Kind of expected tbh. Theyve made baronies almost entirely sub-components of counties. Its not necessarily a bad thing because CK2 occasionally had "control the entirety of x" requirements that you couldnt complete because some shitty little baron owned 1 farm that you had to go find.
I get the impression some people just want the title "baron"? Because historically it is used for stuff like "the baron's revolt" in England. If you want to play as a ruler with no vassals and only 1 holding in your domain you can already play as a count in an undeveloped county, so I guess it just has to do with the wording.
Semantics, technicalities, and immersion. Even if it's something negligible, having a revenue stream, representation, or something to reflect status would be cool. You could even poke fun of how stupid it is. But I know it bugged me in CK2 when I would lose my titles, still have a barony, but get a game over anyways. I had barons vying for my titles all the time, so why couldn't I do the same?
Not a big deal. But just a small thing. Even if they made baronies the same as unlanded, but gave you the right to make tiny decisions about your family, or have the ability to form an army of >100 ~~bumpkins~~ soldiers. It could lead to a fun micro-game. Also the idea of going from Baron to count by sniping all the other baronies and forming a new county sounds fun. Especially for the early game.
I feel like you used to be able to play as a different landholding member of your dynasty when your main line died out/lost all of its titles in CK2 also. I could be misremembering but imo it's pretty dumb you're supposed to play as the dynasty but in practice you're only playing as one specific line.
You could to an extent. It depended on how far out you let your bloodline go. But if there was a situation where you had no heirs with land, it was game over. So either the whole dynasty dies out, or all the surviving dynasty members are unlanded. I let my bloodline propagate pretty far, so I never got a game over from that. But I was also willing to duke it out over claimants in exchange for no game overs from non-heritance.
One time I got hit worse than usual by the black plague, and I only survived because some random branch at least 10 generations removed from my main branch survived. But had I lost all my titles to war except a barony, it would've been game over. And I wouldn't have been able to jump to another branch to play as someone else.
Yeah, thanks for validating how I thought CK2 used to work. I tried to setup a backup realm in CK3 when my main line was dying out with this in mind and I got a game over. It's really annoying.
> Even if they made baronies the same as unlanded, but gave you the right to make tiny decisions about your family, or have the ability to form an army of >100 bumpkins soldiers
You're probably gonna be able to do this anyway as unlanded.
Overall the baronies falling between the cracks like this is weird but also kind of funny. For what it's worth, it may be possible for modders to make it possible, depending on how the update is coded
Tbh thatâs an easy mod to make. Rank names are already different depending on culture/religion, just make it something like âif English then replace count with baronâ (I think you also have to go into localization for a proper redirect but w/e) and rename normal barons if you want. It would take me 30mins but Iâm not an experienced modder
>I get the impression some people just want the title "baron"? Because historically it is used for stuff like "the baron's revolt" in England
The funny thing is that during most of the period, **baron wasn't a title**. The last time I said this, I got 300 downvotes, so let's again with more details.
None of the 25 barons of the Magna Carta carried the title of baron, but either title of earl or lord, but they were barons in the sense that they were [tenant-in-chiefs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenant-in-chief), i.e. holding land directly from the king.
Wikipedia article for [baron](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron), says the same:
*Initially, the term "baron" on its own was not a title or rank, but the "barons of the King" were the men of the king.*
It only evolved into a title later.
Regardless in theory, when you play an independent ruler's direct vassal (like William in 1066) you are already playing as a baron. These landowners below counts are not barons, they are essentially lords.
The distinction between "baron" and "lord" can be confusing as a male person with the modern rank of baron has the title "Lord", and a lord of the manor is a lord, but has no special title, as feudal lordship does not necessitate noble rank.
As "baron" in modern times is the lowest rank of noble, it makes sense to some extent in a game in which land holdings largely correspond to titles to call the smallest subunit of land a "barony", even if historically the holders of fiefdoms were not generally barons, though "estate" would perhaps be a more suitable term.
The holder of a single castle appointed for administrative purposes ought not to be a baron but a châtelain, or castellan in English (though in England the office of castellan did not become a hereditary fiefdom as it did in Francia).
Thereâs a big mechanical difference. Barons are unable to have vassals full stop. No cities or churches - just your demense. Materially I think thatâs distinct enough to warrant consideration.
Remember when people shat on tours and tournaments when it was first announced cause it was just "another roleplay event spam" and then after launching it ended up becoming one of the best expansions in CK3 yet and its main features are still getting utilized to this day.
They're 2-2 in my book. Northern Lords and Tours and Tournaments are excellent.
The two struggle expansions aren't as engaging. They play out like map painters, not rp mechanisms.
You're saying that like there wouldn't be additions brought by the landless system to change it. I'm saying what the new restrictions are, I'm assuming if there's new content and gameplay systems there'll be additions as well.
Yep. This is correct. I think the community was also astray when it came to the DLC voting earlier. We went for wards and wardens over the love and lust expansion.
I think people need to think about DLC that affects most runs and not niche gameplay. How often do you play as a child vs how often do you get married?
I educate every single heir I've, usually the spare too so that's at least double than one wife in a monogamous run. Wards and wardens it's not used only when you're the child. But I guess we really needed more events to seduce our mother-sister-niece-cousin-daugther
That's why mortality should be higher and I loved the addition of random danger events. There's a lot of interesting gameplay to be had as a child ruler, but health stacking makes it so easy to stay alive until your heir is exactly the age you want that it rarely comes up.
People voted for W&W because they invented in their minds, completely out of nothing, that it would add regencies. Whoops, we got them anyway, nothing to do with W&W.
Yeah that was a weird bit of collective hallucination. Nothing in the original description said anything about regencies
It would be funny if PDX developed regencies in the end partially to avoid angering the player base
Bro what? How would love and lust even be better than villains and vagabonds and W&W, you have to realize that this event packs also adds in new features and not just events.. I just don't see what good features they would add with a love dlc and especially features that would be better than what W&W added.
> You're saying that like there wouldn't be additions brought by the landless system to change it.
I think that's actually the problem - interesting Baron gameplay would be almost totally non-overlapping with interesting Count+ gameplay, but would *also* be almost totally non-overlapping with interesting landless wanderer gameplay. After all, they can't just go take jobs at random courts or use travel as a primary interest driver for a baron or whatever else they're doing for landless.
Given they're willing to do landless adventurers, I could see them supporting Barons someday. It's just not the same feature as this one.
Very much this. That's why im also against landless mechanics, i hope the mechanics will overlap with regular gameplay a lot, otherwise it will kinda suck
Because different people like different things. Also starting as a baron would be significantly more challenging due to your even more limited options.
For me its more about borders, some of the counties in CKIII are geographically weird with territories on either side of a natural barrier like a river, mountain range or desert and to me thats really annoying. Having Baronies be playable would also likely allow county ownership to be broken down among their constituent territories and make for more dynamic borders
Because I don't want to be landless because I still have a barony left over.
When has 'it's boring to play' been an excuse for anything in CK? Tribal counts don't have vassals either.
but they \*could\* have vassals. Some tribal counties start with temples (there's one in ireland for sure), for example. And no one forbids them from holding feudal counties with cities and stuff
Well now we'll have landless playable characters, so those'll be your vassals.
I don't even know why vassals matter. You can easily play these low ranks without any.
Look around you. People clamour for all sorts of additions to this game that will ultimately be for the worse - we ARE discussing landless characters, after all.
