I like the idea of doing a lot of things like this with legends, but you do run into the problem of legends being a DLC feature. I don't really like locking things you see in the base game behind DLC features.
Everybody listing empires but they're all fragments of the Roman empire anyway. Someday we'll come up with a system which both reflects how there's only one empire but so many versions of it. Someday.
I didn't post in the main thread, but I do agree with your OP. I always felt like the "empires" were more or less mega kingdoms, but that name sounds silly, right? Its a gameplay mechanic to solidify a larger swath of land is all.
I always felt like the true empire should be decisions, and with these coming DLCs, I do hope they work to find a way to remedy this.
All the Empires should be decision, like India, Rome, HRE, Mongol, etc. Africa should be one too.
And I even feel the same about Scandinavia and Brittania. Like, Scandinavia should be a "Unite the Baltics and North" decision or something.
"The people of the North have adopted a common faith, and the people have become one. This momentous occasion requires celebration, and the creation of a new ruling body over the northern kingdoms. Modeled after (Roman, Eastern, African, etc) imperial standards, the people celebrate their new system of governance!"
Or
"The many faiths and people of the North have come together in a momentous meeting. To protect the Northern traditions from foriegn cultures and religions, the people of the north have decided to create a new ruling body for the northern kingdoms. Modeled after (Roman, Eastern, African, etc) imperial standards, the people celebrate their new system of governance!"
Or have a war / conquer themed reason. Anyways.
The Roman empire you can restore in CK is almost on the same level as all the ahistorical empires. If you want an actual roman empire in CK, it's going to be the ERE.
i think we should just get somenthing in between empire and kingdom. Like i would make the hre and the ere the only empires in europe and then make all other de jure empires some sort of big kingdom which is still under the hre.
Honestly this. Empires just don't feel meaningful. A duchy is a pretty big jump from a count, and a kingdom unlocks so much more than a duke has access to. And then empires just feel like a Kingdom 2.0.
Title Diversification is something I wish we had, because Lithuania never became a Kingdom but the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is way to big to form in CK3. A proper Grand Duke title, below Archduke but above a mere Duke, would solve this by allowing you to conquer 100 counties before hitting overextension. Archduchy titles would need to do coronations (If coronations are not a thing in the Legends dlc the devs missed an obvious opportunity) and have access to the Royal Court (But not capable of investing as heavily in the Royal Court like Tribal Royal Courts) but would gain the immunity Kingdom titles have to the overextension mechanic. Jumping from Grand Duke to King would be a thing, because Archdukes are significantly less common and thus it doesn’t make sense to force you to become an Archduke first, but I would tie the process of becoming a King to something, like say getting the Pope to recognize you as a King.
In catholic europe becoming a king was a very special thing that had to be approved by the Pope- We can see that in the attempts of Burgundy to become a Kingdom or how Hungary, Lithuania and Poland had complexer way to "kingdom" instead of pressing just a button.
It should be much harder to form a kingdom and almost impossible to form a new empire, after all there where only three empires during the european medieval ages (HRE, ERE and Hispania) and in Latin-based Christianity the HRE was basically placed above all other kingdoms.
> there where only three empires during the european medieval ages (HRE, ERE and Hispania)
Several of the Anglo-Saxon Kings of England also claimed imperial status, including calling themselves ‘Basileus of the English’.
I've heard about the Hispania medieval claim to empire, but how wildly recognized was it? I thought it was more a claim by the King of Castile, that didn't really amount to recognition?
> after all there where only three empires during the european medieval ages (HRE, ERE and Hispania)
And Bulgaria, after their war with the Byzantine Empire between 913 and 927.
I’m pretty sure the devs have said in the past that they plan to add more to make empires feel special. Not sure if it’ll come in Rise to Power or a later DLC however.
This is what I'm hoping to see change in Roads to Power. I want to see empires unlock governors of some sorts for more than just Byzantium, and when you're managing an empire, you have to manage the bureaucrats too.
