Foreign Armies marching across your territory!?!

[Spartanlemur]

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

*too* much. The Harrying happened because the lords of the North were Anglo-Danish and not Norman. Once these were replaced with Norman lords and fear of the king had been instilled into what remained of the population, they were thoroughly subjugated. My point was that a ruling class who speak an entirely different language and a completely unique culture from the peasants could still rule because of both fear for the power of the nobility and acceptance that beyond their own village (which is almost what people regarded as their nationality), they were subjects to the feudal elite.
Without Saxon lords to rally the peasants, the rebellion would not have happened.

 

[aenariel]

It's funny how people nowadays can't imagine the world some 900 years ago... nationalism and our "instant" way of living really stuck to people.

Anyway, answering the OP, yes, it is slightly annoying. And no, there shouldn't be a mechanism to stop it. It simulates pretty well how it went (except, of course, for the pillaging. that would be very annoying; but, sadly, it isn't there). Yes, people asked for permission from time to time: because they didn't want to upset a powerful friend or two. Mostly they just went ahead and crossed borders at will. And, think about it. This era was all about feudal power. Communication was slow and unreliable. Some people replied in here like the Emperor would know immediatly, via tweet or something, if a french doomstack was entering his territory... these armies moved as fast as the messengers. And what would a feudal lord do to stop them? Arm the 1000 peasants he had at hand? Of course not. If much, he'd try to reason with the crossing army not to pillage... too much.
Remember CK2 takes place from 1066-1399 or something. The world was a different place back then.

 

[Darkgamma]

As I mentioned earlier, it's not just that simple.

 

[STGeorge]

At the bare minimum there should be a 'opinion hit' for every infringement..... that way a tyrant that constantly trapes over everyone's lands in conquest, will soon be struck off most peoples Xmas card list!

 

[OrdepNM]

It's funny how people nowadays can't imagine the world some 900 years ago... nationalism and our "instant" way of living really stuck to people.

Anyway, answering the OP, yes, it is slightly annoying. And no, there shouldn't be a mechanism to stop it. It simulates pretty well how it went (except, of course, for the pillaging. that would be very annoying; but, sadly, it isn't there). Yes, people asked for permission from time to time: because they didn't want to upset a powerful friend or two. Mostly they just went ahead and crossed borders at will. And, think about it. This era was all about feudal power. Communication was slow and unreliable. Some people replied in here like the Emperor would know immediatly, via tweet or something, if a french doomstack was entering his territory... these armies moved as fast as the messengers. And what would a feudal lord do to stop them? Arm the 1000 peasants he had at hand? Of course not. If much, he'd try to reason with the crossing army not to pillage... too much.
Remember CK2 takes place from 1066-1399 or something. The world was a different place back then.

You are basically right, but then the AI makes it really really weird in practice. I dont care how porous were the borders back then, if the Emirate of Granada wanted to DOW the Kingdom of Navarra, its a bit inconceavable that their generals would plan to go through Leon, going through the actual county of Leon, cross into Castille, hang around for a month in Burgos, and then theyd reach Navarre with thier full initial forces. And its even more inconceivable that in the castillian court this conversation would take place:

"My lord, a large moorish army approaches from the west! They'll be in Burgos in less than a week!"
"What?! Ready my army, raise my levies, call my vassals to my side, I ride to meet them!"
"But my lord, we have no casus belli on them. Out forces cant lawfully engage them!"
"What? So what do we do now?"
"I think we're just supposed to carry on like nothing's happening..."

Ditto for say, a frankish army crossing through Cumania, you think the cumans wouldnt eventually get a word of what's going on and have something to say about it? I dont think you should *have* to conduct diplomacy in order to cross borders, but something should happen when you do.

 

[STGeorge]

"My lord, a large moorish army approaches from the west! They'll be in Burgos in less than a week!"
"What?! Ready my army, raise my levies, call my vassals to my side, I ride to meet them!"
"But my lord, we have no casus belli on them. Out forces cant lawfully engage them!"
"What? So what do we do now?"
"I think we're just supposed to carry on like nothing's happening..."

lol exactly

 

[SlackBladder]

You are basically right, but then the AI makes it really really weird in practice. I dont care how porous were the borders back then, if the Emirate of Granada wanted to DOW the Kingdom of Navarra, its a bit inconceavable that their generals would plan to go through Leon, going through the actual county of Leon, cross into Castille, hang around for a month in Burgos, and then theyd reach Navarre with thier full initial forces. And its even more inconceivable that in the castillian court this conversation would take place:

"My lord, a large moorish army approaches from the west! They'll be in Burgos in less than a week!"
"What?! Ready my army, raise my levies, call my vassals to my side, I ride to meet them!"
"But my lord, we have no casus belli on them. Out forces cant lawfully engage them!"
"What? So what do we do now?"
"I think we're just supposed to carry on like nothing's happening..."

