Viscount & Marquess - No Extra Tiers Needed

[LordofSaxony]

I was thinking about the aspect of having both of these titles/ranks included without actually creating new tiers. There were 2 methods that I kicked around in my head for a bit, but I'm unsure of both, so I would like to hear your thoughts.

Option #1

The first I thought of was that only heirs to the throne received these titles (for obvious gameplay reasons - so there isn't too many of them). Just like in the original CK, you can assign your heir a county, but, in this case when you assign your heir a county, he becomes a Marquess (above a Count, but below a Duke). So, your son Charles is given the County of Leon, and instead of becoming the Count of Leon, be becomes the Marquess of Leon. Upon being raised to the throne the title becomes defunct, and it's a title that he can't hand away, or if he does it lowers to count (unless it's passed to his heir). If it's even possible to give your heir a barony (I'm not sure, who knows), then the step above that, yet below a Count, would be a Viscount.

Option #2

The second option is that I was considering having it add special perks. The King can hand-pick only a certain number of provinces, perhaps the amount can be done mathematically (ie, total owned provinces / 7), so if the King has 14 provinces, he can make 2 of his vassals a Marquess. The province gets an additional boost in army and income (possibly other things as well). The way that it would be 'removed' from the system so we don't see a lot of these, is that any time that it passes to another ruler, either by voluntarily or by conquest (aka, anything outside that specific dynasty), the title becomes defunct and it reverts back to the original status for whoever now owns it.

In the grand scheme of things, this wouldn't even be much micromanagement at all. Since, if you hand out a Marquess title to a Count, or a Viscount title to a Baron, you are most likely not going to change that any time soon again, it's pretty much there until it's conquered by an enemy, their dynasty dies out, or you force the removal of it. Basically, it's still separated by the tiers, yet the middle and lower one's are a bit more flexible.

So what do you think? Do you think it would just confuse too many people?

 

[Sute]{h]

You managed to confuse me at least... what would be the purpose of this feature? Why would it improve the gameplay?

 

[LordofSaxony]

You managed to confuse me at least... what would be the purpose of this feature? Why would it improve the gameplay?

Haha - Basically, it can give some Barons and Counts an additional boost, which also gives the province an additional boost. So, basically, just like deciding where you should build a castle, this is also an aspect of positioning people and increasing their potential by increasing their title - which is also their power, yet at the same time not opening up a new tier in the process (ie, the Marquess would still only control a province, just like a Count, yet the Marquess could field additional soldiers, etc).

In short, it's basically a province buff, which happens when a Count is increased in status to a Marquess.

 

[Hellvink]

AWESOME idea.
If we're not going to have more tiers then atleast this.
I also propose Grand Duke or Prince for Duke as 'prestige class'.

 

[Woody Man]

These things could function like the titles in EU:Rome.

 

[Romtos]

AWESOME idea.
If we're not going to have more tiers then atleast this.
I also propose Grand Duke or Prince for Duke as 'prestige class'.

Are you rattling 3.5's cage? Let's not release that beast, lest the characters in CK become quite a bit more...peculiar.

 

[Sute]{h]

In short, it's basically a province buff, which happens when a Count is increased in status to a Marquess.

Why would giving somebody a higher title boost his province? Increased loyalty I could understand, but people doesn't suddenly become more productive because they work for a Marquee instead of a Count.

 

[Arko]

AWESOME idea.
If we're not going to have more tiers then atleast this.
I also propose Grand Duke or Prince for Duke as 'prestige class'.

I like the idea of prestige class especially for your heir (for France, Dauphin - but IDK if there is a generic word for that to adapt to all cultures)
Prestige class with some bonii of course (more legitimacy if implemented, less loyalty hit at inheritance...)

 

[Radiohead]

I'll admit my post isn't much new, but trying to clarify some other ideas.

How about:

Emperor
Crown Prince?
Prince
------
King
Crown Prince?
Prince
------
Archduke
Duke
------
Marquess
Count
------
Viscount
Baron


Hence there would be 5 tiers (the 4 playable and then the non-playable Baron tier).