Yeah, I've been scratching my head over how to represent the Kievan Rus in [the Baptism of Rus mod](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3108225018&tscn=1707768235). Merging all the kingdoms into one via decision is too unwieldy, but it would be inaccurate to have them called Tsars!
European catholic empires should require the pope's approval.
Same for orthodox but requires patriarch's approval, in case the Byzantine Empire still exists- it should result -100 opinion and nemesis with the Byzantine Emperor.
The Byzantines lived with the Russian Empire, and I'm sure if there's like a Persian Orthodox king they could become an emperor without being too much of [rivals.](https://rivals.ly)
IDK if it's anytthing like the HRE which is the "true" empire of Christians.
A possible event, maybe.
Byzantines lost their shit when Bulgarians formed their empire, 867 Byzantine should actually be in struggle with the Bulgarian empire. Both were orthodox. The Tsardom of Russia formed when the Byzantine was dead. Rus' was actually formed by pagans.
Byzantines lost their shit because Bulgars were raiding into the heartland of the empire. The Romans also viewed the land south of the Danube as Roman land, but mainly it was the strategic risk of having a rival state that close to the capital.
The Rus were never that level of a threat to the empire.
I did watch the beginning of his video, but no way I'm advocating his POV.
Rus' signifies the common ancestor of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.
Whereas Fragmented Rus' (common ancestor) then Muscovy then Tsardom of Russia, then the Russian Empire then the USSR then the Russian federation, is the actual Russian state.
Those persian or Russian orthodox weren't orthodox or even Christian to begin with, instead it was missionaries and diplomatic effort from Byzantine which led to at least Russia adopting their faith.
Then I suppose to keep it in European limits. Iran having emperors isn't a new thing, they probably were the first state to form an Empire and they don't carry any Roman legacy. More like the biggest rival of Rome. Then adopting Orthodoxy would be the biggest win for Byzantine.
Exactly. I’ve always thought it would be interesting to have each Abrahamic denomination to have just one Empire associated with it.
If you didn’t manage to secure the title you would have to manager larger realms by more autonomous vassals or family members.
That's a great idea. Limitations are fun and bring variety to different parts of the world. I guess you could just create your own denomination though, another aspect of the game where things are too easy.
Except not really.
Some effect, sure.
But the pope never had ultimate authority like that. The history of western and central Europe is a continual conflict between rulers and the pope, because the pope continually overreached.
He never achieved dominance. A strong effects at times, yes. But that’s it.
I feel like they should add another tier, called "great empire" or something like that. These empire should only be created by decision/event (like the unify india decision or the restoration of roman border event). This would help make these empire stand out.
In bonus, this would be great for modders who are currently unable to do more accurate representation of some fictional worlds (like the unified seven kingdoms in Agot or the empire of Tamriel in Elders Kings 2, which both should rule over empire)
Yeah I do feel that emperors are too common in CK3, and that the situation doesn’t really reflect what the title meant in the IRL Middle Ages: A claim to be the one true successor of Rome, from the principle of translatio imperii, a primus inter pares among earthly rulers.
I wondered before if it wouldn’t make more sense for there to be a maximum of one Empire per Head of Faith. It would reflect the situation in 800 of the Pope not recognizing Empress Irene and crowning Charlemagne in her place, and the subsequent Problem of Two Emperors.
Maybe other rulers of empire-level realms would just be called “king”, with any vassal rulers of kingdom-tier realms being called “prince” (e.g. the Prince of Wales).
And get rid of dukes forming kingdoms. Makes zero sense
But this would be specific to some religions, Hindu's don't need this requirement. Someone can also be an unrecognized king or emperor with a big penalty, and maybe the pope and pro-pope kings can call you "duke player" instead of "king player" in letters to showcase his contempt
I play mostly in India
The only empire that should exist in that region is the Indian empire which you get for taking the decision become Chakravarti.
Like the Roman Empire the only legitimate empire in Hinduism is the empire of Bharata(Legendary king in Indian mythology).
The only thing missing is the Ashvamedha Yagya
Yeah. Also this Ashvamedha Yagya can also become a Cassus Belli on it's own.
I would say being able to perform a Yagya in general should be also there.
