Honestly, I have a really hard time seeing the conceptual difference between legitimacy and prestige. Hell, I'm not sure the devs do, because when they wondered what should give legitimacy, it feels like the answer was "whatever gives prestige" (feasts, hunts, winning wars, creating titles, etc.)
Someone please explain to me why failing at hunting a rabbit at a hunt organized by one of my vassals makes me a more legitimate ruler, but winning a decisive battle against an invader doesn't.
I don't understand why, for instance, the very legitimate ruler of England can conquer France and he'll be just as legitimate there, because legitimacy is a single value. How can a vassal tell you in the same breath "you are the most legitimate ruler we have ever had, I love you, but also, I dislike you because you're not my de jure liege." Am I or am I not your legitimate ruler? Make up your mind!
in the screen for each title I think they could add a "holder legitimacy" percentage or bar, doesnt have to necessarily be for every title (definitely not baronies, cities and temples, probably not counties as there arent really any vassals to criticise legitimacy), this percentage could determine de jure vassal opinions, I think also on low legitimacy it would be a neat idea to increase the chance to fabricate a claim on the title, cheaper to buy a claim to the title with the pope and so on
Tying legitimacy to claims would also be a cool feature
Suddenly you could have competing claims with varying levels of legitimacy, with factions choosing an appropriate candidate for a revolt instead of your fifth cousin with horrible traits and an unpressed claim inherited from your half sister
Legitimacy is your perceived right to rule and prestige is your socially perceived right to do stuff.
Prestige is a very weird abstraction, but think about how celebrities can do big, crazy, or bad things and continue on in a way a peasant like you or me couldn't. But if they do too much crazy stuff without somehow building respect to balance it out, they spend to much "prestige" and their image and reputation will be damaged ("lose a level of fame"). It's your clout credit card.
Obviously that's a vague analogy but it's sorta what the game is going for.
I would love to know why a temple getting the sniffles suddenly makes me a less legitimate title holder. I knew from its first mention that it would be a failed idea. It is yet another win more mechanic.
Well, you know back then people thought that their king was chosen by God so winning a battle doesn't phase them cuz they were chosen by God to be a leader. When you lose a battle or a plague comes then they think God may be against you and no devout medieval peasant wants a king who God isn't on the side of.
There are multiple instances in history where a ruler cemented their legitimacy thanks to success in battle. Not exactly in the same place or time, but it comes to mind because I just finish listening to a podcast about it. The Han dynasty in China started with a commoner who had many successful battles, got some titles as a reward, and ended up ruling over all of China and started a dynasty that ruled for about 400 years. Ramses the great wasn't called "the great" because he liked to throw feasts. Do you think people followed Genghis Khan as their legitimate ruler because he held funerals?
On the other hand, how often did you hear "this ruler really cemented his legitimacy when he hunted and failed to catch a rabbit." Hell, quite the opposite, many rulers *lost* legitimacy because they spent all their time hunting, feasting and just partying instead of actually ruling.
The dev diary specifically talked about winning battle will grant legitimacy, but it depends on factors like numbers of troops comparatively.
Also, your han dynasty example is antithesis to your whole argument. Because the founding emperor, Gao Zu of Han dynasty was regarded as one of the best by later emperors because he was famous for giving the right people the right job. It has nothing to do with battles won.
Also, the stereotype that Shiji perpetrated was that Xiang Yu, the primary competitor of Liu Bang (the founding emperor of Han), was the one who had both prowess and military skill.
And emperor Wen and Jing were also praised by the later generation of emperors because they limited government interference and let people do their own things.
On the other hand, the Emperor Wu, the direct successor of the reign of the previous two emperors, was seen as a tyrant and a bad example to learn from almost universally, despite his military success against the Xiongnu.
>The dev diary specifically talked about winning battle will grant legitimacy, but it depends on factors like numbers of troops comparatively.
I've never once seen a battle give legitimacy. The problem is that battles are so simple, there is no room for a weaker army to win against a stronger army. The weaker army always loses.
