Kings, Emperors, and Statesmen: A Saga 1066-1920

[Sander_NL]

Again lol I would really like to join this game I was already looking for one when this ck, eu2 conversion game came up in the eu2 forum. Now this seems to be my chance so .

But i have to mention that I'm an amateur in ck :rofl:

BTW we playing with that mod/scenario in the post beneath?

 

[Varyar]

I would like to press for a rulechange.

Instead of having the need to occupy all the demense of the king, in a PvP war, you can sue peace whenever you want with whoever you want. Sure, this would present a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. BUT it would give us flexibility, and a step away from this "total war". Besides, if someone do that against you, you can always to the same to him.

This change would favour quick-'n-grab warfare where one player would take advantage of another being busy elsewhere and simply 'steal' territory, and be able to start taxing it, using its troops etc. before the war is concluded. I'm not sure I like that change.

I also agree with Lurken's suggestion, it could be tough, but it is just too much to not be able to annex a vassal just because their liege won't make peace.

There's a difference between a stubborn player refusing to make peace and to simply blitzkrieg vassals regardless of the lieges' willingness to make peace or negotiate.

I mean, if England has a vassal in Italy and Apulia DOWs that vassal, should they have to beat England? No.

This is a pretty extreme example, but even so, why should Apulia have the benefit of owning said italian province if England does decide to enforce its claim on it?

I do agree that Apulia shouldn't have to ship troops to the British Isles to get the province, but there could be alternative ways/rules instead of just abandoning the original one.

Just my €2. If everyone else simply wants the rule gone I won't mind.

 

[Varyar]

But i have to mention that I'm an amateur in ck :rofl:

So am I, among others. So don't worry too much

BTW we playing with that mod/scenario in the post beneath?

Yes.

 

[Sander_NL]

Yes.[/QUOTE]

Ok I already installed it, but which countries are still free? The earlier I know the more I can practice.

 

[Joohoo]

Ok I already installed it, but which countries are still free? The earlier I know the more I can practice.

psst, first post

 

[binTravkin]

Sander, try France and Apulia first - see if you like them.
The first one is a very strong nation, but lacks adjacent lands to easily expand into.
The second one is not so strong, but has a good opportunity to expand into Sicily to create Kingdom of 2 Sicilies alas Naples.

If you dont like any of these, you can pick any other place which is not picked.
Note that Pereyaslavl is actually free, so it, Polock and Pronsk could be good options.

EDIT:
We should vote about the rule change but I think that allowing to annex vassals would be suicide and even the best players will time from time get pretty irritated when someone manages to snag a vassal while you're not looking at that part of your realm.
In other words - that would require a lot more micromanagement to defend your vassals and therefore should be avoided as CK is complex enough as-is.
Sterk, please remove Pereyaslavl title from in first post - I'll be most probably picking other nationif I see a place to be filled somewhere, just as I did with Pereyalv in GG2, which I think saved that entire area from Polish regime..

 

[Lurken]

Yes it would become some micromanagment if we would change the rule. However it would be equal, wait some years, then stab whoever stole your vassals back. My whole suggestion was to move away from the "total war" attitude, which can develop.

Besides...who said it would be easy to be king over many vassal during the dark ages? It would be more historical, kinda....

 

[unmerged(48100)]

Great.

I also agree with Lurken's suggestion, it could be tough, but it is just too much to not be able to annex a vassal just because their liege won't make peace. I mean, if England has a vassal in Italy and Apulia DOWs that vassal, should they have to beat England? No.

Not possible, if you lose all your personal demesne you are forced to make any peace.

 

[Sterkarm]

Not possible, if you lose all your personal demesne you are forced to make any peace.

But it is often impossible to lose all your personal demesne. Case and point: Earendilhe's Hungary in MTT. I could never deliver a decisive victory because he had demesne in PERSIA. Now, tell me, how does controlling a few provinces in Persia help one in real-life. No, I think that Lurken's suggestion, while not a great way, is the best way to prevent total war and also to prevent people holding out and keeping far-away demesne simply to keep people from forcing peace.

 

[unmerged(48100)]

But it is often impossible to lose all your personal demesne. Case and point: Earendilhe's Hungary in MTT. I could never deliver a decisive victory because he had demesne in PERSIA. Now, tell me, how does controlling a few provinces in Persia help one in real-life. No, I think that Lurken's suggestion, while not a great way, is the best way to prevent total war and also to prevent people holding out and keeping far-away demesne simply to keep people from forcing peace.

Yes it is, but stealing all the vassals from one person before it can react is not.

Maybe you should be forced to negotiate as soon as you lose one half of your total demesne?

 

[Varyar]

But it is often impossible to lose all your personal demesne. Case and point: Earendilhe's Hungary in MTT. I could never deliver a decisive victory because he had demesne in PERSIA. Now, tell me, how does controlling a few provinces in Persia help one in real-life. No, I think that Lurken's suggestion, while not a great way, is the best way to prevent total war and also to prevent people holding out and keeping far-away demesne simply to keep people from forcing peace.

