Why no titles?

[Lochar]

First off, I love the TW series, and have been playing MTW2 every day since I bought it.

But for some reason aside from the newer graphics and the addition of a few things, I still feel like I am playing RTW.

For one thing the most noticeable is lack of titles. To strengthen loyalty why cant my King/Sovereign mete out titles such as counts, barons, marquis, etc?

With this lacking, their is no feeling of ownership, no ties to the land and strongholds. No Duke of York to protect his lands or participate in a crusade with his men at arms. To award a young noble a parcel of land and estates for his help defending England.

Why does the family tree have to be that? Why not a family tree with a list of nobility? A king dies with no heirs, it now becomes possibly a civil war until 1 is crowned King.

And where are my moats and drawbridges? Didnt they exist that much to have them?

I dont know what can and cant be modded but I do wish they would have made it have a more medieval setting than what it currently has.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

I tend to agree with your sentiments..

Have no idea why titles were dropped. I would like to see it back.

Cannot pick faction heir...not good.

I raised the moats issue a while back...this was a pretty important part of the era. Ignored completetly

My thoughts at present are that CA just ran out of time and had to go with this release date. But as an end user it is a bit of a letdown. I enjoyed Rome a lot..with it's flaws..and you rightly say this feels like a kinda lazy way out..same thing different skin. All the improvements castles/cities choices..merchants etc..and others seem to have been offset with the issues above.

I don't see a patch addressing these either.

Being blunt...I am not blown away with this...I am even thinking of ebaying my copy, yes that bored already. With the previous titles I was dead hooked for months and longer. But this is a re-treat..and in some ways a downgrade from the previous version. Sure titles is a small minor point, but all these areas add up to the whole game.

Great things were expected and this simply doesnt deliver. If the patched version is better..we shall see. But take note CA....time to get really creative, just hammering out updates of the same old thing might just scrape it this time, next time it most def will not.

[CaptainSolo]

Must admit that was one thing i was hoping they would bring back in.I used to love checking accumen and command and deciding who was best suited as a general or administrator.Despite this i love this game to bits and it definetly feels more like MTW than RTW.

[Rothe]

I suppose it would require some hardcoded changes to add the title system.

The way I am picturing it, the general would get a tab on his unit card to be appointed the lord/marquis/baron/whatever, when he is in the region and the title is still up for grabs.

I think it would be funny also to have the titles that result from certain buildings, like "Constable" and so on, but I am not sure how the actual giving of the title would work in the game.

[Maizel]

I think this could be moddable.

I'm imaginating it something like this.

Every city generates a title, as an object that is placed under a general's retinue. The first general entereing the city picks the title up, which in turn can be given to other, more suitable generals. If the general dies, it respawns in the city again.


Im not sure if something like this could be modded, Since i don't know heck about it.

[daffius]

There is another (maybe simpler way). For example a castle is built, which now grants the title Baron. A drop down slider appears at the beginning of the turn with all the generals, here you can assign that title to any general. Wouldn't need micro management. The titles could rise according to the grade of the settlement.

Anyway that's hardcoding. So it'll just have to be begged over and over and over and...

[d1ng0d0g]

I think that the only way to do titles now is through ancillaries, allthough you can probably do some through traits.

The trouble is the limit on Ancillaries (hardcoded I think)

But the idea is codeable through events.

Whenever you conquer a new territory your ruler gains an ancillary with the title for that territory.

These ancillaries are transferable.

Now, when a general dies, all you have to do is quickly recheck the possible titles (this could become a memory hog though) and give those titles held by the general this his heir (oldest son).

Now, one thing I am definately going to change is how the heir functions now..

If the son of my ruler becomes an adult, the current heir (usually his brother) should lose his heir status.

If the King dies without an heir, then ... the title of King goes to the next of kin (so the Kings oldest brother, or his oldest nephew) and the other title holders will turn rebel.