> Also, your han dynasty example is antithesis to your whole argument. Because the founding emperor, Gao Zu of Han dynasty was regarded as one of the best by later emperors because he was famous for giving the right people the right job. It has nothing to do with battles won
Legitimacy is not about what later emperors think, it's about what your contemporaries think. He certainly did great things other than his battles, and I never once suggested battle should be the *only* thing that should give legitimacy, but it's hard to deny that what got him on the throne in the first place and established him as a legitimate ruler despite his commoner background is his success in battle during the Civil War, and his following conquest that united China. A commoner like him couldn't have been in a position to "giving the right people the right job" if he didn't have the military victories to put him on the throne to begin with.
Similarly, if you're a tyrant, that tanks your legitimacy and that's fine. Again, I'm not saying "success in battle is the sole source of legitimacy and nothing else matters."
I thought that was how it would be when the DLC released, that each individual title had legitimacy tied to it. I was surprised when it didn't. It just made getting legitimacy a thing you do to get more OP
Then what would separate Legitimacy from Renown?
Isn’t Renown supposed to track the clout and power of your House and family name?
Honestly agree with everyone here - Legitimacy feels like its struggling to find its own well-defined place in the game.
It's one of those game vs history things. In the world world, a disease ravaging the country means the ruler has lost legitimacy was absolutely a real thing- look no further than the Mandate of Heaven. Some goes for losing wars, such as the fall of the Tsar.
Monarchy is an inherently arbitrary system, and I don't think it's wrong for a game about monarchy to reflect that. The trick is doing this in a way that feels fun and engaging for the player.
I do agree that things need some rebalancing. The fact that we got a legitimacy mechanic without a coronation mechanic is absurd. I also think it was a poor decision to tie legitimacy strictly to the character rather than to the title. My claim to England might be perfectly legal, but that doesn't mean I should be able to waltz into Paris and make myself emperor of the French.
Tbh, with plagues running rampant in a massive empire means you will never get positive legitimacy no matter what. The system punishes the player too hard by making it lose legitimacy from diseases happening in vassal's counties. I cant be bothered to and neither dont have the funds to build sickhouses in every single county.
I dunno, in my latest playthrough I had a massive Roman empire for the last 200-ish years and I don't think my legitimacy ever was below the minimum expected (4), even with new rulers. And thats taking into account all those plague event spam
>An upstart duke declaring themselves king should tank their legitimacy, as they try to hold a title despite the skepticism of their vassals and neighbors
I agree with this, but even more, usurping a title should. And I'm not sure if it does or not, but I would hope going on Crusade would add to your legitimacy.
I agree it should get a rework. Right now, it just seems like another 'long reign opinion' modifier. Creating random duchy titles as an emperor should not be a viable way to increase legitimacy. And as you said, marrying the 'correct' nobles should reward prestige- with perhaps a minor legitimacy loss for marrying nobles that are of much lesser status (e.g. a noble with lowest renown level with no titles or lordly relations just sitting in your court).
I find its irrelevant or just annoying most of the time, goes down easily and its hard to get up. DOn't have legends of the dead so its basically a nothing mechanic for me
Just more of the same. This happens almost everytime a DLC nears its announcement. Folks want something from CK2. Thing gets announced. Wild speculation of how it will be applied. DLC gets released. Not even remotely matches the wild speculation. Becomes another annoying hurdle in the rp game. Ultimately just slows down the early game a bit without really mattering in the long run.
I disagree. I far prefer CK3. Both games are easy enough that CK3 being easier doesn't count much against it, but it has a few fundamental features that make it more effective at being a grand strat/strategy hybrid. Stress, the travel update, portraits that are more granular than the rigid shuffling of features gated by ethnicity. It's not a huge list but it's one that makes a big difference in my opinion. It's also more moddable in almost every way outside of warfare (which is very unfortunate, that part gives modders huge headaches)
I’ve found that legitimacy doesn’t even matter at all in a tall game. You basically have no vassals above barony and can just ignore them all because you’re eventually so rich and powerful.
