Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Deus Vult - A Brief Overview

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
Ok here is the full quote.

"Religious warfare has received two minor but far-reaching changes. Firstly it is no
longer possible to march through the lands of a neutral religious enemy. Secondly you
no longer conquer a province on capture; rather the ruler of the commander
controlling the siege picks up a claim on it. This should prevent the unrealistic
conquests that have been seen in the past. One word of warning, the Mongols still use
the old rules so do not be surprised to see the Mongol hoards sweep all before them."


Now, when i read the last part, it seems they are trying to slow down how fast you can expand. Which makes me worry....

He said, "YOU" no longer conquor the pronvince on capture", meaning the player i would assume. Then he says, the ruler of the commander controlling the seige picks it up. That seems to be saying, that you get a province that your marshall might capture for example. But i am still confused about the first part, does you mean the player? And i have to worry simply because they mention that they are trying to get rid of unrealistic expansion of dominions.
 
Veldmaarschalk said:
I think it means that you as a ruler (count, duke or king) will get a claim on that province, you don't have to be present as a ruler, it might also be your marshal or courtier or a vassal of you, who leads the siege. And then you can demand that province in a peace-deal.

Of course when have given your AI-liege control over your armies, he will get the claims and not you.
Click to expand...

But this doesnt seem so, when you see that they specifically mentione that they were trying to end unrealistic expansions. IMO this would only make it easier to expand your lands.
 
Rambo said:
Ok here is the full quote.

"Religious warfare has received two minor but far-reaching changes. Firstly it is no
longer possible to march through the lands of a neutral religious enemy. Secondly you
no longer conquer a province on capture; rather the ruler of the commander
controlling the siege picks up a claim on it. This should prevent the unrealistic
conquests that have been seen in the past. One word of warning, the Mongols still use
the old rules so do not be surprised to see the Mongol hoards sweep all before them."


Now, when i read the last part, it seems they are trying to slow down how fast you can expand. Which makes me worry....

He said, "YOU" no longer conquor the pronvince on capture", meaning the player i would assume. Then he says, the ruler of the commander controlling the seige picks it up. That seems to be saying, that you get a province that your marshall might capture for example. But i am still confused about the first part, does you mean the player? And i have to worry simply because they mention that they are trying to get rid of unrealistic expansion of dominions.
Click to expand...

I read as, that you don't get a province immediately (as currently is the case) when you control it, but that you as a ruler get a claim on that province. Then you can make peace with the Muslim or Pagan and gain ownership of the province.

Rambo said:
But this doesnt seem so, when you see that they specifically mentione that they were trying to end unrealistic expansions. IMO this would only make it easier to expand your lands.
Click to expand...

Not if you get (maybe reduced) badboy-points because of it. I have no idea if that is the case of course.
 
Rambo said:
He said, "YOU" no longer conquor the pronvince on capture", meaning the player i would assume. Then he says, the ruler of the commander controlling the seige picks it up. That seems to be saying, that you get a province that your marshall might capture for example. But i am still confused about the first part, does you mean the player? And i have to worry simply because they mention that they are trying to get rid of unrealistic expansion of dominions.
Click to expand...
Example: You are the Duke of Leinster and you invade Munster. Your army is under the command of your brother/marshal/courtier and it is he who completes the siege. Yet the province does not go to your brother/marshal/courtier - it goes to you, the ruler of the commander controlling the siege. Or at least you control, if not own, the province

This is how it has always worked for Christian provinces and now this is how it will also work for Muslim provinces. Contrast with the old way when the brother/marshal/courtier would have gained control of the province and become a count.
 
Veldmaarschalk said:
I read as, that you don't get a province immediately (as currently is the case) when you control it, but that you as a ruler get a claim on that province. Then you can make peace with the Muslim or Pagan and gain ownership of the province.



Not if you get (maybe reduced) badboy-points because of it. I have no idea if that is the case of course.
Click to expand...


Ahh now that makes sense to me, i think your right valdmaarshalk, yes, before you just gained control of the province immeaditly. I actually like this change a lot too. I was so tired of seeing a crusade delcared before, and watch the abbyuids, or whatever their name is get swallowed up by the HRE in about 6 months.
 
I think this is not clear for people.

If you are the king of France, and the duke of Anjou - your vassal conquers a muslim province. He'll get a claim on that province.

