RFCE 2.0 Titles

[deadeye943]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you already a King/Caliph or whatever when you are the just leader of a Civ? Then I don't think you also should get a title which says exactly the same.

For instance, Philip II is already the King of Spain (and therefore leader of Spain). I don't think that he also should get the Title. Ofcourse he is the King of Spain, otherwise he wouldn't be the leader of the Civ!

What if the civ totally fails in kicking the Muslims out of Iberia? What if the civ only owns a little part of northern Spain? Philip II wouldn't be called the King of Spain. That's where titles come in. To show what you achieved and to also give you a bonus for achieving it.

 

[merijn_v1]

Just hypothetical:
Portugal would have conquer Andalusia (and ofcourse Portugal itself). The country would still be called Portugal. (And the king "King of Portugal"). IRL, they didn't, but the ruler was still the King of Portugal. The country was the same civilization, but the controlled areas were different. You aren't the king of a country because you have certain areas, but because you are the leader of the country. It's independent from from the areas you control.

If Spain only existed of Galatia, Asturia and Leon, it would still be Spain. The king of that area would still be the King of Spain, because that's the name of his empire. But the muslims could still be in Iberia.

Titles aren't meant to say that you're the leader of your civ, but something bigger. You shouldn't get a title because you fail to conquer something.

 

[AdrienIer]

But IRL if Spain only consisted of Galatia Asturia and Leon it would be Kingdom of Leon not kingdom of Spain, if it incorporated more area south it would be kingdom of Castille, and if it was composed of all the north of Spain it would be kindom of Castille and Aragon. Spain isn't mentioned as kindom of Spain until the reigns of Isabella and Ferdinand.

 

[Michael Vick]

But IRL if Spain only consisted of Galatia Asturia and Leon it would be Kingdom of Leon not kingdom of Spain, if it incorporated more area south it would be kingdom of Castille, and if it was composed of all the north of Spain it would be kindom of Castille and Aragon. Spain isn't mentioned as kindom of Spain until the reigns of Isabella and Ferdinand.

Exactly right. The inhabitants of the Kingdom of León were not "Spanish" by default, the word "Spain" comes from "España" which comes from "Hispannia", the Latin term that designated the territory that is today Spain. Naturally, it was the best way to describe the Kingdom that emerged from the union of Castile and Aragon. Only the ruler of that territory can be called the King of "Spain".

Titles aren't meant to say that you're the leader of your civ, but something bigger. You shouldn't get a title because you fail to conquer something.

The ruler of every piece of land in Europe no matter how small had a title. There always needs to be a way to describe what it is that the ruler rules over. The title "King of León" is the reward for holding the territory of León. This is obviously very easy to do, so it´s obviously not as good a title as "King of Spain". Assuming that titles come with rewards similar to UPs, the reward for being the "King of León" wouldn´t be as good as the reward for being "King of Spain".

Besides this, the less significant titles such as "King of Leòn" that you get just for founding your first city still serve to add historic flavor to the game, in this way they are just like the Dynamic Civ Names. If titles were to be implemented in RFCE 2.0, titles and DCNs would be directly based on each other. I imagine that the titles and their rewards would be displayed in an advisor screen similar to the way the colonies screen was added into the game. This way, the player can be aware of many important things, such as what titles they currently possess, the UP-rewards that result, the possibilities/requirements for acquiring greater titles, and the titles that other leaders possess.

 

[merijn_v1]

Maybe Spain wasn't a fortunate example. I'm trying to say that you should get the title "King (or whatever the ruler is called) of the Civ your playing".

The player is the LH, right? And the LH is the ruler of the civ. (or represents it) But if the ruler of the civ isn't the king (or emir or whatever type or leader you have) of the civ, who is it then? If you are the leader of the civ, but not a king, it doesn't make sense to me.

Spoiler :

This is what I tried to say. Maybe in the previous posts I didn't describe it as clearly, because I couldn't find the right words back then. It probably wasn't a good idea to take the Spanish as an example.

