I shouldn't be forced to back off by a war I won

[macd21]

Beiing HRE emperor and managing it in order to form a single country should be as hard as doing Three Mountains. The Emperor is already for more wealthier and powerful than it ever was in history. The Emperor do not need a magical protection, it's already strong enough to stomp down France, PLC and the Ottomans. I'm against magical border, you can truce-break an alliance, but you can't wage war against two OPM because "you're already at war with the emperor". If you are at war with a country, and one of its vassals is on scutage, the vassal is not part of the war, but you can still declare another war on him. It should be the exact same thing for attacking the HRE, as the overlord get the "reconquest CB", the emperor get the "liberate imperial territory CB", it should be enough.

I’d take the opposite tack - you shouldn’t be able to declare war on a scutage-vassal while at war with their overlord. It’d an exploit.

 

[User29]

Beiing HRE emperor and managing it in order to form a single country should be as hard as doing Three Mountains. The Emperor is already for more wealthier and powerful than it ever was in history.

The Empire of the 18th century was not the empire of the 17th century was not the empire of the 15th century. The Empires authority as a whole declined from 1444 to 1806 but in-between authority and central power varied and shifted between individual emperors and the troubles of whatever decade you happened to be in. The whole Empire was paying more than just lip service in many of the wars against the Ottomans or France. Charles V, Charles VII, and Francis II lead very different realms from each other across the differing ages

Basically what I'm saying is it's absolutely absurd to compare the island kingdom of Okinawa conquering literally the whole world to the Holy Roman Empire reforming just disingenuous and while I know you're just being hyperbolic your statement is too often seen as close to the truth something that should be rectified if possible.

Bloody Voltaire and his quotes.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Personally, I don't. If the emperor can't protect one prince in a war, why could a protect two princes?

The reason they did it was that in the past you could cheese the system by declaring a war against some non essential and get the emperor into the war that way. Then when already at war with the empeorr, possibly seconds before making peace with he emperor, you'd dow your real target thereby preventing the emperor from doing anything due to already being at war with you and hence not getting called into the second war. Hence onec you wrapped up the first war the emperor would be out and there'd be no way of him getting into the second war.
DOWing another HRE member just before you were to make peace with the emperor was standard procedure if you had plans of largescale HRE expansion.

Edit: I really need to refresh before posting.

 

[Wagonlitz]

The Empire of the 18th century was not the empire of the 17th century was not the empire of the 15th century. The Empires authority as a whole declined from 1444 to 1806 but in-between authority and central power varied and shifted between individual emperors and the troubles of whatever decade you happened to be in. The whole Empire was paying more than just lip service in many of the wars against the Ottomans or France. Charles V, Charles VII, and Francis II lead very different realms from each other across the differing

Basically what I'm saying is it's absolutely absurd to compare the island kingdom of Okinawa conquering literally the whole world to the Holy Roman Empire reforming just disingenuous and while I know you're just being hyperbolic your statement is too often seen as close to the truth something that should be rectified if possible.

Bloody Voltaire and his quotes.

So much this.
The HRE used to be more centralised/unified than France. That France ended up as a single state and the HRE disintegrated was due to pure change and bad/good decisions. Before the Peace of Westphalia the HRE princes were subjects of the emperor in more than just name.

 

[Ricox]

I’m confused as to why you think this is a ‘bug.’ They saw you’d crippled their enemies, then swooped in to snap up some provinces before you could get them. I’be taken advantage of the AI using the same tactic. Am I missing something?

Missing the fact that you can't go to war with them over it. It should be a possibility both for the AI and for the player to fight over contested occupations.

 

[yerm]

You should be able to take provinces of a nation if you own their capital but another has them occupied. Effectively, if you would be able to make that land yours via vassalization.

In a perfect world you would be able to declare war with a broader wargoal than 1 province and subsequent DOWs occupying the target(s) could be occupied like they are rebels.

 

[Alliegorical]

Beiing HRE emperor and managing it in order to form a single country should be as hard as doing Three Mountains.

Don't be silly.

 

[Bearjuden]

I can't attack Nassau because Salzburg (who is the other co-belligerant ) is the Emperor and if I try to attack Nassau it says 'you can't attack another member of HRE while at war with the Emperor'

White peace out the emperor? Occupy as much as you want, if Nassau is a free city or something you may want to drive up their war exhaustion. But get the emperor out of the war and then you can attack Nassau, which means then you can give Netherlands what they want.

Alternatively, wait for Netherlands to white peace out themselves, if they do that then of course they stop demanding land.