Among the bottom 3 tiers the top ranks Viscount - Marquess - Archduke would be the prestige class that everyone is raving about. Although I believe the change in title name is apt, I think it should function kinda like the "Emperor" trait from CK1, where additional prestige is earned (facilitating a further promotion to a higher rank), but is otherwise not much else is different - it is just a title after all. To give a famous quote "It's not titles that honour men, but men that honour titles".

I don't see why it should give a production or much of an income bonus - although I could see it resulting in the ability to raise more soldiers than otherwise would be possible, since more people would be willing to fight for a nobleman of the higher title. I could also see a bonus in the number of provinces you could directly control (1 more perhaps) at the prestige rank.

Perhaps you could also hold 1 vassal of the same tier as you if you were of the prestige rank. A Marquess could have up to one vassal who is a Count, (in a addition to however many Barons and Viscounts).

The top 2 tiers would be the normal Kings and Emperors, with Princes being their offspring, and the Crown Prince being the heir-presumptive. The Princes and Crown Princes could hold (if given command of a demesne) the equivalent of an Archduke or Duke (if given a lesser demesne, they could hold the equivalent of a Marquess or Viscount), but earn greater prestige (and raise a greater army) than an Archduke, as they are Princes of the ruling dynasty after all, with the Crown Prince only earning less prestige than a King would.

And if the above vassal idea is applied, I would think the Prince would be able to hold 1 Duke as vassal.

I do, however, disagree slightly with the original poster, once given or earned, a prestige-title should be inherited, it makes no sense that such a title would die with the original holder.

Is that what people are trying to get at? I do like the idea of being able top "promote" your favourites, without actually promoting them out of their tier.

 

[Hellvink]

Meh, Empires are overrated. I'd much rather see more in-between classes but lets end this here and now since it belongs in the other thread.

Maybe these titles could indeed bring more power. Be it in the form of soldiers or in the ability to own more land or lower duty to pay to the liege or whatever.
I also agree that a title should be bound to a certain place, not a character, and thus it should be possible to inherit.

 

[LordofSaxony]

Why would giving somebody a higher title boost his province? Increased loyalty I could understand, but people doesn't suddenly become more productive because they work for a Marquee instead of a Count.

For gameplay reasons. It may not make the province more productive in terms of making money, but possibly it may yield more soldiers, raise the prestige of the noble running it, etc.

I also agree that a title should be bound to a certain place, not a character, and thus it should be possible to inherit.

I was thinking along the same lines. Basically, when you raise a Count to a Marquess, that it only applies to that dynasty and with that province in particular. If someone conquers it, or that dynasty dies off, or if the King or even Duke (if possible) removes that vassal from power by force or diplomacy, that it will at that point become defunct (meaning it drops down to Count again for anyone taking it over).

I do, however, disagree slightly with the original poster, once given or earned, a prestige-title should be inherited, it makes no sense that such a title would die with the original holder.

It's because there needs to be a method to remove the title in a natural way, so we don't see 1,001 people with a Marquess title eventually. There needs to be a cap of some sort, like a Kingdom depending on it's size can only hold so many of these (my mathematical example earlier). If you conquer territory that already holds a couple people with the Marquess title, and you are already maxed out on the number of Marquess titles, then it would automatically be removed via conquest (the defunct example).

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

Do you realise that this hierarchy of titles appeared in the XVth Century?

The only titles that were hierarchic back then were Viscount < Count. For obvious reasons. But until 1400, more or less, Prince only meant "the first one" and was not more special than Duke, or even Count. Many Counts were sovereign Counts, de facto acting like kings, in the XI-XIIth Centuries. There is no reason for which a Marquess should have more lands under his control than a Count. The Count of Toulouse (at the beginning of the XIIIth C.) was much more powerful and rich than the Duke of Meissen, the Palsgrave (Count Palatine) of the Rhine, the Margrave of Brandenburg or the Prince of Antioch.

Archduke wasn't even a regular noble title. It was a unique title that the Duke of Austria made up to demonstrate that he was the most badass Duke in Europe.

