LET ME JOIN MY SONS WAR !!!!

[ninoallen]

come on paradox, as the emperor of the byzantine empire i should be able to join my sons war !
hes the king of anatolia and is fighting against a vassal and will now lose his title, because well AI is stupid.
and there is nothing i can do to stop this.

cant imprison vassal cause hes "revolting against his liege"

so im basically stuck with this nonsense.

thanks obama.

 

[StarSword]

Yeah, this is pretty dumb. You should absolutely be able to support your vassals in their wars, especially when it's an internal one.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

Enforce Realm Peace like anyone reasonable would do, really.

Or get depression and off yourself, allowing your son to to inherit the empire and use that might for the greater good.

Or instead spend the first century or two spawning kids and revolts, revoking all the land for just your dynasty members. Then even if your son loses the title at least it's to another kinsman.

 

[Dahoota]

Enforce Realm Peace like anyone reasonable would do, really..

This.

Then during the peace your son will likely revoke the vassal's title as he'll be a traitor.

I suspect that you aren't allowed to interfere directly with vassal wars for reasons of game balance, to prevent players from stopping vassals becoming too strong.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

This.

Then during the peace your son will likely revoke the vassal's title as he'll be a traitor.

I suspect that you aren't allowed to interfere directly with vassal wars for reasons of game balance, to prevent players from stopping vassals becoming too strong.

If I recall correctly the Realm Peace is only available if the Council is empowered, so if he's on 'Absolute Rule' he can't enforce the peace.

Which is kinda weird, by the way, because as right now weakening the vassals actually takes away an important tool to control and limit vassals. Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[CaptainPolyp]

If I recall correctly the Realm Peace is only available if the Council is empowered, so if he's on 'Absolute Rule' he can't enforce the peace.

Which is kinda weird, by the way, because as right now weakening the vassals actually takes away an important tool to control and limit vassals. Doesn't make sense to me.

It makes sense to me. When the council is empowered, this is not just the king/emperor's will which enforces all belligerents to drop their weapons, this is also an assembly of representatives of the realm's vassals and courtier. This indicates that not only the king/emperor want peace, but also the rest of the realm. (we can still talk about whether the council, nominated by the king, represents the realm in its globality... at the very least, the king chose them to do so).
When the king/emperor hasn't empowered his council, it is harder for him to enforce peace since he is bound by the feudal pact (his duty is to protect the sovereignty of his vassals; thus, helping a vassal against another is a treason of this duty.).

That said, I would like to be able to join any war I want... especially proposing my help to an independant neighbour without having to form a non-aggression pact with him. As for helping out a vassal against another vassal, this should be allowed but with an opinion penalty to every vassals in the realm (except the vassal you helped), since this a clear infraction of the feudal pact between a liege and his vassals (maybe tyranny modifier???). (I don't know if there should be reductions of the opinion penalty in some cases, such as when the vassal helped is the heir, or if the other belligerent is particularily hated by the other feudal vassals... it gets a bit complicated).

Edit:
Even more importantly, I would like to be able to propose my help any of my liege's wars and engage my personal army (not just the levies I'm obligated to provide due to the feudal pact). This simple thing would make playing as a loyal vassal far more appealing.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

It makes sense to me. When the council is empowered, this is not just the king/emperor's will which enforces all belligerents to drop their weapons, this is also an assembly of representatives of the realm's vassals and courtier. This indicates that not only the king/emperor want peace, but also the rest of the realm. (we can still talk about whether the council, nominated by the king, represents the realm in its globality... at the very least, the king chose them to do so).
When the king/emperor hasn't empowered his council, it is harder for him to enforce peace since he is bound by the feudal pact (his duty is to protect the sovereignty of his vassals; thus, helping a vassal against another is a treason of this duty.).

That said, I would like to be able to join any war I want... especially proposing my help to an independant neighbour without having to form a non-aggression pact with him. As for helping out a vassal against another vassal, this should be allowed but with an opinion penalty to every vassals in the realm (except the vassal you helped), since this a clear infraction of the feudal pact between a liege and his vassals (maybe tyranny modifier???).
(I don't know if there should be reductions of the opinion penalty in some cases, such as when the vassal helped is the heir, or if the other belligerent is particularily hated by the other feudal vassals... it gets a bit complicated).

What I have a problem understanding is that an 'Absolute Rule' realm has actually less control over its own than a realm with an 'Empowered Council'.

I can also say not all states and vassals during this age were binded by the feudalism, in fact its very existence is being questioned nowdays but I'm no historian so I think I'll just stop here.

 

[CaptainPolyp]

I'm not historian either so I may be mistaken... This is how I understand it tho.
I'm not sure that a purely "absolute rule" is possible (or at least historical) in the occidental europe middle ages. In France, I don't think it was possible until Louis XIV (1643), who managed to castrate the nobility and turned his noble vassals from land rulers/ men of sword, to administratives and courtiers bound to please him. (edit: and later Napoleon... In any case, I guess these rulers can be seen as despotic)
I don't know how it was for the Holy roman empire tho... even less about the islamic governments.

Absolute rule or not, It seems logical to me that helping a vassal against another one should be possible, at the price of opinion penalties for other vassals (due to denying the value of a vassal's title). And raising the other vassals levies for this war should be seen as even more offensive.

 

[Chunakun]

Enforce Realm Peace like anyone reasonable would do, really.

This does not solve the problem. As soon as the Realm Peace is over they will go at it again and you will have no way to stop it for the next 10 years. Especially the stupid factions to oust the ruler. While I have nothing against that type of faction for feudal rulers it should not be the case for Exarchs.

 

[CaptainPolyp]

What I have a problem understanding is that an 'Absolute Rule' realm has actually less control over its own than a realm with an 'Empowered Council'.

I can also say not all states and vassals during this age were binded by the feudalism, in fact its very existence is being questioned nowdays but I'm no historian so I think I'll just stop here.

I just forgot one thing about "absolute rule" vs "empowered council" and "enforce realm peace".
In a christian feudal realm, If a vassal goes to war with another to get one of his titles, it means that he has a valid casus belli. Therefore, he has a lawful right to seize the title. Even if the claim was fabricated, his war is still lawful until it is proven that the claim was fabricated (which the game does not allow to do). Enforcing realm peace means denying the vassal his lawful right to seize the county; Doing that as a king/emperor has to be seen as despotic, even with "absolute rule". However, if the council is empowered and approves enforcing realm peace, it means that beside the king/emperor, the realm itself agrees.

Again, Not sure this can apply to muslim governments, although this is completely acceptable for nomadic empires.

 

[Baron Badwolf]

It makes sense to me. When the council is empowered, this is not just the king/emperor's will which enforces all belligerents to drop their weapons, this is also an assembly of representatives of the realm's vassals and courtier. This indicates that not only the king/emperor want peace, but also the rest of the realm. (we can still talk about whether the council, nominated by the king, represents the realm in its globality... at the very least, the king chose them to do so).
When the king/emperor hasn't empowered his council, it is harder for him to enforce peace since he is bound by the feudal pact (his duty is to protect the sovereignty of his vassals; thus, helping a vassal against another is a treason of this duty.)

Makes sense to me. The King-in-Parliament turned out to be a hell of a lot more powerful than the King on his own.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

This does not solve the problem. As soon as the Realm Peace is over they will go at it again and you will have no way to stop it for the next 10 years. Especially the stupid factions to oust the ruler. While I have nothing against that type of faction for feudal rulers it should not be the case for Exarchs.

It does. Unless one of them dies they are both under truce (white peace) for the same 10 years realm peace is on cooldown.

 

[PK_AZ]

I think there are three different situations we should think about.
First one is when some count rebel against your vassal duke. King should be allowed - but not obligated - to help his vassal. It's totally frustrating that I am supposed to kill some peasants rebels, but when some guy want to get the title I personally took from him for his questionable loyalty and gave to some good man, then I cannot do anything.
The second case is when some of my vassal has CB on my other vassal. In that case I think king should not be allowed to act, because

In a christian feudal realm, If a vassal goes to war with another to get one of his titles, it means that he has a valid casus belli. Therefore, he has a lawful right to seize the title.

But there is also third situation. When some *$%&%@ think he can bully my son/daughter/friend/brother-in-law. IMHO they should be under king's protection just because they are his relatives or friends.

 

[ninoallen]

I can also say not all states and vassals during this age were binded by the feudalism

But im playing as the byzantines!!!! I AM the Eastern Roman Empire ! EMPEROR OF ROMANS!!! I am not bound to feudalism like the barbarians of europe.
i granted my Son, and heir a kingdom and some upshot vassal has usurped that kingdom from him.

now in real life this would have caused a civil war within the empire, and vassals would choose who to back.

i think this is a feature that is truly missing from the game, as an emperor or king, i should have the choice to join my son's war, and then an event should fire which would let the vassal decide if he wants to continue fighting and be branded a traitor to the realm, if he says yes then it becomes a civil war within the realm and vassals choose to either support the throne or support the traitor.