Now the guy controlling that province after capturing is Anjou ! And this guy has a claim now on that province.

As long as you (the king) doesn't has a claim on Anjou's title. You won't be able to steal the siege !

That means that your vassals can outpace you and take some lands for themselves in seperate peace deals.

Off course - you can always choose to nullify their conquests by making a smaller peace treaty and settle peace for your king title and your vassals !

Off course those lands will go to the kingdom - but under your vassal.

f.e. Anjou attacked a muslim king and the king of France joins his vassal, and is later ... and Anjou did mobilise his regiments before your call. That will be an interesting development in the game.

Really makes me wonder if the "lag time" for a king mobilising and "lag time" for a duke mobilising, and a count mobilising, should be different ...
 
Last edited:
It sounds to me like the change is you don't gain ownership of the province immediately at the end of the siege, but gain control and a claim.

So you can still declare war on religious enemies if you don't have a claim. With a religious enemy you will get the claim if "your" army wins the siege. Then you can demand the province in a peace deal, whereas with someone of the same religion you would have to obtain the claim by other means before going to war.
 
trajan said:
It sounds to me like the change is you don't gain ownership of the province immediately at the end of the siege, but gain control and a claim.

So you can still declare war on religious enemies if you don't have a claim. With a religious enemy you will get the claim if "your" army wins the siege. Then you can demand the province in a peace deal, whereas with someone of the same religion you would have to obtain the claim by other means before going to war.
Click to expand...

also makes me wonder if the claim will go away after you settled for peace ... and wait to fight the second war. But that seems a rethorical question - as you need warscore at the least to get the enemy to give in. So you'll need to capture lands also in the next war...

so I guess you won't lose that claim.
 
It's basically saying that sieges of heathen provinces will now end up the same way as christian provinces - with your flag on it and the province blocked from doing any action (like raising troops, building), but with a single difference - that you will actually get a claim on that province (you can often siege christian provinces but don't get them in the end as you happen to not have the claim).
 
One thing for sure. It'll be fun figuring out the correct interpretation, considering all the neat feature we now will have.

EDIT: Hmm. Just reread my post. I think I need to redo my English as a Second Language course. :rofl:
 
Last edited:
binTravkin said:
It's basically saying that sieges of heathen provinces will now end up the same way as christian provinces - with your flag on it and the province blocked from doing any action (like raising troops, building), but with a single difference - that you will actually get a claim on that province (you can often siege christian provinces but don't get them in the end as you happen to not have the claim).
Click to expand...

it's also saying, if you read further down, that powerfull vassals on which you don't have a claim, probably will cause you some serious headaches in the holy lands.

really nifty :D

to find out that the duke of Anjou has become king of Leon grace to your difficulties with the duke of Champagne f.e.

great game :D
 
binTravkin said:
It's basically saying that sieges of heathen provinces will now end up the same way as christian provinces - with your flag on it and the province blocked from doing any action (like raising troops, building), but with a single difference - that you will actually get a claim on that province (you can often siege christian provinces but don't get them in the end as you happen to not have the claim).
Click to expand...

I have to say I agree with this interpretation. ;)

I dont think i have ever spent so much time analyzing a couple sentences for meaning before. Now i see what people actually enjoy going to those bible study groups. :rofl:
 
jordarkelf said:
I wonder if that new system means the male drain problem is eliminated? In CK now you lose your army leader if he doesn't have a title yet (such as your marshall), as he'll become count of the province.
Click to expand...

I think so, i hope so as well. I hated losing my high skill marshall everytime my king was a minor, or if i just didnt feel like marching all my troops around in a huge mob. :mad:
 
Veldmaarschalk said:
Not if you get (maybe reduced) badboy-points because of it. I have no idea if that is the case of course.
Click to expand...

I hope BB woud be called for, unless its during a crusade.

of course if so, the work around would be surrender-a-claim-for-every-claim-you-make-good, which makes expansion against religious enemies BB neutral. surrendering claims of this sort to make peace is no big deal as they are only one siege hence and easily acquired.
 
I'd just like to go on and thank you guys for finally adding windowed support from the command line, as well as extra resolutions. Some people (mostly me, I guess) have been constantly begging for this in both Victoria and CK and it's good to see that we're finally getting our wishes!

Also pretty much everything new looks fantastic and will give CK many more years of longevity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back