Managing Rebeling Vassels

[General Karthos]

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.

Yes, and if you had read my post, you would have seen that I was stating specifically that the 20th and 21st century concept of centralized power is quite different from the "centralized" power of the great feudal lords of the 9th, 10th+ century.

More power to the monarch means less power to the vassals, and it's the VASSALS who enforce the Realm Peace. The Monarch can demand it, but he relies on his vassals to ensure that it happens. If your vassals have no power, then you don't have any way to enforce the peace.

EDIT: That's just how I justify it.

 

[Akka le Vil]

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.

No, the problem is more that you treat "absolute crown authority" as if it were "lowest crown authority" and build your entire argument from there - that's actually pretty always the case on any argument on this subject.

There is several levels of crown authority in the game. The entire point of such a mechanism is to reflect the authority of the ruler (that's in the fucking name). If the vassals are mad that the ruler has lots of power and they don't, then this authority from the ruler which supposedly constraint the vassals should actually exists in the game, and people trying to explain why it doesn't should remember the argument is not about "why my vassals are doing whatever they want in my realm without any central power" but "why my vassals are doing whatever they want when I've specifically built my realm to be the most centralized and most authoritarian possible and it's said so in the interface ?".

 

[Thorkel the Tall]

"just because your dutites": I was refering to your part where you said the ones you supported did exactly that...

"start internal wars and upset the order of things without your kings consent": but the vasal claims what is rightfully his (otherwise he wouldnt have a claim!)! He is not upsetting the order; you are.

"keeping order and helping someone like them": but you are doing it agaisnt someone like them as well... they might all have claims they wish to press.... If they could never expect you to stay out of internal affairs, whether it is them rewoking titles or them securing their de jure duchis or even pressing inheritance claims on their neighbourh, yoy become an unpredictble lord.

"should a neutral lord" how do we know they are neutral?

"an upstart got a thrashing by his king": maybe the one you are protecting is the upstart, and the other one is their cousin?

"in the name of preserving the peace?" They might not be interested in peace, as they can expand through war.... it is more honourable AND easier than doing it through plots anyway.

"when levy's are decimated and tax disrupted, that annoys me", tyes it anoyed medieval kings also, but it didnt prevent many, many, many, many small international feuds and wars, and sieges from happening. TRry reading for example something of the history of any kingdom or duchy in the German holy roman empire - the emperor generally did not get involved unless it touched upon his own rights.

"And if it does come to blows the king should be able to intervene by force during the conflict if he so chooses." Yes the kings think that, but why should the vasals? That PREVENTS them from achieving their goals?

There are basically 4 types of vasal wars (I choose dukedom titles for the ease, the same goes for kingdom tier vasals):

1. Rebellions from counts against a duke: his job is to protect said region, if he isnt strong enough he isnt strong enough - dont get involved

2. Two dukes fighting over a county: they both have claims if you interfere you are breaking your oath to at least one vasal.

3. Two people have claims to a dukedom and fight over it: they both have claims who is to say who is the TRUE claimant? The other vasals will not think it should be you, because who will you support next time?

4. A duke fabricate a claim on a neighbourgh: this might seem like the place to join, but this cannot be done when the claim is made as know it is recognised he has the claim. IF you spot him plotting to fabricate it you can imprison him or make him stop.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

Part of the whole reason people swear fealty to kings in the first place is for protection. You saying that other vassals will disapprove of a king doing just that, protecting a vassal from aggression, is really really REALLY stupid. Its like you being okay that the cops let someone assault a guy because maybe he had a good reason and maybe you would want to do it one day.

And I don't know why you would assume that all your neutral lords (and yes, you do have to assume they are neutral as their is no mechanic to represent anything but) would be automatically sympathetic to the cause of a pretender. If anything the opposite should be assumed to be true, as a lord being overthrown without any intervention from the ruler would set a sordid precedence that could threaten their own holdings one day.

 

[TCWolffe]

Ruler conquers foreign land and awards a holding to a lowborn. This lowborn now has a dynasty. Ruler's son elevates them to a duke. Ruler's grandson watches helplessly as a count within the duchy claims he has the right to the ducal title. Wouldn't it be clear to the grandson (liege) that this claim is inherently seditious and the raising of arms against the duke constitutes an act of treason?

