Can't press claims in victory if enemy started the war...?

[Asherett]

I'm wondering about something which seems quite odd to me. It seems the one who starts a war completely dictates the terms of the war, and the terms of victory... Say I'm playing as the King of Norway and I have a claim on the county of Dal (Sweden). Then the King of Sweden declares war on me, (on behalf of one of his vassals which has a claim on one of my counties). Even if I occupy every single Swedish county and holding, and kill every last one of his troops, I can't press my claim in any way, since HE started the war. Shouldn't it be possible in some way to add my claim to the demands when I win? Now I basically have to offer him peace, then stand down all my troops, and then declare war AGAIN on my terms... Kinda unrealistic, eh?

 

[Jon-Ace]

Hopefully defensive war reparations get patched in. Instead of just a prestige hit, you would also lose lands that were occupied by someone with a claim on it.

 

[AllThat4Nothing]

nah seems exploitable. like a gift beinf handed to you for nothing. depending on how nutty the AI wants to get, you'd probably get more chances to press claims than you really ought to. the way it is now, you have to think before you dive in

 

[zedyue]

I agree with MONETARY reparations and a prestige boost for you, maybe piety. But not land. Maybe like 20% of their income for 5 years?

 

[Tegus]

I agree with MONETARY reparations and a prestige boost for you, maybe piety. But not land. Maybe like 20% of their income for 5 years?

Monetary reparations will be added in the patch

 

[HKFlash]

Monetary reparations will be added in the patch

Awesome!

 

[Drakken]

Monetary reparations will be added in the patch

Neat.

 

[ziamatt]

I agree. You should definitely be able to enforce demands even if fighting a defensive war. If you're able to completely defeat your enemy it seems stupid that you have to do it again after they die just because they declared war first. Of course you could exploit sub-standard AI tactics to your advantage, but you would have done that anyway if you had declared war first. The solution is making the AI better, not hobbling the player with absurd conditions.

 

[Fintilgin]

Some form of adding a war goal like V2 would be nice.

If England invades me trying to force a claim on Duchy X, and I have a claim on their Duchy Y, I should be able to press that claim during a highly successful war. Maybe limit it somehow, like you have to declare your counterclaim in a very short period after the war starts or something?

 

[unmerged(287474)]

monetary reparations will be added in the patch

woot!

 

[N Katsyev]

It is true that not being able to weaken an enemy following a war can be a recipe for disaster. The AI for instance will just start a loop of attacking you every five years, what does it care? It can't actually lose anything from having tens of thousands of its troops butchered, eventually you'll be weaker in one of those 5 year cycles and it'll destroy you.

 

[Chipster]

It is true that not being able to weaken an enemy following a war can be a recipe for disaster. The AI for instance will just start a loop of attacking you every five years, what does it care? It can't actually lose anything from having tens of thousands of its troops butchered, eventually you'll be weaker in one of those 5 year cycles and it'll destroy you.

Nothing to lose except massive prestige losses after every war...

One would think that if they fail enough times, they would be weakened pretty bad within their own own realm. But I do think you have a good point.

 

[Drakken]

It is true that not being able to weaken an enemy following a war can be a recipe for disaster. The AI for instance will just start a loop of attacking you every five years, what does it care? It can't actually lose anything from having tens of thousands of its troops butchered, eventually you'll be weaker in one of those 5 year cycles and it'll destroy you.

Perhaps one thing that can be coded if the same attacking party loses time and time again is that the losing party pledges not to attack anymore while he is alive.

That, and a cumulative negative opinion modifier to his vassals for having lost a war and costed his vassals tremendously for unfulfilled ends.

 

[Tegus]

Perhaps one thing that can be coded if the same attacking party loses time and time again is that the losing party pledges not to attack anymore while he is alive.

That, and a cumulative negative opinion modifier to his vassals for having lost a war and costed his vassals tremendously for unfulfilled ends.

This is actually in the AI already, but I believe it needs to be tweaked based on what people are reporting

 

[Drakken]

This is actually in the AI already, but I believe it needs to be tweaked based on what people are reporting

Which one, the second one?

 

[MasterofMagic]

I'm wondering about something which seems quite odd to me. It seems the one who starts a war completely dictates the terms of the war, and the terms of victory... Say I'm playing as the King of Norway and I have a claim on the county of Dal (Sweden). Then the King of Sweden declares war on me, (on behalf of one of his vassals which has a claim on one of my counties). Even if I occupy every single Swedish county and holding, and kill every last one of his troops, I can't press my claim in any way, since HE started the war. Shouldn't it be possible in some way to add my claim to the demands when I win? Now I basically have to offer him peace, then stand down all my troops, and then declare war AGAIN on my terms... Kinda unrealistic, eh?

Nope WAD because that's the way it was back then. You're thinking too much in modern terms to the victor go the spoils. They had laws and rules of war back then dictated by all the royalty and most especially the POPE. So, you're just out of luck and have to start over if you want to press a claim on behalf of yourself or your vassals.

 

[thebigj_a]

In the stream today, they said they're upping the truce to ten years, which ought to help.

If the monetary reparations are high enough, the AI losing to you repeatedly will be enough to weaken him, I'd think. Being able to take titles in a defensive war is FAR too exploitable. What's to stop you inviting claimants to every holding in his realm and taking them all at once?

Also, and I may be wrong as it's not a historical period I'm as familiar with as others, but I don't think that's really how many wars went during the feudal period, was it? If there are many obvious examples of people taking over other realms in defensive wars, I'll happily stand corrected.

 

[Drakken]

Also, and I may be wrong as it's not a historical period I'm as familiar with as others, but I don't think that's really how many wars went during the feudal period, was it? If there are many obvious examples of people taking over other realms in defensive wars, I'll happily stand corrected.

Really, local feuds were like thugs fighting a turf war. There were no real declaration of wars. Usually it was just coming with a bunch of knights and seizing holdings, pillaging around, and taking hostages to reach a settlement. What we have here is a game design to force that there is an attacker on one side, and a defender on the other. The attacker has a war aim, and the defender has the aim to keep the statu quo. That is why a White Peace is actually a defeat for the attacker in CK2.

Besides, usually those mustered for defence were done so with the specific condition that it was for defence only, and they would return to their lands afterwards. Counter-offensives need money and resources, and vassals actually wanting to go on expedition for something, be it glory, loot, or loyalty.

 

[unmerged(68578)]

Monetary reparations will be added in the patch

That's fine and all, but it's pretty annoying that if someone attacks you who you planned on attacking and you're forced into a extended peace that the patch is going to add.

 

[unmerged(68578)]

In the stream today, they said they're upping the truce to ten years, which ought to help.

If the monetary reparations are high enough, the AI losing to you repeatedly will be enough to weaken him, I'd think. Being able to take titles in a defensive war is FAR too exploitable. What's to stop you inviting claimants to every holding in his realm and taking them all at once?

Also, and I may be wrong as it's not a historical period I'm as familiar with as others, but I don't think that's really how many wars went during the feudal period, was it? If there are many obvious examples of people taking over other realms in defensive wars, I'll happily stand corrected.

What's to stop someone from attacking, surrendering and getting 10 years of peace when they knew someone just got an invasion CB on them? What's to stop someone from giving all their duchies to a bishop, gaining 1000 piety and then banishing them to get their lands back? What's to stop someone from save/loading? What's to stop someone from creating a Papal state in Muslim lands for massive relationship and piety to invade all Catholics within one lifetime? What's to stop someone from banishing everyone in their kingdom and using the free money to hire mercenaries in order to put down all the revolts?