29) WAD: Badboy and vassals - bug or feature?

[Roberto]

Badboy and vassals - bug or feature?

From my first few games poking around with 1.01, I'm not sure whether this is a bug or a feature.

If a king trump's up a claim on a Count's land, declares war and takes the land for himself, his reputation falls. That seems right.

Should the king be able to end the war by inviting the Count to accept vassal status? All I could find was dropping the claim or grabbing the land.

If the king takes the land, then gives the title to one of his loyal family/servants/toyboys because he lacks the skill to run it himself, should his reputation go back up to what it was? So far as I could see, it doesn't.

Now for the one which I think may be a bug. If a vassal rebels and is defeated and his lands seized (while he is boiled in oil), should the defeat of that rebel lower the king's reputation? In other words, should there be a difference between offensive and defensive wars?

By way of an example, in one of my first try-outs playing as a the King of England, William the Conqueror died and was succeeded by a three year old grandson. All his vassels in England rebelled one after the other, and were crushed by loyal armies, and the rebels provinces taken and given to loyal members of his family - at which point the infant had a very bad reputation, so bad that his uncles (the new vassals) rebelled as well!

 

[AndersSchm]

From my first few games poking around with 1.01, I'm not sure whether this is a bug or a feature.

If a king trump's up a claim on a Count's land, declares war and takes the land for himself, his reputation falls. That seems right.

Should the king be able to end the war by inviting the Count to accept vassal status? All I could find was dropping the claim or grabbing the land.

If the king takes the land, then gives the title to one of his loyal family/servants/toyboys because he lacks the skill to run it himself, should his reputation go back up to what it was? So far as I could see, it doesn't.

Now for the one which I think may be a bug. If a vassal rebels and is defeated and his lands seized (while he is boiled in oil), should the defeat of that rebel lower the king's reputation? In other words, should there be a difference between offensive and defensive wars?

By way of an example, in one of my first try-outs playing as a the King of England, William the Conqueror died and was succeeded by a three year old grandson. All his vassels in England rebelled one after the other, and were crushed by loyal armies, and the rebels provinces taken and given to loyal members of his family - at which point the infant had a very bad reputation, so bad that his uncles (the new vassals) rebelled as well!

I've had this sort of thing happening, you get rebellions and by putting down the rebels you just get a worse reputation and more rebels. I had to abandon my game because my whole kingdom kept fighting me endlessly.

 

[Dearmad]

I LIKE it this way and hope it remains the way the game plays:

It means you have to expand in Europe SLOWLY AND MAINTAIN your vassal loyalties as you go. If one rebels you need to consider what crushing him will do to your loyalty, and sometimes you need to decide to let him go his own way (I needed to do that in my current game). In forty years I will come back to his door and crush him when my REP can handle it.

it makes rebellions serious things even when they are minor vassals, and it makes you fear your Dukes and consider very carefully who should inherit what. I understand much better what it is like to be King... rich, prestigious, even pious, but not some lone power who kicks any stray dog that crosses his path. I LOVE THIS!

Also, asking someone to become your vassel or taking his lands in a war is IMO the same thing, because realistically unless it's something like Venice, you're going to parcel the land abck out to some noble and have a vassel there. There should be no difference in a peace negotiation between the two states.

Also IN PEACE you can ask people to become your vassals. It's worked for me. There's more than one way to win the land.

 

[Roberto]

Dearmad, have you actually had somebody agree to become your vassal in peacetime?

I've not been able to achieve it in any of my try-outs, so it would be good to get confirmation that it can be done.

If it can be done then you've half convinced me that this is a feature. "Woe unto the realm where the king is a child". The vassals break away and the new king has to pick up the pieces when he comes of age - if he can.

 

[Dearmad]

yes I have done it in peacetime. Specifically:

I had corwned myself King of Naples after being the Duke of Apulia. The county in question was the Count of Salerno's. I asked him, he said no. i went to war, we made peace after I took all his gold. Then a few months later I asked again... he said OK.

 

[unmerged(21447)]

Dearmad, have you actually had somebody agree to become your vassal in peacetime?

