Incomplete management of vassal link: why cannot I be autonomous King and still Duke of some other?

[klinkvon13]

Isnt it a massive historic element that King of England were also Duke of Aquitaine: suzerain in England and vassal to France in Aquitaine?

CK2 is complex enough so surely the game could reflect that. I'm thinking specifically of Stamford bookmark.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

It's deliberate.

You can only vassalise inferior ranks since you have to declare war on the top liege, and without the limitation of who you can vassalise you could potentially end up with a circle where A is overlord to B, who is overlord to C, who is overlord to A, leaving the train of vassalisation with no top liege.

It might also be an engine limitation, but it is a decision they reached early in the design process.


Yes, it stops k_england being a vassal to k_france for d_normandy (and later d_aquitaine), but it also prevents horrendous AI snarl ups.

 

[klinkvon13]

I was wondering for a while. Today, I reached the conclusion that I find it somehow a bit unsatisfying.

I get the rationale. Still, it is already half implemented (vassal X wants control of subvassal Z), it could be done fully. The vassal link should be tied to a list of territories. Yes, that mean you could have two suzerain. That could actually lead to interesting cause for wars. I do not think there is a necessity for an ultimate all-territories "top liege" whatsoever. So what: A is overlord to B, who is overlord to C, who is overlord to A. Well, it must be tied to titles: so A is overlord to B due to B being count of some part of A Kingdom; B is overlord to C due to C being duc of some part of B kingdom ; C is overlord to A due to A being baron of some part of C duchy.

What is the problem? In case of war, each can be involved or not, depending on the case.

We already have some strange business regarding laws that applies (kingdom law vs de jure). That would be must easier to apprehend: each territory has a visible proper hierarchy, unhomegenous, and law that applies at the one of the top liege of the territory.

Also, it would give much more sense to factions. Having a count part of a faction that is also king of something else would surely makes him much more annoying. That would clearly change the perspective of "important vassals". To the point that you could even think of dropping some titles just for the sake of getting rid of a vassal. Or, like in case of France vs England, make a fuss about the hommage ceremony to give reason to revoke.
The whole notion of revoking titles would be much more dynamic.

That could seem a bit more complex but that is not even sure, since it makes a few things more logical. That would tie kingdom politics to international politics, like they should.

(I admit AI might get lost - but from a human perspective, that would be better)

 

[omega20056]

It might work if you make England a tributary of France with no tax grant. France could call on England to provide Norman levies and England could refuse or try to break free.

 

[RhaegarTelcontarTargaryen]

Well, for the most part of it, King of England was a vassal of King of France only in name. Remember, they even fough a war because of it, and it lasted a hundred fraking years. (Yeah I know it was lot more complicated than that, but given that this is game, and that not many Kings of England recognized authority of Kings of France, at least not de facto... )

Plus, it would lead to many exploits by human players, and there is no chance the current AI could handle it.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I was wondering for a while. Today, I reached the conclusion that I find it somehow a bit unsatisfying.

I get the rationale. Still, it is already half implemented (vassal X wants control of subvassal Z), it could be done fully. The vassal link should be tied to a list of territories. Yes, that mean you could have two suzerain. That could actually lead to interesting cause for wars. I do not think there is a necessity for an ultimate all-territories "top liege" whatsoever. So what: A is overlord to B, who is overlord to C, who is overlord to A. Well, it must be tied to titles: so A is overlord to B due to B being count of some part of A Kingdom; B is overlord to C due to C being duc of some part of B kingdom ; C is overlord to A due to A being baron of some part of C duchy.

The problem? If you try to declare war on A, the game checks to see if he has an overlord (in this case C), and so you can't declare war on him. So you move to C to declare war on him, but you can't since he has an overlord (B), so you move onto him, but can't, since he has an overlord (A), who we've already found is immune to war declarations.

If you don't allow that, then you can declare war directly on a count, without necessarily involving his overlord - or you declare war on a count, which calls his duke, which calls his king - who then calls the king next door, since he holds land from him - and maybe due to someone having a barony in yet another kingdom, calls in a fourth kingdom, and his emperor overlord.

It'd need a more or less complete recode of the whole fealty system, *and* the casus belli system.

What is the problem? In case of war, each can be involved or not, depending on the case.

We already have some strange business regarding laws that applies (kingdom law vs de jure). That would be must easier to apprehend: each territory has a visible proper hierarchy, unhomegenous, and law that applies at the one of the top liege of the territory.

