Why do tribal vassals have the priviledge of not having forced calls to arms?

[R'hllor]

I just played around a bit with tribals and now I feel like ranting about this. Its really inconsistent and frankly makes little sense that tribal vassals can choose if they want to join wars, but independent rulers have no choice whatsoever about whom to even call in a war. Why don't tribals play with the same rules as everyone else? Or actually, why doesn't everyone else enjoy the same benefits as tribal vassals? It's just plain silly that a tribal king would have to kindly ask his vassals to help him take one county while the feudal kings are all rallying to the aid of their ally without ever questioning his authority.

Rant over.

 

[Jamey]

Did you read the DD on the topic?

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ii-charlemagne-dev-diary-4-the-tribes.805024/

 

[Alexander Seil]

Wouldn't a tribal vassal you have a proper alliance with also be subject to mandatory calls to arms? The only way I see a problem here is if it's impossible to form alliances with a tribal vassal, for some reason.

 

[Silversweeeper]

On the one hand, tribal vassals are likely to be a bit less obedient than feudals, but on the other hand, pledging to support someone (even under duress) as a vassal and then reneging does not feel very different from doing the same as an ally, and a vassal likely is in a position where it would be easier to put pressure on them and punish them if they don't as they are supposed to do, so it is odd that they are more able to refuse than distant allies that potentially are having their own wars to worry about.

 

[Thrake]

That's what makes tribals unique; what you ask for is leveling down gameplay mechanics and in this reguard I say no thanks. I'm not even sure what tribals have to do here as all you seem to be angry at is the change in alliance mechanic and that have nothing to do with tribals.

Wouldn't a tribal vassal you have a proper alliance with also be subject to mandatory calls to arms? The only way I see a problem here is if it's impossible to form alliances with a tribal vassal, for some reason.

You can not ally vassals; you can only get a NAP. Tribal vassals do get some serious prestige hit when refusing to join defensive wars though and given how prestige can get you anything as a tribal it isn't exactly something I would casually do to refuse a CTA and loose 300 prestige (offensive wars are more in the 75 prestige range so then I sometimes do that and mind my own business in the mean time).

 

[icedt729]

Feudal realms have feudal obligations, tribal realms are organized much more loosely, hence calling vassals to war and the inheritance-law restrictions. Tribal lieges have less control over their realms by design, this is what it means to be tribal rather than any other government type.

 

[Raczynski]

On the one hand, tribal vassals are likely to be a bit less obedient than feudals, but on the other hand, pledging to support someone (even under duress) as a vassal and then reneging does not feel very different from doing the same as an ally, and a vassal likely is in a position where it would be easier to put pressure on them and punish them if they don't as they are supposed to do, so it is odd that they are more able to refuse than distant allies that potentially are having their own wars to worry about.

The whole point of tribals is that they're NOT feudal and don't know/buy into the whole concept of formal and regulated liege-vassal relationship. They aren't "reneging" on anything.

 

[Holomanga]

Feudal realms have feudal obligations, tribal realms are organized much more loosely, hence calling vassals to war and the inheritance-law restrictions. Tribal lieges have less control over their realms by design, this is what it means to be tribal rather than any other government type.

But it's not their realm, it's someone else's realm that said that they'd be allies.

 

[R'hllor]

That's what makes tribals unique; what you ask for is leveling down gameplay mechanics and in this reguard I say no thanks. I'm not even sure what tribals have to do here as all you seem to be angry at is the change in alliance mechanic and that have nothing to do with tribals.

Thats correct, however I'd rather see everyone else get the same amount of choice that tribal vassals have. The way its done now is really inconsistent and adds an additional layer of nonsense to the nonsense that is forced call to arms.

 

[Silversweeeper]

The whole point of tribals is that they're NOT feudal and don't know/buy into the whole concept of formal and regulated liege-vassal relationship. They aren't "reneging" on anything.

I meant that they get to refuse CtAs at will, which allies (whether feudal or not) don't have the chance to do, despite the fact that a vassal likely has sworn far more oaths of loyalty than allies.

 

[Zsrai]

Thats correct, however I'd rather see everyone else get the same amount of choice that tribal vassals have. The way its done now is really inconsistent and adds an additional layer of nonsense to the nonsense that is forced call to arms.

No it's not. How is it inconsistent or add another "layer of nonsense"?

I meant that they get to refuse CtAs at will, which allies (whether feudal or not) don't have the chance to do, despite the fact that a vassal likely has sworn far more oaths of loyalty than allies.

But they haven't, because they aren't feudal style vassals. They are sub-clans in a loose tribal federation.

 

[R'hllor]

No it's not. How is it inconsistent or add another "layer of nonsense"?

Don't you think that its weird that tribal vassals can choose which wars to fight, while their liege, an independent ruler, will be forced into all wars of their allies, no matter the circumstances, without any choice?

 

[Silversweeeper]

But they haven't, because they aren't feudal style vassals. They are sub-clans in a loose tribal federation.

