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

[InnocentIII]

Monetary reparations will be added in the patch

That's reasonable. However, as things stand now there' no truce? I'm going from memory and I fought against pagans, if that matters (hey, if you include my co-workers, I fight pagans daily!). If they attack me, and all I can get is cash, and I'm prohibited/punished severely for DoWing them, that could get really old if the AI keeps up it's persistent DoWing when the truces wear off from other games. Granted, in those other games the DoWs often make sense. However, I just hope that we aren't simultaneously prevented from getting land in a peace deal and also constantly DoWed, so we have to declare war ourselves the instant the truce is over or eat the penalty.

 

[Drakken]

That's reasonable. However, as things stand now there' no truce? I'm going from memory and I fought against pagans, if that matters (hey, if you include my co-workers, I fight pagans daily!). If they attack me, and all I can get is cash, and I'm prohibited/punished severely for DoWing them, that could get really old if the AI keeps up it's persistent DoWing when the truces wear off from other games. Granted, in those other games the DoWs often make sense. However, I just hope that we aren't simultaneously prevented from getting land in a peace deal and also constantly DoWed, so we have to declare war ourselves the instant the truce is over or eat the penalty.

I thought defending side was not under truce, only the attacking side? Nothing stops you from declaring war back on them.

 

[unmerged(287474)]

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.

Against non-christians it makes them hate you a lot, like globally. I had to do it one time because starting as poland you're in a race with the HRE and denmark to take out the nations we surround. I had to break the treaty in order to get my de jure lands before the HRE took em.

 

[unmerged(287474)]

Also how about another option for on the same tier as white peace, that instead of taking a prestige hit, the relations between you increase?
For those brothers/uncles/sons that keep being adorable and revolt against you.

 

[thebigj_a]

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?

We could go through those one by one if you really want to, but what's the point? Even were those all actual exploits (they aren't), how does adding another help the game, exactly?

 

[GuyIncognito26]

I posted this earlier in a different thread, but I agree with the OP. I'm not even arguing that being attacked should generate NEW claims (which seems to be the concern about exploitation), but if I'm attacked by someone against whom I already have a completely legitimate claim, I don't understand my inability to press it (as was the case last night which led to this post).

It's a bit vexing that you aren't allowed to press any claims of your own after someone else declares war on you.

Last night as the King of Aragon I took several de jure counties from the Muslim attackers and held onto them for years waiting for the war to end only to find there was no way to gain them without first abandoning the sieges, ending the defensive war, re-declaring an offensive war, and re-sieging the same holdings I had occupied for years.

 

[Keanon]

I don't see the exploit here, honestly. The war system is horribly limited, for the time period aswell. In one game I wanted just Bremen and Hamburg, I got the whole HRE on peace, which sort of wasn't the idea.

Invasion Casus Belli for everything or a single province at a time. What the hell is that? :/

 

[unmerged(447081)]

I don't know if this makes anyone feel differently, but I noticed in my game that when I press a claim but don't seize the relevant lands, the war score evolves to -100% over time. This means that in a defensive war you could potentially just keep your lands clean and force peace. This means that if someone DOWs you and you can press a counterclaim, you could just keep your lands clean, never invade them and force peace once they've hit a high enough war score for failing to successfully press his initial claim. At least that's where I think the problem would lie with allowing you to counter claim in a defensive war, just do it once . Also historically raising vassal levies was generally pretty tightly scoped. It's one thing to raise troops to defend lands, it's quite another to go on an expedition of conquest. The fact that there appears to be a decay on war score for an aggressor failing to seize land means you can really just fight defensively and force a defeat versus having to capture aggressor lands to up your war score. That's my 2 cents at least. I haven't really gotten into the truce mechanics so if you are precluded from pressing claims during a truce where you were subject to aggression I could see that as being frustrating.

 

[unmerged(68578)]

We could go through those one by one if you really want to, but what's the point? Even were those all actual exploits (they aren't), how does adding another help the game, exactly?

Gamey or exploits, I'm not sure, but they're one or the other. I'm not saying they should remove them, other than piety farming, because they're fun, but I should be able to add a claim during a stupid war by the AI. Even during the start of the game, if a kingdom like France attacked me and I beat them, I'd expect 2000 gold at least in order to pay for such a huge war and time spent. And if it's not a higher cost further in the game, there will be huge balance issues. Furthermore, this hurts your vassals more than anything, so that money doesn't help that fact at all. Either way, I'd say that allowing you to force demands on an AI that cannot break truces much much much less of an exploit than being able to force them into a truce that they can't break for a slap on the wrist.

Something else on this note is that a lost war should cause all vassals to have a negative opinion of you. You should probably get a positive bonus is your winning all your wars and gaining land as well. You should also get a positive bonus if you improve one of your vassals holdings.

