Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Research for Centralization

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
unmerged(9167)

unmerged(9167)

Imperator Universalis
May 4, 2002
1.339
0
Visit site
I suggest that, to reflect the trend of centralization from 1066 to 1453, that centralization be part of researchment.

I mean, that we can not have more than 30% as our personal terrority, right? How about, after each stage of researchment, we gain say, 5% more province under our control. Maybe go all way to 100% (I doubt that) or to 60%. How about it?

I mean that if there is 0 level in Centreal tech, we are able to have only 30% as personal, but at 1st, we have 35% then 2nd level, we have 40% and on so. How does that sound?
 
Sounds good. But it needs to be tied in with something else. Like research isn't just gonna rein in the nobles.
 
Military Might? An army of calvary troopers riding to a noble estate and convisacting the land. Maybe if you research you can take more land with force?

Also research levels should only go up to level 10, 70%.
 
Also, such control should bring serious consequences. More control should mean that nobles are more likely to rebel.
 
Originally posted by Zhai
I suggest that, to reflect the trend of centralization from 1066 to 1453, that centralization be part of researchment.

I mean, that we can not have more than 30% as our personal terrority, right? How about, after each stage of researchment, we gain say, 5% more province under our control. Maybe go all way to 100% (I doubt that) or to 60%. How about it?

I mean that if there is 0 level in Centreal tech, we are able to have only 30% as personal, but at 1st, we have 35% then 2nd level, we have 40% and on so. How does that sound?
Click to expand...

i just don't really like te idea, since in 1453 30% is still big for the era, at a time where there is no train, no safe road and so you have to relly on local power like counts and duke to assure that the authority is well respected.
and this continue to be like this during a long time in eu's period. for exemple it really finish in france when louis XIV come to power, when all the counts, duke and so where assembled at versaille.
even at the end of eu' period 30% is a maximum for poland.
and there are lots of exemples like this. so 30% is really a maximum for CK's period. centralisation began to appear in western europe after the 100 year war (this is the cause for centralisation in france, and it was not really important in 1453, it is just the begining).
 
Re: Re: Research for Centralization

Originally posted by Surcouf


i just don't really like te idea, since in 1453 30% is still big for the era, at a time where there is no train, no safe road and so you have to relly on local power like counts and duke to assure that the authority is well respected.
and this continue to be like this during a long time in eu's period. for exemple it really finish in france when louis XIV come to power, when all the counts, duke and so where assembled at versaille.
even at the end of eu' period 30% is a maximum for poland.
and there are lots of exemples like this. so 30% is really a maximum for CK's period. centralisation began to appear in western europe after the 100 year war (this is the cause for centralisation in france, and it was not really important in 1453, it is just the begining).
Click to expand...

The period is really little advanced from roaming warlords of post Rome - Also I don't know how much intellectual pursuit of alternative governance arrangements went on. As to sending the cavalry in - that's who the nobles are in teh first place.

Alienation of land was a major problem just prior to this period. Will there be built in tendencies for this to occur as the aims and instruments at disposal of rulers are pretty much the same?
 
IIRC in one of Greven's (rare) posts, it was mentioned that the 30% figure might go a little higher in some instances as the game progresses. Exactly how that was to occur was not mentioned.

Even if you don't have direct control you can unite a country under you by maintaining good relationships with your vassals. Not an easy job, but then the game would not be fun if it were too easy.:)
 
rather than 'researching centralization', I think it that expanding the amount of land you control would be done in the following way:

You're in a war and one of your greedy vassals decides to help the enemy in hopes of expanding his lands. You have the option of either bribing him back or punishing him and confiscating his lands. If you're in the middle of a war, it should often be more benficial to bribe him back. If you decide to punish him, you would of course have to conquer his lands and then have said noble drawn and quartered. However this would have one big caveat: the troops that take the lands have to be directly loyal to you in order for you to be able to establish direct control over the lands. If they are some other noble(s)'s troops, then you will owe it to them to give them control over the provinces in question (or for game balance sake they get lots of money, and a new, loyal hack gets set up as your new vassal). You can either hire merc troops, which entails its own dangers, allowing you to directly control the province with temporarily diminished revenues (estates for merc commanders) or you can take the lands and receive full revenue with levies from your lands and led by you in person or an heir, which of course risks death or capture.

Basically, it should be hard to do, but possible under the right circumstances.
 