Actually by halving the number of factions... to 14, and creating 14 "rebel" factions one could truly increase the potential of this game.

More Civil Wars ....

Of course that depends on the possibillity of actually tracking bloodlines.

Dingo

I really like this idea. A rebel faction for each main faction to truly represent rebellions as there were plenty in the Middle Ages.

[Daveybaby]

I think the reason titles were dropped in RTW and M2TW is that there just arent enough generals to go around. In STW and MTW you could make any unit a general, so there was no real shortage.

If there were to be enough generals in M2TW for the titles to go round, then you would have far too many generals in the game - you would be able to field full stack all general armies on a regular basis

Maybe if they expanded the family system into a full nobility system including other families within your faction etc, you would have plenty of characters to choose from. In order to stop you from having too many generals you could have the player choose whether a character was going to be a general or an administrator - administrators would get experience, V&Vs & retinues related to city management, and generals would get ones related to combat. This would nicely mirror the way you have to choose between castles and cities.

[Aelwyn]

Maybe if they expanded the family system into a full nobility system including other families within your faction etc, you would have plenty of characters to choose from. In order to stop you from having too many generals you could have the player choose whether a character was going to be a general or an administrator - administrators would get experience, V&Vs & retinues related to city management, and generals would get ones related to combat. This would nicely mirror the way you have to choose between castles and cities.

I think that's a rather nice idea, and would add good depth to the game. Its unfortunate that it will probably not happen.

[Aquitaine]

Or only some regions would have titles - perhaps only those regions with some historical tie to your faction, e.g. England would have a Duke of York, Duke of Edinborough, Prince of Wales, Prince of Eire, Prince of the Aquitaine, possibly a couple other French titles, but they wouldn't get the bonuses for foreign regions conquered.

Perhaps all Catholic factions might have King of Jerusalem, or Defender of the Holy Sepulchre, and one or two new world titles. I think that would keep it manageable while still returning flavor to the game that is sorely missed (though I don't agree that it destroys the experience, I just really liked titles).

[Daveybaby]

I think that's a rather nice idea, and would add good depth to the game. Its unfortunate that it will probably not happen.

Oh, i dont expect it to, even in an expansion. Might be possible for the next TW game though.

[Mauler]

I first really got into the TW series with MTW. Previously, I had played Shogun, but couldn't get into it for some reason. The feeling of immersion was just never there for me.

That all changed with MTW. A large part of this, IMO, was because of the numerous titles, Princesses and other agents, which really gave me the feeling of administrating an empire.

Of course, this system had its drawbacks. Towards the end of the game you would often control dozens of territories, and each had a title associated with it. Furthermore, when a governor died, his title returned to the associated province. While I enjoyed the additional immersion that came with titles, I also abhorred what sometimes felt like intense micromanagement in the endgame.

In RTW this feature was abstracted - titles were removed and ancillary characters (along with limited titles and objects) were incorporated. This removed some of the micromanagement for passive players, but to truly maximize the effectiveness your empire this mechanic still forced you to swap retinues fairly often. Furthermore, the liberal system of swapping ancillary characters brought in the immersion-killing likliehood that some of these ancillary characters could literally live for hundreds of years.

Therefore, what is needed is a system that gives a flavor of the title-system without requiring so much micromanagement. There are already enough things happening on the campaign map that we do not need to be swapping countless titles between the named characters.

From my perspective, CA very nearly got the system right in this iteration of the game. Objects are transferrable and human ancillaries are not, but there are still not titles.

Thus, I offer the following minor changes that I would like to see to the game. Keep in mind that I have not considered this in detail so am not comfortable assigning particular values to some of the following. Nevertheless...

I would like to see a limited title system. In practice it would be similar to what was in RTW (Master of Soldiers, Master of the Household Cavalry, etc.), only it would be more standardized and balanced across the factions.

Every faction should start with a few titles they can give to named characters, and some other titles should be triggered by actions in the game. For example:

Supreme Commander of the Army: Every faction would get this title from the very beginning, and should probably give a command and loyalty bonus.