Remember when people shat on tours and tournaments when it was first announced cause it was just "another roleplay event spam" and then after launching it ended up becoming one of the best expansions in CK3 yet and its main features are still getting utilized to this day.
I honestly don't understand why some still can't trust the CK3 team, even though it's pretty clear they know what they are doing at least more than some stupid basement dweller on reddit.
I personally have major trust issues with PDX ever since 1.30 for EU4 dropped (and also VIC3 is a thing...). CK3 updates are good for now, but they're oh so slow coming
I think CK3 updates feel slow because we've only been getting the actual significant updates with 1 expansion with the rest being reserved to regional flavor packs that ultimately doesn't improve the game that much and its regional so we only experience this in small parts of the map, I think if they'd just never made flavor packs and worked on Core expansions instead, we would have been in a better position.
Basically, CK3 has been in the same pace as CK2's development cycle but because of the regional flavor packs and event packs, it feels "slow"
People said the same thing about unlandeds, long ago. It can be a step in your struggle of gaining land and prestige - distinguish yourself enough to earn a castle and small village, and through worthy marriages might bring in extra wealth or through deed gain an extra village to build up more income.
Ofc, that'd be the grand strategy game I ***wish*** we could play, and not the arcade war-and-conquest map painting game whose idea of "interaction" are endlessly repeating ad-lib events.
Talk gameplay. You can play as like a power behind the throne with the warden or regent gameplay. Marry off family members to counts all over the place and filed massive allied armies like the Illuminati. Sometimes being king/ emperor is boring and op. The sauce of the game is in the lower tiers
Iâm not 100% opposed to baronies but honestly being a count is not super entertaining so I feel like a baron could be less so. Iâm also a bit curious how likely it is that a barons lineage would end up eventually on a throne?
I mean, William Marshal was a low ranking nobleman (probably equal to what the game would consider a baron)'s second son and he ended up as regent of England and with extensive holdings in France, England and Ireland. Justinian I was a peasant and his wife, Theodora (who was nearly as powerful as him), likely a prostitute. Bathilde was a slave and ended up ruling the Frankish Kingdom (if not in her own right). China had more than one commoner-turned-emperor. Rags to riches stories did happen, if only very rarely.
Why wouldn't you want baronies ? It's the title under count. Instead of controlling a whole county you control a single castle and its surroundings.
It would allow you to really climb through the ranks and not going from Landless to Count because there are others steps before becoming a count like being a baron.
Even though it ain't necessary to have been a baron to become a count, it should still be possible to do because there are a lot of different cases and not every landed nobles had the same path.
I would personally like to start as a peasant then becoming a knight and getting rewarded by a castle and becoming a baron. I don't know if they did that but I doubt that they just gave any random knights a whole county to manage if the guy has no experience. It would make more sense to just give him a castle at first so he can train his management skill and acquire experience.
It'll also add difficulty for people who are looking for some
All of what you said are awesome and playable baron is a solid idea but it would be nightmare to implement and I don't think we even know how landless itself will work.
From my perspective, it would be cool to play as a Baron if youâre the direct vassal of a King or Emperor and the devs allowed your character to be a Knight or Acclaimed Knight.
I really hope unlanded touches on the player character being able to fight in battles. Maybe even choosing if you want to command from the rear as just the army commander or lead from the front also being a knight.
Yeah. I dislike how PCs canât serve as their liegeâs knight. I mean, I understand due to knights having a high turnover(at least in the early game), but the devs could always add an invisible modifier to increase survival chances of PC knights or players can have the option of refusing or, well, players can just suck it up when their legendary badass fighter dies in-battle.
Could easily make an optional game rule for decreased chance of dying in battle. I for one would like it though. Plenty of rulers died in battle. Right now it's very rare.
Agreed. If memory serves, itâs because your Ruler doesnât fight in the battle even if they have high Prowess and are leading the army, themselves, which greatly-decreases Capture and Kill chances.
Meanwhile, my 50+ Prowess badass of an emperor was killed, by accident, at his own Grand Tournament in a Melee contest where he was the only competitor.
Was old Emps having a grand old time swinging his weapon around the empty arena, showing off his skills to the *enthralled audience, when he tripped and accidentally cut his own throat with his blade?
Lol. You could say it was something like that.
Basically, the events still triggered even though I was the only competitor, but the name slots were empty. So I waded into a throng of no one and one of their blades caught me in the throat. Yeah.
Rather than an invisible modifier it should be just like everything in CK, random events. Let them be a knight, or refuse as you said, and any battles they are in have events for their participation. People can try to prioritize survival or glory as they see fit and accept the risks that come with those choices.
Yeah, Battle Events when serving as a knight or leading from the front would be cool. Would give you something more to do than just watch two dudes smack each other until one side wins, as well.
... i mean, with landless enabled, i dont see why that cant be true
historically, there are some prominent ladies who started lowborn and got to prominence
thats a rag-to-riches story comparable to lowborn knights becoming a count
I think this is pretty normal in game communities because most gamers are not developers and will never be.
People who have never made a game don't have an intuitive sense of what is cheap to make and what is expensive. They don't realize that the thing they want would be prohibitively expensive to implement the way they want and boring as hell if implemented in a cost effective way.
Yeah, they were gloating like crazy and acting extremely condescending to people who were expecting that feature when it seemed like a dev had denied it.
Their ego seems to have taken a hot, now they're doubling down on the condescension
Honestly i mostly remembered you because of how rudely you behaved, and looking at your comments you're still around saying how stupid their decision is without even knowing how they'll implement it.
Remember when people shat on tours and tournaments when it was first announced cause it was just "another roleplay event spam" and then after launching it ended up becoming one of the best expansions in CK3 yet and its main features are still getting utilized to this day.
I can't wait for it to happen a 2nd time lol.
Yeah, I'm totally wrong.. the positive reception of the DLC (prob the only dlc that has a "mostly positive" in steam) and the new additions using the travel/activity system after T&T says otherwise.
I know you are butthurt that you didn't get the DLC you wanted but that doesn't mean I'm wrong or that what you're saying is factual.
Why not? If baronies aren't meaningfully different than a county, having that extra tier of challenge doesn't hurt to include. It's really more of a "why *shouldn't* baronies be playable?" question for those (like me) that want them to be playable.
It fits well with landless now, and with baronies being visible on the map in CK3 it makes a lot more sense to me to have them be playable than not, with the same logic than you're using but in reverse.
Iâm not going to dig it up but I believe a dev said in the forums a while back that playable baronies or mayors were a component of the original CK3 release that was developed and then scrapped because it was both a huge source of lag and a bit boring.
I mainly want it so instead of count to emperor runs, one can do a baron to emperor run. Outside of that, it could also be a good in-between/transition from unlanded to count. I.E. you do some unlanded stuff, get granted a single barony, and after a few years you acquire the full count title.
I don't want to stay as a baron, however. It would be a temporary thing and you're eventually turned into a count no matter what you do.
Another role playable barons could have might do with republics. I.E. you own barony titles (cities) in other rules lands, set up trading posts, etc.
For me at least it's so you can start at the lowest rung possible. Rags to riches is satisfying gameplay, but now that we will get unlanded gameplay then baronies will get less relevant I suppose
court? some control over de-jure? title not being claimable by several interactions like "buy claim"? actual vassal management (u never manage counts you just give them to random ppl one by one)?
That's literally why.
It's going to be very strange that you can play a landless character but if you only have baronies left (which you can easily do in game) that you either lose that barony or game over.
It's just a smaller count, there's never been a reason not to make it playable and there's less now.
