Crusader Kings II - Dev Diary 11 - War

[Nick B II]

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.

Keep in mind that this is not a modern total war.

You are not fighting some dude. You are fighting your cousin.

If he looks at your peace proposal and says "I'm hungry, have that wench make some chicken," you don't really have a choice to be have said wench make said chicken.

A cease-fire of some sort is realistic. The AI taking over while you are captured is realistic. 50% warscore is realistic. But your knights aren't gonna jeopardize your life by turning over their castles until they know this is an agreement you support personally.

Nick

[Helios Ra]

As with all our games, you will not be able to refuse a peace offer when you are 100% occupied.

I take it the AI will not be constrained as such?

[Spectacle]

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.

Sounds like it applies to both player and AI.

[Melichai]

IIRC correctly from CK1, once you were occupied it was game over. You didnt even have the chance to complain about your King giving your title away. From the way the Devs have phrased this, it sounds highly, highly, highly unlikely that your King will trade away your title unless you are occupied and/or he hates you. Afterall, why would your King trade a loyal vassal (you) for an ambitious, foreign, militarily powerful troublemaker? Best case, its no worse than CK1. Stand and fight by your own merits. Worst case, you can defend yourself by keeping friendly with your liege.

If neither you nor your King can defend your lands...well, then it sucks to be you.

[Wulfram]

If capturing the enemy King = victory, then the Hundred Years War would have been the 19 Years War

[Fiftypence]

IIRC correctly from CK1, once you were occupied it was game over. You didnt even have the chance to complain about your King giving your title away. From the way the Devs have phrased this, it sounds highly, highly, highly unlikely that your King will trade away your title unless you are occupied and/or he hates you. Afterall, why would your King trade a loyal vassal (you) for an ambitious, foreign, militarily powerful troublemaker? Best case, its no worse than CK1. Stand and fight by your own merits. Worst case, you can defend yourself by keeping friendly with your liege.

If neither you nor your King can defend your lands...well, then it sucks to be you.

In CK1, losing your title because your provinces were occupied had nothing to do with your liege.

[Drakken]

If capturing the enemy King = victory, then the Hundred Years War would have been the 19 Years War

Huh, the English did capture Jean II. And he had to pay a huge ransom to be freed.

[Dagda]

Huh, the English did capture Jean II. And he had to pay a huge ransom to be freed.

Paying a ransom is one thing and I would love to see such a system in CK2. Losing the war entirely is another.

[Willem]

Will marriages and bethorthals between teh feuding families be part of peace negotiations. It was not uncommon to agree to a bethrotal or marriage as part of a peace treaty, to cement the peace and avoid future conflicts. Even Richard the Lionheart offered to marry his sister, Princess Joan to Saladin's brother Al-Adil in an attempt to secure peace in the Holy Land...

[Marquis d Blois]

Will marriages and bethorthals between teh feuding families be part of peace negotiations. It was not uncommon to agree to a bethrotal or marriage as part of a peace treaty, to cement the peace and avoid future conflicts. Even Richard the Lionheart offered to marry his sister, Princess Joan to Saladin's brother Al-Adil in an attempt to secure peace in the Holy Land...

I doubt, for two reasons.
Firstly, peace deals can only be three things:

• victory of the attacker: he takes what he declared the war over. All of it, and nothing more.
• white peace: nothing changes, both sides lose some prestige.
• defeat of the attacker: he renounces his claim(s) on the title/land, and loses a lot of prestige.

I don't know if you see betrothals or marriages here, but I certainly don't. Unless you declare war with the Shotgun wedding CB.

Secondly, betrothals and marriages prevent DoWing in the first place, so if both sides want peace for a looong time, they will arrange it after the treaty. E.g. it remains a separate diplomatic option which is not included in the treaty itself.

So you example is possible in-game, but not as a part of peace treaties. BtW the girl in question would hate you for it if you do this...

[Wulfram]

Huh, the English did capture Jean II. And he had to pay a huge ransom to be freed.

Yes, that was what I was referring to. It didn't result in Edward III taking the french crown. There was a treaty agreed after a few years of further fighting, but it didn't represent a complete English victory, and in the event was never fully implemented.

[KonradRichtmark]

Regarding the issue of a lazy/apathetic/defaitist/antisocial king handing over your county while you still want to keep fighting...

Would it be possible and feasible to implement a possibility for a vassal whose title gets handed over to refuse to accept the peace treaty? The result would be that the vassal would break free and be independent, and the war would continue with the attacking king, but without the support of your own former realm. That is, a position in which the now independent former vassal would almost always be screwed anyway, but would have to be forcibly dislodged anyway. After all, as was said earlier, a vassal is not a provincial governor who can be sacked at the snap of the king's fingers. He's a guy with a private army loyal to him, a private army that needs to be overcome if he decides to contest the decree of his liege.

[Darkrenown]

I take it the AI will not be constrained as such?

Why? It's the same in EU3/V2, 100% WS means you cannot refuse peace.

[Helios Ra]

Why? It's the same in EU3/V2, 100% WS means you cannot refuse peace.

No, I mean that I assume that if I occupy 100% of the AI's territories, they can still refuse peace, even if it works differently for a human player 100% occupied.

[jpr123]

No, I mean that I assume that if I occupy 100% of the AI's territories, they can still refuse peace, even if it works differently for a human player 100% occupied.

When has that ever been the case? Im pretty sure the AI has also always had to accept at when 100% occupied if the WS was 100 or less, just like the player.

[Marquis d Blois]

No, I mean that I assume that if I occupy 100% of the AI's territories, they can still refuse peace, even if it works differently for a human player 100% occupied.

In EU3 you could offer peace beyond 100% WS value, and AFAIK they are automatically rejected (the AI doesn't get to evaluate it).

However, in CK2 you couldn't make treaty offers beyond 100%, and just like in EU3 an offer no more than 100 is always accepted if the enemy is 100% occupied, it will be auto-accepted.
BtW, in EU3, in Message settings, you should enable a popup for 'some country broken'. It happens surprisingly frequently.

[Kaleidoscope]

In EU3 you could offer peace beyond 100% WS value

That's great but we're talking about 100% occupation, not 100% warscore.

[Marquis d Blois]

That's great but we're talking about 100% occupation, not 100% warscore.

I had point it out because they are a notable exception.
That is, if you have 100% WS (total occupation), all peace offers at or below it (and all are treated as such in CK2) are always accepted. While above 100% (this is not possible in CK2) they are automatically rejected.

I mentioned it so that no fool could react to 'all peace offers are accepted at 100% occupation' with whining about his beyond-100 offer being rejected.

[Wezqu]

In CKII you don't have to conquer the whole nation to get 100% WS. So there is no total occupation needed. As stated you get WS from several things not just conquering his lands.

[Marquis d Blois]

In CKII you don't have to conquer the whole nation to get 100% WS. So there is no total occupation needed. As stated you get WS from several things not just conquering his lands.

Like battles, which 'now give a lot of warscore'. (A quote from a dev comment)
My response would be: in EU3 WS from battles often went to 30-40 in a prolonged war (in which I participated, of course). Which was very decisive early-war, but didn't really matter once I started occupying.
Though I have to admit, the Battle of Agincourt and a finished-unit-during-siege battle being treated as equal in WS was annoying. Even if I profited from it.