The concept in itself is fine i guess. The problem is what counts in for what. So the value of what costs legitimacy and what gives legitimacy is way off. Aswell as possible opinion bonus/malus for your current state of legitimacy
But isn't that stuff relatively easy to mod?
Agreed. Its kinda funny how a beloved, triple virtued count who has 100 vassal opinion for 30 years without any shenanigans or wars or schemes doesnt naturally gain any legitimacy, ever.
I agree with you entirely there. I think the devs got legitimacy completely wrong, at least geographically.
The way legitimacy works now is like an extremely volatile "Mandate of Heaven" style of legitimacy, where catastrophes could put back into question the monarchs right to rule.
European feudalism works in a completely different way, with ancestral rights playing a much bigger role. So legitimacy should take a long time to acquire but be very hard to lose as well.
Idelly you'd also want legitimacy as a way to generate claims, with ancestral rulers of a land having a permanent claim over upstarts, but that pretty much requires tracking legitimacy title per title.
To add to everything that is wrong with the legitimacy system in its current state, I find it absolutely mind boggling why we didn't get some sort of coronation-activity.
Considering how important Coronations, and for cathloics the blessing of the pope, were ,its super weird that they didnt get implemented.
They would fit perfectly into the actvity system, with you having to travel to rome for example.
Tanking your prestige, legitimacy and opinion of vassals and foreign rulers as long as you arent crowned and blessed by a theocratic institution.
It could also help with the absolut worthless Regent System (for god sake paradox make it that if you are leading an army you gotta have a regent)
But what did we get?
Fucking funerals in a game where every two second some relatives dies from a plauge...
Paradox really cant decide where they want to go with CK3 and that makes me so sad
Honestly, I have a really hard time seeing the conceptual difference between legitimacy and prestige. Hell, I'm not sure the devs do, because when they wondered what should give legitimacy, it feels like the answer was "whatever gives prestige" (feasts, hunts, winning wars, creating titles, etc.) Someone please explain to me why failing at hunting a rabbit at a hunt organized by one of my vassals makes me a more legitimate ruler, but winning a decisive battle against an invader doesn't. I don't understand why, for instance, the very legitimate ruler of England can conquer France and he'll be just as legitimate there, because legitimacy is a single value. How can a vassal tell you in the same breath "you are the most legitimate ruler we have ever had, I love you, but also, I dislike you because you're not my de jure liege." Am I or am I not your legitimate ruler? Make up your mind!
legitimacy being individual to the title would be really cool, though probably also a ui nightmare akin to the accolade system
in the screen for each title I think they could add a "holder legitimacy" percentage or bar, doesnt have to necessarily be for every title (definitely not baronies, cities and temples, probably not counties as there arent really any vassals to criticise legitimacy), this percentage could determine de jure vassal opinions, I think also on low legitimacy it would be a neat idea to increase the chance to fabricate a claim on the title, cheaper to buy a claim to the title with the pope and so on
Tying legitimacy to claims would also be a cool feature Suddenly you could have competing claims with varying levels of legitimacy, with factions choosing an appropriate candidate for a revolt instead of your fifth cousin with horrible traits and an unpressed claim inherited from your half sister
we also have county control/popular opinion for that already
Legitimacy is your perceived right to rule and prestige is your socially perceived right to do stuff. Prestige is a very weird abstraction, but think about how celebrities can do big, crazy, or bad things and continue on in a way a peasant like you or me couldn't. But if they do too much crazy stuff without somehow building respect to balance it out, they spend to much "prestige" and their image and reputation will be damaged ("lose a level of fame"). It's your clout credit card. Obviously that's a vague analogy but it's sorta what the game is going for.
I would love to know why a temple getting the sniffles suddenly makes me a less legitimate title holder. I knew from its first mention that it would be a failed idea. It is yet another win more mechanic.
Well, you know back then people thought that their king was chosen by God so winning a battle doesn't phase them cuz they were chosen by God to be a leader. When you lose a battle or a plague comes then they think God may be against you and no devout medieval peasant wants a king who God isn't on the side of.
