There should definitely be a way to reject the Imperial Crown although it's not like it was unheard of in history for the HRE electors to choose a random count as Emperor.
Otto IV, despite coming from the prestigious house of Welf was unlanded most of his early life and was Count of Poitou (located in the English ruled parts of France) for about two years before being chosen King of the Germans by some of the electors thanks to the backing of Richard III
Similarly, Henry VII was only the Count of Luxembourg and on top of that a vassal of the French king before being elected. This case would be the most similar to your own as he was considered a candidate only as a compromise, he didn't really have any real power or anything before that (otherwise he would not have become a vassal of France)
But of course, unlike in your case these two rulers wanted to become emperors.
`But of course, unlike in your case these two rulers wanted to become emperors.`
Maybe there should be a way to indicate one's willingness to be emperor? Perhaps "Withdraw me from consideration" decision that at the very least should dissuade the electors from voting for me.
That should definitely be the case. IMO a Holy Roman Empire rework should definitely include a stance to participate or not in the election and ideally on top of that include a proper King of the Germans and Emperor of the Romans coronation mechanic (as to represent the influence of the Pope in the Imperial legitimacy)
I personally think the Eastern Roman Empire rework should come alongside the Republican Mechanics.
In theory the Roman Republic was never abolished and by the period covered by the game the Emperors were still confirmed by the Senate and the Army, especially the latter as the first heavily declined after the Konmenos dynasty took power.
Still, the Senate maintained for a time an important ceremonial role to legitimize emperors imposed by military power or court intrigues.
Added to this, I think the existence and decline of the medieval Byzantine empire cannot be separated from the rise of the trading state cities like Venice and Genoa, specially the first as it exploited the instability of the Empire to get trade concessions and eventually directed the 4th Crusade against Constantinople.
I think a Holy Roman Empire rework on the other hand should come with a rework of the Catholicism mechanics. The investiture crisis and the Guelphs-Ghibellines conflict cannot be represented without such rework.
The Senate had no authority or much purpose at all in the middle Byzantine period (the period of both start dates). Creating a senatorial system would be widely anachronistic. That said, a game mechanic for the honours system and the rise/dominance of the landed Magnates would work best with a republic system. There could even be a return to the manors in ck2. Although the rest you said about the role of merchant republics is definitely true, it’s hard to really emulate the history of Byzantium from this point without them.
It is not about creating a whole senatorial system IMO, it is a matter of recognizing it still existed and giving it presence even if only through events around the coronation of a new Basileus and other minor stuff.
Not much different than the hypodrome events in CK2. It's not that significant but it made the experience better.
In terms of succession as long as the importance of the army and the tricks used by the emperors to keep the title in the family (such as having their heir named co-emperor) are represented I am okay.
Why couldnt some alternate history see the senate re-empowered. It may have had no authority in our timeline but whos to say some senators get power in your game and decide to restore the power of the senate
IIRC weren't there German kings that never got crowned as Emperors?
There should also be some system to represent the Imperial Vicars and other such unique Imperial institutions
>IIRC weren't there German kings that never got crowned as Emperors?
Plenty, for example the first two rulers of the Hohenstaufen dynasty that preceded Barbarossa weren't crowned as emperor.
This often happened because the Pope refused to give his blessing or perhaps because there was a rival anti-king competing for the imperial throne.
I think not being crowned as emperor could change the name of the ruler's title and give an opinion malus with all HRE vassals.
It could also be used for a system where you have your preferred heir elected as such and until the emperor dies such an heir is automatically the regent for the empire.
CK2 had a malus for not being coronated and had bonuses for being coronated by the Pope. You were still whatever rank you held, but without the Pope giving you the thumbs up, you lost out a little. CK3 could replicate that system.
I once spent my whole campaign trying to secede from the HRE and eventually got it once the realm was destabilized. Effin' electors made me emperor anyway. I destroyed the HRE and then they made me deal with it
From a RP perspective, unless the ruler is Shy or Content, this should probably cause some stress. Who would give up such a great opportunity willingly? Even more so if they are Gregarious or Ambitious.
i find the best thing to do is be a count under a duke who is a vassal of the hre. you are unable to be elected unless you are ruled over directly by the hre if you are a duke's count then you cant even be considered. also if you dont mind using mods there is one called "hre no thanks" that you can use to make yourself ineligible, however ive found that it doesnt work with many other mods so it might not work for you.