Originally posted by pavlovs_dog
........ or you can take the lands and receive full revenue with levies from your lands and led by you in person or an heir, which of course risks death or capture.

....
Click to expand...

While it is not absolutely necessary, that heir would probably also be a vassal. So you would not directly control the land anyway.:)
 
I'm not real crazy about the idea of research being in CK at all. Yes, there was a bit of technological development over the period, but not much, and certainly not like the EU2 period.

It's more that what research did occur wasn't funded by the state!
 
Yeah, i dont know about centralization being researched either. I'll agree that maybe it should go up to 40-50% tops by the end of the game, but only in certain circumstances. I what will help make this game different from EU (aside from the time period) is the style in which you must "conquer" territory. Its going to be a much more pseudo-political game and the relationships between you and vassals, church, etc. will determine how effective your rule is. Or at least thats how i hope the game turns out. Conquering all of europe should never happen, it gets boring after a while, dont you agree?
 
Originally posted by Sonny


While it is not absolutely necessary, that heir would probably also be a vassal. So you would not directly control the land anyway.:)
Click to expand...

I think I misspoke... since you control a dynasty, not just the king, I would presume that lands conquered under the banner of the current heir would be administered (for game purposes at least) as if they were royal lands as they would become the heir's inheritance anyway, and more to the point because they are under your dynasty's direct control, and will stay in your dynasties direct control upon the death of the current monarch.
 
I was listening to these ideas, these sound good to me. I still think that centralization needs to be increased little bit, since that is the trend of Europe. How could the game be made to reflect that?

I enjoy those ideas!:D
 
Originally posted by pavlovs_dog


I think I misspoke... since you control a dynasty, not just the king, I would presume that lands conquered under the banner of the current heir would be administered (for game purposes at least) as if they were royal lands as they would become the heir's inheritance anyway, and more to the point because they are under your dynasty's direct control, and will stay in your dynasties direct control upon the death of the current monarch.
Click to expand...

Do you control a dynasty or are you more likely to get your way if it's your brother in charge than a cousin than a valued supporter of your father. Or not, see Harold II and Tostig(?).


[Edit]
Perhaps rather than researching centralisation, there should be ways of increasing your options to reward followers/threaten them (I initially was thinking about trade revenues but that's anachronistic I think, perhaps the ability to create - fund - lucrative posts).
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by pavlovs_dog


I think I misspoke... since you control a dynasty, not just the king, I would presume that lands conquered under the banner of the current heir would be administered (for game purposes at least) as if they were royal lands as they would become the heir's inheritance anyway, and more to the point because they are under your dynasty's direct control, and will stay in your dynasties direct control upon the death of the current monarch.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we are just not sure how control of the dynasty is to be handled. My view is that you are the monarch and other family members are not directly controlled by you. Thus as monarch if you have some sons you had better give them lands (and titles) lest they rise up against you. Having lands and titles means that they would be your vassals (as well as possible heirs). So the way I interpret it you only directly control one person and that is the head of the dynasty. Once this person dies your heir is now the monarch and that is the person whom you control.:)
 
I would think one may be able to promote officials like Sheriffs into office to help a lord rule his domain...this would tend to help centralize things and it could be something that was researched.

ala Sheriff of Nottingham...etc...
I arrest you in the name of the King.

The point being that as time progresses the need for indirect control over land through other nobles can be put under an official directly under the King....Its not as if the King does not own all of England ( as an example ) he does...but his will is enforced by sometimes very powerful lords under him that may in turn threaten his claim to that particular piece of land.

Look at it like a chain of stores...now the profits go to the head office but at each store they are in charge of hiring, maintaining stock, maybe hours of operation and wages due to location. But the employees just punch the clock.
If one store were to go it alone then there would be legal battles ( war )...the employees would not care that much as long as they were employed at the end of the day...the company may replace management ( count, Duke ) just to help calm things down. There would also be district managers as well...under a more centralized format the manager would report directly to head office ( sheriff to the King...no district or city managers
etc... Centraliztion should be something that can be developed over time.
One land, one law, one King...the local barons may disagree:D
 
sounds good! That is very true, especially in England.
 
Each intrusion into noble's rights should increase the risk a major rebellion -

The control issue also raises the time delay issue. Will we have a time delay on reacting to events away from the count/duke's person. It may be handled as simply as the farther away from the person that you are, the greater the loss of taxes, the greater size of a rebellion...
 
Yept, that sounds historical, that is how HRE broke up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back