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

[brifbates]

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?

Horde vassals operate the same way as tribals (absent a blood pact with overlord) so it's not like they are some super-special exception. Then there's all the crappy stuff tribals have to deal with (fully empowered council, god-awful inheritance laws, no income to speak of, etc.). I think having one very slight advantage over feudal vassals as a counter-balance isn't the worst thing in the world...

 

[jere8184]

why do people try to defend the new alliance system? It adds nothing good and fails it goals (forcing the player to honour an alliance) plus and it removes player choice. Its possibly the worst change that has ever been made to ck2 since i started playing it.

 

[Zsrai]

why do people try to defend the new alliance system?

Because... I like it? It doesn't bother me in the slightest, because I don't enter alliances with everyone all the time. I only join into proper alliances with those characters that I'd actually fight for (or want fighting for me) in a war. Otherwise NAPs are good enough.

 

[jere8184]

Because... I like it? It doesn't bother me in the slightest,

what makes you like it? I mean it may not bother you or get in your way due to your play style or whatnot but what do you see as its positives

 

[brifbates]

what makes you like it? I mean it may not bother you or get in your way due to your play style or whatnot but what do you see as its positives

Knowing your ally is going to join rather than the random ai die roll it used to be? I'd say that's fairly significant.

 

[jere8184]

Knowing your ally is going to join rather than the random ai die roll it used to be? I'd say that's fairly significant.

it wasnt a roll dice tho. the ai joining you was based on their opinions of you your enemy and a few other modifiers such as religion which i see as completely reasonable

 

[Secret Master]

what makes you like it? I mean it may not bother you or get in your way due to your play style or whatnot but what do you see as its positives

It forces human players to actually think about whether they want to go the alliance route as opposed to NAP.

I see myself allying far less frequently than I used to. An actual commitment to join wars, as opposed to just declining all the time when I feel like it randomly, makes me choose much more carefully.

I would prefer a different system that involves assigning bad traits or opinion penalties to people other than the ally when you fail to honor your call to arms, but I don't hate this system.

 

[brifbates]

it wasnt a roll dice tho. the ai joining you was based on their opinions of you your enemy and a few other modifiers such as religion which i see as completely reasonable

None of which were readily accessible for evaluation prior to the call being sent so it may as well have been a random die roll, at least for any borderline decisions. Sure some cases were obvious but a lot were in the grey area of maybe/maybe not...

 

[jere8184]

None of which were readily accessible for evaluation prior to the call being sent so it may as well have been a random die roll, at least for any borderline decisions. Sure some cases were obvious but a lot were in the grey area of maybe/maybe not...

I dont think they where readily accessible (if by that you mean not knowing if someone would decline your call to arms) before declaring a war as like in real life as it is in the game things change so it impossible to know for certainty if someone was going to join your war. most cases where obvious if you looked at your allies opinion and for the few uncertainty's you can one learn all the modifiers that affect call to arms which they was not much of or two just accept that like in real life you can never be 100% certain about things especially who will join what war on what side.

 

[Soylent Dave]

I'd like to see forced CtA removed (I don't think it's 'game breaking', but it could certainly be improved).

But the old system wasn't great - the penalties for refusing (or accepting and not turning up) were insignificant, and they shouldn't be. Prestige maluses mean very little to non-Tribal rulers; but oathbreaking should be serious business, as should anything that creates the perception that a ruler is a coward.

I'd like to see CtA as optional, but with some serious maluses for refusing (and/or not fighting), within your own realm as well as with your ally, plus more opportunity for your ally to dissolve the alliance if you're not contributing to ongoing wars.

I'd also like the AI to evaluate how many troops it actually needs to send your way, too - large allies don't need to send armies of tens of thousands to help me out in a border skirmish. That part might be optimistic, given the AI, but it would be nice for the degree of support you get from allies to vary (according to circumstance and opinion), rather than 'all or nothing'.

 

[Soylent Dave]

*looks at dev diary*

I'd also like a pony.

 

[Atlantians]

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.

The privilege to refuse that call is a privilege of the tribal vassal contract.