Crusader Kings II - Dev Diary 11 - War

[Kuipy]

So... as a defender I cannot gain anything from a war beyond taking away the other guy's claim and some prestige ? Or did I understand nothing again ?

[Negru Voda]

hopefully the fact that you are now a bit safer as a vassal, we won't see realms fall apart so much as in CK.

Will I have to pay for the upkeep of levees raised by my liege from my province?

[Searry]

The gameplay seems to be so refined when compared to another paradox games. I think it's possible for the first time to actually focus on adding more gameplay elements in expansion packs, rather than fixing problems not found in testing or updating the engine to run at good speeds. Thank you.

[Barón Rojo]

Can I make a suggestion? Simply put 80 gold, 40 prestige, etc. instead of 80.0, 40.0...

[Reilnur]

Can I make a suggestion? Simply put 80 gold, 40 prestige, etc. instead of 80.0, 40.0...

This has been mentioned before, but there's practical reasons to keep the decimals. In CK1, these values would often change by a more precise amount than could be represented in the display. Your piety, for instance, might increase by 0.5 per month, but you would only see a change on your character screen every two months. The only reason all the values in the screenshots are nice, round numbers is that they're taken on the day the game starts, and no changes have happened.

[Barón Rojo]

I still prefer the system of CK instead of a mathematical calculator.

[Lys91]

Would this kind of thing be possible :
A duke or count is defeated, I give him refugee into my court. He keeps claims on his titles.
He has a daughter but no son.
I marry my heir to his daughter.
My heir would inherit the title at his death (or at least a claim on it) ?
If I would like to fight for my heir claim, I would have to fight the King, but my claim maybe stronger than the current duke, or the king could simply like me better, why would he necessarily intervene when I defend what is rightfully mine ? He could even decide to side with me.

[Dagda]

Can vassals of the same liege fight each other with declaring on their King?

[Lord Blekinge]

I love the idea of being only able to claim one title at a time, though I assume that it only comes into play for other Christians?, as Pagans and Muslims would be fair game?

Dagda,
going back to CK, the AI liege would always take sides in such a conflict. So it might be the same, though it could also depend on the authority of the king, a strong king might take an interest, whilst a weak king might be powerless to act.

[Orinsul]

So... as a defender I cannot gain anything from a war beyond taking away the other guy's claim and some prestige ? Or did I understand nothing again ?

i dont get this either, it sounds like wars are only ever one-way and can never escalate. but hopefully im misunderstanding things.
So if you declare war theres no risk of you losing anything as the enemy cant take your titles? and how would rebellions work?

[Nick B II]

Because he was busy somewhere else? Or didn't like the vassal that much? Or couldn't afford to raise an army? Or simply didn't care?

Medieval Europe was full of such small-scale local wars. What it was not full of were massive clashes between the Kings of France and Germany. Often the latter two were simply titles in name only and were in no position to launch costly wars in the defence of some insignificant border count. Really, the idea of some minor count declaring war on the Holy Roman Emperor, and thus kicking off a pan-Christendom conflict, is just silly

Of course the root problem here is that kingdoms were not the basic unit of the Middle Ages. That is, the real business of governance, war, diplomacy, etc, was conducted at the levels of duchies or even below. Kingdoms were, in the initial period of the game at least, more akin to confederations of equals than nationstates. Which is why it doesn't make sense to be declaring war on Germany instead of, say, Baden. Dukes and counts should be able to fight their wars in peace (ha ha). That's not to say that kings might not get involved but it should definitely not be automatic

All good points, but you're over-stating your case.

While the Emperor got involved very rarely, I doubt anyone would have said he was being dishonorable if he showed up on the day of the battle and did his damndest to kill your French ass. In other words de jure he was in a war with you because you tried to force your claims on one of his vassals. It's just the RL Emperors almost never did it.

Which means Paradox has simulated the actual legal situation a lot better in CK2 then they did in CK1.

