Independence war wargoal

[hajutze]

OK, so I'm fighting an independence war ... and I have occupied their capital ... and I am still having basically -100% for held objectives.

And at this point I have to ask, where is the bloody wargoal?

 

[fodazd]

As far as I know, there are two types of independence wars:
-> Independence wars you declare directly. In this case, the war goal is the capital of your liege.
-> Independence wars declared by the independence faction. In this case, your liege will get ticking war score for occupying *anything* from the rebels.

My personal opinion: Both of these don't really make sense, but it is what it is.

 

[hajutze]

Turns out it was #2... and one of my "allies" was on the other side of Persia.

Just WPd and then declared on my own.

It's super frustrating, simply because the GUI doesn't give ANY indication what the war target actually is.

 

[Prairie_Doggin]

As far as I know, there are two types of independence wars:
-> Independence wars you declare directly. In this case, the war goal is the capital of your liege.
-> Independence wars declared by the independence faction. In this case, your liege will get ticking war score for occupying *anything* from the rebels.

My personal opinion: Both of these don't really make sense, but it is what it is.

I mean, to be fair the first one makes sense to me. If you wanted to be independent from your liege, marching an army to his capital and taking it sends a pretty strong message that you don't need his protection anymore.

 

[hajutze]

I am not sure if that has ever happened.

The only Independence war I can think of that was like that was way past CK3's timeline (Egypt vs Otto's Oriental Crisis)

There are probably a couple of cases where somebody got independent from Byz, and Constantinopole wasn't really known for it's ... siegeability.

 

[fodazd]

I mean, to be fair the first one makes sense to me. If you wanted to be independent from your liege, marching an army to his capital and taking it sends a pretty strong message that you don't need his protection anymore.

My personal opinion: Yes, that *would* send a pretty strong message, but just because you can't or don't want to siege down your liege's capital doesn't mean that you can't be independent. In fact, I think it should work the opposite way: As long as your liege can't occupy your territory, YOU should gain ticking warscore.

Independence wars declared by faction already kind of work like that, except that it's really stupid that your liege can get over 100 ticking warscore by occupying a single rebel province on the other side of the world.

 

[brainiac1530]

As far as I know, there are two types of independence wars:
-> Independence wars you declare directly. In this case, the war goal is the capital of your liege.
-> Independence wars declared by the independence faction. In this case, your liege will get ticking war score for occupying *anything* from the rebels.

My personal opinion: Both of these don't really make sense, but it is what it is.

These are the wargoals I'd like to see in these cases.

1) Maintaining control of my capital gives ticking warscore (like EU4 independence wars)
2) Maintaining control of his own capital gives my liege warscore. In this case, the fact that the independence faction can be basically any size relative to the liege makes most wargoals nonsensical. If it's a big independence faction, they have the power to take the liege's capital, and the reward is worth the risk. A small independence faction shouldn't exist to begin with, due to the relative power conditions for it to fire. If it does somehow, their actual victory conditions are pretty limited anyway. It's almost certainly going to hinge on hostages. Making them go after their liege's capital is a good way for them to get a heir captive and win against the odds.

 

[oakshield]

I find it pretty dumb that the independence warscore goal is the liege's capital. It's like saying that the american revolution would have to take london to be successful. In my opinion, the warscore goal for independence wars should be heavily skewed towards battles and keeping control of your own territory. If someone is losing battles to you and can't control you, then you're closer to independence, it's that simple. You don't have to take london, you just have to make sure you can't be taken by london. I feel that the agency is on the liege to try to keep control rather than the vassal to try to conquer to get to independency. If you can't ascertain your control over something, it's not yours anymore. This topic would make a good entry on the suggestions part of the forum so we can at least hope for the miracle that a paradox member reads it, think it's a good idea and tries to get it implemented.

 

[fodazd]

2) Maintaining control of his own capital gives my liege warscore. In this case, the fact that the independence faction can be basically any size relative to the liege makes most wargoals nonsensical. If it's a big independence faction, they have the power to take the liege's capital, and the reward is worth the risk. A small independence faction shouldn't exist to begin with, due to the relative power conditions for it to fire. If it does somehow, their actual victory conditions are pretty limited anyway. It's almost certainly going to hinge on hostages. Making them go after their liege's capital is a good way for them to get a heir captive and win against the odds.

I disagree with this. Even if multiple vassals declare independence together with a faction, it doesn't make sense that they would have to occupy the lieges capital in order to win. It makes sense that the war goal is the rebels territory. What *doesn't* make sense is that the liege only has to occupy an irrelevant tiny part of it in order to gain ticking warscore.

I also made a suggestion thread here.

 

[hajutze]

Slightly related.

So due to some circumstances I became a vassal of the Mongols (playing in Persia).

I declare independence.

The Mongols accept every single populist demand there is ON MY TERRITORY making me lose about 50% of it...

How ... why ... WHY?

And on top of it I have to march to the eastmost corner of the map in order to siege their shit-tier capital.

 

[Secuter]

Slightly related.

So due to some circumstances I became a vassal of the Mongols (playing in Persia).

I declare independence.

The Mongols accept every single populist demand there is ON MY TERRITORY making me lose about 50% of it...

How ... why ... WHY?

And on top of it I have to march to the eastmost corner of the map in order to siege their shit-tier capital.