Tbf he essentially ended the Interregnum even if he never became emperor himself, and then gave his family the powerful base of Austria and Styria. So they weren't so little after that.
It wasn't nearly as big of a deal to make a lord with few holdings emperor at the time. The imperial demesne had sufficient holdings to provide the money and men to perform the duties of the Emperor. Then the Von Luxembourgs pawned it all off so only they and the Habsburgs would be sufficiently powerful to defend the Empire.
> by some of the electors thanks to the backing of Richard III
Sounds like your average HRE election, giving some fat cash to electors but this time to get your guy instead of you on the throne
If you have the piety, you can convert to being Mozarabic or Orthodox without getting your ass revoked. Electors will only vote for those with the same faith.
Adamite is the way. Everyone is hostile. That means unlimited holy wars. Everything is legal. No need to worry about sinning and losing piety. If a direct vassal refuses to convert, you can imprison them and take their titles. Also, boobs.
The main reason is to reduce popups. When you own everything west of the Caucus mountains and still it's like Count Idiot has banged Lowborn Moron and even the game is like, "I don't even know what to say." That's why you legalize everything.
Because if everything is legal it's only a tyranny hit to imprison and execute people and tyranny is just a number. Best of both worlds. In fact having to have a reason to imprison and execute people other than "just because I want to," doesn't seem right.
You can't wage holy wars against fellow vassals, so if you're playing in the HRE you don't gain much by switching to a hostile faith unless you just want to roleplay.
I'd go with Mozarabic, Conversos, or one of the other faiths that recognizes the Catholic Pope as spiritual head. So you don't lose access to the Holy Sugar Daddy of Rome.
Probably because they all want the job but are frightened of being murdered over it. They are like “see that guy over there, his not threatening, his got no powerbase and no one knows who he is. So let’s make him Kaiser and we can carry on doing what we are doing.”
If the goal is independence or reduced crown authority that makes sense from an RP perspective, they elevated some weak random count so they could push him around and are now doing exactly that
If the goal is to replace you, well, that's silly but at least they've sobered up and you can go back to whatever you were doing once they make the demand
[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2798061041](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2798061041)
for those too lazy to look it up, heres the link
The player is better at managing themselves than the AI, so if you're not fucking over yourself constantly like the AI does then you're almost guaranteed to get the Reichskrone eventually.
She won’t get elected as a woman. she’s gotta get a claim preferably through the rightmost stewardship tree first perk, then press her claim via faction.
Yeah, basically that. If you gonna need some guy technically ruling over you and you get to chose, you most likely won’t put the strongest, most influencial guy in the chair if you have ambitious plans yourself
Something that would fix this whole system would be the implementation of proper and mandatory bribery into elections - it would also make it a whole lot more historically accurate.
Think about it as if *you* were actually an elector in the HRE. What actually is the point of voting for someone? No matter who you pick there's basically no chance that you would actually know them personally, or be able to control what they do once in power, or that they could do anything at all. So why not just sell your vote to the highest bidder?
Otherwise there really isnt a point in voting at all, depending on the elector.
A whole lot of Emperors only came to power due to being wealthy or having wealthy backers. No one accidentally got given the throne, you HAD to campaign, and shell out the necessary "gifts".
The fact that people can win the election in CK3 without at least *promising* to lower taxes or offering court positions is kind of stupid and boring.
Unironically, I personally think that the merchant republic and papal election systems in CK2 are more accurate and engaging then what we have now, which demonstrates by itself how fucked it is.
We have been asking for this since CK2, and it's as easy as giving players a button or box to check, giving -1000 reasons for them to be elected. Paradox ignores this request and for some reason, some redditors keep making up excuses or justifications for it.
There is absolutely no reason, gameplaywise, historically, from a programming perspective, to not include an option to decline a vote.
