CK2 Dev Diary #50: A Reason for War

[oerbaa]

This is another idea we're toying with, like the previously mentioned force conversion CB that Wuddel mentioned it's something that can't be used lightly though. It would have to require extremely specific circumstances, or only be presented through a scripted opportunity of some sort. Have you got any ideas on when such a CB would feel fair to use?

A basic idea I haven't seen addressed is the concept of "added wargoals" like in Victoria 2.

If all the requirements for a CB are met, and you are already at war for another CB, could it be possible to simply add the other wargoal, at its given prestige/gold/threat cost, which would also require a significantly higher warscore to enforce (there would be an upper limit to how many goals you could add before capping at 100% warscore).

For example, if I have the sufficient prestige, piety, and gold, I can start a war over a county I have a claim on, and then add onto it a secondary goal to obtain the entire dutchy at the cost of prestige and gold and threat.

Like you guys said originally regarding one of the CBs: "This CB was added to try to avoid situations where massive realms would fight over one single county, essentially destroying their armies for near no gain."

The "added wargoals" function would allow large empires to fight each other and add additional counties or dutchies as the war progresses in the favor of one or the other. Again, overuse of this would be limited by the costs associated with adding a wargoal.



Regarding the "Destroy Top Title" CB, I am completely for it, though it would be a very powerful CB if it didn't have stiff requirements. I'm thinking it could be used only on realms that are a certain size or larger (200 and larger?), for Kingdoms and Empires only, and perhaps only if the opponent is stronger. The result of this CB is the destruction of all top-tier titles held by the ruler. So if a Ruler had 2 kingdom titles, they both would be destroyed, and hence all the land would resort to many independent duchies. This certainly would add a great deal of fun into the game as it would allow the dismantling of giant blobs like the Abbasids in the early game start.

 

[neutrondecay]

Rulers with the Just and Honest traits should always choose to execute them. Because the main reason of holding hostages was to deter someone from attacking you. And if the attacker chooses to ignore that threat, then the honorable thing to do is to stay true to the rules of warfare by executing the hostages. Because keeping hostages but then choosing not to execute them when the push comes to shove would be seen as hypocrisy.

This is nonsense. Why should a just ruler execute someone who individually may have done nothing wrong?

nd

 

[Zaltys]

This is nonsense. Why should a just ruler execute someone who individually may have done nothing wrong?

nd

You're clearly thinking by modern standards. What the individuals have done doesn't matter.
What matters is that they're hostages, and hostages are expected to be executed in such situations. Doing otherwise would've been seen as dishonorable. Their blood is on the attacker, not on the ruler whose hand was forced into executing them.

I recommend Hostages in the Middle Ages by Adam Kosto if you're interested in this subject.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Oh, for the dismantle CB, even if you don't let the player use this CB very often, I'd like to see it used for things like decadence revolts at least. Some independence revolts or other major rebellions could also dismantle the top title if they win if they represent a significant enough portion of the kingdom/empire or if the realm is already sufficiently unstable when they fire.

 

[Gloweye]

No, just shouldn't do it. After all, the Hostages did nothing that deserves death. It's the attacker that deserves punishments, and a just character wont punish someone else instead.

Wroth, Honest, Cruel/Impaler, those traits should make them want to do it. Cravens not - that's their bargaining chip. If the enemy reaches the castle walls you can always give them their hostages back to end the war. I dont think Just should matter that much, and surely not discourage - they are in their right.

Also, if pushing a CB gets hostages executed, all your dynasty members should get a -20 penalty for causing the death of the hostage. If you free them by threat or by force, you get +10 dynasty opinion per hostage, and +50 bonus from each hostage personally. Perhaps also do that on ransoms ?

 

[Galdis]

I was wondering where the De Jure Duchal CB went... I used that literally all the time. Guess I'll have to use a mod until Paradox sucks more money out of me to get content back into the game.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

Forced Vassalization
This is a CB that can be used against neighboring realms to force them to become your vassal. To avoid making it too powerful it’s quite heavily limited, only realms that are of a lower tier, under 30 realm size and where the ruler is of either your culture group or religion are valid targets. It also has a direct cost (prestige). For example; this can allow England to, with time, extend ‘protection’ to the smaller Welsh and Irish realms.

