Militery Non-Access Requested

[Spruce]

Why would it be harder for Muslims to convert Christians than the other way round? Make all provinces than are ruled by rulers of different religions (and to a lesser extent culture) have a loyalty penalty making them more likely to loose loyalty and rebel. I agree completely that rebels should be able to break free from their overlords and set up their own countries though.

they should only break free when they have a different religion - otherwise they fall either in the Christian feudal tier system or in the (similar) Muslim feudal tier system.

there are many examples about rebels chasing off the representatives of the liege. But they never resulted in the creation of an indepedent county - I guess the exceptions can be counted on one hand.

F.e. during the Burgundy period, there were some big rebellions in the Flemisch cities. Possibility one = the duke came and took back his city and bloodshed was upon all - duke got his way and some disloyal guys were hanged. Possibility two = the duke caved in and withdrew the unpopular law that caused the turmoil. In many cases, possiblity 2 was true. F.e. if a duke didn't get the money during a few years, he might make a deal with the rebels (see also the event in CK that ends a revolt - just give into those guys).

Very few rebellions where actually based on total freedom - because only kings are omitted from paying duties (tax, troops)... A rebelling county can not be seen as a seperate kingdom - rebels knew there would be a liege one day - could be anyone. Medevial classes where only concerned about 2 things = money and power...

Another nice example are the "Farmers shoe" rebellions. The Farmers didn't want to found a "socialist" republic, no they just wanted to have more food and more money (so less duties to lords, lieges, counts, knights, etc).

Bottomline is that there's a world of difference when a count - that holds a title within the feudal tier system - goes disloyal and a "population" - that hold no title that goes disloyal. In medevial days, the "code of conduct" was also that rulers (count, dukes, kings) didn't gave assistance to "internal quarrels"... A guy having the right title may do whatever he thinks is best when the loyalty has dropped dramatically - but giving the same powers to the "lower classes" - no way!

That's why rebelling provinces shouldn't go independent, with the exception that they have a different faith.

However - there could be a "rare" event, where a local claimholder takes over the county and chases of the other guy. But this will be very very hard, because the AI has to remember who was the old ruler - in case the new one would be defeated. Perhaps a special event is possible, but would take lots of scripting time.

 

[unmerged(31117)]

The Welsh rebels tried (and very nearly succeeded at one point) to set up their own Welsh realm independant of England. In the CK timeframe the Byzantine Slavs actually succeeded in throwing of the yoke of the Byzantine Emporer and his militery administrators (read vassals). The Scots rebelled against the English too , a revolt that despite initial failiures (like the capture and grisly execution of William Wallace) ultimately succeeded and resulted in Robet de Bruce becoming King of Scotland. In all these examples the religion of the revolting group and it's 'oppressor' were the same, so seperatist revolts did occur on the basis of culture as well as religion.

When rebels take over a province, they should be allowed to take it over 'as members of the universal ream of rebels' ie vassals to the anonomous rebel leader. What this means in practice is the county is at peace with the rebels and can actually cooperate with them in a siege.

If a group of rebel counties controls enough land to create a title normally, the most powerful rebel leader (just as in elective law) should "filch" the title, leaving the previous ruler with a claim on it. However this should only happen automaticly if the liege is of a different culture or religion, otherwise the liege is approached with a "The rebellion is growing too powerful, it may be time to negotiate", and the title grab only happens if the liege refuses to negotiate. Rebels shouldn't be able to sieze a rulers "ruling title, only subserviant titles (ie if a ruler is the "king of England, but has king of Scotland and Wales as additional titles, those titles can be rebel grabbed, but the King of England cannot be.
Basicly the liege is allowed to stop the revolt by offering the rebel leaders "legitimacy" ie proper fuedal titles given from above, in order to buy them off, in the case of rebels of different culture or religion, in the case of rebels of different culture or religion you are only allowed to accept the rebels claims of independance (loosing you your claim on the title, but allowing you to start of at peace with the new realm.

 

[unmerged(31117)]

Militery Access happens to be the only sure way to keep the random expansions and degeneration of countries into clusters of provinces scattered throughout Europe at bay. Why the hell did Paradox not introduce Militery Access in the first place? They've done so in every other game that they've made, why not CK?

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Militery Access happens to be the only sure way to keep the random expansions and degeneration of countries into clusters of provinces scattered throughout Europe at bay. Why the hell did Paradox not introduce Militery Access in the first place? They've done so in every other game that they've made, why not CK?

CK is not every other game either though.

 

[unmerged(31117)]

The point remains that the lack of Militery Non-Access totally wrecks CK. Therefore it needs to be introduced (and I hope it will be in the next patch, if not in this patch). It would really improve the game for me.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

If you're looking for a red-line type military non-access, don't look to CK.

 

[unmerged(31117)]

With exceptions for Crusades why not? It's not like the rulers in the CK era were necceserily any happier about foreign armies marching through their lands without permission is it?

 

[unmerged(31117)]

With exceptions for Crusades why not? It's not like the rulers in the CK era were necceserily any happier about foreign armies marching through their lands without permission than the rulers in CK/Victoria/Hearts of Iron eras is it?

Militery Access should be allowed in the following curcumstances.
1. You are on Crusade and at war a Muslim or Pagan country and the country is Christian

2.You are part of the same realm as the country you are trying to march through

3.You are at war with the country in question.

4.The country in question is a vassal of a country you have access with according to the rules laid down in this list (including the present rule)

5.You have negotiated a treaty of Militery Access with that country

These five rules would make a red-line type Militery Access work very well in the CK format, allow non-contingious expansion within the same realm (which did happen historicly) while stopping rulers from setting up isolated outpost s outside their realm on the other side of the world (unless their realm is that big of course).

 

[unmerged(2456)]

With exceptions for Crusades why not? It's not like the rulers in the CK era were necceserily any happier about foreign armies marching through their lands without permission than the rulers in CK/Victoria/Hearts of Iron eras is it?

Militery Access should be allowed in the following curcumstances.
1. You are on Crusade and at war a Muslim or Pagan country and the country is Christian

2.You are part of the same realm as the country you are trying to march through

3.You are at war with the country in question.

4.The country in question is a vassal of a country you have access with according to the rules laid down in this list (including the present rule)

5.You have negotiated a treaty of Militery Access with that country

These five rules would make a red-line type Militery Access work very well in the CK format, allow non-contingious expansion within the same realm (which did happen historicly) while stopping rulers from setting up isolated outpost s outside their realm on the other side of the world (unless their realm is that big of course).

Refer to post #30 and/or post #2 in the FAQ.

 

[unmerged(31117)]

Sob** Sob**