Another example. If Hungary controls Hungary and Bulgaria. Then Austria conquers all of Hungary and the Hungarians are only left with Bulgaria. (And suprisingly, the don't collapse) The ruler of Austria may be the ruler of the Hungarian territory, but he can't be the ruler of the Hungarian people, as the still exist. (In Bulgaria) The Hungarian king is still the king of Hungary. (Hungary is only in a different place) You can't have 2 kings for the same people. (Technically, this is possible, but I don't think the Hungarians would acknowledge the Austrian King as their king if he doesn't control the area they live in.)

 

[Spirictum]

I totally agree with this idea of titles. Mixed with dynamic civ names it could make RFCE have a lot more civs even without adding anything new (LHs, civ options, UHVs). The trick is your name changes as what you possess is different.

About grouping smaller titles into larger titles and all stuff related to this discussion, my idea is simple: Historical titles found on those extensive lists monarchs used to have should be implemented for aesthetical purpose. Those should be listed in an advisor, all as said before, but when you talk to the leader, it should be titled with the most important title it has. If King of Galicia is inferior to King of Spain, the leader is King of Spain. If the King of Aragon is the King of Castile, and not of Spain, both these titles are equal, so the leader is the King of Castile and Aragon. If the leader becomes Holy Roman Emperor it will appear only as Holy Roman Emperor, and all other titles would only appear on that advisor.

Dynamic civ names should be related to the titles, that would make it a lot more realistic, and would add lots of civ names even without adding whole new civs to compete with the ones that already exist. If you are the ruler of the Spanish Civ, and you only have Galicia, you are the Kingdom of Galicia, and the King of Galicia. If León is indy, there's the Kingdom of León. Indies are the Kingdoms, Duchies and Counties out there, not accounted as a full civ, but still there.

I have to disagree with merijn about the Hungarian example. If you are the King of Hungary and is expelled from Hungary, and only rules over Bulgaria, that doesn't mean your people fled with you and left their homes for austrians to take over. Hungary is a place, a territorial dimensions linked by culture and costums, and its people will majorly remain there for their lives are tied to that place, even changing names, rulers or conquerors. Austria will get the Hungarian provincial titles, but I agree that if the King of Hungary is still there, this title should not fall to Austria.

Thinking about that, there's an idea: After a civ gets a bigger title (King of Spain, King of Portugal, King of France) only by collapsing it could be owned by someone else. So (imagining the extra civs from RFCE++) if the King of Aragon loses the needed provinces for that title to the King of León, we will have a King of León and Aragon (not necessarily in name, but surely in titles) and the former King of Aragon will be reduced to something smaller it has (obviously only if it doesn't collapse). After this original King of León becomes King of Spain, it can lose all the Spanish territories and only keep Tetouan for example, but it will still have the King of Spain title, and should be treated like that.

I think that solves the issue about Bulgarian Hungary still having the King of Hungary besides only having Bulgaria, and making it possible for the King of León to become the King of Galicia, if León is taken. We could put some stability related to titles too, like if you get a bigger title, you gain extra stability, if you lose provinces needed for a bigger title that you already have you lose stability. But that's another big discussion to come.

The Titles idea is amazing, but as it seems we will need a lot more discussions to come with a final idea.

 

[alpav]

Spoiler :

I totally agree with this idea of titles. Mixed with dynamic civ names it could make RFCE have a lot more civs even without adding anything new (LHs, civ options, UHVs). The trick is your name changes as what you possess is different.

About grouping smaller titles into larger titles and all stuff related to this discussion, my idea is simple: Historical titles found on those extensive lists monarchs used to have should be implemented for aesthetical purpose. Those should be listed in an advisor, all as said before, but when you talk to the leader, it should be titled with the most important title it has. If King of Galicia is inferior to King of Spain, the leader is King of Spain. If the King of Aragon is the King of Castile, and not of Spain, both these titles are equal, so the leader is the King of Castile and Aragon. If the leader becomes Holy Roman Emperor it will appear only as Holy Roman Emperor, and all other titles would only appear on that advisor.

Dynamic civ names should be related to the titles, that would make it a lot more realistic, and would add lots of civ names even without adding whole new civs to compete with the ones that already exist. If you are the ruler of the Spanish Civ, and you only have Galicia, you are the Kingdom of Galicia, and the King of Galicia. If León is indy, there's the Kingdom of León. Indies are the Kingdoms, Duchies and Counties out there, not accounted as a full civ, but still there.