This all looks good, I would like to make one suggestion about the above CB, though.

I think it should be usable on characters of the same religious group. So, for example, Catholic Characters should be able to force the vassalisation of Orthodox characters and vice-versa. Otherwise you end up with a situation where you have valid CB's against people of different religious groups and your own religion but not someone of your religious group.

I think this point it particularly important when you consider that whilst someone of your own religion may accept vassalisation someone of a different religion within your group will always refuse, just like an infidel.

So Catholic Venice or Amalfi will always refuse Orthodox Byzantium, for example, even though logically they really should accept. I imagine the same pertains in Indian States.

 

[KingKenny04]

Has anyone mentioned anything like a "liberate" CB? Something like CBs that allow you to target a province that borders your own realm that has the same religion or culture as your character, but who's current title holder is of a different culture/religion. The idea being that you're "liberating" the people of that province from foreign/infidel oppresion.

Ive been playing Kurdish rulers recently with the roleplaying objective of uniting Kurdish provinces into a single independent Kurdish realm, and it seems that something like this would make sense. I feel like it would also help add flavor or depth to custom titular kingdoms/empires.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

This is another idea we're toying with, like the previously mentioned force conversion CB that Wuddel mentioned it's something that can't be used lightly though. It would have to require extremely specific circumstances, or only be presented through a scripted opportunity of some sort. Have you got any ideas on when such a CB would feel fair to use?

I like the idea of a "Destroy Top title" CB.

Some notional restrictions:

• Must be the same rank as you
• You must be King or Emperor rank
• Must be similar realm size (80-120%)
• One of these:
  • Must be same Religious Group
  • Must hold Title's De Jure Capital

The idea would be this would be a "Kill the other Caliph/Emperor" CB. That presents a good "Endgame" challenge for players who have been particularly successful, but it also somewhat discourages excessive blobbing because if you out-blob your rival by too much you lose the CB.

 

[CSAGeneral]

This is another idea we're toying with, like the previously mentioned force conversion CB that Wuddel mentioned it's something that can't be used lightly though. It would have to require extremely specific circumstances, or only be presented through a scripted opportunity of some sort. Have you got any ideas on when such a CB would feel fair to use?

Maybe when the holder has just won the title through some kind of civil war? The rationale is that the new holder will not be all that secure in their new title and there would be enough public support behind him getting deposed, even by foreign invaders.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Maybe when the holder has just won the title through some kind of civil war? The rationale is that the new holder will not be all that secure in their new title and there would be enough public support behind him getting deposed, even by foreign invaders.

The game specifically protects recently won titles from usurpation so that might be going against the design philosophy.

 

[GUmby_Aaron]

I'm honestly a bit scared of implementing new CBs (if not AI balanced enough) will turn my beloved CK2 to Europa Paintingversalis.
I really hope this new CBs and all its mechanics and their new resulting situations (multiple wars) get balanced and properly implemented before release and not afterwards.

Yeah, ever since Horse Lords the Q&A has rapidly declined almost to the point of how bad they were in the 00's *shudders*. Most likely this will come out in August but will not actually be ready until September (with the .1 update) looking at their previous dev cycle.

As a person who plays Republics fairly often, I wish there was a Punitive Measures CB where I could go after people that raided my trade posts or counties; a big blow to the target's prestige and maybe burning some of their buildings to the ground would be a nice payback.

Historically if you upset powerful Patricians they would freeze you out of trade. You can do that as a Republic sorta by declaring the make tributary CB on them.

Has anyone mentioned anything like a "liberate" CB? Something like CBs that allow you to target a province that borders your own realm that has the same religion or culture as your character, but who's current title holder is of a different culture/religion. The idea being that you're "liberating" the people of that province from foreign/infidel oppression.

I would LOVE a CB that lets you go after your religious holy sites if they are multiple ones held by the same liege (the pagan ones residing in the HRE for example, or the Zoro ones in Abbasid). Going to war once with those huge giants is such a daunting task that it suck you can't up your religious authority by claiming those multiple sites (as great holy wars won't be open to you in those religions until you claim the holy sites to restore/reform it).

