Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Make Vassal Degrees of Freedom Be Determined by the De Facto Liege's Laws, Please

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69869 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10588 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6362 After Action Reports
Show only dev responses
Drakken said:
No, it's not. Each realm has its own institutions and laws, and you should have to change it one by one. Fairly historical.

In fact, I find it's too easy to change crown laws, and there are too few crown laws.
Click to expand...

Thats not what hes getting at. I believe what he means is that if Bohemia has max crown authority and is not De Facto part of the HRE and the HRE has minimal crown authority, the HRE crown authority comes first, meaning that his Kingdoms laws have no purpose.

Is that what your saying Hyzen?
 
DoomBunny said:
Thats not what hes getting at. I believe what he means is that if Bohemia has max crown authority and is not De Facto part of the HRE and the HRE has minimal crown authority, the HRE crown authority comes first, meaning that his Kingdoms laws have no purpose.

Is that what your saying Hyzen?
Click to expand...

Yep. As far as I can tell, the Crown Laws for Bohemia, Croatia, Sicily, Armenia, Syria and Jerusalem have ZERO effect, except for the parts of the latter two that are outside the De Jure Byzantine Empire. Imperial laws always come first, and there is nothing that can be done to change that.
 
That sounds like a legitimate complaint really. Even if by law you should follow what the HRE says, surely you should be allowed to set authority in the land where you are De facto King?
 
Yep, I think a lot of people replying to say that everything is fine aren't quite grasping the complaint.

Also, what does this mean for kingdoms that aren't formed? Say for example somehow the Kingdom of England title becomes defunct with no owner, the last laws were autonomous vassals, but you're the king of Scotland with high crown authority and most of England ruled by your vassals. Who's rules win in that situation? There's no king title to pass crown laws or even rule, so it should be all Scottish laws really, but I sense that English laws would still win.
 
Hyzhenhok said:
It is absolutely absurd and silly. Why should the Crown Authority laws (which represent the strength and cohesion of a realm) apply when the strength and cohesion of that realm is de facto as low as it can go? The King of England should be required to have the actual allegiance of the Duchess of Lancaster before he can wave his piece of paper that says High Crown Authority around and prevent the King of Ireland from inheriting.
Click to expand...

Because the game has no way to "know" that the cohesion of the realm is low. In cases like this, the best way to simulate the inheritance conflict would be to have one of the two claimants to threaten war on the other one. In any case, if the kingdom of England is so fractured, you can always declare war on him and get the duchy easily.
 
Galaahd said:
Because the game has no way to "know" that the cohesion of the realm is low. In cases like this, the best way to simulate the inheritance conflict would be to have one of the two claimants to threaten war on the other one. In any case, if the kingdom of England is so fractured, you can always declare war on him and get the duchy easily.
Click to expand...

The game certainly does have a good way to know whether the cohesion of the realm is low: it knows whether or not the realms de jure vassals are de facto under the helm of the liege. Not applying Crown Authority rules when Authority is so low that the vassals are not actually your vassals seems like common sense to me.

You can't attack the King of England to take the duchy because in this case, you don't have a claim because you were removed from the succession list entirely for being an independent ruler.
 
This does seem like a bug or poor design. IMHO the restriction that titles cannot pass outside the realm should not apply to independent rulers, only vassals. Only titles that are de facto in the realm should be prevented from passing outside it.

@op: Maybe you can work around things in this case by setting York to be your primary title?
 
Slaxl said:
Yep, I think a lot of people replying to say that everything is fine aren't quite grasping the complaint.

Also, what does this mean for kingdoms that aren't formed? Say for example somehow the Kingdom of England title becomes defunct with no owner, the last laws were autonomous vassals, but you're the king of Scotland with high crown authority and most of England ruled by your vassals. Who's rules win in that situation? There's no king title to pass crown laws or even rule, so it should be all Scottish laws really, but I sense that English laws would still win.
Click to expand...

