Ironically enough, William in CK2 doesn't attack with a claim war, but with an invasion. CK2 invasions actually simulate the battles that are impossible to represent in EU4 pretty well, such as the conquest of Egypt and the takeover of China.
100% War Score should mean unconditional surrender
- Thread starter StatikShocker
- 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.
Ironically enough, William in CK2 doesn't attack with a claim war, but with an invasion. CK2 invasions actually simulate the battles that are impossible to represent in EU4 pretty well, such as the conquest of Egypt and the takeover of China.
He had a claim, given to him by the pope and enabling invasion cb. If you occupied every territory you would gain every single bishopric, city and castle into your personal desmesne. Tengri cultures with their religion can call invasions like this. 100% warscore with complete occupation means unconditional surrender. Used by the player or a blob, its game-breakingly powerful (for laughs, I invaded all of the middle east in about ten years as Hungary using this cb) An AI hungary took all of Greece from Byzantines (took them 5 tries, but once they won they had it all with no way of Byzantines ever getting it back except through one holy war at a time). The point is... unconditional, I take huge amounts of land in one go never work well. In ck2, it is basically the best way for muslim/ pagan blobs, and euiv, even with more flexible cb's, shouldn't have it. I kind of think of it as 100% not unconditional being all those other factors not accounted for in game. Sure, overextension is bad and rebels can hurt, but its not the same thing as fighting the giant. If you take France since they're busy elsewhere or at a low point, you could blob like a maniac. Or, if you're some little country, France, occupying you entirely then game overing you would make me want to cry.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reductio+ad+absurdum
Oh, and by the way, in another highly successful Paradox called Hearts of Iron 3, you can, indeed, develop technology "earlier" than when it was invented. If you have any interest in WW2, it's a heck of a game.
And I'm sorry that I provided you with a definition which you seemed to completely ignore. I'm the one who actually provided you with the definition. Your statement is strange and ironic.
Ah! Very cool. Thank you. I'll definitely be reading those threads.
I'm quite aware. Of course I am. Before you wrote this, I also said that you, as a player, could be made to accept the consequences. I have no problem with that. Your comment here does nothing to discredit my point, and actually just reinforces it.
This is from wiki, but again, you'll see this same definition everywhere:
"Absolute monarchy is a monarchial form of government in which the monarch exercises ultimate governing authority as head of state and head of government; his or her powers are not limited by a constitution or by the law. An absolute monarch wields unrestricted political power over the sovereign state and its people."
The only difference between that and a tyrannical despot is your perspective and how you feel about the guy who's in charge.
Yeah, a year or two ahead of time, which is on an entirely different scale than doing the same thing centuries ahead of time. Even you have to admit that there's a fundamental difference there.
Yes, absolute monarch means the monarch is not restricted by laws. But the monarch is restricted by other things, such as the interest groups in their country. Sultans in the Ottoman Empire were absolute monarchs, but that doesn't mean that they could do whatever they wanted with no limitations. This definition only covers the legal status of the monarchs in relation to the state, not the actual authority the monarch held.
We are just never going to agree on this. If you aren't restricted by laws, and you have absolute control over the military, you win. That's it. You can be a tyrant, a petty despot, an absolute monarch, and so on. If you aren't bound by laws, then there are no limitations.
One could say that no one has ever ruled without restrictions, and so there have never been absolute rulers in history ever under any circumstances. Therefore, terms and titles which claims absolute power is false; a fictional account of their status. If that's true, then every citation that involves this kind of power and description, whether it's a dictator, or an absolute monarch, an emperor, etc. should mention that it's a fictional status, because it has never existed and will never exist.
Therefore wouldn't it make sense to say something like Stalin was never a dictator? Hitler was never a dictator either. Why so?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dictator
dic·ta·tor
1. An absolute ruler.
Since there never have been absolute rulers, to call anyone a dictator is false. This is what you're saying. No one has ever had absolute authority.