 

[Steel_atlas]

Good changes, and if the DLC is focused on one aspect and the shown changes have to do with war maybe we are actually getting a Crusade focused DLC?

 

[hare-boxer]

In addition to a free hostages CB, there should be a diplomacy option to demand release of prisoners/concubines. Instead of paying ransom, you threaten war.

If it comes to war, there should be a prestige and piety hit to the attacker if the defender decides to kill or maim the prisoner/concubine in question. If the war is over a close relative, then a massive hit. Otherwise, moderate.

Could white peace for Free Hostage War result in the hostage released unharmed with no additional penalties to the defender?

Generally, CBs should promote behavior that is roughly historical. I don't think there were a lot of wars over hostages in medieval Europe. Maybe AI should resort to this option rarely and there should be considerable costs imposed to dissuade players from taking this option.

That said, for small pagan realms, it could be fun to have a Steal Concubine CB, where you target a weaker neighbor's concubine and get her for yourself if you win.

 

[Alastor]

Great Conquest
Unless you are playing as a Muslim, Nomad or Tribal-cultured ruler (who have access to invasions) you have no real way to expand in a meaningful way when you are playing as the ruler of a very large realm. While we still want expansion to be difficult, we also want to give players more static opportunities to expand. This CB is available to very powerful realms (at least 200 realm size) and can be used to claim an entire Kingdom from another character. Though the catch is that you have to fight someone that is as strong or stronger than you are, and using the CB itself costs a massive amount of prestige and piety.

I welcome this addition, mostly because of how frustrating a Byzantium experience can get. Everyone keeps talking about claims and the pope for Christians, forgetting that there are other branches of Christianity. This is an orthodox realm, with no crusades, even more so it's an empire that claims world dominion. And when playing such an empire it's kind of ridiculous to spent 20 years waiting for a claim on a pesky county.

I do understand the concerns about Byzantium blobbing too much, but historically it did blob time and again. And I do understand the frustration of many people with it's stability. For me the reason for that is simple and stems from attempts to depict it as a typical feudal realm which it was not. Byzantium was all about the city of Byzantium, ie Constantinople. He who controlled the capital, controlled the empire. Controlling the capital was the grand game among the powerful families of the realm. And when the capital fell the empire fragmented. The importance of Constantinople is not represented in the game. I have often thought that Byzantium should be represented using many of the mechanics currently reserved for republics. Kind of like an imperial hereditary republic with powerful families vying for control. In the end of the day, it kind of was an evolution of a republic. Either way, attempts to limit a powerful emperor's conquest designs for "balance" are imo unfounded.

 

[luxfelix]

What was the design goal for disallowing declaring war on a character that holds your close kin in prison?

On the face of it, I'd say allow declaring war regardless of whether they hold your close kin as a prisoner.

(If it leads to the death of you kin in prison, maybe that hurts your relationship with other family members whom will now blame you?)

 

[Petit Mort]

No, just shouldn't do it. After all, the Hostages did nothing that deserves death. It's the attacker that deserves punishments, and a just character wont punish someone else instead.

I've always interpreted 'just' as something akin to 'lawful' character-alignments. A just character is doing the legally 'right' thing b executing the hostages. To phrase it, horribly, in the language of diplomacy: state actor A has a hostage (B) to ensure that state actor C doesn't take hostile action against him. The implicit agreement is that as long as C doesn't attack A, B will stay alive. Therefore, if C does attack, then the right, fair, and measured response is to execute B.
As Zaltys pointed out, there is a substantial difference between a modern conception of the just thing (usually a nice, warm, fuzzy concept) and a mediaeval conception of justice (a blind, sometimes cruel mistress).

 

[Gloweye]

I dont contest his right to do so, but im not sure if it should encourage them. After all, you don't have to exercise any right you have. What you're thinking off is doing what you claim you will be doing - that's what we have the Honest trait for, not the Just trait. Sure, he raised his armies, but perhaps you can still use the hostage in order to convince him to stand down, or negotiate it with another branch of the family - perhaps the aggressor has an uncle that will exchange the hostage for a NAP and restraining the current aggressor(we cant do that in game, not a deal that complicated. But it would be an option historically, if the circumstances are there).