More military titles could become available through conquest. For example, after a Faction conquers six provinces, a new title could become available, Commander - Army of the North, for example. This would give a slightly lower bonus than Supreme Commander of the Army. Then, after 15 or so provinces are conquered, a new title, say Commander - Army of the South, would become available. It would give the same bonus as Commander - Army of the North. Note that the conquest goals I state to trigger the titles are completely arbitrary. Also, I'm sure CA or the modders could come up with unique titles for each of the factions although they would give identical bonuses.

I also would allow for a single title for each of the Agent groupings.
For example, one of your spies could be given the Spymaster title, which would make him the foremost spy for your empire. Assasins could get the Master of Assassins title. A faction could give a Priest the Archbishop title. Diplomats could get the Royal Ambassador title, and Merchants could get the Royal Franchise title.

In the end, this only adds a small number of transferrable titles, 7 - 9, most likely, depending on the number of military titles that can be/are triggered. This will help stave off micromanagement in the endgame while still providing titles that can make your most valued named units truly distinctive, thereby providing even greater immersion.

As it is, I love this game, but I would like to see a return to a limited title system.

[Gorm]

Well, here is my 2 cents...

When you appoint a general to be the governor of a settlement, is that not a title?? Considering the 500 year scope of the game, it may be too much to be worrying about the handing out of titles every few turns, though it would add some chrome to the game.

Mind you, you can transfer some rentinue to other generals by dragging on the icon for the retinue person and pulling it onto another general card. One could possibly do the same if a title was available.

Perhaps if one could change the names of the generals as you can the cities?

And about choosing the heir... wasn't it mostly hereditary? Which is why you sometimes get a loony? So send him off on his own personal crusade to charge up San Juan Hill and get him killed off and free up the next available heir. Has anyone done this and got a child king on the throne??

[Quickening]

I thought titles were boring things to have to mess about with. Im glad they're gone.

[Lochar]

I think the reason titles were dropped in RTW and M2TW is that there just arent enough generals to go around. In STW and MTW you could make any unit a general, so there was no real shortage.

If there were to be enough generals in M2TW for the titles to go round, then you would have far too many generals in the game - you would be able to field full stack all general armies on a regular basis

Maybe if they expanded the family system into a full nobility system including other families within your faction etc, you would have plenty of characters to choose from. In order to stop you from having too many generals you could have the player choose whether a character was going to be a general or an administrator - administrators would get experience, V&Vs & retinues related to city management, and generals would get ones related to combat. This would nicely mirror the way you have to choose between castles and cities.

I was thinking about this too, and while I know we would never see it, it would make the game seem more immersive.

Or lets say you start with a king and some generals, as you give out nobility they have to retire to their estates and now are a minor ruler of that province and are restricted to that alone. Only a crusade would allow them to leave their area.

I wonder tho if a reason for nobility being out was unit diversity. Even tho units can have mixed equipment and knights have different coat of arms on shields they still wear their nations colors.

But even even the terms general and governor seem out of place here.

[Betito]

I would say bring back the 'Faction-Wise' titles (Constable, Admiral, Master of the Sultan's Horse, Chancellor, Chief Eunuch...).

This way, you get the flavor of grating titles without making it that much of a bother.

What Mauler says sounds pretty much right to me: The triggers for new titles sounds like a nice complemente to the old schema (buildings that grant titles). And i also like the 'agent specific' titles (spies, sea commanders, emmisaries, merchants...). It could add some more flavor to the game, IMO.

[peri]

I am just guessing here. Some traits give titles like 'The Defender'. Could this be modified so a trait is a title with an appropriate trigger made for it?

