Just Another Casus Belli Rant

[Lord Celestine]

I know about his claims both family and how Willy said he was promised the throne. I just don't believe he did get the okay from the pope before the invasion. If he actually did have the popes backing I would expect more than one source. Though Willy probably did claim the pope said aye go invade the English. Also I'd stop arguing with lord celestine. He smells of trolling.

Hey I'm not the one who thinks that the word of a man in a silly hat is infallible and totally a means to justify a war. He's trying to say that Claims were a big deal, I'm saying they weren't. Hell even in CK2 claims don't mean nothing because of the stupid elaborate fabrication system they have.

 

[Quaade]

I know about his claims both family and how Willy said he was promised the throne. I just don't believe he did get the okay from the pope before the invasion. If he actually did have the popes backing I would expect more than one source. Though Willy probably did claim the pope said aye go invade the English. Also I'd stop arguing with lord celestine. He smells of trolling.

The pope didn´t need to sanction every invasion though, but it was part of the political proces that the king would be crowned by the pope, thus legitimizing the claim after the fact (here winning England)... There is a few cases where the pope didn´t do it, due to political stuff and even times where the HRE didn´t get it though his rule was still legit

But yes, seems trollish... Since every argument is dissuaded by "silly man with a silly hat", not giving any understanding to how the world was quite different back then... It´s like saying... Silly those peasants... Saying the earth is flat, when it´s really round... It was their reality back then, we might not get it or understand it fully from our modern terms and understanding, but it made sense to them and that´s really what matters

 

[Quaade]

Hey I'm not the one who thinks that the word of a man in a silly hat is infallible and totally a means to justify a war. He's trying to say that Claims were a big deal, I'm saying they weren't. Hell even in CK2 claims don't mean nothing because of the stupid elaborate fabrication system they have.

Claims were a big deal... Why else would so many laws be about succesion, who were entitled, and the many marriages that de facto would bring land into another family... You know, the common practice back then ;-)

 

[Lord Celestine]

Claims were a big deal... Why else would so many laws be about succesion, who were entitled, and the many marriages that de facto would bring land into another family... You know, the common practice back then ;-)

But I'm playing as the Zoroastrians, and the NORDS! Why are my only options Holy War? Zoroastrians didn't care! The Persians conquered because they could! Just like the Romans did, because as I stated earlier the Byzantine Emperor did NOT adhere to the Pope? Why? Because in Byzantium (also another reason I don't like calling Constantinople that is because you guys do call the Romans as Byzantines, so I figure why not call the city Byzantium to while we're at it I mean it does make sense if you think about it since we called the Romans as the Romans because their capital was the city of Rome and we call the Byzantines such because they changed capitals.) but anyways in Byzantium the Roman Emperor was THE POPE. Or might as well have been, great schism and all that good stuff, if he wanted to declare war he bloody well could for any bloody reason, same way with the Persians.

P.S. I just want you to know though, that the Byzantines still called themselves until the very end, Romans.

 

[Lord Celestine]

lol....just lol man...

Of course it was political...but even in our days you need a very very very complex series of excuses to make war. We now have United Nations, then they had that man with the "silly" hat and strange vestments! Hahahah really that was too low man...you do know that they look silly and strange to you but was really glorious and majestic looking to them, right? You should look at some italian vestments of 16th century and tell me how they look ....

Also i love Total War,it is a very good game but it's terrible in politics...terrible really terrible...there is nothing that's close to history, nothing. Of course that's not bad in a game that's called "Total War". Even the titles is total ahistorical ...

Missed this post somehow

I'm not saying that Cod pieces did not look totally ridiculous, and I'm certainly not saying that people who painted their faces in white lead did not also look completely ridiculous not to mention isn't this about the time period when a lot of people stopped bathing? And Palaces got so huge that the posh nobility went stool on the floor in public?

The thing I like about Total War is that when it came to war, it kept it simple, it didn't try to make it stupid elaborate, what I would wish though is that I wish there was more emphasis on alliances and defensive-pacts. I can not tell you how effective the defensive pact would have been in Britain had I actually been on the mainland. The only thing I really had going on though was Gotland, my conquest of Gotland was what gave me such a high threat level.

 

[Quaade]

But I'm playing as the Zoroastrians, and the NORDS! Why are my only options Holy War? Zoroastrians didn't care! The Persians conquered because they could! Just like the Romans did, because as I stated earlier the Byzantine Emperor did NOT adhere to the Pope? Why? Because in Byzantium (also another reason I don't like calling Constantinople that is because you guys do call the Romans as Byzantines, so I figure why not call the city Byzantium to while we're at it I mean it does make sense if you think about it since we called the Romans as the Romans because their capital was the city of Rome and we call the Byzantines such because they changed capitals.) but anyways in Byzantium the Roman Emperor was THE POPE. Or might as well have been, great schism and all that good stuff, if he wanted to declare war he bloody well could for any bloody reason, same way with the Persians.