All the above situation does is open up more just options for the character, not dictate which actions have to be taken. It is not unjust to keep the hostage alive for a bit longer just to see if he's perhaps still useful down the road.

IF, however, it would be forced to weigh one way or anther, it should be execution, but I just think being just shouldn't influence this decision at all.

As an aside, I agree to starting wars like this from an ultimatum - "release the hostages or else". Perhaps with an option for the receiver of the ultimatum to trade hostages for a NAP.

 

[Silversweeeper]

Regarding executing the hostage(s) if war is declared, keep in mind that if character A refrains from doing so when character B attacks, characters C, D, E, etc. won't be particularly discouraged from attacking due to hostages as A seems unlikely to kill hostages, so showing mercy at all times would be a bad idea.

However, while it shouldn't be percieved as unjust to execute a hostage if you are attacked by their relatives (because the threat of doing that is the whole point of taking a hostage), other traits should probably matter when it comes to the AI hostage execution logic (e.g. a Kind character might see fit to spare a young child that has done nothing wrong while executing an adult hostage, while a Cruel character most likely would not refrain from doing so), and harming (or failing to prevent someone from harming) or mistreating a hostage without reason should be a very bad idea and should potentially make the other party retaliate if they have hostages of their own without this being seen as unjust (though perhaps the AI should be reluctant to do so if you have further hostages it cares about to prevent both parties killing all hostages because a single hostage was killed (possibly by a third party)), and you should find it very difficult to make anyone else willingly hand over a hostage to you in the future if you mistreat a hostage without reason.

Of course, hostages are currently rather poorly defined, with both wards and prisoners being considered hostages despite there not being anything preventing you from mistreating the latter, the former being possible to reassign to someone else (even yourself or your courtiers) without consequences, and there being no way to get hostages except by taking prisoners or asking for wards (such as e.g. demanding that every member of a defeated faction hands over a hostage at the end of the war in exchange for pardoning their crimes). Hopefully, something can be done with this, so that we have more ways to get hostages (e.g. the AI actually being willing to send its children abroad from time to time as hostages), a distinction between a prisoner you imprison for a crime (and might be inclined to torture, maim, or throw in the oubliette) and a hostage you need to treat (reasonably) well (because they are "an honoured guest (that can't leave)"), flavour events surrounding the hostages (e.g. adult hostages getting friends/lovers/rivals in their host's court), hostages possibly being able to serve on the council of their host, the ability for the relative of the hostage to possibly ask for the hostage to be returned (possibly offering another hostage instead, offering to return their own hostage, sending money, signing a formal NAP, etc.), and the like. It would also be nice for a hostage to be considered to be in their host's court for stuff like catching diseases and being imprisoned, but with their parents/etc. being allowed to conduct (some forms) of diplomacy involving them (e.g. arranging marriages) as if they were at home.

 

[DerMaulwurf]

The more I think about it, the less I like the hostage CB. I welcome a way to free hostages, but a straight CB is not a good implementation. I would prefer a sequence of diplomatic interactions that can result in giving a CB.

A rough outline:

Step 1: 'Demand return of hostages'-Diplomatic action
What it says in the title. Optionally with some additional requirements to activate. The recipient can now either (depending on traits, relations, relative power and so on):
A: Return hostages for a truce. And the chain ends - or -
B: Refuse. Bringing you to Step 2.

Step 2: 'XYZ refuses demands'
A: Stand down and mope. No further action and a loss in prestige and piety if yielding to heathen.
B: Issue ultimatum. Go to Step 3

Step 3: Ultimatum
The recipient of tha ultimatum can now either:
A: Give up the hostages for a truce while losing prestige and piety.
B: Refuse without harming the hostages: Initator gains a 'Rescue hostage CB' for limited time as outlined. Failure to declare war costs prestige/piety and general opinion for making empty threats.
C: Kill the hostages: Initiator gains 'Revenge CB' for limited time and major opinion modifiers. Success on Revenge imprisons recipient and his family. Failure to declare war again comes at a cost.