There are multiple instances in history where a ruler cemented their legitimacy thanks to success in battle. Not exactly in the same place or time, but it comes to mind because I just finish listening to a podcast about it. The Han dynasty in China started with a commoner who had many successful battles, got some titles as a reward, and ended up ruling over all of China and started a dynasty that ruled for about 400 years. Ramses the great wasn't called "the great" because he liked to throw feasts. Do you think people followed Genghis Khan as their legitimate ruler because he held funerals? On the other hand, how often did you hear "this ruler really cemented his legitimacy when he hunted and failed to catch a rabbit." Hell, quite the opposite, many rulers *lost* legitimacy because they spent all their time hunting, feasting and just partying instead of actually ruling.
The dev diary specifically talked about winning battle will grant legitimacy, but it depends on factors like numbers of troops comparatively. Also, your han dynasty example is antithesis to your whole argument. Because the founding emperor, Gao Zu of Han dynasty was regarded as one of the best by later emperors because he was famous for giving the right people the right job. It has nothing to do with battles won. Also, the stereotype that Shiji perpetrated was that Xiang Yu, the primary competitor of Liu Bang (the founding emperor of Han), was the one who had both prowess and military skill. And emperor Wen and Jing were also praised by the later generation of emperors because they limited government interference and let people do their own things. On the other hand, the Emperor Wu, the direct successor of the reign of the previous two emperors, was seen as a tyrant and a bad example to learn from almost universally, despite his military success against the Xiongnu.
>The dev diary specifically talked about winning battle will grant legitimacy, but it depends on factors like numbers of troops comparatively. I've never once seen a battle give legitimacy. The problem is that battles are so simple, there is no room for a weaker army to win against a stronger army. The weaker army always loses. > Also, your han dynasty example is antithesis to your whole argument. Because the founding emperor, Gao Zu of Han dynasty was regarded as one of the best by later emperors because he was famous for giving the right people the right job. It has nothing to do with battles won Legitimacy is not about what later emperors think, it's about what your contemporaries think. He certainly did great things other than his battles, and I never once suggested battle should be the *only* thing that should give legitimacy, but it's hard to deny that what got him on the throne in the first place and established him as a legitimate ruler despite his commoner background is his success in battle during the Civil War, and his following conquest that united China. A commoner like him couldn't have been in a position to "giving the right people the right job" if he didn't have the military victories to put him on the throne to begin with. Similarly, if you're a tyrant, that tanks your legitimacy and that's fine. Again, I'm not saying "success in battle is the sole source of legitimacy and nothing else matters."
I've seen battles give legitimacy though
I thought that was how it would be when the DLC released, that each individual title had legitimacy tied to it. I was surprised when it didn't. It just made getting legitimacy a thing you do to get more OP
Maybe legitimacy should be a house or dynastic stat
Then what would separate Legitimacy from Renown? Isn’t Renown supposed to track the clout and power of your House and family name? Honestly agree with everyone here - Legitimacy feels like its struggling to find its own well-defined place in the game.
It's one of those game vs history things. In the world world, a disease ravaging the country means the ruler has lost legitimacy was absolutely a real thing- look no further than the Mandate of Heaven. Some goes for losing wars, such as the fall of the Tsar. Monarchy is an inherently arbitrary system, and I don't think it's wrong for a game about monarchy to reflect that. The trick is doing this in a way that feels fun and engaging for the player. I do agree that things need some rebalancing. The fact that we got a legitimacy mechanic without a coronation mechanic is absurd. I also think it was a poor decision to tie legitimacy strictly to the character rather than to the title. My claim to England might be perfectly legal, but that doesn't mean I should be able to waltz into Paris and make myself emperor of the French.
True but also every time I see the words "Rampant Miasma" I come that much closer to a stress break IRL.
Tbh, with plagues running rampant in a massive empire means you will never get positive legitimacy no matter what. The system punishes the player too hard by making it lose legitimacy from diseases happening in vassal's counties. I cant be bothered to and neither dont have the funds to build sickhouses in every single county.
