This is going to be a provocative post. I know it's too late to do anything just now, but let me give it shot.
Just reading over the descriptions of gameplay, it seems as if CK doesn't quite give a very "Medieval" feel. It seems more like a Renaissance-era game, with a couple of Crusades added for flavor.
Perhaps I'm on the wrong track here, but let me state where I am getting at.
The organization of CK seems a little too "top down". It doesn't seem to capture the politics of feudalism. Feudalism was not about "treating your vassals" right to get them to do your bidding and raising cash for military campaigns against your neighboring kingdoms or overseas. That was the problem of Renaissance-era monarchs (& later).
The central political problem in feudalism was that the position of king is not secure and any noble can be chosen king if the nobles so decide.
To give a proper "Medieval" feeling, the gameplay should be organized around that. The following gives an idea about how this might be captured.
From the outset, only Dukes & Counts should be playable. A "king" is not playable. "King" is a title (HRE-style) that is given to the most popular duke in the "kingdom". So you (a Duke) only get to be king if you are elected to it by your peers (other dukes & counts in the kingdom). If you are not popular, you lose the title of king to a competitor. But, even if you lose the title, you'll still stay lord of your ducal demesne -- the only thing is now you'll have to do his bidding.
As a Duke, if you don't do the King's bidding, you get attacked by the king & his allied dukes and might lose a few lands. Alternatively, you can behave, bide your time and build up your lands, relations and form alliances with fellow dukes & counts in your kingdom and either (a) hope you get chosen king at the death of the current one or (b) unwilling to wait or get passed over repeatedly, launch an open revolt with your confederates to regain the royal title. Foreign dukes can be brought in to the fray to help (in return for your help against their fellow dukes/kings, etc.)
e.g. suppose you take control of the Capets. You start off as Duke of France (which is what they formally were) but not king. As Duke of France, you have your own vassals (the counts of Anjou, Maine, Touraine, Blois, etc). But you also have several peers (the Dukes of Gascony, Aquitaine, Normandy, Burgundy, Champagne, Flanders and Toulouse), who have their own vassals (counts). Several ecclesiastical lords (Reims, Laon, etc.) are also peers.
Any one of the secular peers (dukes) can be elected King of France (ecclesiastical lords participate in the election, but cannnot themselves be elected). Could be you (Duke of France). But it could also be the Duke of Aquitaine, or Normandy, or Flanders, etc. who becomes King.
So, suppose the peers elect you as King of France. The peers are now your "vassals" too -- or rather vassals of you as "King of France", and not vassals of you as "Duke of France".
Now, you do some stupid stuff and annoy your peers. Your character dies. But instead of electing the successor in your dynasty, the peers decide to elect the current Duke of Aquitaine as King of France. Now, your son remains Duke of France -- i.e. you still have Anjou, Maine, etc. as vassals -- but you yourself are now a vassal of Aquitaine.
It was perfectly possible and perfectly legal in the medieval era for this to happen. As it happens, the Duke of France was always chosen King of France. But, as we all well know, the Duke of Franconia was not always chosen King of Germany, nor the Prince of Vladimir always Grand Prince of Russia, etc. The politics of the era were dominated by this concern.
List of Kingdoms
As far as continental Europe is concerned, there should be a given number of kingly titles designating elective overlordship over a particular set of duchies.
Off the top of my head, I would restrict this to the five Carolingian titles (King of France, Germany, Italy, Burgundy, Navarre), plus "Emperor of Spain", "King of Denmark", "King of Hungary", "Grand Prince of Russia", and a few more.
But you actually can't be any of these other than by peer election. Otherwise, you start off merely as a duke-level noble and, by dynasty or conqeust, you can only make duke-level or count-level acquisitions (and those need to be invested by the relevant suzerain) .
England would be tougher as it didn't have feudalism exactly in the continental sense (it was a lot more "top-down"). Of course, Byzantium was very top-down as would be many of the eastern kingdoms. But at least the Byzantine Emperor title got some jockey play after 1204. Ireland, of course, has the High King title.
Multiple Kingdoms
In principle, it should be possible for a single dynaty to control duchy titles in different kingdoms (e.g. the Duke of Champagne can also be Duke of Swabia) and, conceivably, be elected to one or both royal titles (King of France and Germany).
But obligations continue. If, say, the King of England happens to be Duke of Aquitaine as well, he still has feudal obligations to the King of France, making this a delicate issue to manage -- as English interests may clash with French ones (as was, in fact, the case). You can opt to play it "Englishally", at the risk of prompting the French king & peers to deprive you of your French domains; or you can play "Frenchily" (perhaps hoping to acquire the French royal title too), but at the cost of growing discontent on the island.
The Empire
The Holy Roman Emperor crown was originally theoretical and designated no territory. Around the time when CK starts, it began being used to designate the three kingdoms of Germany, Italy and Burgundy which happened to sit on the same head at the time. But separate coronations and estates for each continued for a while.
