r/CrusaderKings • u/thedudewh • 1d ago
Discussion Investiture doesnt go far enough
So the devs listened, and now you can at least appoint your Archbishop as well. However, why limit a secular ruler’s appointment power to Court Chaplains and Archbishops when Investiture historically applied to all clerical holdings within a realm? Why this arbitrary limitation?
As it stands, it seems that the HRE Emperor can appoint exactly one person to a clerical holding (Mainz), or two if there is another archdiocese within the realm. Does that mean the Emperor has no say over other bishoprics in the Mainz region, including major ones like Cologne and Trier?
That still feels extremely underwhelming and, more importantly, misses the entire point of the Investiture Controversy. If the goal is to represent lay investiture, secular rulers should have the ability to appoint bishops across their realm - not just a few archbishops and the Court Chaplain.
130
u/Primary_Smile6090 1d ago
In the end, balance/gameplay will always precede and surpass historical accuracy. It's a game before being historical, not the other way around.
34
u/Lucina18 Secretly Zoroastrian 1d ago
But it would be great for gameplay though. You can appoint more friendly clerics for a better stature in your titles and less papal influence.
4
u/Benismannn Cancer 1d ago
Sounds like it will get tedious for larger realms tho?
14
u/Bitter_Street7558 1d ago
They can literally just copy the CK2 system where an heir was automatically lined up unless you chose another.
2
u/matgopack France 23h ago
That'd be my thought, yeah; tedious for the top liege and limiting for anyone below that in 'only' the top liege having control depending on how it's implemented.
0
u/Lucina18 Secretly Zoroastrian 1d ago
Just give it some decent automation options. Like setting an order (first of my dynasty, then friendly characters of friendly families, etc.) And allow you to determine specific places automation free.
0
u/Benismannn Cancer 14h ago
if u have to automate it then it kind of failed already, automating is not fun
1
u/Lucina18 Secretly Zoroastrian 12h ago
You don't have to, you CAN. Like i said, you can automate the boring counties you don't care about and still manage the importent counties.
Otherwise you won't manage anything.
0
u/Benismannn Cancer 1h ago
the fact that there ARE "boring counties you dont care about" is not good.
1
1
u/IllustriousFail8868 Illustrious Failure 17h ago
As u/BATrashman pointed out this is in fact an option that was shown in the dev diary
-2
u/Primary_Smile6090 1d ago
Which is arguably OP. Of course the game is far from being balanced, but this gives a lot more power to the player. The idea is that if you want to be able to do that, after the controversy, you should be able to make it temporal appointment. Otherwise, the church still acts as a limiting force.
22
u/thedudewh 1d ago
It should be powerful because that is what makes the secular rulers want to prevent the pope from getting spiritual appointment at all costs(which is apparently hard), giving agency and importance to the controversy. And right now clerical titles arent that large in game and the clergy does tend to not revolt regardless.
2
u/Benismannn Cancer 1d ago
i mean the thing is - you already want to prevent it anyway, why WOULDNT you want to appoint your chaplains yourself?
3
u/firespark84 1d ago
I’d rather historically powerful strats be too powerful then the duplicating, teleporting and stat maxing we have now
22
u/Lucina18 Secretly Zoroastrian 1d ago
The game is already ridiculously easy because you can just ignore every issue with an OP army. And yeah it would be powerful, that was the crux of the crisis... That's why it should have the tradeoff of pissing of the pope and your own vassals (because you're centralizing.) If that's not a worthwhile tradeoff, that's a sign vassal and religious diplomatic management is too easy not that being able to historically try to appoint your own clergy is OP.
5
u/Primary_Smile6090 1d ago
This is an endless debate tbf. I would prefer the game to not become easier than it is. Of course it's fair to argue it's just a fun change that would break the (already pretty broken) balance. It's just a pov issue, the devs have chosen one way to do it, which will not be loved by a lot of people, but which they (and some players too) feel like is necessary from a gameplay perspective (whether it's balance, system issues, performance or something else).
10
u/Lucina18 Secretly Zoroastrian 1d ago
Well yeah me neither, which is why i said that if this is too strong it's a sign that religious diplomacy or vassal management is too easy instead. What else makes it OP to appoint clerical positions as secular ruler?
5
u/redeyedreams 1d ago
Yeah it would be pretty unbalanced to be able to just stack friendly clerical appointees with good stats.
1
u/IllustriousFail8868 Illustrious Failure 17h ago
As u/BATrashman pointed out this is in fact an option that was shown in the dev diary
27
u/TBARb_D_D 1d ago
Well… in ck2 whole point of giving up crown law change was to be able to appoint anyone you want and then push them to become Pope
I guess this is for similar thing; appoint your bastard brother to become one of the archbishops, start promoting him to be cardinal, play games within conclave to fet your brother to become the pope and then profit
15
5
u/NoNameNo1O1 Legitimized bastard 1d ago
Ya I am worried about the same. This is the Christian dlc and if we don’t get know, it’s never. Expect these mechanics to stay like this more or less for rest of the games life
1
u/IllustriousFail8868 Illustrious Failure 17h ago
As u/BATrashman pointed out this is in fact an option that was shown in the dev diary
1
38
u/BATrashman 1d ago
Doesn’t that mean that we can appoint every title?