This. Partly.
I honestly don't see what the fuss is all about. You can certainly do other things to offest the penalty and it does go away, doesn't it?
Should I really gain the tyrant trait for this??
- Thread starter GTOAviator
- Start date
-
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.
This. Partly.
I honestly don't see what the fuss is all about. You can certainly do other things to offest the penalty and it does go away, doesn't it?
No you won't get tyrant from revoking titles. In early 1066 as William the conqueror after Morcar revolted I stipped him of the Duke of York then York for free. I got lucky and my diplo scored me a claim on York. After having stripped Edwin of 2 titles I stipped Morcar of his other 2 titles. No tyranny resulted. The effect of stripping 3 titles was much less than banishment. I got a -60 but banishing results in -30 + -70 for tyranny. So stripping 3 titles that were not free was 40% less relations hit!
I don't think the penalty goes away with current vassals but their heirs don't have it nor does anyone newly created vassal. If a guy just has two titles you can use the free strip after revolt then strip him of the other title. Afterward set him free from prison and you get +10 vassal relations for only a -10. If you get some prisoners in the revolt then set them free to get the +10 relations boosts.
The boost is not cumulative, if I remember correctly. So freeing 2 prisoners wont net you +20 to relations.
Another issue is that you can easily get the "Kinslayer" trait. My sister or aunt (can't recall) killed my infant son and was caught. Before I imprisoned her I had the pope excommunicate her butt. I then arrested her and had her executed without penalty from my vassals; however I did receive the "kinslayer" trait which made every dynasty member hate me.
Is this intended or an oversight. Surely a murderous, excommunicated and evil family member should not be considered a protected member of the dynasty.
Any thoughts?
kilarious
Is this intended or an oversight. Surely a murderous, excommunicated and evil family member should not be considered a protected member of the dynasty.
Any thoughts?
kilarious
I am pretty sure it goes away after like 10 years... That has been my experience anyways
"The real reason why things are they way they are is game balance. It would be too easy to build up a huge demesne if you could take a bunch of titles from a plotting/rebel lord in one fell swoop by banishing them without penalty."
Yet the demense too large penalty can be very big and balances this regardless of the penalty for banishment. The poster seems to forget your vassals get very mad if you hold too many titles. I think the huge banishment penalty has nothing to do with balance. The -60 I have seen for a having a demense way too big is far enough to keep me from doing this if I just want his titles. In 99% of the cases I want to do this, it is not to make my demense bigger since getting any bigger would mean relations and taxation hits but rather to replace someone of a different culture or some pesky vassal I have sent gifts, awarded an honorary title, even married someone in my court to him and he is still ambitious and wants to revolt.
Yet the demense too large penalty can be very big and balances this regardless of the penalty for banishment. The poster seems to forget your vassals get very mad if you hold too many titles. I think the huge banishment penalty has nothing to do with balance. The -60 I have seen for a having a demense way too big is far enough to keep me from doing this if I just want his titles. In 99% of the cases I want to do this, it is not to make my demense bigger since getting any bigger would mean relations and taxation hits but rather to replace someone of a different culture or some pesky vassal I have sent gifts, awarded an honorary title, even married someone in my court to him and he is still ambitious and wants to revolt.
I am pretty sure it is intended. Excommunicating her doesn't automatically change her family
In legal terms yes.
But if you spend any time in courts at all, particularly at sentencing hearings, you'll find that every legally convicted criminal has a pack of family members claiming "It's just a misunderstanding," "He's really a good boy," etc. They don't like it when the judge throws the book at their Uncle Bobby, even if they acknowledge Uncle Bobby really shouldn't have killed that kid.
From your family's point of view it would have been enough to arrest Auntie Murderess, strip her of her lands, and hold her under House Arrest. That you went further means they lost a sister/aunt/cousin. More importantly it also means that if their other sisters/aunts/cousins act up you'll throw the book at them; and CK2 sisters/aunts/cousins seem to be hard-coded to act up.
Nick
I am pretty sure it is intended. Excommunicating her doesn't automatically change her family
I understand, it was something I didn't consider until after the excution. I went back and looked at her traits and she was a "kinslayer" as well. I guess their are some balancing issues to consider (excommunicate = free execution of vassal x). From now on murderers will languish in my deepest, darkest prison cell.
I disagree with this. The goal of game balance is to make an enjoyable game, not to "recreate history" (or to make a game that's "realistic," which I think is what you're actually suggesting). Now I do think that Paradox goes for "realism" where it's possible to dovetail realism with gameplay, but gameplay is the predominant concern.
This is not a realistic game. I mean how many people have created a sprawling Irish empire within 150 years of starting as a petty Irish count? Not only is it possible to do that, it's easy. Ireland is seen as being a newbie start location. Now maybe we're a bunch of geniuses that could have conquered the world if only we were born in the right place at the right time. Or maybe the game is a little unrealistic. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's damned fun forging an Irish empire. And I have no doubt that gameplay mechanics will be changed down the road, but they'll be changed predominately because they make the game more fun, not because they make it more realistic (although a given change might accomplish both things, which is all the better). The kingdom of "Brythonia" is one of the more striking examples of the designers choosing gameplay over realism, and I have no problem with that. Wales is too small to make sense as a de jure kingdom in this game, and Brittany always gets swallowed up by France. Why not make a change to make things more fun?