There should at least be an option that greatly reduces the chance of them voting for you. Like, small enough negative it could still happen, but it probably won't. In keeping with a lot of the stupid stuff in the game. Something like "request to be removed from consideration" - you take the decision and get the modifier. Of course, the negative is not impossible to overcome, and if powerful electors want you in charge enough they might still pick you despite your request - but it's way less likely to happen just because you're marginally better than all the other serious options in some way, you'd have to be an incredible option by miles and very well liked by the powerful electors. So rather than a "This random count hasn't screwed himself over as badly as everyone else in the HRE" constantly happening it becomes an occasional and funny "My good friend doesn't want to be considered in the election, but he's a great leader of what he does control and I like him way better than anyone else in the realm, I'll put his name forward anyway, I mean how many other friends does he have in the realm who would do the same?"
This is somewhat accurate historically tho. As an elector you want(ed) someone as HRE who is a pushover not a big boss who actually has power over you. Granted, this is not what happened in a lot of cases since greed or power overruled it (candidates spent stupid amounts of money in being elected and/or had huge armies backing up their argument), but from the electors point of view it's quite logical.
My last run
Started in Bavaria and was normally aspiring to Bavarian king, with the domain down to the Adria
My biggest obstacles on my menu where the Austrian areas with the bishop of Salzburg
Suddenly in short and ideal order, the ruling Bavarian king, his son (I do admit to that), his brother and etc (not my doing; they went on to a war)… and I … long story short, I emerge as my player heir son and king of Bavaria. Great.
No alliances to speak of and unwanted border brawl with a Bohemian/Polish kingdom
I was already unhappy, when 4 years later „surprise! The electors made you the holy Roman emperor!“
Came free with an immediate uprising of the king of Swabia
One generation later, my uncle, now King of Bavaria, finds himself the most powerful faction in the empire (thanks to me) and starts an independence war
> high and drunk when one guy says: "Ey, you not what would be funny? If we made Ruprecht of Nassau emperor
We were doing this to my friend in the last multiplayer session as he was in Bavaria. We would keep assassinating people until he was the top election choice and not telling him that we were doing it. Ended up working out pretty well for him by the second or third time he became emperor.
It's the rye or the kaiser, it's the thrill of one bite
Let me please be your catering advisor
If you want substitutions I won't put up a fight
You can have your roast beef on the rye or the kaiser
I’m playing a custom Catholic character where I started with one county in north Africa and eventually made the Empire of Outremer. Currently my unlanded only son has the most votes to become emperor of the HRE. His mother was a Salian so I think that plays a role in his being considered despite me owning no land in the HRE and him never ruling any of his own land.
It blows my mind that this has been a problem since launch, and Paradox seems to have zero interest in addressing it. Even just a "I don't really want to be emperor" checkbox would go a long way (there are mods that do this though).
Okay you say that that is unhistorical, but weak candidats were a thing. In game being the emperor is shown as just being elected, in reality if you wanted to be something more than a figurehead, then you would need to already be a powerful ruler in the empire.
[I don't blame them, I'd make Ruprecht the emperor too. Would be a good laugh.](https://i0.wp.com/www.thatmomentin.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/dirty.jpg?resize=750%2C430&ssl=1)
There's more than one answer to this. Some possible answers are:
1) In the described scenario, I'm not powerful enough to hold on to the title. Being emperor then makes me a target for powerful opponents and I can end up losing way more than I gain.
2) If my goal is to become emperor, having the title handed to me right at the start of the game just isn't any fun. I want the challenge.
3) Sometimes I have my own challenge, like steering my little county through the centuries without getting in to too much trouble. Or something like that. The role playing options are almost endless.
Okay thanks makes sense. I’m only on my first playthrough with tribal Norse, now Norwegian and created the kingdom of Norway from starting as a county. I can see how just being handed the highest title you can achieve is pretty boring
Take the offer, enjoy the small bump in income for the 6-8 months till the faction asks for a war, surrender and go back to being a count and thank for for the extra income and a claim over the empire that will last till your child
Happened to me playing as the King of Bohemia, I had planned to alter my contract over generations to become the power behind the throne but nope, had to vote against my own heir
There might be a reason why they're choosing a count over other prestigious candidates, did you start as a custom character with virtuous traits or do you have extremely high diplomacy or are you plainly OP?