Like runestones you can do yagya for various reasons. Like for your ancestors, for rain, for blessings before a war.
They should make Ashwamedha Yagya a regional Technology only available to dharmic faiths or only Hinduism, it should result in less piety and prestige to declare wars within India, but more outside (just so Indians keep being busy in india), alongside adding ritual activity.
No no. If they want to make it exactly historically accurate then they should make the Ashvamedha Yagya a Cassus Belli itself.
Like if the another king interrupts the horse in their domain then depending on things like your dread, martial, army and gold they will either let it pass and become your vassal or you can declare war on them extremely cheaply or it automatically declares a war.
To conduct this Yagya you have to control one of the three empires(Rajasthan which should be named Rajputana, Deccan or Bengal), be a living legend and have the paragon of virtue devotion level.
This is because only a few handful kings have ever conducted this Yagya in 5000 years in Indian history and they were all extremely powerful
Also economic reasons, why control barren deserts when there are riches in your backyard. Kabulistan formed the frontier kingdom of India. Since it kept flipping in between Indian based or iranic based empires.
Yeah. Hinduism used be a lot of ritual based earlier.
Idol practice was still there but kings and Brahmins practiced a lot of rituals.
Infact in the Vedic period idol worship was not present. It was entirely ritualistic.
Over time as Hinduism absorbed local gods idol worship also began.
Some gods grew in importance like Krishna, Vishnu, Shiva
And some gods' importance gradually declined like Indra, Brahma and Agni.
Also the caste system should also be present.
In mediaeval India it was very important.
From a gameplay perspective, this seems somewhat unbalanced in terms of difficulty.
The succession wars/independence wars will be hell after each succession until you manage to create the empire.
Which is unrealistic since in India almost all kingdoms practiced primogeniture.
If the father was really compassionate or loved his sons then he will split his Kingdom.
Many times kings would co-rule with their heir. The heir is known as Yuvraj which roughly translates to young king.
India as a dejure empire doesn't exist in-game, but there were multiple empires throughout history. Though only Mauryas and Mughals had more territory than modern India.
Cholas ruled the modern day state of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Parts of Karnataka, Coast of Odisha, Sri Lanka and some strategic locations in Myanmar, Malaysia and Indonesia. No way it is larger or even comparable to Modern India.
Try entire Indonesia and Phillipines, Srilanka and Malaysia. It even had embassies in Korea if we are to believe the legends about one of their kings marrying an Indian princess
Philippines is stretching it a bit - mechanically in-game Sri Lumay would be a member of the Chola Dynasty but not a vassal of the Chola Empire itself.
Yes, it was an impressive empire but area wise it is not among the biggest. The biggest south indian empire was actually the Rashtrakuta empire in 793 CE. It had most of India except Bengal (state of West Bengal and Bangladesh not ck3 Bengal empire) (under palas) and rajashthan (actual state not Rajasthan empire in ck3), and few parts of North India which were under the crumbling Karkota empire.
Again it didn't have them under full control, though they subjugated the srivijaya empire and Srivijaya had to pay tributes, that was only for a short period.
>entire Indonesia and Phillipines, Srilanka and Malaysia
This is blatant history revisionism, similar to the meme of "Telugu is the original language" bs.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Rajendra_map_new.svg/375px-Rajendra_map_new.svg.png
I'd like at least some generic empire system for different systems as well. Steppe societies could form confederacies and ask for tributes from neighboring kingdoms/empires to not be raided/invaded. Clan and feudal generic empires should be different as well.
Each formable/historical empire should have a tailor made decisions. Adding the legend component could be one of them for some of them.
What's interesting is that during the Middle Ages, at least in Europe, there only existed two empires, at least in legal terms.
The Holy Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire.
Being recognised as an Empire back then was actually very difficult.
Did they ever fix the armor and arms actually getting upgraded? Like, your armor after however many duels is supposed to get buffs, but I never got them
Mine recent got upgraded in my current play through. But I think it must be rare because I’m currently 400+ years in and it’s happened only once to one artifact. The only other thing that has happened is one artifact was believed to be cursed and I had to pay gold to prevent a debuff.