P.S. I just want you to know though, that the Byzantines still called themselves until the very end, Romans.

First off, you play Zoroastrian in Norse... only logical that any other same faith would aid against you... else you can get claims all other ways like Norse... chancellor and marriage, though marriage is likely not a option...

Secondly, emperor of Byzantium was NOT the pope, ever heard of the pentarchy?

 

[Lord Celestine]

First off, you play Zoroastrian in Norse... only logical that any other same faith would aid against you... else you can get claims all other ways like Norse... chancellor and marriage, though marriage is likely not a option...

Secondly, emperor of Byzantium was NOT the pope, ever heard of the pentarchy?

The Zoroastrians have a very deep affiliation with Fire and Wisdom, I thought it would be pretty neat for you know the Nords in Scandinavia who live in the cold for a lot of the year to be followers of this faith of Fire. It does make me wonder sometimes though if early Christians and Muslism were talking about Zoroastrians when talking about a fiery afterlife.

But yeah I think it's pretty cool. I'm saying that it's balogna that I have to follow the Casus Belli under this religion, that's almost as bad as saying as a Germanic Pagan you can SUBJUGATE ONE NATION in your lifetime. It reminds me of Dungeons and Dragons with all these attempts at 'balancing' but tell me this, why should a very small and insignificant tribe in southern Germania give two hoots about a war going on in Northern Scandinavia?

It's as though the thought of me being able to declare war for no reason at until except to conquer was unfathomable to the Paradox team.

 

[JohnKR]

But I'm playing as the Zoroastrians, and the NORDS! Why are my only options Holy War? Zoroastrians didn't care! The Persians conquered because they could! Just like the Romans did, because as I stated earlier the Byzantine Emperor did NOT adhere to the Pope? Why? Because in Byzantium (also another reason I don't like calling Constantinople that is because you guys do call the Romans as Byzantines, so I figure why not call the city Byzantium to while we're at it I mean it does make sense if you think about it since we called the Romans as the Romans because their capital was the city of Rome and we call the Byzantines such because they changed capitals.) but anyways in Byzantium the Roman Emperor was THE POPE. Or might as well have been, great schism and all that good stuff, if he wanted to declare war he bloody well could for any bloody reason, same way with the Persians.

P.S. I just want you to know though, that the Byzantines still called themselves until the very end, Romans.

NO THEY DID NOT! THEY DID NOT CONQUERED CAUSE THEY COULD!

Look or you don't understand a thing about politics or you are just trolling us. Please tell me where you read all this sh@(*&$, i mean stuff. The Roman Emperor was THE POPE ( Ecumenical Patriarch rings any bell to you? )? if he wanted to declare war he bloody well could for any bloody reason?!

Nor Romans, nor "byzantines", nor Persians, nor anyone in the world ever could or can declare war without the political (philosophical, religious or historical excuses ) support to do it. NOONE. Not even Hitler did for god's sake.

So stop posting things that are unsupported from...you know....reality?..

Also stop saying about the romans all the time....the Romans always had a casus belli (Latin? you know the language the romans used? ) for the wars they declared. Look at it. Even in wikipedia you can find them .

Casus Belli Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli

 

[wdthrill]

But I'm playing as the Zoroastrians, and the NORDS! Why are my only options Holy War? Zoroastrians didn't care! The Persians conquered because they could! Just like the Romans did, because as I stated earlier the Byzantine Emperor did NOT adhere to the Pope? Why? Because in Byzantium (also another reason I don't like calling Constantinople that is because you guys do call the Romans as Byzantines, so I figure why not call the city Byzantium to while we're at it I mean it does make sense if you think about it since we called the Romans as the Romans because their capital was the city of Rome and we call the Byzantines such because they changed capitals.) but anyways in Byzantium the Roman Emperor was THE POPE. Or might as well have been, great schism and all that good stuff, if he wanted to declare war he bloody well could for any bloody reason, same way with the Persians.

P.S. I just want you to know though, that the Byzantines still called themselves until the very end, Romans.

I don't know too much about the other stuff, but you are very wrong about the Romans. The Romans never went to war unless they claimed some kind of just war. Hell, the Romans didn't even start thinking about "Manifest Destiny" until the 1st century BCE, after most of their conquests were done. When Rome fought Carthage first they fought over claims in Spain, then they fought because Carthage and Hannibal tried to retake their land, and finally they fought to take Carthage. Contrary to popular belief the Romans always used a "just war" because the senators wanted the people to love them. There are even remains of Greek city states sending delegates to Rome to try and convince them to help them in wars, promising them land.