[Dooz]

It's definately moddable. The Fourth Age mod for RTW (excellent piece of work) had a nice system for this. It's not as easy as doling titles in MTW, where you just dragged and dropped them onto generals, but it works nicely. I think it's pretty much as Maizel suggested. The titles are generated at cities, so if you character sits there for the amount of time necessary, maybe 1 turn, it shows up as an ancillary, Lord of so and so. BTW, that Fourth Age mod is a very well done mod, if anyone's interested they should definately check it out.

[Maizel]

Well, maybe the one responsible for that giimmick in the FA:TW team would like to make me happy by making one for M2:TW? hehe =D

[PaulTa]

I definitely agree with the point that titles were a bit of a bother at times. As HRE in MTW, I'd just hit the auto-assign button because it took so long to assign a good title to the right guy. That, and if I started with generals who had crappy acumen all over the board, I'd restart (you NEED early money as HRE in MTW), which would then restart the whole process...

[Lord Condormanius]

I raised the moats issue a while back...this was a pretty important part of the era. Ignored completetly

Come on, at least I gave you the bit about dragons.

On the notion of moats. I was fighting a battle near Bordeaux, close enough to the Castle that it was visible on the edge of the battle screen. When I saw it, I immediately thought of you. There it was, as plain as day...a moat!

I couldn't believe my eyes.

[kvbrock82]

I think titles should be available to only a handful(the biggest) cities/castles available to your faction. It will help keep tabs of your generals and most definetly help the roleplay factor..

[Dave1984]

I am just guessing here. Some traits give titles like 'The Defender'. Could this be modified so a trait is a title with an appropriate trigger made for it?

Yes, as you can see with this one I was testing earlier. You can assign epithets to each trait as you so desire- in this case, it's simply Duke of York.




I'm still working on getting the trigger right for it, in this case it has to be second son of the King and of the English faction.

Right now I'm just assigning them with give_trait- in terms of roleplaying, it sort of passes muster if you think of it as the king bestowing it upon his son or general.

[Lord Godfrey]

Titles and the oldest son as faction heir are the two things I miss (and think are missing) from the game. They got me into the era and I loved being able to directly control the development and advancement of characters.

[Lochar]

I think having a family tree for heirs kept to a more natural selection, like no adoptions.

Then making generals into nobles and awarding them titles as rewards.

I am not a big history buff but did queens come into reign during these eras?

I really hate having my family tree expand so big with adoptions and what not but I also need the generals so I usually do it.

I just wish they would have worked on this a bit instead of just using the same old RTW setup but even that allowed changing of heirs.

[peri]

Yes, as you can see with this one I was testing earlier. You can assign epithets to each trait as you so desire- in this case, it's simply Duke of York.

I'm still working on getting the trigger right for it, in this case it has to be second son of the King and of the English faction.

Right now I'm just assigning them with give_trait- in terms of roleplaying, it sort of passes muster if you think of it as the king bestowing it upon his son or general.

Did you create a new trait or modify an existing one?

[Dave1984]

Did you create a new trait or modify an existing one?

I just created a new one (a few new ones actually) based on the template of one of the others.

Later on I added some triggers, so for example on becoming faction heir for England the character would receive the title "Prince of Wales", although I haven't quite got it to remove the trait when he becomes faction leader yet, so at the minute unless I do it manually there are two Princes of Wales running around.

[Von Nanega]

Two thoughts on titles. Historically, there could be plenty of unassighned titles in the kings keeping for him to give out. Not all where assighned at all times. Secondly I agree with an above poster that maybe just a set number of titles to be handed out by the player.

[peri]

I just created a new one (a few new ones actually) based on the template of one of the others.

Later on I added some triggers, so for example on becoming faction heir for England the character would receive the title "Prince of Wales", although I haven't quite got it to remove the trait when he becomes faction leader yet, so at the minute unless I do it manually there are two Princes of Wales running around.

Do you think it is possible to come up with other triggers?
How did you devise the faction heir trigger?
And also would you be interested making your 'titles' files available for others?

[Beefeater]

Anyone looking at titles should check out the Crusader Kings forums at Paradox.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...splay.php?f=81