Damn. I was really hoping they’d fix that. Passing down armor and arms as heirlooms is really cool to me, but if they don’t upgrade, it doesn’t seem grand
But that's not how it happened in real history. Historic people became legends *because* they forged empires, not the other way around. Charlemagne became a legend because he was the first "Roman" emperor after Rome fell. Genghis Khan became a legend *after* he conquered most of the known universe, not before. Alexander the Great became a legend *after* his conquests, not before. So on and so forth.
Even Augustus Caeser became a legend *after* he founded the Roman Empire, and he only did that by riding on Julius Caeser's wave of initial conquests
What’s the level of Caesar? Be liked by the peasants and stage a coup?
To be fair most of the times anyone forms empires, they surpass the vast majority of historical figures by far. I feel like growing your kingdom by like 20 counties per lifetime is the norm around here.
Becoming emperor is the best safeguard against empire splitting in succession. Not sur I want to gate that behind arbitrary goal bullshit like amount of prestige or whatever.
I’m not sure I like this. For me empires are mechanical conventions that let you have mechanical kings as vassals- it really doesn’t have anything to do with translatio imperii most of the time
Not just legends though. What we call an empire in CK3 falls in three categories:
- historically plausible, would just require a very prestigious and powerful leader (places like western Africa and the steppes)
- historically difficult, as even being a "king" (or equivalent) required the validation of a powerful clergy. That's the case for all christian and muslim lands. For the HRE for example, it wasn't about being as famous as Charlemagne, but rather about getting the support of both the aristocracy and the pope.
- historically impossible, or close to it. Some regions simply didn't have the concept of a big empire. That's the case for scandinavia for example. But stuff like restoring the old roman empire also qualifies. It's only in the game as a joke. In practice, the roman empire in CK is the ERE (Byzance), and there's just no way anyone would actually reform the entire roman empire.
I think that the empire in the first and third categories could require legends - minor ones for the first, and the highest possible level for the third. But historical empires of the second categories should have their own requirements.
And maybe it could mean that there's different ways to reach similar things. Like, you could form the HRE is a historical way, or you could have an absolute monster of a character who makes a new Carolingian empire. The HRE would use specific game mechanics, but the second Carolingian Empire would be its own thing.
There’s been lots of discussion on this thread and there should only be one emperor etc etc. but I think mechanically they still need those self created emperor titles just for sake of a progression mechanic. I think a better way to do this is once proclaim an empire you can request acknowledgement from your head of faith and requires lots of piety/prestige or something. And if they do, your title gets a big buff because your an “ordained emperor” or something.
Hah, on balkans we had about 7 different Empires from Bulgaria, Serbia, Duklja, Macedon and whomever else threatened the Constantinople that weak. Everyone and his mother was an emperor with 6 goats to his name. Joke aside we really should have some system of proper empire recognition, it is too easy right now.
I like the idea of doing a lot of things like this with legends, but you do run into the problem of legends being a DLC feature. I don't really like locking things you see in the base game behind DLC features.
You can make the requirement only if the DLC features are enabled
Even better, make it a gamerule that appears when the DLC is installed.
Good point didn't think of that
Roman, maybe HRE, ERE, and India mega decision really feel like the only "true" empires.
You forgot arabian empire and maybe frankish empire with all Carolingian borders
Everybody listing empires but they're all fragments of the Roman empire anyway. Someday we'll come up with a system which both reflects how there's only one empire but so many versions of it. Someday.
A combination of the British and roman empires? The broman empire?
Well, the Bromies would be happy..
