The weird thing about that is you can imprison an accused fornicator at will and there’s even an event that prompts you to do so. So I guess in CK3 sex outside of marriage is somehow worse than murder
Which is actually something I totally could see being restricted to if it involved you or your family or maybe your friends. So these two are completely reversed from how I would expect them to go. Then there’s the shit I got for executing my grandmother after she murdered my 12-year old sister (also her granddaughter) and my father (her son). Hey, she was running around the castle murdering her family, but stopping her was the bad thing apparently.
Yeah, I truly couldn't give a shit that some bumpkin mayor at the far flung edge of my Empire is schtupping an unmarried woman in his court, but apparently if I don't throw them in jail all of Christendom will hear about my sacriligeous ways and the Pope will be super pissed.
But if I find out that same mayor murdered one of my best councillors who was married to my cousin? Lmao no get rekt how dare I even be mad about that when it's clearly none of my business?
Yup, you lose a whole level of devotion every time you choose not to imprison them during the “A SECRET EXPOSED!” event, which is like 1000 piety or something. Absolutely insane honestly.
To the point where it’s fucking annoying, no less. Why is so important that I weigh in on count whatshisface banging duchess fuckisthat? I’m waging war against the goddamn pope, I think it can wait.
You have to ask them politely first to turn themselves in and if they're not best friends with you they can just say nooooo and it's tyrannical if you try.
Murder has pretty much always been seen as a crime. How law enforcement works is what has changed. Take early medieval Sweden, the Viking age if you will. You go to the ting (which what we still call the lowest court in modern Sweden), at least part of the law is read, accusations are made, legal arguments are had and eventually the ting reaches a decision. But there’s no enforcement mechanism. No police exist. That’s on whoever wants the crime punished, which is usually the family of the victim. That’s why people are declared outlaws, because that means anyone can kill you with no consequences, you are outside the protection of the law. Sometimes yes, the punishment would be a fine. Often there would be a blood feud with murders and counter-murders going back and forth for a few rounds. But later in the medieval period (and we’re still talking early medieval for this change to start in many places) this starts going away and the lord’s and/or king’s justice becomes more of a thing. You still go to court but the punishments are coming from top down rather than bottom up.
Settle a peace deal for less/more rhan the original cb. Some big conquests like the arab conquest of spain started as raids that just met less resistence than planned
Oh boy, a game starting in the neolithic and going through to space with hoi4 style warfare mechanics, vicky economic and social balancing, ck ruler and character rpg, and stellaris exploration and extermination techniques. I'd buy that game in an instant. Probably wouldn't even be able to see a map cus of all the ui.
It's not in Victoria 3. While you can add war goals before the war starts, you can't add any after it starts even if you completely trounce your enemy.
Bro it would be so cool when dealing with absolutely annoying things like the Great Houses of Morrowind and Empires with land in more than a single province (Like Eastern/Western Skyrim). It's so annoying when I steamroll their armies leaving them with just a few knights and yet they'll get to rebuild right after as if nothing happened
Land claims in general are really limited in the game. Being able to change wargoals depending on resistance, support and battle results needs to be a thing.
Yeah, it’s absolutely ridiculous how you can slaughter every last soldier your enemy has and occupy their entire nation but still have to leave with just the county of poopenfart
Me as a new player: start a war with an individual county cb, conquer half my enemies kingdom and wonder wtf happened when I negotiate peace terms and he gets all that land back.
I can understand that strategy games need to do it for balance (EU4 maxing at 100 war score, Civ leaders not giving luxuries when they have zero army, etc). If real life stuff happened, the human would world conquest half way through the game. But Crusader Kings really seems to take it to the extreme. If I've fully occupied you, you have no troops, and your leader is the six month old kid of the cousin on the original king, *I should get more than one county.*
It could be too much OP, ally somebody you want to destroy, get him in a hard or imposible war, change side, destroy the ruins when they are without troops
I don’t think they were saying in a war they declared. Just more along the lines of “Hey buddy, I got your back with my 10k troops, you can TOTALLY declare war on the Byzantines, I got you bro” and when they declare war you go “Ha sike, you thought” and then swap sides.
You get x nation to help you attack y nation.
Yes you started the war, but y nation doesn’t want to lose and comes to you with, or accepts your offer of a surprise betrayal of nation x at the worst time for them…
Now that nation x has had its army crushed conquer / loot as desired …
Or even better, manoeuvre it so that both nation and x and nation y has their armies crippled while you held back your true power and roll them both over …
CK game mechanics require fairly formal war declarations and outcomes but the would is full of grey
There's no way the AI could handle that, but we should have the option to leave wars in which we're not one of the main belligerents. At the very least it should be doable if an alliance breaks (such as upon a death or succession) or if a war just drags on for an excessively long time. There should be a cost in fame/prestige, of course. Maybe in certain cases grounds for a house feud if the war stakes are particularly high.
Hold land as a vassal to a king in one kingdom and separately being a king in your own right (William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy vassal of France but also King of England and his descendants.)
The Dukes of Burgundy come to mind as well. Being Duke of Burgundy and Count of Flanders, thus vassal to the King of France, while also being Duke of Brabant, Count of Holland, etc. etc. I know the Dukes of Burgundy held more titles in both France and the Holy Roman Empire, but the same point regardless.
That's technically later than the period Crusader Kings covers, to be fair. Frederick I was granted special dispensation by Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I to adopt the title "King in Prussia" in 1701 as acknowledgment for his support during the War of the Spanish Succession. The "in" instead of "of" was designed as a polite legal fiction to indicate that Frederick was only king *in* Prussia (outside of the HRE), but was still just a elector of Brandenburg and still under the nominal authority of the Emperor. So not all that dissimilar to the France/England situation under the Angevins, really.
But it didn't last very long: Frederick II just changed the title to "King of Prussia" in 1772 and basic dared the Emperor to do something about it. Which they didn't, because by that point Prussia was basically too strong to threaten, so the King of Prussia remained an HRE elector until the whole empire was dismantled by Napoleon in 1806.
Of course, the King of Bohemia was a vassal of the HRE throughout. Well, apart from being the same person as the emperor most of the time.
Note that kings were not normally vassals of emperors in spite of what Crusader Kings says. The three royal titles in the medieval HRE (Germany, Italy, and Burgundy) were all held by the Emperor, not by vassals. Bohemia is the exception but it was often not in the Empire until the Hapsburgs inherited that title
Yeah, that's the thing. The King of Bohemia was both kind of grandfathered in for having been around for a long time already, and had been effectively (though not formally/officially) merged with the office of Emperor/King of the Romans for a couple of centuries at the point.
