Which would be a choice between immediate game over and a war against at least the attacker, maybe your former liege as well (after all, you dishonored the treaty they signed, thus revolted against them) which is a war you cannot win (given the relative sizes of realms).Originally Posted by thrashing mad
Still, an interesting idea, albeit the war would be a definite lost one (otherwise you could have won before the treaty was signed). Yet I can think of no better at the moment.
According to the actual Dev, you cannot refuse peace when you are occupied. This means the AI cannot refuse peace when it is occupied. So if you're Aquitane, some foreigner inherits a claim on you through Agnes, and he manages to occupy all two of the King's provinces your game just ended. War-score is irrelevant.
And I'm still waiting to hear a reason vassal-sniping -- aka: everything that happened in the era -- was actually a problem.
Nick
AFAIK Feudalism worked in theory by the King creating a title, and giving it (with land) to someone in return for troops when needed.
Thus the title of the vassal was one that the liege had at first. Which I interpret as the liege being able to claim the title back if he wants to do so, and refusal of this is open revolt.
Which gives a dual edge to a foreign DoW on a vassal:The latter also means a powerful exploit in taking the vassals' land into the King's hand, that is, centralising the state.
- firstly it is a title of the liege a foreign usurper is trying to take, thus promoting its defence (making the liege fight with teeth and fingernails)
- secondly it gives a CB against the offender to claim the title back, thus losing the war (intentionally, on day 1) is no more than a prestige issue, promoting surrender without much of a fight.
Well, if player as a vassal is small and insignificant then yes, you are right. However, if we are talking about powerful French duke in 1066 start, you have a lot of land (more than your king) and you should theoretically be able to peace out giving only small consessions.
I see. However, if you stand any chance of winning the war, you shouldn't get to be handed away in the first place (because you were winning the war anyway...)
About small concessions: in CK2 there are only three peace deals: White peace, Revokation of Claim the war was for, and Cession of the claim the war was for.
Thus unless you are a many-title duke, you can only pull off something favorable (including WP) or be fully annexed. But if you are a several-title duke, you can afford to lose the title the war was for without gameover, so you won't have too much of a problem with your king handing that one away... (other than making a Raaage thread like one in EU3).
Edit: or should we put some feature in to every peace deal made by the alliance leader? To accept / fight on without allies? This would make some sense, but it should have a high chance of getting you to war with the Leader who signed the treaty on your side as well... then good luck with winning out of that situation, Térémaire! (Charles of Burgundy)
It wasn't this way in CK1.
Which, last time I checked, was not only a Paradox game it was the Paradox game most directly comparable to CK2. So your "always" argument is not only false, it's uniquely inappropriate to the situation.
An excellent explanation of the feature.
The problem with the feature isn't that it has not been sufficiently explained, it's that the feature has no place in a Medieval game. You wanna know why it has no place in the game? Grand Duchy of Burgundy. If the Dukes had been forced to fight the HRE and France every time one of their claims was contested it would not have existed.
BTW, your gameplay argument regarding large Kings and Mantua makes some sense. Not a lot -- if 1 in a hundred vassal games ends because the King was too prissy to fight that's unacceptable -- but it makes some.
The problem is that it doesn't address ComradeOm's point. Medieval lords acquired claims on the other side of the border all the time. Which means most of these wars involving Count-sized targets were started by Count or Duke-sized countries. Wars like that were so common they didn't get named.
Let's move from Mantua and go to Flanders, a hotbed of this kind of warfare. Let's say the Count of Hainut (German vassal) gets a claim on Vermandois (French vassal). This feature means that if he acts like his historical counterpart he will declare war on Vermandois, and he'll almost certainly lose because Hainut is smaller then France. If the devs have left force-vassalization as a peace option he'll probably also end up a French vassal. Which means in the devs desire to eliminate historic offensive vassal-sniping they've created unhistoric defensive vassal-sniping.
But, of course, if the devs only decide to hard-code the Hainut AI to act completely unhistorically this will all be fixed.
In essence that's my problem with this feature. It's so blatantly anti-history that virtually every element of the game has to be programmed to act un-historically or it will be a disaster.
And, because I think I'll have to do this daily until I get a "Yes:"
Will you be able to ask your liege to force a claim in another realm?
Nick
If I understand it correctly, it wouldn't. As Hainut will not be able to declare war 'outside' his realm without his liege. Meaning, if he has a claim and wishes to press for it, it would be a HRE (if they agree) against France and not Hainut against France.
A notion I do find a bit concerning is capture of the King leads to 'instant lose' in a war. This would lead to people not using the King in battles, as a war dragging on for months could just end because of a bad dice role. Even if you have decimated the foe and taken 90% of their kingdom. Why take the risk? To negate that, a King leading his army should have significant bonus (and I mean significant) to offset this risk. Not just a +10 prestige or +1 martial!
