Managing Rebeling Vassels

[SacremPyrobolum]

There really, seriously, needs to be a way to be able to directly intervene in inter-vassal conflicts, at least for high crown authority and up. There is absolutely no good reason for a suitably authoritative regime to accept its underlings openly warring with each-other to forcibly take territory granted to anther by the sovereign. It is also ridiculous that they can only look on helplessly as a vassel is stomped by an internal rebellion.

Just remove the restriction making it so we can only join vassal fighting holy wars and such. Or bring back perpetual realm peace (although put it at a higher tier of authority, medium was too low).

What makes things even worse is that no matter how many ambitious dukes I revoke titles from or execute, they never seem to learn. And the lengths to which I have to go to make them stop a civil war is absurd. Not even locking them up or killing them is enough to stop the war despite the fact they are the only ones with the claim they pulled out of their ass (I checked). I have to try and forge evidence of treason (because causing a war isn't treasonous enough) and then imprison them and hope they would rebel instead so I could crush them. And if I am forced to revoke the ill-gained province, for some reason all my other vassal, including the aggrieved party, start to hate me. This is a stupid system.

Really wish there was a fear mechanic of some type. As is I always end up playing nothing but the most benevolent rulers the ever grace the earth if I can help it.

 

[sigeena]

What you're suggesting is a regression. Not all of us play as the top liege. And so the current mechanics allow super dukes to be really influential.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

A regression of stupidity maybe. Again, there is no reason why a strong regime should be forced to just sit back and allow its underlings to wage open warfare with no way to step in.

Superdukes will always be influential, of course, but actually becoming one should not usually come about from plain open warfare. Its about marriages and assassinations, not just plopping down your chancellor to fabricate and going to war.

 

[General Karthos]

Wasn't this a part of the feudal contract? To not interfere directly in your vassal's affairs? It's why revoking a vassal causes a penalty. Also, keep in mind that you an force realm peace once you council has some influence. And finally, most of those wars are due to your vassals revoking their vassals' titles. (At least once you have a certain level of crown authority.)

I do think that if you revoke a title to give it back to a vassal who originally owned it, the vassal at least should not have an opinion penalty. Especially now that the opinion penalty of -15 pretty much wipes out the +20 opinion bonus a granted county gives. At least give an extra +10 or something for "liege returned lost territory" or "liege granted dejure territory".

Towards the end of my character's lives I revoke titles and redistribute them. (Or at least I used to. Now that a portion of the malus carries through to heirs, I can't do that as much any more. I have to do it after my character has ruled for a while, but before he dies.)

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

I'm pretty sure that feudal contract doesn't allow for vassals to take by force the land of other vassals. Hell, the whole point of having a king in the first place was for him to keep the peace and keep the realm somewhat coherent. He would be well within his right to intervene, especially with higher crown authority. And the realm peace mechanic only delays the inevitable.

 

[General Karthos]

Except that history is full of examples of Kings not intervening when vassals warred with one another.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

And many where they do. Like i said, one of the main functions of the king was to mediate and get involved with disputes so that open warfare could be avoided.

 

[Thorkel the Tall]

There were plenty of inter-vasal wars in the medieval period.

Also I think what General Karthos is saying here "most of those wars are due to your vassals revoking their vassals' titles." is important. With high crown authority the vasals dont try to conqur eachother constantly, but it is internal strife between vassals within a duke-dom (or kingdom if you are an empire). It could also be civil wars over inheritance, and most often the top-liege in medieval system didn't interfere. Now you CAN enforce realm peace and thus end the wars (with a penalty to the vasal that was winning).

Also remember that while you are thinking "this vasal who OWNS the land is the rightful one", the whole concept of Casus Belli is that the other vasal has good reasons for the war (whether disputes over ownership of land or rivalry), so deciding who is in fact the true heir or the true lord of a place would be siding with one vasal against another, and your other vasals might find that arbitrary and tyrannical, and breaching your oath to the vasal you attack.

In some cases (as when the vasal is your son or similar) I see good reason why it should be possible to join.

Perhaps joining wars should be possible but incur a -40 tyranny bonus with all but the vasal you join (and his close family)? And a 25% chance of getting the arbitrary trait. Perhaps with a smaller -20 percent tyrany and no chance of arbitrary if it is your close relative (and no arbitrary as it is clear for the vasals why you are supporting one side in the conflict).

A lord who want to decide who owns what land in contrast to the rightfull claims and wishes of his vasals will be considered tyrannical from the vasal point of view.

It should also remain a possibility as a count to rebel against your duke, and as a duke within an empire to rebel against the king, without having to fight the entire kingdom/empire. A tyrany penalty might stop the AI liege from joining? Or make it based on opinion? If he have 80% (or another number) or more toward the vasal then he joins? This would make it more important for the vasal to be liked by his liege (thus a scheming factioning vasal would be less likely to count on the liege support), and make it likely the lige joins the wars of sons etc (as they have a opinion bonus I think).

To think about it that might be a good idea; it also adds more incentive for the vasals to stay on good terms with the liege and try to discredit other vasals (with chancelors, spymaster etc), by revealing their plots, forming plots against them etc. It would perhaps offer some interesting possibility of vasal/liege interaction, which at the moment is about the liege pleasing the vasals (with titles gifts etc), but historical the other way is also true (vasals trying to gain the favour of the liege to avoid being overrun by neighbourgs or the own vasals).

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

Well the wars I keep getting and having a problem with are ones between lords who keep using their chancellor to fabricate claims on provinces and duchies, wars that threaten the balance of power and the monarch, with the right amount of authority, should be well within his right to intervene in without getting moaned at by their other, uninvolved lords.

And I don't see how maintaining the officially recognized status quo by intervening on an existing lords behalf against upstarts would make you arbitrary or unliked, if anything it should make you just and more well liked because the landed lords see that their lord will defend them if they are ever in trouble. In your post you assume that every lord in the land is sympathetic to the cause of the rebelling pretenders, when doing so would only serve to give others in their land dangerous ideas.

And keep in mind, I do think that only advanced crown authority laws should give you the option to intervene with little penalty. Its perfectly reasonable that a tribal leader can only move behind the scenes to keep one guy from gaining too much power. Granted I still think he should be able to intervene directly, just with penalties.

 

[Thorkel the Tall]

You say "officially recognized", but it isnt. He have a claim (which might be fake, but that is irrelevant, he found "old documents" hidden away to suggest that he is the rightful ruler etc). Thus by joining one side (mainly to keep powerfull vasals tofrom getting more powerfull) you are not acting on the behalf of the vasals as a whole, but in your own interest and depending on which vasals YOU want to promote - thus from the vasal viewpoint it is arbitrary. They cannot know WHO you will support.

In any case I though high crown authority already prevented intervasal wars? The Wiki already have this at medium crown authority? "No infighting between vassals means that vassals will no longer be able to go to war against each other except when rebelling against their liege, thus you'll almost always have their levies available when you need them. It will also prevent vassals from getting powerful via intra-realm warfare."
HAs this been changes? I rarely see intervasal wars (other than rebellions) when I have high authority.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

Conclave changed it so now you can only call a realm peace every ten years that last 30 or so months and got rid of perpetual realm peace at any crown authority level.

Anyways, a person who pays tax to me, raises levy's to me, and is officially part of my realm who I, the sovereign, recognize as the rightful ruler of the land either by virtue of occupying it for generations or being granted the land by my very hands is someone I considering pretty fucking official, as would the other lords.

And yes, they would find favor in me defending a lord from rebels come to dispose them as claimants, it assures them that if such a thing would befall them their leader would take responsibility and stand up for their claim to the land in exchange for all the tributes they pay. They like seeing their tax dollars at work.

 

[Akka le Vil]

Wasn't this a part of the feudal contract? To not interfere directly in your vassal's affairs?

It might be the case for low crown authority, but for higher, it definitely doesn't make sense to both allow infighting between your vassals.
In any case, it makes even less sense to not be able to enter the conflict yourself and only watches helplessly.

It's why revoking a vassal causes a penalty. Also, keep in mind that you an force realm peace once you council has some influence.

That's another nonsensical part : that you have REDUCED control if you have INCREASED power...
It's okay to have Enforce Peace for the Council, but then the ruler should have permanent peace law when he's abolished the council - it's about even more power to the ruler, isn't it ?

 

[Dragatus]

I'd like to see it done the way they did it in the A Game of Thrones mod. Vassals can start wars against other vassals or their direct liege, but the defender has the option to petition the top liege to put an end to it. The top liege can then either ignore the petition or ask the attacker to stop. If crown authority is medium or higher the attacker is obliged to obey the top liege and if they fail to do so they're branded as a traitor against the crown, with all the consequences that implies.

 

[kmh42]

I am not 100% happy with the 'enforce Realm Peace' Buttom nor was the CA thing a good solution. I think the Liege should be able to intervene but mostly diplomatically. Something like: "Hey Vassal! You Emperor forces you to end the war you started. In exchange for an favor, gold or prison"

 

[General Karthos]

That's another nonsensical part : that you have REDUCED control if you have INCREASED power...
It's okay to have Enforce Peace for the Council, but then the ruler should have permanent peace law when he's abolished the council - it's about even more power to the ruler, isn't it ?

People think that because there's an absolute ruler, he has absolute power, and this is quite incorrect. The absolute ruler's power depends on his vassals supporting him, or at least not all trying to topple him. This isn't the 20th and 21st century when an absolute ruler's power is provided by missiles or automatic weapons. Even a peasant revolt could threaten an absolute ruler in these days, and the vassals were REQUIRED to maintain the absolute ruler.