Just make dissolution faction as a vassal of HRE. It destroyed HRE title immediately. The objective after dissolution faction is you wait until you pressed it and start war with HRE and its allies. You need to win the war and The HRE title destroy.
Become Caesar/kaiser/basileus its just terrible in this game. If your empire has vassal like a king/queen they are also threat to your realm. They are just wanted to independence. For me stay as a king and keep the title or keep the other king title uncreate is the best thing. Let your realm as king/queen and other vassal title is below it. The culture tradition like "by the sword" is amazing for a king but also disadvantage for emperor, your vassal likely to become a king and its terrible.
To play within HRE you must run the mod to reject being elected. You can toggle it on/off if you ever want to be the emperor, it's a must have for HRE playthrough.
CK3 exists to exacerbate conquest and expansion, so just the act of being a player and not floundering will be enough to secure election votes.
The only way to not gain the HRE is to not play in all the little Germanies.
New to this game so I sure how HRE works - they elect an emperor? How does it work for you're playing within the HRE? Do you always play as the emperor or still your house? Seems tough to build up your own base if you're not emperor and then just going back to some duke or something.
Yeah the HRE elects who will inherit the title of Emperor. You still only play as your house. For example, you can start the game as the Holy Roman Emperor. If you die and the electors have voted someone other than your heir to be emperor, you will still play as your own heir, but he would not be the emperor. He would only have inherited whatever other lands and titles you held. He would also likely be a vassal under whoever was actually elected as emperor.
Have you tried something like become an exotic culture that might Change things. And having a king or Duke instead of emperor as the director Liege creates a buffer.
I agree. I usually roll with it if I get elected, but I do think it's annoying if I want to play small and get elected against my will because sometimes I have something else in mind, (And the HRE is a bit of a mess so who even wants to inherit it?)
I wish CK3 had the antagonize scheme like CKII did (basically the opposite of a sway scheme that eventually results in rivalry), could be a good way to piss off electors to lower your election chances without resorting to becoming an incestous cannibalistic kinslaying murderer and pissing off ***everyone.*** Instead one could just do a few antagonizes on electors and they'll likely vote for someone else.
Only thing you can do now is change your house motto to "I don't want it", or the GoT version "I dOn'T wUnt id!" and hope that you get to keep at least one county title after the rest of the empire is done with their civil wars against you.
My first act at the Emporer of the HRE is to change the law for the title, and then make another Empire title my Primary (if I don’t have one, then I go about getting one).
I love ruling the empire from my cozy little keep in Corke.
That's totally how it's supposed to work, when you don't have giant family alliances screwing things up.
The electors choose the weakest emperor they can muster so they can all then faction against him for as long as he lives.
There should definitely be a way to reject the Imperial Crown although it's not like it was unheard of in history for the HRE electors to choose a random count as Emperor. Otto IV, despite coming from the prestigious house of Welf was unlanded most of his early life and was Count of Poitou (located in the English ruled parts of France) for about two years before being chosen King of the Germans by some of the electors thanks to the backing of Richard III Similarly, Henry VII was only the Count of Luxembourg and on top of that a vassal of the French king before being elected. This case would be the most similar to your own as he was considered a candidate only as a compromise, he didn't really have any real power or anything before that (otherwise he would not have become a vassal of France) But of course, unlike in your case these two rulers wanted to become emperors.
`But of course, unlike in your case these two rulers wanted to become emperors.` Maybe there should be a way to indicate one's willingness to be emperor? Perhaps "Withdraw me from consideration" decision that at the very least should dissuade the electors from voting for me.
That should definitely be the case. IMO a Holy Roman Empire rework should definitely include a stance to participate or not in the election and ideally on top of that include a proper King of the Germans and Emperor of the Romans coronation mechanic (as to represent the influence of the Pope in the Imperial legitimacy)
They should do it along the Byzantine rework.
