SGO: First, your choice of covering 1066-1419 AD. Clearly the upper end was defined by your desire to dovetail the save games from the into start positions for EU2, I don’t understand 1066. Obviously we all recognize the date for the Battle of Hastings, but when I look at the endpoints of EU I see them as turning points in the CHARACTER of the political systems involved (at least in the Old World). Certainly Hastings changed the political landscape but did it mark any sort of turning point in the political system? It would seem that a system based on a structure of personal fealty and relationships could reasonably go back further, say to the death of Charlemagne.
Paradox: Quite right. But the Norman conquest of England was noteworthy for several reasons: William the Conqueror was the Duke of medium-sized Normandy and a vassal to the King of France. So a Vassal of France goes to England and conquers it, then these Plantagenets invest the throne for hundreds of years. That is an anomaly; both when looking into feudal history and the feudal politico-economic system of the game. Moreover, 1066 is commonly held as the year in which the age of Vikings ended. We wished to avoid the complexities involved with these intrepid seafarers (and possibly deal with them in a game of their own someday.) If we were to start with Charlemagne we would also have to add two and a half centuries more to the time frame of the game; something we would prefer to avoid since we are comfortable with the 400-year range of EU 2.
SGO: I think one of the things that first catches the eye is that CK saved games will convert to starting positions for EU2. This ranks way up there in ‘ultra-cool features’ but it seems like this is almost an impossibility to accomplish. What will (for example) extremely high levels of CK Piety give to the EU player at start? What about prestige? What happens if the French and English kings have vassal crusader states extant in 1419? Will they actually have new states created in those regions for EU2? Your design document states that the various provinces in CK will be a good deal smaller than EU (logically) – how will possession of these provinces translate into control status as control/vassalage/home province status for EU? How about if the player controls a region that is only part of an EU2 region while someone else controls the other part(s)?
Paradox: The save game conversion is indeed a complex undertaking. Obviously players will not get the exact same situation in EU 2 that they ended up with in CK. The world outside Europe will not be affected by CK save games. Piety and Prestige will be converted into diplomatic relations with the other European countries, and possibly give some initial victory points or even “bad boy” rating as the case may be. Crusader states (and independent Duchies, Counties and Bishoprics) will be transferred as intact as possible, which means that we may have to add some new possible nations to EU 2 (the save game conversion tool could do this automatically, but it has not been decided yet). Feudal ties will not translate into EU 2, except if a rather independent (disloyal) Duchy from CK exists as a country in EU 2, in which case it might become an autonomous vassal (like Brittany and Burgundy in the normal EU 2 Grand Campaign.) Province ownership is a bit tricky due to the different size and borders, and will inevitably result in some inconsistencies, but with a good set of conversion rules it should be doable.
SGO: Family trees: will various dukes/counts be able to rebel, thus taking with them all or part of the tree that is beneath them? Will players be able to induce these subordinates to rebel against other players?
Paradox: Counts and Dukes will not necessarily be part of the family, but if they are then sure they can rebel and leave with all their vassals. The player cannot directly induce rebellion against other players, but there are indirect approaches… What the player can do is affect the loyalties of a lord; for example by granting the French Duke of Arles the English title of Duke of Arles, and then heavily bribing him with gold. Continue to act prestigiously and piously, and soon the dear Duke of Arles will end up in your court room swearing an oath of fidelity.
SGO: It seems like diplomatic marriages could have consequences up and down the political hierarchy. How much are you going to let the player (in their role as monarch) get involved in this? Are the counts going to be managed by a marriage AI that keeps a lookout for eligible sons & daughters in neighboring demesnes or with potential connections of benefit to the count, and lets them pursue each other below the king’s radar, in effect? Will there be the occasional chaos-inducing and bastard-producing romances that always throw the neat inheritance plans awry?
Paradox: Vassal Lords (and non-player monarchs) will indeed be managed by an AI, and will intermarry according in accordance with their situation and personalities. Of course, they may aim high and ask for the hand of a Princess or Prince, in which case the sovereign (i.e. the player) gets involved. Naturally the opposite situation is also possible. We have also been discussing extra-marital affairs, bastard sons, divorce, mentally ill siblings, designation of heir to the throne and such. The element of chaos must be limited of course, but we still want it to feel real.
SGO: For all nobility when they have sons, will it be a simple model, or will it be as complex as for the royal family? For example, Duke Puissant of the county of Calais is reported to you to have a bastard eldest son, and his wife has subsequently borne him a son in wedlock. Either before or after the duke’s death, you as king are going to have to determine which son is the recognized heir, possibly paying attention to the duke’s wishes, possibly not. One of the sons will be disenfranchised. This one can either put up with it or become disloyal – either hurting the morale and loyalty of Counts below him, or simply defecting to another great house who might promise to try to restore him. Of course, if such a restoration could be achieved, he would become intensely loyal, while those pushed aside (ala post-Hastings) would likewise become bitter. If there’s a way to split the lands and allocate them ala Charlemagne, that would be cool – they could EACH be less happy because they didn’t get it all. (It doesn’t have to be totally rational).
Paradox: It will be complex, but not exactly in that way. Basically the Duke must choose who will be his heir. If he does not designate the son with the best claim there will be grave problems upon the Duke’s death. We also have knighting of the sons. A ruler must provide the eldest sons with fiefs not to loose loyalty and prestige and they will still keep them when the ruler dies. Thus the new king will have his brothers as vassals. This could fragment the realm and will be an all-too-common cause for internal strife.
Next-->