***

Most of the times, the existence of a title was linked to culture, not to hierarchy. For example: Spain and England had no Duke titles at all until the XIVth Century (except, in England, the titles that the King held in France). France, however, had plenty of Duchies, as did Germany. Every French-German duchy was originated with one of the old Carolingian provinces. Aquitaine, Brittany, Burgundy, Swabia, Saxony, Bavaria... in England, the role of the Counts was replaced by the Earls, which is not the same as Count. In France and Germany, a Count or Graf was not very high a title, but in Spain and Italy a Count was usually a very respected and well-positioned title. Viscounts existed mainly in France and Catalonia, because they represent the West Frankish tradition of administrating a count by appointing an "aidée", a vice-count.

Marquises, on the other side, are very common in Germandy (Markgrafs, literally "counts of the March") because Germany had barbarians and pagans at its borders for a long time (Magyars, Poles, Billungs, Obotrites, etc), and some marchesses in France exist for the same reason. In Spain, oddly enough, the Hispanica Marca was forgotten and the County titles survived as the highest title, even after the Count of Barcelona acquired the Aragonese crown.

***

So, my point: nobility titles should recieve less "rules" and be more linked to a cultural pattern. Barons, Lords and Earls for England; Sires, Viscounts, Counts and Dukes for France; Grafs, Markgrafs and Herzogs, maybe also Princes, for Germany; etc...

The Byzantine Empire and the Muslim kingdoms require another way to depict that. They were not Feudal territories, but State-based political entities. The "nobles" ruling the lands were not Feudal nobles, they were funcionaries and clerks, or generals. That should be noted, and it should be easier to strip them from their titles.

 

[Woody Man]

***

So, my point: nobility titles should recieve less "rules" and be more linked to a cultural pattern. Barons, Lords and Earls for England; Sires, Viscounts, Counts and Dukes for France; Grafs, Markgrafs and Herzogs, maybe also Princes, for Germany; etc...

The Byzantine Empire and the Muslim kingdoms require another way to depict that. They were not Feudal territories, but State-based political entities. The "nobles" ruling the lands were not Feudal nobles, they were funcionaries and clerks, or generals. That should be noted, and it should be easier to strip them from their titles.

I'd absolutely love culturally distinct feudalism, though I suspect it wouldn't happen.

Although, it would probably be possible to mod this sort of thing in.

 

[nwinther]

I like the idea - many more titles could be added as far as I'm concerned (Grand Duke, Viceroy etc.) and while it wouldn't change the size or nature of their domains, it'd be flavor.

Perhaps make it so granting higher titles (without more land) results in prestige to the reciever, and loyalty to the giver. Perhaps with the twist that if a low-prestige ruler gives a higher title to a vassal, loyalty from the other vassals decrease - and the ambition of the reciever is raised. Perhaps if the reciever has a good reputation, you get prestige for recognizing this. If he has a poor reputation or is rebellous, you lose prestige as it's seen as a sign of weakness or outright extortion revealing you as a weak ruler.

My idea of viceroys is to provide the option to make a new kingdom as a vassal to an existing one (or to an emperor) but make the viceroy-title non-hereditary.

By putting a (highly skilled) courtier or existing vassal in charge of certain troublesome, faraway lands and granting him a viceroy title would give him prestige, and secure and develop those lands for further exploitation - say they lie in heathen lands or is of strange culture, meanwhile providing reasonable money for your coffers.

This would ensure that the lands return to your possession when you want or when the viceroy dies. However, a (prestigeous) viceroy could easily begin to demand that he be recognized as true king, and given complete control over the kingdom - submitting to an emperor as a true vassal, yet hereditary - or declare complete independence from a king - perhaps with some conditions (political alliance, money etc.) if the transition is smooth, war or "clean DoI" if you are not compliant, or "cooperative under protest" if you refuse to recognize his claim, yet have enough prestige an/or pay a (too) small sum of money to keep him in check.

 

[faboj]

Guys! With 5 or 4 tier the map sould have MOOOOOOOOOOOORE provinces, don't u think?
It's rather improbable the second chance, for example if u are Baron of Rome, there will necessary be a count of Lazio (with 2-3 barons under), a duke of Middle Italy (with 2-3 counts under) and a King of Italy (with 3-4 dukes under )

 

[KingCarrot]

Do you realise that this hierarchy of titles appeared in the XVth Century?

