• 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.
War, what is it good for?

In Crusader Kings II, hopefully you'll gain some titles and in the best of worlds, imprison or behead your enemy. In order to declare a war you'll first need a valid Casus Belli against your enemy(a CB held by a vassal or courtier will of course do as well). You cannot attack the vassals of someone, so if you want one of their titles you have to attack their liege. Also, unlike Europa Universalis III and Victoria II, once a war has started it cannot be extended by adding further wargoals or CBs.

Instead, each CB has three options scripted: Demand Defeat, White Peace and Reversed Demands. As an example, let's look at the Claim CB. This CB lets you attack people holding titles you have claims on. If the war is going well, you can demand that your enemy give his title to you and as a bonus you'll gain a small amount of prestige. If you fail to achieve your goal, you could sue for a white peace instead. You'd want to avoid this though, since signing a white peace gives you a prestige hit(you didn't achieve your goals, after all). White peace is still preferable to the reversed demand however, since if your enemy enforces this, you will both lose the claim and get a huge prestige hit.

CrusaderKingsII_War_2.png

While most wars will end in a peace treaty, this is not the only way they can end. Some CBs have effects that trigger when the leader of an alliance dies. An example of this is the Invasion CB, which is currently used by William against Harold. When the leader of the attacking alliance dies, the war immediately ends. Be careful when going to war with your old king...

Another part of wars is the warscore. Like our other games, you'll gain warscore by occupying enemy holdings(the capital is worth more, vassal holdings are worth less) and winning battles(in CK2, they are worth a lot of warscore). We've also added a warscore effect if the contested title is left with no controller change for some time. After three years(currently), warscore is slowly added to the person controlling the area. 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. By the way, if you manage to capture and imprison the enemy leader(for example, in a battle), this automatically counts as 100% warscore. 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.

CrusaderKingsII_War_1.png

Last but not least we have tagged some CBs to be "hostile against others", for example the Invasion CB. The effect of this is that two parties contesting the same title will fight each other even if they are not at war. It might be better as William to wait a bit until Harald and Harold both have worn down their armies...

'Till next time!
Fredrik Zetterman
Programmer, Paradox Interactive
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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 ?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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

Nick B II said:
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
 
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 ...
 
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
 
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.