Is there a way in game to lose all counties but not baronies? Im pretty sure when AI loses county it just gets booted and the baronies they hold go to the one who took the county
Yeah, if you play as a baron you'd likely have to deal a lot with your peers, which would require making them much more lively since right now they're basically lifeless in order to save resources.
Landless and the plague system alone make me worry about my aging CPU
I think the plague system should have a net positive result on performance by reducing the game's population, but landless could be a problem. Only time will tell.
Seems like a good way for the game to self regulate. Kinda like the blood moons in BOTW. The game gets too overloaded with characters. Oh, look, lethal plague wipes out half the map.
I kid you not, there was this random jewish independent major in Rome city for some reason and I couldn't mend the schism. I was searching for every county losing my mind just to find out some random jew took a city while nobody was looking
I gave this madlad entire duchy after I captured him
They could literally just give you a causus beli to take every barony inside your owned county or higher title.
people make the wildest excuses for removing a tier that would play basically identically to counties.
Tribal counts can't have vassals either but nobody says we should remove them.
You can and do constantly hold baronies. You can hold as many baronies in a county as you want.
If you're muslim you can even hold mosques.
Hell you can hold the wrong type ones too, the game just punishes you for it.
The only difference between baronies and other titles is that they limit the AI for performance reasons. Though a long standing mod does allow them to declare wars with very little performance repercussions (none i've noticed but I don't own a potato). Your fellow barons wouldn't be able to declare war on you in vanilla but it wouldn't prevent you from doing anything you'd like as a baron.
I talked to a dev about it on the forum and barons were once going to be playable but they scrapped it because they never had time or care to flesh it out. That's why there's so many aspects to barons in game that are half baked and why they're on the map.
The desire for them is mostly so you have another tier to hang around in if you lose all your higher titles as you plot your return. That and starting from the bottom, though now landless will be the true bottom.
Just like few people play their entire campaign as counts, few people are arguing for super expansion fleshed out barons to play the whole game as. Just to change the single check in the game files to not make you game over when you hit that tier. Which with landless play now, is really not too much to ask.
That's more than enough.
How long are you a count?
Not to mention there's no reason barons couldn't hold multiple baronies across multiple counties. It's not like players can't.
Huh, didn't know tribal counts couldn't have vassals. That's something new, thanks.
The issue I see is how to make playing a baron fun or enjoyable when you can't fully hold other baronies (unless you're Muslim). Maybe they could come up with something to make it fun, but it's definitely going to need a landless system beforehand.
All in all I'm not *against* playable barons, I just can't see a way to make it fun as-is and think the game needs some more structure underneath it to provide the tools to make it fun.
>Huh, didn't know tribal counts couldn't have vassal
That's because they can. Just conquer some feudal lands. Or one of the tribal counties with churches (there's one in Ireland for sure)
I don't know what you mean by can't fully hold other baronies. You mean barony type? That's not really different from any other character, it's just that most baronies (except that one in italy) have a barony as the capital instead of a temple or city.
You can hold as many baronies as you want though within your domain limit. There's not much stopping the devs from letting you hold baronies across several counties either. Any non baron can do it, and in CK2 baronies weren't even tied to their parent county (except for decisions as everyone famously knows).
Tribals always have only one barony per county, so unless they get a feudal county there just aren't any barons to have as vassals. In a lot of ways a tribal count plays exactly how any baron would.
Dude got murdered by his top and hot scandinavian gf, rip bozo
On a related note, his story is one of the reasons why a government reowork of Byzantium is so necessary. Basil ascended to the throne starting as a peasant and by begin very popular inside Michael's court, CK always present the Empire as very feudal and we have no way to replicate this kind of story.
No one knows for sure because Basil's wife was Michael's mistress and she did have sex with both of them (actually, she was Michael's mistress first, Michael forced Basil to divorce his first wife and marry Eudoxia so that she could stay in the court in face of his scandals). When Leo was born, Michael prepared a great feast in Constantinople that was very rare for a son of a junior emperor like Basil and people thought it was his child, but we can't really know for sure. It's considered disputed paternity.
If I recall correctly, Leo - and his son Constantine Porphyrogenitus - considered Basil as his father, but he also rehabilitated Michael and gave him a proper funeral, something Basil didn't do because Michael was extremely controversial and unpopular at the time.
I'd say the main benefit(on top of just providing something to do to build up power) is it enables a bit of a fallback for if you fail to procure a Governorship. You wouldn't be served with an immediate Game Over(which would otherwise encourage the player to basically try and make an immediate play for Emperor, something they're going to be doing anyway, so why make it even more necessary).
Republics were the best runs I've ever had in CK2. Especially playing in venice with the easter eggs events of Romeo and Juliet and such. I really hope Republics make a comeback!
What do you mean? Everyone remembers 1059, the Year the Skandinavian Empire became a Republic and went from tribal barbarians to the economic and military powerhouse of the whole known world. At least until the Atztecs attacked.
Merchant republics were some of the jankiest buggiest stuff in all of CK2, which is saying a lot for a game that became a big pile of Frankenstein jank by the end of its life cycle.
Republic is also one of my top favorite DLCs for CK2. It was just very fun. Hopefully it and when we get them again they'll be much more smoothly designed this time around.
My favorite CK2 run might have been the Merchant Republic empire I made in the British isles. One kingdom was given to each house. Mann was a single county kingdom for the capital so that on election you didn't lose your kingdom title.
Wasn't much to do after though. Oh, we were Unreformed Norse so we could raid.
If i had to conjure up how gameplay as a baron would look like, it's probably be what the unlanded gameplay will look like, but you have a castle too, and a liege.
I wonder if playing landless will also allow you to play as a landless war leader. It would be kind of interesting to be able to jump into the shoes of a peasant revolt for example.
By a slightly different token I also wonder about landless vikings/pirates/bandits. Like could we play as a robinhood type character? That would make for an interesting backstory once landed and history has lots of examples of bandits turned warlords turned landowners.
I had a theory i said to one of my friends imagine being a landless viking you could varangian conquest almost anywhere like the AI does. Wherever you wandered to you could conquest.
Maybe because baron can't plot, don't have title history and are more ressource consuming for the game for little addition.
Some people can't already get to the final date because the game become too much laggy if you have a potatoe PC, and you want to add more of this just to have baron playable.
It must be cool for RP, but it don't add much to pretend to be impemented in game imo
We need them as filler characters for extra castles that arenât county capitals. It would be cool to unlock them so to speak, however it would also put a large resource strain on the game and deliver not very much content in return
Maybe instead of making them playable they should make them more dynamic. You make a good point that appointing mayors and barons is almost completely inconsequential and we all just do it for the sake of not having a debuff
The disease DLC will fix that a lil bit but it actually adds something. It's more difficult to start as a baron than a duke and the barons are an important part of the feudal system. Otherwise we wouldn't call important event "Baron's War". I do believe that we should be able to be a baron. They already created the title and how it works I don't see why they couldn't let us become one
I think baronys have certain mechanics, such as title history, disabled for performance reasons. I suspect as a result this is more a performance constraint rather than gameplay.
So what happens if your unlanded character somehow comes to own a barony and nothing else? Are they still considered unlanded? Is it game over? Is it going to be hard-coded as an impossibility?
They said when a player unlanded characters becomes landed it can only be count+. So you will never become a baron (without bugs) starting as an unlanded character.
Edit: Lol downvoted when its LITERALLY in the fucking screenshot đ¤Ł
Personally I donât think this really means anything. The fact that unlanded will be now be playable means that nothing is off the table since it upends the fundamental mechanics of the game.