I have to disagree with merijn about the Hungarian example. If you are the King of Hungary and is expelled from Hungary, and only rules over Bulgaria, that doesn't mean your people fled with you and left their homes for austrians to take over. Hungary is a place, a territorial dimensions linked by culture and costums, and its people will majorly remain there for their lives are tied to that place, even changing names, rulers or conquerors. Austria will get the Hungarian provincial titles, but I agree that if the King of Hungary is still there, this title should not fall to Austria.

Thinking about that, there's an idea: After a civ gets a bigger title (King of Spain, King of Portugal, King of France) only by collapsing it could be owned by someone else. So (imagining the extra civs from RFCE++) if the King of Aragon loses the needed provinces for that title to the King of León, we will have a King of León and Aragon (not necessarily in name, but surely in titles) and the former King of Aragon will be reduced to something smaller it has (obviously only if it doesn't collapse). After this original King of León becomes King of Spain, it can lose all the Spanish territories and only keep Tetouan for example, but it will still have the King of Spain title, and should be treated like that.

I think that solves the issue about Bulgarian Hungary still having the King of Hungary besides only having Bulgaria, and making it possible for the King of León to become the King of Galicia, if León is taken. We could put some stability related to titles too, like if you get a bigger title, you gain extra stability, if you lose provinces needed for a bigger title that you already have you lose stability. But that's another big discussion to come.

The Titles idea is amazing, but as it seems we will need a lot more discussions to come with a final idea.

Well said! I am 100% behind your ideas. Let's hope that they implement it.

 

[Spirictum]

@alpav: thx, I really love CIV, and this mod is my favorite (and Legends of Revolution as well). I like to give ideas to make it even better, and it's good to see they're being appreciated. Obviously lots of my ideas come from others' ideas, so I would like to thank everyone who has been giving time and mental effort to make this mod one of the best out there.

I don't like the idea of fictional titles, only if they were awarded as a major accomplishment that never ocurred in history, like a game bonus for players who accomplish something unthinkable, like Roman Emperor (controller of all former provinces of the Empire), Western Emperor (controller of all western europe), Eastern Emperor (like the previous, but in the east), Supreme Caliph (muslim owner of all the first muslim invasion territories and former ottoman territories), Mediterranean Ruler (owner of all provinces bordering the Mediterranean Sea) and others like that. Not that all should be introduced, but some could be only for gameplay achievements. They would be so hard to get, that normally nobody would see them, only if you really want to. And the AI would never own them (or at least 99% chances for that, France can get quite big with their UP, but most of the times it falls apart). But actually this is minor compared to the small and big titles, and could be discarded.

Small titles on the other hand should be there and in huge numbers, showed in this new Titles Advisor. Bigger titles could have stability issues, like I said before. If you are the King of Aragon and becomes King of Spain, instead of a specific bonus (like gold, culture, FPs, free ups for units, free units) it could give you a Stability Bonus. That would not only encourage the player to achieve titles, but it would make overexpansion a little easier. Instead of expanding your empire towards anywhere near, you should seek the bigger titles to get a stability boost. Better to focus on conquering all Spain and get the Spanish King title to put together with your French King title, then to conquer cities in Germany, Italy and Spain, and not getting any big title at all.

On the other hand it would make it harder to keep new territories for two reasons: If you don't destroy the owner of a Big title, you won't get it, and so the stability boost won't come. And if you let a province (or even a single city inside a province) be conquered and that province was needed for a bigger title, you should lose stability. So it'll be easier to overexpand, but it will need doubled effort to keep things stable.

Actually I see Stability being a better option as a reward for titles then bonuses for units, as it seems more accurate to me. Maybe in some cases the bonuses are more accurate, but no example comes to my mind.

The difference between smaller and bigger titles IMO is that smaller titles were often lost and gained through war and deceit, before and after the introduction of Bigger titles. The bigger were more solid, and would be harder targets for foreign rulers (easy from inner coups, but that didn't change the independent status of the place). Examples of both:
Smaller - King of Castile, Despot of Epirus, Duke of Milan
Bigger - King of France, Tsar of Russia, King of Spain

 

[Michael Vick]

Spirictum, I agree with you on just about everything as probably a lot of others do too. You have stated in your two posts what I´ve been aiming for since the beginning of the "titles" concept.

