• 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:
Ok, I've now terribly embarrassed myselfand shall promptly commit suicide. After playing CKII. And reading today's dev diary!
 
2) If you are playing a vassal and you get DoWed you only get to defend yourself if your liege thinks it's worth the trouble. Again stupid, ahistoric and un-fun.

2) So you would prefer it if you could just sweep in, siege and make peace with the targeted vassal and laugh at their ex-liege? Would you have fun playing as a King and having your vassals sniped away? No, I think not. It makes a lot more sense to have the liege in charge.


Hang on, how is that a relevant or reasonable answer to his point? He's commented about being seemingly unable to defend his lands if attacked and you've basically told him to stop whinging that it won't be easy to conquer everything...

If you're trying to reassure people who are worried about the direction of the game, it might be a good idea to actually read their post properly before replying to it ;)


Nor has anyone said you cannot ask your liege.

OK so can you stop being evasive for a second and definitely confirm that this will be a feature?
 
Last edited:
It's an exact answer to his point. If a liege is DoWed over a claim on a vassal's land then clearly either the liege or the vassal has to be in charge of the war. If the liege is in charge then the vassal might find his lands given away by a lazy liege, but if the vassal is in charge it would lead to vassal sniping. I think the former is preferable.

I cannot confirm it will be a feature as it is not decided, but Nick was incorrect to take no reply as confirmation it wouldn't be in.
 
It's an exact answer to his point. If a liege is DoWed over a claim on a vassal's land then clearly either the liege or the vassal has to be in charge of the war. If the liege is in charge then the vassal might find his lands given away by a lazy liege, but if the vassal is in charge it would lead to vassal sniping. I think the former is preferable
Or the attacker (say, the King of France) concludes a separate peace with the count but the war with the HRE continues, the latter getting a new 'restore vassal' CB on France. Or something else. Because having your liege give away your title is deeply unsatisfactory and is entirely at odds with the idea of the player being a medieval lord
 
It's an exact answer to his point. If a liege is DoWed over a claim on a vassal's land then clearly either the liege or the vassal has to be in charge of the war. If the liege is in charge then the vassal might find his lands given away by a lazy liege, but if the vassal is in charge it would lead to vassal sniping. I think the former is preferable.

I cannot confirm it will be a feature as it is not decided, but Nick was incorrect to take no reply as confirmation it wouldn't be in.

While i agree the system in CK1 was very flawed in this regard, I know i used it more than once... but anyways, this can basically make sure your game end nearly right off the bat, and i understands Nicks concern...

Back in CK1 i saw more than one war end with King A, whose vassal had been dowed, paying off king B with a huge ammount a day or two later, simply because King A was already at war. If the AI had had the opportunity, I'm fairly certain they would just have given up the title without bloodshed.. exactly what's gonna stop that from happening? It's not something your other vassals would have found acceptable s:
 
But this isn't CK1, hopefully the ai has improved significantly. Usually the ai in paradox games fights on way after they have been defeated and can't possibly win. Now if your a vassal on the border with another kingdom, and it attacks you, your king will probably keep fighting to try and save you even after you've been fully occupied, and would only surrender you if they had to. At least thats what I'm hoping for. If your liege can't protect you against a bigger outside kingdom, what chance do you have of winning alone? If anything your going to be alot more secure against larger neighbours trying to steal your titles than in CK1.

That said, I really hope they add the option to ask your liege to try and secure titles you have claims to, otherwise playing a vassal will be pretty boring...
 
I don't really see the problem with letting the Kings handle it, I mean will it really be such a big difference that your small border county have been invaded while your liege is occupied elsewhere and that instead of just being annexed the King is negotiating resulting in you being annexed? I mean it doesn't really make a difference since if you can't defend yourself and the King is occupied elsewhere you're going to get annexed no matter what regardless if its yourself that handles the negotiation and the AI King.
 
If you're a 1 province count you're probably screwed, but if you're a powerful duke you might be able to raise an army large enough to defend yourself. In such a case it would really suck if your liege decides to hand over your land without fighting.

It's primarily an AI issue though. Hopefully the king will be stubborn enough that even if he won't raise his armies to help you, he won't sign a peace unless the province in question has been occupied by the enemy.
 
I don't really see the problem with letting the Kings handle it, I mean will it really be such a big difference that your small border county have been invaded while your liege is occupied elsewhere and that instead of just being annexed the King is negotiating resulting in you being annexed?
Well yes, because it's not his to give away. It's my title and the king must respect my rights as feudal lord. If the game is so skewed towards the kingdom level that such fundamentals are lost then it really throws into question any claims to represent medieval politics or feudalism

Secondly, from a gameplay perspective, there might be a host of reasons why I would not wish to surrender. Maybe I have an army still active, maybe I can raise mercenaries, maybe my allies have armies en route, maybe I know that the enemy's capital is about to fall, etc, etc. The point is that if I'm to lose the game then it should be as a result of my judgement and my actions; not the capriciousness of the AI
 
How does the independence consideration work for kings who are vassals to the HRE or ERE? Can the Holy Roman Emperor, for example, give up the title of Bohemia to an attacking Poland, even if the King of Bohemia objects?
 
If you're a 1 province count you're probably screwed, but if you're a powerful duke you might be able to raise an army large enough to defend yourself. In such a case it would really suck if your liege decides to hand over your land without fighting.

