War, what is it good for?

In Crusader Kings II, hopefully you'll gain some titles and in the best of worlds, imprison or behead your enemy. In order to declare a war you'll first need a valid Casus Belli against your enemy(a CB held by a vassal or courtier will of course do as well). You cannot attack the vassals of someone, so if you want one of their titles you have to attack their liege. Also, unlike Europa Universalis III and Victoria II, once a war has started it cannot be extended by adding further wargoals or CBs.

Instead, each CB has three options scripted: Demand Defeat, White Peace and Reversed Demands. As an example, let's look at the Claim CB. This CB lets you attack people holding titles you have claims on. If the war is going well, you can demand that your enemy give his title to you and as a bonus you'll gain a small amount of prestige. If you fail to achieve your goal, you could sue for a white peace instead. You'd want to avoid this though, since signing a white peace gives you a prestige hit(you didn't achieve your goals, after all). White peace is still preferable to the reversed demand however, since if your enemy enforces this, you will both lose the claim and get a huge prestige hit.



While most wars will end in a peace treaty, this is not the only way they can end. Some CBs have effects that trigger when the leader of an alliance dies. An example of this is the Invasion CB, which is currently used by William against Harold. When the leader of the attacking alliance dies, the war immediately ends. Be careful when going to war with your old king...

Another part of wars is the warscore. Like our other games, you'll gain warscore by occupying enemy holdings(the capital is worth more, vassal holdings are worth less) and winning battles(in CK2, they are worth a lot of warscore). We've also added a warscore effect if the contested title is left with no controller change for some time. After three years(currently), warscore is slowly added to the person controlling the area. This means that it's now possible to win a war as a) a defender in a war by just defending your title or b) attacking someone, sieging down the title you want and then just stand still and defend those provinces. By the way, if you manage to capture and imprison the enemy leader(for example, in a battle), this automatically counts as 100% warscore. We've also removed all limits to warscore, so whoever reaches >=100% first by any combination of occupation, battles, controlling the correct territory and imprisonment automatically wins the war.



Last but not least we have tagged some CBs to be "hostile against others", for example the Invasion CB. The effect of this is that two parties contesting the same title will fight each other even if they are not at war. It might be better as William to wait a bit until Harald and Harold both have worn down their armies...

'Till next time!
Fredrik Zetterman
Programmer, Paradox Interactive

 

[Wilsonrtf]

According to the Devs there won't ever truly be an independent Duchy.

But wouldn´t that mean lots and lots of very small kingdoms (in places as Ireland, for example)?

 

[Darkrenown]

According to the Devs there won't ever truly be an independent Duchy.

In some ways that makes a lot of sense. If a King of Norway tried to poach a nominally-independent Normandy from France a strong King of France would have intervened and nobody would have thought he was acting inappropriately. So the mandatory relationship with liege is an improvement over CK1, where rebellious vassals had an annoying tendency to be gobbled up by your neighbors and there was nothing you could do about it.

No, Normandy is independent. Possibly you are thinking of de jure Kingdoms? While Normandy is indeed part of France in that sense, it does not mean the Kind of France has any involvement in Normandy's wars.

Let me put this to layman's terms:

A) Only independent ruler can declare war on another independent ruler.

B) Independent ruler can't declare war on any vassal (only to another independent ruler as stated in A).

C) Vassal can declare war only to another vassal who is within the same realm.

D) Vassal can declare war to it's liege for independence but not to any other independent ruler nor any other vassal who is outside his own realm.

This is correct.

Also, if you really don't want to defend your vassals, you can simply concede defeat right away.

 

[Nick B II]

As for the AI, since Dukes and Counts will have to, generally, declare war on a King to expand, even if they just want another poor count's territory, then it seems like that would just promote blobbing.

When I think of a blob I think of a Franco-Ibero-Italian superstate that can only be identified as being France because it's blue. This feature will not encourage that kind of blob because it doesn't make it easier for the King of France to gain the crown of Aragon.

