Modeling feudalism

[officialdeo]

This is going to be a bit of a long post so bear with me a bit.

Some of you may know me as the guy who rambles about strategic analysis of many factions in the game. One thing that bothers me is how I only rely on a few and sometimes cheesy tricks to solve most factions' problems, even though many of them are vastly different in their economic and political structure. The purpose of this thread is to model degrees of feudalism in a rudimentary way, such that eventually different factions will have different playstyle.

If we follow my strategy for the Roman Empire, at some point we will manage this:



The other factions showed there are possible client states. At that point, anyone will feel a snowballing momentum. This is because of Egypt being treated as if it's the player's personal demesne, giving an obscene amount of gold. This is somewhat silly since there is no way the thematic system can handle such an arduous task without massive bureaucratic reform, let alone feudalism like other factions. Some may argue that the garrison cost to maintain public order will keep this in line but in reality, it only adds to the snowballing effect since the player is swimming in extra gold and the only way to keep it that way is to keep snowballing with their newfound standing army-slash-garrison.

This is the problem, and it's not limited to the Roman Empire. Any faction that manages to acquire a lot of profitable provinces will eventually snowball. As far as I know, the economy was not running uniformly across the Old World at the time. Some lands were more fractured, feudal in nature than others due to political situation and economic institutions, or lack thereof. Is it really accurate to treat all provinces as if they are personally managed (especially taxed) by the faction leader? Please have a look at the picture below.



That was France in 1180. I think domaine royal speaks for itself. So what I am proposing is a rudimentary model of feudalism. What is the main purpose of this model?

1. To rely less on a huge garrison (that will create the false dilemma of bankruptcy or snowballing) and skip the whole free garrison upkeep polemic
2. To give less income to the player due to an income malus. This represents factors like our vassal lord's share and primitive system, but we are eventually able to increase it by increasing centralisation. Or,
3. To concede more autonomy to troublesome provinces, but giving bonus public order in return to signify nominal homage to your faction
4. To model the struggle of centralisation, where some factions historically failed, e.g. the HRE or deteriorated, e.g. the Roman Empire

This model can be represented with a building of several tiers. The name can be simply something like "Decentralisation". There is no need for a lot of political micromanagement; this is M2TW, not EU4. Different provinces will have different degrees of this model. It is up to the faction leader whether to treat newly conquered regions as his personal demesne (and risk throwing money down the drain since he cannot rely on snowballing anymore) or to delegate and allow decentralisation to some degree. Eventually, we can invest in our designated capital (but not just anywhere without relevant prerequisites) to improve the political system of our faction.

Will this allow us to do a Skantarios? No, eventually the faction will reach an equilibrium where expansion is more trouble than is worth since there is no more economically profitable land to expand and increase income (and army along with it); it is just making a normal profit. We as the faction leader will be forced to pour more and more resources in the hopes of consolidating new lands, or trade authority until even that cannot save the province from collapsing public order.

This model can be tweaked to suit other factions' situation, such as them not being feudal, e.g. republic, imperial, or nomad.

Looking forward to hearing the SSHIP community's opinion on this.

[Lifthrasir]

If I get it right, you're basically trying to represent autonomous and/or vassal provinces in game

So if you conquer a region, you can have the choice to occupy it (costly option) or to let it "free"/autonomous with payment of a taxe for instance. However, if the later is choosen, the province will remain independant (visually) in game even if technically it has become your vassal.

[officialdeo]

If I get it right, you're basically trying to represent autonomous and/or vassal provinces in game

So if you conquer a region, you can have the choice to occupy it (costly option) or to let it "free"/autonomous with payment of a taxe for instance. However, if the later is choosen, the province will remain independant (visually) in game even if technically it has become your vassal.

Yes, something you might be familiar with if you play Paradox games.

A bit of a correction, the province will be shown as ours just like the current condition with our banner standing, but it might not even give the faction leader an ounce of economic profit due to the nature of feudalism (even though it's still making money); we trade that profit for a semblance of public order. If we want more order, we delegate more and more authority (meaning much less of that province's income to us) unless we have the resources to personally manage it. This way we can avoid an early, massive standing army in the 12th century.