Presumably they have sworn fealty to at least some extent (even if at the tip of a sword), which likely has at least a few strings attached to it in the way of obligations with respect to wars ("You don't attack me, I don't attack you, and I bring my warriors if you ask me" would probably be a fairly reasonable wording, even if both sides might go back on their word down the line), compared to an alliance ("We both come to the aid of one another if attacked"). Feudal vassals have more obligations than tribal ones, but a tribal vassal is still in a position where their liege would be able to punish them more easily for breaking their word than their liege would be able to punish an ally that refuses to show up to a war (which isn't an option right now, but used to be possible) or breaks off the alliance, so tribal vassals having the option to refuse calls to arms while regular allies cannot doesn't feel like it makes a lot of sense.

 

[Rubidium]

Don't you think that its weird that tribal vassals can choose which wars to fight, while their liege, an independent ruler, will be forced into all wars of their allies, no matter the circumstances, without any choice?

The liege and the allies almost certainly signed a fairly extensive treaty when the alliance (which you have to actively create, remember, and can dissolve at will) was formed. Feudal vassals also have contracts, which is why you can raise their troops.

The tribal vassals are more on the order of subclans, with their own leaders, who happen to live in the same general area and acknowledge your superior strength. You can tell them to join you for your campaign, but they don't recognize any legal obligation to do so, merely tradition and prudence.

Edit: and note that eventually improved tribal authority (i.e. beginning to shift to a more feudal system) does, in fact, result in their armies being called up like normal feudal vassals.

 

[R'hllor]

The liege and the allies almost certainly signed a fairly extensive treaty when the alliance (which you have to actively create, remember, and can dissolve at will) was formed. Feudal vassals also have contracts, which is why you can raise their troops.

The tribal vassals are more on the order of subclans, with their own leaders, who happen to live in the same general area and acknowledge your superior strength. You can tell them to join you for your campaign, but they don't recognize any legal obligation to do so, merely tradition and prudence.

Edit: and note that eventually improved tribal authority (i.e. beginning to shift to a more feudal system) does, in fact, result in their armies being called up like normal feudal vassals.

Treaties, no matter how extensive, should still be breakable. Especially if you actually have something better to do than join your ally in a quest to conquer a single county on the other side of the continent. I'm not complaining about feudal vassals, though in real life they too could decide to not send their troops in their lieges aid.

Anyway, I think its stupid that tribes under another tribes rule, no matter how autonomous, can have more choice in their actions than independent rulers.

 

[DPS]

The problem is, this thread is backwards. Tribal vassals not joining in a war isn't the problem, the problem is the automatic call to arms and automatic acceptance thereof. Note that even with feudal vassals, you can choose not to call them up for your wars, and you can choose some but not all of them if you want. If you have an independent ally, though, you can't choose not to call them.

 

[Zsrai]

Anyway, I think its stupid that tribes under another tribes rule, no matter how autonomous, can have more choice in their actions than independent rulers.

Tribal vassals/sub-clans/whatever can't even make alliances (that matter). They can also have their lands given away by their liege (peace deals). How does that give them more choice than independent rulers again?

 

[Silversweeeper]

Tribal vassals/sub-clans/whatever can't even make alliances (that matter). They can also have their lands given away by their liege (peace deals). How does that give them more choice than independent rulers again?

The same is true for non-tribal vassals. The issue is that tribal vassals have more choice than independent rulers when it comes to CtA acceptance. I personally dislike automatic CtAs for anyone, so my preferred solution would obviously be for independent rulers to be able to tell their allies to get lost, but as automated CtAs that cannot be refused are a thing it makes little sense that a tribal vassal can refuse a CtA from their liege with zero consequences while an independent tribal ruler, a feudal ruler, an MR, or a Khagan has no opportunity to tell their ally that they are unable and/or unwilling to honour a CtA.

 

[Secret Master]

Given how valuable prestige is to tribal rulers, they can eat the prestige hit for declining a call to arms as far as I'm concerned. Oh, and they can sit back and earn no prestige since they aren't actually in the war.

Lazy tribals deserve to never spawn prestige troops or upgrade their realms.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

The liege and the allies almost certainly signed a fairly extensive treaty when the alliance (which you have to actively create, remember, and can dissolve at will) was formed. Feudal vassals also have contracts, which is why you can raise their troops.

The tribal vassals are more on the order of subclans, with their own leaders, who happen to live in the same general area and acknowledge your superior strength. You can tell them to join you for your campaign, but they don't recognize any legal obligation to do so, merely tradition and prudence.

Edit: and note that eventually improved tribal authority (i.e. beginning to shift to a more feudal system) does, in fact, result in their armies being called up like normal feudal vassals.

Well, no.

Most early alliances would have been sworn oaths of mutual aid, either in a specific war or perpetually. They would be substantially the same as the sort of oaths different tribals chiefs would swear to their King (War Leader).

In Christian Kingdoms both types of oaths might have been written down and have signed witnesses but this was simply a written recording of an oral oath. In Pagan Kingdoms everyone would have been illiterate and neither vassal oaths nor alliances would have been committed to parchment.

Make no mistake here - literacy in the early middle ages is the exclusive province of the Church in Western and North-Eastern Europe. Nor are tribals actually any less vassals than "Feudals", it's just that the arrangement is less organised. In Feudals realms vassals are required to provide a proscribed number of men of a certain type, in Tribal societies the lower chiefs are bound to turn up at the battle when called.

To suggest that Tribal rulers should have some leeway in their sworn commitments and members of alliances shouldn't is gross inconsistency and it's just another example of how forced CtA doesn't make any actual sense.