I should be able to declare war on anyone

[unmerged(35902)]

Good to see the betas comming along well. I think something that has been missed in dicussion however is the need for better pillaging options. During the CK period there were many wars for profit rather than land. That is invade a rivh country, plunder and leave. This was due to the difficulty in holding supply lines and ruling far away lands. Poor ship tech etc. The english nobels fighting the HYW even refused to go home once when told to by their king cos they were having to much fun (and making too much money). Also i recall the sacking of constantinople made the venicians a few bucks. It wouldnt have been feasable to stay there though however.

To sum up i think war for profit should be more feasable. We should be able to declare war without a claim and be able to plunder lands for profit for ourselves and our vassals. Perhaps destroying buildings and gaining the money that they cost to build?? Also if a vassal army is allowd to pillage then they should get the profits, and their loyalty hit for using troops should go away. Vassals enjoyed fighting! it was knights reason for living so i dont see why their loyalty should be hit so hard if they are pillaging.

 

[Caranorn]

But I don't think that profit would land in your pockets. When you sack a city it's the combatants who carry off most of the loot, not the main commander. And even the combattants don't get rich as they drink and whore it away quite fast. So in game terms I see the sack of a city like Constantinople (the Venitians got rich because they were paid to transport the crusading force) or Jerusalem having only one effect, loot the province and thereby make it unprofitable to rule for quite some time after.

Marc aka Caran...

P.S.: The were various reasons for raiding instead of conquering. One obvious one is that noblemen could be required to take part in raids easier then taking part in a regular campaign. Other reasons were the difficulty to actually lay siege to the many castles around. In the case of the HYW of course the english also always had the problem of lesser numbers and simply could not control the land...

 

[Erufailon]

Actually to be realistic, IMHO you should be able to attack anyone, and ask for any territory you occupy in the peace resolution. Of course you should be punished for doing that (huge BB hit, or something), but if I feel stronger than the rest of the world, or I want to play a mad ruler who doesn't care for consequences, why couldn't I do that? That's why I like EU, you could do many things that were really bad for you, and the consequences were simulated for your action, while here the actions are simply unavailable.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Actually to be realistic, IMHO you should be able to attack anyone, and ask for any territory you occupy in the peace resolution. Of course you should be punished for doing that (huge BB hit, or something), but if I feel stronger than the rest of the world, or I want to play a mad ruler who doesn't care for consequences, why couldn't I do that? That's why I like EU, you could do many things that were really bad for you, and the consequences were simulated for your action, while here the actions are simply unavailable.

This would be broken since at your ruler's death you'd lose a huge portion of BB.

 

[Kliwarrior]

You forget that in that period, even your own regiment (that you raise in your own demesme) was not a set of professional soldiers, but was mainly based on the low level nobles of your province.
And going to them and asking to raise their armies without providing good explaination for doing this was almost impossible.
The "claim" mechanism if not 100% perfect, but is a good simulation of that, IMHO.

What could be done is perhaps to allow DOW without a claim but with a severe reduction of vassal loyalty , as well as the loyalty of all the four classes (nobles/burglers etc...) in your personal demesme.

Quick raids in near terrirory (that were common), are far below the "war" level and not in the scope of CK. (perhaps CK2.... like in EU2 there are privateers )

 

[unmerged(35902)]

My idea would work well under the current claim system. You could declare war but not take anything cos you have no claim. All you could do is plunder. My point is that provinces should be harder to get hold of but looting should be more profitable. Maybe additional BB for looting though. Idealy i think there should be 2 looting options in a prov.

1 general loot - you dont need to take the prov just seige it like in EU. Small profit

2 sack the city - you have to take it. You then sack the city. This destroys a building, kills a bunch of people and gives a large ammount of cash to the army leader.

 

[Erufailon]

And going to them and asking to raise their armies without providing good explaination for doing this was almost impossible.
The "claim" mechanism if not 100% perfect, but is a good simulation of that, IMHO.

Well, then if you attacked without a claim your vassals either stand by you, or they revolt, and even if they stand by you, they'd lose a lot of loyalty. This is again a situation where there is just no greater force that could stop the king from forcing his vassals to do anything he wants if he is able to do that (for example he is so powerful they can't say no to him). I know this would be extreme and it would get complicated, but I feel like I can't do many things. I also know this is a game, not a simulation, but still

 

[unmerged(28823)]

If I understand what you are saying is that you would like the game to be able to simulate real life "more" in terms of options and actions? However, because of the overtly feudal natuer of europe (even through the high middle ages) such unilaterally despotic actions were nearly possibility zero. For example: Under the Hohenstaufen dynasty siciliy fell into the hands of the german emperors. This brought conflict throughout Italy and particularly in the north. The continued war for the investiture clauses saw many nobles in northern italy, as well as sicilian soldiers, refusing to take the sword and in many cases lead to open rebellian. Frederick II was forced to negotiage peace with the Lombard league. In short his options were "limited." You may think that a simulation game would be "open" but in reality (ironically) it is less so. The kings and monarchs of this time would not have been able to unite their feudal order for some abstract march in a far distant land (It was tried time and time again by the Hohenstaufen's, Normas, the Latin Empire etc) and in the few instances where unilateral action was taken by the lord it was done so on extremely small levels (such as the norman invasion of southern italy because at the time they were but a mercinary band of a few thousand knights).

