How will aristocratic title levels affect game play?

[Nerga]

In EU3 many of the playable nations are bishoprics, duchies, counties or even city states along with the traditional kingdoms, republics and empires. Will there be any affect on the game play from these different levels? Ck2 has added a lot of aristocratic title stuff, and I am not asking for this to expand medieval stuff into the renaissance or anything, but some of those systems still matter through out the time frame. Like, if I play Brunswick, as I expand will I go through levels of prestige like the Brunswick duchy -> kingdom -> empire? It would add a interesting dynamic if we can claim we are now a kingdom, or now a duchy, to get more diplomatic pull or prestige on something other than size and army. This is setting aside all things like formable nations and stuff.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

In Magna Mundi rank affected Administrative Efficiency (ability to rule province-wise big or/and religiously/culturally diverse country), something like demesne size in CK2. It would be great if EU4 had something like that - not only would it make more sense to try and get higher rank, but also - there wouldn't be counties size of France on the map.

 

[unmerged(189294)]

Perhaps something similar to the 'adopt Imperial Administration' decision. For Catholic Countries you have 'petition the Pope to raise title' which costs money, gives prestige and requires good relations with the Papacy. Other cultures would probably have different systems (Japan is likely to retain the Shogunate mechanic, Chinese 'Kingdoms' probably default to using Emperor as you're probably claiming the Mandate of Heaven etc.).

Or there could be a dual system where you can as a Catholic petition the Pope to be elevated, or you can unilaterally upgrade a Duchy to a 'Kingdom equivelent' rank but it's referred to as a Grand Duchy instead because others don't recognise it as a Kingdom.

 

[Secret Master]

In Magna Mundi rank affected Administrative Efficiency (ability to rule province-wise big or/and religiously/culturally diverse country), something like demesne size in CK2. It would be great if EU4 had something like that - not only would it make more sense to try and get higher rank, but also - there wouldn't be counties size of France on the map.

Why would expanding to the size of France be a problem? In EU3, we have infamy to cover international reactions to imperialism, and we have core provinces tied to the over extension mechanic that makes someone with only half their provinces being cores susceptible to serious problems. This doesn't even count unlawful imperial territory for folks in the HRE.

If you hold territory long enough for it to become a core, who cares what your "title" is? You've integrated the province into your empire, subject to religious and cultural minorities still getting irritable.

 

[Nerga]

Why would expanding to the size of France be a problem? In EU3, we have infamy to cover international reactions to imperialism, and we have core provinces tied to the over extension mechanic that makes someone with only half their provinces being cores susceptible to serious problems. This doesn't even count unlawful imperial territory for folks in the HRE.

If you hold territory long enough for it to become a core, who cares what your "title" is? You've integrated the province into your empire, subject to religious and cultural minorities still getting irritable.

Well historically if you look at politics, what a ruler was called would matter. I mean, the intervention of the Prussians on the side of the Habsburgs in the War of the Spanish Succession was so that Frederick could be crowned King in Prussia. There is a prestige to being a king instead of a duke, or an emperor instead of a king, even if the territory under control is not really any different, and I think that this is a small thing that can have some bigger gameplay affects.

 

[Secret Master]

Well historically if you look at politics, what a ruler was called would matter. I mean, the intervention of the Prussians on the side of the Habsburgs in the War of the Spanish Succession was so that Frederick could be crowned King in Prussia. There is a prestige to being a king instead of a duke, or an emperor instead of a king, even if the territory under control is not really any different, and I think that this is a small thing that can have some bigger gameplay affects.

Yes, but you said that there was an administrative efficiency mechanic tied to the titles in MM. But the post you just made talked about prestige. The existing mechanics in EU3 cover the admin angle, while what you just said is all about prestige (which might make a lot more sense.).

 

[unmerged(63836)]

Why would expanding to the size of France be a problem?

Feudal Count ruling territory with size and population of France would have a lot of problems holding it, since because of his low rank his rule would be undermined not only by his neighbours but by his own aristocracy as well, especially early in the game period.

In EU3, we have infamy to cover international reactions to imperialism, and we have core provinces tied to the over extension mechanic that makes someone with only half their provinces being cores susceptible to serious problems.

Problem with these mechanism is that they are gone after x years (infamy decayed to 0, cores gained after 50 years), and our Count could unrealistically continue his conquering spree, WC included.

If you hold territory long enough for it to become a core, who cares what your "title" is? You've integrated the province into your empire, subject to religious and cultural minorities still getting irritable.