[Lifthrasir]

I'm not sure how to represent that in game. For sure the option I've mentioned in my previous post works with the relevant script. MWY tried it by the past.
But your suggestion is a bit more "complex"
We need to find a way to increase the public order by "sacrifying" a part of the settlement incomes. We would probably need to make the Council more tangible as well.
Last point, for now, how this should work for castles? Such system is actually quite accurate for towns (Flanders is a perfect example actually). But I'm not so sure for castles

[Nemesis2345]

If I get it right, you're basically trying to represent autonomous and/or vassal provinces in game

So if you conquer a region, you can have the choice to occupy it (costly option) or to let it "free"/autonomous with payment of a taxe for instance. However, if the later is choosen, the province will remain independant (visually) in game even if technically it has become your vassal.

Yes, Roma Surrectum 2 on Rome TW had a mechanic closer to this. The city would still be yours but you had to choose between Anexxing or Occupying the town. Anexxing increased the public order of the city at the cost of some income and recruitment options (you could only recruit citizens belonging to that region , not roman legions from that specific town) while Occupying gave a big public order hit (since you conquer them and subdue them to your laws) but it gave you the ability to reform the city with your own infrastructure and military power , obviously you couldnt occupy every city you conquered because some were really hard to control , which is why historically the Romans anexxed many regions as long as they provided auxilliary troops and some form of tribute to the empire.

Would be cool having this in SSHIP as well , but im preety sure is far from an easy task.

[Tripledot]

I think if you want to simulate the core of how feudalism worked- the vassal-lord obligation, the solution would be to make (loyal) Governors much more important for maintaining public order and collecting taxes, rather than relying on "buildings" representing feudalism/decentralization. A more developed state can be represented by the ability to recruit generals from higher tier settlements, who will then be able to act as governors for settlements. Making Governors take center stage also makes sense for more bureaucratic states like the Byzantines, so the different systems can still be represented by one generalized model, with an organic, dynamic cap to how far one can expand.

To elaborate, loyalty could be made much more important for a general's ability to tax a population (less about the general's ability than whether he decides to kick on up to the king), with base levels of taxation being much lower to the point where settlements without governors give next to no taxes. Regional titles could be made much more important for granting public order bonuses, with default public order without a governor usually being unmanageable (what's outside of the personal control of the monarch and his stewards ends up independent).

[Lifthrasir]

Yes, Roma Surrectum 2 on Rome TW had a mechanic closer to this. The city would still be yours but you had to choose between Anexxing or Occupying the town. Anexxing increased the public order of the city at the cost of some income and recruitment options (you could only recruit citizens belonging to that region , not roman legions from that specific town) while Occupying gave a big public order hit (since you conquer them and subdue them to your laws) but it gave you the ability to reform the city with your own infrastructure and military power , obviously you couldnt occupy every city you conquered because some were really hard to control , which is why historically the Romans anexxed many regions as long as they provided auxilliary troops and some form of tribute to the empire.

Would be cool having this in SSHIP as well , but im preety sure is far from an easy task.

Has this not been done in EBII or in De Bello Mundi?

I think if you want to simulate the core of how feudalism worked- the vassal-lord obligation, the solution would be to make (loyal) Governors much more important for maintaining public order and collecting taxes, rather than relying on "buildings" representing feudalism/decentralization. A more developed state can be represented by the ability to recruit generals from higher tier settlements, who will then be able to act as governors for settlements. Making Governors take center stage also makes sense for more bureaucratic states like the Byzantines, so the different systems can still be represented by one generalized model, with an organic, dynamic cap to how far one can expand.

You can already recruit generals once you reach the Fortress level if I remember well.

