Heretic Commune [Government]

[moscal]

Unique government to few anti-feudal heresies like a lollards. This is stupid, that anti-feudal rebellion lead to new feudal regime, so this can be start to other way about thinking of heresies.

Features
*Can hold castles and cities
*Haven't normal vassal taxes and levies
*Can have temporary vassal taxes and levies but must paid by piety
*Have ability to call vassals into war like a tribes
*Succession laws limited to elective
*Enable raids - if target of raids will have "father-religion" is chance to conversion (look at Spanilá jízda - raids was used to "export of hussite reformation")
*Special retinues based on piety (like a tribal retinues based on prestige)
*Reduction of heavy units and more light infantry for every holdings
*Council laws limited to "Council authority"
*Extra maluses for opinion with feudal lords and doges
*Can't have loans from jews, holy orders etc.
*Tyranny maluses is higher than normal

EDIT

*Special holding (like a family palace) - familian commune. Can growth military, economical and piety bonuses, but give also risk of riot against your family (paranoia, that you want be new feudal tyrant)
*Centralization laws limited to "Decentralized"
*Don't have "Administration laws"

 

[klopkr]

A castle holding simply corresponds to a political center of power in rural areas, aka farmland, rural villages, and castle-towns. The term "feudal" in game does not imply feudalism per say, but is the generic government form for post-tribal societies. The Lollards themselves were ironically pro-monarchist, as they wanted to king to act as a bulwark against the power of the church and nobility. That was not do far different than the actual policies of centralizing 16th century monarchs who allied with the merchant classes and lower gentry against the church and great nobles. Historically, the more radical Christian sects have either moderated when they obtained political power, ran a revolutionary dictatorship that imploded after a couple years, or decided that they were too holy to hold civil office.

There really isn't such a thing as an "anti-feudal" state per say, there are pre-feudal states, represented by tribal and nomadic governments, and post-feudal states, which really can't be represented in game. The game mechanics really can't represent a post-feudal state. (Well, it could, by creating a government type free revocation of all titles, an unlimited demesne, and no wrong-holding penalties, but that would be ridiculously OP.)

This seems like an attempt to create a playable theocracy to create a playable theocracy, rather than to represent a historical government type. Heretic communes were rare and generally very small, well below the equivalent of a barony tier holding in most cases. Also, they did not have noble or quasi-noble dynasties, but were as close to peasant republics as one can get.

We've talked about places on the map that would have this government type already. Rome was a commune in some starts, the qarmatians ruled lots of land and could be closer to a commune, and this game lets us actually make some of the crazy heresies normal. Plus Dithmarschen exists as a peasant commune in EU4 because it was created in the CK2 timeframe.

 

[Rags17]

I agree that this form of government would never translate into a large realm. Perhaps the solution is to give it all sorts of autocratic powers but give it almost nil demesne and vassal allowances so that any growth would be very difficult.

 

[moscal]

This seems like an attempt to create a playable theocracy to create a playable theocracy, rather than to represent a historical government type. Heretic communes were rare and generally very small, well below the equivalent of a barony tier holding in most cases. Also, they did not have noble or quasi-noble dynasties, but were as close to peasant republics as one can get.

But CK2 is game, where we can create alt-hisotrical world. CK2 isn't a history textbook, where X must always had place. In CK2 Europe can be conquered and burnt by nomads and nobody will know "what was feudalism". Here is this same - in an alternative timeline heretic communes can be dominant form of government. In normal situations "heretic communes" will be very rare and very small, because in normal games heresies have small range. Therefore here this isn't problem

Fact, that almost always in gov X dynasty had place doesn't have to determine that de facto quasi-dynastic rules will have place. Communistic dictatorship is default non-dynastic, but in North Korea we have dynasty. Mechanics in CK2 need that any playable form of goverments must be dynastic or quasi-dynastic. Also new form of goverment must have this element. Create non-playable govs for few heresies create those religions as non-playable, and this would be wrong.

Gameplay > historicism.

This seems like an attempt to create a playable theocracy to create a playable theocracy,

We have playable theocracies. Iqta and monastic feudalism are form of playable theocracies And in "normal theocracies" would be "normal taxes".

This is form of create concept improve heresies. First step would be create alternative gov, where "Feudalabgabe" (I don,t know how this will be in english) aren't default. So always laws in line "taxes and levies" will have 0% vassal taxes and 0% vassal levies. But every isolated parts of state would be de facto unplayable, therefore options "call to arms like a tribes", "taxes and levies for piety" etc. Current (IMO) this is only possibility of simulating a non-feudal playable system other than nomadism or tribalism.

Maybe you have better concept? I would like to read

I agree that this form of government would never translate into a large realm. Perhaps the solution is to give it all sorts of autocratic powers but give it almost nil demesne and vassal allowances so that any growth would be very difficult.

Expansions would be limited by general weakness of central power. Any civil war or rebellion would be very dangerous. Even in "normal wars" can be problem - current in tribalism not every want "join to war" and in feudalism bad relations with lords can give very small soldiers. Still feudalism will be better form of goverment, because you can have any form of absolutization, centralization etc. As heretic commune you are very limited.

 

[klopkr]

With all the talk about a new start date in the 930's and qarmatians I really want to see the use of communes and inland republics added in.

 

[Alfray Stryke]

Well going by the wiki, Holy Fury was released in November, 3.1 was released in April, so assuming a similar timeline for another content patch/dlc we're looking at around about September-ish. PDXCON is in October so it seems reasonable if PDS was to release something for CKII it'd be before PDXCON to not steal attention from any other announcements.

 

[Alyssea]

At the least, this makes a lot more sense to include in CK2 than in EU4 (*coughcough* Dithmarschen).