Also, it would give much more sense to factions. Having a count part of a faction that is also king of something else would surely makes him much more annoying. That would clearly change the perspective of "important vassals". To the point that you could even think of dropping some titles just for the sake of getting rid of a vassal. Or, like in case of France vs England, make a fuss about the hommage ceremony to give reason to revoke.
The whole notion of revoking titles would be much more dynamic.

That could seem a bit more complex but that is not even sure, since it makes a few things more logical. That would tie kingdom politics to international politics, like they should.

(I admit AI might get lost - but from a human perspective, that would be better)

One problem here as well - kingdom politics in the heart of this era aren't international, so much as interpersonal.

 

[LucidFugue]

Sounds like a nightmare to me. If I have control of provinces within a dejure Kingdom and another ruler creates the title, he needs to press the dejure claim. Currently he takes the land (unless a vassal transfer is possible under the rank system). With what you are proposing, whoever ruled the province would simply pay taxes and levies to the new king only in those provinces, yes?

So nobody can use claims to take land from other rulers, just vassalise them in those territories. Rulership becomes much stickier, but also really complicated because I have to keep track of who is the ruler of each area of I'm creating a realm that goes outside dejure boundaries.

Dejure Territory also becomes much stickier. For example would this also mean that if, as a vassal, I expand outside the dejure realm of my liege, I'm considered independent in those provinces? Is that only for tax/levy purposes or also for war declarations and treaties?
How do you manage dejure drift and custom kingdoms when you're trying to maintain a heirarchy through titles rather than people?

 

[klinkvon13]

The problem? If you try to declare war on A, the game checks to see if he has an overlord (in this case C), and so you can't declare war on him. So you move to C to declare war on him, but you can't since he has an overlord (B), so you move onto him, but can't, since he has an overlord (A), who we've already found is immune to war declarations.

If you don't allow that, then you can declare war directly on a count, without necessarily involving his overlord - or you declare war on a count, which calls his duke, which calls his king - who then calls the king next door, since he holds land from him - and maybe due to someone having a barony in yet another kingdom, calls in a fourth kingdom, and his emperor overlord.

It'd need a more or less complete recode of the whole fealty system, *and* the casus belli system.

I dont see a major problem.

You would not just declare "war on A". You declare "war on A" for a reason. If that reason is relevant to overlord C (meaning: for the county to which C is overlord), then you have to actually declare war to C for, still, the same county. And C has no overlord over this county. He is the suzerain of it. So B is not at all involved. B could be called to war because of likely alliance but that is all.

The problem you mention only exists because the system is incomplete in first place. If vassal link is made fully - properly linked to a territory - then the same you mention does not exists. There is no need for arbitrary overal top liege. Things would be tied to war goal.

Beside from that, there are war that have no influence on overlords - and has such they should not be forcibly involved. A suzerain can protect a vassal against unjustified claims to their vassal territories. But for justified claims, that a different matter. He could or could not side with the claimant, that is up to his ruling.

The whole set of "cannot go to war because of overlord" makes sense only because vassal link is oddly disconnected to the territories it applies to.

Back to the England/France issue, England was vassal of France for Aquitaine. It makes no sense whatsoever that the game either force Aquitaine out of France or English to be vassal on all territories to France.

One problem here as well - kingdom politics in the heart of this era aren't international, so much as interpersonal.

Were they not? We are talking about 1000 years. There is no valid assumption that are true for these 1000 years. And I'm quite sure, in some period, for some kingdom, they were very international. Carolus Magnus politics were definitely not local, for instance.

 

[klinkvon13]

Sounds like a nightmare to me. If I have control of provinces within a dejure Kingdom and another ruler creates the title, he needs to press the dejure claim. Currently he takes the land (unless a vassal transfer is possible under the rank system). With what you are proposing, whoever ruled the province would simply pay taxes and levies to the new king only in those provinces, yes?

So nobody can use claims to take land from other rulers, just vassalise them in those territories. Rulership becomes much stickier, but also really complicated because I have to keep track of who is the ruler of each area of I'm creating a realm that goes outside dejure boundaries.

If think is quite simple to show, for each province, its hierarchy. A bit of interface revamp is not so hard.
And a tree view of each Kingdom/Empire/Duchy would actually be very nice, more useful than some family treee.

Dejure Territory also becomes much stickier. For example would this also mean that if, as a vassal, I expand outside the dejure realm of my liege, I'm considered independent in those provinces? Is that only for tax/levy purposes or also for war declarations and treaties?

Depending on the war goal.

