Crusader Kings II - Dev Diary 11 - War

[Maleficus]

and youre not allowed to argue with devs or moderators its a forum rule anyway

It's not arguing, it's a passionate exchange of ideas and concerns


If the king can't be bothered to fight, that's one thing, but he absolutely should not just hand the title in question away to the enemy without the current holder having an opportunity to defend himself.

A count trying to defend his lands against the full force of the enemy probably isn't going to be very successful anyway, and even if he is, his counterattack isn't likely to make much of a dent in an enemy kingdom. And if he does occupy some enemy land against the odds, then it's not going to do him much good without a claim anyway, right? So I fail to see how lazy king = instant game over is in any way, shape or form the best or most logical path to go down.


And tanistry's not in? I was unaware of that, and I'm a little disappointed about it, but I was frankly rather more concerned to read that the elective law won't apparently have an option to limit the candidates to blood relatives...


On a somewhat different topic, but as we're in a thread I know at least one dev is active in, what's been decided regarding names? Are we still gonna get random names chosen off a list or is one of the various (mostly rather impressive) ideas put about by members of this forum (such as LordOfSaxony's excellent 'letters' idea for example) going to get an airing?

[Orinsul]

A count trying to defend his lands against the full force of the enemy probably isn't going to be very successful anyway, and even if he is, his counterattack isn't likely to make much of a dent in an enemy kingdom. And if he does occupy some enemy land against the odds, then it's not going to do him much good without a claim anyway, right? So I fail to see how lazy king = instant game over is in any way, shape or form the best or most logical path to go down.

I fail to see how lazy king = instant game over is even being discussed. It is more likely to be lazy king = white peace at the first chance
you need a high war score for a CB to be enforced, thats not going to happen on day one of the war. I think youre all just jumping at shadows, your king wont give in to the demands just not to fight, no AI would as the numbers wont stack, he'll send a white peace request every time a diplomats free like in every other paradox game. and youll only lose if the war is being lost. In paradox games you need atleast a 12% warscore to get a 12% CB demand in a peace from the AI, why would anything have changed with this one?

[WelshDude]

If (and it's a big if, considering the ai in your previous games) you can get the AI to work properly, the liege leading will be great. If not, it will suck. Royally. And so will this game, unfortunately.

[euphorist]

Call me a pessimist but it seems to me Paradox has taken a design approach that takes away agency from minor countries in their latest games. Both in HoI3, Victoria 2 and now in CK2 you are severely restricted at what you can do as a non-great power. The reasons for HoI3 is obvious, as minor powers don't have the IC or manpower to have a really meaningful impact on the war(though I'm not necessarily disagreeing with this. It's realistic and HoI was always a different beast). In Victoria 2, being in a sphere of a great power puts a great obstacle at industrialization and you are not allowed to declare war at your sphere members as well(again realistic but not necessarily good for gameplay). And now CK2 gives some really uncalled authority to kings, which manages to be both unrealistic and bad in terms of gameplay! You have no choice here but twiddling your thumbs if you want to expand as a vassal. It's as if Paradox is saying the best way to enjoy these games is playing as a great power, so you should start as one, or aim to be elevated to that status asap.

Which is a shame really. Because a large appeal of these games was the ability to choose any country AND play as them on the same level, with the same rules, like any other country.

Of course this could all be my doom & gloom preaching but I just really don't want the game to turn up this way.

[Grell74]

Which is a shame really. Because a large appeal of these games was the ability to choose any country AND play as them on the same level, with the same rules, like any other country.

I agree, a large part of my enjoyment playing CK1 was playing a backwater count and clawing my way to be a duke, then carving out a Kingdom. If my leige controlled by the AI (which we all hope will be competent... but precedent is hard to ignore...) is making big decisions for me, even so far as to hand over my title and make it game over, well thats a problematic gameplay decision (without historical justification). Wait and see I suppose, hopefully our worries are unfounded.

[Orinsul]

I agree, a large part of my enjoyment playing CK1 was playing a backwater count and clawing my way to be a duke, then carving out a Kingdom. If my leige controlled by the AI (which we all hope will be competent... but precedent is hard to ignore...) is making big decisions for me, even so far as to hand over my title and make it game over, well thats a problematic gameplay decision (without historical justification). Wait and see I suppose, hopefully our worries are unfounded.

but this is no more than in any of the other games, the decision to arbitrarily hand over your title at the end of a war has always been in the hands of the AI for minors as the AI was always warleader.
As to not being able to carve out a kingdom, from it sounds of it you can declare war on your fellow vassals which is a big improvement in that respect, and there are suggestions of being able to ask your liege to goto war for your claims so youll be able to with the full support of your realm behind you. Im sure its going to be awesome!
The only example i can think of for what everyone is wanting is the Barons Wars into wales which you couldnt do in CK anyway as declaring war would generally get your liege involved when the allies attack you anyway, but as for losing your title, thats only a defensive war, and its hard to imagine a situation where a count would be declared on where a King wouldnt defend him, its not just the count who risks losing his lands but the king losing those lands from his kingdom. Really nothing has changed from any other paradox game, they just phrased it differently.


