Call to Arms

[Stratagyfan101]

One thing I disliked about original CK was that I never knew if my ally was coming to war with me or not.

And if they didn't they remained my ally with no relation hit and unless I had a claim I couldn't go teach him a lesson.

So what I'm proposing is a manual call to arms button if the AI doesn't immediatly join in on the fun.

So to use a scenerio I often faced, As Castille I'm cutting through muslim Iberia like a hot knife through butter and then out of nowhere Seville (who usually takes Cordoba and the rest of southern Iberia before 1075 or 1080) declare war on me. Now I am weakened from wars with the other smaller Emirates like Toledo and Badjoz. I have a powerful ally in France but they just stay put minding their own while I start losing my Castillian provinces.

Another example is when as Castille or Leon, when I make that quick alliance with Navarra, Barcelona, or Aragon they never come to my aid and essentially you have two equally matched kingdoms in a slugfest until Toledo sees oportunity and all of Iberia falls to the muslims.

With a Call To Arms feature atleast if I survive with a white peace or cenceding territory I can go smack that dishonest "ally" of mine and maybe get some gold in return. As well as give him a major prestige hit.

In all the game needs many more diplomatic options for a time period that was all about inter-dynastic relations.

 

[unmerged(61650)]

I agree with you, also I have to say that usually your allies doesnt come to help you when you are weakened and your enemy has more troops .
OT:And Iberian reigns helped between them :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Las_Navas_de_Tolosa

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

I agree with you, also I have to say that usually your allies doesnt come to help you when you are weakened and your enemy has more troops .
OT:And Iberian reigns helped between them :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Las_Navas_de_Tolosa

When they saw benefit on it. Glory is also a benefit in the knightly morality.

But CK has no way to represent properly a huge turning point like Las Navas de Tolosa, Mantzikert, Bouvines, Crécy, Hattin or Mohács.

Armies running away should demoralise and loose a huge part of their men. Because medieval war had two faces: the face of skrimishes and chevauchées, sack and pillage, hit and run, which was most of the time, and the face of big battles, moments that were almost sacred because God was about to jugde who was right, who had more claim over who.

Muret, Bouvines or Tagliacozzo were all seen like God's judgement, and after those battles, one side was really demoralised. It was the loser's end. CK cannot represent this, sadly enough.

 

[Antoine]

Another problem with allies : when they join, they rarely end the war.

The big deal for me in reconquistas is trying to save my own allies who never end the wars, while I conclude peace as soon as possible if I have gained some provinces to avoid to have to sell my castles.

Playing Castille (Toulouse who inherited Castille more exactly) allied with France I've seen France join the fight against Sevilla and Toledo, but Paris ended Sevillan because the french king managed to stay 30+ years in the fight (while I concluded peace, re-joined the war some years later to help him, concluded peace when he seemed in a good enough situation to obtain one, re-joined the war some years later to help him, re concluded peace, and finally let him die) continuing to declare war to a lot of random sevillan vassals even when half his french territory was conquered. And he was in theory a "coward" AI.

While I've never liked the collective peaces of EU2/3 where someone could force all his allies to end a war (I even hate that feature for vassals in ck), I think there should be a way to propose a collective peace agreement to all the involved realms (and clearly say to your allies "if you continue it's without me" so they don't count your forces when they decide if they continue or not), or perhaps force the enemy to propose this peace (ie : as a peace condition : "I ask you offer a white peace to X and Y").

 

[Stratagyfan101]

I just found it a pain in certain situations. It is also really annoying to have my ally grab a random province in the middle of my kingdom.

So as another option for diplomacy I'd like to see the ability to conquer a province for another ruler.

I know P'Dox has developed since CKV but I'm a little weary to CK2 because the real selling point of CK is the inter-dynasty diplomacy and with all the respect to Paradox and their games, but diplomacy seems to be a weak part.

I only played CKV and some demos but based on a lot of the comments in forums it seems diplomatic options are the most lacking aspects.

So if they do add the EU Alliance Leader, I should actually negotiate for my entire alliance. So even if I conquer the province of Roma, while alligned with the Papal State I should be able to negotiate that province being seceeded (real word?) to the Papal State.

The thing I disliked about CK was it was basically forge claim, fight, peace, get prestige for said province, forge claim, fight, peace, so on and so on.

Every now and then I marry off some daughters, find a bride, hope I get lucky with tech advances/spreading. And some times if I'm lucky I can marry into a spot where I'm actually in the top 10 succession. Then i play around with assassins. Get caught 4-5 times even though I'm clearly superior.

Now with "send insult", "Royal Marriage", "Claim Throne", "Sell Province" and the expanded diplomacy of EU I feel we will have more options but I still say this game is more about Diplomacy and War than anything.