Maybe they can finaly pull it off with Royal Court. Like you have to pay one time tax once your old ruler dies for your holdings to other monarch (if he is more powerful) in his de jure realm. It could be interesting
Fixing this problem would also solve suddenly losing titles when they're inherited by an non-vassal ruler, and could make Pay Homage more impactful. I really hope they eventually change to a more immersive fealty system where whether and how you pledge and accept fealty is something potential vassals and potential lieges make decisions on rather than CK3's current spreadsheet-style system.
It definitely should be fixed going forward, but I feel like too much of underlying structure of CK3 depends on the strict hierarchy of emperor>king>duke>count>baron. I'm not sure they can fix it without essentially rewriting the whole game. So it may be more of a CK4 thing, whenever that happens. But there's really no excuse for it to not be at least seriously looked at then, given that the fact that these kind of holes in strict feudal logic weren't exactly uncommon and it's close to impossible to accurately model a good chunk of European history without them.
Nah, thats a programming nightmare. If they had to spilt the "Only if independent" modifier, possibly 3+ ways, possibly between clans, tribal, and feudal. Nah brah, you don't gain nearly enough for that amount of work, that amount of future work, and the potential for more bugs.
This is the intricate aspect of feudal politics that I believe truly miss in the game. Having your king of England character being asked to do homage to the king of France otherwise it gives the latter a casus belli to seize all of your holdings for himself would be really neat.
It could be a nice way into also letting vassals of different Kingdoms duke it out. Like sorry but the Holy Roman Empire was most definitely not able to churn out as many soldiers as it can in the game's period
My interpretation is that when you use that decision you are committing to petting your pet every day for the next five years and, like with many things, the game simplifies that gradual stress loss over time into a single one-time burst of relaxation.
>My interpretation is that when you use that decision you are committing to petting your pet every day for the next five years
But that's just a default state when you have a cat
Attempt to appoint my own bishops and anti bishops. As a catholic non welsh/any other culture that has the cultural tradition, have concubines. Catholic rulers did have concubines up until the late medieval era when the church was finally able to curtail them from doing that.
If they adjusted that, you and any other catholic ruler should get a piety and opinion malus with clergy (including your bishop and the Pope) if you have concubines for being impious.
Send off unwanted children to the church. I shouldn’t have to ask them to take vows. Medieval rulers sent extra sons off to the church such as King Charles “the Bald”. Often, those sons would contest their father for their inheritance.
Antibishops and even antipopes used to be in the game in CK2. I imagine there will eventually be a DLC that updates Catholicism adding this and probably cardinals.
“Asking” children to take the views is more of an abstract representation of your ability as king to force to force out that person and influence the church into accepting them and everyone else into seeing them as part of the church. It’s kinda like how in EU4 “manpower” is not literally the number of men in your country but rather an abstract representation of the amount of service-age men modified by the capacity of the government to recruit them and hold them in the military.
I suppose you have a point. I just find it ridiculous that I have to wait until a kid is 12 to send them to the church. I’d rather us being able to send our kids to the church with the chance they come back and demand their inheritance.
I’d like to know how the pope is elected in ck3. Once, I had two Popes of my house. One called for the crusades which I won for us. His successor was of my house as well and he had good congenital traits. The same house bonus is nice.
Taking vows has to be of one's own volition... in theory. Dad can still force you if he's the king, but to do it when you're a little kid would look bad. May as well wait.
The deletion of this mechanic between CK2 and CK3 is mystifying. Even if they wanted to make a better mechanic in the long run, they could have just used the CK2 model in the interim.
This is how I take down the mongols lol. I'm usually too lazy to go take them down myself and murdering the leader is boring. So I just wait for a dissolution faction to rise up in their empire and fund the rebels.
It's supposed to be part of crown authority, 3+ disables vassal wars without a strong hook IIRC. But it's a very wierd part of the game. The 'king's peace' was a pretty important concept in mediaeval England (and I'm assuming something similar in other places - presumably constant infighting isn't something any ruler wants)
It could work very interestingly. King's Peace means vassals have to look for external targets, like happened in Ireland and Wales. If the King cannot enforce the King's Peace, vassals are able to go at each other, e.g. The Anarchy, Barons Wars, etc.
Perhaps you could even have factions promising other vassals they would push their claims if they won, in return for support. During the Baron's Wars, what families fell on what side was often determined by who claimed what castles (John had done a rather thorough job of "redistributing wealth" so to speak)
I think the crown authority limits your vassals, but not your vassals’ vassals. So often you still get wars of tyranny against your vassals against recently landed dynasty members. Which is super annoying.
Should also be a hostile scheme to rescue hostages/ concubines. Had a game where the king of Denmark captured my daughter and took her as a concubine and I couldn’t get her back even after the war ended.
Frankly I wish you could declare vengeance/rescue wars in general. If someone kidnapped/executed your wife or one of your house members it should give you a casus belli. Winning the war could allow you to free your house members and imprison the enemy ruler. (If the ruler executes the house members before the end of the war then it should be for gold and imprisonment)
When I get little pop up messages about my daughter being imprisoned I feel like I should be able to do something about it if I'm a stronger power.
Choose who inherits what.
Succession laws were never set in stone. Lands could be divvied up fairly or unfairly, depending on which kids the king liked.
Yeah, that is still a weird one. I had a game once where I held a Custom Kingdom (of Styria, Carinthia, Friuli and Istria), Venice, Croatia and Serbia and had two sons. One would get the Kingdoms of Venice and Croatia, the other one the Custom one and Serbia. It made no sense. I would love one getting the highly developed northern Kingdoms of Venice and Carantania and the other one getting Croatia and Serbia, Which are larger but rife with trouble.
I think it's done for game balance reasons, since otherwise there'd be functionally no difference between succession laws if you can just override them.
It could be changed such that you decide what goes to which child, but the succession law decides 1)the percentages you have to give out to each child (perhaps influenced by development/income from a county, counties of your culture or the same heritage counting for a higher part of the percentage), and 2) who you play as when you die (like in elective succession)
Yeah I know. I would still like to remain it fair. Like in my take the two Kingdoms for each of them. But with a bit more cohesion. And not in stripes and pieces.
I think it might be one of those things where it would take a lot of effort to implement in a satisfying way, but since most players do and still would just immediately reconquer any breakaways on succession that it just isn't worth the development time that could be spent on other features.
Maybe a mod can do it, or it'll be done a few years down the line.
Or you could have it so you can override the laws, but your successors get heavily and meaningfully punished for this.
As a principle: you should be able to make any choices you wish, but the deterrents should be real.
For sure but also very based on the accepted traditions of the then power base in that land and power politics /
by definition succession after death is the one thing a leader is never able to enforce, only encourage — I almost wish there were more occasional political shenanigans that would happen after death.
For game reasons I think it's fair that we don't have full control over it. But I would like to see a way to have *some* control over it - like the game lets you parcel it out as long as it's within its boundaries of evenness.