As stated before it only applies to certain CBs.
Incorrect!
Death applies to certain CBs.
Capture applies to all CBs!
Oh, I was mistaken then, that doesn't sound very good at all.
1) The best France can get from the war is the revokation of the Hainautian claim to Varmandois. So defensive NOT-vassal-sniping.
2) Although somewhat unhistorical, certainly legitimate. The King should be able to defend his vassals... if he wants to.
So I say that a CB given to the liege should suffice. If it wanted to retaliate, he could (and revoke the claim/free the already annexed vassal). If he didn't, then he would leave them to battle it out themselves.
If the liege would lose the war they declared, the treaty would strengthen the original attacker's claim on the title, as well as boost its prestige (while costing a lot of it for the liege).
Yeah, the "captured king = 100% war score" mechanic sounds horribly unbalanced. I'm the Duke of Brittany and I have a claim on the King of England. I declare war, quickly move all of my levies to England, get lucky, capture the king, and suddenly I'm the King of England, no questions asked? That's not right, PI.
I think a captured King should be worth maybe 50% of the war score. If you're doing poorly already, then your captured king would be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and the war would end. If you're doing really well, then there's only a 50% slide in war score and you can continue the war. Your captured king would force you to ask for lesser demands like white peace.
Aye, but you're warring with the king. If you've captured the king, the war is over, because he has no real choice but to accept all your terms. It's very realistic.
Of course, the various lords of England would not be so happy, and quite possibly would create a huge rebellion-plot, effectively forcing you to fight the same war over again, if you don't act quickly to limit their power.
I know I believe in nothing, but it is my nothing
Cogito Ergo Sum
Hang on a sec lemme just fix this for you....
welp!
ps: I love how you gloss over the "Get lucky" part of yuor plan like it's the easiest thing in the world. The King might not be leading his armies. He might escape even if he is.
Sola Virtus Invicta
How is it very realistic to have every Prince, Duke, and Count in the realm get down on bended knee and accept you as the King of England because you got lucky and captured the king?
Unfortunately, your "fix" is historically broken. This is King Stephen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Stephen_of_England
He was captured. When he was captured, he didn't stop being the King of England, his partisans didn't suddenly roll over, and "the Anarchy" period of civil war didn't end on the same day. As it is in CK2, if King Stephen was captured, that's what would have happened. Stephen would have abdicated to Matilda, Matilda would have become Queen, and the war would have ended. Anyone displeased over it would have to start a new war, I guess.
As for luck, I brought it up as a hypothetical scenario, and properly so considering capture and escape in a battle will almost certainly be decided by invisible dice rolls.
Which raises the question over whether kings even have to be ON the map...
But if not, capturing the capital would account to the same coupe de grace.
Do the infidel go by the same rule? Thus sending off navies towards egypt and a quick march with 15000 men into cairo just might get you lucky aswell.. capturng said sultan and caliph with his pants down in the harem... and now you are emperor of egypt
Constantly foiled in my grand plans, palying EU2
No 200 Conscription centers in russia and a standing army of 4.000.000 (patched)
No Dow serbia, and with a 100% victory, demand 6 provinces from Ottomans (patched)
No quick defeat of manchus, converting capital & release -> christian china as vassal (patched)
Still can in EU3
Spam russia with nothing but market-type buildings and ultimately have 300% trade efficiency
What in the extremely unlikely situation of both kings being captured in the same battle (day of battle)?
So Kings captured should be worth 50% WS as Jia Xu suggested.
I imagine that the capture event only takes place at the end of a battle and only for the losing side.What in the extremely unlikely situation of both kings being captured in the same battle (day of battle)?
So Kings captured should be worth 50% WS as Jia Xu suggested.
The feature on it's own isn't flawed and I have no problem with it, personally. However from a gameplay perspective it should be more balanced I think. With the current model the player has no real incentive to take his King to battle if there is a possibility for 'instant loose' regardless of his strategy, tactis and preparation for months. What I fear is that the AI will not take this into account... This can be easily rectified if say the army gets a 50% moral/fighting boost or some other form of very heavy bonus if the King is leading an army. This could give a smaller nation the chance to face of a bigger opponent and decide to take the risk against a bigger foe for example. After all the HRE emperor will probably not lead his army against a nameless count (and risk being captured), the count would however get significant boost if he leads his -most likely outnumbered - troops and take this risk. It would just add another choice/dimension to the game which is never bad.
Curious if Paradox took this into account for game balance purposes and if yes if there is a solution in the works for this. Or they feel it is balanced as it is already... after all we haven't played with the game yet.
I imagine that a king staying away from battle will not be looked upon very favourably.
His vassals might believe him a coward, for instance.
Or maybe battles are an excellent opportunity to gain prestige, glory, respect et cetera.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