And you're misinterpreting Dev statements. If you want to expand into another de jure Kingdom you will have to declare war on the King first, but if you're playing the game like the devs think you should be playing the game you shouldn't be expanding into another de jure Kingdom. You should be beating up your neighbors within your Kingdom, and the King isn't allowed to intervene in disputes between vassals.

So the new features probably makes the game slightly harder for border-Counts, because they won't be able to beat up on the guys on the other side of the border so easily, but makes it infinitely easier to expand within a kingdom because the King can't stop your Duke of Aquitane from stealing Toulouse.

Nick

 

[ComradeOm]

I'm not understanding the posts like this. If you go to war against the Duke of Kent in order to take Kent for yourself, how is that not a declaration of war against England, for example? You're landing on England for the purpose of annexing English lands to your control. How is that not a direct invitation to war on the King of England anyway?

It works in the case of England because England was a highly centralised kingdom with a strong and proactive Crown. What doesn't make sense is having to declare war on the Holy Roman Emperor, who is off fighting in Flanders or wherever, because you have beef with the Count of, say, Mantua

It would, IMO, be a huge mistake to treat every kingdom like England, ie almost a proto-nationstate. This just doesn't fit with the period in question

 

[Nick B II]

No, Normandy is independent. Possibly you are thinking of de jure Kingdoms? While Normandy is indeed part of France in that sense, it does not mean the Kind of France has any involvement in Normandy's wars.

I am indeed.

Perhaps the next dev diary could be about vassal-liege relations?

War's fun and all, but we've just had two dev diaries in a row on it.

I know that if the King of Germany inherits a Barony in Carcassonne he will have some relationship to the Counts of Carcassone, which means he will have some relationship with the Dukes of Toulouse and the King of France.

But what are those obligations? Can his little Barony go independent, eliminating the relationship completely? What if he goes to war with France? What if one of his French lieges takes his side, but the other sides with the King? What happens if Germany gives the barony to his brother?

This is correct.

Also, if you really don't want to defend your vassals, you can simply concede defeat right away.

The question still has not been answered:
Can you ask your King to let you go to war?

So if (for example) you were a Duke of York who inherited a claim on Gwynedd from your mother, and you were all ready to force it, is there a button you can press asking the King to declare war?

Because it'll be incredibly frustrating, and extremely un-fun, to play a Medieval ruler who has to sit on his ass for 50 years while the damn AI's subprocesses are busy deciding whether to press your claim, or this Leinster claim that the Earl of Pembroke just picked up.

Nick

 

[Dagda]

I'm not understanding the posts like this. If you go to war against the Duke of Kent in order to take Kent for yourself, how is that not a declaration of war against England, for example? You're landing on England for the purpose of annexing English lands to your control. How is that not a direct invitation to war on the King of England anyway?

Maybe I don't like the Duke of Kent depending on who is invading.

You can also say the exact same thing for vassals of the same liege fighting each, interdependently.

But that would be quite different from a fairly powerful kingdom/duchey attacking my far away count (like say Iberia) that I have no interest in defending, or fighting a war over.

 

[Nick B II]

It works in the case of England because England was a highly centralised kingdom with a strong and proactive Crown. What doesn't make sense is having to declare war on the Holy Roman Emperor, who is off fighting in Flanders or wherever, because you have beef with the Count of, say, Mantua

It would, IMO, be a huge mistake to treat every kingdom like England, ie almost a proto-nationstate. This just doesn't fit with the period in question

If Mantua's the leader of the alliance, and most of the alliance is off fighting in Flanders, you only fight Mantua. And your peace-treaty with Mantua ends the war with everybody.

And if the AI's designed right, Germany won't raise his Saxon levies to defend Mantua even if the Flemish war ends before Mantua surrenders.

Which means it's really important for Paradox to get the AI right.