The crowns weren't united into a single imperial crown until later during the game-period. Well into the 16th Century, all the institutions of the HRE still made reference to it being "three kingdoms".
I don't know how you might want to reflect this in gameplay. Unite the three kingdoms from the outset into one imperial crown? Or perhaps there is an "extra" imperial election, granted to the Pope's favorite European monarch (from one of the five Carolingian kingdoms, or just all of the Catholic ones)?
Changing & Creating Kingdoms
In principle, the borders of the kingdoms cannot change except by agreement (treaty) between the two suzerain royals involved and, here is the important point, the Pope (in Russia, by the Khan of the GH, at least in later scenarios)
It is also possible for a rather strong duchy to apply for independence as a distinct kingdom. That application must be approved by the Pope. It must also have the consent of the current royal suzerain.
That's how it happened then. Many of what we call modern "kingdoms" started off as duchies of another kingdom before being recognized as kingdoms by pope and suzerain, e.g. the Counts of Portugal and Castile (Spanish fiefs), the Dukes of Poland, Bohemia & Lower Lorraine (German fiefs), the Duke of Benevento (Italian fief), Count of Sicily (Byzantine fief), the Count of Aragon (Navarran fief) all were or became independent kingdoms at some point. Some code may be written in to make sure that the AI for these particular duchies, if united & strong enough, try to apply for independence.
Ideally, republics (Venice, Pisa, Florence, Novgorod, etc.), could also be created by Papal/Khanate application, but .....
In Sum:
Before the Renaissance began to change the concept of what a "king" was, from merely being a "first noble" by his peers' consent to a majestic royal, ruler by divine right, this was the case. This internal jockeying for the royal position, rather than external conquest & international relations, should dominate the politics of CK. It would put the bickering feud back in feudalism, forcing you to act like a medieval lord, rather than as a Renaissance monarch.
[Note: I would have started the game a little earlier, c. 900 or 1000, to give the feudal chaos more time to play itself through. Perhaps, to capture the gradual changes over the 14th & 15th Century, this might become less pronounced, e.g. after a period of time, election of your dynasty to the royal title becomes a little bit easier depending on how long you've had it.]
What do you think? Am I completely off track here? Or does CK capture the "feudal feel" well enough without this? Or am I completely misinformed and this is, in fact, how the game operates? Or do you prefer kingly conquests rather than ducal feuding?
Just reading over the descriptions of gameplay, it seems as if CK doesn't quite give a very "Medieval" feel. It seems more like a Renaissance-era game, with a couple of Crusades added for flavor.
Perhaps I'm on the wrong track here, but let me state where I am getting at.
The organization of CK seems a little too "top down". It doesn't seem to capture the politics of feudalism. Feudalism was not about "treating your vassals" right to get them to do your bidding and raising cash for military campaigns against your neighboring kingdoms or overseas. That was the problem of Renaissance-era monarchs (& later).
The central political problem in feudalism was that the position of king is not secure and any noble can be chosen king if the nobles so decide.
To give a proper "Medieval" feeling, the gameplay should be organized around that. The following gives an idea about how this might be captured.
From the outset, only Dukes & Counts should be playable. A "king" is not playable. "King" is a title (HRE-style) that is given to the most popular duke in the "kingdom". So you (a Duke) only get to be king if you are elected to it by your peers (other dukes & counts in the kingdom). If you are not popular, you lose the title of king to a competitor. But, even if you lose the title, you'll still stay lord of your ducal demesne -- the only thing is now you'll have to do his bidding.
As a Duke, if you don't do the King's bidding, you get attacked by the king & his allied dukes and might lose a few lands. Alternatively, you can behave, bide your time and build up your lands, relations and form alliances with fellow dukes & counts in your kingdom and either (a) hope you get chosen king at the death of the current one or (b) unwilling to wait or get passed over repeatedly, launch an open revolt with your confederates to regain the royal title. Foreign dukes can be brought in to the fray to help (in return for your help against their fellow dukes/kings, etc.)
e.g. suppose you take control of the Capets. You start off as Duke of France (which is what they formally were) but not king. As Duke of France, you have your own vassals (the counts of Anjou, Maine, Touraine, Blois, etc). But you also have several peers (the Dukes of Gascony, Aquitaine, Normandy, Burgundy, Champagne, Flanders and Toulouse), who have their own vassals (counts). Several ecclesiastical lords (Reims, Laon, etc.) are also peers.
Any one of the secular peers (dukes) can be elected King of France (ecclesiastical lords participate in the election, but cannnot themselves be elected). Could be you (Duke of France). But it could also be the Duke of Aquitaine, or Normandy, or Flanders, etc. who becomes King.
So, suppose the peers elect you as King of France. The peers are now your "vassals" too -- or rather vassals of you as "King of France", and not vassals of you as "Duke of France".
