Winning war against tyranny should cause vassal independence

[Technotopia]

Instead of deposing liege.

Right now kingdoms, empires almost never fall apart even under weak rulers. This causes quite ahistorical blobbing. There should be more ways for splintering and shrinking. Losing civil wars and probably some sort of decay of high level titles. For example, being king while having less than threshold counties in de jure kingdom - causes loss of kingdom (title slips away).

Thoughts?

 

[AlipheeseXV]

Instead of deposing liege.

Right now kingdoms, empires almost never fall apart even under weak rulers. This causes quite ahistorical blobbing. There should be more ways for splintering and shrinking. Losing civil wars and probably some sort of decay of high level titles. For example, being king while having less than threshold counties in de jure kingdom - causes loss of kingdom (title slips away).

Thoughts?

Aren't like any realm except for the 'endboss' splintering enough?
Note: I'm playing 867 start date only - so I have no clue how stable AI realms are from 1066 start date!
But in 867, the purple endboss is the only stable realm. Maybe the Abbasids, but then I'm doomed to not play in their neighbourhood, otherwise they quickly also crumble. Khazaria and Kirgizh Khanate never really reach even the year 1.000...
Only AI empires I witness are in late game, from 1300 onwards. And aside from Byzantium it's either Iberia, Francia and maybe the tiny Ajuuraan at the horn of africa.
And blobbing kingdoms? Which are blobbing? At what numbers of counties/duchies would you say a kingdom is blobbing?

 

[Blodhevn]

I agree with the post above. i play mainly 867 as well and the only stable realm is the byzantines, and that one is actually too stable. because it never falls apart. but nothing else ever forms or can challenge it. Sometimes i see a king with 2-4 kingdom titles, but it is rare, and it is never the correct 4 titles for an empire. AI should have lower Found Empire requirement, as long as the kingdoms are connected.

 

[Rifal]

If you win a war against tyranny you should be given a choice of what to do when you win. If ou are ambitious you should be able to claim the throne yourself, if you had a bunch of allies in the war they should be able to join you in forming a new kingdom etc etc.

 

[Ksiendzu]

There should be a factions wars which will destroy primary title when win IMO. This would show the historical collapse of some empires (i.e. Umayyads in Andalusia).

 

[JacobiteJames]

Instead of deposing liege.

Right now kingdoms, empires almost never fall apart even under weak rulers. This causes quite ahistorical blobbing. There should be more ways for splintering and shrinking. Losing civil wars and probably some sort of decay of high level titles. For example, being king while having less than threshold counties in de jure kingdom - causes loss of kingdom (title slips away).

Thoughts?

No because de facto independent but de jure not is best result. You get q favour to reduce your vassal contract and he'll be weak

 

[JacobiteJames]

There should be a factions wars which will destroy primary title when win IMO. This would show the historical collapse of some empires (i.e. Umayyads in Andalusia).

Vassals who are in de jure area but still form independence factions would be good to have andalucia and ilkhanate break up

 

[Blk82]

Kingdoms normally do not fracture because of internal instability. Or rather, they tend to retreat to their de jure borders, rather than fracturing into 'duchy/county tier' realms. Using medieval England as an example, the borders with Wales, Ireland, and France did move back and forth as the power of England and its monarch waxed and waned. However, nobody was seriously considering restoring the heptarchy. Even the Holy Roman Empire existed on paper into the early 19th century.

However, everything reverting to its de jure size might not be the best solution. It might make sense if some technology was needed for stable kingdoms and empires, so that the taiga tribes would tend to revert to duchies because even right culture de-jure vassals of king or duke rank could still join independence factions. But overall, the world is too unstable.

 

[fodazd]

My personal opinion: I absolutely agree that tyranny wars should have a different war goal than depose liege, and independence would work for this. In an ideal system, the vassal would be able to *choose* their war goal among several options, like pushing a claimant (which might be yourself if you do have a claim) or independence. Depose liege might still be in there too if the vassal really does not like the other options.

 

[kviiri]

I feel a more nuanced faction system where faction members can influence the outcome of the war would be welcome, but I think it would make sense in the CK3 mechanical framework if the stakes were known at the beginning of the war. Plus it would make sense, a rebellion seeking to remove a particularly nasty king might find themselves at a great loss of supporters if the leader surprisingly announced a different agenda, say replacing the ruling dynasty with his own.

 

[r3xm0rt1s]

Reminds me when I schemed to gain a claim on my liege's Byzantine Empire, then created the claimant faction so AI could not. But some dumb AI joined, the Basileus tried to imprison them and failed. I, whose subrealm was like 3/4 of the empire, army some 10 times the emperor, with revocation protection and war declaration privileges, went "oh noes must act nao or teh emps takes us out one by one". Cue shit ton of favour hooks on my new vassals to fuck up the whole realm and premature end to steward councilor building discounts....

 

[Tryvenyal]

And blobbing kingdoms? Which are blobbing? At what numbers of counties/duchies would you say a kingdom is blobbing?

This is very inidividual, I think, but for me blobbing is (AI) Empires or sometimes Kingdoms that grow x2+ their historical size. In CK3 I guess beyond Empire De jure often is enough to qualify for me AI even forming Empires is definatly Blobbing in CK!