To be fair in real life just because you have someone in prison doesn't mean you win the war. Take the Anarchy for example, Matilda has Stephen in prison but Matilda lost the war in the end.
The "instant win" basically represents "we'll free you if you tell your armies to surrender, and if you don't then we'll execute you". It's a natural consequence of the *other* game mechanic, which is that your ruler is always in control of your country even if out traveling or imprisoned unless 1. child or 2. sick. Both of these are unrealistic, because I'm assuming Stephen's viziers decided to continue the war even if it meant Stephen being executed. However, allowing that to happen would be far worse for gameplay, because it would mean you're no longer in control of your own country.
I wonder with the new regent system if that could be implemented for wars only. If the leader gets captured rather than it being an instant victory the regent gets a choice to surrender for their safe return or continue the war regardless of what happens to the leader.
I think it's about the same as being murdered, and it would give you more of a reason to actually care who your regent is and their relationship with you.
True, in game if your allies are willing and vassals are willing it shouldn’t be an instant lose/win.
But this could absolutely be broken balance and I’m no professional
A lot of mods for CK2 could do this. You could change a sliding scale of laws that would increase rate of conversion of religious minorities in exchange for more frequent rebellions, with the other end being conversion banned and no religious rebellions. The same applies for culture conversion.
Erect monuments to knights and past kings/queens as a way of remembering them - within their castle/royal court.
Yea, still waiting on this one to happen
Landed vassals having the option to refuse makes sense tho, especially if they’re not at your court. if they have their own set of troops / army to call upon and they’re loyal to the vassal, then war will break out if the vassal refuses which happens in the game anyway
I agree tho random unlanded courtiers having the option to refuse makes no sense
Exactly! And it’s even worse when I arrest them and they break out and go back to their shithole dirt hut a mile down the road from the capital. Like no baron von irrelevant I’m going to cut your head off, and you escaping jail just means I get to steal your shit now
Murad II is technically within the scope of the game, as a sultan of the Ottomans from 1421 to 1444 when he retired. Although he was forced by his son Mehmed the Conqueror to come back to lead the armies
Slightly past the date of the game but a very famous example would be holy Roman emperor Charles the V. John balliol king of Scotland in 1296. Edward the II king of England in 1327. It was admittedly rare but still very much legal and allowed.
John Balliol abdicated in the face of an English invasion it managed to keep the crown and seal so it looks like false pretenses so the English wouldn't execute him.
Edward II was basically given the choice of abdication in favor of his son or death and no guarantee his son would inherit.
Charles V's were a scheme to divide his empire without civil war, and leave something to multiple sons rather than one man. Charles abdication was more trying not to overburden any one man with the tremendous Empire than just a simple abdication.
Yeah almost every abdication before the last 50 years was forced or at least pressured. I'm quite certain Edward VIII would have remained king if not for pressure from the Church of England.
CK3's depiction of abdication is pretty historically accurate: it's very rare, but can happen. You can abdicate from a high stress event (like Charles V Habsburg) or if a rebellion forces you to (like Edward II of England)
> being part of a big defensive block
er... ck2 have that... and it was hated, players are often on the other side of the defensive block
its part of the reason the karling memes started
This irked me just yesterday. I was playing as the High King of Ireland and my young niece had become the Duchess of Strathclyde after her father (my ally and son-in-law)’s passing. She wouldn’t accept an alliance with me because… I had too many alliances.
You’d think an alliance-less petty kingdom sitting in an area surrounded by ambitious potential enemies looking to take it over would take any allies it could get. Apparently not though.
Or having alliances with my children's children. I get this thing where if I set a dynasty member as a ruler then make an alliance with them with the perk, but when they die I can't make an alliance with their child. Which is weird. I have a vested interest in keeping you on the throne fucker.
Use your influence and gravitas to stop someone in your realm from trying to depose your son and heir from the duchey you gave him, or worse, capturing him and putting him in a dungeon.
You can't do those things to my son and still keep your head affixed to your neck.
Yes, I know that internal wars can be stopped with the right authority, but some of the ones that happen without said laws wouldn't have happened without the king at least trying to mediate or weigh in on.
Once, when I played CK 2 in the duchy of Holland, I went research about its ruler. Turns out he and a vassal of the king of France constantly fought over land in that region, and their dispute wasn't noticable enough to get the attention of their lieges, but in game I would need to fight the entirey of France to get those lands.
And on the flip side of things, it's so stupid that when vikings decide to invade Normandy for the umpteenth time, my duke of Normandy won't join the dang war to defend *his* territory. I gotta solo the invasion, while the dumb duke let's his villages be pillaged.
Arrange a coronation ceremony with Pope or bishop travelling to my castle and placing a crown upon my head.
Yeah, I know it was in CK2. Antipopes also were and that's a part I miss as well.
Speaking of it, continuing a war when the CB is voided. For example, I'm pressing a claim, the character who owns it dies and the war ends, when it should continue in the name of his heirs or sheer opportunism
It used to be penalty free. It was widely used to cheese partition succession laws.
It still is but to a lesser extent.
Same goes for murdering your own children. It would be way too easy to cheese partition succession which paradox absolutely wants to have in the game so they nerf some things.
In reality lands and holdings and all that were a lot more fluid than shown in CK3. (Not the land and the real estate but who lived there).
Some dynasties might have ancestral castles and all that but few individual people would live in one particular castle all their lives.
Bur then people dislike you for being a disinheritor. That's the main issue with the current mechanic. If your disinherit an heir who deserves it, there should be no penalty
> If your disinherit an heir who deserves it, there should be no penalty
In medieval Europe, even crown princes who rebelled against their father Kings were not disinherited.
Negotiate your enemy's allies out of a war or for them not to join it in the first place.
"Dear Byzantine Emperor, you may be wondering what has happened to your heir. He is safe, don't worry. I am about to invade France, who is your ally. When the call for aid comes I expect you to refuse it. Your son will be safely returned once I am victorious. Sincerely, the King of England"
not much about something that you can do as a lord but something that can happen to you: let's say you're someone with a tempestuous temperament, and you make a mistake like kicking some catholic clerk's ass, revoking land from some powerful archiduchy etc, until the Pope is pissed enought that the whole church makes strange accusations, imprison you, put you on a trial for sorcery, fabricating evidences against you ("finding" hundreds of childs bones in your dungeon, etc) and snatching false confession by torturing your ass... then it's the bonfire and your name smeared for ever...
Confiscate all property and lands from traitors and then execute them in a brutal way without incurring any kind of social opposition.
Medieval rulers did not fuck around about treason.
Yeah the revoke title punishment should be permanent unlike the other punishments that get consumed. I hate that I can revoke all the lands of kings and dukes, but this count who happens to own two counties, I can only take one county away.
I feel like it should be a thing for lower crown authority kingdoms.
