Holy wars need to be restrained

[LAF1994]

The mechanic for Holy Wars needs to be limited somewhat. In particular, there should probably be systems in place to prevent the Abbasids wantonly taking territory from their neighbours, or the French from randomly conquering duchies in Islamic Spain.

 

[napoleon_mayo]

That would be ahistorically immersive breaking.

Naturally paradox will most likely implement this.

 

[RagingJaws]

CKII Holy Wars are perfectly fine as they are. It's not even that strong of a CB and a ruler can get out of it by converting to the attacker's religion. Nomads get far stronger CB's. Every game since the patch was released has Khazaria conquer and burn out the Baltics. 100% of the time.

You'll never get pretty borders in the game. Just let it go. By the way, CK Holy Wars were far worse.

 

[balmung60]

CKII Holy Wars are perfectly fine as they are. It's not even that strong of a CB and a ruler can get out of it by converting to the attacker's religion. Nomads get far stronger CB's. Every game since the patch was released has Khazaria conquer and burn out the Baltics. 100% of the time.

You'll never get pretty borders in the game. Just let it go. By the way, CK Holy Wars were far worse.

Only Pagans and Zoroastrians have that out unless you're talking about heretics weasling out of being holy warred by their parrent faith, and only if (for Pagans) they're unreformed (Zoroastrians always have this out) AND being attacked by Christians or Muslims AND the defender is not zealous. If the attacker is Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, reformed Pagan (not counting the heretic escape hatch for adherants of the old faith defending against the reformed version), or Zoroastrian or the defender is Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Dharmic, or reformed Pagan, the defender has no way out of losing that duchy except for winning/forcing white peace.

 

[Fitzjacob]

"Limited somewhat" is a rather modest proposal, I think. It is a powerful CB, especially against reformed religions as balmung60 points out. It's especially annoying to watch Asturias being crushed time and again by al-Ándalus, as well as seeing the Miaphysite Ethiopians being gobbled up my Egypt (regardless of start date).

With the introduction of prosperity in Reapers Due, I'd suggest a Tolerance law:

• At minimum Tolerance, you'd be more likely to suffer religious uprisings but the Holy War is fully allowed. Children will also be far more likely to pick up the Zealot trait. You can no longer find pagan/heretic/infidel court physicians. Maybe bonus to piety per month.
• At medium Tolerance, religious uprisings might be slightly less likely but the Holy War is limited somehow. I'm not sure how, but it could possibly be that the target is subjugated rather than lose all titles (similar to de jure CB). If you have religious revocation you can take it anyway so that law could be dependent on Tolerance too.
• At high Tolerance, religious uprisings will be unlikely but you will lose Holy War CB. You will also be more likely to invite infidel courtiers and might receive more Jewish councilors by event (as well as Mu'tazilas if Christian or maybe cynical monks if Muslim). Children will be far more likely to pick up Cynical trait. Unrestricted court physicians and medical treatment. A few prosperity events for infidel provinces. Maybe penalty to piety per month.

This is the general idea, anyhow there should probably be more than three steps. Not too polished either and quite possibly unbalanced.

Anyway, if al-Ándalus starts at high Tolerance they won't be able to invade Asturias, but Asturias can bide their time, ally Frankish realms, and assault revolting vassals. Now, I know that Muslim tolerance wasn't the historical reason for Asturias' survival, as several posters have pointed out (in other threads) it just wasn't worth conquering. La Convivencia itself is a contentious matter. However, in gameplay terms (and we're talking about a game with one somewhat questionable and one very questionable start date) it works. And that is more important, I believe.

 

[LeSingeAffame]

Only Pagans and Zoroastrians have that out unless you're talking about heretics weasling out of being holy warred by their parrent faith, and only if (for Pagans) they're unreformed (Zoroastrians always have this out) AND being attacked by Christians or Muslims AND the defender is not zealous. If the attacker is Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, reformed Pagan (not counting the heretic escape hatch for adherants of the old faith defending against the reformed version), or Zoroastrian or the defender is Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Dharmic, or reformed Pagan, the defender has no way out of losing that duchy except for winning/forcing white peace.

Not anymore.
Now if your religion is either a non-reformed pagan with a low authority (40%) religion, or a religion with a very low authority (30%), you can convert to your attacker if its religion is reformed pagan and has at least an authority of 50%

 

[Fitzjacob]

Not anymore.
Now if your religion is either a non-reformed pagan with a low authority (40%) religion, or a religion with a very low authority (30%), you can convert to your attacker if its religion is reformed pagan and has at least an authority of 50%

These are fairly good changes if I understand them correctly. The fact remains though, that Holy War is a rather powerful CB especially against high authority infidels which Sunnis and Catholics for example tend to be.

Somewhat off topic, but do the attacker get a piety boost (and/or relations bonus with religious head) if the defender converts. If not, they should. As a consolation price if nothing else...

 

[LeSingeAffame]

Somewhat off topic, but do the attacker get a piety boost (and/or relations bonus with religious head) if the defender converts. If not, they should. As a consolation price if nothing else...

Yes, 50 for a converted count, 100 for a duke, 300 for a king, and 1000 for an emperor