• 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.
I don't have that save anymore, but It took no more then a month after my latest save to give you one better. I give you Duke on Duke hawtness. Mid-Crown Authority is not working as WAD. It's just not working.

View attachment 50963

What you've got here is a picture of the Duke of Somerset not giving a damn about Brythain's crown authority, which is exactly how it's supposed to work. If you'll take a look at England's crown authority instead, I'm sure you'll find it to be below medium.

Why does it matter if your vassals fight each other?

It ties up troops that you could use for something else.
 
Why does it matter if your vassals fight each other?

It ties up troops that you could use for something else.

And leads to super-dukes since they can accumulate territory quicker when they can use war as well as marriage.

That said I've played a couple of games where I've kept low crown authority and it is by no means impossible to deal with, and it kind of feels more medieval to me having all these private wars going on :) You just need to be ready to administer the smack down. I found myself building up dukes who were in gavelkind to fight the elective ones, since the gavelkind crowd take care of themselves after a while...
 
In CK1 you could declare war on your liege, or another vassal in the kindgom, but the king / duke or whoever had control of the realm would also come to their defense. IMO that makes more sense.

No way, this was one of the biggest problems of CK 1 IMHO. There was literally no way for a King to not get involved in a war between his vassals, while historically it was very common for a King's attitude to be "let them sort it out". Indeed, at low crown authority the King intervening in such a struggle would be seen as acting tyrannically.

It might be nice if there was some event driven way for a King to covertly favour one side or another, and perhaps at higher crown authority levels he should have the option to intervene, albeit at a Prestige cost and with a relationship penalty. But the CK 1 system of compulsory royal involvement? No, that sucked.
 
No way, this was one of the biggest problems of CK 1 IMHO. There was literally no way for a King to not get involved in a war between his vassals

And IIRC, if you attacked a count who was a vassal of a duke in the same kingdom, his duke would attack you to protect him, then the king would attack his duke to protect you :)

There may be a few kinks in CK2, but CK1 was on a whole other level...
 
No way, this was one of the biggest problems of CK 1 IMHO. There was literally no way for a King to not get involved in a war between his vassals, while historically it was very common for a King's attitude to be "let them sort it out". Indeed, at low crown authority the King intervening in such a struggle would be seen as acting tyrannically.

I would bet there were a lot more times historically that a king chose to get involved rather than not get involved. Why would a king sit back and watch a duke conquer half his kingdom? Sorry, I really doubt that.

It is one thing if you are the HRE and a small duke is waring with another small duke. It is another thing entirely if you are king of Sicily and the duke of Sicily gets a claim on the Duke of Apuia or another duchy, and decides to take his duchy. When you have kingdoms that are only 2 or 3 duchies. Now you have a duke that could end up being much stronger than the King.
 
To be honest, I think the Crown Authority system is working fine - excpet that, as King, I should have the ability to intervene.
As thing currently stand, I don't. This seems wrong. I can't even 'lend' troops to one of the factions!
 
I would bet there were a lot more times historically that a king chose to get involved rather than not get involved. Why would a king sit back and watch a duke conquer half his kingdom? Sorry, I really doubt that.

Because he lacked a legal pretext to get involved that wouldn't anger all of his vassals with the (possible) exception of the one he was helping.

The Lords of the HRE fought each other often and the Emperors didn't intervene. The Norman conquests inside France were not opposed by the French Kings. The Hungarian King wasn't able to stop conflicts between the magnates. And so on.
 
I think the vassal which went to war with another none had rightful claim on each other. ...


Remember that the AI is plotting and scheming to gain power even under your rule. They aren't just mindless vassals that are on standby waiting for you orders.

Or you could just do what I do and make your primary heir the title holder to ALL your non-demesne holdings. It's nice having him already have 10k prestige when you die ;)

You can do that?? The process would be long and agonizing I figured unless u had only a few non demense holdings to begin with.
 
