Join Heir/Ally War

[IvanV]

So I conquered a dutchy, gave a couple of counties to my heir along with the dutchy title. We then formed and alliance and have +100 relationship. Within months his vassals in the new dutchy declare war on him and I can't join the war on his side. The option to join the war is greyed out and I get a message that since he's not fighing a peasant faction I can't join.

Is this by design?

 

[YellowPress]

Yes, its quite dumb

 

[prismaticmarcus]

yes, you can't attack your vassals, even when they're attacking your heir.

and just quietly:

Can we please stop saying 'my heir?'

a lot of posts, especially when someone is asking for help, describe someone as 'my heir.' this isn't all that helpful when 'my heir' could mean 'my son', 'my cousin', or 'my wife's lesbian lover' so can we try to be specific about whether...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[IvanV]

yes, you can't attack your vassals, even when they're attacking your heir.

and just quietly:

Can we please stop saying 'my heir?'

a lot of posts, especially when someone is asking for help, describe someone as 'my heir.' this isn't all that helpful when 'my heir' could mean 'my son', 'my cousin', or 'my wife's lesbian lover' so can we try to be specific about whether...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

But they're attacking my ally.... and I can't join the war. That's the point of being allied.

I hear you on "heir", but I have two sons in real life and I felt weird saying "my son" for a game character. Weird, I guess.

 

[Silens]

That, combined with the fact that your crown authority only prevents direct vassal wars, but not sub-vassal wars, makes vassal management a frustrating experience.

 

[Strangedane]

That, combined with the fact that your crown authority only prevents direct vassal wars, but not sub-vassal wars, makes vassal management a frustrating experience.

Which makes being a vassal duke under an a puppet emperor the best option if you actually want to have any sort of control.
Becoming a king should not come with a magical loss of control.
Feudal contracts being character based instead of title based exasperates the issue further.

 

[Allen418]

So I conquered a dutchy, gave a couple of counties to my heir along with the dutchy title. We then formed and alliance and have +100 relationship. Within months his vassals in the new dutchy declare war on him and I can't join the war on his side. The option to join the war is greyed out and I get a message that since he's not fighing a peasant faction I can't join.

Is this by design?

Yeah, that's a pain.

I find it helps to give the person the counties first, let him build up his forces over a few years, then give him the duchy. Plus make sure the future vassals are his co-religionists.

You can send him gifts of ducats (which really should be a variable amount, but that's another issue....) so he can hire mercenaries.

 

[fodazd]

Just wanted to say that you absolutely *should* be able to help your vassals in their internal wars, be it factions or wars between vassals. The way the mechanics work right now don't make any sense from a realism perspective.

 

[Greifental]

Becoming a king should not come with a magical loss of control.

But it's perfectly reasonable. Every subdivision means a loss of control because you delegate some of your power to other people.

Don't forget that you are not playing a God or Ruler of all but just a plain human king in the Middle Ages.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

Becoming a king should not come with a magical loss of control.

it's actually a bigger domain limit that gives you more control IMHO. stewardship FTW.

 

[Silens]

But it's perfectly reasonable. Every subdivision means a loss of control because you delegate some of your power to other people.

Don't forget that you are not playing a God or Ruler of all but just a plain human king in the Middle Ages.

That's all nice and great and all, but there's a huge problem in that logic. If you have the power and authority to disallow your vassals from engaging in war with each other, why do your own vassals, wo don't have the power to wage war, suddenly can allow wars for their own vassals?

One major principle of delegation is that you can't delegate more power than was vested in you. If you don't have the right to do something, you most certainly don't have the right to authorize actions that lie outside of your own limits.

But let's assume for a moment that you lose control and your subjects walk all over you. Ok, can happen. But that usually constitutes a crime, a transgression against your and, more importantly, your liege's will. You have the right and the obligation to sanction such behaviour and, if you prove that you're not up to the task, your liege has the right to intervene and, what's more, revoke your position for your failure and give it to someone who's more suited for it.

What we got in CK3, however, is that the liege not only loses all form of control, but also has to watch as their realm burns, with no recourse. Even retracting a sub-vassal, who's on the brink of unseating your direct vassal, causes tyranny. Or, in OPs case, when you land your heir and he's about to get beaten by a vassal. You can't help your own family member, with whom you're allied, in a war against their own vassal; what are alliances for, if not helping each other in a war?

What we need are realm laws that apply to all subjects.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

That's all nice and great and all, but there's a huge problem in that logic. If you have the power and authority to disallow your vassals from engaging in war with each other, why do your own vassals, wo don't have the power to wage war, suddenly can allow wars for their own vassals?

One major principle of delegation is that you can't delegate more power than was vested in you. If you don't have the right to do something, you most certainly don't have the right to authorize actions that lie outside of your own limits.

But let's assume for a moment that you lose control and your subjects walk all over you. Ok, can happen. But that usually constitutes a crime, a transgression against your and, more importantly, your liege's will. You have the right and the obligation to sanction such behaviour and, if you prove that you're not up to the task, your liege has the right to intervene and, what's more, revoke your position for your failure and give it to someone who's more suited for it.

What we got in CK3, however, is that the liege not only loses all form of control, but also has to watch as their realm burns, with no recourse. Even retracting a sub-vassal, who's on the brink of unseating your direct vassal, causes tyranny. Or, in OPs case, when you land your heir and he's about to get beaten by a vassal. You can't help your own family member, with whom you're allied, in a war against their own vassal; what are alliances for, if not helping each other in a war?

