LET ME JOIN MY SONS WAR !!!!

[mudcrabmerchant]

It's ridiculous that you have to stand by while your close family are attacked by other vassals. At the very least, you should always be allowed to interfere even if it gives you a tyranny penalty.

 

[CaptainPolyp]

See the case of Hugues Capet, progenitor of the Capets, and his son Robert II of France.

Hugues Capet was elected and crowned in 987. To secure the succession, he crowned his son Robert as co-King in the very same year. When Hugues Capet died, Robert II did the same, and crowned his son Hugues. When Hugues died, another son Henri was crowned as co-King. And so on.

The Emperors of the Byzantine Empire and the Kings of Germany had similar ideas. Infamous Friedrich Barbarossa and his son Heinrich is one example - Heinrich was crowned in 1169 and for twenty two years he was the King of Germany, before he succeeded Friedrich Barbarossa.

Now, say if one vassal is attacking such a crowned heir, then who's actually not only committing offense to the 'supposed' feudal pact, but also treason?

EDIT:Wikipedia links added.

That's a very good point and I also agree with it. Especially if you give a title from you own personal titles to your heir.
If you revoke the title of a vassal to give it to your son, you cannot complain if some vassals want to put down your son... of course, you should be able to help your son, but you cannot complain if they don't like you anymore after that. This is worse if you revoked the title with no legitimate reasons in the first place.

I think opinion is a good system to handle that. Especially, tyranny modifyiers are pretty balanced since it only last 10 years.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

I think opinion is a good system to handle that. Especially, tyranny modifyiers are pretty balanced since it only last 10 years.

30.

 

[PK_AZ]

If you revoke the title of a vassal to give it to your son, you cannot complain if some vassals want to put down your son... of course, you should be able to help your son, but you cannot complain if they don't like you anymore after that. This is worse if you revoked the title with no legitimate reasons in the first place.

If you revoked title without proper reason, you already got tyranny. There's no reason to punish king twice.

 

[Arsonik]

See the case of Hugues Capet, progenitor of the Capets, and his son Robert II of France.

Hugues Capet was elected and crowned in 987. To secure the succession, he crowned his son Robert as co-King in the very same year. When Hugues Capet died, Robert II did the same, and crowned his son Hugues. When Hugues died, another son Henri was crowned as co-King. And so on.

The Emperors of the Byzantine Empire and the Kings of Germany had similar ideas. Infamous Friedrich Barbarossa and his son Heinrich is one example - Heinrich was crowned in 1169 and for twenty two years he was the King of Germany, before he succeeded Friedrich Barbarossa.

Now, say if one vassal is attacking such a crowned heir, then who's actually not only committing offense to the 'supposed' feudal pact, but also treason?

EDIT:Wikipedia links added.

If a vassal attacks your son who you have made Duke he would likely not be executed if he lost the war afaik. He is crowned Prince of the Kingdom or Empire, not the duchy. Why should your father care about the duchy? Just playing a bit of devils advocate.

 

[ninoallen]

If a vassal attacks your son who you have made Duke he would likely not be executed if he lost the war afaik. He is crowned Prince of the Kingdom or Empire, not the duchy. Why should your father care about the duchy? Just playing a bit of devils advocate.

because he is my son i granted him this land to rule over, he is my HEIR ! he is next in line to be king, and here is some vassal who is able to revolt against the crown prince.
its not the duchy that would be important its the meaning behind it, if a vassal is able to revolt against the heir to the kingdom, and the king not even lift a finger, the vassals would lose respect for their king he would look weak. thus paving way for more to challenge the rule of law, and also adding that this is the prince and heir were talking about here, what kind of respect would people have for a king who lost his lands to a vassal?

i know its fictional but Tywin lannister Destroyed an entire dynasty and pulled down a castle due to this very disrespect.
yet in CK2 im suppose to sit idle and watch as my vassals disrespect my dynasty.
and if i dare raise a finger im labelled "tyrant"
great dynastic simulator -.-

 

[Admiral Fischer]

If a vassal attacks your son who you have made Duke he would likely not be executed if he lost the war afaik. He is crowned Prince of the Kingdom or Empire, not the duchy. Why should your father care about the duchy? Just playing a bit of devils advocate.

Maybe because the said vassal made an oath of fealty when the Crown Prince was crowned as co-King, and thus making any possible future claim against him a treason?