Why should it be easy to force peace? Shouldn't negotiation be standard among human players?

I'm thinking that this is an area where the GM could play a decisive role. To take the Apulia example again, the GM could give England the choice of either actively intervening by sending troops to Italy to liberate its vassal, or to negotiate the secession of said vassal, and end the war. If England refuses both options or tries to hold out, Apulia would be free to force peace with the vassal and the game would go on.

 

[Sterkarm]

Why should it be easy to force peace? Shouldn't negotiation be standard among human players?

I'm thinking that this is an area where the GM could play a decisive role. To take the Apulia example again, the GM could give England the choice of either actively intervening by sending troops to Italy to liberate its vassal, or to negotiate the secession of said vassal, and end the war. If England refuses both options or tries to hold out, Apulia would be free to force peace with the vassal and the game would go on.

Yes, negotiation should be, but in many cases in CK, as I saw in MTT, people refused peace even when so obviously beaten. KOM was probably the least offender in this sense, but I had to occupy all but two of his demesne once to get a peace (admittedly a harsh peace, but still...). That means I had to capture roughly 11 provinces spread throughout Scandinavia, Germany, and Northern Rus.

Perhaps there is a better solution to this. Maybe once one occupies all (or 75%?) of an opponent's demesne within the opponent's primary king title, he can then annex vassals freely. In addition, one can still annex vassals that are not connected by land to the capital (must be provinces in the same realm as vassal and capital), excluding slightly disconnected provinces, to be judged by the player's common sense (example: If a nation has a vassal that is seperated by one or two provinces and is relatively close to the general area of influence, though that might be a bit vague). Opinions?

 

[Kujy]

"Last bastion of Christianity", eh? Still, better than this...

Insane-The Barbaric King of Hungary

kidding

 

[Sabaron]

Last bastion of Christianity indeed. If only I could take the helm of a Muslim nation and give you the old what-for. As is, I'll take France.

Two quick questions:

One, my EU disk is scratched. :/ I can only install 67% of the game before it crashes. Does anyone know what I'm missing so I can replace it? I have the game's music files saved. Also, I have the Ztorm version of Victoria. Will this cause problems?

 

[Sterkarm]

Last bastion of Christianity indeed. If only I could take the helm of a Muslim nation and give you the old what-for. As is, I'll take France.

Two quick questions:

One, my EU disk is scratched. :/ I can only install 67% of the game before it crashes. Does anyone know what I'm missing so I can replace it? I have the game's music files saved. Also, I have the Ztorm version of Victoria. Will this cause problems?

For about 10 seconds there I was wondering when I had posted this... then I realized that there are some others out there with a Poland flag avatar.

But anyway, we can fix EU2 and whatnot when we get to that, which will be a while. My guess would be that EU2 disc is simply scratched and won't work properly unless repaired or might not work at all.

 

[binTravkin]

As I said, EU3 might be around at that time..

Good, that we have a France player at once..

 

[Drozh]

I'd like to go for Bulgaria...from now on call me Khan Krum...

 

[binTravkin]

Just to avoid confusion - Bulgaria is the one in Balkans, not Bolgar (your claimed name suggests you were thinking of the latter).

If you want to play Bolgar, however, I advise you to take Pereyaslavl or Pronsk and create the Bolgar kingdom by conquering Khanate of Bolgar.

 

[Varyar]

Yes, negotiation should be, but in many cases in CK, as I saw in MTT, people refused peace even when so obviously beaten. KOM was probably the least offender in this sense, but I had to occupy all but two of his demesne once to get a peace (admittedly a harsh peace, but still...). That means I had to capture roughly 11 provinces spread throughout Scandinavia, Germany, and Northern Rus.

Well, the harsher the peace you wish to enforce, the greater your victory ought to be. Hopefully we won't have to see über-empires in this game though.

Perhaps there is a better solution to this. Maybe once one occupies all (or 75%?) of an opponent's demesne within the opponent's primary king title, he can then annex vassals freely.

I disagree. Some players will inevitably have very few demesne provinces within their primary title(Georgia comes to mind). Perhaps 75% of total demesne could be possible.

In addition, one can still annex vassals that are not connected by land to the capital (must be provinces in the same realm as vassal and capital), excluding slightly disconnected provinces, to be judged by the player's common sense (example: If a nation has a vassal that is seperated by one or two provinces and is relatively close to the general area of influence, though that might be a bit vague). Opinions?

Too complex.

I see it like this: no titles and no land should switch hands before peace is concluded. It's sort of gamey if you can forcibly gain control of border provinces if they are held by vassals, but not if they're held by the king. I'm still in favor of a solution where the GM becomes a sort of peace negotiator.

But since we're discussing it, what was the intention of the original rule?

 

[unmerged(48100)]

I disagree. Some players will inevitably have very few demesne provinces within their primary title(Georgia comes to mind). Perhaps 75% of total demesne could be possible.

I'd rather say 50+ % of the total demesne. 75% is too low and could be used in a gamey way.