I think this hits on a related complaint that I have. I've been playing as the King of Navarra, but as a titular kingdom, in which all counties are members of some other de jure kingdom, my crown laws appear to have no effect whatsoever, nor will they ever have any type of effect. So what is the point? What makes this even more absurd at the moment is that the Kingdom of Castille (the Crown Laws of which apply to most of my counties) doesn't even appear to be in existence at the moment because it has become part of the Kingdom of Leon when that king inherited the title. (I suppose here, the Kingdom of Castille still sort of exists... I'm less clear on this point).
 
If you were originally in the HRE, but then got inherited by someone in France, and were on the border, the HRE rules still apply. Like even if France had autonomous vassals, but HRE had medium authority, you wouldnt be able to declare war, since its medium crown authority that effects you.
 
It's also a bit silly that the way things work, if you're an independent ruler trying to gnaw away the territory of another kingdom/empire, it's ideal for them to be at Medium crown authority. It seems like it should be that the lower your enemy king's authority, the better, but that's not really work because his lower authority translates into your lower authority for any vassals you have on "his" land. Any lower than Medium and any vassals you have on their land will be unruly (AND be able to attack your other vassals); any higher and you won't be able to leech away land via inheritance.
 
I really don't understand why Crown Laws go by du jour instead of de facto. My vassals should go by my laws, not that of a rival Kingdom I happen to border. Especially with permanent du jour territory, we run into problems where a kingdom that hasn't ruled an area for the last 250 years is still enforcing its laws on my vassals.

In one game, Norway conquered England, moved the capital to England, and then lost all its Scandinavian territory, but even a 100 years later those independent Duchies in Scandanavia were still limited by the crown of their grandfather across the sea? It shouldn't be this way.
 
Guys, we already had this argument with Paradox months ago when they explained the crown authority and de ivre VS de facto kingdoms; but guess what? They don't give a shit. Plenty of us saw this problem incoming, but they literally just do not care.
 
Tylerb7 said:
Guys, we already had this argument with Paradox months ago when they explained the crown authority and de ivre VS de facto kingdoms; but guess what? They don't give a shit. Plenty of us saw this problem incoming, but they literally just do not care.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Paradox has been very engaging with CKII and have even already demonstrated making post-release changes due to complaints (adjusting the AI because of France conquests in Iberia).

If enough players voice concerns over the way Crown Laws work and make a convincing case for it hurting gameplay, everything in the past shows that Paradox will fix it if it makes a better game. Even if things are set in stone and can't be redone, maybe they can tweak it to make more sense. The way it works right now is hurting the gameplay, especially when Kingdoms have shifted geographically years and years into the game.
 
Drakken said:
No, it's not. Each realm has its own institutions and laws, and you should have to change it one by one. Fairly historical.

In fact, I find it's too easy to change crown laws, and there are too few crown laws.
Click to expand...
No. I think what the OP is getting at is that why are the Sicilian duchies following ERE laws when they aren't de facto part of the empire, for example.
 
Hossier said:
I disagree. Paradox has been very engaging with CKII and have even already demonstrated making post-release changes due to complaints (adjusting the AI because of France conquests in Iberia).

If enough players voice concerns over the way Crown Laws work and make a convincing case for it hurting gameplay, everything in the past shows that Paradox will fix it if it makes a better game. Even if things are set in stone and can't be redone, maybe they can tweak it to make more sense. The way it works right now is hurting the gameplay, especially when Kingdoms have shifted geographically years and years into the game.
Click to expand...

Go back and read through the pertinent dev diaries, or better yet look through some of the general forum topics from around that time. We knew this was going to happen; so did Paradox. This is working as intended, and they made that abundantly clear.
 
I love the idea of laws that apply in de jure territory, but its implementation is indisputably terrible. It doesn't even make sense, not for Crown Authority at least. Especially since many kingdoms exist within de jure borders of empires and therefore will never be able to do anything with their laws.
 
Hossier said:
I really don't understand why Crown Laws go by du jour instead of de facto. My vassals should go by my laws, not that of a rival Kingdom I happen to border. Especially with permanent du jour territory, we run into problems where a kingdom that hasn't ruled an area for the last 250 years is still enforcing its laws on my vassals.