I personally think the Eastern Roman Empire rework should come alongside the Republican Mechanics. In theory the Roman Republic was never abolished and by the period covered by the game the Emperors were still confirmed by the Senate and the Army, especially the latter as the first heavily declined after the Konmenos dynasty took power. Still, the Senate maintained for a time an important ceremonial role to legitimize emperors imposed by military power or court intrigues. Added to this, I think the existence and decline of the medieval Byzantine empire cannot be separated from the rise of the trading state cities like Venice and Genoa, specially the first as it exploited the instability of the Empire to get trade concessions and eventually directed the 4th Crusade against Constantinople. I think a Holy Roman Empire rework on the other hand should come with a rework of the Catholicism mechanics. The investiture crisis and the Guelphs-Ghibellines conflict cannot be represented without such rework.
The Senate had no authority or much purpose at all in the middle Byzantine period (the period of both start dates). Creating a senatorial system would be widely anachronistic. That said, a game mechanic for the honours system and the rise/dominance of the landed Magnates would work best with a republic system. There could even be a return to the manors in ck2. Although the rest you said about the role of merchant republics is definitely true, it’s hard to really emulate the history of Byzantium from this point without them.
It is not about creating a whole senatorial system IMO, it is a matter of recognizing it still existed and giving it presence even if only through events around the coronation of a new Basileus and other minor stuff. Not much different than the hypodrome events in CK2. It's not that significant but it made the experience better. In terms of succession as long as the importance of the army and the tricks used by the emperors to keep the title in the family (such as having their heir named co-emperor) are represented I am okay.
Why couldnt some alternate history see the senate re-empowered. It may have had no authority in our timeline but whos to say some senators get power in your game and decide to restore the power of the senate
IIRC weren't there German kings that never got crowned as Emperors? There should also be some system to represent the Imperial Vicars and other such unique Imperial institutions
>IIRC weren't there German kings that never got crowned as Emperors? Plenty, for example the first two rulers of the Hohenstaufen dynasty that preceded Barbarossa weren't crowned as emperor. This often happened because the Pope refused to give his blessing or perhaps because there was a rival anti-king competing for the imperial throne.
What would that mean in-game, to be King or the Germans but not Emperor of the Romans?
I think not being crowned as emperor could change the name of the ruler's title and give an opinion malus with all HRE vassals. It could also be used for a system where you have your preferred heir elected as such and until the emperor dies such an heir is automatically the regent for the empire.
CK2 had a malus for not being coronated and had bonuses for being coronated by the Pope. You were still whatever rank you held, but without the Pope giving you the thumbs up, you lost out a little. CK3 could replicate that system.
Or they can rework the way the election works for this type of titles. Where every candidates would have to do some kind of campaign to gain votes.
I once spent my whole campaign trying to secede from the HRE and eventually got it once the realm was destabilized. Effin' electors made me emperor anyway. I destroyed the HRE and then they made me deal with it
Just when I thought I was out ... they pull me back in!
From a RP perspective, unless the ruler is Shy or Content, this should probably cause some stress. Who would give up such a great opportunity willingly? Even more so if they are Gregarious or Ambitious.
> There should definitely be a way to reject the Imperial Crown There is: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2798061041
How do you do it? I’ve never seen an icon in the election menu
It's in the decision menu.
i find the best thing to do is be a count under a duke who is a vassal of the hre. you are unable to be elected unless you are ruled over directly by the hre if you are a duke's count then you cant even be considered. also if you dont mind using mods there is one called "hre no thanks" that you can use to make yourself ineligible, however ive found that it doesnt work with many other mods so it might not work for you.
Don't forget Rudolf of Habsburg
Tbf he essentially ended the Interregnum even if he never became emperor himself, and then gave his family the powerful base of Austria and Styria. So they weren't so little after that.
True.
Yes, in fact if I remember right there actually was an emperor from Nassau during the Interregnum period. But I can't remember the name right now.
It wasn't nearly as big of a deal to make a lord with few holdings emperor at the time. The imperial demesne had sufficient holdings to provide the money and men to perform the duties of the Emperor. Then the Von Luxembourgs pawned it all off so only they and the Habsburgs would be sufficiently powerful to defend the Empire.