Last edited:
It is one thing if you are the HRE and a small duke is waring with another small duke. It is another thing entirely if you are king of Sicily and the duke of Sicily gets a claim on the Duke of Apuia or another duchy, and decides to take his duchy. When you have kingdoms that are only 2 or 3 duchies. Now you have a duke that could end up being much stronger than the King.
Except both Dukes are vassals of the King. How can the King justify interfering without tacitly saying that he doesn't accept one of his own Dukes? Which ought to make one of those Dukes therefore not his liege anymore and so independent.

We as gamers may want to prevent a Duke from being powerful, a King wouldn't send troops against his own Duke to do that though unless it was a revolution.
 
I would bet there were a lot more times historically that a king chose to get involved rather than not get involved. Why would a king sit back and watch a duke conquer half his kingdom? Sorry, I really doubt that.

But the king has plenty of tools. You can imprison, revoke and banish. No duke can stand against you if you want to stop him and are strong enough to deal with him if he revolts.

If you wanted to give the king even more options, like being able to unilaterally intervene with his own forces, you'd need to weaken them significantly somehow since kings being too weak is not one of the problems the game has.
 
Quoting a wrong statement, doesn't make it right.

Medium CA is either not WAI or we are not told that there are exceptions to the "non figthing among vassals allowed" rule. I have reported in the bugs forums my particular case: I am King of France. The Duke of Britanny is my vassal. I own Rennes, which I give to my son and heir. A month (more or less) after giving the county away the Duke of Britain declares war on the Count of Rennes (and only on the count, not on me. He was not rebelling or declaring independence) using the Ducal Claim CB. AFAIK, this is not suppoused to happen under Medium CA.
 
I agree, that in most cases king should not intervene, but if any of his children ( lets say crown prince of England is attacked by Duke of York ), king should have right to join defensive wars.
 
I think it should be fixed, it doesnt make sense that an emperor or King would allow his kingdom to basically erupt into civil war, and say "well theres nothing i can do about it, they are not my direct vassals". No wars, should mean no wars, period.

I think you're mistaken here. Yes, today that's true, but back in CK2's timeframe most of Europe didn't war as Absolutely the Worst Possible Thing That Could Ever Happen. They saw war as a force for good, and something every nobleman had the right to do. The Kings of France, for example, simply could not stop William the Conquerer from seizing Anjou.

In other words in countries with low Crown Authority the King intervening in a private war would be analogous to the modern Democracy intervening to stop protests against a State/Provinces/Whatever's Governor/Premier/Whatever. In both cases you have the top-level liege trying to protect a lower-tier political unit from people trying to exercise their rights.

@No idea:
Brittany isn't de jure part of France. It's de jure part of that weird Wales-Cornwall-Brittany Kingdom the devs added in the latest patch. It's called Brythain or something like that.

Which means French Crown Laws only apply if that weird-named kingdom has not been created.

Nick
 
I think you're mistaken here. Yes, today that's true, but back in CK2's timeframe most of Europe didn't war as Absolutely the Worst Possible Thing That Could Ever Happen. They saw war as a force for good, and something every nobleman had the right to do. The Kings of France, for example, simply could not stop William the Conquerer from seizing Anjou.

In other words in countries with low Crown Authority the King intervening in a private war would be analogous to the modern Democracy intervening to stop protests against a State/Provinces/Whatever's Governor/Premier/Whatever. In both cases you have the top-level liege trying to protect a lower-tier political unit from people trying to exercise their rights.

@No idea:
Brittany isn't de jure part of France. It's de jure part of that weird Wales-Cornwall-Brittany Kingdom the devs added in the latest patch. It's called Brythain or something like that.

Which means French Crown Laws only apply if that weird-named kingdom has not been created.

Nick

Thank you, now I see where the "problem" was.
 
I agree, that in most cases king should not intervene, but if any of his children ( lets say crown prince of England is attacked by Duke of York ), king should have right to join defensive wars.
I thought you got a family alliance with your children, and if you're playing smart (ie: you didn't marry matrilinearly while playing a dude, and you did marry matrilinearly while playing a chick) you also get a dynastic alliance with them.

I don't think this gives you a valid CB on the dude trying to bully your kid, but it certainly means your kid has the right to call you into the fight by calling his allies.

Which means you probably have an unrealistic amount of power to end that war, especially early in the period. Since it was a private war you should only be able to use troops from counties you personally own.

Nick