The question is whether the AI they program will be able to act like the RL German Kings acted, and ignore most of these the brush-wars. Exceptions should be very, very rare and involve the Emperor's closest allies, or major matters of state. For example if the Duke of Aquitane was trying to become Duke of Saxony. But if the Count of Vermandois, OTOH, wants a Dutch barony he should just stay away. The peace treaty with the HRE should be automatic when peace is signed with the vassal who was attacked. In non-CK terms, the target of the war should be alliance leader.

Nick

[RedRooster81]

i dont get this either, it sounds like wars are only ever one-way and can never escalate. but hopefully im misunderstanding things.
So if you declare war theres no risk of you losing anything as the enemy cant take your titles? and how would rebellions work?

That sounds like what I got out of the DD. You risk losing prestige, which might figure bigger in the game than in CK1, for a white peace, and a lot of prestige and loss of the claim in case of a defeat.

[Sinbuster]

This means that it's now possible to win a war as a) a defender in a war by just defending your title or b) attacking someone, sieging down the title you want and then just stand still and defend those provinces.

These two features alone are priceless. I'm wondering, will the warscore accumulate at a variable rate dependant on claims, core territory, etc? Obviously an attacker reclaiming a core territory would accumulate warscore faster than a defendor holding a newly won territory.

Holding pagan territory without peace after a time would more likely see a decrease in warscore as the locals get ornery. IMO that should be a focus in regards to the pagans: a swift, crushing victory would be the only way to achieve a high warscore, otherwise the occupation begins to work against the invaders, especially outside campaign season. Perhaps the degree of conversion in the province would effect this decay rate. Provided the the decay rate was easily moddable, you might just see the moors hold out until the end of the game (or take over southern France like in CK1 - good times), as well as provide real pushback from territories in the Holy Land.

Who knows, maybe that's how it works already. In any case, great food for thought.

[Negru Voda]

In non-CK terms, the target of the war should be alliance leader.

probably a good idea.

Another question: can vassals declare war? how does that work?

[euphorist]

All good points, but you're over-stating your case.

While the Emperor got involved very rarely, I doubt anyone would have said he was being dishonorable if he showed up on the day of the battle and did his damndest to kill your French ass. In other words de jure he was in a war with you because you tried to force your claims on one of his vassals. It's just the RL Emperors almost never did it.

Which means Paradox has simulated the actual legal situation a lot better in CK2 then they did in CK1.

The question is whether the AI they program will be able to act like the RL German Kings acted, and ignore most of these the brush-wars. Exceptions should be very, very rare and involve the Emperor's closest allies, or major matters of state. For example if the Duke of Aquitane was trying to become Duke of Saxony. But if the Count of Vermandois, OTOH, wants a Dutch barony he should just stay away. The peace treaty with the HRE should be automatic when peace is signed with the vassal who was attacked. In non-CK terms, the target of the war should be alliance leader.

Nick

Well, in other Paradox games, the AI is not really capable at deciding which war is worth it to pursue and which one is not. Any war is a total war where the enemy must be destroyed until it gives up, with the full force the AI can muster. So in this scenario I can imagine the German emperor coming down on the poor French count with his stacks of doom. Worse, it could have really unwanted effect on German emperor's economy. Maybe Paradox could add some more nuance to how the AI judges the threat from a DoW.

[RhoDaZZ]

Since we're relating the wars to the invasion of England, what are the chances of a king being slain in battle? Is it a very rare occurrence (while being taken prisoner is more common?) making the entrance of a King on the battlefield a must, or should most of your characters be cowards (so as to preserve your linage) who only came out of the shadows to fight when there would be nothing to lose?