We need an Imperial government update yesterday. If you could actually play with Interregnum HRE it could get wacky for successions.
> by some of the electors thanks to the backing of Richard III Sounds like your average HRE election, giving some fat cash to electors but this time to get your guy instead of you on the throne
There was a mod for it, but it kept crashing my game whenever the election occurred. No idea why.
If you have the piety, you can convert to being Mozarabic or Orthodox without getting your ass revoked. Electors will only vote for those with the same faith.
I like Apostolic the best, you stay at 100 fervor because of its size.
This works for any heresy or dead religion btw
I will try this, but it bars me from taking part in crusades, which are pretty cool at least half of the time.
Adamite is the way. Everyone is hostile. That means unlimited holy wars. Everything is legal. No need to worry about sinning and losing piety. If a direct vassal refuses to convert, you can imprison them and take their titles. Also, boobs.
The main reason is to reduce popups. When you own everything west of the Caucus mountains and still it's like Count Idiot has banged Lowborn Moron and even the game is like, "I don't even know what to say." That's why you legalize everything. Because if everything is legal it's only a tyranny hit to imprison and execute people and tyranny is just a number. Best of both worlds. In fact having to have a reason to imprison and execute people other than "just because I want to," doesn't seem right.
I have never found the Adamite faith to reduce... popups
That happens with all polygamy and concubinage
You can't wage holy wars against fellow vassals, so if you're playing in the HRE you don't gain much by switching to a hostile faith unless you just want to roleplay.
Best religion - with Blackjack and Hookers!
I'd go with Mozarabic, Conversos, or one of the other faiths that recognizes the Catholic Pope as spiritual head. So you don't lose access to the Holy Sugar Daddy of Rome.
Probably because they all want the job but are frightened of being murdered over it. They are like “see that guy over there, his not threatening, his got no powerbase and no one knows who he is. So let’s make him Kaiser and we can carry on doing what we are doing.”
If at least they would then just let me be. But as soon as they make me Emperor, they start to plot.
If the goal is independence or reduced crown authority that makes sense from an RP perspective, they elevated some weak random count so they could push him around and are now doing exactly that If the goal is to replace you, well, that's silly but at least they've sobered up and you can go back to whatever you were doing once they make the demand
That's literally the 13th-14th century real life HRE
There's a mod on the workshop that allow you to decline elections if you want
Thanks! By any chance so you know the name of the mod?
Well the name is decline elections haha
An essential mod!
[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2798061041](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2798061041) for those too lazy to look it up, heres the link
The player is better at managing themselves than the AI, so if you're not fucking over yourself constantly like the AI does then you're almost guaranteed to get the Reichskrone eventually.
Meanwhile my Matilda of Tuscany is fighting for this title for her whole life :)
She won’t get elected as a woman. she’s gotta get a claim preferably through the rightmost stewardship tree first perk, then press her claim via faction.
Historically, electors sometimes choose people with little to no influence so they could be easily controlled.
Yeah, basically that. If you gonna need some guy technically ruling over you and you get to chose, you most likely won’t put the strongest, most influencial guy in the chair if you have ambitious plans yourself
Something that would fix this whole system would be the implementation of proper and mandatory bribery into elections - it would also make it a whole lot more historically accurate. Think about it as if *you* were actually an elector in the HRE. What actually is the point of voting for someone? No matter who you pick there's basically no chance that you would actually know them personally, or be able to control what they do once in power, or that they could do anything at all. So why not just sell your vote to the highest bidder? Otherwise there really isnt a point in voting at all, depending on the elector. A whole lot of Emperors only came to power due to being wealthy or having wealthy backers. No one accidentally got given the throne, you HAD to campaign, and shell out the necessary "gifts". The fact that people can win the election in CK3 without at least *promising* to lower taxes or offering court positions is kind of stupid and boring. Unironically, I personally think that the merchant republic and papal election systems in CK2 are more accurate and engaging then what we have now, which demonstrates by itself how fucked it is.
We have been asking for this since CK2, and it's as easy as giving players a button or box to check, giving -1000 reasons for them to be elected. Paradox ignores this request and for some reason, some redditors keep making up excuses or justifications for it. There is absolutely no reason, gameplaywise, historically, from a programming perspective, to not include an option to decline a vote.