I've not been able to achieve it in any of my try-outs, so it would be good to get confirmation that it can be done.

If it can be done then you've half convinced me that this is a feature. "Woe unto the realm where the king is a child". The vassals break away and the new king has to pick up the pieces when he comes of age - if he can.

I have done it. It took many, many tries, but I have managed, twice, to get someone to agree to become my vassal when neither of us was at war with anybody. Twice more when he was in a war that did not immediately threaten its existence, and three times when becoming my vassal clearly saved its ass.

Since offering costs nothing, I just periodically ask all my likely neighbours, just in case, and very, very rarely, they accept.

My best success so far (with France) :
- the Duke of Luxembourg (one province), after the kingdom of Germany started disintegrating (he was in a war against Germany, but eventually won it all by himself)
- A two provinces Count, one of them Foix, the other far away. It is the only time I got two provinces, but he rebelled within months.

Other successes :
- Evreux, had rebelled from the English, was being sieged, I got there in time to save them (had to declare war on England too, but that was my first successful try and well worth it).
- Blois, had rebelled from Duke of Champagne and the province had been captured. At first I had declared war on them (helping my loyal Duke), I then agreed to a peace, then he became my vassal (province still captured by the Duke), and eventually I revoked his title and thus ended the war
- Macon, had rebelled from Auvergnes, accepted but revolted within weeks, had to be put down the hard way
- I can't remember the name of the last one right now.


Even if it does work, your new vassal starts at 0% loyalty. There is still a good chance he'll rebel before he reaches loyal status.

 

[Dinsdale]

I LIKE it this way and hope it remains the way the game plays:

It means you have to expand in Europe SLOWLY AND MAINTAIN your vassal loyalties as you go.

That sounds great, but the penalties for reclaiming what was yours appear to be an even greater possibility for revolt and a vicious circle. Why should restoration of a vassal make your reputation worse?

 

[unmerged(20604)]

I have played a game where i started out as count of Sjælland. I became king of Denmark and ofr two generations i Expanded the Kingdom.

Now the third Generation king is a very bad bad king. (stewardship of 0!!!). He became king when he was only 12 years old. He is now 22. He lost 2/3 of the kingdom. Before him Denmark were able to get vassals peacefully and conquer pagans. The first king had even two brothers who both became popes. (the younger one still is).

What I am trying to say is that I like that it goes back and forth with how your kingdom lives. Just like in real life. The third generation king as almost resettled the throne, and when he is dead, i think that the fourth generation king can reconquer all the lost counties. (or I hope so).

There i do not think paradox should change the way that regaining claims affects your loyalty. It seems very realistic!

 

[Grosshaus]

There has been quite intense beta discussion around about the BB received from bringing disloyal vassals to order, which is closely related to kingdoms collapsing. No clear solution has been brought up yet, though.

 

[Pleonast]

How about this?

Whenever a vassal breaks fealty, his former liege gets a claim and a slight reduction in badboy. The claim gives the former liege a means to take back lost lands. The reduction in badboy has two effects. 1, if the lands are not taken back, the reduction represents being a goodboy for letting go (similar to a badboy reduction in EU2 when creating a vassal). 2, if the lands are taken back, the reduction represents that the former liege is the aggrieved party.

Whatever the final solution, kingdoms really need to be more stable.

 

[InnocentIII]

There has been quite intense beta discussion around about the BB received from bringing disloyal vassals to order, which is closely related to kingdoms collapsing. No clear solution has been brought up yet, though.

Problem #1 - Vassals revolt and to keep the Kingdom the liege has to defeat them and must steal their claims, there is no option to forgive and forget as an end to the war.

Problem #2 - When a King loses vassals it's a sign that the Kingdom has problems because it is being run badly, or else that one of the events that is supposed to be painful (e.g. new King, or change in laws) has happened.

Now, we don't want to solve Problem #1 by making Problem #2 go away, it makes the game too easy. We also don't want to keep Problem #2 at the expense of making Problem #1 render too many games unplayable (OTOH I found the pain of watching the Loyalty of the Duke of Suffolk excruciating when I realized just how much of England my WtConqueror held through him, and I had to adjust my play to suit his continuing loyalty. Agony serves a useful purpose).