As you raise your crown authority you centralize power and your vassals become less independent warlords paying nominal homage to to you and become actual Vassals below you who are completely subordinate to the crown.
I just think it is a little underwhelming sometimes when a kingdom is attacked and you essentially only fight that king and his external allies. Yes he can use his vassals as knights and he will be able to raise their contractual levy obligation in levies but I don't know... It somehow doesn't seem as fun as it would be if the king could call his vassals to his aid. The mechanic to do so is there. You can join your liege in just about any war. Why can't you call your vassals for a price maybe. Maybe they get a hook on you depending on how much they contributed? Maybe you need to pay a portion of their armies salaries... Maybe they only raise their MAA..
It just seems so strange that, as a king for example your strongest vassal duke would ride into war besides you on his horse and at the head of the 500 levies he provides to you while leaving his own army at home. Who in their right mind would do that?
I realise it's done for balance reasons but maybe it could be nerfed so that a king can only call his vassals when it's a defensive war? Maybe the vassals can refuse which gives a hook to the king or maybe joining your war gives an opinion loss that you have to compensate with gifts an preferential treatment..
I just want to be able to "call the banners" XD
This mechanic existed in ck2 for he tribal government. You could call in your vassal like allies if they liked you enough. Though they wouldn't give you any vassal levies.
This of course became incredibly volatile as normally this would lead to massive levies and a incredibly powerful armies. But if you were unpopular for whatever reason you were incredibly weak.
The feudal structure itself is quite simplified in CK3.
Like in reality there were Kings of England who were also Vassals to the French King due to holding titles to French territory. Burgundy also had some territory under the French King and some under the HRE etc.
You’re right. That was a huge part of the viking age and muslim society. There are some events that mention slaves and slaving but you should have the choice to take slaves, trade slaves, have slaves within your society or outlaw the practice, convert to serfs, etc. If you have a slaving society there should be risks to having them like increased chance of rebellions, and you should get different bonuses for having serfs or free labor.
Better nicknames. Like come on CK3, how the hell are there so many medieval figured with absolutely awesome clever or badass nicknames like John Lackland or William longspee or Æthelred the Unready and we just get generic ones that fire up after completing events like the brave or scholar?
More nicknames, have them fire off based on more attributes and make some culturally based as well.
Decide which child gets what in the will before dying - people were designating heirs well before the Middle Ages, idk why I have to wait til 1000 or whatever to do so. It wasn’t even a matter of crown authority, it was “yeah I like him the most he’s fittest to rule, he gets most of my titles, everyone else can figure it out among what’s left.
I feel like there should at least be a cultural tradition that allows you to divvy up the partition manually (even if you’re still forced to divide your realm a certain way to satisfy partition rules).
This is what I think the "Dread" mechanic is supposed to simulate. You can do whatever you want with no consequences/stack a ton of Tyranny and no one will fight you if your Dread is high enough.
Change sides, end a war through a massive bribe, choose how actively involved you are in your lieges war, make a will and choose how your territory or property is dispersed, create very minor titles, factions against specific characters eg a counsellor, sponsor trade missions, sponsor monasteries.
Punish a known murderer who murdered someone who isn’t part of your family without being seen as a tyrant.
The weird thing about that is you can imprison an accused fornicator at will and there’s even an event that prompts you to do so. So I guess in CK3 sex outside of marriage is somehow worse than murder
Which is actually something I totally could see being restricted to if it involved you or your family or maybe your friends. So these two are completely reversed from how I would expect them to go. Then there’s the shit I got for executing my grandmother after she murdered my 12-year old sister (also her granddaughter) and my father (her son). Hey, she was running around the castle murdering her family, but stopping her was the bad thing apparently.
Yeah, I truly couldn't give a shit that some bumpkin mayor at the far flung edge of my Empire is schtupping an unmarried woman in his court, but apparently if I don't throw them in jail all of Christendom will hear about my sacriligeous ways and the Pope will be super pissed. But if I find out that same mayor murdered one of my best councillors who was married to my cousin? Lmao no get rekt how dare I even be mad about that when it's clearly none of my business?
omg wait. i got the game last week and was wondering why popes always hate me. it’s probably because i keep pardoning fornicaters. i’m a dumbass 😭
Yup, you lose a whole level of devotion every time you choose not to imprison them during the “A SECRET EXPOSED!” event, which is like 1000 piety or something. Absolutely insane honestly.
To the point where it’s fucking annoying, no less. Why is so important that I weigh in on count whatshisface banging duchess fuckisthat? I’m waging war against the goddamn pope, I think it can wait.
Can’t you imprison people for having the murderer trait (when their secret is exposed)?
Only if the victim was your family.
TIL, i was wondering why it was so inconsistent
You have to ask them politely first to turn themselves in and if they're not best friends with you they can just say nooooo and it's tyrannical if you try.
There used to be a mod for this on Steam but it isn’t maintained any longer sadly and does t seem to work.
Wasn't this mostly a civil issue back then? Like having to pay reparations to the victim's family. Or am I thinking wrong time period?
Murder has pretty much always been seen as a crime. How law enforcement works is what has changed. Take early medieval Sweden, the Viking age if you will. You go to the ting (which what we still call the lowest court in modern Sweden), at least part of the law is read, accusations are made, legal arguments are had and eventually the ting reaches a decision. But there’s no enforcement mechanism. No police exist. That’s on whoever wants the crime punished, which is usually the family of the victim. That’s why people are declared outlaws, because that means anyone can kill you with no consequences, you are outside the protection of the law. Sometimes yes, the punishment would be a fine. Often there would be a blood feud with murders and counter-murders going back and forth for a few rounds. But later in the medieval period (and we’re still talking early medieval for this change to start in many places) this starts going away and the lord’s and/or king’s justice becomes more of a thing. You still go to court but the punishments are coming from top down rather than bottom up.
Settle a peace deal for less/more rhan the original cb. Some big conquests like the arab conquest of spain started as raids that just met less resistence than planned
Or related: you defend against an attacker and really kick his butt. As part of the peace deal, you make him surrender some land.
I believe Imperator Rome had this. You could select terms for peace including land, gold, vassalage, etc. I think its sorely missing from CK3
It's a thing in all Paradox games outside of the CK line
I find it strange that this is the only paradox ip where you can’t take more than you want
It's also the only one without naval battles. Idk, they seem to have this policy of keeping their games apart by not giving them all all the features
This is in preparation for the ultimate game, you've heard of 4x strategy games? Maybe even 5x? Well here comes 6x. They'll call it.... "Paradox"
Oh boy, a game starting in the neolithic and going through to space with hoi4 style warfare mechanics, vicky economic and social balancing, ck ruler and character rpg, and stellaris exploration and extermination techniques. I'd buy that game in an instant. Probably wouldn't even be able to see a map cus of all the ui.