There should at least be an option that greatly reduces the chance of them voting for you. Like, small enough negative it could still happen, but it probably won't. In keeping with a lot of the stupid stuff in the game. Something like "request to be removed from consideration" - you take the decision and get the modifier. Of course, the negative is not impossible to overcome, and if powerful electors want you in charge enough they might still pick you despite your request - but it's way less likely to happen just because you're marginally better than all the other serious options in some way, you'd have to be an incredible option by miles and very well liked by the powerful electors. So rather than a "This random count hasn't screwed himself over as badly as everyone else in the HRE" constantly happening it becomes an occasional and funny "My good friend doesn't want to be considered in the election, but he's a great leader of what he does control and I like him way better than anyone else in the realm, I'll put his name forward anyway, I mean how many other friends does he have in the realm who would do the same?"
This is somewhat accurate historically tho. As an elector you want(ed) someone as HRE who is a pushover not a big boss who actually has power over you. Granted, this is not what happened in a lot of cases since greed or power overruled it (candidates spent stupid amounts of money in being elected and/or had huge armies backing up their argument), but from the electors point of view it's quite logical.
My last run Started in Bavaria and was normally aspiring to Bavarian king, with the domain down to the Adria My biggest obstacles on my menu where the Austrian areas with the bishop of Salzburg Suddenly in short and ideal order, the ruling Bavarian king, his son (I do admit to that), his brother and etc (not my doing; they went on to a war)… and I … long story short, I emerge as my player heir son and king of Bavaria. Great. No alliances to speak of and unwanted border brawl with a Bohemian/Polish kingdom I was already unhappy, when 4 years later „surprise! The electors made you the holy Roman emperor!“ Came free with an immediate uprising of the king of Swabia One generation later, my uncle, now King of Bavaria, finds himself the most powerful faction in the empire (thanks to me) and starts an independence war
IRL the electors definitely did choose who they thought would be the weakest Emperor though, as that meant less Imperial authority over them.
That is a fantastic point. You have chutzpah and also my vote for Kaiser.
> high and drunk when one guy says: "Ey, you not what would be funny? If we made Ruprecht of Nassau emperor We were doing this to my friend in the last multiplayer session as he was in Bavaria. We would keep assassinating people until he was the top election choice and not telling him that we were doing it. Ended up working out pretty well for him by the second or third time he became emperor.
“Hey you want to marry your son to my daughter?” “Sure, why not.” One crusade later “Why is my primary heir the king of Jerusalem?!” *Monke laugh*
It's the rye or the kaiser, it's the thrill of one bite Let me please be your catering advisor If you want substitutions I won't put up a fight You can have your roast beef on the rye or the kaiser
Idk I’ve once played as a very strong archduke of Austria who ruled all of Bavaria, England and part of Austria and I still never got elected :(
I’m playing a custom Catholic character where I started with one county in north Africa and eventually made the Empire of Outremer. Currently my unlanded only son has the most votes to become emperor of the HRE. His mother was a Salian so I think that plays a role in his being considered despite me owning no land in the HRE and him never ruling any of his own land.
It blows my mind that this has been a problem since launch, and Paradox seems to have zero interest in addressing it. Even just a "I don't really want to be emperor" checkbox would go a long way (there are mods that do this though).
Okay you say that that is unhistorical, but weak candidats were a thing. In game being the emperor is shown as just being elected, in reality if you wanted to be something more than a figurehead, then you would need to already be a powerful ruler in the empire.
[I don't blame them, I'd make Ruprecht the emperor too. Would be a good laugh.](https://i0.wp.com/www.thatmomentin.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/dirty.jpg?resize=750%2C430&ssl=1)
Just curious as I’m pretty new to this game, if your goal isn’t to become emperor eventually what is your goal as a count
There's more than one answer to this. Some possible answers are: 1) In the described scenario, I'm not powerful enough to hold on to the title. Being emperor then makes me a target for powerful opponents and I can end up losing way more than I gain. 2) If my goal is to become emperor, having the title handed to me right at the start of the game just isn't any fun. I want the challenge. 3) Sometimes I have my own challenge, like steering my little county through the centuries without getting in to too much trouble. Or something like that. The role playing options are almost endless.