My suggestion, and I admit that I don't know how hard it would be to code:

New Status Icons: Revolter, Persistent Revolter.

Whenever a vassal revolts and is defeated, one option to end the war would be to reinstate him. Now, because this has the potential to make Problem #1 go away, and lessen gameplay, the vassal would then be given the Status Icon "Revolter". A revolter has a maximum loyalty of 75% (or even 50%), and cannot be reinstated a second time. If there's a second rebellion by the vassal, he is given the Status Icon Persistent Revolter, meaning that he cannot be forgiven. If the rebellion ends successfully (or whenever he is set free of his vassalage) he loses whatever icon he had (i.e. it doesn't carry over if he gets a new Liege). One trouble I see here is keeping track of the former liege, but perhaps the Liege's leader# can be part of the icon's information.

In any event, with a Status Icons I think it would be possible to allow a vassal to be reinstated without eliminating the problems that need to exist when a monarch allows revolts to take place. We don't want to make revolts easy, but we don't want a Kingdom to cycle into death from one or two rebellions. The problems associated with Revolters could be stiffened or relaxed to strike the right balance (e.g. you must conquer provinces not just defeat armies in the field, can't be done if your liege is known to be deceitful, vengeful or cruel, etc.).

 

[unmerged(258)]

I think you nailed this part, Innocent:

"Problem #1 - Vassals revolt and to keep the Kingdom the liege has to defeat them and must steal their claims, there is no option to forgive and forget as an end to the war."

I wonder if it needs to be as complicated as tracking previous revolters? How about just allowing a peace settlement of forgive & forget, with vassal reinstalled to previous titles (allowing for money to be exchanged also)? This should be done without a badboy penalty at all (or minor) to the liege. The reinstalled vassal should start with at least some level of loyalty so you don't have a cycle.

This allows the liege to retain his holdings without increasing his badboy. If the vassal rebels too many times, you just get rid of him and take the badboy hit. Your suggestion is superior in terms of gameplay, but perhaps this is easier to implement?

This would also help reduce instances of vassals leaving for another court (after you beat them) because you don't have a way to reinstall them. I just lost my best / oldest son this way, and there is no "forgive" option or any way to bring them back into the family. An example from history is the sons of Henry II after their rebellion. It would be good if you could either keep them in your court in the peace treaty, or assign titles to them though they are now in another court (as long as they are your children or your kin).

 

[Duuk]

Even easier solution: Reduce BB for creating a vassal count. No BB for DoW on rebelling count. BB only for the conquest.

Essentially:

BB = 0

Count Rebels: (BB remains 0)

You DoW Rebel Loser: (No BB)

You Conquer Rebel Loser (BB as normal for conquering co-religion)

You install a new Count: (BB reduced by same amount)

This keeps BB at "0", which it should be since the status quo has not been upset in any way. (BB was intended to prevent an upset of the status quo remember, not to penalize you for keeping your own lands).

Easiest way to implement it: Remove BB for Declaring war if you have a claim. Increase BB hit for grabbing a claim. That will prevent the human player from grabbing a ton of claims knowing it has a significant BB and prestige effect.

The only possible "exploit" would be reducing your demesne to 1 province by creating a ton of counts, but that's a GOOD thing since it encourages proper gameplay.

It checks expansion (BB hit for grabbing claims), checks to be sure no one centralizes their state too much (BB for conquering provinces) but allows an easy out by creating counts.

Counts ONLY should reduce BB. Duchies are just counts who are promoted again.

Creating counts in lands with religion flagged as "muslim" or "pagan" should not reduce BB. (Thus preventing a situation where BB can be artificially deflated through crusading).

Also, the BB cost for grabbing a claim should be fairly significant. After all, if Count Vlad can grab his claim, what is stopping him from grabbing MINE??? Hence the BB hit for grabbing claims.

 

[kurtbrian]

WAD according to Johan