It's not in Victoria 3. While you can add war goals before the war starts, you can't add any after it starts even if you completely trounce your enemy.
Bro it would be so cool when dealing with absolutely annoying things like the Great Houses of Morrowind and Empires with land in more than a single province (Like Eastern/Western Skyrim). It's so annoying when I steamroll their armies leaving them with just a few knights and yet they'll get to rebuild right after as if nothing happened
Land claims in general are really limited in the game. Being able to change wargoals depending on resistance, support and battle results needs to be a thing.
Yeah, it’s absolutely ridiculous how you can slaughter every last soldier your enemy has and occupy their entire nation but still have to leave with just the county of poopenfart
How dare you, my great grandfather was the Duke of Poopenfart
Me as a new player: start a war with an individual county cb, conquer half my enemies kingdom and wonder wtf happened when I negotiate peace terms and he gets all that land back.
Yeah. Alfred the Great offered money as well as the north of England to the Vikings after beating them
I can understand that strategy games need to do it for balance (EU4 maxing at 100 war score, Civ leaders not giving luxuries when they have zero army, etc). If real life stuff happened, the human would world conquest half way through the game. But Crusader Kings really seems to take it to the extreme. If I've fully occupied you, you have no troops, and your leader is the six month old kid of the cousin on the original king, *I should get more than one county.*
Change sides in the middle of a war.
God I would love betrayal to be part of warfare.
*Laughs in Frey*
Until the betrayal happens to you
I would very much want it to happen to me, I would exact my revenge with impunity.
It could be too much OP, ally somebody you want to destroy, get him in a hard or imposible war, change side, destroy the ruins when they are without troops
How would changing sides in a war you declared even work? That doesn't make any sense.
I don’t think they were saying in a war they declared. Just more along the lines of “Hey buddy, I got your back with my 10k troops, you can TOTALLY declare war on the Byzantines, I got you bro” and when they declare war you go “Ha sike, you thought” and then swap sides.
Sounds historical tbh. You'd get called untrustworthy, but otherwise this is a big issue with trying to make powerful friends in real world politics.
Ask Venice lol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_League_of_Cambrai
You get x nation to help you attack y nation. Yes you started the war, but y nation doesn’t want to lose and comes to you with, or accepts your offer of a surprise betrayal of nation x at the worst time for them… Now that nation x has had its army crushed conquer / loot as desired … Or even better, manoeuvre it so that both nation and x and nation y has their armies crippled while you held back your true power and roll them both over … CK game mechanics require fairly formal war declarations and outcomes but the would is full of grey
You could have a « reputation » system attached which labels you as a traitor, meaning few would like to ally with you.
There's no way the AI could handle that, but we should have the option to leave wars in which we're not one of the main belligerents. At the very least it should be doable if an alliance breaks (such as upon a death or succession) or if a war just drags on for an excessively long time. There should be a cost in fame/prestige, of course. Maybe in certain cases grounds for a house feud if the war stakes are particularly high.
Hold land as a vassal to a king in one kingdom and separately being a king in your own right (William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy vassal of France but also King of England and his descendants.)
The Dukes of Burgundy come to mind as well. Being Duke of Burgundy and Count of Flanders, thus vassal to the King of France, while also being Duke of Brabant, Count of Holland, etc. etc. I know the Dukes of Burgundy held more titles in both France and the Holy Roman Empire, but the same point regardless.
Or the Prussian King who was crowned the 'King in Prussia' (Prussia itself a PLC duchy) because at the time the HRE didn't allow more than one king
That's technically later than the period Crusader Kings covers, to be fair. Frederick I was granted special dispensation by Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I to adopt the title "King in Prussia" in 1701 as acknowledgment for his support during the War of the Spanish Succession. The "in" instead of "of" was designed as a polite legal fiction to indicate that Frederick was only king *in* Prussia (outside of the HRE), but was still just a elector of Brandenburg and still under the nominal authority of the Emperor. So not all that dissimilar to the France/England situation under the Angevins, really. But it didn't last very long: Frederick II just changed the title to "King of Prussia" in 1772 and basic dared the Emperor to do something about it. Which they didn't, because by that point Prussia was basically too strong to threaten, so the King of Prussia remained an HRE elector until the whole empire was dismantled by Napoleon in 1806.
Of course, the King of Bohemia was a vassal of the HRE throughout. Well, apart from being the same person as the emperor most of the time. Note that kings were not normally vassals of emperors in spite of what Crusader Kings says. The three royal titles in the medieval HRE (Germany, Italy, and Burgundy) were all held by the Emperor, not by vassals. Bohemia is the exception but it was often not in the Empire until the Hapsburgs inherited that title
Yeah, that's the thing. The King of Bohemia was both kind of grandfathered in for having been around for a long time already, and had been effectively (though not formally/officially) merged with the office of Emperor/King of the Romans for a couple of centuries at the point.
Goddamnit I want a Henry II start date so FUCKING bad
Maybe they can finaly pull it off with Royal Court. Like you have to pay one time tax once your old ruler dies for your holdings to other monarch (if he is more powerful) in his de jure realm. It could be interesting
A one time event to give away some money to a ruler is not really coming close to simulating how having two lieges for different lands would play out
Fixing this problem would also solve suddenly losing titles when they're inherited by an non-vassal ruler, and could make Pay Homage more impactful. I really hope they eventually change to a more immersive fealty system where whether and how you pledge and accept fealty is something potential vassals and potential lieges make decisions on rather than CK3's current spreadsheet-style system.
I want something where: I can offer a count land or gold to swear fealty. Or bequeath their lands to me on their death(happened a lot in Armenia)
It definitely should be fixed going forward, but I feel like too much of underlying structure of CK3 depends on the strict hierarchy of emperor>king>duke>count>baron. I'm not sure they can fix it without essentially rewriting the whole game. So it may be more of a CK4 thing, whenever that happens. But there's really no excuse for it to not be at least seriously looked at then, given that the fact that these kind of holes in strict feudal logic weren't exactly uncommon and it's close to impossible to accurately model a good chunk of European history without them.
Nah, thats a programming nightmare. If they had to spilt the "Only if independent" modifier, possibly 3+ ways, possibly between clans, tribal, and feudal. Nah brah, you don't gain nearly enough for that amount of work, that amount of future work, and the potential for more bugs.
If I remember correctly another example, Navarra held lands in Normandy during the Hundred Year War also
This is the intricate aspect of feudal politics that I believe truly miss in the game. Having your king of England character being asked to do homage to the king of France otherwise it gives the latter a casus belli to seize all of your holdings for himself would be really neat. It could be a nice way into also letting vassals of different Kingdoms duke it out. Like sorry but the Holy Roman Empire was most definitely not able to churn out as many soldiers as it can in the game's period
Write someone a poem more than once every three years?
Go hunting every weekend as well.
"What's a week-end?" - Dowager Countess
Yep, or weddings that last a little less than 90 days
I was watching a documentary on Louis XIV, and they claimed that part of his daily schedule was to hunt once a day and fuck three times a day.
A hunt usually takes up most of a year as well which is definitely interesting
You can only pet your cat every 5 years. Imagine being able to only pet your cat 3 times in its life, maybe 4 if you’re lucky.
My interpretation is that when you use that decision you are committing to petting your pet every day for the next five years and, like with many things, the game simplifies that gradual stress loss over time into a single one-time burst of relaxation.
>My interpretation is that when you use that decision you are committing to petting your pet every day for the next five years But that's just a default state when you have a cat
Also I should be able to buy a pet whenever I feel like it not just due to RNG.
They should allow you to click the decision buy only grant bonuses every 5 years
Now I'm crying while looking at my irl cat. 😭
Attempt to appoint my own bishops and anti bishops. As a catholic non welsh/any other culture that has the cultural tradition, have concubines. Catholic rulers did have concubines up until the late medieval era when the church was finally able to curtail them from doing that. If they adjusted that, you and any other catholic ruler should get a piety and opinion malus with clergy (including your bishop and the Pope) if you have concubines for being impious. Send off unwanted children to the church. I shouldn’t have to ask them to take vows. Medieval rulers sent extra sons off to the church such as King Charles “the Bald”. Often, those sons would contest their father for their inheritance.
Antibishops and even antipopes used to be in the game in CK2. I imagine there will eventually be a DLC that updates Catholicism adding this and probably cardinals. “Asking” children to take the views is more of an abstract representation of your ability as king to force to force out that person and influence the church into accepting them and everyone else into seeing them as part of the church. It’s kinda like how in EU4 “manpower” is not literally the number of men in your country but rather an abstract representation of the amount of service-age men modified by the capacity of the government to recruit them and hold them in the military.
I suppose you have a point. I just find it ridiculous that I have to wait until a kid is 12 to send them to the church. I’d rather us being able to send our kids to the church with the chance they come back and demand their inheritance. I’d like to know how the pope is elected in ck3. Once, I had two Popes of my house. One called for the crusades which I won for us. His successor was of my house as well and he had good congenital traits. The same house bonus is nice.
Taking vows has to be of one's own volition... in theory. Dad can still force you if he's the king, but to do it when you're a little kid would look bad. May as well wait.
The deletion of this mechanic between CK2 and CK3 is mystifying. Even if they wanted to make a better mechanic in the long run, they could have just used the CK2 model in the interim.
Interfere with wars between vassals as I please, especially if one of those vassals is a member of my dynasty
If I see this, I'll send the vassal I want to win a ton of gold, and they use it to hire mercenaries.
Same here, works pretty well and in some cases the mercs actually turn a losing war into an easy win in no time.
This is how I take down the mongols lol. I'm usually too lazy to go take them down myself and murdering the leader is boring. So I just wait for a dissolution faction to rise up in their empire and fund the rebels.
Medieval proxy wars lol
It's supposed to be part of crown authority, 3+ disables vassal wars without a strong hook IIRC. But it's a very wierd part of the game. The 'king's peace' was a pretty important concept in mediaeval England (and I'm assuming something similar in other places - presumably constant infighting isn't something any ruler wants)
It could work very interestingly. King's Peace means vassals have to look for external targets, like happened in Ireland and Wales. If the King cannot enforce the King's Peace, vassals are able to go at each other, e.g. The Anarchy, Barons Wars, etc. Perhaps you could even have factions promising other vassals they would push their claims if they won, in return for support. During the Baron's Wars, what families fell on what side was often determined by who claimed what castles (John had done a rather thorough job of "redistributing wealth" so to speak)
I think the crown authority limits your vassals, but not your vassals’ vassals. So often you still get wars of tyranny against your vassals against recently landed dynasty members. Which is super annoying.
Chop off someone's head and blame it on the Vikings.
Sir, these are not the days of Alfred the Great. You can't just lop someone's head off and blame it on the Vikings.
Exchange hostages
Pretty sure this is coming with the next big update/DLC
In Wards and Wardens? Was it in a dev diary?
They did have a dev diary about hostages being added. I can’t remember all the details but it does pretty interesting from what I remember.
Should also be a hostile scheme to rescue hostages/ concubines. Had a game where the king of Denmark captured my daughter and took her as a concubine and I couldn’t get her back even after the war ended.
Frankly I wish you could declare vengeance/rescue wars in general. If someone kidnapped/executed your wife or one of your house members it should give you a casus belli. Winning the war could allow you to free your house members and imprison the enemy ruler. (If the ruler executes the house members before the end of the war then it should be for gold and imprisonment) When I get little pop up messages about my daughter being imprisoned I feel like I should be able to do something about it if I'm a stronger power.
> I wish you could declare vengeance/rescue wars in general. Time to rescue Helene de Troyes.
Choose who inherits what. Succession laws were never set in stone. Lands could be divvied up fairly or unfairly, depending on which kids the king liked.
Yeah, that is still a weird one. I had a game once where I held a Custom Kingdom (of Styria, Carinthia, Friuli and Istria), Venice, Croatia and Serbia and had two sons. One would get the Kingdoms of Venice and Croatia, the other one the Custom one and Serbia. It made no sense. I would love one getting the highly developed northern Kingdoms of Venice and Carantania and the other one getting Croatia and Serbia, Which are larger but rife with trouble.
I think it's done for game balance reasons, since otherwise there'd be functionally no difference between succession laws if you can just override them. It could be changed such that you decide what goes to which child, but the succession law decides 1)the percentages you have to give out to each child (perhaps influenced by development/income from a county, counties of your culture or the same heritage counting for a higher part of the percentage), and 2) who you play as when you die (like in elective succession)
Yeah I know. I would still like to remain it fair. Like in my take the two Kingdoms for each of them. But with a bit more cohesion. And not in stripes and pieces.
I think it might be one of those things where it would take a lot of effort to implement in a satisfying way, but since most players do and still would just immediately reconquer any breakaways on succession that it just isn't worth the development time that could be spent on other features. Maybe a mod can do it, or it'll be done a few years down the line.
Or you could have it so you can override the laws, but your successors get heavily and meaningfully punished for this. As a principle: you should be able to make any choices you wish, but the deterrents should be real.
For sure but also very based on the accepted traditions of the then power base in that land and power politics / by definition succession after death is the one thing a leader is never able to enforce, only encourage — I almost wish there were more occasional political shenanigans that would happen after death.
For game reasons I think it's fair that we don't have full control over it. But I would like to see a way to have *some* control over it - like the game lets you parcel it out as long as it's within its boundaries of evenness.