 

[Martinus]

Actually, your example of HYW is precisely what the game currently simulates. The English were not in war with French for profit or plunder - the English King warred with the French King, because he (the English King) held a solid claim on the French crown and went to war over that.

Sure, he did plunder some cities along the way, but it is what CK does now - after all, when you are at war with the French King over the royal title of France, you can also plunder Orleans or Paris along the way, but you cannot keep them.

 

[Martinus]

What would be a better idea is to simulate plundering through events, dependant on the Martial skill of the ruler in question, much alike how the current "Spy Master" events work, being based on Intrigue.

Exempli gratia:

#An opportunity for plunder arises
Triggers:
- is ruler
- has high martial skill (e.g. at least 8)
- is not at war
- is not Wise or Just
MTTH:
- reduced by even higher Martial skill
- reduced for Cruel, Arbitrary, Valorous, Selfish and Reckless
- increased for Merciful, Coward and Generous
A. Might makes right!
- gain gold (let's make it 0.2 of scale, just for simplicity sake)
- lose some Piety
- 50% chance to lose some Prestige (it was found out it was you)
- 10% chance to gain Arbitrary,
- 10% chance to gain Reckless,
- 5% to gain Mortal Wound
- an event "Our province has been plundered" triggered for the worst neighbour
B. We are not bandits!
- gain some Piety
- 10% chance to gain Just,
- 10% chance to gain Wise

#Your marshal wants to plunder a neighbourhood province (neutral version)
Triggers:
- is marshal
- has high martial skill
- is not at war
- is not Wise or Just
AND
- ruler is neither Wise nor Just nor Arbitrary nor Reckless, or ruler is Wise but Arbitrary or ruler is Reckless but Just
MTTH:
- reduced by even higher Martial skill or the marshall
- reduced for Cruel, Arbitrary, Valorous, Selfish and Reckless Marshall
- increased for Merciful, Coward and Generous Marshall
A. Let him go with your blessing.
- ruler gains gold (0.1 gold)
- marshal gains gold (0.1 gold)
- both ruler and marshal lose some Piety
- 25% chance for the ruler and marshal to lose some Prestige (harder to find out)
- 10% chance to gain Arbitrary for the ruler and the marshal,
- 10% chance to gain Reckless for the ruler and the marshal,
- an event "Our province has been plundered" triggered for the worst neighbour
- marshal's loyalty increases
- 10% marshal gains Mortal Wound

B. Tell him we are not bandits!
- gain some Piety for ruler
- lose some Prestige for marshal
- 10% chance to gain Just for ruler
- 10% chance to gain Wise for ruler
- 10% chance to gain Deceitful for marshal
- marshal's loyalty decreases

C. Exile the unworthy cur!
- gain more Piety for ruler
- gain some Prestige for ruler
- lose more Prestige for marshal
- 25% chance to gain Just for ruler
- 10% chance to gain Wise for ruler
- marshal moves to a different court

Variations of the above:
If ruler is both Just and Wise or Wise and not Arbitrary or Just and not Reckless, only options B and C are available

If ruler is both Reckless and Arbitrary or Reckles and not Just or Arbitrary and not Reckless, only options A and B are available.

#Your province has been plundered by raiders
A. Bastards!
- random province gains trait "Looted"

Comments:

1. Since traits Just and Wise are very good, while Arbitrary and Reckless rather bad, I believe the events are well balanced for all choices.

2. Since the raiding was mostly hit-and-run tactics, the strength of armies is not taken into account, just the raiding commander's skill.

3. The victim of the raid could theoretically get a claim on the perpetrator, but I am not sure if this is possible with the current events effects (i.e. it would need the effect to "bounce back" to the original perpetrator, which may be impossible).

 

[unmerged(35902)]

I think using an event system like you mention would be good. Plundering is the main issue of this post BTW. I think i named it wrong. The declare war thing is only secondary really.

BTW the HYW was a free for all in reality. A lot of the english fighters made a full time living by plundering france and this was the real reason for them being there. Yes it started because of a claim but was warped over time into a pillage, rape and murder type affair.

 

[Theodotus1]

Historically, attacking Christian lands to which one did not have a claim would result in excommunication. So this should be a consequence, in addition to anything else.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Historically, attacking Christian lands to which one did not have a claim would result in excommunication. So this should be a consequence, in addition to anything else.

Except you can attack orthodox ones if catholic and vise versa just fine.

 

[unmerged(2619)]

I don't agree that the player can attack everyone. I think the claim system is historically correct. We need to remember that it's middle age and in that period you were not able to do war when you wanted: right and law (latin: jus) was a key thing. All your actions needed to be have some fundaments in law. Even the emperor or the pope were tied by the jus. So before a war you needed to find some clause in roman law or in the holy books