Banish button, let's delete it too.

[Kansai-kun]

I'm still not understanding: Why exactle is banishment considered tyranny in every case? Historically, nobles were more often stripped of their lands and sent into exile than executed. I even remember reading about an English king who "breached custom" by executing a rebelling noble. If a noble rebels against you, banishment should be fair game. He played the game, he lost and now he has to pay the price for his treachery.
But in CK2 banishing traitors is seen as more tyrannical than executing them? That doesn't make any sense.

Also, exploiters gonna exploit, regardless of what you do. So please refrain from crying "NERF!" everytime something looks like it could possibly be exploited in some minor way.

 

[iamjmph]

Why do people keep insisting on stamping out all the role-playablibility in this game?

Because thats not the "right" way to play the game. The way they play is the only way to play and anything that lets other play a different way must be removed!

 

[Thure]

After banishing specific character, his heir will inherit lands and gold, and guy just would go to another country. More kindly that "execute" because his heir and all family will not hate you.

No. It represent something like the banishment of Henry the Lion. He was banished and the Emperor take all his lands and give them to other vasalls.

What I would change? There should be reason where banishment shouldn't be tyranny.

 

[Spiritus Imperi]

Instead of reworking banishment, why not just rework tyranny? An arbitrary ruler that never thinks about his subjects doesn't just anger the nobles--his injustice also inflames the peasantry. Tyranny should have the chance of inciting a HUGE rebellion of both nobles and peasants, which if successful would depose the ruler and lower crown authority.

 

[111axa1]

Yeah, also remove send gift. And plots. And factions. Too much gameyness for me.

And it ends up like EU4, a terrible game.

Yes, yes! You know what else we need to remove? Those stupid, pretentious "flavor" events. Stupidy gamey stories...

Now that I've had my fun, allow me to speak on a more serious note. I do not see the problem with banishment, unlike the assassination button it was not trumped by another feature, i.e plots. It is the mark of one with greed, envy, of a tyrant. It angers the nobles and makes them clutch their treasures with iron grips, their wishes filled with dreams of a Magna Carta, their eyes on the hilts of their swords. If the liege doesn't act tend to the worries of his vassals then they may very well revolt, or perhaps he'll find himself choking on the finest wine. It has all the means of risk and reward. First I have to imprison someone, which if done without a valid reason incurs tyranny. If I fail then some Reyne of Castamere decides to revolt rather than die a prisoner bereft of wine and women. If I win I can revoke his titles or banish him because he's a bloody traitor, but anything could happen in a war, mind you. If I did manage to imprison him I'm left with the sad reality of the fact that if I don't have strong claims then I can't revoke his land without incurring tyranny, if I decide to banish him I gain a formidable mountain of tyranny, but I also gain gold and lands.

Please, for love of Zoroaster, of Odin, of my Asturian gardener Jesus, will the nerf lobby please recede to the corners of the map and settle in fabled Lanka, that we, the gentle, loving, kind, kin slaying oath breakers execute our newborns in peace?

 

[mabbott]

I think it is balanced enough. There is the tyranny hit but as long as your not doing this all the time its still easy to maintain good relations with the vassals, especially if you have a long reign. Plus by banishing people you are creating claimants (assuming they were a landed character) which could or could not have serious repercussions later on.

 

[Cybele]

But in CK2 banishing traitors is seen as more tyrannical than executing them? That doesn't make any sense.

Gameplay.

Banishing gives you all their titles and gold. Executing them allows normal inheritance to take effect. If banishing didn't have a steep penalty, it would become the obviously superior option.

It would be nice if we had a "banish, but don't seize titles or assets" option, where the offending individual would be forced to abdicate to his heir.

 

[Gnorrosch]

Banishing gives you all their titles and gold. Executing them allows normal inheritance to take effect. If banishing didn't have a steep penalty, it would become the obviously superior option.

Then simply reduce the result of banishing. If you banish someone, he has to pay a fine (10 % of his money) and loses his highest level title(s) and everything outside his former de jure primary title. The confiscated titles will be automatically given to unlanded claimants of another dynasty, lower level barons or randomly created nobles. There, banishment nerfed and still useful for breaking up super-dukes.

Side effect: AI can banish the player without causing a game over, as you will always keep one landed title.

