Prohibit trespassers

[Celydonn]

Any army that enters "my" territory should be considered hostile and thus attackable.
If anyone wants to move an army through some other realm, they have to ask permission and evtl pay some fees.

 

[Viridianus]

As some people argued at length in other topics, this is factually anachronistic. Even the fact that you always know they're coming through is, tbh, anachronistic.

 

[Celydonn]

As some people argued at length in other topics, this is factually anachronistic. Even the fact that you always know they're coming through is, tbh, anachronistic.

sorry but what is here anachronistic, that enemy armies move through my territory or that we can see armies "about" 3 baronies away?

You could not move 10.000 men at arms through enemy territory without someone noticing, even in the sparse populated middle ages, that is not anachronistic.

To see enemy from afar as if we already had drones and satelite imaging, yes that is, but it can be fixed and explained. Frist, we should not see any army outside our borders/realms. Second, as statted above, you cant move a few thousand men at arms without someone noticing, therefore you would see them in your territory. Third, armies use mounted scouts, so if you have an army somewhere, it have a small visibility range around it. It is not perfect but what is? I can send a marriage proposal from bohemia to novgorod (2000miles) and have an answer in one day.

And CK would actauly profit if it had some sort of fog of war, I like it, that battles are just a numbers game (if we had full control, ie Total War games, there would be no way for the AI to stop the player) and carefuly moving around and laying ambsushes etc would add a layer of strategy.

 

[Viridianus]

Yes, you can move an army through someone else's territory without them. Heck, armies went long distances unnoticed in XX century in Russian Civil War.

But what's more important is the first anachronistic part: there were generally no restrictions on trespassing, that's about XVII-XVIII century idea. Go to the whole discussion here.

 

[Celydonn]

Yes, you can move an army through someone else's territory without them. Heck, armies went long distances unnoticed in XX century in Russian Civil War.

But what's more important is the first anachronistic part: there were generally no restrictions on trespassing, that's about XVII-XVIII century idea. Go to the whole discussion here.

you realize central europe, especialy west europe (especialy germany) are not russia? .... or the wide steppes.
even 1200 years ago you could not go here without hitting some vilage every few miles.
and back then there were castles and mottes and towers on every hill, where there is nothing left of it today, to actualy have a good look about the surroundings to prevent that someone just moves around
you can move (slip) few hundred men, but not 10.000

so and I read through the thread, its mostly about alliances, not much to see about trespassing

 

[Matihood1]

you realize central europe, especialy west europe (especialy germany) are not russia? .... or the wide steppes.
even 1200 years ago you could not go here without hitting some vilage every few miles.
and back then there were castles and mottes and towers on every hill, where there is nothing left of it today, to actualy have a good look about the surroundings to prevent that someone just moves around
you can move (slip) few hundred men, but not 10.000

so and I read through the thread, its mostly about alliances, not much to see about trespassing

I think you just answered yourself why this shouldn't be implemented: Too many variables that would need to be taken into account: The size of stacks that would be considered "too small to be noticed trespassing", the development of the area in question, the density of fortifications that would detect trespassing armies and so on and so on. It would only create problems that would have to be constantly tweaked across multiple updates to make it bearable for everyone.

And before you say "Then just prevent all non-allied armies from trespassing altogether.", I'm going to say: "No.". I opposed this idea when it was suggested for CK2 and I don't want this mechanic in CK3 as well. Realistic or not, it would be way too much of a game-changer and a big annoyance to practically everyone, especially since the AI would most likely go a loooooong way just to get to your lands at war, just like it does in EU4.

Edit: Sorry for passive-aggressivenes in this comment. Don't know where all that came from.

 

[Celydonn]

I think you just answered yourself why this shouldn't be implemented: Too many variables that would need to be taken into account: The size of stacks that would be considered "too small to be noticed trespassing", the development of the area in question, the density of fortifications that would detect trespassing armies and so on and so on. It would only create problems that would have to be constantly tweaked across multiple updates to make it bearable for everyone.

And before you say "Then just prevent all non-allied armies from trespassing altogether.", I'm going to say: "No.". I opposed this idea when it was suggested for CK2 and I don't want this mechanic in CK3 as well. Realistic or not, it would be way too much of a game-changer and a big annoyance to practically everyone, especially since the AI would most likely go a loooooong way just to get to your lands at war, just like it does in EU4.

There are much worse games that made this happen. And wat I ask for/suggest here is not even the "fog of war" mechanic, just the ability to attack armies within MY territory.

And about that "fog of war", we already have it, we do not see everything, just a little bit around our territory and our armies. Basicaly I think we see too far, I can see raiders forming and so can prepare, the AI does not react to raider armies being raised.
Every army, when outside own territory, should have some basic visibility range (it can be modified by a traint, ie scouting master, but it is not realy necessary). Lets say 1 average barony size. And then it is modified by enemy armies, the larger the enemy army, the sooner it is visible. Small bands can slip "though the cracks" while large multi thousand hosts are not. But thats another suggestion I am not making here. Here it is just about the wish to attack armies in my territory . And btw the ruler could still decide to not fight some army that is just traveling through. And it could also add some diplomatic options, ie "allowance to pass territory".

 

[klopkr]

Imo it should be more about having no supplies in these lands and needing to siege neutral baronies just to feed your troops on the way. Then it'll be the local rulers choice to pay you through or to declare you unwelcome and raise an army.

Right now you can send an army through neutral land across the entire map and they won't lose any troops. Doesn't even take that long. It's a joke.

 

[Viridianus]

so and I read through the thread, its mostly about alliances, not much to see about trespassing

The several points by @VeronicaTS and responses to them are most relevant.

Imo it should be more about having no supplies in these lands and needing to siege neutral baronies just to feed your troops on the way. Then it'll be the local rulers choice to pay you through or to declare you unwelcome and raise an army.

Yeah, that makes more sense - having supply problems in unknown lands rather than full hostility.