War gripe

[Jack the Great]

I think that the capacity to dictate terms after winning a war (a la EUIII, but without infamy). Hypothetically, if you're pressing a claim to a province or duchy and manage to occupy and hold significant other territory, you should be able to claim all the territory you hold.

Also, can the implications of capturing a ducal or national capital have greater implications. Occupying Paris or London should matter more than it does. In the case of Byzantium, Constantinople should be both harder to take, and worth more when you do (like in 1204, when the Crusaders taking the city basically caused the entire empire to implode).

Demanding more than you initially went in for could also enhance your prestige, proving what a successful warrior you are

 

[A_Dane]

I think you completely misunderstood the concept of "claims" in this game...

What you're suggesting would make it way, way too easy to just steamroll through all of europe.

 

[panda_Express12]

It is already pretty simple to expand quickly once you become large. This would make the game too easy.

 

[unmerged(605240)]

Yeah, sure it would make the game easier. But it is pretty annoying when you have crushed a enemy and only get the one county you started the war over.

 

[Comradebot]

And what would stop you from just continuing to steamroll through a large realm once their army is beaten? Typically, nothing.

As others have already pointed out, this would make the game ridiculously easy. In EUIII, at least you might have to worry about infamy or even dealing with a mess of land that is constantly spitting out rebels (and in IV, apparently nations will band against you if you start to become too powerful)... this isn't an issue in CKII.

 

[Talq]

Claims are the CONTROL to stop you chewing up nations once their army is defeated. So, no removing that limit isn't a great idea.

Occupation warscore depends in part on the tax value of the holding captured, and demense provinces are worth more, so losing constantinople does hurt the Byz emperor a bit. Other capitals not so much because usually they are backward & the concept of a capital doesn't matter much in CK2 (after you've played a while and seen some of the odd places the english & french capitals can be, you'll understand). You are best advised to take the claim provinces (or the home provinces of your opponent if its some other type of war) first, however.

 

[Arko]

what i would like is some flexibility in dealing peace (without changing CB object)

you are only at 80% warscore ?
throw in some money or an unwanted claim to abandon to ease your ennemy to surrender/accept peace !
other ideas of negociating matters in peace deals : release prisonner/take hostage, force accept/break betrothal...

this kind of negociation would bring some nice flavour IMHO and would break the rigid (and quite boring) xx% limits to sign peace.

 

[Arizal]

what i would like is some flexibility in dealing peace (without changing CB object)

you are only at 80% warscore ?
throw in some money or an unwanted claim to abandon to ease your ennemy to surrender/accept peace !
other ideas of negociating matters in peace deals : release prisonner/take hostage, force accept/break betrothal...

this kind of negociation would bring some nice flavour IMHO and would break the rigid (and quite boring) xx% limits to sign peace.

I like those ideas. Negociating the truce lenght would also be interesting.

 

[guillec87]

but, you should be able to add some others war goals, at least another couple of counties, or the whole duchy, and then, respect a truce for 10 years, like in Victoria 2, that you can't start a new war when having a truce... I understand some chivalry should be in the relations between fellows countrimen/religioner, but, as Castille, if I am able to kick off the muslims of the peninsula and ocupy all of their territories, why should I give them back?? no way!! hmy:

 

[OrdepNM]

I do believe you should be able to press more than 1 casus belli in the same war. Like if I have ducal claims inside another kingdom, a fabricated claim on a county in that same kingdom (on another duchy tough), the ruler is excomunicated and one of my courtiers has a claim in that kingdom, I should be able to press all these claims at once instead of having to choose the one I wanna press and being semi-forced to wait years in order to press another.

 

[Ahaz Flagg]

After playing for 3 weeks I think it is way to easy to take land as it is, rather then make it easier they need to make at least 300% harder to take land. With a good Chancellor, you can carve up Ireland by 1100. You can really tear up Swedan in that time from Denmark. There needs to be something that limits how fast you can build up.

 

[Arizal]

I'm all for more diplomacy, but we need to be careful, for else we will have superpower forming very quickly by abusing the rules of the game.

One thing that could really be great would be to allow the continuation of the occupation of territories outside wars until a real peace is find. You could hold all of Europe by occupying it, but if you don't have any claim on it, it would be difficult to have revenues (it would still flow to the realm you are at truce with) and you could see your empire implose and the legitimate owners hating you (Mongols?) Prestige and piety (if it is a bishopric) could drop overtime as well.

 

[Arizal]

After playing for 3 weeks I think it is way to easy to take land as it is, rather then make it easier they need to make at least 300% harder to take land. With a good Chancellor, you can carve up Ireland by 1100. You can really tear up Swedan in that time from Denmark. There needs to be something that limits how fast you can build up.

I agree. As of right now, if you are a king, you only have to forge a claim or to give a county or a duchy to a claimant. I find it rather strange that a member of your family ought to be automatically your vassal.

 

[Iron Chariots]

Yeah, sure it would make the game easier. But it is pretty annoying when you have crushed a enemy and only get the one county you started the war over.

So... choose a better claim?

 

[dorukdorucu]

A EU3/Vic2-ish war system would be nice. However it would make expanding even easier as other people have pointed out. Simply allowing us to press claims in a defencive war should be enough imo.

 

[Malibu Stacey]

Invasion & Holy War Casus Belli already exist in the game & they're utterly ridiculous yet you want to make it even easier to take territories?

 

[Bob_the_Insane]

The game could have had a bad boy score or something for people who just conquer they way across the map, but rather than do that they simply don't allow for that...

The whole premise of the game is Casus Belli, Just War... the game actively prevent war without cause thus forcing to you find or manufacture cause for your wars...

Building an army to fight your way across Europe is only half (or even less) of the game...

These questions make me wonder how they would ever do a DLC for the Golden Horde and such. If they gave players control of them as they are now we would march across Europe in a frenzy of destruction. If they make things harder for the hordes in a DLC for players, would that nerf the hordes for then they AI is running them... sorry to go off topic...

Overall I understand and sympathize with the OP, it is wacky to have conquered a huge swath of land to force a lord to agree that yes you can take control of that one county you have a claim as as long as you give all that land back. But it is like that for a good reason I think. I also agree that negotiating a lesser "win" when you are on 80% or something would be nice (IIRC you could do something like that in CK1)...

 

[Arko]

main problem I see is that in a defensive war you are almost forced to invade the attacker to make the war lasting shorter.
that lead to the situation you occupy unwanted territories just to make you attacher sign peace. giving that ankward situation where you do conquest for nothing and then to OP.

maybe a bigger warscore value for standing its holding when in a defensive war ?

 

[Spartanlemur]

My biggest issue with wars is the fact that if you are defending, you are forced to sign a peace treaty which keeps things the way they were before the war. In reality, I'm almost certain that an incredibly successful counterattack from a defender would yield plenty of occupied land, some of which would be annexed undoubtedly. The five year peace treaty when your attacker is weak and you want to punish them is absurd.