 

[Arsonik]

Maybe because the said vassal made an oath of fealty when the Crown Prince was crowned as co-King, and thus making any possible future claim against him a treason?

If you named your heir then you are Imperial not Feudal. Feudal governments do not let you appoint your successor in CK2. If you are under Elective succession then I would make a special case for you, because the will of the realm is for the person elected as heir. If the person appointed by the entire realm is attacked that is a different story then the person appointed by the King.

its not the duchy that would be important its the meaning behind it, if a vassal is able to revolt against the heir to the kingdom, and the king not even lift a finger, the vassals would lose respect for their king he would look weak. thus paving way for more to challenge the rule of law, and also adding that this is the prince and heir were talking about here, what kind of respect would people have for a king who lost his lands to a vassal?

None. But assuming the vassal also has claim to the land then it is for God to judge, not the King, right? Anyways, The fact of the matter is the King would probably see it as treason either way and have the accused imprisoned and executed. Failing that it would be just cause for war.

Furthermore, since everyone is trying to use real world examples instead of game-balance arguments, I make this case. What if the attacking 'vassal' is also a King of another sovereign realm? You can be King and Duke in the real world, no?

 

[Admiral Fischer]

If you named your heir then you are Imperial not Feudal. Feudal governments do not let you appoint your successor in CK2. If you are under Elective succession then I would make a special case for you, because the will of the realm is for the person elected as heir. If the person appointed by the entire realm is attacked that is a different story then the person appointed by the King.

I'm reposting this just for your convenience:

See the case of Hugues Capet, progenitor of the Capets, and his son Robert II of France.

Hugues Capet was elected and crowned in 987. To secure the succession, he crowned his son Robert as co-King in the very same year. When Hugues Capet died, Robert II did the same, and crowned his son Hugues. When Hugues died, another son Henri was crowned as co-King. And so on.

The Emperors of the Byzantine Empire and the Kings of Germany had similar ideas. Infamous Friedrich Barbarossa and his son Heinrich is one example - Heinrich was crowned in 1169 and for twenty two years he was the King of Germany, before he succeeded Friedrich Barbarossa.

Now, say if one vassal is attacking such a crowned heir, then who's actually not only committing offense to the 'supposed' feudal pact, but also treason?

I thought I made clear that this is the case where the heir is also crowned as co-King. I don't know what part of my post was causing confusion to you so I'll be explicit this time.

Also just to be clear, it is possible to have a feudal elective monarchy in this game.

EDIT:

Furthermore, since everyone is trying to use real world examples instead of game-balance arguments, I make this case. What if the attacking 'vassal' is also a King of another sovereign realm? You can be King and Duke in the real world, no?

John Lackland's case could be an example:

Although John was the Count of Poitou and therefore the rightful feudal lord over the Lusignans, they could legitimately appeal John's actions in France to his own feudal lord, Philip.[64] Hugh did exactly this in 1201 and Philip summoned John to attend court in Paris in 1202, citing the Le Goulet treaty to strengthen his case.[64] John was unwilling to weaken his authority in western France in this way. He argued that he need not attend Philip's court because of his special status as the Duke of Normandy, who was exempt by feudal tradition from being called to the French court.[64] Philip argued that he was summoning John not as the Duke of Normandy, but as the Count of Poitou, which carried no such special status.[64] When John still refused to come, Philip declared John in breach of his feudal responsibilities, reassigned all of John's lands that fell under the French crown to Arthur – with the exception of Normandy, which he took back for himself – and began a fresh war against John.[64]

 

[Arsonik]

I thought I made clear that this is the case where the heir is also crowned as co-King. I don't know what part of my post was causing confusion to you so I'll be explicit this time.

Also just to be clear, it is possible to have a feudal elective monarchy in this game.

I appreciate your example but I don't think we agree. If you are feudal elective monarchy you cannot appoint a Despot, which is the only way the soverign has the right to appoint an heir in a Christian realm in this game. Indeed the heir of the realm in an elective monarchy is appointed by the will of the realm, not the King or Emperor. Incidentally you can only appoint a Despot if you are under Imperial Byzantine rule. The only co-king relationship that exists, to my knowledge, is Karl and Karloman which is a hard coded one.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

I appreciate your example but I don't think we agree. If you are feudal elective monarchy you cannot appoint a Despot, which is the only way the soverign has the right to appoint an heir in a Christian realm in this game. Indeed the heir of the realm in an elective monarchy is appointed by the will of the realm, not the King or Emperor. Incidentally you can only appoint a Despot if you are under Imperial Byzantine rule. The only co-king relationship that exists, to my knowledge, is Karl and Karloman which is a hard coded one.