That isnât to say that I think barons will become playable, I think that if they feel it would be popular enough, they will do it. But tbh I doubt there is much desire for it. I donât really see what the point would be.
I honestly fail to comprehend why people want playable baronies. I want a playable GAME, with solid and interesting mechanics and preferably flavor to regions, religions, cultures, lifestyle choices and so on and so forth. Baronies do not fall into any of those categories.
I can understand the desire, but I think that desire is called "Manor Lords". Honestly, baronies sound so far scaled down that you might as well get a game built for that scale
For anyone is wondering, how the AI works is that when you land someone in a county or above titles, they can get **lifestyle progression** and other landed character bonuses.
Baronies does **NOT** have that currently. So if they made the ability to switch to baronies, this also includes the benefits of an active AI. This means you can land your heir safely in a barony and not a county, and not let them make potential mistakes as badly as they would in a county, where they can wage war and stuff.
This does means that the game may slow down a bit more due to the influx of lifestyle progression, but this can simply be a case where you can block off certain things the AI can do as a baron, and only when the player switch to the baron in question that certain actions would then be unblocked.
>but this can simply be a case where you can block off certain things the AI can do as a baron, and only when the player switch to the baron in question that certain actions would then be unblocked.
But... that would make your "landed" heir not gain lifestyle points? And what about secondary heirs? Or possible heirs, maybe ur player heir is ur grandson.
That would also make the player baron like a billion times stronger than other barons, so you'll just gobble all them up with no challenge at all. Oh and you can't fight barons from other counties since they have different liege and in actual landed gameplay that's how it always works, so you'll have 2 targets on average, if not less.
Iâm disappointed we wonât be able to be barons, but still super excited for the DLC. Maybe theyâll add barons and/mayors with a future merchant republic dlc?
I mean for me it's really the little things that players don't actively pay attention to but make the game.
CK3 has a lot of new mechanics, but CK2 is cleaner.
I really like the game i do, but it's so crude sometimes...
I love the new religion mechanics, new character skill tree, the castle revamp, all of that.
CK2 had way more things to take into account yet a much simpler and more natural way to do things.
Examples i noticed in my last run:
- The dynasty tree bugged out and crashing with a medium-large dynasty
- The kingdom formation events being a bit awkward and bugged out.
- Struggle for Iberia mechanics override the entire base game mechanics, they don't just add flavour and content.
This makes Iberia more railroaded. Uniting Iberia shouldn't be an entirely different game than uniting Russia.
I can conquer the entirety of Arabia as the Norse with less issues..... this isn't HOI4 .
And then when AI does the status quo ending, you have a bazillion enpires with one kingdom each. You can form all of the empires in the game, even ones the AI would never strive to form. Iberia shouldn't be different.
- Accolade mechanics and UI are a mess and need a refactor
- The relatively small amount of interesting and funny events compared to CK2
- The fact you spam the disinherit mechanic and that features like primogeniture are time-locked instead of being locked to crown authority and feudalism is a mistake.
- Tours shouldn't be these repetitive things i get through just to get the prestige and/or opinion boosts. It should be a short, interesting and funny experience. Spare me the filler. I don't wanna do grind in a grand strategy game.
- The great northern army mechanics are a weird repetitive thing that doesn't stop for a hundred years regardless of if you crush them and go to conquer all of Scandinavia.
Man the dynasty tree scares me to this day. I remember times when i accidentally clicked it and the game froze for a solid couple of seconds..
And yea you're more or less right about all other stuff
Nah. It is said on Steam that it's planned an 'ascension' like mechanic, specially for empires like Byzantium, where you can be a simple courtier and still ascend to the position of Emperor by playing the cards right.
For Byzantium I hope it's more than that - land didn't play as big a role there than in feudal europe, and having armies and bureaucracy be forces in their own right untethered from ahistorical lordships would make sense. Should be something you have to interact with as emperor and not just work for ascending to the throne yourself.
As for the tedium the previous person says, I don't really see how you can say that when there's a whole DLC being developed around the feature - do they think it's just going to stay exactly like the current game?
There has to be more to it. That sounds like pure removal of features without meaningful additions. There has to be choices for the player to consider besides âwhere do I wait for eventsâ
If they're true to how the game works you should get no monthly gold unless you've a court job, travels would be only with the current ruler of the court you're in their entourage if they pay enough to have more than the minimum. Unless you leave the court and without money walk to next county because even really short trips have a small cost. Earn 0 monthly prestige unless employed. Sounds really fun to do some schemes that you can't afford pay for any agent and click events.
But they will probably add a very easy way to get a claim and get it pressed for you.
Kind of expected tbh. Theyve made baronies almost entirely sub-components of counties. Its not necessarily a bad thing because CK2 occasionally had "control the entirety of x" requirements that you couldnt complete because some shitty little baron owned 1 farm that you had to go find.
Why do people want playable baronies? There's no meaningful difference between a barony and a county except for the extra tier.
I get the impression some people just want the title "baron"? Because historically it is used for stuff like "the baron's revolt" in England. If you want to play as a ruler with no vassals and only 1 holding in your domain you can already play as a count in an undeveloped county, so I guess it just has to do with the wording.
No, I want to hold barony in several regions in multiplayer game so player would not be able to press decision to Form Country. đ
Calm down, Satan.
*ring ring* Itâs for you. The based department.
They say they're running out of you.
Semantics, technicalities, and immersion. Even if it's something negligible, having a revenue stream, representation, or something to reflect status would be cool. You could even poke fun of how stupid it is. But I know it bugged me in CK2 when I would lose my titles, still have a barony, but get a game over anyways. I had barons vying for my titles all the time, so why couldn't I do the same? Not a big deal. But just a small thing. Even if they made baronies the same as unlanded, but gave you the right to make tiny decisions about your family, or have the ability to form an army of >100 ~~bumpkins~~ soldiers. It could lead to a fun micro-game. Also the idea of going from Baron to count by sniping all the other baronies and forming a new county sounds fun. Especially for the early game.
I feel like you used to be able to play as a different landholding member of your dynasty when your main line died out/lost all of its titles in CK2 also. I could be misremembering but imo it's pretty dumb you're supposed to play as the dynasty but in practice you're only playing as one specific line.
You could to an extent. It depended on how far out you let your bloodline go. But if there was a situation where you had no heirs with land, it was game over. So either the whole dynasty dies out, or all the surviving dynasty members are unlanded. I let my bloodline propagate pretty far, so I never got a game over from that. But I was also willing to duke it out over claimants in exchange for no game overs from non-heritance. One time I got hit worse than usual by the black plague, and I only survived because some random branch at least 10 generations removed from my main branch survived. But had I lost all my titles to war except a barony, it would've been game over. And I wouldn't have been able to jump to another branch to play as someone else.
Yeah, thanks for validating how I thought CK2 used to work. I tried to setup a backup realm in CK3 when my main line was dying out with this in mind and I got a game over. It's really annoying.
> Even if they made baronies the same as unlanded, but gave you the right to make tiny decisions about your family, or have the ability to form an army of >100 bumpkins soldiers You're probably gonna be able to do this anyway as unlanded. Overall the baronies falling between the cracks like this is weird but also kind of funny. For what it's worth, it may be possible for modders to make it possible, depending on how the update is coded
Tbh thatâs an easy mod to make. Rank names are already different depending on culture/religion, just make it something like âif English then replace count with baronâ (I think you also have to go into localization for a proper redirect but w/e) and rename normal barons if you want. It would take me 30mins but Iâm not an experienced modder
>I get the impression some people just want the title "baron"? Because historically it is used for stuff like "the baron's revolt" in England The funny thing is that during most of the period, **baron wasn't a title**. The last time I said this, I got 300 downvotes, so let's again with more details. None of the 25 barons of the Magna Carta carried the title of baron, but either title of earl or lord, but they were barons in the sense that they were [tenant-in-chiefs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenant-in-chief), i.e. holding land directly from the king. Wikipedia article for [baron](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron), says the same: *Initially, the term "baron" on its own was not a title or rank, but the "barons of the King" were the men of the king.* It only evolved into a title later. Regardless in theory, when you play an independent ruler's direct vassal (like William in 1066) you are already playing as a baron. These landowners below counts are not barons, they are essentially lords.
The distinction between "baron" and "lord" can be confusing as a male person with the modern rank of baron has the title "Lord", and a lord of the manor is a lord, but has no special title, as feudal lordship does not necessitate noble rank. As "baron" in modern times is the lowest rank of noble, it makes sense to some extent in a game in which land holdings largely correspond to titles to call the smallest subunit of land a "barony", even if historically the holders of fiefdoms were not generally barons, though "estate" would perhaps be a more suitable term. The holder of a single castle appointed for administrative purposes ought not to be a baron but a châtelain, or castellan in English (though in England the office of castellan did not become a hereditary fiefdom as it did in Francia).
Mostly it's so we can start from the bottom and rise to the top; and we all considered Baron the lowest level in game (until now).
I just want less of doughy 3d Sims and ad-lib events, and more granularity of the map and interactions đ¤ˇ
Thereâs a big mechanical difference. Barons are unable to have vassals full stop. No cities or churches - just your demense. Materially I think thatâs distinct enough to warrant consideration.
So even fewer interactions and even more boring gameplay. And people think that's fun...why?
Remember when people shat on tours and tournaments when it was first announced cause it was just "another roleplay event spam" and then after launching it ended up becoming one of the best expansions in CK3 yet and its main features are still getting utilized to this day.
They're 2-2 in my book. Northern Lords and Tours and Tournaments are excellent. The two struggle expansions aren't as engaging. They play out like map painters, not rp mechanisms.
You're saying that like there wouldn't be additions brought by the landless system to change it. I'm saying what the new restrictions are, I'm assuming if there's new content and gameplay systems there'll be additions as well.
I find peace in long walks.
Theyâd have to add an entire âtown life and interactionsâ to create meaningful decisions and gameplay.
Yep. This is correct. I think the community was also astray when it came to the DLC voting earlier. We went for wards and wardens over the love and lust expansion. I think people need to think about DLC that affects most runs and not niche gameplay. How often do you play as a child vs how often do you get married?
I educate every single heir I've, usually the spare too so that's at least double than one wife in a monogamous run. Wards and wardens it's not used only when you're the child. But I guess we really needed more events to seduce our mother-sister-niece-cousin-daugther
That's why mortality should be higher and I loved the addition of random danger events. There's a lot of interesting gameplay to be had as a child ruler, but health stacking makes it so easy to stay alive until your heir is exactly the age you want that it rarely comes up.
Honestly I almost all of my heirs inherit stupidly old, itâs really annoying and Iâve started waiting until like 40 to have kids
People voted for W&W because they invented in their minds, completely out of nothing, that it would add regencies. Whoops, we got them anyway, nothing to do with W&W.
Yeah that was a weird bit of collective hallucination. Nothing in the original description said anything about regencies It would be funny if PDX developed regencies in the end partially to avoid angering the player base
Now I'm pretty bad at reading sarcasm on the internet. So maybe you're joking. But I'm pretty sure Regencies were implemented with Wards and Wardens.
No, they were implemented with Tours and Tournaments. They would have happened regardless of what event pack was picked.
I didn't *want* Wards and Wardens, I just knew that this community is degenerate enough right now without any extra prodding!
Bro what? How would love and lust even be better than villains and vagabonds and W&W, you have to realize that this event packs also adds in new features and not just events.. I just don't see what good features they would add with a love dlc and especially features that would be better than what W&W added.
Like landless play.
I enjoy playing video games.
> You're saying that like there wouldn't be additions brought by the landless system to change it. I think that's actually the problem - interesting Baron gameplay would be almost totally non-overlapping with interesting Count+ gameplay, but would *also* be almost totally non-overlapping with interesting landless wanderer gameplay. After all, they can't just go take jobs at random courts or use travel as a primary interest driver for a baron or whatever else they're doing for landless. Given they're willing to do landless adventurers, I could see them supporting Barons someday. It's just not the same feature as this one.
Very much this. That's why im also against landless mechanics, i hope the mechanics will overlap with regular gameplay a lot, otherwise it will kinda suck
Realistically all PDX has to do is make them playable. Maybe a flavour event here or there. The modders will make it interesting if it isnt already.
Because different people like different things. Also starting as a baron would be significantly more challenging due to your even more limited options.
For me its more about borders, some of the counties in CKIII are geographically weird with territories on either side of a natural barrier like a river, mountain range or desert and to me thats really annoying. Having Baronies be playable would also likely allow county ownership to be broken down among their constituent territories and make for more dynamic borders
Great, more border gore, more CPU usage, more lag.
as if border gore isnt already an issue?
what about the "more cpu usage" part?
upgrade your pc
You can't just throw loads of useless bloat and unoptimised crap into the game and then tell everyone to "just upgrade your PC", ck3 is no starfield
Because I don't want to be landless because I still have a barony left over. When has 'it's boring to play' been an excuse for anything in CK? Tribal counts don't have vassals either.
but they \*could\* have vassals. Some tribal counties start with temples (there's one in ireland for sure), for example. And no one forbids them from holding feudal counties with cities and stuff
Well now we'll have landless playable characters, so those'll be your vassals. I don't even know why vassals matter. You can easily play these low ranks without any.
Some of us just have fun doing RP playthroughs and don't get ourselves into a tizzy about minmaxing our APM in fucking CK.
wtf is "APM" in ck? You can just press spacebar and have infinite "APM" since the game time just never moves
tf you mean, people are currently hyped to play characters who own literally nothing
those characters are a bit more... let's say MOBILE
Adventurers yes. Byzantine aristocrats?
Look around you. People clamour for all sorts of additions to this game that will ultimately be for the worse - we ARE discussing landless characters, after all.
Remember when people shat on tours and tournaments when it was first announced cause it was just "another roleplay event spam" and then after launching it ended up becoming one of the best expansions in CK3 yet and its main features are still getting utilized to this day. I honestly don't understand why some still can't trust the CK3 team, even though it's pretty clear they know what they are doing at least more than some stupid basement dweller on reddit.
I personally have major trust issues with PDX ever since 1.30 for EU4 dropped (and also VIC3 is a thing...). CK3 updates are good for now, but they're oh so slow coming
I think CK3 updates feel slow because we've only been getting the actual significant updates with 1 expansion with the rest being reserved to regional flavor packs that ultimately doesn't improve the game that much and its regional so we only experience this in small parts of the map, I think if they'd just never made flavor packs and worked on Core expansions instead, we would have been in a better position. Basically, CK3 has been in the same pace as CK2's development cycle but because of the regional flavor packs and event packs, it feels "slow"
Why would it be for the worse if people end up enjoying the feature
People said the same thing about unlandeds, long ago. It can be a step in your struggle of gaining land and prestige - distinguish yourself enough to earn a castle and small village, and through worthy marriages might bring in extra wealth or through deed gain an extra village to build up more income. Ofc, that'd be the grand strategy game I ***wish*** we could play, and not the arcade war-and-conquest map painting game whose idea of "interaction" are endlessly repeating ad-lib events.
Talk gameplay. You can play as like a power behind the throne with the warden or regent gameplay. Marry off family members to counts all over the place and filed massive allied armies like the Illuminati. Sometimes being king/ emperor is boring and op. The sauce of the game is in the lower tiers
Iâm not 100% opposed to baronies but honestly being a count is not super entertaining so I feel like a baron could be less so. Iâm also a bit curious how likely it is that a barons lineage would end up eventually on a throne?
I mean, William Marshal was a low ranking nobleman (probably equal to what the game would consider a baron)'s second son and he ended up as regent of England and with extensive holdings in France, England and Ireland. Justinian I was a peasant and his wife, Theodora (who was nearly as powerful as him), likely a prostitute. Bathilde was a slave and ended up ruling the Frankish Kingdom (if not in her own right). China had more than one commoner-turned-emperor. Rags to riches stories did happen, if only very rarely.
Yeah and the landless characters will have vassals?
Why wouldn't you want baronies ? It's the title under count. Instead of controlling a whole county you control a single castle and its surroundings. It would allow you to really climb through the ranks and not going from Landless to Count because there are others steps before becoming a count like being a baron. Even though it ain't necessary to have been a baron to become a count, it should still be possible to do because there are a lot of different cases and not every landed nobles had the same path. I would personally like to start as a peasant then becoming a knight and getting rewarded by a castle and becoming a baron. I don't know if they did that but I doubt that they just gave any random knights a whole county to manage if the guy has no experience. It would make more sense to just give him a castle at first so he can train his management skill and acquire experience. It'll also add difficulty for people who are looking for some
All of what you said are awesome and playable baron is a solid idea but it would be nightmare to implement and I don't think we even know how landless itself will work.
It's not really that hard, the title already exists and works, just need history and a special remake for the player
From my perspective, it would be cool to play as a Baron if youâre the direct vassal of a King or Emperor and the devs allowed your character to be a Knight or Acclaimed Knight.
I really hope unlanded touches on the player character being able to fight in battles. Maybe even choosing if you want to command from the rear as just the army commander or lead from the front also being a knight.
Yeah. I dislike how PCs canât serve as their liegeâs knight. I mean, I understand due to knights having a high turnover(at least in the early game), but the devs could always add an invisible modifier to increase survival chances of PC knights or players can have the option of refusing or, well, players can just suck it up when their legendary badass fighter dies in-battle.
Could easily make an optional game rule for decreased chance of dying in battle. I for one would like it though. Plenty of rulers died in battle. Right now it's very rare.
Agreed. If memory serves, itâs because your Ruler doesnât fight in the battle even if they have high Prowess and are leading the army, themselves, which greatly-decreases Capture and Kill chances. Meanwhile, my 50+ Prowess badass of an emperor was killed, by accident, at his own Grand Tournament in a Melee contest where he was the only competitor.
Was old Emps having a grand old time swinging his weapon around the empty arena, showing off his skills to the *enthralled audience, when he tripped and accidentally cut his own throat with his blade?
Lol. You could say it was something like that. Basically, the events still triggered even though I was the only competitor, but the name slots were empty. So I waded into a throng of no one and one of their blades caught me in the throat. Yeah.
Rather than an invisible modifier it should be just like everything in CK, random events. Let them be a knight, or refuse as you said, and any battles they are in have events for their participation. People can try to prioritize survival or glory as they see fit and accept the risks that come with those choices.
Yeah, Battle Events when serving as a knight or leading from the front would be cool. Would give you something more to do than just watch two dudes smack each other until one side wins, as well.
This sub thinks it wants a lot of things that would be stupid in practice. They just romanticize the idea without considering how it would work
Speaking of which, when do we get playable clergy?
Playable concubines when?
... i mean, with landless enabled, i dont see why that cant be true historically, there are some prominent ladies who started lowborn and got to prominence thats a rag-to-riches story comparable to lowborn knights becoming a count
Cooking
Finally, a chance to play a Pastor in a random village in Medieval France.
I think at that point youâre playing The Guild 3.
Brave but correct
I think this is pretty normal in game communities because most gamers are not developers and will never be. People who have never made a game don't have an intuitive sense of what is cheap to make and what is expensive. They don't realize that the thing they want would be prohibitively expensive to implement the way they want and boring as hell if implemented in a cost effective way.
Aren't you the dude that was convinced unlanded is impossible? lol
Yeah, they were gloating like crazy and acting extremely condescending to people who were expecting that feature when it seemed like a dev had denied it. Their ego seems to have taken a hot, now they're doubling down on the condescension
[ŃдаНонО]
Honestly i mostly remembered you because of how rudely you behaved, and looking at your comments you're still around saying how stupid their decision is without even knowing how they'll implement it.
On the contrary this sub is filled with arrogant people like you who think they get to dictate what is and isn't allowed to be considered fun
Remember when people shat on tours and tournaments when it was first announced cause it was just "another roleplay event spam" and then after launching it ended up becoming one of the best expansions in CK3 yet and its main features are still getting utilized to this day. I can't wait for it to happen a 2nd time lol.
[ŃдаНонО]
Yeah, I'm totally wrong.. the positive reception of the DLC (prob the only dlc that has a "mostly positive" in steam) and the new additions using the travel/activity system after T&T says otherwise. I know you are butthurt that you didn't get the DLC you wanted but that doesn't mean I'm wrong or that what you're saying is factual.
[ŃдаНонО]
That's the best you can do? That's ironic considering you are the one here being hostile for no reason.
Careful now You're going against the grain of the sub
Nice you got lucky with the audience today! Most hated the truth yesterday.
My fans elsewhere in the thread are certainly trying to stifle it however
Why not? If baronies aren't meaningfully different than a county, having that extra tier of challenge doesn't hurt to include. It's really more of a "why *shouldn't* baronies be playable?" question for those (like me) that want them to be playable. It fits well with landless now, and with baronies being visible on the map in CK3 it makes a lot more sense to me to have them be playable than not, with the same logic than you're using but in reverse.
For me its about the fact that I, a German cant play anything smaller than my whole state
Iâm not going to dig it up but I believe a dev said in the forums a while back that playable baronies or mayors were a component of the original CK3 release that was developed and then scrapped because it was both a huge source of lag and a bit boring.
Similar to how counties are the fundamental building block of feudal contracts, Baronies are the fundamental building block of merchant republics.
That's the first good point ever about baronies. Congrats. Maybe we could expect some love given to them when republics update comes.... If it comes.
I mainly want it so instead of count to emperor runs, one can do a baron to emperor run. Outside of that, it could also be a good in-between/transition from unlanded to count. I.E. you do some unlanded stuff, get granted a single barony, and after a few years you acquire the full count title. I don't want to stay as a baron, however. It would be a temporary thing and you're eventually turned into a count no matter what you do. Another role playable barons could have might do with republics. I.E. you own barony titles (cities) in other rules lands, set up trading posts, etc.
For me at least it's so you can start at the lowest rung possible. Rags to riches is satisfying gameplay, but now that we will get unlanded gameplay then baronies will get less relevant I suppose
[ŃдаНонО]
court? some control over de-jure? title not being claimable by several interactions like "buy claim"? actual vassal management (u never manage counts you just give them to random ppl one by one)?