 

[Quaade]

The Zoroastrians have a very deep affiliation with Fire and Wisdom, I thought it would be pretty neat for you know the Nords in Scandinavia who live in the cold for a lot of the year to be followers of this faith of Fire. It does make me wonder sometimes though if early Christians and Muslism were talking about Zoroastrians when talking about a fiery afterlife.

But yeah I think it's pretty cool. I'm saying that it's balogna that I have to follow the Casus Belli under this religion, that's almost as bad as saying as a Germanic Pagan you can SUBJUGATE ONE NATION in your lifetime. It reminds me of Dungeons and Dragons with all these attempts at 'balancing' but tell me this, why should a very small and insignificant tribe in southern Germania give two hoots about a war going on in Northern Scandinavia?

It's as though the thought of me being able to declare war for no reason at until except to conquer was unfathomable to the Paradox team.

Because That's how it basically worked during that period even for the Zoroastrians... Also, they would also be wary of not adhering to common reasons of war, especially when pitted against a plural of same faith that differs from yours... Also, stating that no one cares, then I'm really interested in hearing what the crusades were all about, but that could be as interesting as some of the other theories you are having

NO THEY DID NOT! THEY DID NOT CONQUERED CAUSE THEY COULD!

Look or you don't understand a thing about politics or you are just trolling us. Please tell me where you read all this sh@(*&$, i mean stuff. The Roman Emperor was THE POPE ( Ecumenical Patriarch rings any bell to you? )? if he wanted to declare war he bloody well could for any bloody reason?!

Nor Romans, nor "byzantines", nor Persians, nor anyone in the world ever could or can declare war without the political (philosophical, religious or historical excuses ) support to do it. NOONE. Not even Hitler did for god's sake.

So stop posting things that are unsupported from...you know....reality?..

Also stop saying about the romans all the time....the Romans always had a cassus belli (Latin? you know the language the romans used? ) for the wars they declared. Look at it. Even in wikipedia you can find them .

well... to be fair, ww2 justification was not very good... but it was there

 

[JohnKR]

[QUOTE="Quaade, post: 21506373, member: 72922" ww2 justification was not very good... but it was there [/QUOTE]

True...but that's the point. That even in one of the most aggressive wars in history they needed a casus belli to do it.

Also i would like to add a quote from a person that the OP i suppose does not know

"War is continuation of politics by other means" -
Carl von Clausewitz

 

[Thure]

I don't know too much about the other stuff, but you are very wrong about the Romans. The Romans never went to war unless they claimed some kind of just war. Hell, the Romans didn't even start thinking about "Manifest Destiny" until the 1st century BCE, after most of their conquests were done. When Rome fought Carthage first they fought over claims in Spain, then they fought because Carthage and Hannibal tried to retake their land, and finally they fought to take Carthage. Contrary to popular belief the Romans always used a "just war" because the senators wanted the people to love them. There are even remains of Greek city states sending delegates to Rome to try and convince them to help them in wars, promising them land.

Even the Gallic Wars. Caesar's Bellum Gallicum was wrote to justify his conquests in Gallia.

 

[Gorgonkain]

There are two major concerns I don't think the OP is taking into account when submitting a declaration of war, both of with made justification, a Casus Belli, very important. The first and most important had nothing to do with the surrounding inhabitants or nearby rulers, it is for your own people. Imagine being a peasant, serf, or merchant. Why would you support a clearly aggressive attack on another ruler's land? There are plenty of reasons you would not, you might lose money, sons, or your own life. But if you were told that it was for the glory of your god or your liege had a clear claim to the land, you would likely be much more amiable to the idea.

I really think the opinions of nearby rulers is much less important then giving your people an excuse for their lives being lost, which is why the "Just War" was such a big deal, and still is to a certain extent.

 

[Quaade]

Why would you support a clearly aggressive attack on another ruler's land? There are plenty of reasons you would not, you might lose money, sons, or your own life. But if you were told that it was for the glory of your god or your liege had a clear claim to the land, you would likely be much more amiable to the idea.

To be fair, serf had no real saying in the matter and was supposed to support their liege in any wars. That was was the foundation of the feudal contract, and no lord asked the peasants about their opinion in that matter, if they did I don´t believe tax issues would be so well-known in that period ;-) However, neighbouring lords, liege or neighbouring liege would be enough reason to have justification, since the proper justification could mean minimal intervention.