Again - rest of European rulers, your own subjects, aristocracy refusing to bow to the mere Count, etc. There's a reason why monarchs pursued higher titles, and had problems if they overextended beyond what was typical for their rank. It's not like this is hugely important in CK2 period, but once EU3 period kicks in - it suddenly doesn't matter at all. Coring time and infamy decay time being only things stopping player or AI from expanding ad infinitum is one of the worst flaws of EU3 IMO - highly unrealistic and primitive mechanisms. Luckily Infamy is gone, being replaced with CK2 like system.

Plus, once our Count or Duke conquers whole France, he should be able to form France - elevating his rank in the process.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

I member playing MEIOU and the title tier system there never made much sense with how anyone could just make a county a kingdom with enough time, prestige and bribes. Just didn't flow from logic or history at all.

Count to Duke? That's fine, it happened all the time. Most of the major French counties that survived the middle ages ended up as duchies, most of the duchies (excepting the stem ones) in the HRE were counties at one point.

But Duke to King only really happened after the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire (Bavaria, Hannover, Saxony, Wurtemburg) or by what the game terms tag switching (Sardinia Piedmont, Prussia). All the other examples (Portugal, Bosnia, Sardinia, Sicily, disputably Poland) are in the CK2 the time period.

 

[Jia Xu]

I would like to see title tiers just for flavour. It was such an eyesore to see every sovereign Christian state be headed by a king. If title tiers were to provide a bonus, it probably should just be a bonus to prestige decay.

 

[Dafool]

I member playing MEIOU and the title tier system there never made much sense with how anyone could just make a county a kingdom with enough time, prestige and bribes. Just didn't flow from logic or history at all.

Count to Duke? That's fine, it happened all the time. Most of the major French counties that survived the middle ages ended up as duchies, most of the duchies (excepting the stem ones) in the HRE were counties at one point.

But Duke to King only really happened after the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire (Bavaria, Hannover, Saxony, Wurtemburg) or by what the game terms tag switching (Sardinia Piedmont, Prussia). All the other examples (Portugal, Bosnia, Sardinia, Sicily, disputably Poland) are in the CK2 the time period.

This is true, at least to an extent. Rising through the ranks almost always required you to claim a kingship not create one. Then again, it wasn't unheard of to see people try to bribe and maneuver into questionable kingships. Prussia and Burgundy are two great examples of this. I'm not familiar with MEIOU's system, but I know the MM system relied on things like income, manpower, and size to determine if you could attempt to move up a rank. I think that's reasonable. All that said, I have my doubts that we're going to see this system in EU4. It's effect on gameplay is minimal, but it requires a fair deal of housekeeping in order to keep everything working.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

No more King in every little european state? should be cool

 

[Ruwaard]

I member playing MEIOU and the title tier system there never made much sense with how anyone could just make a county a kingdom with enough time, prestige and bribes. Just didn't flow from logic or history at all.

Count to Duke? That's fine, it happened all the time. Most of the major French counties that survived the middle ages ended up as duchies, most of the duchies (excepting the stem ones) in the HRE were counties at one point.

But Duke to King only really happened after the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire (Bavaria, Hannover, Saxony, Wurtemburg) or by what the game terms tag switching (Sardinia Piedmont, Prussia). All the other examples (Portugal, Bosnia, Sardinia, Sicily, disputably Poland) are in the CK2 the time period.

I agree with most of it, but I can nitpick about Sardinia. The kingdom of Sardinia, originally Sardinia & Corsica already existed since the CK2 period (created by the Pope as part of a way to resolve the situation after the Sicilian Vespers), but it was held as one of the many secondary titles in the Crown of Aragon; only after the duke of Savoy was compensated for the loss of the kingdom of Sicily with the kingdom of Sardinia, Sardinia became a primary title (though de facto most stayed in Savoy; and in that way it was more like a promotion for the ruler of Savoy; Sardinia-Piedmont is a way to describe to collection of titles held by the house of Savoy (among these the kingdom of Sardinia and the duchy of Savoy)).
So basically only Prussia is an example from an elevation from duke to king in the period before Napoleon (and after the period covered in CK2); however the negotiations of the house of Valois-Burgundy with the Holy Roman Emperor (and later HR emperor Joseph II and elector (Palatine & Bavaria Charles Theodore) did show that it theoretically was possible yet very hard to actually achieve.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

So basically only Prussia is an example from an elevation from duke to king in the period before Napoleon (and after the period covered in CK2); however the negotiations of the house of Valois-Burgundy with the Holy Roman Emperor (and later HR emperor Joseph II and elector (Palatine & Bavaria Charles Theodore) did show that it theoretically was possible yet very hard to actually achieve.