And I hate to tell you, but I think that the designers of Need for Speed probably play around with how driving physics work to make the game more fun to play as well. They're not making a driving physics simulation, they're making a racing video game. They incorporate things like drift physics mostly because they're cool -- they also happen to be realistic, but that's beside the point. There's a reason why they include drift physics but leave out a chance of random tire blowouts during a race, even though tires do blow out sometimes in real life.
Last edited:
Actually, many nobles held lands of their own, i.e. not in fief. Feudal lands could be revoked, allodial lands could not. The game doesn't recognize the distinction - and rightly so, it's more fun this way, but if a historian wanted to criticize the game, this would be a good place to start.
What we need is a "force abdication" option for rebellious vassals that strips the current lord of his titles (but leaves claims on them) and gives them to his heir. I can think of virtually no instances where a rebellious lord was successfully deprived of his titles without necessitating a war of conquest (like Emperor Henry VII of Luxembourg against Henry VI of Carinthia), but countless examples where a scandal ruined a noble's prestige sufficiently that abdication and retirement were seen as suitable responses, however temporary they may have ended up being.
I fully support this. If a ruler is found to be a traitor, you should be able to declare him unfit to rule. It would keep the claim, but move the throne to his heir.
On topic. After 3 rebellions from a duchess (why is ALWAYS the duchess?), I had revoked her two titles. This _removes_ the option to banish her. You can not banish criminals who does not have a title! This seems really odd and broken. Again in history there countless examples of banishment of courtiers. You don't want someone hanging out in your court if they are working against you.
It would have to work similarly to the current "Revoke titles" option, thought, ie a chance of them rebelling and declaring war against you instead.
If you won the war against the traitor, then no; abdication should be compulsory. If you white peaced out, then yes.
NO! It dose not go away. As long as he is alive he has that from everyone who held title when he did it. I think you get a pass on that from those who come after.
Tyranny does go away; it lasts for 10 years. You may be right that it doesn't apply to new vassals, though.
Ok everyone.
So after this Count lost his war against me, he offers peace and goes to prison. I revoked his title in the traditional way and it informed me that nobody cared because he was a traitor. BUT, as soon as I revoked the title, his flag changed and he reverted to some crazy Polish family. It was if he was instantly adopted by some foreign duke. I looked and looked but couldn't find any relation between him and his new "family".
The worst part is I couldn't even banish him anymore because his "liege" wasn't me! So his wife and 3 kids all move to the new country with their ill-earned wealth, while he sat in prison. The hysterical part is I tried to ransom him but his new liege didn't even care enough to pay 10 gold for him.
He died in prison a few years later.
So after this Count lost his war against me, he offers peace and goes to prison. I revoked his title in the traditional way and it informed me that nobody cared because he was a traitor. BUT, as soon as I revoked the title, his flag changed and he reverted to some crazy Polish family. It was if he was instantly adopted by some foreign duke. I looked and looked but couldn't find any relation between him and his new "family".
The worst part is I couldn't even banish him anymore because his "liege" wasn't me! So his wife and 3 kids all move to the new country with their ill-earned wealth, while he sat in prison. The hysterical part is I tried to ransom him but his new liege didn't even care enough to pay 10 gold for him.
He died in prison a few years later.
The Von Rheinfelden dukes of Swabia lost this duchy during the time they were anti-kings, their supporter the Von Zähringen duke of Carinthia (later also claiming Swabia) lost his duchy too in this conflict. The Von Rheinfelden dynasty went extinct before the eventual settlement, but the Von Zähringen basically kept their ancestral lands in Upper Burgundy (Arelat) and Swabia and kept a personal (not really territorial and certainly not a stem duchy, so basically just the rank of a duke) ducal title (duke of Zähringen).
Another famous example is the conflict between the house of Hohenstaufen, dukes of Swabia and often Holy Roman Emperor or Roman-German king; and the house of Welf eventually duke of (the stem duchies) Saxony and Bavaria and the rival to the imperial throne (sometimes successful). The house of Welf actually lost both duchies, regained the duchies and eventually lost both again; they kept most of their dynastic lands though, although after they were stripped form their duchies for the second time that was reduced to their allodial lands in northern Germany. These allodial lands were later transformed in a fief and granted to the house of Welf as the duchy of Braunswick-Luneburg (Braunschweig-Lüneburg). However when the house of Welf were regranted these duchies, parts were split of from these duchies, for instance the margraviate of Austria was promoted to a duchy (while keeping margravial privileges) since the Babenberg margrave of Austria was previously made the duke of Bavaria by the emperor, but he had done nothing, which would justify being stripped from a duchy without compensation, the imperial princes felt that he deserved to keep the (higher) ducal rank. In Saxony the house of Ascania managed to keep a few counties, but the stem duchies of Saxony and Bavaria were only really dismantled after the house of Welf lost them for the second time.
Roman-German king Rudolf of Habsburg (after being victorious) could strip the king of Bohemia from the duchies of Austria, Styria and Carinthia and the margraviate of Carniola and the Windic March, because he gained those during the great interregnum not entirely legally; however that was a general policy concerning all dubiously seized lands during the great interregnum.
Last edited: