Please just allow us to create custom Hegemonies

[Azgabeth]

Hegemony - A New Title Tier​

Since China is a de jure realm that is more expansive than any one of the empires we currently have in the game, we are adding a new title tier for it - a Hegemony. In all our start dates, China is the only existing Hegemony, but others can be created using the decisions we have for uniting India or Rome. For now, there is no generic way to create these super-empires, and beyond China there are no de-jure ones. Instead, we reserve its use for special cases with bespoke rules and justifications.

From this description I understand that only a United China, Rome or India will be Hegemony Tier Titles.

But it is bad design for there to not be a generic way of making a Hegemony tier title.

Lock it behind having to own like 5 Empires or something, I don’t really care, just allow us players to create custom Hegemonies and fullfill out fantasies.

Don’t just lock it behind aome code so some poor modder has to make a mod that inevitably gets abandoned after a new patch breaks the mod.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

We can make custom duchies, kingdoms, and empires, but custom hegemonies are too far?

 

[Toleora]

Let’s wait and see what the actual system is about, the devs didn’t told so much at that point. If it’s just another titular title without any meaningful new mechanics like hegemonic decay and/or new interfaces I don’t think it’s that desirable to archieve. Especially if it skyrockets your activity costs again like king=>emperor.
Also Kingdoms and Empires play exactly the same from a mechanical view. I don’t want Hegemonies to join that same gameplay.

 

[CrazyRat]

Let’s wait and see what the actual system is about, the devs didn’t told so much at that point. If it’s just another titular title without any meaningful new mechanics like hegemonic decay and/or new interfaces I don’t think it’s that desirable to archieve. Especially if it skyrockets your activity costs again like king=>emperor

but on the other hand it allows you to have a vassal emperors; and especially in cases like e.g. Iberia it allows you to have a nice-looking province you can grant with one click, rather than 8 small kingdoms that force you to either ignore de jure, split realm into very small chunks, or grant multiple kingdom titles.

I'm personally more thrilled about QoL feature than any special mechanics, tbh.

 

[ray243]

but on the other hand it allows you to have a vassal emperors; and especially in cases like e.g. Iberia it allows you to have a nice-looking province you can grant with one click, rather than 8 small kingdoms that force you to either ignore de jure, split realm into very small chunks, or grant multiple kingdom titles.

I'm personally more thrilled about QoL feature than any special mechanics, tbh.

It also prevents your vassals from becoming independent just because they created an empire tier title because they control all of Spain as an example.

maybe not independent vassal emperors, but certainly vassals controlling enough lands that forms de jure empires should be able to become subordinate to hegemons.

 

[CannaeCogitate]

I do believe they mentioned that part of the reason custom Hegemonies won't be a thing is because *each hegemony is supposed to have it's own flavour and mechanics*, they aren't *just another title* they're an incredibly impactful construct that essentially sets you on a higher tier than anyone else in the world, and I think that's a noble thing to aim for,

 

[xking]

Maybe they should make it a legend or something. Like if a character is successful and they conquer the entirety of Europe. Why shouldn't they be able to make a hegemony? At that point you be more successful than the Romans were

 

[ray243]

Maybe they should make it a legend or something. Like if a character is successful and they conquer the entirety of Europe. Why shouldn't they be able to make a hegemony? At that point you be more successful than the Romans were

But for China, even if later dynasty becomes bigger than the Han dynasty, they still refer themselves as successor of the Chinese hegemony.

The Qing is bigger than the Han dynasty but they still see themselves as part of the Han legacy, just even bigger.

 

[Willy Waggler]

It also prevents your vassals from becoming independent just because they created an empire tier title because they control all of Spain as an example.

Wait what? In ck2 vassals couldn't form tittle that is equal to liege, but they actually can do that in ck3?

 

[Arcvalons]

Please don't, I want these to be special. Let's not repeat the mistakes that led to kingdoms/empires being devaluated.

 

[CannaeCogitate]

Wait what? In ck2 vassals couldn't form tittle that is equal to liege, but they actually can do that in ck3?

