Some Suggestions for Imperial Government

[halbort]

Many realms in CK3 will have non-feudal governments. I have come up with a suggestion for how to model Imperial governments within CK3. What does everyone think?

The big idea surrounds three commodities: ruler authority, dynasty authority and total authority.

Offices generate authority

• The empire consists of many offices from council positions to viceroyalities etc. The Byzantines for instance had a huge number of bureaucratic offices. Each office generates a certain amount of authority per time.
• Personal authority is the amount of authority the a person has.
• Dynasty authority is the total amount of authority a dynasty has summing up each member.
• Total authority is the sum of the authority of every member of the empire. All offices must be filled or penalties are taken.

Personal Authority = Ruler Success
Dynasty Authority = Regime Success

Losing relative authority means less centralization

• Each office is granted through flexible vassal contract.
• The office holder will try to negotiate with the ruler for office perks like the ability to collect taxes, ability to have personal levies and ability to pass down office to successor.
• If the office holder is a ruling dynasty member, the office holder is able to negotiate for perks like inherit-ability more effectively if the ratio between ruler authority and ruling dynasty authority is low.
• Similarly, if the office holder is not a ruling dynasty member, the office holder is able to negotiate for perks like inherit-ability more effectively if the ratio between ruling dynasty authority and total authority authority is low.

Plot success depends on relative authority

• Plots that try to forward the interests of non-ruler dynasty members depend on having a low ratio between ruler authority and dynasty authority.
• Plots that try to forward the interests of non-dynasty members depend on having a low ratio between dynasty authority and total authority.

Crushing rebellions interchanges personal authority for dynasty authority

• Thus, rebellions from within the ruling dynasty i.e. succession crises are more common when ruler authority is low.
• Rebellions from outside the ruling dynasty i.e. secession crises are more common when dynasty authority is low.
• Crushing a revolt within the dynasty increases ruler authority but decreases dynasty authority.
• Crushing a revolt outside of the dynasty increases dynasty authority but decreases ruler authority.

Winning wars always increases authority

• Winning wars increases both ruler authority and dynasty authority while losing wars reduces both.

We will look at how this system plays in two scenarios.

Being Emperor is about building alliances and mangaging dynasty power

• First, consider when you are Emperor. In this case, you want to balance power going to your dynasty vs going to non-dynasty members.
• If your family becomes too powerful they become less reliant on you and may plot against you.
• If your family is too weak, outsiders will be able to plot against you more easily.
• You want to build alliances with the cadet branches of your dynasty and important outside dynasties.

Playing non landed is about plotting to increase authority

• Suppose you are not a ruler. Then plots that forward the interests of your non-ruling dynasty depend on having a low ratio of ruling dynasty authority to total authority.
• Plots to sabotage dynasty members from rival houses depend on having a high ratio of personal authority to non-ruling dynasty authority.
• Thus you have to balance how powerful you make your family. You make start out plots that put your dynasty members in offices. This increases your dynasty authority making such plots easier.
• But you have to simultaneously increase your own authority to stop rival houses from turning against you.

Without Military victories, Imperial government becomes Feudal

• In this system, without large miltary victories, either the ratio of ruler authority to dynasty authority will fall or the ratio of dynasty authority to total authority will fall unless played extremely well.
• This will result in offices gaining more perks thus modeling the slow degradation of Imperial government to feudal government.

What does everyone think about this. The only values that have to be kept track of are an authority for every character and an authority for every dynasty.

 

[varetta]

I think that it is not a bad idea,but with some minor flaws. Anyway, I think we must wait to have more information from CK3 DDs before we can speak with some knowledge about how to improve or redesign the governments and so on.

PS: Does any one knows if there will be the possibility to form the Roman Empire as "Legacy of Rome" introduced?

 

[Drogan]

Very interesting suggestions.

 

[halbort]

I think one change I would make to this suggestion upon thinking further is to somehow normalize authority to a percentage scale like estate loyalty in EU4.

 

[Videogames]

I think this scheme has a good insight that imperial bureaucratic governments should have to work against internal forces that, if unchecked, tend to result in the state becoming more feudal. If I were proposing a system, I think I would keep the idea where office holders attempt to accumulate the feudal-style powers you specified (ability to collect taxes, ability to have personal levies and ability to pass down office to successor). I'd also want to hook these things into the favor mechanic from ck2 - in exchange for council or succession support, the emperor will be tempted to grant these sorts of powers, and it'll be difficult to retract them without incurring tyranny and rebellion.

I think I'd try to implement the system without the detailed personal vs dynasty authority system you've laid out, which seems finicky to me. But, I would want mechanics to push the player towards handing out offices to the important families of the realm, while at the same time having dynasty members clamoring for offices too. Leaning heavily into dynasty members or outside families should both have their own advantages and risks.

Finally, I agree that losing wars should be a dangerous event. In the wake of a loss, there should be a risk that the ruling dynasty may be toppled or subordinates will grab increased feudal powers (or both). However, I think it's dangerous to make winning wars result in greater success and stability. That tends to reinforce a snowball effect for success at blobbing, and I can already imagine players exploiting the system by keeping a stable of weak, easily beatable realms near their capital and just periodically pummeling them for authority.

 

[KAMCITY13]

Fair good points, like the authority system. Tweaks would of course be brought forward to perfect this if it’s implemented.

 

[halbort]

I think this scheme has a good insight that imperial bureaucratic governments should have to work against internal forces that, if unchecked, tend to result in the state becoming more feudal. If I were proposing a system, I think I would keep the idea where office holders attempt to accumulate the feudal-style powers you specified (ability to collect taxes, ability to have personal levies and ability to pass down office to successor). I'd also want to hook these things into the favor mechanic from ck2 - in exchange for council or succession support, the emperor will be tempted to grant these sorts of powers, and it'll be difficult to retract them without incurring tyranny and rebellion.