Also, you can fight for characters within your realm's claims. But what are the incentives if the title you are fighting for is higher or equivalent to your own (i.e I want to install my cousin as King of Sweden as the King of Denmark) other than "just" a possible inheritance? Would it result in a relation bonus (which might fade if the ruler assimilates to the local culture) or perhaps other ways of showing gratitude for your King(insertitlehere)maker? Perhaps plots could also be a way for the sovereign rulers to assess if their undertakings are really worth it in the long run, i.e. no support for pretenders or schemers in foreign lands without ample rewards corresponding to the risks involved.

These two features alone are priceless. I'm wondering, will the warscore accumulate at a variable rate dependant on claims, core territory, etc? Obviously an attacker reclaiming a core territory would accumulate warscore faster than a defendor holding a newly won territory.

Cores, in CKII? I think having a claim or not having a claim and sucking up the penalties your character receives (if that is even possible now, with infamy removed and the CB system) is the closest equivalent.

Holding pagan territory without peace after a time would more likely see a decrease in warscore as the locals get ornery. IMO that should be a focus in regards to the pagans: a swift, crushing victory would be the only way to achieve a high warscore, otherwise the occupation begins to work against the invaders, especially outside campaign season. Perhaps the degree of conversion in the province would effect this decay rate. Provided the the decay rate was easily moddable, you might just see the moors hold out until the end of the game (or take over southern France like in CK1 - good times), as well as provide real pushback from territories in the Holy Land.

Who knows, maybe that's how it works already. In any case, great food for thought.

So if your lord spiritual is trying to convert a province, it should more easily revert to native rulers with a native religion? From what we have seen so far I don't think it's possible to convert provinces that are only occupied but not owned (thus affecting the war), at least.

[ComradeOm]

hopefully the fact that you are now a bit safer as a vassal, we won't see realms fall apart so much as in CK.

That's the problem: they should be falling apart. Or at least largely exist in name only. As King of France in 1066 I should not automatically have at my command a dozen vassals and immense wealth. Instead I should be afraid to take my character outside Paris in case one of my 'vassals' murders him

Edit: This should perhaps change over time - as the monarch's demesne expands or tech levels increase or some reform mechanism allows for more centralisation - but certainly in the early centuries kingdoms should not be treated as nationstates

While the Emperor got involved very rarely, I doubt anyone would have said he was being dishonorable if he showed up on the day of the battle and did his damndest to kill your French ass. In other words de jure he was in a war with you because you tried to force your claims on one of his vassals. It's just the RL Emperors almost never did it.

I've got no problem with the HRE getting a CB or some event that asks him to intervene. By the same token, I don't mind if my liege the King of France decides, if he's feeling strong enough, to smack me down for my insolence in starting a war without his approval

What I do have a real problem with, and this is a major concern, is that I have to automatically escalate every petty conflict. This may be accurate according to a strict reading of feudal law but, as you note, simply didn't happen in reality. Ditto with the nature of kingdoms

[performer]

This should perhaps change over time - as the monarch's demesne expands or tech levels increase or some reform mechanism allows for more centralisation - but certainly in the early centuries kingdoms should not be treated as nationstates

That's a fascinating idea ...

[Nick B II]

What I do have a real problem with, and this is a major concern, is that I have to automatically escalate every petty conflict. This may be accurate according to a strict reading of feudal law but, as you note, simply didn't happen in reality. Ditto with the nature of kingdoms

And that's a real concern.

However if Paradox gets the AI right (hint to Paradox: get the AI right) it's a non-issue.

Nick

[ctolm]

Would it make sense to have some sort of national unity (similar how the HRE worked in EUIII) so that if it goes below a certain point you can declare war on vassals as the Kingdom/Empire/whathaveyou has become so disorganized as to become a legal fiction.

It makes sense that as the King of France you can't just declare war on the Count of Kent without the King of England getting involved but Kingdoms and Empires weren't always that effective.

There were definitely times during the hundred year war for instance when the King of France wouldn't have budged to protect a Count who was under threat from someone other than his English and Burgundian enemies and similarly the members of the HRE were usually engaged in wars without the involvement of the Emperor.