I have only one objection, that maybe extra stability from titles would be redundant considering that there are already stability maps for each civ. More stability modifiers based on territory would be either redundant or contradictory (Unstable for France to control part of England but stable for France to control all of it?). I think that instead of stability there are a ton of cool bonuses to apply to titles. Take the (really interesting) Danish UP for example: the collection of tolls from ships entering and exiting the Baltic Sea. Wouldn´t that make a lot more sense as a bonus for anyone that controlled Denmark? That´s a real example of a real benefit that comes just from being King of that land called Denmark.

I was also going to reply to merijn the exact same way, the titles will be based on provinces so they´re tied to territories and nothing else. The situation described where the Hungarian King lost Hungary and kept Bulgaria is indeed complicated, but this can only mean that the King of Hungary became the King of Bulgaria, nothing more. The titles only apply to the ruler after all, not the status of the people of that civ, the ruler is just a person after all.

Look at the monarchs of present day Spain, the Bourbons. They´re the descendants of the Kings of France, but they came to be accepted over time as the Kings of Spain, not the misplaced Kings of France currently stuck in Spain. Look at the present-day English monarchs, the House of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha, Windsor is a made-up name in an attempt to sound more English. They´re Germans, but they still found themselves on the throne of England. Imagine that the same would happen to the new ethnic Hungarian rulers of Bulgaria.

 

[merijn_v1]

I was also going to reply to merijn the exact same way, the titles will be based on provinces so they´re tied to territories and nothing else. The situation described where the Hungarian King lost Hungary and kept Bulgaria is indeed complicated, but this can only mean that the King of Hungary became the King of Bulgaria, nothing more. The titles only apply to the ruler after all, not the status of the people of that civ, the ruler is just a person after all.

And this ruler is the ruler of the Hungarian empire. (The empire only is in a different place than is was historically, but that doesn't matter) And the ruler of the Hungarian empire is the Hungarian king, no matter where that empire is or what the people of that civ think of him. You don't become another king just because you control a different area, while you still control the same empire. You are the King of a civ because you control the Empire, not because you control a certain area.


Take a look at Poland for example. Just before WW2, the Polish empire was in a different area as the are now or in 992-1025. If I understand you well, you say that Poland in the first link should be called Ukraine, because they are in their territory. The King of Poland did have the title "King of Poland", even though he didn't control the area we call "Poland". What you're saying is that the King shouldn't get this title, because he didn't control a certain area.

 

[Spirictum]

I don't think that bonuses for units should be avoided at all, maybe some titles could give that based on historical traits, but stability seems to me more suitable to every bigger title. That would make easier for France to control all former provinces of Spain at a slightly smaller penalty, just because it could get the bigger King of Spain title and that would give a small stability bonus. Actually getting Pamplona and Valencia would be a lot better for your stability then getting La Mancha, Andalusia, Galicia, Leon, Catalonia, Castile, Aragon and Navarre (just because of the number of territories annexed), but getting all of these would be better then getting the same number of provinces (cities) all in different places without getting any bigger title (some in Spain, some in Italy, some in Germany and so on).

I think Bigger titles could give stability bonus (a small bonus, maybe only 3, maybe even 5 points, but no more). Losing a city that is needed for your bigger titles on the other hand should get you a loss of this stability bonus, but not the title itself. That would make the situation of the King of Hungary possible. If the ruler of the magyar evolved into King of Hungary by getting all provinces needed for this title (as in the beggining the hungarian player is more this magyar leader, then the King of Hungary himself), and Austria invades and takes all hungarian cities needed for the title, leaving a Hungarian King in Bulgaria, he should still be treated as King of Hungary (and any smaller titles for the bulgarian province(s) he has) until collapsing. That would be the difference for bigger titles: only possible if the last owner collapsed.

So Kings of Hungary, Spain, France, Poland could be Kings in exile, if their lands have been dominated and they resisted collapsing. But the King of Aragon, Duke of Normandy, Duke of Milan, Despot of Epirus should lose their titles if they lose the needed province. If the King of Aragon and Sicily lose Aragon, he becomes the King of Sicily. If the King of France loses Normandy, he is still the King of France, but no more the Duke of Normandy.

