• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
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.

CrusaderKingsII_War_2.png

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.

CrusaderKingsII_War_1.png

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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This mechanic really, really worries me.

For awhile I thought it could be saved if they were just doing it right. It could even be an improvement.

But they're not doing it right.

Here're the problems:

1) If you are playing a Duke and you get a claim in another realm it does you no good because you need your liege's permission to press it. Not only is it impossible for you to do this on your own, it's impossible for you to ask your liege for permission. That's just stupid, ahistoric, and un-fun.

2) If you are playing a vassal and you get DoWed you only get to defend yourself if your liege thinks it's worth the trouble. Again stupid, ahistoric and un-fun.

3) If you are playing an independent lord (or vassal whose King has randomly decided to press his claim) you will certainly have to fight every lord in your target Kingdom. Stupid, ahistoric, and un-fun.

I believe I speak for pretty much every person who has ever paid you for a game when I tell you that it is imperative you fix this. You can fob some stuff off onto the modders, but this is just too stupid, ahistoric, and un-fun to justify it's presence in vanilla.

Nick
 
Are there rebellion CBs for foreign claims on your lord or just for your own claims?. As in if someone who is not in your court has a claim on the throne of england and you are a duke of england, will you have a CB allowing you to declare war to put him on the throne. i.e. In the 1066 scenarios, will the Leofricssons have a CB to put the Aetheling [who i would guess would be in Scotland] on the throne.
But it could be very useful and alot of fun in many situations, in any case where there is a pretender you as a disloyal vassal ought to be able to rise up in support of that pretender. Maybe not just for Kings but counts against their dukes too.
Im assuming that if someone in your court has a claim you can goto war to support it, but it would be a greater thing to be able to support the claims of those not in your court as well. Every character shouldnt be coveting the throne for their own houses but rather should act for who they see as the legitimate king rather than making another illegitimate king in themselves as in CK.
 
Are there rebellion CBs for foreign claims on your lord or just for your own claims?. As in if someone who is not in your court has a claim on the throne of england and you are a duke of england, will you have a CB allowing you to declare war to put him on the throne. i.e. In the 1066 scenarios, will the Leofricssons have a CB to put the Aetheling [who i would guess would be in Scotland] on the throne.
But it could be very useful and alot of fun in many situations, in any case where there is a pretender you as a disloyal vassal ought to be able to rise up in support of that pretender. Maybe not just for Kings but counts against their dukes too.
Im assuming that if someone in your court has a claim you can goto war to support it, but it would be a greater thing to be able to support the claims of those not in your court as well. Every character shouldnt be coveting the throne for their own houses but rather should act for who they see as the legitimate king rather than making another illegitimate king in themselves as in CK.

I fear that it would give you claim against all the world. But maybe it would be nice for the King and Emperor tier, so you can try to replace the king by his brother. But the owner of the claim should be rebellious or maybe it could be a plot.
 
So if you are a powerful duke who gains a claim to the throne of a neighboring kingdom you have no way of pressing that claim yourself? It's not like your liege king would have any reason to declare war on your behalf, since if he wins you would become independent of him and take your duchy with you into your new kingdom.

I'm worried that playing as a vassal will be very frustrating because of this mechanic. :confused:
 
I fear that it would give you claim against all the world. But maybe it would be nice for the King and Emperor tier, so you can try to replace the king by his brother. But the owner of the claim should be rebellious or maybe it could be a plot.

If it only was against your LIEGE as i mentioned and as would be the only what made sense, then it wouldnt. You have no right to rebellion against someone elses king, but if your liege is a false king you ought to be able to rebel in the name of the true king instead of just your own.
Look to the Anarchy, or any of the big civil wars really, it was never that one claimant was a duke and the other the king, it was that different dukes rose in support of the one they saw to be true. You shouldnt need to have that character in your court to be able to do anything about it as for counties in CK or be one of your vassals as a count as with any other titles in CK, you should be able to rebel against the false king in the name of true no matter where he is! as long as he has a claim and your either rebellious, have low relationship with the current king or are the human player to stop the AI doing it for no reason.

So if you are a powerful duke who gains a claim to the throne of a neighboring kingdom you have no way of pressing that claim yourself? It's not like your liege king would have any reason to declare war on your behalf, since if he wins you would become independent of him and take your duchy with you into your new kingdom.

