Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Can I surrender to the Mongols?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
unmerged(6073)

unmerged(6073)

Captain
Oct 14, 2001
340
1
Visit site
Let's say I'm the ruler of Novgorod or Kiev, and the Mongols come storming in. As I understand it, the Mongols always issued a demand of submission before they stormed in and killed everyone; historically, Kiev declined it and subsequently was wiped off the map.

But can I change history and accept the Mongol offer, becoming a Mongol vassal, contributing money and men to their war effort, in exchange for safety from the Horde? Will there be any repercussions from the nobles and peasentry for doing so (I doubt surrendering to the enemy without a fight would have been looked highly upon)?
 
Originally posted by BarristerBoy
But wouldn't it be much more entertaining to fight them off? :D
Click to expand...

Not if I just lost half my vassals conquering Poland or something, only to find myself staring down the throat of the mightiest war machine of the age. Then the sole 'entertainment' value would be watching my cities burn to the ground. :)
 
Chances are the mongols would still mess you up good even if you did submit, but probably not as bad as if you actually try to fight them (ha!:D ) or you 'submit' and try to turn on them.
 
Maybe increase in power of peasants, slight increase in clergy power, sharp drop in burghers (mongols had a nasty habit of hating urban cities and all their dwellers, and they tended to slaughter the whole town) and drop in nobility if you submit/get conquererd. Plus a drop in income because of the tribute.
 
Freedom is weakness and war is peace.

Besides submitting and getting to run your cities while mongols get some open space for their cattle, and uniting your armies to say.. crush the turks & save byzantium, by annexasation ;)

Besides, mongols were hardly intrested in the forrested north, and the wide spaces in the south could easily hold you both. And within just a century or two you`ll have them culturally annexed :D
 
in the original design you can not play for vassal, only for ruler, thus if you surrender and lose your independence, the game's pretty much over :eek:. a variation of this could be that we will be able to add the vassal player mode while keeping the balance, then yes you would be able. this is up to the beta testing actually. the other option is to treat the vassalisation by Mongols as a Union with Mongols treating even a slight variarion of your behaviour from the agreed as a dire breach with all the consequences. then you would be still independent but with heavy duties that you do not risk to change or negotiate.
 
Originally posted by sergei
in the original design you can not play for vassal, only for ruler, thus if you surrender and lose your independence, the game's pretty much over :eek:. a variation of this could be that we will be able to add the vassal player mode while keeping the balance, then yes you would be able. this is up to the beta testing actually.
Click to expand...

If the vassal mode is included I for one would be very happy :D

But if it cannot be fixed I won't be this sad :(

Because I will still have a great game :)
 
Originally posted by sergei
Well maybe you would want to help the beta-team tune that very mode...? :) We'll probably start enrolling in October.
Click to expand...

:D

But I haven't considered applying, since I am pretty certain that there is a 'minimum time you can spend on the game per day or week' clause somewhere in the agreement :p

Of course, if a few paltry hours per week would be enough I would apply, what with encouragment like this :cool: :D
 
Originally posted by Chuikov


Not if I just lost half my vassals conquering Poland or something, only to find myself staring down the throat of the mightiest war machine of the age. Then the sole 'entertainment' value would be watching my cities burn to the ground. :)
Click to expand...

Hey, pyromania is a noble hobby!;)
 
Originally posted by sergei
in the original design you can not play for vassal, only for ruler, thus if you surrender and lose your independence, the game's pretty much over :eek:. a variation of this could be that we will be able to add the vassal player mode while keeping the balance, then yes you would be able. this is up to the beta testing actually. the other option is to treat the vassalisation by Mongols as a Union with Mongols treating even a slight variarion of your behaviour from the agreed as a dire breach with all the consequences. then you would be still independent but with heavy duties that you do not risk to change or negotiate.
Click to expand...


Are unions in the game? How do they work? Is the HRE a part of the union feature?
 
Originally posted by Onslaught


Hey, pyromania is a noble hobby!;)
Click to expand...

Yup. Just ask emperor Nero. He supposedly burned Rome no less.

Originally posted by Onslaught


Are unions in the game? How do they work? Is the HRE a part of the union feature?
Click to expand...

Is union a form of kingdom organization or union between two or more dynasties?
 
Originally posted by Winkelried


Is union a form of kingdom organization or union between two or more dynasties?
Click to expand...

I would suspect the latter, as personal unions between dyansties and the states they ruled were very common during the period - and into the EU2 period as well (thus causing some of the headaches in designing events to model such situations)
 
Originally posted by sergei
in the original design you can not play for vassal, only for ruler, thus if you surrender and lose your independence, the game's pretty much over :eek:. a variation of this could be that we will be able to add the vassal player mode while keeping the balance, then yes you would be able. this is up to the beta testing actually. the other option is to treat the vassalisation by Mongols as a Union with Mongols treating even a slight variarion of your behaviour from the agreed as a dire breach with all the consequences. then you would be still independent but with heavy duties that you do not risk to change or negotiate.
Click to expand...


The union approach towards being a mongol vassal would work well. The name of the relationship would be a bit misleading, but it would represent the relationship accurately (pay tribute, step out of line and get annihilated.)
 
Union is any kind of agreement between two dynasties / realms, the definition point being that it is a conditional item. You can adhere or you can terminate (then of course you have prestige falling because you can't hold your word and a CB on you for behaving improperly).

We started from different forms of alliances... Then everything came together because marriage in medieval often came hand in hand with unions, claims with payouts and so on. Union has a duration and conditions, not necessarily on both sides (well technically there will be something on the other side, like a promise not to attack for X months for example).

This could be anything from "We make peace and you have your son marry my daughter" to "I cease my rightful claim on your title and you cease your CB on me for killing your father". Happens on Negotiation Screen. Will be working on that one tomorrow.
 
instead of making the Russian principalities de jure vassals of the Mongols, I think it would work better game-play wise if a mongol army would show up from time to time with an ultimatum to the tune of "give us an exhorbitant amount of money or be put to the sword" which would increase in regularity as long as the player pays up, eventually making the player fight unless he is rich. If the player fights and loses, then bad things happen. If he fights and wins, then the Mongols leave him alone for a few years (~15-20?).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back