Oh, you see, that is because the AI - well just any Liege, can and will give away territory when pressed by any rebel demands. It often happen when the ruler is weak or poor and they don't think that they can win the fight. The game completely ignores both the vassals strength and any agency they might ever have.

Aside from not having any influence on a bunch of peasants taking over your lands without you even having a choice, the worst part is probably that you aren't even told. You can be sitting and looking at other places at the map and then suddenly notice that half your realm is missing. It's so ridiculous.


Anyways, for the topic: Independence wars should obviously be in favor of the separatists in the sense that the liege actively have to take the offensive to keep his lands in check. The separatists will have to fend off their lands - taking the lands of the liege will clearly help too. The liege shouldn't get ticking war score just because he took some far off island. He should only start getting warscore once X% of the rebellious vassals lands have been taken.

 

[hajutze]

Yeah you see the problem is the liege can give away a territory they do not control ... because I am at war with them.

 

[babuchas1]

I find it pretty dumb that the independence warscore goal is the liege's capital. It's like saying that the american revolution would have to take london to be successful. In my opinion, the warscore goal for independence wars should be heavily skewed towards battles and keeping control of your own territory. If someone is losing battles to you and can't control you, then you're closer to independence, it's that simple. You don't have to take london, you just have to make sure you can't be taken by london. I feel that the agency is on the liege to try to keep control rather than the vassal to try to conquer to get to independency. If you can't ascertain your control over something, it's not yours anymore. This topic would make a good entry on the suggestions part of the forum so we can at least hope for the miracle that a paradox member reads it, think it's a good idea and tries to get it implemented.

Yes i agree, it makes no sense that the wargoal is the lieges capital. It should be rebels capital and battles.

 

[Zhetone]

Having the liege's capital be the goal makes absolutely no sense in historical context. Many times what cemented a polity's independence was the inability of a sovereign to exert control over it, which is exactly what is happening when your liege can't siege your capital. In real life, if your liege couldn't get to you in a few years, you'd probably basically act independent anyway regardless of whether there was a formal peace; you have de facto independence already. The idea of needing to "enforce" your independence in an aggressive manner is just stupid.

 

[Oglesby]

I want to say I mentioned this before but I think the reason that there are issues is in deciding who the 'attacker' is. The war goal is part of the defenders territory.

I wonder if it would be better when you declare independence directly that if your liege doesn't acquiesce they become the 'attacker' and you the defender (as if you are free and they are reclaiming the territory). I think it would fit better.
When there is an independence faction I wonder if it would be better served if it was multiple wars or splittable by general area. That way Bob, who is on the other side of the world doesn't lose you the war because his land was recaptured while everyone else is doing well. Maybe all defenders are solo wars but a way to join others wars as allies? I have not thought the faction part all the way through.

 

[Aemr]

The Scottish did not win the wars of independence by taking London, they won by taking back Scotland castle by castle and repelling any English forces that came to stop them. If you can hold on to your territories and your liege can't take them back, it proves that you are independent.

The game is silly.

 

[fodazd]

My personal opinion: Independence wars, and civil wars in general, are one of the areas where the war score system in CK3 really shows its weaknesses. Separate peace and actual peace negotiations with more than just win/loss/draw as possible outcomes for wars would by a real improvement here.

 

[Zhetone]

My personal opinion: Independence wars, and civil wars in general, are one of the areas where the war score system in CK3 really shows its weaknesses. Separate peace and actual peace negotiations with more than just win/loss/draw as possible outcomes for wars would by a real improvement here.

reminds me of discussions some have had advocating for a system where taking things in a war and controlling them counts as "owning" them for all intents and purposes, i.e. I occupy one of your counties long enough without you taking it back and it becomes mine. this is often how things were in this period, territory shifted, sometimes without conflict, and de facto became de jure. that might be going too far for your average war, but with independence the war mechanics are a bit too stubborn

 

[babuchas1]

I want to say I mentioned this before but I think the reason that there are issues is in deciding who the 'attacker' is. The war goal is part of the defenders territory.

I wonder if it would be better when you declare independence directly that if your liege doesn't acquiesce they become the 'attacker' and you the defender (as if you are free and they are reclaiming the territory). I think it would fit better.
When there is an independence faction I wonder if it would be better served if it was multiple wars or splittable by general area. That way Bob, who is on the other side of the world doesn't lose you the war because his land was recaptured while everyone else is doing well. Maybe all defenders are solo wars but a way to join others wars as allies? I have not thought the faction part all the way through.

Yes there are other wars between liege and vassal, when the vassal is the attacker for no reason, and have to siege the liege capital, and it makes no sense at all. Just 2 examples:

1- Liege: "Ey vassal, i want you to convert religion". Vassal: "No way". Liege: "Ok then i will arrest you". Vassal: "Ok, come to my land and get me if you can, i am going to fortify in my castle, and the only way you get me is if you conquer it".
How is that it is the vassal who has to conquer the lieges capital!? No sense.

2- Liege: "Ey my dear vassal, i am going to confiscate this county, i want it for myself, give it to me!". Vassal: "No way". Liege: "Ok then, i will take it from you by force". Vassal: "Ok, i am waiting for you, come and take it if you can".
How in the hell is the vassal the attacker, and why does he/she need to conquer the lieges capital?! Instead, it is the liege attacking to take a county by force, and it should be the liege who needs to conquer the land to get it. No sense, again.

Just 2 examples, but there are plenty. I hope they rework a bit this part of the game, because right now too many things are ridiculous.