To elaborate, loyalty could be made much more important for a general's ability to tax a population (less about the general's ability than whether he decides to kick on up to the king), with base levels of taxation being much lower to the point where settlements without governors give next to no taxes. Regional titles could be made much more important for granting public order bonuses, with default public order without a governor usually being unmanageable (what's outside of the personal control of the monarch and his stewards ends up independent).

Regional titles aren't the only option here actually. Not all towns relied on a governor, especially from the 13th century during which more and more towns tried to become more autonomous under a council lead (at least in Western Europe).
From my opinion, both ways should be considered with different advantages and counterparts.

[officialdeo]

I'm not sure how to represent that in game. For sure the option I've mentioned in my previous post works with the relevant script. MWY tried it by the past.
But your suggestion is a bit more "complex"
We need to find a way to increase the public order by "sacrifying" a part of the settlement incomes. We would probably need to make the Council more tangible as well.
Last point, for now, how this should work for castles? Such system is actually quite accurate for towns (Flanders is a perfect example actually). But I'm not so sure for castles

Your suggestion works too, although it doesn't account for some factions conceding more and more authority to their vassals, be they towns or castles. Mine is more broad on the political management side, allowing things like a big but toothless HRE. But I would be more than happy to have that option, with some tweaks and testing obviously.

Some dukes in the Middle Ages had similar or stronger demesne than their liege, IIRC. Why wouldn't it be accurate? In fact, it could simulate that the castle does not belong to us the faction leader but one of our generals/vassals and the income going to us depends on how loyal and savvy he is as a governor. The castle can be content and not giving us a dime in economic profit. So it's like playing the faction from the perspective of the faction leader and modelling the world around him.

I think if you want to simulate the core of how feudalism worked- the vassal-lord obligation, the solution would be to make (loyal) Governors much more important for maintaining public order and collecting taxes, rather than relying on "buildings" representing feudalism/decentralization. A more developed state can be represented by the ability to recruit generals from higher tier settlements, who will then be able to act as governors for settlements. Making Governors take center stage also makes sense for more bureaucratic states like the Byzantines, so the different systems can still be represented by one generalized model, with an organic, dynamic cap to how far one can expand.

To elaborate, loyalty could be made much more important for a general's ability to tax a population (less about the general's ability than whether he decides to kick on up to the king), with base levels of taxation being much lower to the point where settlements without governors give next to no taxes. Regional titles could be made much more important for granting public order bonuses, with default public order without a governor usually being unmanageable (what's outside of the personal control of the monarch and his stewards ends up independent).

It's computationally going to be very heavy with that many governors needed to simulate vassal-lord obligation. That is the CK2 approach, and I don't think M2TW engine can handle that kind of simulation without a severe hit on performance. That many governors following our every whim are not that realistic either, which is why Jurand created some restrictive house rules to prevent ditching disloyal vassals.

I intend to alleviate this issue by proposing a model that is centred more around the perspective of the faction leader, his court, and his personal demesne as he progresses into "L'État, c'est moi", whether by sword or accounting book.

[Lifthrasir]

Your suggestion works too, although it doesn't account for some factions conceding more and more authority to their vassals, be they towns or castles. Mine is more broad on the political management side, allowing things like a big but toothless HRE. But I would be more than happy to have that option, with some tweaks and testing obviously.

Some dukes in the Middle Ages had similar or stronger demesne than their liege, IIRC. Why wouldn't it be accurate? In fact, it could simulate that the castle does not belong to us the faction leader but one of our generals/vassals and the income going to us depends on how loyal and savvy he is as a governor. The castle can be content and not giving us a dime in economic profit. So it's like playing the faction from the perspective of the faction leader and modelling the world around him.

True but not everywhere and not during the whole Middle Ages. See how kingdoms like France, England, HRE and the city states in Italy evolved in different ways. Not to mention the Russian, the Byzantine nor the Muslim one which introduce other parameters.
There are differences depending on areas, cultures and religions as well somehow. The difficulty of such idea is to find a way to adapt this feature to each culture in game.

