Minor Dynasties?

[ErmineClad]

Originally posted by Drakken
Burgundy and Germany were certainly not smaller powers.

Drakken

Well I agree but I kept hearing that because the game exists on such a grand scale we can should only expect Kings to be in play... so I was saying I'm hopeful some of the powerful non-kings can get in the game... I've been arguing for the non-kings after all because I know many of them were not smaller powers.... that was my point all along.

But if only kings get in that will exclude the Ducs of Burgundy, and I would think exclude many of the powerful German families as well. And if some Ducs are in why not others?

That question was largely the reason for the thread to begin with, or at least that is the reason for my involvement here.

~EC~

 

[ErmineClad]

Originally posted by BarbarossaHRE
Right, and as we've seen argued in other threads, there was a Kingdom of Germany from 911-1806. So it should be in regardless.

Burgundy on the other hand, was originally a kingdom, and when it later shifted north and became a major power, its dukes were cadets of the French royal family, right?

Yes, a branch off the Capets, and much later becoming a branch off the Valois.

~EC~

 

[ErmineClad]

Originally posted by BarbarossaHRE
Actually I dont see it as being a big deal, and Im a medieval HRE freak. Why? Because usually, the Emperor was simultaneously King of Germany, Italy, & Burgundy. Even when he had a son crowned King of Italy or Burgundy, he still retained control until his death, upon which the son took over. The other sons were never given royal titles, just the heir to the empire. The others were always made Dukes. This changed a bit after 1250 when certain dynasties got their hands on the eastern kingdoms, but the rule still didnt change within the empire itself.

Germany, from 911-1250 and beyond in many cases, consisted of the 6 "Tribal" Duchies; the dukes generally led the tribal counts and their contingents. Italy had the Duchies of Tuscany & Spoleto, Apulia-Calabria, etc., plus the Margraves, which, like in Germany, basically functioned as "frontier Dukes". So the CK method sounds pretty good to me. In fact, I cant freakin' wait to play it!

I'm happy with any way it is done, as I'm sure to enjoy it regardless. I am simply hoping for more choices so as to increase the amount of replayability.

For me the best part of EUII was that I could be anyone, and every place was unique in some way.... as a result I continue to play EUII regularly.

~EC~

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Originally posted by ErmineClad
I'm happy with any way it is done, as I'm sure to enjoy it regardless. I am simply hoping for more choices so as to increase the amount of replayability.

For me the best part of EUII was that I could be anyone, and every place was unique in some way.... as a result I continue to play EUII regularly.

~EC~

With all the playable dynasties and kingdoms, Im guessing it'll be as re-playable as EU2.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by BarbarossaHRE
With all the playable dynasties and kingdoms, Im guessing it'll be as re-playable as EU2.

It will be more re-playable than EU2. In EU2 the monarch lists and leaders are always (or most always as far as monarchs) the same. In CK there is very little chance that the the monarchs and leaders (dukes and counts) will be the same. With 11 (or 14 or whatever number of) traits being generated for each person the chance of haveing two games be the same is miniscule. There are only a few inheritance events in EU2 - in CK inheritance will be a major part of the game.

So as long as you don't grow weary of having a different game each time you play or get turned off by the lack of historical persons etc. then I would say CK could last a long time.

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Originally posted by Sonny
It will be more re-playable than EU2. In EU2 the monarch lists and leaders are always (or most always as far as monarchs) the same. In CK there is very little chance that the the monarchs and leaders (dukes and counts) will be the same. With 11 (or 14 or whatever number of) traits being generated for each person the chance of haveing two games be the same is miniscule. There are only a few inheritance events in EU2 - in CK inheritance will be a major part of the game.

So as long as you don't grow weary of having a different game each time you play or get turned off by the lack of historical persons etc. then I would say CK could last a long time.

Even better. And no, I wont get turned off by either. Thanks Sonny.

 

[unmerged(485)]

The replayability will make for tons of potential AARs with a great deal of variation. Several people can take the same initial dynasty and have AARs which are very widely divergent. It might even make me get back into reading AARs.

 

[unmerged(14092)]

What about republics in what way you resolve this, a Venezia and Dubrovnik (Ragusa) were crutial for crusaders (Venezia especialy) because of a navy they rented for transportation of army in Holy Land.