Nick

 

[ComradeOm]

If Mantua's the leader of the alliance, and most of the alliance is off fighting in Flanders, you only fight Mantua. And your peace-treaty with Mantua ends the war with everybody

Possibly a bad example. If Mantua is a member of the HRE, as I assumed, then I, as someone from outside the HRE, must automatically DOW the Emperor himself. No? Alliances don't come into it: I simply cannot attack someone else's vassal

Or what am I missing?

 

[Nick B II]

Possibly a bad example. If Mantua is a member of the HRE, as I assumed, then I, as someone from outside the HRE, must automatically DOW the Emperor himself. No? Alliances don't come into it: I simply cannot attack someone else's vassal

Or what am I missing?

Yeah you DoW the HRE, but when you made that declaration you had to use a particular CB. Otherwise the game wouldn't know what war-aims you were allowed to pursue.

I'm assuming using whatever CB you had on Mantua made Mantua the alliance leader, which means that your war with the Emperor comes to naught if you can beat Mantua while the Imperial Army is still in Flanders.

Kinda like if you manage to get into an HoI or Vicki war with Liberia and the US, but Liberia is alliance-leader, you don't have to bother beating the US Military if you can beat the Liberians and make a peace treaty before the US appears.

You're assuming that the two wars are separate wars and/or the Emperor is alliance-leader. Which means beating Mantua won't help you, because even if you make peace with Mantua you've still got to kill every knight in Saxony.

Ideally the Alliance-leader concept would be reworked for the new game, but even if they don't adapt the concept it still helps solve the problem you're talking about.

Nick

 

[Darkrenown]

There's no inter-realm alliances. When you DoW the HRE emp with your claim on Mantua your war is with him, the Count of Mantua is not consulted. Since the war is over Mantua, holding it gives the attacker a lot of War Score, and since it's a low level title the Emperor might be willing to let it go easily, but if he really feels like it he can raise all the levies available to him and make his displeasure felt.

 

[Erkanan]

I guess a vassal can't attack relilgious enemies on his own too?

And do you need a claim against pagan or muslim?

Edit: Well it seems Tegus had already answer to my second question

There are also multiple "permanent" CBs which are given to you if their conditions are met. For example, you get an Independence CB on your liege if he is independent, you get a Religious CB on people of other religious groups, you get an Excommunication CB if you share the same religious head and your target is excommunicated and so on.

 

[unmerged(312767)]

1. Face huge Invasion.
2. Assassinate enemy ruler.
3. PROFIT!!!!
IMHO ruler's death should harm organisation etc. but not end war - through history people always had chain of command with orders of who will step in after general or ruler death in military campaign.

 

[ComradeOm]

Since the war is over Mantua, holding it gives the attacker a lot of War Score, and since it's a low level title the Emperor might be willing to let it go easily

Does this apply to human players as well? So say that I'm the Count of Mantua and somebody DOWs the HRE over my title before occupying my province. Can the Emperor then make a peace that involves giving away my one province? Game over for me?

 

[Inteuniso]

Does this apply to human players as well? So say that I'm the Count of Mantua and somebody DOWs the HRE over my title before occupying my province. Can the Emperor then make a peace that involves giving away my one province? Game over for me?

Well, this would be unlikely to happen. Think of it this way. If a fellow vassal declared war on you, it would simply be easier to attack you. Why? Because the Emperor does have access to hundreds of thousands of levies, something you don't have. Afraid of foreigners? No fear! If a foreigner would attack the emperor, it's much more likely that he would raise more levies than simply letting you die by raising 2000 troops.

I think the safest thing to do is not piss anyone off and not marry off daughters to foreigners if you want to survive as the Count of Mantua.

 

[Darkrenown]

Does this apply to human players as well? So say that I'm the Count of Mantua and somebody DOWs the HRE over my title before occupying my province. Can the Emperor then make a peace that involves giving away my one province? Game over for me?

Yes.

