Why can't we push our subject's claims any more? :(

[caintheconfused]

Okay, I'll undress you CK2-obsessed can't-hack-it-in-a-different-environment morons so that you feel as if I'm not just sarcastically dismissing your loud cries for the ambivalent noise it is.

Overlords do not press claims on behalf of vassals or lower partners in unions for separate but discernible reasons.

The overlord-vassal relationship is one in which the overlord ropes off a set of territory for someone to, essentially, hold for him, be it enforced in a treaty or creating it in peacetime. Making the vassal larger does not benefit the overlord directly, so it is not an automatic function to press the claims of the vassal. Any casus belli the vassal owns belongs to the vassal, and not the overlord -- the biggest problem is that even a strong, stable vassal doesn't tend to handle its own business. That is what should be addressed, not opening up the casus belli Rolodex for overlords.

In the separate personal union situation, all of the focus in the relationship is about attempting to integrate. Making the junior partner stronger would only encourage it to continue to exist separately, defeating the ultimate goal of personal unions. This is why the overlord does not take over their junior partner's casus belli or get another means to grab these issues.

Oh yeah, and there's that other thing -- CK2 is their best? Really? You're trying to compare apples to bananas to oranges to watermelons. Every paradox game runs off entirely different constructs. Deal with it.

 

[Eyestabber]

Okay, I'll undress you CK2-obsessed can't-hack-it-in-a-different-environment morons so that you feel as if I'm not just sarcastically dismissing your loud cries for the ambivalent noise it is.

Overlords do not press claims on behalf of vassals or lower partners in unions for separate but discernible reasons.

The overlord-vassal relationship is one in which the overlord ropes off a set of territory for someone to, essentially, hold for him, be it enforced in a treaty or creating it in peacetime. Making the vassal larger does not benefit the overlord directly, so it is not an automatic function to press the claims of the vassal. Any casus belli the vassal owns belongs to the vassal, and not the overlord -- the biggest problem is that even a strong, stable vassal doesn't tend to handle its own business. That is what should be addressed, not opening up the casus belli Rolodex for overlords.

In the separate personal union situation, all of the focus in the relationship is about attempting to integrate. Making the junior partner stronger would only encourage it to continue to exist separately, defeating the ultimate goal of personal unions. This is why the overlord does not take over their junior partner's casus belli or get another means to grab these issues.

Oh yeah, and there's that other thing -- CK2 is their best? Really? You're trying to compare apples to bananas to oranges to watermelons. Every paradox game runs off entirely different constructs. Deal with it.

Wow, watch out boyz, we have a BADASS over here.

 

[Roelath]

Okay, I'll undress you CK2-obsessed can't-hack-it-in-a-different-environment morons so that you feel as if I'm not just sarcastically dismissing your loud cries for the ambivalent noise it is.

Overlords do not press claims on behalf of vassals or lower partners in unions for separate but discernible reasons.

The overlord-vassal relationship is one in which the overlord ropes off a set of territory for someone to, essentially, hold for him, be it enforced in a treaty or creating it in peacetime. Making the vassal larger does not benefit the overlord directly, so it is not an automatic function to press the claims of the vassal. Any casus belli the vassal owns belongs to the vassal, and not the overlord -- the biggest problem is that even a strong, stable vassal doesn't tend to handle its own business. That is what should be addressed, not opening up the casus belli Rolodex for overlords.

In the separate personal union situation, all of the focus in the relationship is about attempting to integrate. Making the junior partner stronger would only encourage it to continue to exist separately, defeating the ultimate goal of personal unions. This is why the overlord does not take over their junior partner's casus belli or get another means to grab these issues.

Oh yeah, and there's that other thing -- CK2 is their best? Really? You're trying to compare apples to bananas to oranges to watermelons. Every paradox game runs off entirely different constructs. Deal with it.

So... why even press for claims for your "underlings" in CK2 if it only means less power to yourself? Oh that's right! Because there is a modifier for returning land to that nation/duke/king in both games that make them love you more. While it also expands the territory of your own Empire because the vassal is literally considered part of your Empire. There is no justification for not including a "Reconquest of Vassal's Land" and it's probably just an oversight of the Paradox crew. It makes no logical sense not to include it as a CB because there is no way it can be abused.

 

[Communazi]

I'd like this CB, mostly because the -2 stability for no CB can be gamed around if you have the geography to be able to fabricate. I don't think it is entirely inaccurate for a master to want to push vassal claims, especally in wanting to reclaim the territory of a potential buffer state.

