I mean, vassals make an oath to their liege in which they say they will give him X amount of troops(determined by laws). So they can't give their liege less troops because they dont like him... thats breaking the oath and the liege should revoke their titles..
In short: If a vassal MUST give me 1000 soldiers he can't give me 10 soldiers instead because he doesnt like me, that is TREASON!
That's why there are different crown laws.
The lower the crown law, the more independent they are. Simple as pie.
The amount of troops the vassal -must- give is determined by laws, above that amount is at his discretion.
Yes but the problem is the vassals DONT give me the amount determined by law!!! The laws say they MUST give me 30% of their levy, but in some cases opinion lower that amount to 2%!!! its just ridiculous
Are you sure they aren't just quite low on troops? The number to the right in "#/1200" shows the maximum levy in the province, but the actual amount of troops are the "#", so if you just get 24 troops it'd be 2% of the maximum, but if there only are 360 troops in the province, then..Originally Posted by Mergoth
No, In the province view, I hover over the levy and it says: Laws determine 30% of the levy and the opinion of this vassal towards you let you raise 3.4% of the levy, for example..Are you sure they aren't just quite low on troops? The number to the right in "#/1200" shows the maximum levy in the province, but the actual amount of troops are the "#", so if you just get 24 troops it'd be 2% of the maximum, but if there only are 360 troops in the province, then..
Crown Authority is what REALLY determins the min elvy they have to give you.
here i have duke X that lieks me 50 and i have max feudal laws. he likes my 50%, so i get 50% of 100%(as taht is my law). now i raise cwor authority to HIGH from MEDIUM and outraged him in some other ways. suddenly, he hates me and would have granted me no levies at all if i didnt have a crown law of high that REQUIRES him to grant me the top 30%.
remember, the liege's powe rwas limitid in that era and things like this often happened. dont piss off your vassels and you should be fine.
That's the levy law * opinion modifier, the crown authority floor should be specified in a separate line. You really need to give more specifics and/or screenshot because there could be de jure crown authority issues that you aren't considering.
Your new to the concept of feudalism aren't you?
Well, actually, it could be argued that he's right, from a purely legalistic point of view. Feudal oaths contained no "depending on how much I like you" formula. However, I don't know if oaths of fealty specifically mentioned numbers of troops! (I think near-100% was implied.)
Also, I believe that vassals owed homage to their king in addition to fealty.
But then, if all human beings behaved perfectly, CK2 would model a rather boring society.
EDIT: Found this online.
Last edited by Emre Yigit; 17-06-2012 at 19:16.
To every man upon this earth / Death cometh soon or late. / And how can man die better / Than facing fearful odds, / For the ashes of his fathers / And the temples of his gods...?
I agree with the OP in that the opinion penalty is too high.
Well if he really dislikes you and is thinking about rebelling he isn't gonna march his troops over to you no matter what the law states. Wouldn't happen in life so why would it happen in game.
I think there should be a slightly more dynamic approach though and up to a certain point you get the full levy. I mean if a bloke just dislikes you because you have a better horse/armour/wife or just dislikes your appearance etc fair enough, jealousy etc, probably would conspire to bump you off or join a wide scale revolt but probably realises getting you pissed off would be a severe detriment to his health.
How about this?
The minimum feudal levy is the support a ruler is to give to his liege.
This can be in levy, or in funds to arm men at the kings discretion.
If the minimum levy is set to 30%, then the ruler can either provide 30% levy, or 30% of his levies upkeep costs to the king/liege.
Depending on the opinion it can vary between providing troops and levy. If the opinion is too low and the vassal is rebellious, than he should not pay at all and rather should be branded with a traitor opinion modifier. Who can then be imprisoned on their traiterous behavior and either executed or ransomed (a fine for failing to pay)
The oaths? no.
Reality? most definitely.
Feudal society was very legalistic, it was also however incredibly personal.
If some king got really uppity about how a random duke didn't give him his full support, and started revoking titles his other vassals would have put a stop to that pretty quickly.
Depends, I guess...
if the king is the agressor, then surely the vassals ought not to be shamed if they would not partake in his majesty's adventures.
If it is a defensive war however, and the king somehow manages to stay king after the war, he should surely get a reason to imprison all the traitors who failed to meet their legal duties to their king and the kingdom. For failing to serve the kingdom in its need is most likely...treason.
uuuuuuuuu. NOPE.avi. thats not how it worked. if they didnt give the CA required troops, yes, a traitor. if they rebelled, yes, a traitor. if they didnt give their entire elvies, no, as they may BE in the current sense a traitor but are not seen as one. laws werent that strictly followed in that era
Three misconceptions:
1) Oaths of fealty are a *bilateral* contract. Just as the vassal owes service to the lord, the lord owes protection and property to the vassal.
2) The vassal of my vassal is NOT my vassal. Vassalage does not transfer and is not hierarchical. In practice it might often seem that way, but in fact and tradition it was not. A knight might have been in the army of the Duke of Whatsit fighting a war started by the King of Wherever but that is not why he was there. He was there because a local Baron who was his feudal lord and from whom he held land owed fealty to some Earl, who owed fealty to a Duke who happened, at the time, to find that his cause coincided with the King's. If the Earl broke the feudal contract with the Baron (for example, broke a pending betrothal) then that knight was likely marching home and neither the Duke nor the King had anything to say about it outside of trying to convince the Earl to uphold his oaths.
3) Vassalage was not hierarchical. One could very well be both lord and vassal to the same person for different lands and titles. One could be vassal to both sides in a conflict (very common). CK2 obviously chose to avoid this mess altogether but it's helpful to keep in mind when thinking about how the game "should work" to be "more realistic". Sometimes you can't model history precisely in a computer game.
Also it was very common for a vassal (esp a powerful one) to just not show up when called upon. Are you going to go halfway across nowhere and face him in the field or siege his castle just to force him to bring his troops? Nope. Now it may be that he miscalculated and that you will be vengeful if you win, but in reality this happend constantly and vassals got away with it constantly
Likewise it was entirely common for a vassal to send the minimum required or just pay off the obligation in coin (scutage).
[I think that would actually be a cool/frustrating addition to CK: "A messenger arrives from Duke Jean of Burgandy with his apologies that he is not well positioned to muster his men due to the late harvest and omens of a hard winter. He has sent 57 gold coins in scutage to support your war effort."]
I think the CK system of basing this on an approval rating is a good abstraction. Treat your vassals well and you can rely on them when you need them. Treat them very well and they may support your cause enthusiastically. Crap on them (or just have a troublesome vassal who is too ambitious or has unfulfilled claims) and they will do only what they must and sometimes not even that.
Last edited by wdremington; 17-06-2012 at 22:30.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