 

[Khezef]

Then simply reduce the result of banishing. If you banish someone, he has to pay a fine (10 % of his money) and loses his highest level title(s) and everything outside his former de jure primary title. The confiscated titles will be automatically given to unlanded claimants of another dynasty, lower level barons or randomly created nobles. There, banishment nerfed and still useful for breaking up super-dukes.

Side effect: AI can banish the player without causing a game over, as you will always keep one landed title.

That last landed title will either be ejected from the empire or the banished superduke will still be inside the empire. One way is just stupid and nobody would do it, and the other one is simply not banishment.

 

[Kansai-kun]

It would be nice if we had a "banish, but don't seize titles or assets" option, where the offending individual would be forced to abdicate to his heir.

Only if they're also barred from re-inheriting their titles. Sometimes, when a ruler has no children, his father inherits, should he still be alive. It wouldn't make much sense, if a banished ruler could worm his way back into your realm that way.

 

[Rozmarzony]

Why do people keep insisting on stamping out all the role-playablibility in this game?

Role-playability?
I never saw banishment used in roleplay way, but in every exploit run, yes.

 

[Gnorrosch]

That last landed title will either be ejected from the empire or the banished superduke will still be inside the empire. One way is just stupid and nobody would do it, and the other one is simply not banishment.

Banishment does not necessarily need to include exiling somebody from your realm, it can also mean forbidding someone to enter a certain place or binding someone to a specific place. For example, Napoleon was not banished from France, but to Elba and later to St. Helena.

 

[Maracas]

I hate to call it Banishment.

I prefer to call it matrelineal marriage to someone as far away from my realm as possible.

That's what I call it, too.

 

[Zolotaya]

If Paradox were to be consistent they should remove this button and expand the plot system to include banishment. So, yes, please do remove this button.

This button also is key to several major abuses, including the never-ending cash dispenser.

They should also consider removing other abusive buttons as well and expanding the plot system to be used as the devise to do every action and re-action within the scope of the game. From Chancellors traveling the same day you assign them to the foreign power of your choice to spies that mysteriously use instant teleportation to travel from scheme to scheme the plot system should be flexible enough to handle anything thrown at it.

 

[Rozmarzony]

If Paradox were to be consistent they should remove this button and expand the plot system to include banishment. So, yes, please do remove this button.

This button also is key to several major abuses, including the never-ending cash dispenser.

They should also consider removing other abusive buttons as well and expanding the plot system to be used as the devise to do every action and re-action within the scope of the game. From Chancellors traveling the same day you assign them to the foreign power of your choice to spies that mysteriously use instant teleportation to travel from scheme to scheme the plot system should be flexible enough to handle anything thrown at it.

Yes! You understand the point. And using spymaster (with re-asigning) to spy every enemy province, uh, it's need to be changed too.

 

[Zolotaya]

Yes! You understand the point. And using spymaster (with re-asigning) to spy every enemy province, uh, it's need to be changed too.

Yes, sending my spy to Constantinople is my favorite way of keeping track of every move the ERE makes. The spy's ability to see army movements is far superior to any NATO spy satellite and it is real-time intelligence - something these satellites could never supply.

 

[Rozmarzony]

Yes, sending my spy to Constantinople is my favorite way of keeping track of every move the ERE makes. The spy's ability to see army movements is far superior to any NATO spy satellite and it is real-time intelligence - something these satellites could never supply.

If you want to abuse it even more, just check at character TAB where emperor/king is sitting, send there spymaster. In most cases, he will be leading the main army.

 

[Zolotaya]

If you want to abuse it even more, just check at character TAB when emperor/king is sitting, send there spymaster. In most cases, he will be leading the main army.

You have a very quick mind Rozmarzony!

Hopefully Groogy and/or others have seen this thread and will consider the request. It seems weird to me that the assassination button was addressed before this banish button was.

 

[anomanderus]

Because thats not the "right" way to play the game. The way they play is the only way to play and anything that lets other play a different way must be removed!

The problem here is that this is meant to be a strategy game. People often complain of having "nothing to do" because they already conquered the whole world by 1100

By making it more difficult to do that you get more game to play and can enjoy endgame mechanics and technologies

You get more play time and more fun and assuming that it will be much easier to hold together a multicontinental empire by 1300 you'll still get your world conquest

 

[Rozmarzony]

Changed first post because there are good news about banishment! yay.