I'd like to be able to do this with Finland & Georgia's claims in my Russia game.

 

[mcmanusaur]

Okay, I'll undress you CK2-obsessed can't-hack-it-in-a-different-environment morons so that you feel as if I'm not just sarcastically dismissing your loud cries for the ambivalent noise it is.

Overlords do not press claims on behalf of vassals or lower partners in unions for separate but discernible reasons.

The overlord-vassal relationship is one in which the overlord ropes off a set of territory for someone to, essentially, hold for him, be it enforced in a treaty or creating it in peacetime. Making the vassal larger does not benefit the overlord directly, so it is not an automatic function to press the claims of the vassal. Any casus belli the vassal owns belongs to the vassal, and not the overlord -- the biggest problem is that even a strong, stable vassal doesn't tend to handle its own business. That is what should be addressed, not opening up the casus belli Rolodex for overlords.

In the separate personal union situation, all of the focus in the relationship is about attempting to integrate. Making the junior partner stronger would only encourage it to continue to exist separately, defeating the ultimate goal of personal unions. This is why the overlord does not take over their junior partner's casus belli or get another means to grab these issues.

Oh yeah, and there's that other thing -- CK2 is their best? Really? You're trying to compare apples to bananas to oranges to watermelons. Every paradox game runs off entirely different constructs. Deal with it.

You seem to have only offered arguments as to why one shouldn't want to press one's subjects' claims, not why one shouldn't be able to press one's subjects' claims.

 

[zijistark]

I made just such a CB. It's called "Overlord Reconquest." Basically, if any of your subjects (at any level), has a core on a province that they don't hold, you may declare war on the squatting country with this CB, as long as it's not held by another subject. The only peace options in the wargoal are returning cores and conceding defeat. The only eligible provinces for return are those cored by your subject(s)-- not just any old cores to any old nations. You get to feed your vassals the totally-legit way (no selling provinces, real cores that they have already), you get an opinion bonus from each vassal to which you return cores (proportionate to the amount returned), and the peace cost is high for returning cores, so you can't spam it unless you have a true ant farm of once-great-but-then-beat-to-shreds-by-all-neighbors vassals on all sides. I had such a game, so I invented the CB.

It helps when you opportunistically force-vassalize once-great-powers in order to return them to their former glory, under your banner, as a general strategy.

Not perfect, but I like it.

 

[Pilot00]

Barring offending and uniformative posts asside, the Idea holds some merrit.

The counter arguement 'use another cassus beli' doesnt hold as an arguement. If it were to, then why have different CBs at all? Take expansion and religious ideas and have free CBs against the entire planet (the other half can be colonized).

Everything that gives a vassal some autonomy on its own finds me in agreement (as long as it makes sense that is).
Also since you are the overlord, the vassal should be 'asking' you in order to go to war. As it will listen to your answer I believe that should reflect to your overall strength and relations somehow.

 

[zijistark]

Barring offending and uniformative posts asside, the Idea holds some merrit.

The counter arguement 'use another cassus beli' doesnt hold as an arguement. If it were to, then why have different CBs at all? Take expansion and religious ideas and have free CBs against the entire planet (the other half can be colonized).

Everything that gives a vassal some autonomy on its own finds me in agreement (as long as it makes sense that is).
Also since you are the overlord, the vassal should be 'asking' you in order to go to war. As it will listen to your answer I believe that should reflect to your overall strength and relations somehow.

I dunno. I think the vassal is implicitly asking you to go to war for their uncontested cores basically all the time if there's a CB designed to do just that and only that available as a central game mechanic like Reconquest and Conquest. You just don't have an explicit dialogue (via event, I guess?) between you and the vassal. For those in here coming from the CK2 and feudalism (which applies to nationalism, regarding cores, too) perspective in general, it's not like your vassal has to ask you to press a claim for him in CK2 either (note that in CK2, those are CLAIMS and not CORES, btw, only the latter of which is what my CB addressed). You just automatically have the CB to press a vassal's claim (either because it's theirs de jure-- kind of like a core-- or because they inherited/fabricated it, with the restrictions and pitfalls to boot (not many pitfalls unless the vassal is unlanded and just hanging around your court waiting for you to press his claim on a distant kingdom from which he was exiled due to conquest). There is, of course, at least an event where a dynasty member asks you to press one of his claims for him, but that's about it, because it's automatically part of the vassal-liege contract that the overlord has the general duty to protect the property of his vassals, which includes their rightful claims to land. I am of the opinion that this applies to EU4 and vassal cores (but not claims). Disregarding claims and sticking to vassal cores, the CB's also actually something that the AI will make use of correctly with an appropriately designed modded-in CB to the mutual benefit of both the overlord and vassal, with opinion boosts (like CK2, though not as extreme) for the overlord upon success.

