There's not a lot that needs to be said to make the case for this. If you have any interest in history, and if you have ever read any medieval chronicle, you will find, time and time again - that the most important wars and battles are almost always fought within a dynasty and its vassals.
The Holy Roman Empire was one succession of civil wars. The Kings (as well as the Counts and Dukes...) of Sicily spent the great majority of their time fighting their powerful landed vassals in Southern Italy, while their predominantly muslim and greek population stayed loyal. The Ottoman dynasty was riven with infighting, including a four way war. England, Scotland and France...Countless examples.
But there is one thing that all these conflicts had in common.
It essentially stayed within the living framework of the 'realm'. They did not split or fracture off into completely different entities as in CK1. Nor was the winner able to wholesale annex the loser.
What happened, in nine out of ten cases, was that if the rebels won, the 'king' would be forced to change his policies by changing his advisers, often requiring the execution of favorites, make important concessions (perhaps give up territory if his personal domain had grown too large) and in extreme situations, himself be forced to resign. However, the ruler was almost always replaced by another, weaker member of his dynasty - who was usually a pawn of the 'barons'. Sometimes a subsequent revolt would see the old ruler brought back. In fact, at most times in history, in most 'dynasties', the supposed scion, whether King or Duke, was pretty much at the mercy of opposing factions, whether he knew it or not. Very rarely would a genuinely strong, single personality take entire control regardless of their title. Even the great conquerors of history were usually always acting under competing influences in their own court.
If the rebels lost, they were forced back into obedient vassalage. The ruler's inner circle or 'court faction' would win out over the barons. Most of the time, the major offenders were pardoned. The Hauteville rulers of Sicily put down more or less the exact same baronial families on something like a half dozen separate occasions. It should only be in extreme situations, with extreme loss of prestige, that a Sovereign is able to execute or annex a rebel baron's lands. The most precious thing that the victorious ruler should get is a variable number of years of peace - the luckiest might quiet the homefront for a generation - allowing the relatively carefree and blessed free time of dealing with foreign affairs. Such as interfering in your neighbors civil wars and going on crusade.
This is just a broad outline of the 'continuity' that I think civil warfare in CK2 should provide. There should be potential for foreign powers to 'interfere', but hopefully more by donating regiments or gold, than an active declaration of war.
In any case, these kinds of problems with vassals should be endemic, and a major factor in the difficulty of expansion. Periods of relative tranquility should be cherished. But I also don't like it being modelled on the old Bad Boy system, with its linear progression right to hell. Naturally, with the trait system, it should be quite possible the right leader and the right set of barons pick a generation to exist and accomplish something truly extraordinary - as happened once a twice. Only for the next generation to ruin everything they fought for.
The Holy Roman Empire was one succession of civil wars. The Kings (as well as the Counts and Dukes...) of Sicily spent the great majority of their time fighting their powerful landed vassals in Southern Italy, while their predominantly muslim and greek population stayed loyal. The Ottoman dynasty was riven with infighting, including a four way war. England, Scotland and France...Countless examples.
But there is one thing that all these conflicts had in common.
It essentially stayed within the living framework of the 'realm'. They did not split or fracture off into completely different entities as in CK1. Nor was the winner able to wholesale annex the loser.
What happened, in nine out of ten cases, was that if the rebels won, the 'king' would be forced to change his policies by changing his advisers, often requiring the execution of favorites, make important concessions (perhaps give up territory if his personal domain had grown too large) and in extreme situations, himself be forced to resign. However, the ruler was almost always replaced by another, weaker member of his dynasty - who was usually a pawn of the 'barons'. Sometimes a subsequent revolt would see the old ruler brought back. In fact, at most times in history, in most 'dynasties', the supposed scion, whether King or Duke, was pretty much at the mercy of opposing factions, whether he knew it or not. Very rarely would a genuinely strong, single personality take entire control regardless of their title. Even the great conquerors of history were usually always acting under competing influences in their own court.
If the rebels lost, they were forced back into obedient vassalage. The ruler's inner circle or 'court faction' would win out over the barons. Most of the time, the major offenders were pardoned. The Hauteville rulers of Sicily put down more or less the exact same baronial families on something like a half dozen separate occasions. It should only be in extreme situations, with extreme loss of prestige, that a Sovereign is able to execute or annex a rebel baron's lands. The most precious thing that the victorious ruler should get is a variable number of years of peace - the luckiest might quiet the homefront for a generation - allowing the relatively carefree and blessed free time of dealing with foreign affairs. Such as interfering in your neighbors civil wars and going on crusade.
This is just a broad outline of the 'continuity' that I think civil warfare in CK2 should provide. There should be potential for foreign powers to 'interfere', but hopefully more by donating regiments or gold, than an active declaration of war.
In any case, these kinds of problems with vassals should be endemic, and a major factor in the difficulty of expansion. Periods of relative tranquility should be cherished. But I also don't like it being modelled on the old Bad Boy system, with its linear progression right to hell. Naturally, with the trait system, it should be quite possible the right leader and the right set of barons pick a generation to exist and accomplish something truly extraordinary - as happened once a twice. Only for the next generation to ruin everything they fought for.
Last edited:
. Link me to a thread, and I'll see if it fits into my work schedule.