A more important question, will the Invasion CB white peace or victory when the opposing king dies?
only i cant see the battle of hastings giving you a large enough war score to win, and occupying half the country would probably only give you enough for a white peace

[Leviathan07]

Ok so here's my main problem with the idea of "AI king = war leader"

1) If the AI fights in the war to defend his vassal - no problem.

2) BUT if the AI does not fight - WHY IS HE SUPPOSED TO NEGOTIATE?? Moreover, since this is a medieval game, HOW is the king supposed to be doing the negotiation, IF HE'S NOT THERE?? They did not have conference calls or Skype or email.

If there is a siege in Orleans, the King (or his right hand) need to BE IN ORLEANS in order to do any negotiating.

This sounds to me like a major immersion breaker?? How can a king negotiate a war in which he is not involved? Regardless of his formal "rights".

[Leviathan07]

A more important question, will the Invasion CB white peace or victory when the opposing king dies?
only i cant see the battle of hastings giving you a large enough war score to win, and occupying half the country would probably only give you enough for a white peace

The war did not end with the battle of Hastings. After the battle, William and his normans seized all the major towns in southern England (which was easy because they had no walls, and there was no army to oppose them), and the war only ended when William was crowned king of England, two months after the battle AFAIK.

[Dagda]

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

Great post and agreed completely.

[Orinsul]

The war did not end with the battle of Hastings. After the battle, William and his normans seized all the major towns in southern England (which was easy because they had no walls, and there was no army to oppose them), and the war only ended when William was crowned king of England, two months after the battle AFAIK.

They said an invasion CB ends when the king dies so thats how its going to go, and occupying all the towns in southern england probably wouldnt allow for a big Wargoal like usurping the throne and replacing the majority of the nobles on peace, and would take too long as england would be able to raise the levys again soon enough and once that happened it would be drawn out and end in the pointless white peace the AI always takes when war weariness starts to pick up.

[Erkanan]

I think this could be like Japan in DW the king would have an authority on 100 and depending on this authority the vassal could or could not do whatever they want. It would reflect the difference of authority on their vassal between a king of France and a King of England or the Byzantine Emperor.

Because in 1066 the king of France wasn't even able to win a war against his vassal. in 1054 and 1058 he lost against Normandy, in 1071 he lost against Flanders.
How could this guy say to the Duc of Aquitaine "hey men no you don't have the right to attack Navarre! Why heu.... because I don't want! you wont obey....... OK you can go..... wait I'm still the king right?
or decide for the Comte of Flanders a peace with the HRE because he was too weak and was king de jure not de facto.

While I agree the King should help his vassal and have some right over them, I think they should be a little more independent depending of the Kings power.

[Darkrenown]

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.

It would be stupid, yes.

[Darkrenown]

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

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

[Sekenr]

Why does the war have to end if the king (alliance leader) dies?

[Erkanan]

Why does the war have to end if the king (alliance leader) dies?

I think its just for Invasion because the pope give the right to your character not to his heir.

For other war it doesn't end if he die but if he is capture. In this case he is forced to sign a peace treaty to regain his freedom

[Negru Voda]

can we have an "Abdication" peace demand/offer?

By which we force the enemy to renounce a title (maybe just the main one) to the heir.

[Jia Xu]

can we have an "Abdication" peace demand/offer?

By which we force the enemy to renounce a title (maybe just the main one) to the heir.

This would be ideal. In CK1 it always kind of annoyed me how my rebellious vassals would basically get away with a slap on the wrist because to avoid racking up huge BBs, you had to let the rebels keep their titles. There should be consequences for rebels who lose their wars, and because having their title taken away by their liege with no BB penalty has to much gamey abuse potential, I think the best solution would be to have the rebels abdicate to a family member.

[The Arch Mede]

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

Aren't you in a rather better position in this game? You might be 100% occupied, but your liege isn't.

The danger comes if you have a big desmesne, the King has 1 demesne, and that 1 demesne gets occupied. The King now cant refuse a peace deal to hand over your lands. A small count with a powerful King is much better off. It isn't game over for him the moment his sole castle is taken.

I don't think vassal sniping was a problem in CK, apart from the AI being poor at the tactic and the sniper being able to reduce BB by it. I thought demanding that a border count swear loyalty to you rather than his current lord in order to get his castle back was a properly medieval thing to do, though the BB reduction was a powerful incentive to indulge in it.

[thrashing mad]

OK, so in CK1 if foreign power with claims occupied all your lands it was game over. In CK2 foreign power would have to defeat not only you, but also your overlord to do that, right? I think that is an improvement. I agree that it would be wrong, if your overlord could hand over your lands above your head if player still has troops/unoccupied lands. Perhaps an easy solution would be pop-up window where you could choose either - to obey your duke/king, or disobey and declare independence?

[vwclaymore]

The danger comes if you have a big desmesne, the King has 1 demesne, and that 1 demesne gets occupied. The King now cant refuse a peace deal to hand over your lands. A small count with a powerful King is much better off. It isn't game over for him the moment his sole castle is taken.

I'm not sure it will necessarily work that way. I have a feeling that the 100% warscore would be based on the alliance's total territory, so your king's land, your land, and the land of any other vassals brought into the war. Perhaps not, but that was how I thought of it.