 

[unmerged(68578)]

I don't know if this makes anyone feel differently, but I noticed in my game that when I press a claim but don't seize the relevant lands, the war score evolves to -100% over time. This means that in a defensive war you could potentially just keep your lands clean and force peace. This means that if someone DOWs you and you can press a counterclaim, you could just keep your lands clean, never invade them and force peace once they've hit a high enough war score for failing to successfully press his initial claim. At least that's where I think the problem would lie with allowing you to counter claim in a defensive war, just do it once . Also historically raising vassal levies was generally pretty tightly scoped. It's one thing to raise troops to defend lands, it's quite another to go on an expedition of conquest. The fact that there appears to be a decay on war score for an aggressor failing to seize land means you can really just fight defensively and force a defeat versus having to capture aggressor lands to up your war score. That's my 2 cents at least. I haven't really gotten into the truce mechanics so if you are precluded from pressing claims during a truce where you were subject to aggression I could see that as being frustrating.

The moment you add a war goal it should turn into an offensive war. However, I can see this as a problem in the coding itself because you could add a goal after you've already won the defensive war. I'm sure there is a solution out there, but I suppose it might have to wait for an expansion.

 

[Alerias]

Monetary reparations' an alright start but we really need to be able to press counter-claims in a defensive war.

 

[Ambigore]

Man, I regret buying this game. It looks like one of those arbitrary, game-breaking "features".

Just now I was playing as Duke of Munster, tried to revoke a title from a count vassal who rejects my order and declares war.

I occupied his land and I only have the option of "White Peace" or "Surrender". WTF, so a vassal loses a war and wins independence???

Fail, Paradox.

I knew this was going to happen. Should've waited the obligatory 2 years before buying a Paradox game. This is the last time EVER.

-1

 

[avee]

Man, I regret buying this game. It looks like one of those arbitrary, game-breaking "features".

Just now I was playing as Duke of Munster, tried to revoke a title from a count vassal who rejects my order and declares war.

I occupied his land and I only have the option of "White Peace" or "Surrender". WTF, so a vassal loses a war and wins independence???

Fail, Paradox.

I knew this was going to happen. Should've waited the obligatory 2 years before buying a Paradox game. This is the last time EVER.

-1

There is ALWAYS an option to "Enforce demands". If it looks greyed out, it means it`s chosen.
In case of vassal independence war, if vassal loses war, he loses independence, 200 prestige and gets imprisoned. Even more, you can revoke one of his titles without tyranny penalty.

 

[Ambigore]

Cool, I'll replay the war and take a second look, but I was 90% sure that "Enforce Demands" was unselectable. I hovered over every option and White Peace and Surrender only provided a tooltip explaining the consequences.

 

[avee]

Cool, I'll replay the war and take a second look, but I was 90% sure that "Enforce Demands" was unselectable. I hovered over every option and White Peace and Surrender only provided a tooltip explaining the consequences.

It`s unselectable because it is selected by default.

 

[robbangsthlm]

Historically ... when you look at Sweden, most of the landgrabbings sweden did was after defensive wars when they where attached by denmark, russia and poland.... then ofcourse it would make sense that stricly limmet the amound of territory that you could press for when you win... mayby one county or two... AND have war reperations of course..if you try to sk forto mutch you could hav a penalty imposed on you... mayby negihbours will attack you because you look to greedy....

 

[nyah]

already dealt with.

 

[unmerged(407199)]

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

I'd say so.

Playing as Navarra, fighting against Muslim invaders. I think I won 6 or 7 defensive wars in a row and got my prestige up to 900 something before they finally brought enough troops to overwhelm my coffers and piety.

I captured a good dozen or two nobles during the course of those wars, too. At first I was ransoming them, but after about the 4th war, I was getting a bit tired of it, and decided to see if they'd cut it out when I started executing them. (They didn't)

Also, does the ransom price change depending on the rank of the person being ransomed? Everyone I'd captured was worth 25 gold, though I never took care to see if they held any important titles or not.

 

[unmerged(407199)]

Man, I regret buying this game. It looks like one of those arbitrary, game-breaking "features".

Just now I was playing as Duke of Munster, tried to revoke a title from a count vassal who rejects my order and declares war.

I occupied his land and I only have the option of "White Peace" or "Surrender". WTF, so a vassal loses a war and wins independence???

Fail, Paradox.

I knew this was going to happen. Should've waited the obligatory 2 years before buying a Paradox game. This is the last time EVER.

-1

Well, something that seemed kind of awful to me:

I'm playing as Ramiro, vassal and brother of Antso, King of Navarra. I finally decide I'll declare war and depose him as king. (He's got about 7 or 8 kids at this point.) I win the war, and go to peace out.

It tells me that one of his sons is now going to replace him, Fernando something, instead of me. I click okay, to see what happens. The king is deposed, his son takes the throne, and the the king that was deposed takes over my county. I immediately start playing as (the former) King Antso, now controlling the same territory I started with.

This seems outright absurd to me. Ramiro just won a war for control of the Kingdom and upon successfully winning the war, loses everything.

 

[Rundstedt75]

At first I was ransoming them, but after about the 4th war, I was getting a bit tired of it, and decided to see if they'd cut it out when I started executing them. (They didn't)

I've executed a vassal or two who revolted out of annoyance. Of course that only makes the other vassals revolt too but a (pretend) king can only take so much guff before he snaps. On that note, executing revolting vassals seems like it shouldn't have such stiff penalties when they've committed treason. Especially when it's their 3rd or 4th rebellion... Or at least it should make other vassals much more cautious about rebelling themselves.