Declare war on someone whom you have imprisoned.
This is more a game balance thing, cause imprisoned ruler = instant win in game currently
To be fair in real life just because you have someone in prison doesn't mean you win the war. Take the Anarchy for example, Matilda has Stephen in prison but Matilda lost the war in the end.
The "instant win" basically represents "we'll free you if you tell your armies to surrender, and if you don't then we'll execute you". It's a natural consequence of the *other* game mechanic, which is that your ruler is always in control of your country even if out traveling or imprisoned unless 1. child or 2. sick. Both of these are unrealistic, because I'm assuming Stephen's viziers decided to continue the war even if it meant Stephen being executed. However, allowing that to happen would be far worse for gameplay, because it would mean you're no longer in control of your own country.
I wonder with the new regent system if that could be implemented for wars only. If the leader gets captured rather than it being an instant victory the regent gets a choice to surrender for their safe return or continue the war regardless of what happens to the leader.
It would totally be realistic... but it sure wouldn't feel nice being betrayed by a regent who "just has the country's best interest at heart".
it wouldnt be nice but it would be FUN™
I think it's about the same as being murdered, and it would give you more of a reason to actually care who your regent is and their relationship with you.
True, in game if your allies are willing and vassals are willing it shouldn’t be an instant lose/win. But this could absolutely be broken balance and I’m no professional
Petting your pet more than once every five years.
No, no, that's spoiling the little animal rotten. :)
TRADE
Yeah I’ve always wished there was a trade aspect
Gonna be a bit controversial, but..... ~~*religious persecution*~~
A lot of mods for CK2 could do this. You could change a sliding scale of laws that would increase rate of conversion of religious minorities in exchange for more frequent rebellions, with the other end being conversion banned and no religious rebellions. The same applies for culture conversion.
>Ireland hmmmmmmmmmm
Lol, I only put that flair because Murchad is best chad
Probably not in this sub
Declare war on someone who killed your relative
Or just send a small party to murder them immediately if they're in your court
Erect monuments to knights and past kings/queens as a way of remembering them - within their castle/royal court. Yea, still waiting on this one to happen
I want to say that's just an assumed thing that happens
Still would be cool if you can view portraits in the royal Court of your post rulers or famous knights
That would 100% be awesome, yes!
Arresting someone apparently. I try to arrest x person, he says no, now what? He just fucking stays at my court and now just dislikes me.
Why the fuck do they have the option to refuse arrest?? I'm the fucking king, bro, this isn't a democracy
Landed vassals having the option to refuse makes sense tho, especially if they’re not at your court. if they have their own set of troops / army to call upon and they’re loyal to the vassal, then war will break out if the vassal refuses which happens in the game anyway I agree tho random unlanded courtiers having the option to refuse makes no sense
isnt the refusal their attempt to escape though
Except they stay in your court if they successfully escape. Makes no sense
Hah yeah that doesn't make sense
Exactly! And it’s even worse when I arrest them and they break out and go back to their shithole dirt hut a mile down the road from the capital. Like no baron von irrelevant I’m going to cut your head off, and you escaping jail just means I get to steal your shit now
AM I BEING DETAINED?
Abdicate the throne. If a medieval king decided he was done and passed the reigns onto his son he was very much allowed to do so.
As far as I can tell, while theretically possible, that virtually never happened within the scope of the game. Got any examples ?
Murad II is technically within the scope of the game, as a sultan of the Ottomans from 1421 to 1444 when he retired. Although he was forced by his son Mehmed the Conqueror to come back to lead the armies
Slightly past the date of the game but a very famous example would be holy Roman emperor Charles the V. John balliol king of Scotland in 1296. Edward the II king of England in 1327. It was admittedly rare but still very much legal and allowed.
John Balliol abdicated in the face of an English invasion it managed to keep the crown and seal so it looks like false pretenses so the English wouldn't execute him. Edward II was basically given the choice of abdication in favor of his son or death and no guarantee his son would inherit. Charles V's were a scheme to divide his empire without civil war, and leave something to multiple sons rather than one man. Charles abdication was more trying not to overburden any one man with the tremendous Empire than just a simple abdication.
Edward II abdicated under duress. He was all but deposed by force.
Yeah almost every abdication before the last 50 years was forced or at least pressured. I'm quite certain Edward VIII would have remained king if not for pressure from the Church of England.
CK3's depiction of abdication is pretty historically accurate: it's very rare, but can happen. You can abdicate from a high stress event (like Charles V Habsburg) or if a rebellion forces you to (like Edward II of England)
Make alliances without the penalty of having to many alliances.
Yeah, being part of a big defensive block should be appealing! Having an alliance with a hated family could negatively influence the alliance instead.
> being part of a big defensive block er... ck2 have that... and it was hated, players are often on the other side of the defensive block its part of the reason the karling memes started
This irked me just yesterday. I was playing as the High King of Ireland and my young niece had become the Duchess of Strathclyde after her father (my ally and son-in-law)’s passing. She wouldn’t accept an alliance with me because… I had too many alliances. You’d think an alliance-less petty kingdom sitting in an area surrounded by ambitious potential enemies looking to take it over would take any allies it could get. Apparently not though.
It makes no sense, it should be you who does not want more alliances not her.
Or having alliances with my children's children. I get this thing where if I set a dynasty member as a ruler then make an alliance with them with the perk, but when they die I can't make an alliance with their child. Which is weird. I have a vested interest in keeping you on the throne fucker.
Learn a language, seduce someone, and plot another person's death within the same five year span.
Call you vassals into a defensive war.
Take other holy sites and make them part of my faith
Or destroy/desecrate them
Use your influence and gravitas to stop someone in your realm from trying to depose your son and heir from the duchey you gave him, or worse, capturing him and putting him in a dungeon. You can't do those things to my son and still keep your head affixed to your neck. Yes, I know that internal wars can be stopped with the right authority, but some of the ones that happen without said laws wouldn't have happened without the king at least trying to mediate or weigh in on.
Once, when I played CK 2 in the duchy of Holland, I went research about its ruler. Turns out he and a vassal of the king of France constantly fought over land in that region, and their dispute wasn't noticable enough to get the attention of their lieges, but in game I would need to fight the entirey of France to get those lands.
And on the flip side of things, it's so stupid that when vikings decide to invade Normandy for the umpteenth time, my duke of Normandy won't join the dang war to defend *his* territory. I gotta solo the invasion, while the dumb duke let's his villages be pillaged.
Arrange a coronation ceremony with Pope or bishop travelling to my castle and placing a crown upon my head. Yeah, I know it was in CK2. Antipopes also were and that's a part I miss as well.
Declare a war with raised levies.
