suggested, since we're talking about the political makeup of an entire country which had a significant impact on Medieval Europe.

Though I suppose it should be possible to change the names of the titles depending on culture: England can have Earls and Barons rather than Dukes and Counts.

...That's not how it works, as I explained above. A Baron is not equivalent to a Count, an Earl is.

This idea doesn't improve the game in any way

It is historically accurate. I'd say that's a pretty big improvement for a game which is supposed to be a representation of history.

 

[Galle]

I think you'd still have the same capacity for personal power by amassing Earl titles. In a perfect world CK2 would also include the Offices of State (Lord High Steward, Earl Marshal, Lord Great Chamberlain) which could be awarded to Earls as a sign of special prestige or respect of the Sovereign. I think they would compensate adequately for the loss of Duchies, while having an actual historical relevance. I'm not actually asking for those, though I would kill for them.

CK1 does contain these, you just can't give them to landed nobility. Perhaps that should be changed.

 

[TheLand]

CK1 does contain these, you just can't give them to landed nobility. Perhaps that should be changed.

I hereby create you the Grand Carver of England!

(yes, that is a real title)

 

[Tommy4ever]

It is historically accurate. I'd say that's a pretty big improvement for a game which is supposed to be a representation of history.

But this game isn't supposed to be a historical simulator. It's supposed to be a game.

 

[Kaleidoscope]

But this game isn't supposed to be a historical simulator. It's supposed to be a game.

Okay well that's a really terrible argument, since Paradox makes historical games. I'll bite, however: what about my proposal is un-game-like, exactly?

 

[LordofSaxony]

The only way I can see them doing this, is that they would make a % chance to create a Dukedom a lot less likely in England for the first hundred years. I know the game takes place well before the date you mentioned, but if they got the Dukedoms during the real date the game wouldn't have much time left.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

There were no dukes in England in 1066, but there were nobles who had the powers and who controlled an amount of land that made it equal to a duke.

f.e. there were no dukes (and in most cases they were never a duke at all) in 1066 of Flanders, Toulouse, Provence, Barcelona, Galicia, Holland, Orkney, Moray, Vestlandet, Thuringia, Osterreich, Brandenburg, Gwynedd, Deheubarth, Poitou, Slavonia, Connaught, Munster and Leinster (and probably several others).

Yet all of these counts, princes, margraves etc are given the title of duke.

Since it is very unlikely that they will introduce another level between count and duke, these rulers will most likely be still at a duke level in 1066.

In this case gameplay, comes before historical accuracy.

EDIT
England in 1066 in CK1 starts with 2 duke-level vassals, the dukes of Lancaster and Northumbria, there is no duchy of York in 1066

 

[Kaleidoscope]

There were no dukes in England in 1066, but there were nobles who had the powers and who controlled an amount of land that made it equal to a duke.

And they were called Earls. Have you ever played CK, owned three or four provinces and yet still been a Count? Well that's the same thing.

f.e. there never was a duke of Flanders, Toulouse, Provence, Barcelona, Galicia, Holland, Orkney, Moray, Vestlandet, Thuringia, Osterreich, Brandenburg, Gwynedd, Deheubarth, Poitou, Slavonia, Connaught, Munster and Leinster (and probably several others).

Yet all of these counts, princes, margraves etc are given the title of duke.

I'm not discussing the continent, but there was the potential to be made a Duke in Europe because the title actually existed there. In England that rank simply didn't exist in 1066.

Since it is very unlikely that they will introduce another level between count and duke, these rules will most likely be still at a duke level in 1066.

There doesn't need to be a new level, you just have Earls ruled by a King. In CK you can be a King who rules over Counts (though CK provides bonuses for creating Dukes) and that works fine.

In this case gameplay, comes before historical accuracy.

How would gameplay be in any way impeded by this?

Edit: and just so we're clear, for those of you lacking in reading comprehension, I'm not suggesting that it be impossible to be a Duke in England. I'm suggesting that the rank of Duke not be present at the start of the game, but should be creatable by some sort of event or decision on the part of the King.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

How would gameplay be in any way impeded by this?

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'.

 

[Txini]

English Duchies were the same as Spanish, not existed till late game but effectively what a Count in CK was was a Lord in England or Spain and a Count in France and the Empire and a Duke in CK what was a Count in England or Spain but a Duke in France or the Empire