I was citing a few historical cases where the heir was crowned co-King before the actual succession, which the practice was popular in Europe, and then asked Naughtius Maximus who would be commiting offense to the feudal pact in such a case. In game it is not possible to emulate such a coronation outside of player's own imagination, and no, the rank of Despot is not equivalent to that of a co-Emperor.

 

[Arsonik]

In game it is not possible to emulate such a coronation outside of player's own imagination, and no, the rank of Despot is not equivalent to that of a co-Emperor.

Perfect. Then we are in agreement that your examples don't really matter with regards to the video game in question?

and no, the rank of Despot is not equivalent to that of a co-Emperor.

You must be quoting the wrong person. I never said that. I will quote what I said with regards to Despot and put the important bits in bold for you. Hopefully you can understand that way.

If you are feudal elective monarchy you cannot appoint a Despot, which is the only way the soverign has the right to appoint an heir in a Christian realm in this game. Indeed the heir of the realm in an elective monarchy is appointed by the will of the realm, not the King or Emperor. Incidentally you can only appoint a Despot if you are under Imperial Byzantine rule. The only co-king relationship that exists, to my knowledge, is Karl and Karloman which is a hard coded one.

The only thing I said with regards to co-kings has nothing to do with the Despot mechanic. So, what is the point you are trying to make?

 

[CaptainPolyp]

I was citing a few historical cases where the heir was crowned co-King before the actual succession, which the practice was popular in Europe, and then asked Naughtius Maximus who would be commiting offense to the feudal pact in such a case. In game it is not possible to emulate such a coronation outside of player's own imagination, and no, the rank of Despot is not equivalent to that of a co-Emperor.

I'm not sure this example applies to the problem we're discussing here, not because it is not implemented in the game, but because appointing your heir as co-king is not really the same thing as appointing your heir as count or duke (in lands which could be revendicated by another vassal, whether the revendication is de jure or fabricated).
The co-king has basically the same title as the king so attacking him means attacking the king... nothing to discuss about that, we all agree.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

I don't know what you are talking about. CK2 models Co-Kings quite well. The real issue is why you're complaining this way despite fully knowing the implications of co in co-king.

He's not your subordinate or vassal. He is a co-king. Give him an equivalent title and everything you are complaining about is solved. He has vassal problems? You're his ally and close relative of course you can interfere.

When you die who inherits the land? Your co-king.

The problem you are running into is that you want the best of both worlds. A co-king that is subordinate to you. Yeah, get real. He is equivalent to your rank, of course that wouldn't work. If he isn't an actual co-king then he is just a vassal, subject to all the vassal squabbles to which the king (alone) has no business meddling in. If you want to meddle, call in some powerful vassals and enforce realm peace, ie. peace enforced by a majority of de jure power in the realm. Or make him an actual co-king.

 

[ninoallen]

i never asked to be CO-KING.
my gripe is that, i am an empreror, i gave my son a Kingdom, a vassal then rebels against my son, the heir to the entire empire, yet i cant do anything but watch as my son gets defeated. i cant even imprison the vassal or attempt to because he has a "temporary title"

and no CK2 doesnt not model Co-Kings well because even in real life the Co-king never truly had the same power his father did.
a co king never had the same power as the current reigning monarch unless the monarch fell ill.

the capets originally used the Co-king "mechanic" as a means of stability to keep control of the french lords, and to always have an heir appointed.
france never truly had primogeniture succession it sorta just became the normal custom that the eldest son was next in line which is why the Capets never had any succession wars of their own.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

Perfect. Then we are in agreement that your examples don't really matter with regards to the video game in question?

And also kills any claim of 'historically, the liege couldn't stop your vassals from fighting your heir!'.

You must be quoting the wrong person. I never said that. I will quote what I said with regards to Despot and put the important bits in bold for you. Hopefully you can understand that way.

The only thing I said with regards to co-kings has nothing to do with the Despot mechanic. So, what is the point you are trying to make?

You never said such thing, however I wanted to be clear and explicit.