1. Face huge Invasion.
2. Assassinate enemy ruler.
3. PROFIT!!!!
IMHO ruler's death should harm organisation etc. but not end war - through history people always had chain of command with orders of who will step in after general or ruler death in military campaign.

And throughout history there have been wars mostly driven by one man which ended with his death. Frederick Barbarossa and the Third Crusade springs to mind. As Tegus said, only some types of CB have this effect.

 

[ComradeOm]

Makes a mockery of the whole 'feudal game' thing, no? That is, the idea that my king (who could well be an inbred idiot with one province) can simply hand my title away as if it was his own just doesn't make sense for the period. I'm supposed to be medieval lord, not a provincial governor

 

[Ograv]

Looking forward to leading the Ynglings to glory

1) What kind of CB does Harald start with in 1066, claim to the title King of England? If so, that means I'll be able to grab the kingdom and vassals, but not wipe out and replace the vassals, right (as opposed to Invasion)?

2) What happens to the english demense, if I end up beating both William and Harold out of England, will it become mine to distribute freely?

3) Let's say I, playing Harald, end up controlling roughly the northern half of England, with William controlling the south. What happens now? Will William, controlling London (and the rest of the demense, giving more warscore), "win" the war between him and Harold, with William becoming the King of England, suddenly ending the war for me too without giving me anything? Or will I be at war with him as KoE then? Will the Kingdom split up, with me controlling the north through saxon vassals?

 

[tajerio]

Makes a mockery of the whole 'feudal game' thing, no? That is, the idea that my king (who could well be an inbred idiot with one province) can simply hand my title away as if it was his own just doesn't make sense for the period. I'm supposed to be medieval lord, not a provincial governor

This is definitely worrisome, both in terms of gameplay and historical accuracy. Especially since the game's from Paradox, who try to build their reputation on historical plausibility. The thought that Flanders and Holland can't go to war without one or the other going hat in hand to his liege for permission is a bit chilling, and the thought that one of them could lose his title de jure thanks to his liege's disinterest or hostility is even more so.

 

[TheArchMede]

How about a pillage CB?

The Count of Dumfries declares war on the Count of Carlisle using the pillage CB. If he takes control of Carlisle, he is able to sack it, drive the cattle off, burn the buildings etc. but the war is over and he just pockets the loot and not the title.

The Count of Carlisle can call on allies, add any CBs he has (including pillage Dumfries) or just try to fight off the raid and get the prestige from forcing the Count of Dumfries to concede defeat.

Lieges would always have the power to intervene (like a GP when a friendly nation is attacked in V2) but they wouldn't be automatically part of the conflict unless land was at risk.

The pillage CB would always be available against any neighbour, but pillaging someone in the same realm would give the liege of the target a CB on your title. So the Count of Carlisle could attempt to pillage the Lancastrian lands of his hated rival, the Duke of Oxford, but that would give the King of England a claim on Carlisle, which could turn out badly. Pillaging the Scots would be fair game though.

 

[Xain]

How about a pillage CB?

The Count of Dumfries declares war on the Count of Carlisle using the pillage CB. If he takes control of Carlisle, he is able to sack it, drive the cattle off, burn the buildings etc. but the war is over and he just pockets the loot and not the title.

The Count of Carlisle can call on allies, add any CBs he has (including pillage Dumfries) or just try to fight off the raid and get the prestige from forcing the Count of Dumfries to concede defeat.

Lieges would always have the power to intervene (like a GP when a friendly nation is attacked in V2) but they wouldn't be automatically part of the conflict unless land was at risk.

The pillage CB would always be available against any neighbour, but pillaging someone in the same realm would give the liege of the target a CB on your title. So the Count of Carlisle could attempt to pillage the Lancastrian lands of his hated rival, the Duke of Oxford, but that would give the King of England a claim on Carlisle, which could turn out badly. Pillaging the Scots would be fair game though.

That would be nice