This stability bonus would make oriented expansion a lot better then disoriented ones. I think it was indeed easier for a France that intended on conquering all of Spain, instead of getting two provinces there, two more in Germany, one in England and one more in Italy.

Maybe denying the stability bonus for rightful owners of a bigger title (the spanish civs for King of Spain, France for King of France, hungary for King of Hungary) and only allowing it for foreign rulers (for the sake of oriented expansion) seems good to me, but I think it would be better to calculate all this stuff first and then decide. Gameplay purposes for balance should be more important then only conceptual claims (like the ones I've been trying to explain here)

 

[Michael Vick]

And this ruler is the ruler of the Hungarian empire. (The empire only is in a different place than is was historically, but that doesn't matter) And the ruler of the Hungarian empire is the Hungarian king, no matter where that empire is or what the people of that civ think of him. You don't become another king just because you control a different area, while you still control the same empire. You are the King of a civ because you control the Empire, not because you control a certain area.


Take a look at Poland for example. Just before WW2, the Polish empire was in a different area as the are now or in 992-1025. If I understand you well, you say that Poland in the first link should be called Ukraine, because they are in their territory. The King of Poland did have the title "King of Poland", even though he didn't control the area we call "Poland". What you're saying is that the King shouldn't get this title, because he didn't control a certain area.

That´s a bit of an exaggeration, the Poland in the first link is definitely still Poland as it controls the core area that is Poland. The dynamic civ name for that Poland in RFC Europe would still be the Kingdom of Poland because the civ that originally holds the bigger title maintains it even when the civ starts to lose territory but holds at least some territory that makes up the bigger title (as described by Spirictum). What has happened in your first link is that the Polish King has managed to became the Prince of Galicia and the Prince of Volhynia, but has started to lose territory to the Germans in the West. It will remain Poland as long as it controls some of Poland, the civ is just caught in an awkward situation as it´s expanded into Ukraine while it´s losing in Germany, it´s definitely not Ukraine though.

Poland in your example hasn´t really shifted as much as you imply in your post, it´s not in a different place, it´s just shifted shape because of politics and war. Also, you have to consider that this is just Civ IV and the probability that a civ will migrate across the map is not that great. In the case of Hungary losing all of its Hungarian cities to Austria, it will probably just collapse, if not, the dynamic name becomes Kingdom of Bulgaria or whatever. It´s not that big of a deal, especially considering that the King is ruling over Bulgarians anyway.

 

[ezzlar]

The bigger titles would create some interesting UHVs!

I am not sure if I understand all the ideas for titles but what I think would be a simple approach is that:

- All leaders start with a title. That title can never be lost and it can never be earned by another leader. If all fails, you still have your "basic" title
- Regional titles applies as long as you hold a certain area. Reward should be a one time permanent stability boost. If you lose a province needed for the title, you lose the title. The regional title should never be given a civ as "basic" title.
- Grand titles. A hard earned title. Bonus only applies when holding all territory needed and should not be stability. Many good suggestions are given in this thread!

One example (I might be wrong here however), Spain. Civs in the area start as Cordobans, Leon etc. Titles are according to the civs. The first civ to capture a certain number of provinces become king of Spain. Leon never becomes Spain unless they capture the needed territories and hold them. If they lose the territories, they revert to kingdom of Leon.

Or maybe that is what you all have written? (bit tired, surfing on the way home to Stockholm, 10.000 metres high in the air)

 

[AdrienIer]

You've got almost everything right : you get small titles for holding small geographical areas (so basically all leaders start with a title because, well, they control their capital's region), and if you manage to get a whole region you get a big title (along with a few bonuses). That title will not be lost the same way as the small ones, you're still king of Spain if you lose Barcelona for example but (and that's just an idea I just got), you could be allowed to claim a title (for example king of Spain) as soon as you have sufficient territories (half of the required ones ?) which would give you some advantages but a huge diplo penalty with the other civ in the Spanish land (most probably the Cordobans and Aragon if you're Leon) and small penalty with the other civs (cause it means you're expansionist).