Again, if we use the definition from Princeton, we get this:
"Absolute monarchy is a monarchical form of government where the monarch exercises ultimate governing authority as head of state and head of government, thus wielding political power over the sovereign state and its subject peoples."
But we've established that there is no such thing as ultimate authority.
Do you also tell people that dictators have never existed, at least per the definition? In your line of thinking, they haven't, and if you use a certain logic, I would agree with you. I don't know what kind of a response you'd get from a professor about this, because technically, you're right. My instinct tells me that they wouldn't buy the argument, even if it does carry a certain kind of logical resonance.
No person, ever, has done whatever they wanted without limitations. It's impossible. Does that mean that those types of terms are pointless?
(Oh, and about the laser gun or whatever that guy was saying as an example--of course, I found it ridiculous).
Last edited:
You still haven't given any indication why this discussion about absolute monarchs is at all relevant, unless your goal is simply to drag discussion more and more off-topic.
Again, the term does apply because it refers to the legal status of the monarch. Absolute monarchs did exist historically because there have been monarchs who were not restricted by laws. That is the definition of absolute monarch, even according to your post.
"the monarch exercises ultimate governing authority as head of state and head of government; his or her powers are not limited by a constitution or by the law."
Louis XIV was not limited by law, Tsar Alexis Romanov was not limited by law, Sultan Mehmed IV was not limited by law. They were all absolute monarchs. It's just that there are always forces which serve to limit the powers of absolute monarchs which have nothing to do with the law. Louis XIV was limited by the hereditary nobility, Alexis by the boyars, Mehmed by the kapılar and kapı kulları. History takes place in the real world, it should be fairly obvious that no one can ever be unlimited and completely unopposed in their authority. It's not something unusual which needs to be pointed out, and you seem to agree with this. Then why is it hard to see that the term refers to legal status and not to practical implementation?
Being an absolute monarch and having absolute control over the military are two entirely different things anyway. No state (let alone individual) had a monopoly on violence, nor was it achievable given the technological constraints of the time period.
Last edited:
You have a slight problem here: "Legal status" and "...not limited by a constitution or by the law." You don't see that? If you aren't bound by law, there is no legal status. Who's going to say otherwise? You simply degree that your legal status has changed to mean whatever I want it to mean. They aren't bound by law, you see.
You totally evaded the other portion because I think you're seeing a huge problem here.
There are always forces that serve to limit every single ruler, regardless if it's a dictator or an absolute monarch or anything else. No one, ever, has ruled without limits. It's impossible, like I said. So that means dictators, by the definition, do not exist, have never existed, and will never exist.
You can bring up any example you'd like, but we are talking about just the definition.
If you really believe in what you're saying, you should work to get these kinds of words like "absolute" removed, because nothing is absolute. I'm not sure if you read what I wrote carefully. Of course they are two different things.
"If you aren't restricted by laws, and you have absolute control over the military, you win. That's it. You can be a tyrant, a petty despot, an absolute monarch, and so on. If you aren't bound by laws, then there are no limitations."
In your case, centuries. In HOI 3, a handful of years, yes, but in a war that lasts 6 years, a few years is a big deal.
What about Danish absolutism, in which the monarch was legally declared to be unrestricted by law?
In any case, when I say "legal status" clearly that includes "lack of legal restriction". You're really just arguing semantics.
I didn't address that because it would have meant repeating myself. Absolute monarchs are by definition unlimited by laws. Dictators are by definition unlimited by laws. The point is that they have absolute legal control, not that they can actually exercise it.
So, no, absolute rulers by definition have existed and the term is not inappropriate.
I have absolute power as well, I just can't actually exercise it. Do you see how absurd that is? I guess you don't.
Researching a tech 3 years ahead of time is not remotely the same as researching something 200 years ahead of time...