I have no issue with there being penalties for taking sides in an internal war, but the outright barring it from even being possible is just too unbelievable to me. I'd also be okay with allowing alliances within the realm. There are absolutely endless examples of realms where certain vassals were just understood to be ones you didn't mess with because of their close bonds to the royal bloodline while others were more precarious, out on the periphery of power.

 

[Thorkel the Tall]

"Part of the whole reason people swear fealty to kings in the first place is for protection. You saying that other vassals will disapprove of a king doing just that, protecting a vassal from aggression, is really really REALLY stupid"

Two things: yes protection against foreign rulers, adventurers, vikings etc. The second thing: you make it sound easy to determine who is the agressor, the point is that from in world perspective it isnt! One guy think the land is his, the other think it is his. Imagine one vasal believing the other one "stole" a county from him, and now you as a liege prevents him from retrieving his rightful claim.

"Its like you being okay that the cops let someone assault a guy because maybe he had a good reason and maybe you would want to do it one day. ": it is not me WANTING it to be that way, It was how the medieval period worked. The nobles had alot of power even in periods with centralised and strong rulers. This isnt the absolutisme of the 17th-18th century with a poropoer centralised goverment etc.

"And I don't know why you would assume that all your neutral lords (and yes, you do have to assume they are neutral as their is no mechanic to represent anything but) would be automatically sympathetic to the cause of a pretender."

Who is the pretender? How do you decide? The one currently not holding the land? That is to them inehrintly arbitrary. In case of a fabricated claimm, I usually see plots where multiple of my other nobles join in on the plot, and then they at least are not "neutral". Similarly some might support one or the other noble due to family ties etc. But whether they are neutral or not doesnt matter; the point is you medllle in their affairs in a way that looks at it from a game mechanic point of view (I know who rules this province as it is visible on my screen - and furthermore I like vasals to stay the size they are and with in the defined borders). That should not be the way the AI acts if it wants to simulate feudal Europe.

"Ruler conquers foreign land and awards a holding to a lowborn. This lowborn now has a dynasty. Ruler's son elevates them to a duke. Ruler's grandson watches helplessly as a count within the duchy claims he has the right to the ducal title. Wouldn't it be clear to the grandson (liege) that this claim is inherently seditious and the raising of arms against the duke constitutes an act of treason?"

But to all the other dukes this seems a very legitimate course of action. First of raising lowborns should give a penalty in the first place, your established nobility should realy hate that! Second thin is: you might know what "really" happend two generations ago, but this count have a piece of paper that he have convinced the world is true (wheter it is or it is fabricated) where it says that on the death of the "lowborn" his family should get the duchy - some acknowledge this and some dont - the point is he has a legitimate claim that HE is the rightful ruler while the current ruler is a pretender and thief, while the currenty ruler thinks the same of the rebel. Who is to decide? If you do it it will be arbitrary and disliked by the other vasals, for perhaps next time it is their claims you prevents them from getting.

"I have no issue with there being penalties for taking sides in an internal war, but the outright barring it from even being possible is just too unbelievable to me. I'd also be okay with allowing alliances within the realm."

I completely agree. It should be possible (at a penalty) and alliances and factions within the realm would benefit from some more options/depth.

 

[Cetric]

What makes things even worse is that no matter how many ambitious dukes I revoke titles from or execute, they never seem to learn.

Yes, definitely right.
The game needs a 'fear' measurement, maybe not working on every person the same (the more cautious ones are easier to intimidate, the stronger personalities tend to risk something even when confronted with a suppressive liege). When conflicts have amassed and everyone hates you, you started to deal out the hard way in response and disowned them of titles and had some leaders of rebellions executed (always your council disagrees...) they anyway seek open conflict. Of course they are no real people and do not fear to be imprisoned or killed, but this should get simulated. A tyrannic way of reigning isn't possible, because resistence will only amount, but never brought to a halt, as a 'regime of terror' is not possible. But that is how a lot of rulers actually ruled, and they got through with it. Not in this game.
In fact I am not a player type who loves to follow the dark side and execute people for nothing, but I had my experience of never-ending rebellions and resent and I wondered why I could not stop that once and for all after turning into a bad ass iron fist type emperor. They just keep making trouble as if I would be a cute kitten or something...