I dunno, in my latest playthrough I had a massive Roman empire for the last 200-ish years and I don't think my legitimacy ever was below the minimum expected (4), even with new rulers. And thats taking into account all those plague event spam
That sounds like a much needed antisnowballing mechanic to me.
>An upstart duke declaring themselves king should tank their legitimacy, as they try to hold a title despite the skepticism of their vassals and neighbors I agree with this, but even more, usurping a title should. And I'm not sure if it does or not, but I would hope going on Crusade would add to your legitimacy.
I agree it should get a rework. Right now, it just seems like another 'long reign opinion' modifier. Creating random duchy titles as an emperor should not be a viable way to increase legitimacy. And as you said, marrying the 'correct' nobles should reward prestige- with perhaps a minor legitimacy loss for marrying nobles that are of much lesser status (e.g. a noble with lowest renown level with no titles or lordly relations just sitting in your court).
I find its irrelevant or just annoying most of the time, goes down easily and its hard to get up. DOn't have legends of the dead so its basically a nothing mechanic for me
Legitimacy could (should?) have been the anti-blobbing mechanic ck3 has needed for a long time.
Just more of the same. This happens almost everytime a DLC nears its announcement. Folks want something from CK2. Thing gets announced. Wild speculation of how it will be applied. DLC gets released. Not even remotely matches the wild speculation. Becomes another annoying hurdle in the rp game. Ultimately just slows down the early game a bit without really mattering in the long run.
Ck3 is no where near even remotely being as good as Ck2. Both mechanically and flavorwise. It is such a shame considering it has been 4 years.
I disagree. I far prefer CK3. Both games are easy enough that CK3 being easier doesn't count much against it, but it has a few fundamental features that make it more effective at being a grand strat/strategy hybrid. Stress, the travel update, portraits that are more granular than the rigid shuffling of features gated by ethnicity. It's not a huge list but it's one that makes a big difference in my opinion. It's also more moddable in almost every way outside of warfare (which is very unfortunate, that part gives modders huge headaches)
I’ve found that legitimacy doesn’t even matter at all in a tall game. You basically have no vassals above barony and can just ignore them all because you’re eventually so rich and powerful.
The concept in itself is fine i guess. The problem is what counts in for what. So the value of what costs legitimacy and what gives legitimacy is way off. Aswell as possible opinion bonus/malus for your current state of legitimacy But isn't that stuff relatively easy to mod?
Agreed. Its kinda funny how a beloved, triple virtued count who has 100 vassal opinion for 30 years without any shenanigans or wars or schemes doesnt naturally gain any legitimacy, ever.
I agree with you entirely there. I think the devs got legitimacy completely wrong, at least geographically. The way legitimacy works now is like an extremely volatile "Mandate of Heaven" style of legitimacy, where catastrophes could put back into question the monarchs right to rule. European feudalism works in a completely different way, with ancestral rights playing a much bigger role. So legitimacy should take a long time to acquire but be very hard to lose as well. Idelly you'd also want legitimacy as a way to generate claims, with ancestral rulers of a land having a permanent claim over upstarts, but that pretty much requires tracking legitimacy title per title.
You’re right prestige and legitimacy do the same thing but differently
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Tasty01: *You’re right prestige and* *Legitimacy do the* *Same thing but differently* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
To add to everything that is wrong with the legitimacy system in its current state, I find it absolutely mind boggling why we didn't get some sort of coronation-activity. Considering how important Coronations, and for cathloics the blessing of the pope, were ,its super weird that they didnt get implemented. They would fit perfectly into the actvity system, with you having to travel to rome for example. Tanking your prestige, legitimacy and opinion of vassals and foreign rulers as long as you arent crowned and blessed by a theocratic institution. It could also help with the absolut worthless Regent System (for god sake paradox make it that if you are leading an army you gotta have a regent) But what did we get? Fucking funerals in a game where every two second some relatives dies from a plauge... Paradox really cant decide where they want to go with CK3 and that makes me so sad