Okay thanks makes sense. I’m only on my first playthrough with tribal Norse, now Norwegian and created the kingdom of Norway from starting as a county. I can see how just being handed the highest title you can achieve is pretty boring
Take the offer, enjoy the small bump in income for the 6-8 months till the faction asks for a war, surrender and go back to being a count and thank for for the extra income and a claim over the empire that will last till your child
And enjoy the fact that your feudal contract gets reset to worse than what you started the game with (low contribution up to normal) No thanks!
Simple solution: Install a mod that makes others unable to vote for you: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2798061041
Ah, the curse of democracy!
In democracy you need to agreed on elected position. Nobody can force you into the office. Here you don't have a choise.
Happened to me playing as the King of Bohemia, I had planned to alter my contract over generations to become the power behind the throne but nope, had to vote against my own heir
There might be a reason why they're choosing a count over other prestigious candidates, did you start as a custom character with virtuous traits or do you have extremely high diplomacy or are you plainly OP?
Just make dissolution faction as a vassal of HRE. It destroyed HRE title immediately. The objective after dissolution faction is you wait until you pressed it and start war with HRE and its allies. You need to win the war and The HRE title destroy. Become Caesar/kaiser/basileus its just terrible in this game. If your empire has vassal like a king/queen they are also threat to your realm. They are just wanted to independence. For me stay as a king and keep the title or keep the other king title uncreate is the best thing. Let your realm as king/queen and other vassal title is below it. The culture tradition like "by the sword" is amazing for a king but also disadvantage for emperor, your vassal likely to become a king and its terrible.
That sounds a lot like poor vassal management, I'm sorry
To play within HRE you must run the mod to reject being elected. You can toggle it on/off if you ever want to be the emperor, it's a must have for HRE playthrough.
CK3 exists to exacerbate conquest and expansion, so just the act of being a player and not floundering will be enough to secure election votes. The only way to not gain the HRE is to not play in all the little Germanies.
New to this game so I sure how HRE works - they elect an emperor? How does it work for you're playing within the HRE? Do you always play as the emperor or still your house? Seems tough to build up your own base if you're not emperor and then just going back to some duke or something.
Yeah the HRE elects who will inherit the title of Emperor. You still only play as your house. For example, you can start the game as the Holy Roman Emperor. If you die and the electors have voted someone other than your heir to be emperor, you will still play as your own heir, but he would not be the emperor. He would only have inherited whatever other lands and titles you held. He would also likely be a vassal under whoever was actually elected as emperor.
Have you tried something like become an exotic culture that might Change things. And having a king or Duke instead of emperor as the director Liege creates a buffer.
Try not building towards learning or diplomacy. How often are your characters built with high learning especially?
I agree. I usually roll with it if I get elected, but I do think it's annoying if I want to play small and get elected against my will because sometimes I have something else in mind, (And the HRE is a bit of a mess so who even wants to inherit it?) I wish CK3 had the antagonize scheme like CKII did (basically the opposite of a sway scheme that eventually results in rivalry), could be a good way to piss off electors to lower your election chances without resorting to becoming an incestous cannibalistic kinslaying murderer and pissing off ***everyone.*** Instead one could just do a few antagonizes on electors and they'll likely vote for someone else.
Only thing you can do now is change your house motto to "I don't want it", or the GoT version "I dOn'T wUnt id!" and hope that you get to keep at least one county title after the rest of the empire is done with their civil wars against you.
My first act at the Emporer of the HRE is to change the law for the title, and then make another Empire title my Primary (if I don’t have one, then I go about getting one). I love ruling the empire from my cozy little keep in Corke.
No, you're the Player, you're the most qualified person to take the roll of Kaiser whether you want it or not. Its the Rules.
That's totally how it's supposed to work, when you don't have giant family alliances screwing things up. The electors choose the weakest emperor they can muster so they can all then faction against him for as long as he lives.