I'm worried that playing as a vassal will be very frustrating because of this mechanic. :confused:

from the sounds of it you can declare war on the neighboring king just not the neighboring duke
 
And no possibility of rejecting the king's decision and fighting on alone?
Theoretically if you rebelled against your liege (using the Independence CB) you would now be independent and be able to decide on your own whether you surrender or not. (However this would mean an instant stop-game with two options: game over or DoW, thus making the treaty null and void. Basically a time travel of negligible amount :eek:)

OFC this would mean a war against both your liege (presumably bigger than you) and the invader (naturally bigger than you) with both intent on annexing you.:eek:


But I doubt any AI would instantly offer defeat on day 1 of the war, without even trying to put up a fight. And if there's a fight, the human player can pull off miracles (as usual).
 
from the sounds of it you can declare war on the neighboring king just not the neighboring duke

No, only independant rulers or vassals within the same realm can declare war on each other.
Neither of those apply in my scenario, so it seems like claims to kingdoms won't be worth much unless you're already independent. :(
 
Here're the problems:

1) If you are playing a Duke and you get a claim in another realm it does you no good because you need your liege's permission to press it. Not only is it impossible for you to do this on your own, it's impossible for you to ask your liege for permission. That's just stupid, ahistoric, and un-fun.

2) If you are playing a vassal and you get DoWed you only get to defend yourself if your liege thinks it's worth the trouble. Again stupid, ahistoric and un-fun.

3) If you are playing an independent lord (or vassal whose King has randomly decided to press his claim) you will certainly have to fight every lord in your target Kingdom. Stupid, ahistoric, and un-fun.

Reading the DD does not make you an expert on the game, keep calm, stop over reacting, and think a bit more about what you are saying.

1) No, it does you plenty of good if you liege presses the claim. Nor has anyone said you cannot ask your liege.
2) So you would prefer it if you could just sweep in, siege and make peace with the targeted vassal and laugh at their ex-liege? Would you have fun playing as a King and having your vassals sniped away? No, I think not. It makes a lot more sense to have the liege in charge.
3) No, you have to fight their liege. For some odd reason he doesn't like you stealing his vassals.
 
Rebellions should have specific goals like you say. Maybe revoking a certain law (which could be part of plots, for which rebellion is one possible result).

Rebellions most of the time started with a specific goal and ended up with something else. Especially when the goal was more civil liberties, there are enough examples in history, when the result was dictatorship of the worst kind, whether "successful" or not.
 
3) No, you have to fight their liege. For some odd reason he doesn't like you stealing his vassals.

If you are the liege, do you always have to defend your vassals? If say you've just fought an exhausting war and your money and manpower are depleted when some other kingdom attacks a vassal of yours, can you just abandon them?
 
I guess that if you don't want to fight you can simply offer the enemy a peace agreement giving them what they want, they'd have no reason to refuse so the war would be over at once. Sucks for the vassal getting thrown under the bus though.
 
I guess that if you don't want to fight you can simply offer the enemy a peace agreement giving them what they want, they'd have no reason to refuse so the war would be over at once. Sucks for the vassal getting thrown under the bus though.

Yeah, but knowing the AI in Paradox games they would refuse any peace offer just to be stubborn, and then proceed to gleefully pillage your provinces. :p
 
Yeah, I'm not liking this. Medieval politics were much more complicated than a strict reading of the feudal pyramid/hierarchy suggests. As I'm sure P'dox know. Variables like wealth, prestige, personal relations, strategic concerns, etc, played a huge role in determining power relations. So it doesn't make any sense that I have to automatically DOW a king to wage war on his vassal or that my liege can give away my title without me being able to do anything about it. These are huge immersion breakers

Again, I think the big problem is that these design decisions are removing power from the feudal lords and giving them to the king. This makes the kingdom - which in many areas was as cohesive as EUIII's HRE - the basic unit of medieval politics. A position that it does not deserve. I should not have to declare war on the King of France in 1066, a man unable to travel outside his own demesne for fear of being murdered, just to go to war with Toulouse. The decision of Paris to intervene should be based on the variables that I mentioned above
 
Why was this a week early? Not that iI'm complaining, but do we get one today too?
 
Maybe now they switch to weekly Dev Diary's? :)