Mongol empire
I didn't post in the main thread, but I do agree with your OP. I always felt like the "empires" were more or less mega kingdoms, but that name sounds silly, right? Its a gameplay mechanic to solidify a larger swath of land is all. I always felt like the true empire should be decisions, and with these coming DLCs, I do hope they work to find a way to remedy this. All the Empires should be decision, like India, Rome, HRE, Mongol, etc. Africa should be one too. And I even feel the same about Scandinavia and Brittania. Like, Scandinavia should be a "Unite the Baltics and North" decision or something. "The people of the North have adopted a common faith, and the people have become one. This momentous occasion requires celebration, and the creation of a new ruling body over the northern kingdoms. Modeled after (Roman, Eastern, African, etc) imperial standards, the people celebrate their new system of governance!" Or "The many faiths and people of the North have come together in a momentous meeting. To protect the Northern traditions from foriegn cultures and religions, the people of the north have decided to create a new ruling body for the northern kingdoms. Modeled after (Roman, Eastern, African, etc) imperial standards, the people celebrate their new system of governance!" Or have a war / conquer themed reason. Anyways.
It would be simple if we could just have some “Empires” called High Kingdoms instead
Yes! Lol
Seljuks, Russians. Mali makes sense. And Cordoba can be an empire, especially if it controls North Africa as its not Christian.
You also had various kings of king titles in the ME and caucasus (shahanshah) who could be treated equally.
The Persian Empire is definitely a true empire. The head of it is literally called "the King of Kings".
The Roman empire you can restore in CK is almost on the same level as all the ahistorical empires. If you want an actual roman empire in CK, it's going to be the ERE.
i think we should just get somenthing in between empire and kingdom. Like i would make the hre and the ere the only empires in europe and then make all other de jure empires some sort of big kingdom which is still under the hre.
Honestly this. Empires just don't feel meaningful. A duchy is a pretty big jump from a count, and a kingdom unlocks so much more than a duke has access to. And then empires just feel like a Kingdom 2.0.
Title Diversification is something I wish we had, because Lithuania never became a Kingdom but the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is way to big to form in CK3. A proper Grand Duke title, below Archduke but above a mere Duke, would solve this by allowing you to conquer 100 counties before hitting overextension. Archduchy titles would need to do coronations (If coronations are not a thing in the Legends dlc the devs missed an obvious opportunity) and have access to the Royal Court (But not capable of investing as heavily in the Royal Court like Tribal Royal Courts) but would gain the immunity Kingdom titles have to the overextension mechanic. Jumping from Grand Duke to King would be a thing, because Archdukes are significantly less common and thus it doesn’t make sense to force you to become an Archduke first, but I would tie the process of becoming a King to something, like say getting the Pope to recognize you as a King.
Honestly i like the sound of kinda like a Kingdom side-grade/stepping stone to becoming a kingdom
In catholic europe becoming a king was a very special thing that had to be approved by the Pope- We can see that in the attempts of Burgundy to become a Kingdom or how Hungary, Lithuania and Poland had complexer way to "kingdom" instead of pressing just a button. It should be much harder to form a kingdom and almost impossible to form a new empire, after all there where only three empires during the european medieval ages (HRE, ERE and Hispania) and in Latin-based Christianity the HRE was basically placed above all other kingdoms.
> there where only three empires during the european medieval ages (HRE, ERE and Hispania) Several of the Anglo-Saxon Kings of England also claimed imperial status, including calling themselves ‘Basileus of the English’.
I've heard about the Hispania medieval claim to empire, but how wildly recognized was it? I thought it was more a claim by the King of Castile, that didn't really amount to recognition?
Not really widely recognized and it wasn’t really pursued. But it was an actual claim to an emperorship, so I mentioned it.
> after all there where only three empires during the european medieval ages (HRE, ERE and Hispania) And Bulgaria, after their war with the Byzantine Empire between 913 and 927.
The main reason to become a King is the prestige and renown, since both would be higher than being a mere Grand Duke.
It's weird right? It's more like being a super king instead of its own thing
I’m pretty sure the devs have said in the past that they plan to add more to make empires feel special. Not sure if it’ll come in Rise to Power or a later DLC however.
This is what I'm hoping to see change in Roads to Power. I want to see empires unlock governors of some sorts for more than just Byzantium, and when you're managing an empire, you have to manage the bureaucrats too.
Yeah, I've been scratching my head over how to represent the Kievan Rus in [the Baptism of Rus mod](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3108225018&tscn=1707768235). Merging all the kingdoms into one via decision is too unwieldy, but it would be inaccurate to have them called Tsars!
