• 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.
War, what is it good for?

In Crusader Kings II, hopefully you'll gain some titles and in the best of worlds, imprison or behead your enemy. In order to declare a war you'll first need a valid Casus Belli against your enemy(a CB held by a vassal or courtier will of course do as well). You cannot attack the vassals of someone, so if you want one of their titles you have to attack their liege. Also, unlike Europa Universalis III and Victoria II, once a war has started it cannot be extended by adding further wargoals or CBs.

Instead, each CB has three options scripted: Demand Defeat, White Peace and Reversed Demands. As an example, let's look at the Claim CB. This CB lets you attack people holding titles you have claims on. If the war is going well, you can demand that your enemy give his title to you and as a bonus you'll gain a small amount of prestige. If you fail to achieve your goal, you could sue for a white peace instead. You'd want to avoid this though, since signing a white peace gives you a prestige hit(you didn't achieve your goals, after all). White peace is still preferable to the reversed demand however, since if your enemy enforces this, you will both lose the claim and get a huge prestige hit.

CrusaderKingsII_War_2.png

While most wars will end in a peace treaty, this is not the only way they can end. Some CBs have effects that trigger when the leader of an alliance dies. An example of this is the Invasion CB, which is currently used by William against Harold. When the leader of the attacking alliance dies, the war immediately ends. Be careful when going to war with your old king...

Another part of wars is the warscore. Like our other games, you'll gain warscore by occupying enemy holdings(the capital is worth more, vassal holdings are worth less) and winning battles(in CK2, they are worth a lot of warscore). We've also added a warscore effect if the contested title is left with no controller change for some time. After three years(currently), warscore is slowly added to the person controlling the area. This means that it's now possible to win a war as a) a defender in a war by just defending your title or b) attacking someone, sieging down the title you want and then just stand still and defend those provinces. By the way, if you manage to capture and imprison the enemy leader(for example, in a battle), this automatically counts as 100% warscore. We've also removed all limits to warscore, so whoever reaches >=100% first by any combination of occupation, battles, controlling the correct territory and imprisonment automatically wins the war.

CrusaderKingsII_War_1.png

Last but not least we have tagged some CBs to be "hostile against others", for example the Invasion CB. The effect of this is that two parties contesting the same title will fight each other even if they are not at war. It might be better as William to wait a bit until Harald and Harold both have worn down their armies...

'Till next time!
Fredrik Zetterman
Programmer, Paradox Interactive
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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".
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Why does the war have to end if the king (alliance leader) dies?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.