The "ultimate governing authority" is that they don't derive their power from their vassals. They pay the wages of the troops, they appoint high ranking officials from wherever they so please, and they don't have to abide by any constitution.
In feudal monarchies, the monarch may tell vassals what to do, but they are bound by feudal contracts and the like, and ultimately the vassals are the ones who wield all of the power. In constitutional monarchies, the monarch may tell the magistrates and the like what to do, but they're ultimately bound by a constitution and a parliament telling them that they can't do such and such.
Back to the root, matter though: absolute monarchies. The fact is that though they don't derive their authority from agreements with their nobles, they still do have people ruling in their stead. You'll see much more of the less influential upper class and middle class compared to other government forms doing things like governing towns and making deals with other countries, but their still the ones making the deals, and if they strongly object enough, they won't make the deals.
Is it unrealistic that absolute monarchies are bound just as much by relations limit as feudal monarchies? Yes. Completely. Absolute monarchies would have far more leeway than other governments in terms of what they could do contrary to the opinions of the majority of the movers and shakers. Is it worth programming an entirely different system to differentiate diplomacy for absolute monarchies? I'd say no. I'd rather see a lot of other features than the fixing of an occasional annoyance. Is it worth COMPLETELY removing the relations limit? No. That's also unrealistic, because there are government systems where the nobles have enough power to object to those things. Is it worth it to remove the limit for absolute monarchies? I'd say no. That's also unrealistic, because if the entire country said "we don't want an alliance with Spain" and Louis DOES want an alliance with Spain, what's Louis going to do? Walk to Spain himself, tell Izzy that he wants to make smoochies, and just marry himself off?
EDIT: So I mixed this thread up with the one about the relations limit. Whatever. Most of my points still stand.
I might've missed this in the thread, but at the very least it should be easier to take large swathes of lands that are on a different continent than the home country. Then we could show treaties like the Treaty of Paris 1763, where France ceded all of its land in North America to Britain and Spain (although the cession to Spain was for a consolidation prize for Spain losing Florida). I'm not sure if its possible in game, but if it isn't, it should be.
I agree with the poster completely
100% means a few warscore and not the capital?
It is really a joke.
Ask Ming if they can refuse the demands of Qing..
No signing of a treaty? Yes.. Because every single one of the family of mings royal family are going to be killed. There is no need of a treaty.
Ming is just nearly annexed as a whole by a much smaller Qing.
Overextention? There is no such problems.
Europa Universalis is a very eurocentric game. They assume everyone in the world do things in a way like european. And western europeans are the best.
I read some comments that some smaller country would refuse a treaty and can fend off a larger country.
In the old chinese way refusal just means massarce of the city.
Some also say in the old world nations are not that centralised.. As the world is still feudal. On this i really cant agree. The chinese abandon feudalism after 200 bc.. Yeah sometimes it become decentralised because of the weakening of the government. But mostly it is centralised.
The mongols are centralised under genghis khan.. The manchu are centralised after the founding of qing.. Old world nations can still be centralised before the europeans do.
100% means a few warscore and not the capital?
It is really a joke.
Ask Ming if they can refuse the demands of Qing..
No signing of a treaty? Yes.. Because every single one of the family of mings royal family are going to be killed. There is no need of a treaty.
Ming is just nearly annexed as a whole by a much smaller Qing.
Overextention? There is no such problems.
Europa Universalis is a very eurocentric game. They assume everyone in the world do things in a way like european. And western europeans are the best.
I read some comments that some smaller country would refuse a treaty and can fend off a larger country.
In the old chinese way refusal just means massarce of the city.
Some also say in the old world nations are not that centralised.. As the world is still feudal. On this i really cant agree. The chinese abandon feudalism after 200 bc.. Yeah sometimes it become decentralised because of the weakening of the government. But mostly it is centralised.
The mongols are centralised under genghis khan.. The manchu are centralised after the founding of qing.. Old world nations can still be centralised before the europeans do.
Last edited: