Clearly the King of Norway was the legit successor to Canute, so thats who I'll be playing on my first go-around... that or the Alans.. Or maybe the Wends.
Stamford bridge and Hastings
- Thread starter sskrypteia
- Start date
-
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.
I pray that the AI will be smarter with diplomacy this way around. I would like to see more demands for submission, instead of demands for all your land or your life. I think that for a liege at war, his vassals should have some opinion of how things are going; losing a big battle or a significant province should shake your vassals' faith in you, maybe cause unrest. In EU3 DW, for example, I have to just about entirely defeat every of the AI enemy's armies before he will talk about some peace (reminds me of Monty Python's Black Knight: I occupy all your territory, and you want a white peace?).
On a related note, I hope that peace by event works this time around as it should: CK1 had those "the heathens are divided" events that gave you a white peace with your religious enemies, but your vassals remained at war with them. I am also interested to see parley events: for recognizing claims and refuting them in an event chain between co-belligerents or between antagonists, to form an alliance against a common foe, or the like. Of course one option should be to do in your adversary like poor John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, learned in 1419 on that bridge. Of course, doing so would lose prestige for yourself and your dynasty and gain you a nasty "dishonorable" trait--no one will give you a parley again. And if you are reading, my dear devs, you coding gods, think about limited warfare.
To be fair to the AI, in CK1 if you occupy the demesne of a one-province Count, there's not much he can offer you that's a compromise between a WP and losing all his land. (Noting that force-vassalisation was tacked on in DV, and one cannot offer to become a vassal, one can only demand it.) Presumably CK2 will draw on all the cool diplomatic options from Vic2 and EU3, and thus the interface will make compromise peaces possible.
I think that vassalization is the proper outcome in that situation. For one thing, it prevents the AI from blobbing as much as it does in CK1 DV. For another, I think that it keeps there should be serious consequences for grabbing titles and depriving smaller nobles of their rightful titles.
Thirdly, it means all of the large non-independent families don't just disappear because they all become courtiers in another court, never marry, and die out. I would rather LIKE to see the Welfs and D'Anjous and other great families that ruled Duchies for many years survive. My main gripe was that a Duke would rebel, and chances are, would lose all his land, rather than just have to submit. And then that was a large family that would, in all likelihood, never appear on the map again. And that made me sad.
IIRC in CK DV you can offer to become a vassal, as part of a peacedeal.
Usually if you are in dire enough straits to want to do it, the AI isn't going to settle for less than game over. I don't recall ever managing it as a count, but on occasion as a Duke it worked.
Have you ever offered to become a vassal ? The AI (when you are war with him) won't do it. But a human player can offer to become a vassal.
He won Stamford Bridge.
Anyway, I was playing as William yesterday. Harald beat Norwegian Harald and marched south, I was handily winning the battle until William was killed and Harald's army escaped with much less losses than it should have taken
He won Stamford Bridge.
Anyway, I was playing as William yesterday. Harald beat Norwegian Harald and marched south, I was handily winning the battle until William was killed and Harald's army escaped with much less losses than it should have taken
Ah that's cool
Can't you just release the game already so I can play it too, I mean there is only so much CK1 can do after all
There was a memorable occasion in CK1 when I did do just that. I was playing as the Duchy of Apulia, hadn't yet become King of Sicily in 1066, and I got into a scuffle with the Byzantines. I had only one province left, so I thought why not? Old Constantinos accepted my submission and you know what? Three weeks later I was emperor of the Roman Empire when pneumonia finally took the old man. The next few hundred years was smooth sailing for the Hautevilles.
He won Stamford Bridge.
Anyway, I was playing as William yesterday. Harald beat Norwegian Harald and marched south, I was handily winning the battle until William was killed and Harald's army escaped with much less losses than it should have taken
Very interesting. If I may ask, what are the chances of leaders being killed in battle?
He won Stamford Bridge.
Anyway, I was playing as William yesterday. Harald beat Norwegian Harald and marched south, I was handily winning the battle until William was killed and Harald's army escaped with much less losses than it should have taken
Did Robert Curthose get to keep fighting on once his father died? I know he was still a kid, but he should get the claim or is it lost?
Three weeks later I was emperor of the Roman Empire when pneumonia finally took the old man. The next few hundred years was smooth sailing for the Hautevilles.
Yes.. "Pneumonia" took him..
Last edited:
It's o good suggestion: when a King grab a non-rightful title, He will gain a trait deshonored, and his relations with the vassals and others Kingdoms would be very difficult. Maybe a prestige and piety penalties and troops desertion.
Something along those lines, I think. You're using your prestige to grab things you are not entitled to. But as a general thing, I think that your vassals should be rather canny about joining you on wars that are to extend your own power without much benefit for themselves. Aggressors should have to rely on mercenaries more than levies, who I think should be left at home to defend the places where they live. Assuming that winning a war will not consist of simply occupying all of your enemy's provinces, but also defending your own.
But I think there should be other CBs, maybe instigated by your spymaster. Like those awkward demands for homage that the King of France demanded of the King of England. That could be an interesting event chain. So England is involved in a war with Scotland, say, so the King of France seizes England-held lands in his realm. In general, I don't like the single-button grab title, which became an exploit used against excommunicated characters for example (hopefully excommunication will be more than that, involving plots rather than just King John is excommunicated, so everyone claim the crown of England).
I feel that in general you should rely on mercenaries for practically anything short of defense against immediate invasion. It's worth recalling that the feudal system evolved as a decentralised defense against Viking and Moslem raids; it was never intended to function as a national army. Hence such limitations as the forty days of service: Forty days is just about enough time to gather your troops, meet an invader on the model of, say, the Great Heathen Army, defeat them, and go back home in time for the harvest. If instead you are recruiting a Great Heathen Army of your own to go and grab other peoples' land, feudal obligations are not to be relied upon; forty days are not enough. Then you have to call for volunteers and promise them either land or movable loot, as both William and Harald did to recruit their respective hosts.
Of course, this applies to the earliest CK period; certainly there was some development over the following 400 years. But the main development was that of scutage; in effect, the vassal pays some money so the King can hire some mercenaries in the vassal's place, and the mercenaries will go anywhere you like and serve for as long as the war chest lasts. The feudal host as such remained, in effect, a militia obligation, intended for local defense.
Of course, this applies to the earliest CK period; certainly there was some development over the following 400 years. But the main development was that of scutage; in effect, the vassal pays some money so the King can hire some mercenaries in the vassal's place, and the mercenaries will go anywhere you like and serve for as long as the war chest lasts. The feudal host as such remained, in effect, a militia obligation, intended for local defense.
Harald was hardly the legit succesor to Canute, since he was not even bloodrelated, and didn't rule the homeland of him
Anyways, I think I'll give Harald a go in a test run and see how things play out in England