LET ME JOIN MY SONS WAR !!!!

[Naughtius Maximus]

Trolling how? I gave him what he wanted on the very first page. Also on that same post you just quoted.

I wasn't even quoting him about co-kings, he's just trying to deflect it away from co-kings now that he's realized co-kings are actually modeled in game.

The argument of co-kings to bash vassal management is poor. Make an actual co-king before you complain, CK2 models it quite well.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

Trolling how? I gave him what he wanted on the very first page. Also on that same post you just quoted.

I wasn't even quoting him about co-kings, he's just trying to deflect it away from co-kings now that he's realized co-kings are actually modeled in game.

The argument of co-kings to bash vassal management is poor. Make an actual co-king before you complain, CK2 models it quite well.

He literally said he do not want the co-King feature yet you're still clinging to your dead logic much like flogging a dead horse.

The point about co-King thing was made by none other than me, in response to those comments like 'the liege himself cannot stop vassals from fighting each other' and so on.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

He literally said he do not want the co-King feature yet you're still clinging to your dead logic much like flogging a dead horse.

The point about co-King thing was made by none other than me, in response to those comments like 'the liege himself cannot stop vassals from fighting each other' and so on.

Yeah and if you haven't realized it yet I have never quoted off him regarding co-kings. Only after he started quoting off my second comment.

Can you read? Oh by the way, that means it was your logic I just whipped, again.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

Yeah and if you haven't realized it yet I have never quoted off him regarding co-kings. Only after he started quoting off my second comment.

And yet my point still stands. You're just trying to flog another dead horse.

Can you read? Oh by the way, that means it was your logic I just whipped, again.

How?

 

[CaptainPolyp]

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?

Yup, as I said, we agree. Then the vassal would be called treacherous and so on.
But I think that with this co-king stuff, we're making the conversation drift from the original subject... And I was trying to recenter the debate, by pointing out that the co-kings situation was not the same thing as appointing your heir as count or duke.

My point was about a vassal attacking the count or duchy title of the heir of the king (which is one of the main points of this thread)... This is a more complicated issue that this co-king issue; I'm not sure that in this case, the vassal can be called treacherous. He did not swore fealty to the heir yet and may have an equivalent title. If the king directly intervene he favors one vassal over another. Of course he should be able to do that; but with the risk of pissing off some of his vassals (the ones who support the belligerent vassal politically).
That's how civil wars can begin (and where it becomes interesting).

 

[Admiral Fischer]

Yup, as I said, we agree. Then the vassal would be called treacherous and so on.
But I think that with this co-king stuff, we're making the conversation drift from the original subject... And I was trying to recenter the debate, by pointing out that the co-kings situation was not the same thing as appointing your heir as count or duke.

My point was about a vassal attacking the count or duchy title of the heir of the king (which is one of the main points of this thread)... This is a more complicated issue that this co-king issue; I'm not sure that in this case, the vassal can be called treacherous. He did not swore fealty to the heir yet and may have an equivalent title. If the king directly intervene he favors one vassal over another. Of course he should be able to do that; but with the risk of pissing off some of his vassals (the ones who support the belligerent vassal politically).
That's how civil wars can begin (and where it becomes interesting).

Agreed.

 

[joeBurn]

would really like to have one of the Devs comment

Sadly, this isnt gonna happen...Few moths ago I argued that new mechanic is often lacking and needs to change. I hoped someone from devs would take notice but they just keep evading threads raising this and similar issues. Check this or my signature post for more about this issue.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...emoval-of-player-choice.909935/&sdpDevPosts=0https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...emoval-of-player-choice.909935/&sdpDevPosts=0

As things stand now we are stuck with pre-Conclave version(together with all the bugs, because they just wont offer bug fixes separately from DLCs cause its bad for business), that is if Conclave issues are too much for you, as it is in my case.

 

[burninmizzou]

Sadly, this isnt gonna happen...Few moths ago I argued that new mechanic is often lacking and needs to change. I hoped someone from devs would take notice but they just keep evading threads raising this and similar issues. Check this or my signature post for more about this issue.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...emoval-of-player-choice.909935/&sdpDevPosts=0https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...emoval-of-player-choice.909935/&sdpDevPosts=0

As things stand now we are stuck with pre-Conclave version(together with all the bugs, because they just wont offer bug fixes separately from DLCs cause its bad for business), that is if Conclave issues are too much for you, as it is in my case.