 

[Norgesvenn]

Originally posted by Ustasa
What about republics in what way you resolve this, a Venezia and Dubrovnik (Ragusa) were crutial for crusaders (Venezia especialy) because of a navy they rented for transportation of army in Holy Land.

That'll probably be handled appropriately. Just because they're not actually playable doesn't mean they're not in.

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by ErmineClad
Yes, a branch off the Capets, and much later becoming a branch off the Valois.

~EC~

Well the problem with Burgundy is that in 1066 there was a Kingdom, a Duchy, and a County of Burgundy, all in existence at the same time! The Duchy was indeed part of France under a branch of the Capets. The Kingdom had only recently been inherited by the Kings of Germany and thus was ruled by the Holy Roman Emperor. The County, the later Franche Comte, was a northern portion of the Kingdom, adjacent to France, but ruled by the house of Macon...

 

[Viridovilas]

What about italian city states, later duchies?

I mean, they are nominally under the rule of the HRE emperor, but in fact they are largely autonomous.

An hard fight was carried on by Frederich I and Frederich II to assure the italian city under the HRE emperor rule, but both of them were finally defeated by the coalition known as Lega Lombarda, led by the pope and the most important italian cities like Milan or Bologna.
Since then, no German emperor has never had an effective control over the Kingdom of Italy and every city or regional state behaved as an indipendent nation both in internal and international affairs.

A part from the overwritten republic of Genoa and Venice, which provided most of the economical resources for the crusades (Venezia even diverted the 4 th Crusade from its original target and conquered Bisanzio) other italian city states reached a considerable economical and even military power: Milan in late 14 th century conquered almost all the North and central Italy. Gian Galeazzo Visconti, Lord and Duke of Milan wuold probably have claimed for the title of King of Italy if he didn't die for plague.

 

[ErmineClad]

Originally posted by Demetrios
Well the problem with Burgundy is that in 1066 there was a Kingdom, a Duchy, and a County of Burgundy, all in existence at the same time! The Duchy was indeed part of France under a branch of the Capets. The Kingdom had only recently been inherited by the Kings of Germany and thus was ruled by the Holy Roman Emperor. The County, the later Franche Comte, was a northern portion of the Kingdom, adjacent to France, but ruled by the house of Macon...

So what is it about the game mechanics that prevents the Duchy of Burgundy from being playable?

Are you saying these three are somehow going to be combined, or... for most of the games time period there will be three seperate Burgundys, so I'm not totally certain what your getting at here, sorry. Could you try to explain more for someone that doesn't have the understanding of the games mechanics?

Thank You Much
~EC~

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by ErmineClad
So what is it about the game mechanics that prevents the Duchy of Burgundy from being playable?

Are you saying these three are somehow going to be combined, or... for most of the games time period there will be three seperate Burgundys, so I'm not totally certain what your getting at here, sorry. Could you try to explain more for someone that doesn't have the understanding of the games mechanics?

Thank You Much
~EC~

I am saying that in the game there should be three separate Burgundys, as there were historically. As has been stated before, it is nowhere near certain that any vassals will be playable. If vassals are unplayable, then the Duchy will not be playable as it was a vassal state, as was the County; the Kingdom, well it's sort in a gray zone as it was in a permanent personal union with the Kingdom of Germany. If vassals do turn out to be playable, then it would seem reasonable that the Duchy will be among the most likely vassals to achieve playable status...

 

[ErmineClad]

Originally posted by Demetrios
I am saying that in the game there should be three separate Burgundys, as there were historically. As has been stated before, it is nowhere near certain that any vassals will be playable. If vassals are unplayable, then the Duchy will not be playable as it was a vassal state, as was the County; the Kingdom, well it's sort in a gray zone as it was in a permanent personal union with the Kingdom of Germany. If vassals do turn out to be playable, then it would seem reasonable that the Duchy will be among the most likely vassals to achieve playable status...

Ah yes, I would certainly agree with that statement.

Bringing up the Kingdom of Germany though, you have reminded me of a question I had from much earlier in this topic, how is Germany going to function without vassals playable? I know that the emperor is playable, but the emperor is selected from the vassals of the empire. So how will that work?

Will there be some specifcal rules for the emperor or something? Or will the vassals of Emperor be playable?

~EC~