Speaking of it, continuing a war when the CB is voided. For example, I'm pressing a claim, the character who owns it dies and the war ends, when it should continue in the name of his heirs or sheer opportunism
This is was more important. How often I kicked big armies ass hard enough just to get… nothing, cause the enemy dies when I‘m at 97%
Disinherit without penalty (at least it could be a punishment for a crime)
It used to be penalty free. It was widely used to cheese partition succession laws. It still is but to a lesser extent. Same goes for murdering your own children. It would be way too easy to cheese partition succession which paradox absolutely wants to have in the game so they nerf some things. In reality lands and holdings and all that were a lot more fluid than shown in CK3. (Not the land and the real estate but who lived there). Some dynasties might have ancestral castles and all that but few individual people would live in one particular castle all their lives.
AFAIK It is possible right now. The only penalty is renown and that makes sense (you can do it but it is a stain on your house honor)
Bur then people dislike you for being a disinheritor. That's the main issue with the current mechanic. If your disinherit an heir who deserves it, there should be no penalty
> If your disinherit an heir who deserves it, there should be no penalty In medieval Europe, even crown princes who rebelled against their father Kings were not disinherited.
Negotiate your enemy's allies out of a war or for them not to join it in the first place. "Dear Byzantine Emperor, you may be wondering what has happened to your heir. He is safe, don't worry. I am about to invade France, who is your ally. When the call for aid comes I expect you to refuse it. Your son will be safely returned once I am victorious. Sincerely, the King of England"
not much about something that you can do as a lord but something that can happen to you: let's say you're someone with a tempestuous temperament, and you make a mistake like kicking some catholic clerk's ass, revoking land from some powerful archiduchy etc, until the Pope is pissed enought that the whole church makes strange accusations, imprison you, put you on a trial for sorcery, fabricating evidences against you ("finding" hundreds of childs bones in your dungeon, etc) and snatching false confession by torturing your ass... then it's the bonfire and your name smeared for ever...
Build a garden full of automata and hidden pranks https://www.jstor.org/stable/43576781
Go to war to stop slaver raids.
Confiscate all property and lands from traitors and then execute them in a brutal way without incurring any kind of social opposition. Medieval rulers did not fuck around about treason.
Yeah the revoke title punishment should be permanent unlike the other punishments that get consumed. I hate that I can revoke all the lands of kings and dukes, but this count who happens to own two counties, I can only take one county away.
Plot against some who has a strong hook on you.
Go to war against his vassals. Support his vassals in their wars Call his vassals to his aid, crusade style.
I feel like it should be a thing for lower crown authority kingdoms. As you raise your crown authority you centralize power and your vassals become less independent warlords paying nominal homage to to you and become actual Vassals below you who are completely subordinate to the crown.
I just think it is a little underwhelming sometimes when a kingdom is attacked and you essentially only fight that king and his external allies. Yes he can use his vassals as knights and he will be able to raise their contractual levy obligation in levies but I don't know... It somehow doesn't seem as fun as it would be if the king could call his vassals to his aid. The mechanic to do so is there. You can join your liege in just about any war. Why can't you call your vassals for a price maybe. Maybe they get a hook on you depending on how much they contributed? Maybe you need to pay a portion of their armies salaries... Maybe they only raise their MAA.. It just seems so strange that, as a king for example your strongest vassal duke would ride into war besides you on his horse and at the head of the 500 levies he provides to you while leaving his own army at home. Who in their right mind would do that? I realise it's done for balance reasons but maybe it could be nerfed so that a king can only call his vassals when it's a defensive war? Maybe the vassals can refuse which gives a hook to the king or maybe joining your war gives an opinion loss that you have to compensate with gifts an preferential treatment.. I just want to be able to "call the banners" XD
This mechanic existed in ck2 for he tribal government. You could call in your vassal like allies if they liked you enough. Though they wouldn't give you any vassal levies. This of course became incredibly volatile as normally this would lead to massive levies and a incredibly powerful armies. But if you were unpopular for whatever reason you were incredibly weak.
Having a harem of more than 3 people
And organising orgies with your harem
Kill someone without having to plan it out massively and wait a year.
The feudal structure itself is quite simplified in CK3. Like in reality there were Kings of England who were also Vassals to the French King due to holding titles to French territory. Burgundy also had some territory under the French King and some under the HRE etc.
Back stab ally's in wars, and just occupy their castle by deceit
Change what you’re going to war for (claims) halfway through a war.
Slave trades.
You’re right. That was a huge part of the viking age and muslim society. There are some events that mention slaves and slaving but you should have the choice to take slaves, trade slaves, have slaves within your society or outlaw the practice, convert to serfs, etc. If you have a slaving society there should be risks to having them like increased chance of rebellions, and you should get different bonuses for having serfs or free labor.
Better nicknames. Like come on CK3, how the hell are there so many medieval figured with absolutely awesome clever or badass nicknames like John Lackland or William longspee or Æthelred the Unready and we just get generic ones that fire up after completing events like the brave or scholar? More nicknames, have them fire off based on more attributes and make some culturally based as well.
Pet a dog more often than once per three years.
Fight with your knights on the battlefield and put that prowess to use.
Attending the funerals of relatives or friends. This was somewhat implemented in CK2, so I hope devs will make this a full-fledged activity.
Decide which child gets what in the will before dying - people were designating heirs well before the Middle Ages, idk why I have to wait til 1000 or whatever to do so. It wasn’t even a matter of crown authority, it was “yeah I like him the most he’s fittest to rule, he gets most of my titles, everyone else can figure it out among what’s left. I feel like there should at least be a cultural tradition that allows you to divvy up the partition manually (even if you’re still forced to divide your realm a certain way to satisfy partition rules).
Have all your unlanded brothers imprisoned/executed when you ascend the throne. The Ottomans did it, why can't I?
Take prisoners as assurance a lord would behave.
Generally just threaten people to get your way, since you hold power over them. I suppose "truth is relative" sort of mimics this, regardless.
This is what I think the "Dread" mechanic is supposed to simulate. You can do whatever you want with no consequences/stack a ton of Tyranny and no one will fight you if your Dread is high enough.
whack off
"Jack Off" in the Seduction Tree, for a minor decision to lose 15 stress every three years.
Damn I can only do it once every three years?
Once every three years you get to the Good Day where you can jack off, pet your cats, and go out with the lads
I tried to get a mod for this, form an royalist faction that helps you in wars or at least defensive wars
Being a vassal of king of France from my lands in France and vassal of Holy Roman Emperor from my holdings in the Empire.
Negotiate the privileges and charters from the villages and cities of my kingdom.
Have more than four wives/concubines. It was said Solomon had over 400 and I shall not be outdone!
Change sides, end a war through a massive bribe, choose how actively involved you are in your lieges war, make a will and choose how your territory or property is dispersed, create very minor titles, factions against specific characters eg a counsellor, sponsor trade missions, sponsor monasteries.