What we need are realm laws that apply to all subjects.

each liege gets to make their own laws within their own realm and have to deal with the consequences. their liege doesn't care because it doesn't affect them very much.

 

[Silens]

each liege gets to make their own laws withing their own realm and have to deal with the consequences. their liege doesn't care because it doesn't affect them very much.

Again, you can't grant more rights to your underlings than you yourself got. That's how delegation works. Even if you have the right to make your own laws, your own laws can never supersede the laws you're bound by. That was true in medieval times and is true to this day in each and every nation on this planet. If the constitution or federal government has a law in place, a state, county or local parliament can never, ever, legally pass a law that in any way conflicts with the higher laws.

It's also wrong to assume that sub-vassal wars don't affect the top level liege. On the contrary, it does affect everyone.

If a sub-vassal eats my direct vassal's land, my vassal pays less taxes, provides less levies and, if they're in the middle of their war, can't serve as knight in my army when I need him. Let alone that the money wasted on those stupid feuds can't be spent on building up the economy in those counties.

There are scenarios in which a liege might have an interest in letting vassal duke it out, i.e. to weaken some problematic strong vassals, or because he's weak and doesn't have the power to intervene, even if he could.

But it's stupid that even strong rulers with high crown authority have to watch their realm burn, because their subjects can break the most basic principle of (sub)delegation. With no way to intervene.

 

[Greifental]

I don't think that two minor counts fighting over an disputed estate would be bothered by what the emperor says. Especially if the king (or emperor) resides on the other end of the realm. On the other hand why should the king (or emperor) bother what two minor counts do? Let a duke handle it at his own discretion.

I agree there should be the possibility to enforce something like a total realm peace for some time. But as a decision and not as a realm law.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

I agree there should be the possibility to enforce something like a total realm peace for some time.

yeah, this was in 2 and came in handy sometimes.

 

[Strangedane]

But it's perfectly reasonable. Every subdivision means a loss of control because you delegate some of your power to other people.

Don't forget that you are not playing a God or Ruler of all but just a plain human king in the Middle Ages.

So let me get this straight.
I land my son and heir apparant.

I grant him a duchy including all lands.
By royal decree the land now belongs to the crown prince.
Ass-end mcstupidface has a ton of gold for mercs and an alliance with a foreign king and declares war on my heir, not only defying the crowns will but endagering realm stability and disputing the kings right to rule his lands.

It's treason against the crown, plain and simple and should be regarded as such.
People have been executed for less.

 

[Greifental]

Ass-end mcstupidface has a ton of gold for mercs and an alliance with a foreign king and declares war on my heir, not only defying the crowns will but endagering realm stability and disputing the kings right to rule his lands.

It's treason against the crown, plain and simple and should be regarded as such.
People have been executed for less.

That's a whole other thing I was not talking about.

If you attack allies and/or heirs of your liege, there should be consequences. That's right. You should have more possibilities to act.

 

[Strangedane]

That's a whole other thing I was not talking about.

If you attack allies and/or heirs of your liege, there should be consequences. That's right. You should have more possibilities to act.

Anybody inside the realm directly attacking someone for land you personally granted them is a traitor.
This shouldn't be limited to heirs or allies.

Dukes shouldn't instantly declare vassalization wars on a count the king himself installed as his personal vassal somewhere.
They are litterally attacking the kings direct vassal, and should have to fight the king himself to steal his vassals, instead of magically sidestepping the kings feudal obligations to protect his subordinates. This have litterally caused civil wars.

 

[Gutie]

That, combined with the fact that your crown authority only prevents direct vassal wars, but not sub-vassal wars, makes vassal management a frustrating experience.

That's genuinely stupid. If you have max crown authority you should be capable of intervening in any such squabble. OP citing inability to intervene on behalf of an ally is both not "historical/realistic" nor does it even enable any sort of "roleplay." More bad mechanics and warfare restrictions just because MP crowd hates "blobbing" with a seething passion. Should definitely be requested to be changed in the next patch to allow intervention in ally wars on their side whether AI requests it or not.

Edit: As stated by others, you should be able to intervene regardless in any internal war. A King/Emperor should have that capacity. Again, this is more of the anti-blobbing mechanics rather than sound gameplay.

 

[vandevere]

That's genuinely stupid. If you have max crown authority you should be capable of intervening in any such squabble. OP citing inability to intervene on behalf of an ally is both not "historical/realistic" nor does it even enable any sort of "roleplay." More bad mechanics and warfare restrictions just because MP crowd hates "blobbing" with a seething passion. Should definitely be requested to be changed in the next patch to allow intervention in ally wars on their side whether AI requests it or not.

Edit: As stated by others, you should be able to intervene regardless in any internal war. A King/Emperor should have that capacity. Again, this is more of the anti-blobbing mechanics rather than sound gameplay.

Agreed. Not that I blob. But the anti-blobbing mechanics have done way more to harm supposedly sandbox Gameplay than practically anything else.

Like I've said before, I don't blob. Why should I care if someone else blobs? It's a Single-player Game. What other people do in their Single-player games can't touch me, and whatever I do in my Single-player Game.

As for MP, this is the best possible reason for having a truly robust collection of Game Rules. Whoever Hosts the Game can select whatever they wish from the Game Rules. If you want to MP, but don't like what the Host has for their MP Game, you can host a MP Game of your own, with the Game Rules you want.

Also, Game Rules separate SP from MP in that MP should never be allowed to affect SP Players' Games. SP and MP are utterly different beasts, and should remain so...