Post by lordcorvocrowlover on Aug 17, 2019 14:30:56 GMT
A thread to discuss on how to handle “mapping” to better represent the world, especially Westeros with it’s vassal structure. This is to give some ideas both to devs, and to me if I could ever get back to work on a map submod. Life’s been pretty busy for the last year and not necessarily in a good way but I hope I’ll eventually have time to work on it.
Having an additional tier of playable rulers would have been very good but since there isn’t one and I doubt we could lobby the paradox for it, we have 4 playable tiers and a non playable one. To fit in this scheme we have;
1- The lowliest of the landed knights and the masters. Like Petyr Baelish or Eustace Osgrey.
2- lords of small power that are usually sworn to some other lords that are sometimes called “lesser” or “petty” lords. These may or may not have masters and landed knights sworn to them. Like the mountain clans of the North or majority of the crownlander lords or Stouts, Smallwoods and such.
3- Lords that have significant power and have/would have small lords beneath them in addition to landed knights. These would be the majority of the principal bannermen of LPs. Like Vances.
3a- Lords that have a huge amount of land but are not necessarily too powerful to set them apart from 3 except for amount of territory. Like Umbers and Reeds.
3b- Lords that have little in terms of land but are not necessarily weaker in power than 3. Like Graftons and Rykkers/Darklyns, Mootons, possibly Reynes.
4- Lords that are both much more powerful than the majority of principal bannermen and have an extensive amount of land that would be filled with many lesser lords and landed knights. Small kingdoms, you may say. Manderlys, Dustins, Royces, Yronwoods, Osgreys of old and Rowans of today.
4a- Lords that have extensive land and such power they have vassal lords in the kind of 3. A kingdom by itself, you may say. Only example is Hightowers.
5- lord paramounts, kings of their region.
6- Iron Throne, Emperor or high king.
No specifics set, throw in anything that comes to your mind.
Having an additional tier of playable rulers would have been very good but since there isn’t one and I doubt we could lobby the paradox for it, we have 4 playable tiers and a non playable one. To fit in this scheme we have;
1- The lowliest of the landed knights and the masters. Like Petyr Baelish or Eustace Osgrey.
2- lords of small power that are usually sworn to some other lords that are sometimes called “lesser” or “petty” lords. These may or may not have masters and landed knights sworn to them. Like the mountain clans of the North or majority of the crownlander lords or Stouts, Smallwoods and such.
3- Lords that have significant power and have/would have small lords beneath them in addition to landed knights. These would be the majority of the principal bannermen of LPs. Like Vances.
3a- Lords that have a huge amount of land but are not necessarily too powerful to set them apart from 3 except for amount of territory. Like Umbers and Reeds.
3b- Lords that have little in terms of land but are not necessarily weaker in power than 3. Like Graftons and Rykkers/Darklyns, Mootons, possibly Reynes.
4- Lords that are both much more powerful than the majority of principal bannermen and have an extensive amount of land that would be filled with many lesser lords and landed knights. Small kingdoms, you may say. Manderlys, Dustins, Royces, Yronwoods, Osgreys of old and Rowans of today.
4a- Lords that have extensive land and such power they have vassal lords in the kind of 3. A kingdom by itself, you may say. Only example is Hightowers.
5- lord paramounts, kings of their region.
6- Iron Throne, Emperor or high king.
No specifics set, throw in anything that comes to your mind.