Ditto for say, a frankish army crossing through Cumania, you think the cumans wouldnt eventually get a word of what's going on and have something to say about it? I dont think you should *have* to conduct diplomacy in order to cross borders, but something should happen when you do.

Yeah, how about if you have negative relations with the local lord the effective supply limit is reduced by 75%. To represent that you can't live off their land or that they're harrying your army.

 

[Thure]

You are basically right, but then the AI makes it really really weird in practice. I dont care how porous were the borders back then, if the Emirate of Granada wanted to DOW the Kingdom of Navarra, its a bit inconceavable that their generals would plan to go through Leon, going through the actual county of Leon, cross into Castille, hang around for a month in Burgos, and then theyd reach Navarre with thier full initial forces. And its even more inconceivable that in the castillian court this conversation would take place:

"My lord, a large moorish army approaches from the west! They'll be in Burgos in less than a week!"
"What?! Ready my army, raise my levies, call my vassals to my side, I ride to meet them!"
"But my lord, we have no casus belli on them. Out forces cant lawfully engage them!"
"What? So what do we do now?"
"I think we're just supposed to carry on like nothing's happening..."

Ditto for say, a frankish army crossing through Cumania, you think the cumans wouldnt eventually get a word of what's going on and have something to say about it? I dont think you should *have* to conduct diplomacy in order to cross borders, but something should happen when you do.

This is the reason, why I have say, the only exception should be different religions.

 

[unmerged(362834)]

You are basically right, but then the AI makes it really really weird in practice. I dont care how porous were the borders back then, if the Emirate of Granada wanted to DOW the Kingdom of Navarra, its a bit inconceavable that their generals would plan to go through Leon, going through the actual county of Leon, cross into Castille, hang around for a month in Burgos, and then theyd reach Navarre with thier full initial forces. And its even more inconceivable that in the castillian court this conversation would take place:

"My lord, a large moorish army approaches from the west! They'll be in Burgos in less than a week!"
"What?! Ready my army, raise my levies, call my vassals to my side, I ride to meet them!"
"But my lord, we have no casus belli on them. Out forces cant lawfully engage them!"
"What? So what do we do now?"
"I think we're just supposed to carry on like nothing's happening..."

Ditto for say, a frankish army crossing through Cumania, you think the cumans wouldnt eventually get a word of what's going on and have something to say about it? I dont think you should *have* to conduct diplomacy in order to cross borders, but something should happen when you do.

The war declaration mechanic makes the whole war process confusing... When a ruler wanted to conquer a place, he didn't send messengers to his target to tell them "Get ready, guys! we're going to kick your ass from ... !".

In medieval times, to conquer a place, rulers launched campaigns... Only leaders were aware of the exact target! The element of surprise was essentiel, and sneak attakcs were the best way to save men's lifes!

The announced target wasn't always the real one!

So... if an independent ruler heard his powerful neighbor is raising his armies and that he's walking towards his holdings, we can be 100% sure that he would get ready in case the whole maneuver is a trick ...

The only cases where rulers didn't take troops massing as a threat, are : they're allies or they've been given some kind of guarentees... If they are too weak to say "back off", rulers joined the side they think would win...

Also, campaings didn't need defender's agreement to be ended... Attackers should be able to call off their campaing if they think they can't win!
The other day, I was defending against a crusade for sicily, I completely won (100% WS) but the crusade didn't end till I sent a peace offer to the pope! If the game to be realistic, the pope could've simply called off the crusade! he doesn't need defenders agreement!

 

[aenariel]

This is the reason, why I have say, the only exception should be different religions.

This. I only find it funny when heathen armies cross my country. That's just plain silly. A ruler would equate that to an invasion and act accordingly.

 

[Spartanlemur]

This. I only find it funny when heathen armies cross my country. That's just plain silly. A ruler would equate that to an invasion and act accordingly.

You make a very good point there. Religion x should not be able to cross religion y's territory at all.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

You make a very good point there. Religion x should not be able to cross religion y's territory at all.

And what do you do if a sultan calls a war on you , who has only one province that you can reach without crossing other muslim realms ? While he can reach all of your territory. That would suck, eh ?

 

[Hackworthy]

It also depends on the country. The Crusaders, for instance, had to ask permission of Alexios Komnenos to pass through the Balkans and Greece. Furthermore, despite their agreement the typically untrustworthy Western Europeans completely reneged and pillaged Greek lands anyways. The Crusaders had to be babysat by Alexios' Pecheneg military police until they crossed the Marmara. The fact is no matter what the army or the cause: passing armies cause nothing but hassle, especially western barbarians.

 

[Spartanlemur]

And what do you do if a sultan calls a war on you , who has only one province that you can reach without crossing other muslim realms ? While he can reach all of your territory. That would suck, eh ?

In this situation, you should be able to decisively end the war by routing his army when it reaches your territory and declare a white peace. Alternatively, you should have to just march through the other Muslim territory and hope that the occupier doesn't declare war on you for it. Realistically speaking, if the territory you march through doesn't stand a hope in hell of winning a fight with you, they would probably just turn a blind eye, regardless of your religion (but should have the right to declare war as you've just marched through their territory.)

 

[sandman130]

I'm not a historian- so I cannot comment on the historical accuracy.. but, I am a gamer! So here is my in-game quasi-historical fix..

When an allied army is marching through your territory, nothing happens.
When a neutral force marches through your territory, you get a CB to "defend sovereignty" or something- you could also have an event attached to it where the marching army can pay to pass.. (seems realistic)
When a different religion marches through, the army suffers attrition, local revolt risk goes up 5%, and you gain CB to "defend sovereignty". No even to pay to pass.

Having war attached to marching through also takes care of the opinion hit idea, because of the built in hit that goes along with being war dec'd.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

In this situation, you should be able to decisively end the war by routing his army when it reaches your territory and declare a white peace. Alternatively, you should have to just march through the other Muslim territory and hope that the occupier doesn't declare war on you for it. Realistically speaking, if the territory you march through doesn't stand a hope in hell of winning a fight with you, they would probably just turn a blind eye, regardless of your religion (but should have the right to declare war as you've just marched through their territory.)

Wouldneed some tweaking for the white peace option. As you mentioned, a total block from crossing different religions wouldnt work, so yes for the alternative.

I'm not a historian- so I cannot comment on the historical accuracy.. but, I am a gamer! So here is my in-game quasi-historical fix..

When an allied army is marching through your territory, nothing happens.
When a neutral force marches through your territory, you get a CB to "defend sovereignty" or something- you could also have an event attached to it where the marching army can pay to pass.. (seems realistic)
When a different religion marches through, the army suffers attrition, local revolt risk goes up 5%, and you gain CB to "defend sovereignty". No even to pay to pass.

Having war attached to marching through also takes care of the opinion hit idea, because of the built in hit that goes along with being war dec'd.

+ i like

 

[aenariel]

In this situation, you should be able to decisively end the war by routing his army when it reaches your territory and declare a white peace. Alternatively, you should have to just march through the other Muslim territory and hope that the occupier doesn't declare war on you for it. Realistically speaking, if the territory you march through doesn't stand a hope in hell of winning a fight with you, they would probably just turn a blind eye, regardless of your religion (but should have the right to declare war as you've just marched through their territory.)

This.

I also like sandman130's ideas.

 

[Westernesse]

If your not at war you troops should get supplies from a territory before foreign troops imo, cause yours are in the already supplied garrisons. So your retinue of 2k gets 2k of the 8k supply then the 10k doomstack gets the other 6k.

If its part of your kingdom, but say a duke owns it then his 1k retinue gets 1k, your retinue of 2k gets 2k of the 8k supply then the 10k doomstack gets the other 5k.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

Ok lets think a different way. You do not need CB to declare war against different religion. It means whenever different religion passes you can DOW them and attack or you can join the current war. You then can attack any army which passes your land, can't you? How many times you just done that? I - never. Did you? If not why? Why do you think then anybody would want to attack if it is not your business? Don't you have your own problems? Didn't anybody had their own problems in the middle ages?

I read that many Muslim rulers even helped crusaders during crusades just to avoid any confrontation with them.

Edit:

Wikipedia

After the capture of Antioch (June 1098) and the destruction of Ma'arrat al-Numan (January 13, 1099), the Syrian emirs were terrified of the advancing crusaders and quickly handed over their cities to the Franks. On January 14, Sultan ibn Munqidh, emir of Shaizar, dispatched an embassy to Raymond IV of Toulouse, one of the leaders of the crusade, to offer provisions and food for men and horses, as well as guides to Jerusalem. In February, the emir of Homs, Janah ad-Dawla, who had fought bravely at the siege of Antioch, offered horses to Raymond. The qadi of Tripoli, Jalal al-Mulk, from the Banu Ammar, sent rich gifts and invited the Franks to send an embassy to his city. The ambassadors marvelled at the splendors of the city, and an alliance was concluded.

I also read that Christian rulers were paying too for armies to leave their land. I do not think that anybody was really opposing bigger armies. They simply did not allow them to enter towns or castles or allowed in limited numbers and unarmed. As I said, everybody was minding their own business.

 

[unmerged(463186)]

What if, for X amount of time spent in Y lord's land, you receive a negative opinion modifier to represent how much s/he does not appreciate your supposed looting/pillaging? Anything more in-depth would require some serious balance changes, and I don't think they would accurately reflect the time period.