The political system back then was a mix of both being selfish and social, meaning that A would want to take B, but would like C to not being able to take A, so by having a moral code of when A and B can be attacked and taken A would both have the security against being attacked and the opportunity to attack B. In short, A gives up a small amount of security in order to be able to attack, creating a system where A, B and C ideally holds each other in check unless there is a good reason to. If A had a reason to attack, C would also like to have a reason to attack D without A intervening, so it was simply a sort of quid pro quo

 

[CaptainPolyp]

Maybe the peasants and serfs did not really have the choice when their liege wanted to go to war, but having a reason to do so is good for morale. More importantly, the nobles (and some powerful burghers) in the realm needed that. You can't really fight a war if you don't have a reason to make your landed vassals and knights form your army. But sure, external politics also had its importance when it comes to legitimate your war... especially in the christian world.

 

[Earnie]

I dont' get it. To me, it turns out to be very rewarding to not be able to just attack anyway without a claim. It is one of the most important aspects of the game and it's so much more rewarding to gain a title if you had to put a lot of effort into it. After all, it's a strategy game, right ?

 

[Minchandre]

Maybe with Conclave, you could make it that the council is simply very unlikely to approve a war without a claim? So if you have a council packed with loyalists and glory hounds and you want to attack France, they'll let you, but if you have a normal mix and you try to pick off little same-religion counties they'll stop you. Though I do think there should be a generic CB for making neighboring independents swear fealty to you, maybe with a huge opinion penalty if they're not de jure.

But that's just an idea. The only thing that really bothers me is that you have to take counties one at a time if they're de jure part of your duchy. It's very annoying (because of truce times, especially) and doesn't make any sense.

 

[Iron Chariots]

I dont' get it. To me, it turns out to be very rewarding to not be able to just attack anyway without a claim. It is one of the most important aspects of the game and it's so much more rewarding to gain a title if you had to put a lot of effort into it. After all, it's a strategy game, right ?

Basically, OP wants CK2 to be a war game rather than a politics game. Still strategy, but a different type of strategy.

Fortunately for the rest of us, CK2 focuses more on diplomacy/inheritance/feudal management than war. While there are ways they could improve the war system and I'd be happy if they did, I'm even happier when they spend that time on improving the part of the game that I'm actually here for. If I wanted a mindless war grind like OP, I'd go play Total War, a perfectly fine series in its own right.

 

[Quaade]

Maybe the peasants and serfs did not really have the choice when their liege wanted to go to war, but having a reason to do so is good for morale. More importantly, the nobles (and some powerful burghers) in the realm needed that. You can't really fight a war if you don't have a reason to make your landed vassals and knights form your army. But sure, external politics also had its importance when it comes to legitimate your war... especially in the christian world.

Basically, OP wants CK2 to be a war game rather than a politics game. Still strategy, but a different type of strategy.
Yes, it would be largely important for the politics to be in place, get the support... There is one minor issue where peasants were respected and listened to, for most parts but not always... Campaign would mostly be in the summer, after seeding and before harvest. If the peasants were not allowed to go back to harvest, they would likely rebel and it would lead to mass starvation of the nation, so no monarch would really want to do this, without it being of utmost importance... Mercenaries and hired peasants (peasants who choose to stay during harvest) was required to be paid for their service of more than 30 days (normally the "free" service every peasant provided). But that would also mean that the army would be largely smaller than during the summer, and when fighting against farmers who are protecting their land, could swiftly find themselves outnumbered if pushing too hard.

Fortunately for the rest of us, CK2 focuses more on diplomacy/inheritance/feudal management than war. While there are ways they could improve the war system and I'd be happy if they did, I'm even happier when they spend that time on improving the part of the game that I'm actually here for. If I wanted a mindless war grind like OP, I'd go play Total War, a perfectly fine series in its own right.

I do agree on both counts, warfare and claims could be improved much, even in a sensible manner, but this game isn´t and shouldn´t be about total conquest which some players seems to forget... Is it possibly, sure and would still like the slim chance of being able to... But the main focus shouldn´t be around WC but solid gameplay

 

[CaptainPolyp]

Basically, OP wants CK2 to be a war game rather than a politics game. Still strategy, but a different type of strategy.

Fortunately for the rest of us, CK2 focuses more on diplomacy/inheritance/feudal management than war. While there are ways they could improve the war system and I'd be happy if they did, I'm even happier when they spend that time on improving the part of the game that I'm actually here for. If I wanted a mindless war grind like OP, I'd go play Total War, a perfectly fine series in its own right.

If you wanted a mindless war grind, you could also just play germanic pagan norse or nomadic horde (whichever religion) and you would not be very bothered by finding a CB... If I'm not mistaken, muslims also have easy CBs. Besides, the norse prepared invasion allow to build a realm almost anywhere in the world. And maybe there are some mods which create CBs or make them easier to obtain, I dunno.
If he just want a war game, the OP could just play one of these... (well you need the dlc which is another thing).