The Duke of Burgundy wanted to be King of Frisia or Lotheringia, so that also would have been tag switching to a theoretically already existing kingdom.

 

[Dafool]

The Duke of Burgundy wanted to be King of Frisia or Lotheringia, so that also would have been tag switching to a theoretically already existing kingdom.

Actually, the discussion at hand was either to grant the Dukes of Burgundy a preexisting kingship (Frisia and Arles were the most likely. Lotharingia might have been on the table, but that's speculative.) or to elevate them to the Kings of Burgundy. Despite the process nearly coming to fruition, I can't find a source which says exactly which option the Emperor favored. But anyway, my point is that it wasn't entirely out of the question to simply change Burgundy from a Duchy into a Kingdom. It was just a rare process, since technically only an Emperor would have such authority.

 

[Ruwaard]

@ Dafool: At least for Catholic Rulers the Pope had that authority too. For territories a part of the Holy Roman Empire the Emperor's approval was needed (who also had to take the opinion of the prince-electors and other important nobles into account), sometimes (IIRC Bohemia) a Papal blessing was asked too.

Outside the Holy Roman Empire both the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor had the authority to grant a Royal Crown. Obviously the Orthodox Roman ('Byzantine') Emperor had to prerogative too.
Furthermore in case of Protestant Prussia the Pope obviously wasn't an option for obtaining a Royal Crown, nor would the Pope have been inclined to grant it to a Protestant either.

Regarding Burgundy the kingdom of Arles and kingdom of Burgundy are synonymous; IMHO if the dukes of Burgundy would have been granted the Royal Crown of Arles, then this third kingdom of Burgundy would have been known as Burgundy and not Arles.
It would be like how the electorate (previously stem duchy) of Saxony traveled through the empire , it started in Lower Saxony and ended in the Thuringian March (Meissen).

Though technically the emperor could have elevated the free county of Burgundy (not the duchy of Burgundy, which is French) to a kingdom too; even the option to elevate Brabant to a kingdom was suggested.
Though you're right that the duke of Burgundy (both Philip the Good and Charles the Bold) preferred existing ones (with empty thrones) like Burgundy (Arles), Frisia or Lotharingia.
Furthermore Any potential kingdom would have consisted of the imperial possessions of the house of Valois-Burgundy, not their French possessions and the kingdom would have been a part of the empire like Bohemia.

 

[Dafool]

Certainly an interesting point, although I do think it backs up what I was getting at, namely that an increase in rank didn't always have to constitute what we would call a tag change. Especially if such a process was tied to things like prestige, size, etc, I can easily see it being plausible in many cases for a nation to find some method of becoming a kingdom, even if it means calling on the empty throne of some long gone state. Also, it is interesting that the potential Kings of Burgundy would have become Kings within the HRE. I already knew that, but when really thinking about it, it makes me wonder how the French might have reacted to it.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

Certainly an interesting point, although I do think it backs up what I was getting at, namely that an increase in rank didn't always have to constitute what we would call a tag change. Especially if such a process was tied to things like prestige, size, etc, I can easily see it being plausible in many cases for a nation to find some method of becoming a kingdom, even if it means calling on the empty throne of some long gone state. Also, it is interesting that the potential Kings of Burgundy would have become Kings within the HRE. I already knew that, but when really thinking about it, it makes me wonder how the French might have reacted to it.

Ducal Burgundy to the Kingdom of Burgundy would still have been a sort of tag change, Royal Burgundy (Arles) being a completely different area to ducal Burgundy.

 

[spitss]

In Magna Mundi it went for Latin kingdoms.

Count
Duke
King
Emperor

You could petition other nations for a higher title, even if they refused you could get a cause beli to declare war to gain said title.
Titles gave a large bonus to prestige and admin efficiently as well as stability.
Besides I would like to see an end to every country's leader being a "king".

 

[SapientHomo]

As someone who worked hard to make a stand alone version of Magna Mundi's ranking system I know how much flavour it adds to the game and just what can be done with a system such as this. If something similar were in the base game then it would be an exciting addition and I would love to see what the devs could do with it.

 

[Nerga]

Yes, but you said that there was an administrative efficiency mechanic tied to the titles in MM. But the post you just made talked about prestige. The existing mechanics in EU3 cover the admin angle, while what you just said is all about prestige (which might make a lot more sense.).

uhhhh no I didn't. What are you talking about?