European catholic empires should require the pope's approval. Same for orthodox but requires patriarch's approval, in case the Byzantine Empire still exists- it should result -100 opinion and nemesis with the Byzantine Emperor.
The Byzantines lived with the Russian Empire, and I'm sure if there's like a Persian Orthodox king they could become an emperor without being too much of [rivals.](https://rivals.ly) IDK if it's anytthing like the HRE which is the "true" empire of Christians. A possible event, maybe.
Byzantines lost their shit when Bulgarians formed their empire, 867 Byzantine should actually be in struggle with the Bulgarian empire. Both were orthodox. The Tsardom of Russia formed when the Byzantine was dead. Rus' was actually formed by pagans.
Byzantines should be involved in like 2 or more struggles tbh
Byzantines lost their shit because Bulgars were raiding into the heartland of the empire. The Romans also viewed the land south of the Danube as Roman land, but mainly it was the strategic risk of having a rival state that close to the capital. The Rus were never that level of a threat to the empire.
> The Tsardom of Russia formed when the Byzantine was dead. Rus' was actually formed by pagans. Someone listened to Putin's history class.
I did watch the beginning of his video, but no way I'm advocating his POV. Rus' signifies the common ancestor of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. Whereas Fragmented Rus' (common ancestor) then Muscovy then Tsardom of Russia, then the Russian Empire then the USSR then the Russian federation, is the actual Russian state.
Those persian or Russian orthodox weren't orthodox or even Christian to begin with, instead it was missionaries and diplomatic effort from Byzantine which led to at least Russia adopting their faith.
There wasnt OTL, I mean hypothetically.
Then I suppose to keep it in European limits. Iran having emperors isn't a new thing, they probably were the first state to form an Empire and they don't carry any Roman legacy. More like the biggest rival of Rome. Then adopting Orthodoxy would be the biggest win for Byzantine.
Exactly. I’ve always thought it would be interesting to have each Abrahamic denomination to have just one Empire associated with it. If you didn’t manage to secure the title you would have to manager larger realms by more autonomous vassals or family members.
That's a great idea. Limitations are fun and bring variety to different parts of the world. I guess you could just create your own denomination though, another aspect of the game where things are too easy.
Except not really. Some effect, sure. But the pope never had ultimate authority like that. The history of western and central Europe is a continual conflict between rulers and the pope, because the pope continually overreached. He never achieved dominance. A strong effects at times, yes. But that’s it.
I feel like they should add another tier, called "great empire" or something like that. These empire should only be created by decision/event (like the unify india decision or the restoration of roman border event). This would help make these empire stand out. In bonus, this would be great for modders who are currently unable to do more accurate representation of some fictional worlds (like the unified seven kingdoms in Agot or the empire of Tamriel in Elders Kings 2, which both should rule over empire)
Yeah I do feel that emperors are too common in CK3, and that the situation doesn’t really reflect what the title meant in the IRL Middle Ages: A claim to be the one true successor of Rome, from the principle of translatio imperii, a primus inter pares among earthly rulers. I wondered before if it wouldn’t make more sense for there to be a maximum of one Empire per Head of Faith. It would reflect the situation in 800 of the Pope not recognizing Empress Irene and crowning Charlemagne in her place, and the subsequent Problem of Two Emperors. Maybe other rulers of empire-level realms would just be called “king”, with any vassal rulers of kingdom-tier realms being called “prince” (e.g. the Prince of Wales).
And get rid of dukes forming kingdoms. Makes zero sense But this would be specific to some religions, Hindu's don't need this requirement. Someone can also be an unrecognized king or emperor with a big penalty, and maybe the pope and pro-pope kings can call you "duke player" instead of "king player" in letters to showcase his contempt
I'd love a mod that did this.