I think I'd try to implement the system without the detailed personal vs dynasty authority system you've laid out, which seems finicky to me. But, I would want mechanics to push the player towards handing out offices to the important families of the realm, while at the same time having dynasty members clamoring for offices too. Leaning heavily into dynasty members or outside families should both have their own advantages and risks.

Finally, I agree that losing wars should be a dangerous event. In the wake of a loss, there should be a risk that the ruling dynasty may be toppled or subordinates will grab increased feudal powers (or both). However, I think it's dangerous to make winning wars result in greater success and stability. That tends to reinforce a snowball effect for success at blobbing, and I can already imagine players exploiting the system by keeping a stable of weak, easily beatable realms near their capital and just periodically pummeling them for authority.

One problem I had with favors as you suggested is that it is too easy to fill the council with nobodies. In a Feudal Realms, potential councillors have their own desmenes and thus have power independent of their offices. This forces you to put them on the council. But in an Imperial Realm, power only comes from offices. This would make it very easy to fill your offices with nobodies from many different families. Forcing the player to maintain dynasty authority, forces them to give titles to somebodies - their dynasty.

I agree that gaining authority from winning wars should be weakened. I think one way is to give large amounts of authority to the miltary leaders who helped win the war. Basically, the leader of the themes you called on would get large amounts of authority and thus be able to get more perks.

 

[drakeheath]

I think that'll be good for encouraging imperial governments to use eunuchs, since they don't have dynastic ties or ambitious, but they could form a faction to control the court. Make them a more dynamic type thing.

 

[ray243]

One problem I had with favors as you suggested is that it is too easy to fill the council with nobodies. In a Feudal Realms, potential councillors have their own desmenes and thus have power independent of their offices. This forces you to put them on the council. But in an Imperial Realm, power only comes from offices. This would make it very easy to fill your offices with nobodies from many different families. Forcing the player to maintain dynasty authority, forces them to give titles to somebodies - their dynasty.

I agree that gaining authority from winning wars should be weakened. I think one way is to give large amounts of authority to the miltary leaders who helped win the war. Basically, the leader of the themes you called on would get large amounts of authority and thus be able to get more perks.

You can balance it out by making sure the office themselves can be a source of potential threat to your power. Or having the nobility lose their shit if they are excluded from power.

What this game needs is a class differentiation between the nobility class and the non-noble class.

 

[Zh3sh1re]

PS: Does any one knows if there will be the possibility to form the Roman Empire as "Legacy of Rome" introduced?

They've been literally dead quiet about Byzantium. They haven't even shown it in a map. I'd hazard a guess that they're planning something big with good ol' Eastern Rome.

 

[ray243]

They've been literally dead quiet about Byzantium. They haven't even shown it in a map. I'd hazard a guess that they're planning something big with good ol' Eastern Rome.

Except they are saying a lot about not having landless characters to play as in the game.

Which will be problematic for the Byzantine part of the game.

 

[Videogames]

Except they are saying a lot about not having landless characters to play as in the game.

Which will be problematic for the Byzantine part of the game.

I don't think it's necessarily too bad - they could always have noble houses in the capital that count as a holding, just like the CK2 republic patrician palaces. And maybe the houses could be more dynamic than the Always 5 rule from CK2 republics. For example, if you appoint a nobody to high office, within a few years he'll have established his own presence and heirs and you'll find yourself having one more noble house to juggle around and placate.

 

[ray243]

I don't think it's necessarily too bad - they could always have noble houses in the capital that count as a holding, just like the CK2 republic patrician palaces. And maybe the houses could be more dynamic than the Always 5 rule from CK2 republics. For example, if you appoint a nobody to high office, within a few years he'll have established his own presence and heirs and you'll find yourself having one more noble house to juggle around and placate.

They would need to massively expand upon baronies if they want something like this. But they've said they are attempting to do away with Baronies, which in itself is problematic.

 

[halbort]

I have considered some of the suggestions and come up with (what I think is) a simpler version that keeps the positive aspects of the previous system.

Only Personal Authority Now

• Like before, all offices generate authority per month.
• Thus, every person has a certain amount of personal authority.
• The emperor has imperial authority.
• There should be a limited number of offices so as not to dilute their power maybe 20 max. These include regional governors and civic positions.

Characters campaign for offices

• Each (non-Emperor) character chooses one office to campaign for.
• Each character with positive authority may make a limited number of nominations.
• When you nominate someone, you gift them an amount of your authority per month.
• Every 5 years, a new office holder is chosen by choosing which candidate running for that office has the most authority.
• It is very possible for office holder to retain office. Winning additional terms increases their authority gain per month.
• The Hook/Favor system can be used to force other characters to nominate your choice

If the ratio between Imperial Authority and Office Holder Authority is low, the office holder gets more perks like taxes, levies and inheritability.

Plots depend on the total Authority of plotters as well as Intrigue.

Winning wars increases the authority of all military leaders involved. Large increases are only for victories against powerful nations.

Rebellions and losing wars always reduce Imperial Authority. But, they let you purge traitors.

How this should play out

• The AI should try to nominate members of their dynasty with high authority. This means powerful families will be able to control offices.
• For the player, putting yes-men in the offices requires spending authority per time. Thus, you can't pack it with nobodies.
• Being Emperor is about stopping one family from being too powerful. Thus you have to balance the families.
• There should be a lot of plots available. For instance, if one powerful family has a lot of authority, they can plot a coup.
• Because characters gain authority the longer they stay in office, they gain perks as they stay for longer. Removing them costs authority.
• You only have a certain number of nominations, so you have to pick your battles. This can often mean letting some nobles gain lots of power while you focus on controlling key offices.

What does everyone think?