 

[iquabakaner]

This topic looks to be kind of similar to a suggestion I made last year.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-vassal-liege-relations.881801/#post-19936460

 

[Gnorrosch]

The problem? If you try to declare war on A, the game checks to see if he has an overlord (in this case C), and so you can't declare war on him. So you move to C to declare war on him, but you can't since he has an overlord (B), so you move onto him, but can't, since he has an overlord (A), who we've already found is immune to war declarations.

You could solve that problem by always declaring war directly on the ruler of whatever you are after - a count for de jure claims, a duke for Holy Wars, a a merchant republic for a trade war and so on.

If the war also involves a liege, the vasall can call in his liege as ally. So, the Umayyids would declare war on the duke of Gascogne, would would then call in his liege, the king of West Francia, for help. The duke of Gascogne would also call his other allies, say, the duke of Poitiers and the count of Nantes. This works only upward, you can only call rulers that are above in rank to you regarding that specific title. Say, the HRE owns a castle in Barcelona. The Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire cannot call in the count of Barcelona into a claim on Cologne, because he holds the highest level title for the contested area (which is Duchy of Cologne -> Kingdom of Germany -> Holy Roman Empire). Neither can the duke of Barcelon call in the Holy Roman Empire into a claim on Lleida, as the Emperor's status within the contested (as baron) area is lower than his own (as duke) and he can only call his liege, not his vasalls as allies. The barony the HRE holds would send levies as a vasall though.

I am quite sure that cannot be included into the current engine, but might be able in CK3.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I dont see a major problem.

You would not just declare "war on A". You declare "war on A" for a reason. If that reason is relevant to overlord C (meaning: for the county to which C is overlord), then you have to actually declare war to C for, still, the same county. And C has no overlord over this county. He is the suzerain of it. So B is not at all involved. B could be called to war because of likely alliance but that is all.

The problem you mention only exists because the system is incomplete in first place. If vassal link is made fully - properly linked to a territory - then the same you mention does not exists. There is no need for arbitrary overal top liege. Things would be tied to war goal.

Beside from that, there are war that have no influence on overlords - and has such they should not be forcibly involved. A suzerain can protect a vassal against unjustified claims to their vassal territories. But for justified claims, that a different matter. He could or could not side with the claimant, that is up to his ruling.

The whole set of "cannot go to war because of overlord" makes sense only because vassal link is oddly disconnected to the territories it applies to.

Back to the England/France issue, England was vassal of France for Aquitaine. It makes no sense whatsoever that the game either force Aquitaine out of France or English to be vassal on all territories to France.




Were they not? We are talking about 1000 years. There is no valid assumption that are true for these 1000 years. And I'm quite sure, in some period, for some kingdom, they were very international. Carolus Magnus politics were definitely not local, for instance.

I'll remake the point you seem to have ignored:

It'd need a more or less complete recode of the whole fealty system, *and* the casus belli system.

It doesn't matter why you declare war on any of them - **as things stand, and without recoding a lot of the game** you can't declare war on someone who has a liege. Now, that might be resolvable in a future game, but with relatively simple logic checks you risk either having places you can't declare war on, or calls to arms that involve half of Europe because of outlying counties or baronies that call multiple overlords.

Which brings me to another misconception you have... An overlord is required, by feudal contract, to defend his vassals. Not just against "unjustified" claims, but against any outside threat. It's a little more complex as to whether that obligation extends to land that isn't held from the liege, but since having a vassal weakened weakens you and your land, it's a sensible thing to do. To an extent CK should actually allow lieges to intervene in "internal" wars, but that's another can of worms.

The problem with the England/France issue is that whilst France may have considered England to be a vassal for Aquitaine, at various points England certainly didn't have that opinion, holding that it had been inherited free of feudal ties, and later won by right of battle. France wasn't exactly a good overlord when it came to it either, as their "protection" to the king of England (as Duke of Aquitaine and Duke of Normandy) was thin at best and at worst involved France trying to ignore the inheritance of Aquitaine and confiscate the lands. Admittedly England's tendency to try and avoid giving council and aid made them a poor vassal as well...


"Interpersonal" - as in "between the rulers", not "international" as in between nations. Locality and distance don't come into it.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

You could solve that problem by always declaring war directly on the ruler of whatever you are after - a count for de jure claims, a duke for Holy Wars, a a merchant republic for a trade war and so on.

