It's honestly something that makes no sense at all. Technically indirect vassals are still your vassals, so you word should still be law. Sometimes I just don't want one of my powerful dukes to be overthrown, but there's no way to support them or intervene.
He was my vassal in CK2, though not any more.
The issue is that their own vassals can still rebel against your vassals (failed revocation attempt, etc.). In those wars you can't ask the rebel to stop, as if he weren't your vassal, but you can't join your vassal against him either, as if the rebel was indeed your vassal.
It does not make sense, but when you tell your vassal to "surrender vassal war" and they agree, the war gets white peaced. I guess this is not WAD, but this way you are atleast able to handle the vassals of your vassals...
Your direct vassals yes. Else, what @Gunthah said, who managed to send their message before me
It makes sense that you would ask them to white peace as they are the aggressor and you're playing the peacemaker in that case. Asking them to hand themselves in and be imprisoned by their liege seems unreasonable. However I understand you could argue the same for asking your vassal to surrender to the rebel.
.Same I have that problem too. I hate seeing a war between vassals such as dukes under my Despot vassal. I hate it when my vassal gives one of his vassals the power to declare war because they used a hook to have a special feudal contract. This is why I always have high crown authority and almost never let my vassals have hooks on me. It sucks even more because I can't intervene as an emperor and end the war as white peace.
This makes sense though, doesn't it? If two dukes have a legitimate reason to go to war, they'd consider it none of their despot's business, let alone the emperor, somebody they've likely never even seen or interacted with. An emperor trying to intervene like this would be seen as a tyrant sticking his nose where it doesn't belong and curtailing their rights to rule their duchies as they see fit.
Very true. This is why I always keep high crown authority as it makes the realm stable.
Greedy vassals abuse of the power and then have more titles that what they are supposed to have. It's always best for them to have their respective titles and vassals.
You are thinking of it backwards. It's not that they don't have the right to go to war - it's that the realm head is strong enough to enforce a "God's Truce", as some chronicle's call it, on the direct vassals. But the vassals might not be strong enough to enforce the same concept on their direct vassals. Why can't the realm head do the same on the vassal's vassals? The entire concept of feudalism is that the lord (count, duke, king, emperor) only commands those who swore their fealty oath to the lord. Those who swore fealty to lord's vassals are not taking orders from the lord. Centralization is still a ways off and beyond the power of the ruler.
Of course! Unless they use a hook on you that lets them declare war.
This is fair. I still don't see the problem with strong vassals personally, but I do agree that if the laws disallow war, than from a gameplay perspective vassals shouldn't be able to go to war without changing the laws first.
My areas of specialty in medieval history are admittedly places that didn't practice sub- infeudation, but this sort of rigid barrier insulating sub-vassals from the top liege has never passed my internal sniff test. I'd love to be proven wrong though. Is there a historical example where a liege had a reason to want to take action against a sub-vassal and was powerful enough to do it, but held off because it was against feudal propriety to meddle with a vassal's own vassals?
Now you are confusing real life, where a duke could have 15 murder plots going on all at once, and game limitations for the sake of playability.