I just don't see any reason why a principality swearing fealty, either diplomatically or by force (especially by force), to a more powerful overlord, whom will protect them and maintain the vassal-liege relationship at all costs in exchange for some taxes and military support, suddenly means that vassal and the overlord has no game-mechanic-legitimate or non-contorted way of reclaiming their de jure cores from enemies. I mean, if they were the overlord's cores, no problem, but suddenly all those vassal cores are essentially lost upon swearing fealty?

Yes, you could use a different, already-in-game CB to make this happen in a roundabout fashion, like Cleansing Heresy, but obviously that does not directly address the problem (it is not available under most of the right circumstances), and worse, the CB and its wargoals not only allow but instruct the AI (and encourage the player) to take provinces for themselves or other peace options like forcing religion before returning any cores to their vassals due to peace costs and AI prioritization of POs in the wargoal.

 

[Jaol]

I see where the OP is coming from, but I think I only half-agree (can't be sure exactly what the OP is suggesting).

Getting a CB for the return of PU/vassal cores just makes sense. If, for example, France takes some of Aragon, then the Iberian wedding puts Aragon in a PU under Castille, Castille should have a CB against France for the Aragonese lands. Enforcing the CB should, of course, result in the provinces going back to the vassal/PU junior in question, not to the senior.

Getting to use any of your PU/vassal's CBs is a lot more questionable, though. On the one hand it makes some sense--in game terms Aragon was the lesser in a PU when the Spanish and French fought over Naples--but it also seems like it could be open to abuse. Perhaps one solution would be to make using a vassal/PU CB cost -1 stability.

 

[alanschu]

You seem to have only offered arguments as to why one shouldn't want to press one's subjects' claims, not why one shouldn't be able to press one's subjects' claims.

Do larger vassals have a tendency to want to break vassalage?


I'm actually more in support of the idea of the vassal pressing his own claim and the overlord being allied.

I'd also be okay with the idea of cores/claims being possibly inherited upon the integration of a vassal, but may require more thought than the 7 seconds I have given it just now. Though you'd probably have to "duplicate" the cores so that the ability to release the nation still exists.

 

[Pilot00]

While as I said I aree with the vassal reconquest CB, I believe it should be done under the auspices of the overlord.
Remember that not all overlords were kind or wanted the good of their vassals.

The Byzantines durring the historic period that the game starts were a vassal of the Ottomans (why the heck did the devs made them an independent with Athens as a vassal ill never learn). The Ottos certainly had not the best interests for the Byzantines, having sieged Constantinopole at least 2 times.

So what I am saying is that it should work like a pop up: My liege our vassal x wishes to reclaim their rightfull territory unlawfully occupied by their foe Y. Should we aid them?

And then choose between going to war or no with some pros/cons for either choice.

There should also be a diplomatic action you can undertake: On the diplomacy menu: Vassals territory->Diplomatic resolve (request a diplomatic solution to return the cores)-> Go to war -> Make demand.

Or somesuch.

In general I dont know why there isnt a more flexible diplo system that would allow you to trade alliances, gold and territory....Anyway.

 

[Mightypeon]

There are a lot of different things to consider:
The Ottos propably wouldnt push a Byz Vasalls Claim, meanwhile Prussia may happily push Dutch Claims (if they somehow gained the Netherlands as a Vasall, which just means that you wait until the cores pop up, conquer some Dutch OPM and release it as Netherlands) in order to get the Emperor out of the Low countries, and if f.e. France would, after Spain forms, set up a puppet Aragonese state, they would propably be deligted to push Aragonese claims.

 

[Pilot00]

There are a lot of different things to consider:
The Ottos propably wouldnt push a Byz Vasalls Claim, meanwhile Prussia may happily push Dutch Claims (if they somehow gained the Netherlands as a Vasall, which just means that you wait until the cores pop up, conquer some Dutch OPM and release it as Netherlands) in order to get the Emperor out of the Low countries, and if f.e. France would, after Spain forms, set up a puppet Aragonese state, they would propably be deligted to push Aragonese claims.

I meant to use it as an example that it is possible to have a vassal with no good intent for it, not to raise an arguement that there can be no good will towards a vassal