[Tripledot]

It's computationally going to be very heavy with that many governors needed to simulate vassal-lord obligation. That is the CK2 approach, and I don't think M2TW engine can handle that kind of simulation without a severe hit on performance. That many governors following our every whim are not that realistic either, which is why Jurand created some restrictive house rules to prevent ditching disloyal vassals.

I intend to alleviate this issue by proposing a model that is centred more around the perspective of the faction leader, his court, and his personal demesne as he progresses into "L'État, c'est moi", whether by sword or accounting book.

I'm not talking about a multi-tiered simulation like in CKII, but rather a rough character-based system of governance- for lands to be productive, they ought to be overseen by a governor, and marginal lands are going to be at far greater risk of leaving the orbit of your control if you don't have a skilled administrator to keep it in line. Realistically we're talking about 20-40 generals for an end-game empire, not several hundred.

Regional titles aren't the only option here actually. Not all towns relied on a governor, especially from the 13th century during which more and more towns tried to become more autonomous under a council lead (at least in Western Europe).
From my opinion, both ways should be considered with different advantages and counterparts.

I don't think that's really relevant to feudalism, even though it is a kind of devolved rule. That said, I wouldn't be against something like the Town Hall building line having an upkeep cost to represent local governance and providing a tradeoff between squeezing as much income as possible out of cities vs giving them enough public order that a governor isn't needed (and the general used for other tasks like fighting in wars or securing more important settlements).

[officialdeo]

True but not everywhere and not during the whole Middle Ages. See how kingdoms like France, England, HRE and the city states in Italy evolved in different ways. Not to mention the Russian, the Byzantine nor the Muslim one which introduce other parameters.
There are differences depending on areas, cultures and religions as well somehow. The difficulty of such idea is to find a way to adapt this feature to each culture in game.

Yeah, we'll get to that point in time, I'm just proposing an idea to better simulate feudalism in a rudimentary economic model. The development is another matter that doesn't necessarily have to have a single solution. There might be different "upgrades" to represent the uniqueness of each faction. Obviously some sacrifices and approximations will have to be made to account for those with different political and economic systems.

I'm not talking about a multi-tiered simulation like in CKII, but rather a rough character-based system of governance- for lands to be productive, they ought to be overseen by a governor, and marginal lands are going to be at far greater risk of leaving the orbit of your control if you don't have a skilled administrator to keep it in line. Realistically we're talking about 20-40 generals for an end-game empire, not several hundred.

I don't think that's really relevant to feudalism, even though it is a kind of devolved rule. That said, I wouldn't be against something like the Town Hall building line having an upkeep cost to represent local governance and providing a tradeoff between squeezing as much income as possible out of cities vs giving them enough public order that a governor isn't needed (and the general used for other tasks like fighting in wars or securing more important settlements).

I'm seriously wondering how you micromanage to such degree at the endgame that you suggested 20 to 40 generals. The way generals are in SSHIP, they all will have to be micromanaged, and this kind of delegation will be an overreliance on feudalism instead of progressively moving away from it and becoming more of a state, whatever the development of the state is.

I think we have a starkly different understanding of the development of feudalism here..but I digress.

[Tripledot]

Yeah, we'll get to that point in time, I'm just proposing an idea to better simulate feudalism in a rudimentary economic model. The development is another matter that doesn't necessarily have to have a single solution. There might be different "upgrades" to represent the uniqueness of each faction. Obviously some sacrifices and approximations will have to be made to account for those with different political and economic systems.



I'm seriously wondering how you micromanage to such degree at the endgame that you suggested 20 to 40 generals. The way generals are in SSHIP, they all will have to be micromanaged, and this kind of delegation will be an overreliance on feudalism instead of progressively moving away from it and becoming more of a state, whatever the development of the state is.

I think we have a starkly different understanding of the development of feudalism here..but I digress.

The development of the bureaucratic state in Western Europe doesn't start until the tail end of the period we're discussing (like 800 turns into the game), which most people don't even get to. Making a centralized state in the 13th century is simply not historical, and even relatively centralized states like the Byzantines saw increased devolution over time, not centralization.