Because the Council is non-entity in this case, which means that the absolute ruler has almost no projected power. Because his council vassals aren't empowered to do anything, they can't keep the realm in peace.

Just because the King/Emperor says "Rawr, I am an absolute ruler!" doesn't mean the vassals are all going to say "Oh no! You are an absolute ruler! I'm going to sit here and do nothing!" They're more likely to say. "Yeah, and what are you going to do? Violate the feudal contract and interfere in legitimate arguments over disputed territory?"

Again, remember, intervention in internal vassal affairs is messing with the feudal contract. Who knows who REALLY has the legitimate claim on that piece of property? And without a Council empowered to back you up, you can't just tell all your vassals to stop fighting especially over legitimate disputes about the ownership of property.

 

[Akka le Vil]

People think that because there's an absolute ruler, he has absolute power, and this is quite incorrect. The absolute ruler's power depends on his vassals supporting him, or at least not all trying to topple him. This isn't the 20th and 21st century when an absolute ruler's power is provided by missiles or automatic weapons. Even a peasant revolt could threaten an absolute ruler in these days, and the vassals were REQUIRED to maintain the absolute ruler.

The point : increasing your power decreases your control. That's stupid.

Your rant is pointless (because much higher monarch power and cowing the nobility is something that has nothing to do with XXth century and missiles and happened in plenty of places regardless of technological levels, it's only about ORGANISATION) and simply ignore the entire gameplay and logical effects of centralization and crown authority, which IS about giving more power to the monarch.

 

[kmh42]

I'd like to see it done the way they did it in the A Game of Thrones mod. Vassals can start wars against other vassals or their direct liege, but the defender has the option to petition the top liege to put an end to it. The top liege can then either ignore the petition or ask the attacker to stop. If crown authority is medium or higher the attacker is obliged to obey the top liege and if they fail to do so they're branded as a traitor against the crown, with all the consequences that implies.

That sound awesome! But how is the AI handling such affairs?

 

[Dragatus]

I haven't experienced it as a vassal yet, but as a king I've had vassals ask me to intervene on several occasions.

 

[Thorkel the Tall]

"Anyways, a person who pays tax to me, raises levy's to me, and is officially part of my realm who I, the sovereign, recognize as the rightful ruler of the land either by virtue of occupying it for generations or being granted the land by my very hands is someone I considering pretty fucking official, as would the other lords."

You are looking at it wrongly. The other guy is also paying his taxes and is also part of your realm and has EQUAL right/claim for your protection/help! Who are you to decide which vasal has the best claim? How are the vasals to know hoe you will act? That is arbitrary for them (not the mechanics, the reasoning).

The land fought over may or may not have been governed for generations, the thing is Duke A say HIS family/line/branch/person (they could be brothers/cousins you know...) have the claim, while Duke B say he does. Only you know the "truth" mechanically, but this is a game effect, in their reasoning and the reasoning of the other vasals it is disputed. As they are both vasals of you, its better to let them figure it out by themselves than for you to interfere. If you interfere you start siding with some vasals over others - thus making all other vasals unsure where they have you.

Think of it this way: the duke currently holding it could be some bastad brother of your you inserted into that Duchy while the one attaking him could be the brother of the former duke which was executed: he and all other vasals might think he was in fact the actual Duke/lord/owner etc of whatever province they fight over. If it is a forged claim you have to reveal so while the are trying to fabricate it, when first they have the claim they have a claim. Stopping them from pursuing their RIGHTFUL claim is a serious breach of Feudal conduct.

I agree the lack of control with higher council power is a problem. BUT a powerful ruler should perhaps get an even bigger penalty to opinion (since, you know the vasals are at your mercy so the more you mistreat them the more it is YOU rather than a counsel that mistreats them. So something like: it is possible but with a large negative opinion, divided by half to you and half spread out in the council, but all to you if you have no council power.

Well basically people treat the situation as if the King had much more power than he actual did have, and as if everybody agrees on who the rightful owner of somewhere is: they dont.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

Just because you do your duties to your king does not give you an excuse to start internal wars and upset the order of things without your kings consent, just as you can't do whatever you want because you pay taxes without getting fucked up for it. This should be especially true when you have higher crown authority and therefore more strict, sophisticated laws.

And really I find the idea that lords will look on you keeping order and helping someone like them with a problem that could befall any of them negatively to be laughable. Why the Hell should a neutral lord care that an upstart got a thrashing by his king in the name of preserving the peace?

But more than anything, it is not being able to intervene in any way other than after that fact, when levy's are decimated and tax disrupted, that annoys me. Kings were often the arbitrators of such disputes, and it should lead to him trying to find a diplomatic solution before it ever comes to blows. And if it does come to blows the king should be able to intervene by force during the conflict if he so chooses.