More peace options

[unmerged(485)]

Well, one more.

In the many discussions of EU II peace treaty options one topic kept coming up which seemed like a realistic option but was not in the game - the destruction of fortifications as part of a peace treaty.

Do you think this option will be in CK?

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Should be. Those terms were frequently used during the CK period.

The German Emperors and Lombard cities agreed to such an arrangement several times.

The Kings of England and France also used it when bartering over the Vexin and elsewhere along the Norman-Angevin border.

 

[Norgesvenn]

Or that you lose your vassals or the right for taxation of certain groups?

 

[Jos Theelen]

Or a truce for a period longer than the normal period ?

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Jos Theelen
Or a truce for a period longer than the normal period ?

Or maybe shorter. Although, as you say, many of the truces and peace deals were for longer than the peace treaty times of EU II.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

A couple more peace options:

Payment of annual tribute.
Place X on the throne of Y. A lot of wars of succession in history that weren't really modeled well in EU2, and fit vey well with the CK dynastic/RP elements.

 

[Secret Master]

I think these are important to include:

Force abdication of Emperor. (Either Byzantine or Holy Roman, and only in certain specific cases) I include this because it would allow for wars of succession to be fought over these positions, which also include outside intervention. If we are going to fight wars of succession over kingships, might as well do it over empires too.

Force defeated power to grant full independence to a part of their empire (i.e. no vassal relationship). This needs to be included because EU II's method of doing this is clumsy at best. (Take the land in a war, then grant it independence yourself, but only if the country is still a legitmate revolter.) I see this as an excellent way to weaken opposing kingdoms without annexing huge tracts of land, and of restoring rightful rule to annexed friends.


We also need a way to intelligently break alliances when peace treaties dictate certain terms. Since I do not know how the peace system is set up, I can only say that certain kinds of forced vassal realtionships (I am assuming that there will be different implementation of force vassalage than EU) should break certain dynasties/countries out of alliances.


This one might be redundant, but we need an option to force opposing Christians to accept your rites. Roman Catholics should be able to force Orthodox dynasties to adopt Roman rites, and vice versa. This might even work with heretical movements, though caution in implementation will be important.

And finally, we need allow defeated powers to offer all possible terms of peace. For example, in EU2, if you are the losing power, you cannot offer to change your religion, become a vassal, or military access. Only the victor can demand it. In CK, it would be nice to give the loser the option of offering these sorts of things as a last ditch effort to avoid complete destruction.

 

[unmerged(255)]

A lot of good ideas here. The ones that I really hope to see in the game are:

1) Releasing vassals (forced)
2) Dismantling of fortifications
3) Payment of annual tribute
4) Transfer of holy relics

 

[unmerged(485)]

Sure are a lot of good ideas. My great fear (as I have stated many times before) is that the AI will either end up giving the player the world on a silver platter or will be so tough as to be ridiculous in its peace negotiations as folks have noticed in EU I & II.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Originally posted by Secret Master
This one might be redundant, but we need an option to force opposing Christians to accept your rites. Roman Catholics should be able to force Orthodox dynasties to adopt Roman rites, and vice versa. This might even work with heretical movements, though caution in implementation will be important.

I like your other ideas, but not this one. I can't think of a single historical example where a Catholic was force-converted to Orthodox, or vice-versa. On the other hand, it definitely should be in with respect to pagans and heretics.

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Isnt payment of annual tribute almost a necessity? Most German campaigns into Bohemia, Poland, & Hungary were partly for this reason.

In the late middle ages, the Hapsburgs, Luxemburgs, etc., sought direct rule of their eastern neighbors, but earlier (900s-1273; Saxons, Salians, Staufen), the main goal was just to force them to acknowledge imperial overlordship, pay annual tribute, and sometimes send contingents for imperial campaigns.

The Kings of Poland, Hungary, and Bohemia, unlike the other imperial vassals (dukes, margraves, etc.), had sovereign status in their own realms (which were never considered part of the Kingdom of Germany), and were just "tributaries" that owed the Emperor a vague allegiance.

So if you cant rule them directly or make them normal vassals as part of your own kingdom, then how else would you simulate this kind of relationship in the game?

Could this also apply to Wales, Ireland, & Scotland? Again, only in the late period did the English Kings seek to gain direct rule; before that, their status as pertains to England was something like that of the above kingdoms, right?

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by BarristerBoy

I can't think of a single historical example where a Catholic was force-converted to Orthodox, or vice-versa.

How about the fourth crusade?

 

[unmerged(6277)]

Originally posted by BarbarossaHRE
Isnt payment of annual tribute almost a necessity? For instance, all those German campaigns into Poland and Hungary, and even Bohemia to a lesser extent, were at least partly for this reason.

I always assumed thatw as what the vassalisation payments were. Perhaps a sliding scale or fixed amount rather than a % of income.

Perhaps also exemption from customs duties on trade routes which would help your traders.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Originally posted by Havard
How about the fourth crusade?

Very arguable. The Crusaders instaed just put one of their own on the throne instead of forcing the current Emperor(whose name escapesme) to accept te Western rite.

 

[unmerged(4260)]

The biggest change I would like to see is the ability to impose tribute (without de jure vassalization) over a period of time (or indefinately). The person paying tribute would of course be able to cancel the payments at any time, subject to loss of stability and giving a CB to whomever they owed tribute

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by BarristerBoy


Very arguable. The Crusaders instaed just put one of their own on the throne instead of forcing the current Emperor(whose name escapesme) to accept te Western rite.

AFAIK they did force the restored Alexios (and dad) to submit the Othodox Church to Rome. Only after Alexios refused to pay what he had promised did they take the city to install their own emperor.

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Havard
AFAIK they did force the restored Alexios (and dad) to submit the Othodox Church to Rome. Only after Alexios refused to pay what he had promised did they take the city to install their own emperor.

Still arguable in that case, since it didn't succed in any long term sense. (Iirc it was a month, tops, before they divided the empire)

 

[unmerged(255)]

Excerpts from my imagination:

"The Lord was on our side my liege, we have utterly defeated the Hungarian forces and their King humbly asks the conditions of peace:

* Release Croatia as a fully independent kingdom of Christendom (choose whom to place on the throne)

* Pay an annual tribute of 500 ducats

* Grant exclusive trading rights in Translyvanian cities

* Give us the Crown of St. Stephan (need 100% victory )

 

[Norgesvenn]

tuna, that sounds really cool.

I particularly like the tribute idea, or "protection money". In EU II the vassal income was like protection money, but in CK you obviously need your vassals more than they need you.

 

[Alexandre]

Originally posted by tuna
A lot of good ideas here. The ones that I really hope to see in the game are:

1) Releasing vassals (forced)
2) Dismantling of fortifications
3) Payment of annual tribute
4) Transfer of holy relics

5) Royal marriage. Especially if the defeated king only has surviving daughters. . .
6) Acknowledgement of suzenery
7) Renoucing of a claim
8) Support/acknowledge your claim to someone else's territory.

Of these, I think that 5) is the most important.

Alexandre