Foreign Armies marching across your territory!?!

[STGeorge]

Is it me, or do you get slightly annoyed at foreign armies marching across your nation, on some conquest elsewhere, without asking for permission?

Surely there should be some mechanism to ask for, deny or pay to do so?

Just a thought

 

[Thure]

No. In medieavel times there weren't things like border controll. You don't have to ask someone to cross there territory. You make it. Strikt unpassable borders with guards are a modern concept. In medievel times noone take care of this. So it's very realistic.

But I think it shouldn't be possible to pass foreign religion lands so easy... I mean... If a christian army marching around in Muslim land... I think they would attack you, if they see you.

 

[fletcherreed]

It's even more aggravating when a doom stack crosses the county your retinue sits in and causes attrition to it.

 

[unmerged(605240)]

No. In medieavel times there weren't things like border controll. You don't have to ask someone to cross there territory. You make it. Strikt unpassable borders with guards are a modern concept. In medievel times noone take care of this. So it's very realistic.

But I think it shouldn't be possible to pass foreign religion lands so easy... I mean... If a christian army marching around in Muslim land... I think they would attack you, if they see you.

Nah, if a army of 10'000 french soldiers started marching straight through... lets say the Holy Roman Empire, even if no war was declared, alarms would go off and an army would be raised to meet them. So its not very realistic.

 

[JonStryker]

Nah, if a army of 10'000 french soldiers started marching straight through... lets say the Holy Roman Empire, even if no war was declared, alarms would go off and an army would be raised to meet them. So its not very realistic.

This.
An army of 10000 would totally devastate any land they are marching through. Usually there was no good supply line, the soldiers just stole what they needed from the locals. No local king would be happy to have a foreign army on his own lands.

 

[Thure]

Nah, if a army of 10'000 french soldiers started marching straight through... lets say the Holy Roman Empire, even if no war was declared, alarms would go off and an army would be raised to meet them. So its not very realistic.

First Crusade. The armies cross Hungary and Croatia and some other states, which don't fight on this crusade.

This map show it.

 

[STGeorge]

No. In medieavel times there weren't things like border controll. You don't have to ask someone to cross there territory. You make it. Strikt unpassable borders with guards are a modern concept. In medievel times noone take care of this. So it's very realistic.

But I think it shouldn't be possible to pass foreign religion lands so easy... I mean... If a christian army marching around in Muslim land... I think they would attack you, if they see you.

Really no border control! Of course there wasn't, however as stated here.... the sight of a large foreign army marching through your lands WOULD ring alarm bells, and surely would have some diplomatic ramifications.

 

[OrdepNM]

I always wondered about this. While I understand for the most part, border control and right of military acess wasnt a thing, but Im preety sure I did something gamey when my polish ally calls me to club some lithuanians in the head, and I sail from Jerusalem, come ashore in Romania, cross all of Cumania, go stright through Kiev and finally reaching Poland, and nobody seems to be too bothered by 7500 frankish crusaders marching through heathen territories.

If Paradox didnt want to implement military acess so portrait the medieval situation (even tough nobles did send envoys to negotiate rights of passage, which was usually an expensive request), I wish they would create a modifier that would slowly drain your money when your non-crusading army marches into neutral foreign territory, to account for bribes and such.

 

[Grubnessul]

Most kings would probably be upset. Local lords even more so, as every army - friend or foe - tended to pillage the area.

 

[unmerged(605240)]

First Crusade. The armies cross Hungary and Croatia and some other states, which don't fight on this crusade.

This map show it.

Well, yeah. Of course crusades are different, you couldn't go against the pope,all the other catholic nations and the huge army marching for your border. So the only thing you really could do is hope that they kept their word and didn't attack you. But if the king had the resources and the men to deny them access, they probably would.

I think i read somewhere that the crusading armies did pillage a lot on their way to the holy lands, so it was not something you would willingly let into your nation.

 

[SlackBladder]

There probably should be some system. But nothing as restrictive as, say EU3. Perhaps there could be a diplomacy option to pay a foreign ruler a small sum for "army access" which lasts for the current war(s). To decrease micromanagement perhaps the money could be automatically deducted when your army enters a foreign realm for the first time. Of course allies would automatically give you army access.

 

[STGeorge]

There probably should be some system. But nothing as restrictive as, say EU3. Perhaps there could be a diplomacy option to pay a foreign ruler a small sum for "army access" which lasts for the current war(s). To decrease micromanagement perhaps the money could be automatically deducted when your army enters a foreign realm for the first time. Of course allies would automatically give you army access.

I was thinking more 'opinion points', for example:

Give Military access +40
No military access -40*

*The consequence of marching your armies regardless of non-given access, the land owner could get a temporary CB for a year!

 

[Gqarz]

The only problem with having to ask for access is that it would make some aspects of the game much less fun. What is the point of inheriting a claim on Eastern Poland if you can't press it from France? Could you imagine the added complexity to the crusading system?

One thing I would like to see is a cb to punish rulers who murder your family members. The political systems from the 11th to the 18th century was more about personal relationships between rulers and personal ambitions than about nationalism. Even some of the crusades were more of a form of exercising personal ambitions for blood, loot or conquest than religious reasons.

 

[STGeorge]

Im saying you wouldn't have to ask, but would sadly gather a number of CB that could be pressed against you if desired.

 

[Zireael]

Diplomacy option for asking for passing or opinion penalty for not asking would be a good thing. In some particularly egregious cases.

 

[Darkgamma]

The Varna Crusade actually failed because some of the Serbian and Albanian lords couldn't cross over a certain lord's lands (and I don't have my books at hand ATM) because he refused them access due to an agreement with (read: his vassalisation to) Murad. Thus the crusaders lost quite a good chunk of their would-be army.

 

[Grubnessul]

Maybe keep the current system, but give a relation penalty for every month you're in x/y/z's territory, unless you've paid for access in advance.

 

[Talq]

First Crusade. The armies cross Hungary and Croatia and some other states, which don't fight on this crusade.

This map show it.

Crusades are generally the exception, not the rule (especially the first - enthusiasm for armies trooping through your territory declined over time).

In practice, you already had serious difficulties supplying a large army, and poorly supplied armies tended to devestate the lands they went through (or even if they bought supplies would still cause shortages), which in turn would see the lord of the land form an army to 'encourage' them to leave or to move on.

 

[Spartanlemur]

The idea of nation states was weak in Medieval times, hence why a Norman lord could conquer Saxon England with a French-speaking court and not encounter too much peasant hatred. Borders were rough and defined more by language and culture than anything else - feudal lords and their courts were the closest thing there was to a country.
Not only that, but a Medieval king taking a neutral stance in a war is unlikely to come in on behalf of a ruler they don't have an alliance with. And if you do have an alliance, you can stop people marching through your land.

 

[Darkgamma]

... and not encounter too much peasant hatred.

Oh, really now >_>
The rebellion in the North was quite popular with the peasants, and the Harrying didn't happen without a reason.