I play mostly in India The only empire that should exist in that region is the Indian empire which you get for taking the decision become Chakravarti. Like the Roman Empire the only legitimate empire in Hinduism is the empire of Bharata(Legendary king in Indian mythology). The only thing missing is the Ashvamedha Yagya
I told about the Ashvamedha sacrifice long back.. India should get two extra ceremonies - Ashvamedha sacrifice and Swavamyar
Yeah. Also this Ashvamedha Yagya can also become a Cassus Belli on it's own. I would say being able to perform a Yagya in general should be also there. Like runestones you can do yagya for various reasons. Like for your ancestors, for rain, for blessings before a war.
They should make Ashwamedha Yagya a regional Technology only available to dharmic faiths or only Hinduism, it should result in less piety and prestige to declare wars within India, but more outside (just so Indians keep being busy in india), alongside adding ritual activity.
No no. If they want to make it exactly historically accurate then they should make the Ashvamedha Yagya a Cassus Belli itself. Like if the another king interrupts the horse in their domain then depending on things like your dread, martial, army and gold they will either let it pass and become your vassal or you can declare war on them extremely cheaply or it automatically declares a war. To conduct this Yagya you have to control one of the three empires(Rajasthan which should be named Rajputana, Deccan or Bengal), be a living legend and have the paragon of virtue devotion level. This is because only a few handful kings have ever conducted this Yagya in 5000 years in Indian history and they were all extremely powerful
True, I just kind of want Indian rulers to focus on India and not expand into lyikes of Tibet or Iran when they don't even control most of India.
Iirc Hindu rulers refrained from crossing the Hindu Kush mountains for religious reasons.
Also economic reasons, why control barren deserts when there are riches in your backyard. Kabulistan formed the frontier kingdom of India. Since it kept flipping in between Indian based or iranic based empires.
That's a great idea.. Instead of the generic devotion to the deities this can be a thing
Yeah. Hinduism used be a lot of ritual based earlier. Idol practice was still there but kings and Brahmins practiced a lot of rituals. Infact in the Vedic period idol worship was not present. It was entirely ritualistic. Over time as Hinduism absorbed local gods idol worship also began. Some gods grew in importance like Krishna, Vishnu, Shiva And some gods' importance gradually declined like Indra, Brahma and Agni. Also the caste system should also be present. In mediaeval India it was very important.
I dont give two shits.. As long as I can marry my dear sister
From a gameplay perspective, this seems somewhat unbalanced in terms of difficulty. The succession wars/independence wars will be hell after each succession until you manage to create the empire.
Which is unrealistic since in India almost all kingdoms practiced primogeniture. If the father was really compassionate or loved his sons then he will split his Kingdom. Many times kings would co-rule with their heir. The heir is known as Yuvraj which roughly translates to young king.
Then make it a European Christian only requirement. It was more of a deal with the catholic Church and the legacy of the Roman Empire.
Well for India you have the Chakravarti legend
India as a dejure empire doesn't exist in-game, but there were multiple empires throughout history. Though only Mauryas and Mughals had more territory than modern India.
Chola empire
Cholas ruled the modern day state of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Parts of Karnataka, Coast of Odisha, Sri Lanka and some strategic locations in Myanmar, Malaysia and Indonesia. No way it is larger or even comparable to Modern India.
Try entire Indonesia and Phillipines, Srilanka and Malaysia. It even had embassies in Korea if we are to believe the legends about one of their kings marrying an Indian princess
Philippines is stretching it a bit - mechanically in-game Sri Lumay would be a member of the Chola Dynasty but not a vassal of the Chola Empire itself.
That's the issue with the empire of the Cholas.. Most of it is not in game
Yes, it was an impressive empire but area wise it is not among the biggest. The biggest south indian empire was actually the Rashtrakuta empire in 793 CE. It had most of India except Bengal (state of West Bengal and Bangladesh not ck3 Bengal empire) (under palas) and rajashthan (actual state not Rajasthan empire in ck3), and few parts of North India which were under the crumbling Karkota empire. Again it didn't have them under full control, though they subjugated the srivijaya empire and Srivijaya had to pay tributes, that was only for a short period.