A word from the devs would be awesome. Even if it's just to defend why it's the way it is and Not change I just want to know

 

[AchedTeacher]

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.

Then... Don't make an "absolute power" state that can be turned on in a medieval game if Paradox is really of the opinion it would be impossible to have absolute power.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

He said he was against it only after the co-king argument started turning against him. That was also after the initial post on co-kings, which was filled to the brim as the main topic on page 3. I already answered his primary concern, which was to implement realm peace or off himself so the heir immediately inherits. The first option in particular is extremely easy to implement.

Co-kings should have never been in this argument to change vassal mechanics as it is already implemented in game. People with poor understanding of game mechanics just did not know they were modeled in-game. Using co-kings to change vassal management is questionable when co-kings already exist and solve the problem no less. I am glad people are realising their errors and want to deflect it to the original topic.

If I didn't squash it and force a deflection you guys would have easily continued on with this erronous line of reasoning.

Now we're back to the original issue, to which the point still stands. Realm peace. Extremely easy to implement.

Barring that you can follow through with co-kings and make an actual co-king. Would solve your issue as you can now interfere with your vassal vs heir wars without any potential tyranny penalty. Practically gaming the system, even, as lieges are not supposed to interfere in squabbles between vassals. Not without the support of other powerful vassals (aka council) at least.

 

[CaptainPolyp]

Then... Don't make an "absolute power" state that can be turned on in a medieval game if Paradox is really of the opinion it would be impossible to have absolute power.

Again, why not... however this should piss of the attacker and other vassals, who like him, making them likely to join factions.

By making this point, I was just explaining why, in my understanding, it is easier to enforce realm peace with an empowered council than with an abolished council. Life is easier with allied; absolute power does not mean people like your despotism. And that's why an "absolute power" is very difficult to maintain... Pressure of the nobility/church/people. In France, it barely lasted after Louis XIV's reign, eventually leading to the revolution (under Louis XVI).

(I edited this post to correct and add a few things)

 

[Hecaton]

First of all, guys, don't respond to Naughtius, he's not arguing in good faith - he'd support the CK team and the status quo of the game if it were a burning wreck. The fact of the matter is that someone going to war against the heir of their liege would get the hammer dropped on them, hard, and the fact that the game doesn't let you do this is a failing. The devs won't comment because fixing it would give the players more choice in their game and playthrough, and that is apparently antithetical to their current design philosophy. Also, the fact that you can't enforce realm peace without having a council is also a design mistake - don't look for it to be fixed though.

 

[CaptainPolyp]

First of all, guys, don't respond to Naughtius, he's not arguing in good faith - he'd support the CK team and the status quo of the game if it were a burning wreck. The fact of the matter is that someone going to war against the heir of their liege would get the hammer dropped on them, hard, and the fact that the game doesn't let you do this is a failing. The devs won't comment because fixing it would give the players more choice in their game and playthrough, and that is apparently antithetical to their current design philosophy. Also, the fact that you can't enforce realm peace without having a council is also a design mistake - don't look for it to be fixed though.

wow... I have no words.

 

[ninoallen]

wow... I have no words.

i didnt even bother to reply, just went to bed. ive lost control of this thread.

 

[PK_AZ]

Troll, or what?

 

[Admiral Fischer]

He said he was against it only after the co-king argument started turning against him. That was also after the initial post on co-kings, which was filled to the brim as the main topic on page 3. I already answered his primary concern, which was to implement realm peace or off himself so the heir immediately inherits. The first option in particular is extremely easy to implement.

Co-kings should have never been in this argument to change vassal mechanics as it is already implemented in game. People with poor understanding of game mechanics just did not know they were modeled in-game. Using co-kings to change vassal management is questionable when co-kings already exist and solve the problem no less. I am glad people are realising their errors and want to deflect it to the original topic.

As ninoallen pointed out well already, no, it isn't.

If I didn't squash it and force a deflection you guys would have easily continued on with this erronous line of reasoning.

Now we're back to the original issue, to which the point still stands. Realm peace. Extremely easy to implement.

Not if one is on 'Absolute Rule'.

Barring that you can follow through with co-kings and make an actual co-king. Would solve your issue as you can now interfere with your vassal vs heir wars without any potential tyranny penalty. Practically gaming the system, even, as lieges are not supposed to interfere in squabbles between vassals. Not without the support of other powerful vassals (aka council) at least.

Not if one has only one King title.