I don't agree with you. If I don't want vassals meddling in my plans; which is of a player, then I should be the one to control if a vassal comes by to siege my capital from the control of rebels. It is not of some role player of the monarch of the time. The only way to control what the vassals do is to be in war, my suggestion just allows them to be attached in peace. Either way the game supports me, I know the mechanics, I choose the destiny. If you want to role play that your crap leader stays in power while there is a stronger leader on the verge of power that's fine. My suggestion does not hamper that, so why would you be against hampering mine? I've no problem with people who want to role play, but to push there view on anyone who plays this game is cynical and irritating. Give me one good reason why this wouldn't be good for the game. Keep in mind I already stated I have ways to control the vassals movement in war. So maybe if you argued how it would make peace time rebel suppression easier, and your against it for whatever reasons, I mite see your point.