 

[Chunakun]

It does. Unless one of them dies they are both under truce (white peace) for the same 10 years realm peace is on cooldown.

Even if you are correct it does not solve the issue of overthrow ruler faction because everyone of our sons vassals can try to overthrow him even if he is an Exarch.

 

[Chunakun]

And if your son dies during the rebellion you inherit the rebellion which is obviously a bug.

 

[Emre Yigit]

Many people are talking feudal, while the ERE has imperial administration. Abso-bleepingly-impossible for the Emperor not to have the right to defend his son.

Even more silliness: if the son were to be captured, could the Emperor ransom him before his captor did unspeakable things to him?

Edit: ninja'd by OP.

 

[CaptainPolyp]

I think there are three different situations we should think about.
First one is when some count rebel against your vassal duke. King should be allowed - but not obligated - to help his vassal. It's totally frustrating that I am supposed to kill some peasants rebels, but when some guy want to get the title I personally took from him for his questionable loyalty and gave to some good man, then I cannot do anything.
The second case is when some of my vassal has CB on my other vassal. In that case I think king should not be allowed to act, because
"In a christian feudal realm, If a vassal goes to war with another to get one of his titles, it means that he has a valid casus belli. Therefore, he has a lawful right to seize the title."

But there is also third situation. When some *$%&%@ think he can bully my son/daughter/friend/brother-in-law. IMHO they should be under king's protection just because they are his relatives or friends.

Note that in any case, I would prefer if the game allowed you to do what you want as long as you assume taking tyranny opinion penalties corresponding to the infractions you committed, instead of completely forbidding any attempt.

[again, would applies for the feudal governments (except error from me)... for other type of rulership, maybe not]
first situation: I totally agree with you... with no tyranny penalty if you originally revoked the duchy with a lawful reason, before giving it to a more loyal vassal
second situation: I totally agree with you but you totally agreed with me so in the end, I totally agree with myself which is quite comforting for my mental health (maybe)
third situation: In the game as it is now, the *$%&%@ needs a valid claim to bully you son/daughter/friend/brother-in-law. Then he has the lawful right to do so. I think you should have the right to help your son/daughter/friend/brother-in-law but I guess, with a tyranny penalty (reduced if he is your kin???). For nomads, there is the "humiliate" casus belli which can be used to to bully another nomad realm or another clan from the realm (and does target any title) but unfortunately, they are not valid for other governments.

But im playing as the byzantines!!!! I AM the Eastern Roman Empire ! EMPEROR OF ROMANS!!! I am not bound to feudalism like the barbarians of europe.
i granted my Son, and heir a kingdom and some upshot vassal has usurped that kingdom from him.

now in real life this would have caused a civil war within the empire, and vassals would choose who to back.

i think this is a feature that is truly missing from the game, as an emperor or king, i should have the choice to join my son's war, and then an event should fire which would let the vassal decide if he wants to continue fighting and be branded a traitor to the realm, if he says yes then it becomes a civil war within the realm and vassals choose to either support the throne or support the traitor.

I have no idea for the Byzantines... no idea how their empire works, never played as them... I guess Crusader kings was originally built around simulating feudal realms and they based the Byzantine empire partly on the feudal mechanics... that's why some features are strange for some other governments.

Anyways, what you describe is fascinating. And just because it would bring so much depth, to make civil wars begin like that (and maybe in the end, making empires fall), I would love to see that possible in CK2. ^-^

edit: Actually, this situation is similar to PK_AZ's third situation... PK_AZ's third situation should also increase the risk of, and eventually trigger a civil war at the scale of the realm... Would be interesting no? ^-^

 

[burninmizzou]

I really want this to happen. Honestly my biggest complaint about the game is that I can't join in my family/vessels wars. Especially if it's family. You can't tell me some medieval king wouldn't join his son who he made a Duke against some rebellious count

 

[TCWolffe]

I absolutely wish we could join vassal wars. At the very least, you should be able to join the defender as a liege is a guarantor of territorial integrity. Especially in cases where a member of your dynasty gave land to another dynasty, any "legal" claim stating otherwise would be construed as defiance of your (dynasty's) rule.

"Oh, you have a fancy little piece of paper saying that's your land, do you? You realize my grandfather gave that land to them, right? So are you calling my grandfather a liar? Do you dispute that he was, in fact, the sovereign of this realm at that time...which by extension would suggest I am not the sovereign, now? Perhaps I should cut your tongue out for such vile, seditious slander of my family?"