I'm not sure this example applies to the problem we're discussing here, not because it is not implemented in the game, but because appointing your heir as co-king is not really the same thing as appointing your heir as count or duke (in lands which could be revendicated by another vassal, whether the revendication is de jure or fabricated).
The co-king has basically the same title as the king so attacking him means attacking the king... nothing to discuss about that, we all agree.

I thought the vassals were supposed to pay homage and oath of fealty to the liege? When one attacks his own liege, legitimate claim or not, he's breaching his homage and oath. So wouldn't it be, in this case, a treason against the King?

I don't know what you are talking about. CK2 models Co-Kings quite well. The real issue is why you're complaining this way despite fully knowing the implications of co in co-king.

He's not your subordinate or vassal. He is a co-king. Give him an equivalent title and everything you are complaining about is solved. He has vassal problems? You're his ally and close relative of course you can interfere.

When you die who inherits the land? Your co-king.

The problem you are running into is that you want the best of both worlds. A co-king that is subordinate to you. Yeah, get real. He is equivalent to your rank, of course that wouldn't work. If he isn't an actual co-king then he is just a vassal, subject to all the vassal squabbles to which the king (alone) has no business meddling in. If you want to meddle, call in some powerful vassals and enforce realm peace, ie. peace enforced by a majority of de jure power in the realm. Or make him an actual co-king.

See ninoallen's comment.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

i never asked to be CO-KING.
my gripe is that, i am an empreror, i gave my son a Kingdom, a vassal then rebels against my son, the heir to the entire empire, yet i cant do anything but watch as my son gets defeated. i cant even imprison the vassal or attempt to because he has a "temporary title"

and no CK2 doesnt not model Co-Kings well because even in real life the Co-king never truly had the same power his father did.
a co king never had the same power as the current reigning monarch unless the monarch fell ill.

the capets originally used the Co-king "mechanic" as a means of stability to keep control of the french lords, and to always have an heir appointed.
france never truly had primogeniture succession it sorta just became the normal custom that the eldest son was next in line which is why the Capets never had any succession wars of their own.

That's de jure. De facto a co-king is a co-king. Equivalent powers.

As a Capet give him Aquitane and you get your co-king. Any other form is just you trying to game the system with some historical argument. Something already simulated in CK2.

If you want a "co-emperor" it's the same deal.

 

[ninoallen]

If i was a capet and gave my son the kingdom of aquitaine (a title that shouldnt exist in 1066) my son would be an independent monarch!!!
He would rule his own realm and then be at risk to lose it due to AI stupidity
How do you not understand this ?




Once again i never asked for a Co king or Co rulership, thats stupid and was at most a titular title in real life thats not the subject of my Original post.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

He wouldn't risk losing it because as co-king you have very likely allied with him. Vassal declares war on him? You can join. Declare war on someone? He's with you. Declared war on? He's with you.

Your problems of a "co-king vassal" are answered by making an actual co-king, not some elevated vassal. Co-kings are not subordinates. If you want to give a vassal preferential treatment there has always and will always be realm peace. Don't go using co-king as your argument to bash vassal management when in reality CK2 already models co-kings quite well.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

He wouldn't risk losing it because as co-king you have very likely allied with him. Vassal declares war on him? You can join. Declare war on someone? He's with you. Declared war on? He's with you.

Your problems of a "co-king vassal" are answered by making an actual co-king, not some elevated vassal. Co-kings are not subordinates. If you want to give a vassal preferential treatment there has always and will always be realm peace. Don't go using co-king as your argument to bash vassal management when in reality CK2 already models co-kings quite well.

I thought ninoallen made his point perfectly clear without any potential confusion?

i never asked to be CO-KING.
my gripe is that, i am an empreror, i gave my son a Kingdom, a vassal then rebels against my son, the heir to the entire empire, yet i cant do anything but watch as my son gets defeated. i cant even imprison the vassal or attempt to because he has a "temporary title"

and no CK2 doesnt not model Co-Kings well because even in real life the Co-king never truly had the same power his father did.
a co king never had the same power as the current reigning monarch unless the monarch fell ill.

the capets originally used the Co-king "mechanic" as a means of stability to keep control of the french lords, and to always have an heir appointed.
france never truly had primogeniture succession it sorta just became the normal custom that the eldest son was next in line which is why the Capets never had any succession wars of their own.

Are you trolling, Maximus?