In one game, Norway conquered England, moved the capital to England, and then lost all its Scandinavian territory, but even a 100 years later those independent Duchies in Scandanavia were still limited by the crown of their grandfather across the sea? It shouldn't be this way.
Click to expand...

Not to a modern legal positivist accepting of law as an instrument to exercise and legitimate de facto power. It is different where the expectation of fixed laws as part of fixed institutions regulating the conduct of peasants through princes, including such matters as war and succeession, is a bedrock principle - raw power can always breach these laws, but is not entitled to change them at whim. Paradox admittedly grossly simplifies the complexity and diversity of medieval legal strucutres, but the feel and flavor it is there (and exactly what you are, in the role of a ruler, chafing against).

In a Crusader Kings post-apocalyptic Mad Max mod, you would be right - he who rules, makes the rules.
From a Christian medieval viewpoint, you are all kinds of wrong (and would probably be tried and burned as a heretic, just to be on the safe side).
 
Yeah, medieval law followed immutable natural law principles. The law didn't so much derive from a prince as it was found by jurists and thereby expounded. That said, a prince might still strive to change that and restrict the liberty of his vassals if he so wished: what should happen is not that the vassals should ignore their de facto prince, but rather they should have an opinion penalty against him if his crown authority differs from what they expect from their de jure realm.
 
Sir Garnet said:
Not to a modern legal positivist accepting of law as an instrument to exercise and legitimate de facto power. It is different where the expectation of fixed laws as part of fixed institutions regulating the conduct of peasants through princes, including such matters as war and succeession, is a bedrock principle - raw power can always breach these laws, but is not entitled to change them at whim. Paradox admittedly grossly simplifies the complexity and diversity of medieval legal strucutres, but the feel and flavor it is there (and exactly what you are, in the role of a ruler, chafing against).

In a Crusader Kings post-apocalyptic Mad Max mod, you would be right - he who rules, makes the rules.
From a Christian medieval viewpoint, you are all kinds of wrong (and would probably be tried and burned as a heretic, just to be on the safe side).
Click to expand...

This may be the most enlightening post I've read as far as this conflict is concerned. So, if I'm to understand correctly (and in a simplified manner), when I play as the King of Navarra, the counties that are de facto party of my kingdom, but are members of the de jure Kingdom of Castille, are essentially following the Crown Laws of Castille because the peasants, lords, and general political structure view themselves traditionally as members of Castille, regardless of which kingdom their current leader tells them they are a part of. As a result, when it comes to the laws affecting the authority of their ruler, they stand by the proclamation of who they see as their true king, i.e. the King of Castille? I can accept that reasoning.

However, this raises my gameplay questions. Why do titular kingdoms even have a Crown Laws tab? They could never possibly be enforced if I'm understanding correctly.
 
There're two things people on this thread don;t seem to get.

First, if you are an independent King your liege's Crown Laws do not take precedence over your own. It may take awhile for this to trickle through the game if you've just won your War of Independence, but if you start as independent Catholic Duke of Apulia, create the independent Catholic Kingdom of Sicily the only effect of being in the Empire is that the Emperor will occasionally bitch. Check your own Crown Laws before complaining, I suspect a lot of you created a Kingdom with BYZA-level crown laws and then didn't notice you could change them.

The fact that you guys aren't checking this carefully is proven by the fact one of you referred to areas of certain kingdoms not in BYZA. The game engine cannot split kingdoms that way. If Armenia is subject to BYZA all Armenia is subject to BYZA. Period.

Second, the Middle Ages were a legal mess. If you think a realm with an ancient tradition of not allowing foreigners to inherit, would allow a foreigner to inherit a Duchy within that country just because said Duchy was not paying taxes to the crown (aka: the exact Ireland/York/Northumbria thing you're complaining about), you haven't done a lot of research on the Middle Ages.

Because proclaiming some random Princess the rightful heir to the Duchy, based on an obscure legal precedent only lawyers know about, is precisely the kind of thing Medieval nobleman would do.

Nick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back