As for micromanaging, well yes, if you want to maintain a large empire, you should be micromanaging. Recruiting a couple dozen generals by the late-game isn't really what I'd call "micromanaging" though, as it's actually quite easy to do, and sending them to each of their own settlements to maximize earning potential is already encouraged behavior in SSHIP (or even vanilla M2TW). Putting generals in settlements is no more bothersome than manually going through each settlement and building feudalism infrastructure buildings, and allows for dynamic situations, such as disloyal generals withholding tax money during a civil war causing a financial crisis as the king is no longer able to obtain funds to maintain his armies.

[officialdeo]

Making a centralized state in the 13th century is simply not historical, and even relatively centralized states like the Byzantines saw increased devolution over time, not centralization.

Modelling the struggle of centralisation does not equate a centralised state in the 13th century. That's a strawman logical fallacy of what I'm proposing and the purpose of my idea.

[Lifthrasir]

Making a centralized state in the 13th century is simply not historical, and even relatively centralized states like the Byzantines saw increased devolution over time, not centralization.

You must be kidding. All Capetian rulers in France worked for that goal during the whole medieval period. I'm pretty sure it was quite similar in England and in some other European countries. Not to mention the duchy of Normandy or the County of Flanders who were alreay much more organized administratively speaking than the French kingdom already during the 12th century.
Middle Ages weren't the Dark Ages.

[Used2BRoz]

Just a quick Q.
Do you have a spare hidden_resource slot ?
If you want to simulate lower income for conquered territory, to account for increased costs you could
give hidden_resource conquered to all regions that belong to slave region at start of game.

In the EDB for buildings that give a trade_bonus either stop them being available if hidden_resource conquered
(or allow only low level markets etc.)
or give lower income_bonus if hidden_resource conquered.

Crude but effective.

This would apply to all factions,
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Centralisation / decentralisation

In England, it really took the Tudors, esp Henry VIII, to create a centralised state.
Partly due to the greatly reduced power of nobility due to losses in Wars of the Roses, elimination of potential rivals to throne; partly by the reformation bringing the church under royal control
and the building up of a more effective form of bureaucracy to run things.

feudalism pretty much depended on having powerful nobility to run chunks of the domain, patrol borders, recruit armies etc.

[Lifthrasir]

Unfortunately, no. All 64 are used.

[Used2BRoz]

Unfortunately, no. All 64 are used.

Annoying
you'd either have to do it the long way round, by having a line for every faction which would be tedious.
Or reduce bonuses unless hidden_resource capital

[Lifthrasir]

Well, we might have to rework them at some point, especially if we manage to implement an AoR system

[Tripledot]

You must be kidding. All Capetian rulers in France worked for that goal during the whole medieval period. I'm pretty sure it was quite similar in England and in some other European countries. Not to mention the duchy of Normandy or the County of Flanders who were alreay much more organized administratively speaking than the French kingdom already during the 12th century.
Middle Ages weren't the Dark Ages.

The struggle was there, but throughout the period the Capetians were constantly hemmed in by nobles and it wasn't really until Louis XIV that the monarch has finally cowed the nobility. The period was marked by the struggle against powerful nobles, which would often end up debilitating the monarch's ability to lead. For example, The Anarchy in England, which happens right in the middle of the 12th century. Modeling levels of centralization via buildings does not capture the important role of personal politics in the management of a medieval kingdom, and that loyalty to the monarch trumped loyalty to a state and its institutions (even in ones with relatively complex bureaucracies like the aforementioned Byzantines).

[officialdeo]

Well, we might have to rework them at some point, especially if we manage to implement an AoR system

An AoR system will definitely help to steer the direction of profitable expansion. We can save a lot of trouble trying to model nomad factions by implementing a rough approximation of regions where the faction can truly translate the resources into manpower without having the engine cooking too many parameters (which is more of Paradox games' gimmick and the aim of some mods there). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember someone posted the latest AoR idea to have three tiers and region-specific depending on the faction? It seems to be going to be a lot of work for the team.