It's primarily an AI issue though. Hopefully the king will be stubborn enough that even if he won't raise his armies to help you, he won't sign a peace unless the province in question has been occupied by the enemy.
Well I hope that the AI just doesn't give up ones land without it even being occupied, I mean that would be quite stupid and even though the Kings armies are occupied elsewhere he should allow his vassal to fight until the vassals lands are conquered.

Well yes, because it's not his to give away. It's my title and the king must respect my rights as feudal lord. If the game is so skewed towards the kingdom level that such fundamentals are lost then it really throws into question any claims to represent medieval politics or feudalism

Secondly, from a gameplay perspective, there might be a host of reasons why I would not wish to surrender. Maybe I have an army still active, maybe I can raise mercenaries, maybe my allies have armies en route, maybe I know that the enemy's capital is about to fall, etc, etc. The point is that if I'm to lose the game then it should be as a result of my judgement and my actions; not the capriciousness of the AI
Fair point but I still have my hopes that the AI will be able to handle it and that the King doesn't give up his vassals land before it is lost anyway.
 
I don't really see the problem with letting the Kings handle it, I mean will it really be such a big difference that your small border county have been invaded while your liege is occupied elsewhere and that instead of just being annexed the King is negotiating resulting in you being annexed? I mean it doesn't really make a difference since if you can't defend yourself and the King is occupied elsewhere you're going to get annexed no matter what regardless if its yourself that handles the negotiation and the AI King.

Part of the problem here is that people seem to be thinking of the Kings as the sovereigns in their realms. This was not the case. A CK-King is more like an HoI alliance-leader then an actual sovereign so the Mantua example is analogous to the US unilaterally turning all of Australia over to the Japanese in HoI. Nobody would think to try it, and if they had it wouldn't have led to game-over for the Australia/Mantua player, it just would have led to a really difficult war.

So if there's a non-zero possibility that your Emperor could cede your Mantuan ass to the Normans while you're waiting for your heir to show 15,000 of his favorite Provencal vassals (in CK just because your County sucks and gets taken that does not imply you don't have any resources left, or that you should get game-over) that's a game-breaker.

So Paradox just created a game-breaking feature to deal with a problem (vassal-sniping) that I had never heard called game-breaking until this thread. Heck I can't recall anybody seriously griping about it. And I think Veld will confirm I've been on these boards pretty much every day since I joined the forum in 2005.

Nick
 
Correct me if I am wrong, since it has been a while since I played CK but when someone had taken your only county wasn't it game over in CK? Since if that is the case I think that there probably will be some mechanic in CK II that will prevent your liege from giving away your county before it is occupied when it would have been game over anyway. If that is not the case I think some mechanic could be added that forces the King in question wait for a certain amount of time before giving away his vassal, essentially giving the vassal time to conquer back his land.
 
Reading the DD does not make you an expert on the game, keep calm, stop over reacting, and think a bit more about what you are saying.

1) No, it does you plenty of good if you liege presses the claim. Nor has anyone said you cannot ask your liege.

But nobody has said you can either.

Since I get the feeling that with the Kingdom-centric direction Paradox has chosen it's gonna be pretty important, therefore I must keep asking:
Can you ask your liege for permission to declare war on another realm?

2) So you would prefer it if you could just sweep in, siege and make peace with the targeted vassal and laugh at their ex-liege? Would you have fun playing as a King and having your vassals sniped away? No, I think not. It makes a lot more sense to have the liege in charge.
3) No, you have to fight their liege. For some odd reason he doesn't like you stealing his vassals.

I've read the DD. I've read your responses to the rest of this thread. And I am not convinced.

You major argument seems to be that not putting King's in charge leads to vassal-sniping. I went through a variety of potential methods to address this concern, some of them starting with the dread "I understand your concern..."

I dropped them because that was a lie. I do not understand your concern with vassal-sniping. This thread is literally the first place where I have heard anyone say one of their major complaints with CK1 was vassal-sniping, and I've been paying attention to the CK forums for years. It's historic -- the entire Hundred Years War was vassal-sniping, the 13th creation of the Earldom of Northumbria was given to the actual King of Scotland, etc. It would also be very easy to prevent by simply giving the AI King a CB on his nemesis across the border, and hard-coding the AI to fight if the nemesis was a King, or an important enough Duke to be a threat.

Your solution, OTOH, is game-breaking. If it's possible for the AI Emperor to delete the Count of Mantua from the game before battle is even joined, just because the enemy's manpower scares the shit out of the Emperor and said enemy has a lot of gold to sweeten the deal, the game is broken.

Hell you wanna hear the most important historic example of vassal-sniping? The Grand Duchy of Burgundy. So you just broke the whole Northern France/Germany region, which was supposed to be the core area. Your justification for not including things like more danico, rotational inheritance, and tanistry was partly they weren't a big deal in the core region...

Nick
 
i think all paradox is saying is that the King is the warleader.
to gain a neighbours duchy you go to war along with your king with your liege leading the war, and against the enemy king, whose duty it is to protect his dukes.
You cant decalre war on another realm yourself without your lieges permission, in which case he does it for you, and you cant declare war on a vassal without the lord coming in to protect it.
and if the war is lost, the aggressors war-goal is granted. Its no different from in V2 when someone declares war on you with a conquest CB and your ally joins the fight and gives in without asking your permission to give in. only in CK2 its going to be your king is who gives your land away not a random stronger ally or meddling GP like in Victoria 2, EU3 etc. the king is the warleader, so he has power over alliance peace.
nothing to be getting worked up over
and youre not allowed to argue with devs or moderators its a forum rule anyway