Now, you do some stupid stuff and annoy your peers. Your character dies. But instead of electing the successor in your dynasty, the peers decide to elect the current Duke of Aquitaine as King of France. Now, your son remains Duke of France -- i.e. you still have Anjou, Maine, etc. as vassals -- but you yourself are now a vassal of Aquitaine.
It was perfectly possible and perfectly legal in the medieval era for this to happen. As it happens, the Duke of France was always chosen King of France. But, as we all well know, the Duke of Franconia was not always chosen King of Germany, nor the Prince of Vladimir always Grand Prince of Russia, etc. The politics of the era were dominated by this concern.
List of Kingdoms
As far as continental Europe is concerned, there should be a given number of kingly titles designating elective overlordship over a particular set of duchies.
Off the top of my head, I would restrict this to the five Carolingian titles (King of France, Germany, Italy, Burgundy, Navarre), plus "Emperor of Spain", "King of Denmark", "King of Hungary", "Grand Prince of Russia", and a few more.
But you actually can't be any of these other than by peer election. Otherwise, you start off merely as a duke-level noble and, by dynasty or conqeust, you can only make duke-level or count-level acquisitions (and those need to be invested by the relevant suzerain) .
England would be tougher as it didn't have feudalism exactly in the continental sense (it was a lot more "top-down"). Of course, Byzantium was very top-down as would be many of the eastern kingdoms. But at least the Byzantine Emperor title got some jockey play after 1204. Ireland, of course, has the High King title.
Multiple Kingdoms
In principle, it should be possible for a single dynaty to control duchy titles in different kingdoms (e.g. the Duke of Champagne can also be Duke of Swabia) and, conceivably, be elected to one or both royal titles (King of France and Germany).
But obligations continue. If, say, the King of England happens to be Duke of Aquitaine as well, he still has feudal obligations to the King of France, making this a delicate issue to manage -- as English interests may clash with French ones (as was, in fact, the case). You can opt to play it "Englishally", at the risk of prompting the French king & peers to deprive you of your French domains; or you can play "Frenchily" (perhaps hoping to acquire the French royal title too), but at the cost of growing discontent on the island.
The Empire
The Holy Roman Emperor crown was originally theoretical and designated no territory. Around the time when CK starts, it began being used to designate the three kingdoms of Germany, Italy and Burgundy which happened to sit on the same head at the time. But separate coronations and estates for each continued for a while.
The crowns weren't united into a single imperial crown until later during the game-period. Well into the 16th Century, all the institutions of the HRE still made reference to it being "three kingdoms".
I don't know how you might want to reflect this in gameplay. Unite the three kingdoms from the outset into one imperial crown? Or perhaps there is an "extra" imperial election, granted to the Pope's favorite European monarch (from one of the five Carolingian kingdoms, or just all of the Catholic ones)?
Changing & Creating Kingdoms
In principle, the borders of the kingdoms cannot change except by agreement (treaty) between the two suzerain royals involved and, here is the important point, the Pope (in Russia, by the Khan of the GH, at least in later scenarios)
It is also possible for a rather strong duchy to apply for independence as a distinct kingdom. That application must be approved by the Pope. It must also have the consent of the current royal suzerain.
That's how it happened then. Many of what we call modern "kingdoms" started off as duchies of another kingdom before being recognized as kingdoms by pope and suzerain, e.g. the Counts of Portugal and Castile (Spanish fiefs), the Dukes of Poland, Bohemia & Lower Lorraine (German fiefs), the Duke of Benevento (Italian fief), Count of Sicily (Byzantine fief), the Count of Aragon (Navarran fief) all were or became independent kingdoms at some point. Some code may be written in to make sure that the AI for these particular duchies, if united & strong enough, try to apply for independence.
Ideally, republics (Venice, Pisa, Florence, Novgorod, etc.), could also be created by Papal/Khanate application, but .....
In Sum:
Before the Renaissance began to change the concept of what a "king" was, from merely being a "first noble" by his peers' consent to a majestic royal, ruler by divine right, this was the case. This internal jockeying for the royal position, rather than external conquest & international relations, should dominate the politics of CK. It would put the bickering feud back in feudalism, forcing you to act like a medieval lord, rather than as a Renaissance monarch.
[Note: I would have started the game a little earlier, c. 900 or 1000, to give the feudal chaos more time to play itself through. Perhaps, to capture the gradual changes over the 14th & 15th Century, this might become less pronounced, e.g. after a period of time, election of your dynasty to the royal title becomes a little bit easier depending on how long you've had it.]
What do you think? Am I completely off track here? Or does CK capture the "feudal feel" well enough without this? Or am I completely misinformed and this is, in fact, how the game operates? Or do you prefer kingly conquests rather than ducal feuding?
Normandy, Anjou, Blois & Flanders all jockeyed for it. It was not unchallenged.