 

[Emperor Bosco I]

A few responses:

Secondly, I think allowing titles to be take from vassalized civs would make title acquisition easier and add an exciting new element to vassals. I would like all of your opinions, however, on how this should be handled, mainly: would the vassalized civ lose its title in both name and bonus, or would the dominant civ merely be able to use them to collect pieces for a larger title? E.g., would an English King who vassalizes Scotland be "King of Great Britain, King of England, King of Scotland" while the Scottish player loses all titles, or would they be broken up as "King of Great Britain, King of England" and a vassal as "King of Scotland"?

I think it would make more sense the second way, as the vassal still does have direct control over the Scottish people.

In the Kingdom of Hungary example, I think it should be allowed for the Magyar King of Bulgaria to keep the title of King of Hungary as he is the Hungarian player, but that the Austrian Emperor could have the title of King of Hungary as well, since he has the territory. There have been disputed titles in history on numerous occasions, for example between England and France. So basically, the player could choose which one to side with as King of Hungary and act on it, either trying to collapse the Magyars or liberate the Hungarian core area.

It also seems to me that titles should be given for complete control of the territory, but taken away for a considerable, but not total, loss of territory. For example, if you needed only half the regions to claim the title of King of Spain, then theoretically the Leonese player would be King of Spain with only Galicia, Leon, Castile, La Mancha and Andalusia, leaving Aragon separate and intact. On the other hand, if we required complete control for the title, Leon would need the titles of Crown of Castile and Crown of Aragon to complete it, but losing Catalonia alone to France wouldn't mean you lost the title. Maybe if you lose one of the titles directly under the major one you lose the title, like if you subsequently lost Aragon, Navarre and Valencia as well, thus all of the Crown of Aragon. Then the Leonese player would be bumped down to the next biggest, Crown of Castile, and the French player would gain the Crown of Aragon, with the Kingdom of Spain neutralized.

EDIT: Should we also base the title on religion, for example King of Spain for Catholic/Protestant, Tsar of Spain for Orthodox, and Sultan of Spain for Islam? If so, what about a Jewish nation? (I ask because I've played against a Jewish Denmark before.)

 

[merijn_v1]

EDIT: Should we also base the title on religion, for example King of Spain for Catholic/Protestant, Tsar of Spain for Orthodox, and Sultan of Spain for Islam? If so, what about a Jewish nation? (I ask because I've played against a Jewish Denmark before.)

Really? IIRC, the AI is forbidden to have Judaism as their state religion. Was it RFCE++? It might be bugged there.

I like the idea of making the title religion-dependent, but we don't need to have a title for the Jewish civs, as the AI won't turn Jewish and the human player will probably don't switch to Judaism, because it doesn't get any benifits, while other religions does.

 

[Emperor Bosco I]

I don't remember if it was ++ or not, but I know on ++ I couldn't switch to Judaism. I think I got bugged out of a victory condition for the Polish. I have the 3 catholic cathedrals, 3 orthodox cathedrals and the 2 protestant cathedrals, and then I built a Jewish Quarter and Kazimierz, but didn't get the JQs from it, but my Jewish cities won't let me build any now. Considering Worldbuildering one in.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I think I got bugged out of a victory condition for the Polish. I have the 3 catholic cathedrals, 3 orthodox cathedrals and the 2 protestant cathedrals, and then I built a Jewish Quarter and Kazimierz, but didn't get the JQs from it, but my Jewish cities won't let me build any now. Considering Worldbuildering one in.

This is in your current, post 1.0 game?
I thought we have fixed this with 3Miro at least half a year ago...

 

[Emperor Bosco I]

Yep, played it just yesterday, and downloaded the mod (-modmod) maybe a month ago.

EDIT:WBing 3 more JQs didn't fix it, and I do have all the cathedrals. I guess the condition itself is broken.

 

[The Flame8]

The titles proposed seem completely too small scale. You should get a title for conquering all of a certain region like Russia as Muscovites, Kievans, etc, or being named Holy Roman Emperor if you control almost all of Central Europe with high Piety (or whatever it's called in RFCE). Maybe the title of Eastern Roman Emperor for controlling almost all of Turkey and Southeast Europe. You shouldn't get a title for just being the ruler of a small area like Normandy or something.