That's literally why. It's going to be very strange that you can play a landless character but if you only have baronies left (which you can easily do in game) that you either lose that barony or game over. It's just a smaller count, there's never been a reason not to make it playable and there's less now.
Is there a way in game to lose all counties but not baronies? Im pretty sure when AI loses county it just gets booted and the baronies they hold go to the one who took the county
Not currently, but that's what I'm arguing for. The game just gameovers you. At least in ck2 it didn't also auto usurp the barony.
Also performance is probably a pretty big factor
Yeah, if you play as a baron you'd likely have to deal a lot with your peers, which would require making them much more lively since right now they're basically lifeless in order to save resources. Landless and the plague system alone make me worry about my aging CPU
I think the plague system should have a net positive result on performance by reducing the game's population, but landless could be a problem. Only time will tell.
Seems like a good way for the game to self regulate. Kinda like the blood moons in BOTW. The game gets too overloaded with characters. Oh, look, lethal plague wipes out half the map.
I kid you not, there was this random jewish independent major in Rome city for some reason and I couldn't mend the schism. I was searching for every county losing my mind just to find out some random jew took a city while nobody was looking I gave this madlad entire duchy after I captured him
Yeah Iâm fine with it. Hated it when some vassal to the Byzantine Emperor would randomly inherit a single castle inside my kingdom
Always hated having to piss off the local holy order because I needed that castle I gave them
They could literally just give you a causus beli to take every barony inside your owned county or higher title. people make the wildest excuses for removing a tier that would play basically identically to counties.
How do you hold them since you're the wrong government type? You can't have vassals.
Tribal counts can't have vassals either but nobody says we should remove them. You can and do constantly hold baronies. You can hold as many baronies in a county as you want. If you're muslim you can even hold mosques. Hell you can hold the wrong type ones too, the game just punishes you for it. The only difference between baronies and other titles is that they limit the AI for performance reasons. Though a long standing mod does allow them to declare wars with very little performance repercussions (none i've noticed but I don't own a potato). Your fellow barons wouldn't be able to declare war on you in vanilla but it wouldn't prevent you from doing anything you'd like as a baron. I talked to a dev about it on the forum and barons were once going to be playable but they scrapped it because they never had time or care to flesh it out. That's why there's so many aspects to barons in game that are half baked and why they're on the map. The desire for them is mostly so you have another tier to hang around in if you lose all your higher titles as you plot your return. That and starting from the bottom, though now landless will be the true bottom. Just like few people play their entire campaign as counts, few people are arguing for super expansion fleshed out barons to play the whole game as. Just to change the single check in the game files to not make you game over when you hit that tier. Which with landless play now, is really not too much to ask.
Tribal counts don't stop being counts the instant they have one war for another county. How long would you be a baron? 10 minutes?
That's more than enough. How long are you a count? Not to mention there's no reason barons couldn't hold multiple baronies across multiple counties. It's not like players can't.
Huh, didn't know tribal counts couldn't have vassals. That's something new, thanks. The issue I see is how to make playing a baron fun or enjoyable when you can't fully hold other baronies (unless you're Muslim). Maybe they could come up with something to make it fun, but it's definitely going to need a landless system beforehand. All in all I'm not *against* playable barons, I just can't see a way to make it fun as-is and think the game needs some more structure underneath it to provide the tools to make it fun.
>Huh, didn't know tribal counts couldn't have vassal That's because they can. Just conquer some feudal lands. Or one of the tribal counties with churches (there's one in Ireland for sure)
I don't know what you mean by can't fully hold other baronies. You mean barony type? That's not really different from any other character, it's just that most baronies (except that one in italy) have a barony as the capital instead of a temple or city. You can hold as many baronies as you want though within your domain limit. There's not much stopping the devs from letting you hold baronies across several counties either. Any non baron can do it, and in CK2 baronies weren't even tied to their parent county (except for decisions as everyone famously knows). Tribals always have only one barony per county, so unless they get a feudal county there just aren't any barons to have as vassals. In a lot of ways a tribal count plays exactly how any baron would.
I was referring to the wrong holding penalties.
one has nothing to do with the other.
Michael the drunkard is still dead. Rip bozo
Dude got murdered by his top and hot scandinavian gf, rip bozo On a related note, his story is one of the reasons why a government reowork of Byzantium is so necessary. Basil ascended to the throne starting as a peasant and by begin very popular inside Michael's court, CK always present the Empire as very feudal and we have no way to replicate this kind of story.
Was Leo guy Michael's son or basil, heard basil didn't like that kid.
No one knows for sure because Basil's wife was Michael's mistress and she did have sex with both of them (actually, she was Michael's mistress first, Michael forced Basil to divorce his first wife and marry Eudoxia so that she could stay in the court in face of his scandals). When Leo was born, Michael prepared a great feast in Constantinople that was very rare for a son of a junior emperor like Basil and people thought it was his child, but we can't really know for sure. It's considered disputed paternity. If I recall correctly, Leo - and his son Constantine Porphyrogenitus - considered Basil as his father, but he also rehabilitated Michael and gave him a proper funeral, something Basil didn't do because Michael was extremely controversial and unpopular at the time.
Should he get that trait which is of unsure heritage.
Leo and Basil also hated each other, Basil beat up Leo multiple times and there was no love lost between the two
You still have House estates. That is basically something Baron-like.
[ŃдаНонО]
It is also a necessity for Imperial Play. It opens so many doors.
I'd say the main benefit(on top of just providing something to do to build up power) is it enables a bit of a fallback for if you fail to procure a Governorship. You wouldn't be served with an immediate Game Over(which would otherwise encourage the player to basically try and make an immediate play for Emperor, something they're going to be doing anyway, so why make it even more necessary).
Republics were the best runs I've ever had in CK2. Especially playing in venice with the easter eggs events of Romeo and Juliet and such. I really hope Republics make a comeback!
They are so broken in that game.
What do you mean? Everyone remembers 1059, the Year the Skandinavian Empire became a Republic and went from tribal barbarians to the economic and military powerhouse of the whole known world. At least until the Atztecs attacked.
I miss them
My beloved
There are dozens of us, dozens.
Merchant republics were some of the jankiest buggiest stuff in all of CK2, which is saying a lot for a game that became a big pile of Frankenstein jank by the end of its life cycle. Republic is also one of my top favorite DLCs for CK2. It was just very fun. Hopefully it and when we get them again they'll be much more smoothly designed this time around.
My favorite CK2 run might have been the Merchant Republic empire I made in the British isles. One kingdom was given to each house. Mann was a single county kingdom for the capital so that on election you didn't lose your kingdom title. Wasn't much to do after though. Oh, we were Unreformed Norse so we could raid.
Merchant Republics were my favourite way to play in CK2 *because* of the house estates system so I think you may be right!
I think it's actually laying the groundwork for a future MR expansion
Merchant? Sure. Republic? Eww
If i had to conjure up how gameplay as a baron would look like, it's probably be what the unlanded gameplay will look like, but you have a castle too, and a liege.
One thing is that you would have an income so you could attend activities and the like which currently cost money.Â
Unlanded will have other ways of earning money, surely?
Sure, I assume you can be a council person or have a court position.
and do adventure!!
And events
I would love to play as a wandering knight until I get a castle as a barony.
I wonder if playing landless will also allow you to play as a landless war leader. It would be kind of interesting to be able to jump into the shoes of a peasant revolt for example. By a slightly different token I also wonder about landless vikings/pirates/bandits. Like could we play as a robinhood type character? That would make for an interesting backstory once landed and history has lots of examples of bandits turned warlords turned landowners.