If the war also involves a liege, the vasall can call in his liege as ally. So, the Umayyids would declare war on the duke of Gascogne, would would then call in his liege, the king of West Francia, for help. The duke of Gascogne would also call his other allies, say, the duke of Poitiers and the count of Nantes. This works only upward, you can only call rulers that are above in rank to you regarding that specific title. Say, the HRE owns a castle in Barcelona. The Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire cannot call in the count of Barcelona into a claim on Cologne, because he holds the highest level title for the contested area (which is Duchy of Cologne -> Kingdom of Germany -> Holy Roman Empire). Neither can the duke of Barcelon call in the Holy Roman Empire into a claim on Lleida, as the Emperor's status within the contested (as baron) area is lower than his own (as duke) and he can only call his liege, not his vasalls as allies. The barony the HRE holds would send levies as a vasall though.

I am quite sure that cannot be included into the current engine, but might be able in CK3.

Maybe - but that's still going to allow for some awkward problems. Say that the King of France declares war on the King of Asturias. The Holy Roman Emperor holds a duchy in each, and as such is obliged to support his liege in both the offensive and defensive wars. Make it more complex, and say it's a de jure claim by France on a French county held by Asturias. Who is the HRE forced to support? What happens with the (presently automatic) making of all your troops hostile to all enemy troops. Bear in mind that a vassal doesn't get a call to arms, he's just automatically involved with his overlord's wars.

 

[Gnorrosch]

Maybe - but that's still going to allow for some awkward problems. Say that the King of France declares war on the King of Asturias. The Holy Roman Emperor holds a duchy in each, and as such is obliged to support his liege in both the offensive and defensive wars.

That problem cannot even occure: As a vasall, the emperor cannot be called in as ally but only grants a percentage of troops as levies. Thus, the king of France gets a couple soldiers from the Emperors holdings in France, while the king of Asturias gets a few soldiers from the HRE's holding in Asturias. The emperor has to pay a lot of upkeep, which will probably annoy him, but as a realm, the HRE is not involved in the war at all. Thus, HRE troops will remain neutral to either side as the empire is not an active participant in the war.

 

[R'hllor]

I could see this happening if vassal contracts were tied into the title rather than the character, allowing things like the king of England having a dual role as an independent king and a French vassal. This would also allow many other more complex feudal relationships.

Though this would also probably require some changes to war declarations, so that the king of France doesn't join the King of England in wars, but does join the Duke of Normandy. The easiest way to do this would likely be to change war declarations to be directed at the actual target, and not their liege.

In any case I can't see Paradox doing any of this soon. Maybe in CK3...

 

[Zooboss]

That problem cannot even occure: As a vasall, the emperor cannot be called in as ally but only grants a percentage of troops as levies. Thus, the king of France gets a couple soldiers from the Emperors holdings in France, while the king of Asturias gets a few soldiers from the HRE's holding in Asturias. The emperor has to pay a lot of upkeep, which will probably annoy him, but as a realm, the HRE is not involved in the war at all. Thus, HRE troops will remain neutral to either side as the empire is not an active participant in the war.

But that isn't really a solution.

Let's say you're a king with a county within a duchy of another kingdom.

Someone else has claims on both the county and duchy. They declare a Press All Claims war against the other King (who holds the duchy).

Now, you're a vassal and thus not called to arms. Which means the only troops you can use to fight to keep your county are those the other King levies on your county.

After all, as you're not an active participant, you remain neutral to either side.

Or would the claimant need to to declare multiple wars (one per claim) despite both claims being within the same Realm?

 

[Aries666]

Given that the request for this is being based off the English-French relationship I would have to say it is better left as it is. My reason for saying this is that any given English king, duke of Normandy/Aquitaine would only pay homage to the the French king when the balance of power between the two was in the French kings favour but would and did otherwise refuse. Therefore I think it would be an unrealistic representation to have the French king be automatically be able to call in the English king for their French holdings when in reality the English king could refuse. This also says nothing to the fact that this was a pretty rare arrangement and probably shouldn't be implemented across the entire game with silly potential situations such as emperors being called to fight for dukes because they hold a county that is de jure for that Duke who could well also have a different king/emperor.

 

[Gnorrosch]

Or would the claimant need to to declare multiple wars (one per claim) despite both claims being within the same Realm?

You would declare against whoever directly holds the title you want to claim, not against the top liege.

The problems would lie elsewhere, as for example holy wars and great holy wars would need a completely different mechanic from today.

 

[Zooboss]

You would declare against whoever directly holds the title you want to claim, not against the top liege.

So what you're saying is, yes, you can't press all your claims at once.

You have to declare war against each person who directly holds the title and each time they can call their respective lieges into the war.

 

[Sergeant Flutter]

Possibly, you could have d_normandy mechanics similar to Tribal vassals, where the French king can call the troops in Normandy to arms, but they act more like an ally.