Defensive Pacts - On or Off?

[Castios]

I know this is very sensitive topic and was probably discussed a milion times.

But there is one thing that I don't think is mentioned very often, which is probably why defensive pacts were introduced in the first place.

So basically, defensive pacts SLOW US A LOT from expanding by using our military. But we can still expand via marriages and inheritance, which is in my opinion more challenging way of expanding since you have to actually think about what to do and carefully plan your marriages and kill right people at the right time.

The thing is, coalitions are so over the top and threat level accumulates so quickly and easily, which makes defensive pacts super annoying once you run out of places to expand within your own religion.

So what setting do you guys prefer to use? I feel like disabling them makes game so much easier and nobrain since you just steamroll over everyone with your army, but at the same time sometimes you just have nothing to do and just wait forever for threat level to go down..\

Also I think severity of threat mechanic hits some countries more than another. Like, Christians have plenty of room to expand via marriages, but if you play pagans, then goddamn defensive pacts are annoying as hell.

 

[Serenity84]

The thing is, coalitions are so over the top and threat level accumulates so quickly and easily, which makes defensive pacts super annoying once you run out of places to expand within your own religion.

Yeah, I don't mind the idea in theory, but in practice threat accumulates way too quickly. Take a single duchy and you get the notification about pacts forming. So usually I turn them off

 

[Crimson Grog]

I keep defensive pacts turned on. I usually start as someone small or minority and this helps prevent the HRE, Abbasids, etc. from going even more crazy than usual.

 

[Castios]

I keep defensive pacts turned on. I usually start as someone small or minority and this helps prevent the HRE, Abbasids, etc. from going even more crazy than usual.

Does it? In my lastest game I had pacts enabled and this happened anyway.

 

[Zoomun]

If I were to ever do a real WC I would probably turn them off but I normally like something to contain me. Without them I would just endlessly expand in all directions and get bored.

 

[jwalche]

Remember that AI blobs suffer from defensive pacts as well. As someone said, Abbasid or Kazaria can go crazy without it.

Threat level is easier to manage if you keep it low. Use your councilor mission to keep it under 10% and don't declare new wars if it's already high.

There are many legit tactics and sort of exploits to get around it. You can always fight one war at a time against a pact as well. No matter how big is your target's allies, the war will be won if you just destroy your target.

Sometimes a large realm is fighting a small realm. If you declare to the small realm, the large one can't joint the war even if they both are in the pact. Then you can declare to the large realm. Finish war to the small realm quickly, and you only have the large one left.

You can pretend to be someone else. Swear fealty to another realm and take it from within (Byzantium), or loose a feudal election and become a smaller and lower ranked vassal, and then become independent.

World conquest won't be fun without one.

 

[Knotz]

I leave them on since it feels like I'm cheating when it's off even though I have no problem with cheating and do so regularly. It's a mystery.

 

[Crimson Grog]

Does it? In my lastest game I had pacts enabled and this happened anyway.

As far as I know defensive pacts affect the AI as well as the player. I've done some searches and I can't find anything that says otherwise.

One thing I'm unsure about is if defensive pacts can form against a vassal of an emperor. For example, often I'm less afraid of the Abbasids themselves than I am of their powerful king-level vassals, such as Egypt. If defensive pacts cannot form against vassals and vassal aggression does not affect their liege's threat, then the Abbasid emperor can just sit back and let threat decay while their vassal Egypt continues to expand, expand, expand.

 

[jwalche]

I leave them on since it feels like I'm cheating when it's off even though I have no problem with cheating and do so regularly. It's a mystery.

We all have our own terms, don't we? My base line is that I play with ironman, no mod, all DLC / update, and all default settings. After that, everything I do within the game mechanic is only exploiting and not cheating.

 

[jwalche]

As far as I know defensive pacts affect the AI as well as the player. I've done some searches and I can't find anything that says otherwise.

I see them often and regularly take advantage of AI on defensive pacts on selecting war targets.

 

[r3xm0rt1s]

It is sometimes fun to have to look for or create opportunities to war.

And to win, despite fighting the entire rest of the world.

 

[jwalche]

One thing I'm unsure about is if defensive pacts can form against a vassal of an emperor.

I think I got a pact as a vassal too. I clearly get my own threat level. Usually it's hard to expand externally fast enough so it was never an issue.

Abbasid emperor can just sit back and let threat decay while their vassal Egypt continues to expand, expand, expand.

We do play that way, don't we? Except not vassal Egypt while playing Abbasid. Making Egypt manageable is my first goal. By managing I mean reducing it to a single county imprisoned vassal king, only left alive so that he can inherit Africa when I plot murder a few.

 

[Castios]

Threat level is easier to manage if you keep it low. Use your councilor mission to keep it under 10% and don't declare new wars if it's already high.

Why? Does it go low quicker when it's low? Or gain more of it when it's high?

 

[jwalche]

Why? Does it go low quicker when it's low? Or gain more of it when it's high?

Maybe not. But I felt the speed escalates. None the less, if you are going to maintain it then why not at a low level? If your councilor is not fast enough, try making some of your counties independent. Later when your threat level is already 100% because of winning a major invasion, you can ask them to accept vasalization and fold back to your realm, as the threat doesn't go beyond 100%.

 

[Sir Kenneth]

I play with defensive pacts on, but honestly, by the time I accumulate so much threat that I can't just wait a little while for it to drop again, I am powerful enough to beat all comers anyway.

 

[jwalche]

I play with defensive pacts on, but honestly, by the time I accumulate so much threat that I can't just wait a little while for it to drop again, I am powerful enough to beat all comers anyway.

Then there are two ways. You can turn it off, or you can use exploits to get over it.

You can make large independent kingdoms with newly conquered land, and have your younger sons have them. Later your heir can take them all back through inheritance (plot murders) or claim wars.

You can let your realm divided into 5 independent kingdoms through gavelkind succession. Your main heir will have all your retinue and gold. Have him expand until he faces the world pact, suicide or abdicate to his brother. Because his brother was already a king, the brother will get all the land from the first heir but still maintain his own realm, without any defensive pact.

Move through all five brothers to have each one expand a lot and use the lifetime subjugation cb, while also re-uniting the divided realm back to one as you go.

Not having the first heir inherit instead of the next young brother can be tricky with gavelkind, but can be solved by plot murdering or simple imprisonment and execution. You can imprison the first heir 100%, by landing him a tribal county with your troops already on top before trying to imprison him. If you fail, you storm the holding and imprison him anyway.

My current plan is loosing a feudal election but have my Tribal eldest son to inherit everything but a single county and empire title, become Tengri Pecheneg, gain independence, take the empire back and declare 50 tribal invasion wars within days, before they form a new pact.

Then burn all my holdings, build tribal holdings with lv1 hillfort, convert to Germanic, and send merc and huge prestige retinue through major river travel to all over the world, with ships levied from 30 vassal merchant republics.

 

[Kurblius]

I find defensive pacts kind of broken since they still keep resetting themselves when I re-load the game. Everyone leaves the defensive pact against me and then rejoin. Hard to resist exploiting this bug.

 

[junassa]

If you're playing pagan get your retinues up and have them going into the enemy's territory and then declare war like a day or two before they enter the county. I normally win before anyone else gets close.

 

[afrodius]

I started playing before defensive pacts were a thing, so to me it feels like restoring the game to its original glory when I turn them off. I feel they are poorly implemented and often don't make sense. Why would the pope and holy orders join a defensive pact WITH the infidels when I am holy warring to reclaim land for the Christians? That being said I do occasionally play with pacts on, but I find I have more fun with them off.

 

[Ol'ven the Great]

I know this is very sensitive topic and was probably discussed a milion times.

The thing is, coalitions are so over the top and threat level accumulates so quickly and easily, which makes defensive pacts super annoying once you run out of places to expand within your own religion.

I agree defensive pact are annoying when you get big but they are also useful. I usually start small so these packs are a great way to prevent the AI from overpowering me to quickly. Honestly it's a double edged sword.