Title Loss

[Mad King James]

As it is now, titles are much too difficult to lose. Once you create a title, its yours forever unless you lose a devastating war to someone of your own religion (which almost never occurs to Christians at least) even if you don't own the land in question and haven't for several hundred years.

Therefore I propose the following:

1: Make Usurp actually usurp the title, not just make claims on the title. As it is now, making a claim on a title is not difficult to do at all even without usurping it, whereas actually GETTING the title requires just about obliterating your opponent in order to get the requisite victory points. Claims happen so often from events, or just arbitrary claim creation, that usurp isn't terribly useful in this regard. Making Usurp actually well... usurp the title, would be a huge improvement in gameplay.

2: Make titles dissapear by event if you don't own or have vassals in any of the land the titles are "based in" yet noone has bothered to usurp the title either (IE the land either is fragmented into a dozen different states or has been conquered by Saracens). This way if you created the title Kingdom of Tunisia then lost all of Tunisia a hundred years ago, you don't remain King of Tunisia for the rest of the game.

 

[Nikolai]

Have you seen the other thread?

 

[unmerged(27913)]

I agree...as it is now it's too hard to loose or too gain a title by succession alone. Only hope is in some conflict where you claim on others or someone claims on you.

 

[Duuk]

Both fine plans.

Of course, you knew you'd get my buy-in when you included the thing I've been begging for since 1.00: Usurp that actually usurps.

 

[Cagliostro]

on 1, I don't think that you should be able to usurp someone's primary title that way, but otherwise I agree.

 

[Mad King James]

on 1, I don't think that you should be able to usurp someone's primary title that way, but otherwise I agree.

Why not?

 

[Grosshaus]

I´ve never really understood the usefullness of usurping myself.

 

[Cagliostro]

Why not?

Example 1:

The King of England decides to usurp the Duchy of Lancaster. He does so, and instantly gains the title, reducing the Duke to a Count, without having to use "revoke title".

Example 2:

The King of England owns Perfedwlad (however it's actually spelled, I forget) and the Welsh county he starts with. The King of Wales rules over the other four counties and is also Duke of Gwynedd, but Dyfed is under the auspices of the Duke of Deheubarth. Glamorgan is a county under him. Stealing the title of the King of Wales would be expensive. So he steals the title of Count of Glamorgan and goes to war. Deheubarth and Wales join in. He conquers Glamorgan, and then usurps Deheubarth. Then he conquers Dyfed and usurps Wales.

 

[Mad King James]

Er... I don't think you are allowed to usurp your vassal's titles in the first place. If you are then you shouldn't be able to. Try it out yourself.

Example 1:

The King of England decides to usurp the Duchy of Lancaster. He does so, and instantly gains the title, reducing the Duke to a Count, without having to use "revoke title".

Example 2:

The King of England owns Perfedwlad (however it's actually spelled, I forget) and the Welsh county he starts with. The King of Wales rules over the other four counties and is also Duke of Gwynedd, but Dyfed is under the auspices of the Duke of Deheubarth. Glamorgan is a county under him. Stealing the title of the King of Wales would be expensive. So he steals the title of Count of Glamorgan and goes to war. Deheubarth and Wales join in. He conquers Glamorgan, and then usurps Deheubarth. Then he conquers Dyfed and usurps Wales.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

I´ve never really understood the usefullness of usurping myself.

No BB gain involved and lesser prestige cost. It's hugely better way than grabbing, if you can do it.

 

[Cagliostro]

Er... I don't think you are allowed to usurp your vassal's titles in the first place. If you are then you shouldn't be able to. Try it out yourself.

Example 2 still holds - you can get a king's title from a claim to a count's title in that scenario.

 

[Spruce]

pf, usurping requirements are bad scaled, for small kingdom titles I agree - but the big ones like France, Germany and England shouldn't need 66% of land ! 50% or 40% would be more then enough,

basicly you get a claim then - you still have to win the war tough

 

[unmerged(2456)]

BUsurp that actually usurps.

 

[Winkelried]

As it is now, titles are much too difficult to lose. Once you create a title, its yours forever unless you lose a devastating war to someone of your own religion (which almost never occurs to Christians at least) even if you don't own the land in question and haven't for several hundred years.

Therefore I propose the following:

1: Make Usurp actually usurp the title, not just make claims on the title. As it is now, making a claim on a title is not difficult to do at all even without usurping it, whereas actually GETTING the title requires just about obliterating your opponent in order to get the requisite victory points. Claims happen so often from events, or just arbitrary claim creation, that usurp isn't terribly useful in this regard. Making Usurp actually well... usurp the title, would be a huge improvement in gameplay.

2: Make titles dissapear by event if you don't own or have vassals in any of the land the titles are "based in" yet noone has bothered to usurp the title either (IE the land either is fragmented into a dozen different states or has been conquered by Saracens). This way if you created the title Kingdom of Tunisia then lost all of Tunisia a hundred years ago, you don't remain King of Tunisia for the rest of the game.

Agree 100% on both points.