Let me finally interact with (and ultimately beat up) neutral armies that waltz through my realm

[AlipheeseXV]

So, all players should know the following situation:

My neighbour has a war, in this example an internal faction war. Three of the involved armies are marching through my realm. Okay, they don't use supply from me and they don't do anything to my realm... but, really, why do I have to just accept it???
Even if my kingdom was just formed, the screen shows that I have 3.070 troops. So no problem for me to beat up those "neutral armies". Why isn't there an interaction with which I can demand a "payment for letting those armies pass"?
Okay, it's 867 start date and if the Abbasids were walking by or even the endboss (I've already seen Byzantion ally Abyssinia and send their armies down there), I would keep my feet still. But those pesky counts, who just fight a duke besides me are allowed to march through like they plead?
Sorry, but this is bonkers!

Pdox, please give interactions with rulers who are sending their armies through my territory, my realm, because... well, it is MY domain! A ruler should have a say if someone can get through with his/her armies or not.
This may even stop the cases, were christian rulers in middle europe or somewhat similiar away from Byzantion just ally them and let them fight their wars. Even if Byzantion is able to beat every ruler who does npt let their army pass, this could very much significantly weaken their army before they even reach the battlefield.

Also waging war would involve finally more planning and not just randomly declare on someone which is on a corner of a realm and then also call in an ally far away.
Troop movement would become much more important this way!

Edit:
As @Deshiba mentioned something remarkable further down, here are some thoughts how to handle this as "enforcing border laws":
Somewhat similiar to the crown authority a player/AI realm should have the decision how to handle their borders. They may start with "open borders", but by spending prestige one could enforce "closed broders" for specified other realms:
- close borders for hostile/evil faith rulers
- close borders to your neighbours
- close borders for same faith rulers
- close borders for everyone
- other decisions yet to be named inserted here
It would need some fine tuning, but ultimately it would turn those 'neutral armies' to 'hostile armies' (from gray color to the somewhat brighter red/brown like those hostile armies you can face when you attack someone and some other AI ruler also attacks your target for the same country/duchy/kingdom you are fighting for). It would also reflect how different faiths can react to each other: For example 'pluralist faiths' could get opinion malus if they close borders for pilgrims while 'fundamentalist faiths' get an opinion malus by letting the border open for other faith pilgrims. In the end the pope has a real reason to announce crusades when I as muslim ruler in the region of Jerusalem would close my borders for christian pilgrims.

 

[Matihood1]

And what's next? Military acces and limit of diplomatic relations like in eu4? Not a fan of that.

 

[AlipheeseXV]

And what's next? Military acces and limit of diplomatic relations like in eu4? Not a fan of that.

But limitlessly doing as player/AI pleases is fine?
Waltzing through complete Anatolia as a persian ruler cause in a war in Bulgaria without consequences is fine?

 

[Deshiba]

But limitlessly doing as player/AI pleases is fine?
Waltzing through complete Anatolia as a persian ruler cause in a war in Bulgaria without consequences is fine?

There are some problems with these 'zone of control' mechanics that you are advocating for. Some that I can think of include but are not limited to:

• Political range for inland nations effectively becomes 'direct neighbor' because none of your allies beyond that will reach you. This is a problem that skews balance even more in favor of nations with coastal access.
• The player can effectively be locked out of important or even vital parts of the game. For example, conquering holy sites in a county just out of neighbor range.

I feel like implementing this can only have two results. Either it's stiflingly obstructive, or negligibly inconsequential. Making the mechanics for this meaningful yet balanced seems like more trouble than it's worth.

 

[AlipheeseXV]

There are some problems with these 'zone of control' mechanics that you are advocating for. Some that I can think of include but are not limited to:

• Political range for inland nations effectively becomes 'direct neighbor' because none of your allies beyond that will reach you. This is a problem that skews balance even more in favor of nations with coastal access.
• The player can effectively be locked out of important or even vital parts of the game. For example, conquering holy sites in a county just out of neighbor range.

I feel like implementing this can only have two results. Either it's stiflingly obstructive, or negligibly inconsequential. Making the mechanics for this meaningful yet balanced seems like more trouble than it's worth.

Okay, for:
- Non Neighbour Allies: If I'm for example a king and ally another king with just 2 counts or 1 duke between us, this should be fine to 'force' a passage for our troops to each other. But, regardless how many troops for example the Abbasids have, them ally the King of Transoxiana in central asia and sending troops there with 'only supply concerns' while marching through the territories of like 20 different independent rulers feels just wrong.
- Holy sites are a massive topic in itself, but for my suggestions it would be important that pdox finally lowers the holy sites for reforming pagan faiths to only 2 or even 1 holy site as requirement, as I can as a reformed char just form whatever heresy I want as long as I have piety. Also crusades for example are an own mechanic, so they shouldn't be affected - on the other hand, a crusade which is forced to sail for the holy land because the orthdox rulers of Byzantion are saying "nope, no tresspassing for you" would make for another gameplay.

Borders and tresspassing should given some more thought then now, cause well, I can lay my vassals on a tight leash with absolute crown authority and effectively make them "afk" as they aren't allowed to do anything but I have no say who waltzes through my lands even if I'm a mighty emperor with 100.000+ troops?
Just seems bonkers.
Also regarding holy sites: When playing ck3, at some point a massege will pop up that christian faiths now have access to crusades. I've seen 2 types of reasons for that - either it states that christian pilgrims are threatened or that christianity is under pressure. The latter mostly happens if for example the papacy is attacked. But the first reason... well just happens 'over time'. With 'border control' I could for example control a christian holy site and really say "nope, no christian pilgrims in my realm!" Which may raise the possibality for a crusade against my realm as I literally exclude christian pilgrims. Which would be a nice interaction in the otherwise often bland and lifeless world of ck3.

 

[Deshiba]

Okay, for:
- Non Neighbour Allies: If I'm for example a king and ally another king with just 2 counts or 1 duke between us, this should be fine to 'force' a passage for our troops to each other. But, regardless how many troops for example the Abbasids have, them ally the King of Transoxiana in central asia and sending troops there with 'only supply concerns' while marching through the territories of like 20 different independent rulers feels just wrong.
- Holy sites are a massive topic in itself, but for my suggestions it would be important that pdox finally lowers the holy sites for reforming pagan faiths to only 2 or even 1 holy site as requirement, as I can as a reformed char just form whatever heresy I want as long as I have piety. Also crusades for example are an own mechanic, so they shouldn't be affected - on the other hand, a crusade which is forced to sail for the holy land because the orthdox rulers of Byzantion are saying "nope, no tresspassing for you" would make for another gameplay.

Borders and tresspassing should given some more thought then now, cause well, I can lay my vassals on a tight leash with absolute crown authority and effectively make them "afk" as they aren't allowed to do anything but I have no say who waltzes through my lands even if I'm a mighty emperor with 100.000+ troops?
Just seems bonkers.
Also regarding holy sites: When playing ck3, at some point a massege will pop up that christian faiths now have access to crusades. I've seen 2 types of reasons for that - either it states that christian pilgrims are threatened or that christianity is under pressure. The latter mostly happens if for example the papacy is attacked. But the first reason... well just happens 'over time'. With 'border control' I could for example control a christian holy site and really say "nope, no christian pilgrims in my realm!" Which may raise the possibality for a crusade against my realm as I literally exclude christian pilgrims. Which would be a nice interaction in the otherwise often bland and lifeless world of ck3.

I agree that border laws and enforcing them could be an interesting mechanic to interact with. However from the content of your suggestion there's more questions than answers about the specifics of how such a mechanic would work.

I can see this being implemented for title "laws" which you have to implement on the title itself. However I don't think it's particularly fun gameplay when a big empire can just close borders and a count in-between is just locked out of playing the game.

For example, there's a couple of counties between the Byzantine and the Abbasid empires that don't have coastal access. Under these laws they'd have no way to make allies or get anywhere. Playing as these would only give you 2 options, submit to the bigger powers or get conquered by them. Staying independent just isn't an option anymore.

 

[AlipheeseXV]

I agree that border laws and enforcing them could be an interesting mechanic to interact with. However from the content of your suggestion there's more questions than answers about the specifics of how such a mechanic would work.

I can see this being implemented for title "laws" which you have to implement on the title itself. However I don't think it's particularly fun gameplay when a big empire can just close borders and a count in-between is just locked out of playing the game.

For example, there's a couple of counties between the Byzantine and the Abbasid empires that don't have coastal access. Under these laws they'd have no way to make allies or get anywhere. Playing as these would only give you 2 options, submit to the bigger powers or get conquered by them. Staying independent just isn't an option anymore.

So, I added a possible way for 'border laws' in my op.

For your example about 'counts/dukes residing between empires and being locked out to play the game':
I've done enough games going for zoroastrian persia and at least some runs as either muslim duke in southern italy (Sawdanid in 867) or even starting as custom roman char in southern italy. Regarding zoroastrian persia - you are already forced there to try surviving on your own between empires. Out of 4 empires in 867, three of them are already at your border: Abbasids, Khazaria and the Endboss. And the only allies you will get are those rulers in india. Which are far away. None the less there is normally enough land to go for your own kingdom of Daylam. And when you have that, you are normally safe from getting a game over. Armenia (Armenian Pricipalities) even starts out as a vassal of the Abbasids, so nothing new here.
'Border laws' may favor bigger realms, though nothing forces you to really enforce those laws. And even if you enforce them, may the endboss waltz through, grit your teeth but ignore him.

But my point stands:
Being emperor with absolute crown authority and having over 100.000 troops and still being forced to watch as pesky counts/dukes are allowed to walk through my territory as they please is wrong on many levels.

 

[Matihood1]

But limitlessly doing as player/AI pleases is fine?
Waltzing through complete Anatolia as a persian ruler cause in a war in Bulgaria without consequences is fine?

Yes! I'm perfectly fine with it, honestly.