No, I don't know what they're talking about but you are specifically barred from creating a title that would make you independent, there are *some* special events that let you do similar things, though they are the exception.

Forming the Sultanate of Rum for example makes you independent if you aren't.

 

[strattonthebard]

I dunno about kingdoms but honestly I kinda wish that de jure empires were restricted to ones with some historical basis so that the larger you get the more you suffer from "not rightful liege" penalties from your peripheral vassals unless you're able to jump through some hoops to create a brand new empire

 

[frostbiyt]

Please don't, I want these to be special. Let's not repeat the mistakes that led to kingdoms/empires being devaluated.

Do the "create custom kingdom/empire" decisions contribute to that?

To quote myself from the DD thread:

I hope you guys reconsider this. Even if the hegemon is generic, it would be nice to have the option to create custom ones. Custom kingdoms and empires are already devoid of flavor beyond what the player gives it, but I still love doing it.

As it is, custom kingdoms and empires are pretty much always strictly worse than just forming a de jure one. Now, since there's only the one de jure hegemony, a custom one would be the best option in the majority of the world by default, but I can't imagine it will ever be the strategically "correct" decision to take. If they want to add more depth to hegemonies later, great, adding a custom hegemon decision wouldn't prevent them from doing that. And if you don't want to take that decision, don't, I doubt it would detract from your experience.

 

[naq29]

Please don't, I want these to be special. Let's not repeat the mistakes that led to kingdoms/empires being devaluated.

Nah if that happens we will have the next rank: Global Supremacy

 

[CannaeCogitate]

Do the "create custom kingdom/empire" decisions contribute to that?

To quote myself from the DD thread:

As it is, custom kingdoms and empires are pretty much always strictly worse than just forming a de jure one. Now, since there's only the one de jure hegemony, a custom one would be the best option in the majority of the world by default, but I can't imagine it will ever be the strategically "correct" decision to take. If they want to add more depth to hegemonies later, great, adding a custom hegemon decision wouldn't prevent them from doing that. And if you don't want to take that decision, don't, I doubt it would detract from your experience.

I disagree that custom kingdoms are worse than de jure ones.
Whenever I play in the Sindh or the Punjab I form a de jure kingdom that encompasses both.

 

[CrazyRat]

Please don't, I want these to be special. Let's not repeat the mistakes that led to kingdoms/empires being devaluated.

I mean, I remember when the CK2 just had HRE, Byzantium, Caliphates, and Mongol things, and most of the map did not have any Empire available.

That was not exactly a funniest title system for most of the map.

 

[Willy Waggler]

I mean, I remember when the CK2 just had HRE, Byzantium, Caliphates, and Mongol things, and most of the map did not have any Empire available.

That was not exactly a funniest title system for most of the map.

It was before vassal limit was introduced, so it was actually fine.

 

[SMiki Lorebringer]

I'm not opposed to de jure Empires existing but they are definitely too small and fragmented. People see miniature West Slavia and Baltic Empire and proceed to assume that they need a Slavia Hegemony above them because "Empires" are so tiny.

Realistically there should be only one Sclavinia, encompassing western and eastern Slavs as envisioned by Otto in his vision of universal HRE. Carpathia ought to be merged with Byzantium, and Italia either merged with HRE or enlarged with southern half of Italy.

 

[CannaeCogitate]

I'm not opposed to de jure Empires existing but they are definitely too small and fragmented. People see miniature West Slavia and Baltic Empire and proceed to assume that they need a Slavia Hegemony above them because "Empires" are so tiny.

Realistically there should be only one Sclavinia, encompassing western and eastern Slavs as envisioned by Otto in his vision of universal HRE. Carpathia ought to be merged with Byzantium, and Italia either merged with HRE or enlarged with southern half of Italy.

I don't usually care about byzantines so this may be a silly question but:
Did the Byzantines ever appreciably rule Carpathia?
I firmly disagree on Italia, it already *can* be unified with southern Italy.

 

[Pendables]

You already need 80 counties to make a custom empire and I don't think I've ever managed to play CK3 long enough to do that