I've noticed that there seems to be no fear mechanic in the game. I'm sure that some rulers back then ruled with tyranny and fear, but in the game imprisoning, executing, and assassinating just pisses people off and doesn't make anyone fear you. Anyone else think a fear mechanic would be a nice addition?
No Fear Mechanic
- Thread starter TheSupernatural
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
There is one, in a way. When you look at factions, they are always compared to the % strength of the ruler. Faction leaders won't set off a faction war unless they get close enough to the ruler's power. Thus the fear of being crushed by the ruler's armies is what prevents them from revolting right away.
You'd be surprised how ineffective fear can be as a mechanic. Look at it this way. When your liege imprisons or executes you in this game, do you usually react with cowed submission, or do you start plotting to take him down? Having said that, why should your vassals be any different? Most depictions of cackling medieval tyranny come from pop culture and movies, and those that don't are either propaganda or often known to us precisely because the ruler in question became so notoriously bad at ruling he got overthrown.
There's a mechanical reason as well. Revoking and assassinating and arbitrarily imprisoning all give the ruler significant freedom of action. If doing all these makes your vassals more likely to obey you, in addition to their direct benefits, the game risks just becoming far too easily. People have complained that there is no real reason to execute prisoners except for RP reasons at present and, while that's true, adding a "fear factor" might just create the opposite situation.
There's a mechanical reason as well. Revoking and assassinating and arbitrarily imprisoning all give the ruler significant freedom of action. If doing all these makes your vassals more likely to obey you, in addition to their direct benefits, the game risks just becoming far too easily. People have complained that there is no real reason to execute prisoners except for RP reasons at present and, while that's true, adding a "fear factor" might just create the opposite situation.
Shouldn't you execute a prisoner if his heir is much more compatible with your goals?
Fear definitely works in real life. You're not afraid to plot against your liege because this is a game and there is no real consequences. But a good example is how the Qing dynasty forced the entire population of China to change their hair style by threatening them with death if they do not do so.
However, I do agree that introducing a fear mechanic might make the game too easy.
I believe there was actually ongoing violent resistance to the Manchu queue policy, so clearly terror of Manchu power actually didn't get the job done. But even if it did, it doesn't really seem that applicable to CK 2, being outside the game's scope both timewise and geographically.
There could be a trait that makes characters susceptible to fear. So tyranny could work good on some, while it doesn't on others (the current default situation). Good incentive for more RP.
As mentioned before, the faction system in the Rome DLC.
The ruler that the faction is against seems to be more fearful of uprisings if the faction has a army size percentage higher than the ruler, making the ruler accept their demands peacefully, whilst if the percentage is moderately lower than the rulers, they will decline.
The ruler that the faction is against seems to be more fearful of uprisings if the faction has a army size percentage higher than the ruler, making the ruler accept their demands peacefully, whilst if the percentage is moderately lower than the rulers, they will decline.
I am merely using it as an example. The Nazis used fear effectively also. It really doesn't matter timewise because its simply human nature. As for violent resistances to the queue policy, well you can see which side is the clear winner. If you feel that 0 resistance is the only measure of success of a policy then I concede the argument.
The thing is Fishy, most examples of successful rule-via-fear came from centralised, autocratic states that didn't really exist in the CK era. Medieval rulers didn't have large, efficient states to enact systematic repression.
You may be right, but I think such things as mutilation, public execution, putting your enemy's head on a spike etc are all part of the arsenal of a feudal ruler to instill fear in his subjects. My main concern is that people do not just dismiss fear as a tool for control in real life. Fear is used to control people even at the lowest level. Fear is why women stay with their abusive husbands/boyfriends.
Yeah but you can't expect (and that is obviously what you are asking for) a positive relation modifier for them being afraid of you for your tyrannic deeds.
Fear works fine, just imprison Matilda as Heinrich Salian and see who else wants independence. Probably the Duke of Bohemia, so let him, the idiot will swear fealty again as he's a de jure vassal and you'll have claims on all his titles.
Also aim for wroth, cruel and Impaler traits for 30% morale damage bonus in battles and watch the outcome
Fear works fine, just imprison Matilda as Heinrich Salian and see who else wants independence. Probably the Duke of Bohemia, so let him, the idiot will swear fealty again as he's a de jure vassal and you'll have claims on all his titles.
Also aim for wroth, cruel and Impaler traits for 30% morale damage bonus in battles and watch the outcome
I normally toss them in the Obulette and let them die on their own, tyranny free.
I do have a pragmatic use for executions though: When I capture a high-marshal character when fighting infidels, I will execute them. I get no penalty due to them being a different religion. And I Don't want to ransom/release them because they'll just re-appear on the battlefield leading troops again. Executing them denies the enemy a good general.
I don't dispute that all this over-the-top SAW-esque mutilation and torment and so on happened, but that doesn't mean players should be rewarded for doing it.
Definitely a major oversight in the game, and one people have been asking to be put in for a while now.
In a recent game, some Bishop injured my ruler and made him incapable. Not long after that in the same war, I managed to capture him, and executed him for incapacitating me.
It made me feel that justice was served. Or, may be it was just the thirst for vengence being fulfilled, my rulers always confused between the two.
I'm not really saying it should be a positive modifier. Probably a temporary effect that grants less chance of factions coming up, rebellion, but greater chance to have people plot against you.
Also, people who serve on your council should not take as large a hit.
Also, people who serve on your council should not take as large a hit.