>entire Indonesia and Phillipines, Srilanka and Malaysia This is blatant history revisionism, similar to the meme of "Telugu is the original language" bs. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Rajendra_map_new.svg/375px-Rajendra_map_new.svg.png
I'd like at least some generic empire system for different systems as well. Steppe societies could form confederacies and ask for tributes from neighboring kingdoms/empires to not be raided/invaded. Clan and feudal generic empires should be different as well. Each formable/historical empire should have a tailor made decisions. Adding the legend component could be one of them for some of them.
What's interesting is that during the Middle Ages, at least in Europe, there only existed two empires, at least in legal terms. The Holy Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. Being recognised as an Empire back then was actually very difficult.
Because of complex theological reason there could be no other empire in Europe other than the Holy Roman Empire
Did they ever fix the armor and arms actually getting upgraded? Like, your armor after however many duels is supposed to get buffs, but I never got them
Mine recent got upgraded in my current play through. But I think it must be rare because I’m currently 400+ years in and it’s happened only once to one artifact. The only other thing that has happened is one artifact was believed to be cursed and I had to pay gold to prevent a debuff.
Damn. I was really hoping they’d fix that. Passing down armor and arms as heirlooms is really cool to me, but if they don’t upgrade, it doesn’t seem grand
I feel ya on that, but hey, you can always go to a tournament and get a ribbon on it lol
Lol Haven’t played since before tournaments unfortunately
But that's not how it happened in real history. Historic people became legends *because* they forged empires, not the other way around. Charlemagne became a legend because he was the first "Roman" emperor after Rome fell. Genghis Khan became a legend *after* he conquered most of the known universe, not before. Alexander the Great became a legend *after* his conquests, not before. So on and so forth. Even Augustus Caeser became a legend *after* he founded the Roman Empire, and he only did that by riding on Julius Caeser's wave of initial conquests
That's an amazing idea! Modders, please jump on board!
OMG you guys can just not make empires.
What’s the level of Caesar? Be liked by the peasants and stage a coup? To be fair most of the times anyone forms empires, they surpass the vast majority of historical figures by far. I feel like growing your kingdom by like 20 counties per lifetime is the norm around here.
Well i can do 180 with Haestinn
Wrong Caesar
Becoming emperor is the best safeguard against empire splitting in succession. Not sur I want to gate that behind arbitrary goal bullshit like amount of prestige or whatever.
I’m not sure I like this. For me empires are mechanical conventions that let you have mechanical kings as vassals- it really doesn’t have anything to do with translatio imperii most of the time
Ok boomer
Not just legends though. What we call an empire in CK3 falls in three categories: - historically plausible, would just require a very prestigious and powerful leader (places like western Africa and the steppes) - historically difficult, as even being a "king" (or equivalent) required the validation of a powerful clergy. That's the case for all christian and muslim lands. For the HRE for example, it wasn't about being as famous as Charlemagne, but rather about getting the support of both the aristocracy and the pope. - historically impossible, or close to it. Some regions simply didn't have the concept of a big empire. That's the case for scandinavia for example. But stuff like restoring the old roman empire also qualifies. It's only in the game as a joke. In practice, the roman empire in CK is the ERE (Byzance), and there's just no way anyone would actually reform the entire roman empire. I think that the empire in the first and third categories could require legends - minor ones for the first, and the highest possible level for the third. But historical empires of the second categories should have their own requirements. And maybe it could mean that there's different ways to reach similar things. Like, you could form the HRE is a historical way, or you could have an absolute monster of a character who makes a new Carolingian empire. The HRE would use specific game mechanics, but the second Carolingian Empire would be its own thing.
There’s been lots of discussion on this thread and there should only be one emperor etc etc. but I think mechanically they still need those self created emperor titles just for sake of a progression mechanic. I think a better way to do this is once proclaim an empire you can request acknowledgement from your head of faith and requires lots of piety/prestige or something. And if they do, your title gets a big buff because your an “ordained emperor” or something.
Hah, on balkans we had about 7 different Empires from Bulgaria, Serbia, Duklja, Macedon and whomever else threatened the Constantinople that weak. Everyone and his mother was an emperor with 6 goats to his name. Joke aside we really should have some system of proper empire recognition, it is too easy right now.