-snip-

Archduke wasn't even a regular noble title. It was a unique title that the Duke of Austria made up to demonstrate that he was the most badass Duke in Europe.

-snip-

Marquises, on the other side, are very common in Germandy (Markgrafs, literally "counts of the March") because Germany had barbarians and pagans at its borders for a long time (Magyars, Poles, Billungs, Obotrites, etc), and some marchesses in France exist for the same reason.

Because of the way the Markgrafs (margraves, etc.) was in real life I think they would really contribute to the game.
If you have "extra" titles within the tiers you can get some of the effect that for example the HRE in eu3 has - like more manpower, more prestige. For example one of the Markgrafs will have a lower tax or be allowed a larger army, in order to be the eastern bastion against paganism.

The titles could of course have various bonusses depending on exactly which one. So there could also be other honorary titles. Like protector of the cross: less control from the pope, meaning tithe in your own pockets etc. Or that protector of the cross allows you to have a count-bishopric as your vassal when you are also a count (and duke allows arch-bishopric).

These "special" titles might also lead to a more "roleplaying-feeling" allowing you to feel more in touch with your dynasty.
Those special touches in games always makes it feel more real, or that you are special and that it only happened to you, not necessarily all the players (in Neverwinter nights 2 this came when you got those special feats like "owner of the castle" or "defender of the village" etc. In Kotor2 it came with that special feat your character started with - veteran of the wars - which made that character slightly different from all the others ingame.

Hmm, hope the last part wasn't too touchy-feely

Regards Kingcarrot

 

[LordofSaxony]

These "special" titles might also lead to a more "roleplaying-feeling" allowing you to feel more in touch with your dynasty.
Those special touches in games always makes it feel more real, or that you are special and that it only happened to you, not necessarily all the players (in Neverwinter nights 2 this came when you got those special feats like "owner of the castle" or "defender of the village" etc. In Kotor2 it came with that special feat your character started with - veteran of the wars - which made that character slightly different from all the others ingame.

Hmm, hope the last part wasn't too touchy-feely

Regards Kingcarrot

I know exactly what you mean. I like the additional flair, especially if it comes with some perks (and even penalties).

 

[Arko]

Hmm, hope the last part wasn't too touchy-feely

Regards Kingcarrot

no it isn't
it joins the idea of "sobriquet"/nickname of the rulers probably mentionned somewhere in here.
these one can be based on both feat and traits

 

[Calgacus]

Marquess, viscount ... gimme a break. I don't think we should take the title culture of post-14th century Catholic Europe as the central model for CKII. This is a very narrow and damaging approach for a game starting in 1066 encompassing cultures as diverse as Scotland, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Khorasan, and perhaps even the Sahel. What's a viscount in 11th century Russia? What's a marquess in Ireland? Four tiers, emperor, king and two below, would be fine .... to be named, preferably, according to culture ... though even then is the count of Flanders really gonna be lower ranked than the duke of Deheubarth? I don't think so ...

 

[Count of Reval]

... though even then is the count of Flanders really gonna be lower ranked than the duke of Deheubarth? I don't think so ...

I have thought from time to time, that maybe there should be some inherent and differentiated prestige value tied to each particular title (because all the same-tier titles really shouldn't be equivalent in prestige sense). In enhanced version, a character would get an one-time prestige bonus for been granted or inherited a title, but the value of the bonus would depend on the acquired title. In count's case, bonus might be determined by the base income and real historic importance (vague concept) of the province. In duke's case, size of the natural area (number of provinces and maybe size of the population or troops), average base income of natural area and historic importance or prestige might be relevant (a problem is, though, how to determine bonus when certain duke-title is granted to some count outside of the dukedom's natural area). Initial prestige bonus could reflect the fact, that some few count-tier titles might be more prestigious than some duke-tier titles. The current dynamic prestige bonus system (monthly addition of prestige for holding titles and having vassals) would be also kept. This mechanics would give more meaningful game play IMHO.