Anti-Kings

[riadach]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiking

I know in this example it purely refers to the HRE, but I'm wondering could it be an interesting mechanic for succession wars. Instead of these wars being a mish mash of alliances which equal tier dukes fighting a unified king, the leader of the rebellion could be declared an anti-king, given king-tier status, and thus having all his supporting dukes as vassals. This would increase his income as well as given him primary control over their armies and their levies. There could also be the option of enticing the rightful king's vassals away from them.

 

[Chyll]

Interesting concept.

I'd hate to see it apply every time though. The chaos resulting from competing claims at times can be fun.

Maybe a unique faction selection? But that would be available for player abuse...

 

[Namfuak]

I remember a mod doing something like this before. I think it might have been CK2+, but I'm not sure. Effectively, it applied for every type of war between liege and vassals, and what would happen was the leader of the vassal side would be given an equal-level title, and would have control over the other people on his side like a liege, as you suggest. It seems like it would be a good idea, especially so that it's easier to see which vassal is on which side if there is more than one revolt happening at once.

 

[riadach]

Interesting concept.

I'd hate to see it apply every time though. The chaos resulting from competing claims at time can be fun.

Maybe a unique faction selection? But that would be available for player abuse...

Maybe there could be some other requirements such as the prestige of the candidate. Perhaps papal support could swing it too.

 

[Joel M Bridge]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiking

I know in this example it purely refers to the HRE, but I'm wondering could it be an interesting mechanic for succession wars. Instead of these wars being a mish mash of alliances which equal tier dukes fighting a unified king, the leader of the rebellion could be declared an anti-king, given king-tier status, and thus having all his supporting dukes as vassals. This would increase his income as well as given him primary control over their armies and their levies. There could also be the option of enticing the rightful king's vassals away from them.

but Anit-king is special only to HRE because king has get imperial crown by the pope.

 

[lokomoko]

A system like this would bode very well for the Crusades. It would of course be changed up a bit, however the Pope is possibly given a newly added ultimate-tier title in which all people participating in the Crusade become his vassal, making it a much more organized effort like it historically was. After they finish of course everything settles back down to normal. This is a feature I would very much like to see, along with OP's anti-King feature.

 

[theStormWeaver]

I'd rather control my armies myself during the crusades, thanks.

I don't know about this Anti-King thing, but I would like to see all members of a rebellion colored the same.

 

[Holy.Death]

I know in this example it purely refers to the HRE, but I'm wondering could it be an interesting mechanic for succession wars. Instead of these wars being a mish mash of alliances which equal tier dukes fighting a unified king, the leader of the rebellion could be declared an anti-king, given king-tier status, and thus having all his supporting dukes as vassals.

Aren't factions and particular intrigues covering this already?

 

[GillesDeRais]

I remember a mod doing something like this before. I think it might have been CK2+, but I'm not sure. Effectively, it applied for every type of war between liege and vassals, and what would happen was the leader of the vassal side would be given an equal-level title, and would have control over the other people on his side like a liege, as you suggest. It seems like it would be a good idea, especially so that it's easier to see which vassal is on which side if there is more than one revolt happening at once.

Yes that's how CK+ works...

 

[fanoI]

Playing as King of Bohemia that, as you know, is a HRE vassal, I've seen that I had a special casus belli to force the abdication of the Emperor and put myself in the throne in this case effectively if I had declared war I would be an Anti Emperor in all effects.
(The Emperor loses prestige if he loses, I thought that me, too should lose or take 0 winnig *)

The same should apply when you've a claimant war, but only in that case I don't to see Anti - XXX for a simple "Lower Crown Authority War"... OK to see the enemy troops more coordinated maybe is correct the more powerful of the vassals or the faction leader could take this role, but he shouldn't be an Anti - XXX as they not are claiming your throne.

To add I would like to add that if the King / Emperor wins well the Anti should be punished in a very harsh manner I cannot accept that a traitor that "has broken the vassal contract" should simple lose one of his title: I want to strip all his titles I don't want to see that traitor in my realm anymore as nothing happened ready to start a faction again.

* Declaring war to usurp the throne of your overlord is "broking the vassal contract". I have juried to serve him!

 

[riadach]

Aren't factions and particular intrigues covering this already?

No, not really. These wars are alliances wars, multiply different armies with different leaders fighting against the established king. What I am supposed is that these coalesce under one anti-king to lead a single, coherent war against the established king.

 

[riadach]

but Anit-king is special only to HRE because king has get imperial crown by the pope.

But multiple kings could be crowned in opposition to eachother during the medieval period.

 

[riadach]

I'd also like it if such succession disputes involving kings and anti-kings didn't end with a white peace. Rather, that when a white peace is sought, the anti-king rules his vassals independently, but both king and anti-king maintain a casus belli against eachother.

 

[AJ2009]

What happens if a king and an Anti-King shake hands?

 

[riadach]

What happens if a king and an Anti-King shake hands?

Pretty sure they cancel themselves out. Then, free for all.

 

[theStormWeaver]

But multiple kings could be crowned in opposition to eachother during the medieval period.

Didn't this happen a couple times in England?

 

[riadach]

Didn't this happen a couple times in England?

There was Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel, but they may be outside our period, slightly.

 

[AJ2009]

There was Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel, but they may be outside our period, slightly.

One of them played dress up I believe, as the Earl of Warwick

 

[LemonMonk]

One of them played dress up I believe, as the Earl of Warwick

Lambert did claim to be Earl of Warwick.
Perkin was a prisoner in Warwick Castle.

It says so on Wikipedia, but I knew about Perkin before, as I grew up in Warwick, going to the castle a few times.. not too often, it's darn expensive.

But to stay on topic:

Aren't current game pretenders nearly the same thing? Maybe one pretender could sometimes emerge as Anti-King, while the others are just normal pretenders or something.

 

[Manic Eskimo]

Didn't this happen a couple times in England?

Sort of with Matilda and Stephen. Matilda didn't actually get crowned as she couldn't get to London but for a time she was in control of most of the country. The fact that she couldn't take London and thus be crowned by the arch-bishop is the only reason that she is not included in the list of monarchs.