Foreign Armies marching across your territory!?!

[shypixel]

I really like the idea of tiered CBs for this. Allies and your vassals get none, fellow vassals of the same realm get an opinion hit and have a low % of getting a CB, increasing opinion hit and % of getting a CB through same culture, same culture group, same religion - different culture, different religion, rivals (I think rival rulers should get a guaranteed CB should you cross their lands).

This could represent the likelihood of your leaders and soldiers behaving themselves and/or respecting the towns and villages of the province they are moving through. Heretic armies should maybe get a higher mark, and possibly also armies belonging to the wrong government type. (You could imagine an independent duke's apprehension of a large, republican army approaching his territory, whatever their stated purpose)

 

[Swxpert]

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!

I agree with this right here, it has irked me since the beginning that anyone could do this unchallenged. And what do you mean there was no border control, you better believe that giant fleets were noticed and reported. even if you want to argue that there was no border "control" all that would mean is that they could physically do that it does not mean they could march from county to county without incurring the wrath of the local ruler, I think that it should be represented by an opinion decrease if you don't have an alliance. Perhaps also a broke treaty if you march through the lands of the last person you were fighting, because you better believe that no realistic ruler would simply forget that even though there was a treaty in place, seeing 10000 soldiers show up on his doorstep from the land he just got done fighting would make him really upset.

 

[Bob_the_Insane]

This sounds like a simple and effective abstraction. March across a lords lands (outside your vassals) and it grants that lord a negative opinion of you. Possibly the higher in the food chain the higher the negative impact (i.e. you cross into a foreign Empire, the Emperor gets a -5 opinion modifier, the King -10, Duke -15, Count -20). So you can get a whole host of people annoyed at you for marching across their lands. It could produce some interesting effects for the AI, in inter-realm warfare as counts and dukes fight over claims they might cross their fellow vassal's lands annoying them as well... This could be suspended for Allies (and thus would include Crusaders as most rulers join a Crusade)...

 

[STGeorge]

Something definitely needs to be done....playing lastnight in our MP game, my neighbour (and rival) used my lands as a bridge for his conquest....with me powerless to stop him short of the lengthy FC, and then declaring war. By that time of course his armies have moved on.

 

[Spartanlemur]

Something definitely needs to be done....playing lastnight in our MP game, my neighbour (and rival) used my lands as a bridge for his conquest....with me powerless to stop him short of the lengthy FC, and then declaring war. By that time of course his armies have moved on.

You've reminded me of one of those shocking moments in the game where you're powerless to do something which you probably should be able to. I'd certainly like more power where this is concerned - I very much hope the previously described casus belli systems get added in.

 

[Grubnessul]

Something definitely needs to be done....playing lastnight in our MP game, my neighbour (and rival) used my lands as a bridge for his conquest....with me powerless to stop him short of the lengthy FC, and then declaring war. By that time of course his armies have moved on.

Couldn't you offer to join the war against your neighbour?

 

[Swxpert]

Another thought I had was; Even if you can justify to me that rulers would not be get mad by moving huge armies all over their land, there is no way you can say they would not get mad by two armies actually fighting on their land. I wonder how the hunred years war would have gone if the french and english had battles that spilled over into german lands on a frequent basis?

 

[unmerged(601350)]

Concern over passing your armies over foreign territory is a modern issue, in the Medieval world there was no concept of violating territorial rights by having an army pass by. Indeed, sometimes armies helped local economies by buying and selling goods. Sometimes, however, they were a pain and raided and stole goods. When various crusading armies arrived outside the gates of Constantinople, it took Emperor Alexios a good deal of diplomacy to keep them happy and have them move on peacefully, but I have never read anything that suggests that the crusaders were legally in the wrong for passing through. Contrasting the Fourth Crusade and the First is pretty interesting in this regard, as in the Fourth Crusade the crusaders were not kept happy and they ended up sacking Constantinople.

On the flip side, however, an army passing through offers interesting possibilities for the land owner. The most costly part of the First Crusade for the crusaders was marching through Turkey and being constantly harassed by local raiders. Furthermore, King Richard the Lionheart was kidnapped and ransomed while passing through Austria.

So as far as Crusader King II is concerned, while I am not a very big fan of the idea of exchanging military access as state diplomacy, it would be cool is the local lords and marching army had more options and issues to deal with. Perhaps is the army commander and landowner get along, there is a small temporary economic boost. If the two don't get along, the land owner faces economic loss due to raiding. Maybe while the army is passing through your lands, you get a temporary causus belli which goes away when the army leaves. Armies should pass more slowly though unfriendly territories and suffer more losses in transit.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

I think that a good system would be, for every month or so an army is in a county, a growing negative economic penalty would stack up -- at a certain 'tipping point', the local forces would become hostile to those crossing their lands, despite no declared war.


Alternatively, some sort of passive tax put on the crossing force's liege as reparations for pillaging. Dunno how historical that is, but it'd require minimal changes, I think, and would add economic incentive to avoid foreign lands with your army.

 

[ikaguia]

what if the ruler just got an event, where they could choose to ignore, or become "hostile" to the armies passing trought their lands, just like you get hostile to any rebel whose liege you've declared war to?

 

[Divi]

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.

A medieval army typically moves a handful miles a day at most unless it's purely cavalry. A messenger with a good relay network could cross tens of miles to a hundred a day and will vastly outrun any army, even a pure cavalry host, unless the distance is short.

That said, the concern over armies passing through as a violation of sovereignty could happen, it could easily annoy rulers especially if they lingered on, but it wasn't like in the modern day.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

You are right I think. I have checked the Battle of Grunwald. Lithuanian-Polish army was moving 20-30 km a day.

 

[Zireael]

what if the ruler just got an event, where they could choose to ignore, or become "hostile" to the armies passing trought their lands, just like you get hostile to any rebel whose liege you've declared war to?

This is not a bad idea.

Passive tax isn't a bad idea either.

 

[Alerias]

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

Unless you're in Russia or something, the best place for your retinue is always onboard demesne ships. That gives them maximum mobility, absolute protection from damage, and extended warranty against accidental disband.