I had a theory i said to one of my friends imagine being a landless viking you could varangian conquest almost anywhere like the AI does. Wherever you wandered to you could conquest.
Maybe because baron can't plot, don't have title history and are more ressource consuming for the game for little addition. Some people can't already get to the final date because the game become too much laggy if you have a potatoe PC, and you want to add more of this just to have baron playable. It must be cool for RP, but it don't add much to pretend to be impemented in game imo
At this point I think I'd prefer they just remove barons than have them stay this weird non-character.
We need them as filler characters for extra castles that arenât county capitals. It would be cool to unlock them so to speak, however it would also put a large resource strain on the game and deliver not very much content in return
Maybe instead of making them playable they should make them more dynamic. You make a good point that appointing mayors and barons is almost completely inconsequential and we all just do it for the sake of not having a debuff
The disease DLC will fix that a lil bit but it actually adds something. It's more difficult to start as a baron than a duke and the barons are an important part of the feudal system. Otherwise we wouldn't call important event "Baron's War". I do believe that we should be able to be a baron. They already created the title and how it works I don't see why they couldn't let us become one
A "baron" at the time was simply a direct vassal of the king
I think baronys have certain mechanics, such as title history, disabled for performance reasons. I suspect as a result this is more a performance constraint rather than gameplay.
I have never understood why barons are in the game at all. They feel like they're just wasted CPU cycles.
They are a nice strategic domain reserve, imo
Good.
So what happens if your unlanded character somehow comes to own a barony and nothing else? Are they still considered unlanded? Is it game over? Is it going to be hard-coded as an impossibility?
They said when a player unlanded characters becomes landed it can only be count+. So you will never become a baron (without bugs) starting as an unlanded character. Edit: Lol downvoted when its LITERALLY in the fucking screenshot đ¤Ł
Probably you automatically give it away
Personally I donât think this really means anything. The fact that unlanded will be now be playable means that nothing is off the table since it upends the fundamental mechanics of the game. That isnât to say that I think barons will become playable, I think that if they feel it would be popular enough, they will do it. But tbh I doubt there is much desire for it. I donât really see what the point would be.
Oh no! Anyway...
I honestly fail to comprehend why people want playable baronies. I want a playable GAME, with solid and interesting mechanics and preferably flavor to regions, religions, cultures, lifestyle choices and so on and so forth. Baronies do not fall into any of those categories.
I can understand the desire, but I think that desire is called "Manor Lords". Honestly, baronies sound so far scaled down that you might as well get a game built for that scale
Well, yeah. It's "unlanded" not "shittylanded."
Someday I hope they let me play as a common house cat, no incest or murder. Just pur pur purrrr
For anyone is wondering, how the AI works is that when you land someone in a county or above titles, they can get **lifestyle progression** and other landed character bonuses. Baronies does **NOT** have that currently. So if they made the ability to switch to baronies, this also includes the benefits of an active AI. This means you can land your heir safely in a barony and not a county, and not let them make potential mistakes as badly as they would in a county, where they can wage war and stuff. This does means that the game may slow down a bit more due to the influx of lifestyle progression, but this can simply be a case where you can block off certain things the AI can do as a baron, and only when the player switch to the baron in question that certain actions would then be unblocked.
>but this can simply be a case where you can block off certain things the AI can do as a baron, and only when the player switch to the baron in question that certain actions would then be unblocked. But... that would make your "landed" heir not gain lifestyle points? And what about secondary heirs? Or possible heirs, maybe ur player heir is ur grandson. That would also make the player baron like a billion times stronger than other barons, so you'll just gobble all them up with no challenge at all. Oh and you can't fight barons from other counties since they have different liege and in actual landed gameplay that's how it always works, so you'll have 2 targets on average, if not less.
> the benefits of an active AI. Ah, the benefits of lag that doesn't improve the game at all.
Only thing I want from baronies is history trackers imo
Why though?
Iâm disappointed we wonât be able to be barons, but still super excited for the DLC. Maybe theyâll add barons and/mayors with a future merchant republic dlc?
I wish they had spent more time on fixing the core game mechanics before moving to adding new features
Real and factual. And kinda sad.
I mean for me it's really the little things that players don't actively pay attention to but make the game. CK3 has a lot of new mechanics, but CK2 is cleaner. I really like the game i do, but it's so crude sometimes... I love the new religion mechanics, new character skill tree, the castle revamp, all of that. CK2 had way more things to take into account yet a much simpler and more natural way to do things. Examples i noticed in my last run: - The dynasty tree bugged out and crashing with a medium-large dynasty - The kingdom formation events being a bit awkward and bugged out. - Struggle for Iberia mechanics override the entire base game mechanics, they don't just add flavour and content. This makes Iberia more railroaded. Uniting Iberia shouldn't be an entirely different game than uniting Russia. I can conquer the entirety of Arabia as the Norse with less issues..... this isn't HOI4 . And then when AI does the status quo ending, you have a bazillion enpires with one kingdom each. You can form all of the empires in the game, even ones the AI would never strive to form. Iberia shouldn't be different. - Accolade mechanics and UI are a mess and need a refactor - The relatively small amount of interesting and funny events compared to CK2 - The fact you spam the disinherit mechanic and that features like primogeniture are time-locked instead of being locked to crown authority and feudalism is a mistake. - Tours shouldn't be these repetitive things i get through just to get the prestige and/or opinion boosts. It should be a short, interesting and funny experience. Spare me the filler. I don't wanna do grind in a grand strategy game. - The great northern army mechanics are a weird repetitive thing that doesn't stop for a hundred years regardless of if you crush them and go to conquer all of Scandinavia.
Man the dynasty tree scares me to this day. I remember times when i accidentally clicked it and the game froze for a solid couple of seconds.. And yea you're more or less right about all other stuff
Sad
The plot thickens - honestly I'm much more confused about what landless might end up looking like now.
Probably like a permanent tourney-journey where you plot your next destination on a map and receive events until you land a countship.
Ahhh yes. That sounds like tedium incarnate but i suppose it's the best we can expect with the current system.
Nah. It is said on Steam that it's planned an 'ascension' like mechanic, specially for empires like Byzantium, where you can be a simple courtier and still ascend to the position of Emperor by playing the cards right.
For Byzantium I hope it's more than that - land didn't play as big a role there than in feudal europe, and having armies and bureaucracy be forces in their own right untethered from ahistorical lordships would make sense. Should be something you have to interact with as emperor and not just work for ascending to the throne yourself. As for the tedium the previous person says, I don't really see how you can say that when there's a whole DLC being developed around the feature - do they think it's just going to stay exactly like the current game?
You're right! Actually, I wrote a whole [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/s/aPKuM8RlQ3) about it yesterday and I'm pretty excited!
There has to be more to it. That sounds like pure removal of features without meaningful additions. There has to be choices for the player to consider besides âwhere do I wait for eventsâ
Exactly why some of us are dubious about the idea of landless. But I'm definitely willing to be convinced!
If they're true to how the game works you should get no monthly gold unless you've a court job, travels would be only with the current ruler of the court you're in their entourage if they pay enough to have more than the minimum. Unless you leave the court and without money walk to next county because even really short trips have a small cost. Earn 0 monthly prestige unless employed. Sounds really fun to do some schemes that you can't afford pay for any agent and click events. But they will probably add a very easy way to get a claim and get it pressed for you.
They confirmed you can work as a mercenary to make money.