Defensive wars

[LukeCreed13]

Probably one thing that we all have found annoying in CK2 was heroically defending our country, alone, against a much superior enemy or, even better, against a holy host of infidels in a great holy war and, at the end of it all, getting only some small bucks and a measly prestige boost compared to your great military success.

I think that CK3 needs to address this problem: how to make defensive wars valuable for the defender? And we should also look at the other side in the war: how to make waging war riskier for attackers?

As for money and prestige, my suggestion would be to find a way to "scale" money and prestige obtained according to realm type and size and taking into considerations the kind of casus belli. So, for example, as the Duke of Brittany, defending yourself from a single county claim CB from the Count of Cornwall should get you relatively small amounts of money and prestige. Defending that country from France, however, should get you a considerable amount of money and prestige for your size. Defending against a whole Jihad coming to strip you of all your titles should give you a considerable amount of money and a massive prestige boost.

But it's not only about money and prestige of course. We also need to factor land gains in. This is where things start to get complicated: a full-on peace treaty system a-la EU4 might be unrealistic, and I don't think anyone would like Umayyads getting provinces in Britain just because they defended against a Germanic prepared invasion. What I think could be done, though, is this: if you win a defensive war against someone you have claims on, you should get either one or multiple of your claimed lands, maybe according to the CB (county-level CB gives you one county you have a claim in, duchy-level CB can give you a duchy you have claims on, or an equivalent of 3-4 counties, and so on); if you win a defensive holy war against someone you have land borders with, you may be given the opportunity to get bordering counties/duchies; winning against your tyrant overlord who tries to revoke your titles might net you not only independence, but maybe even the chance to seize his crown.

Anyway, these are my suggestions, I'd like to see what are yours about defensive wars and how to make them worthwhile for defenders and dangerous for attackers, hoping that Paradox has already a solution for this or will have in time even after release.

 

[Denkt]

I Agree that you should be able to enforce claims, for example the hundred years war saw several treaties about who controlled what with both sides having about the same goal.

 

[Kanaric]

Wars entirely need to have another look. They worked ridiculously bad in CK2 and were often frustrating.

Like for example you are fighting a country and you have a 50% war score against them and much of them occupied. Then something weird happens (religious change, claimant death, war target dies, etc) and the war instantly ends. You should be able to demand something, like at least gold if you suddenly lost claims, in the case like that.

If it works the CK2 way maybe many war types should have two goals. The goal if the CB sticks to the end and the goal of the CB ends before the war ends. As in for holy war the goal is to take territory, 2nd goal of conversion (with prestige gain for converting them) + money or hostage. Maybe free title claim and/or instant loss of truce if they convert back.

I have a feeling the war mechanic is going to be very different in this game though because of how annoying it was in ck2.

Defenders for sure should be able to gain something more than just gold. It's weird when you have claims on the other side and you can't press them because you are defending.

 

[Denkt]

Like for example you are fighting a country and you have a 50% war score against them and much of them occupied. Then something weird happens (religious change, claimant death, war target dies, etc) and the war instantly ends. You should be able to demand something, like at least gold if you suddenly lost claims, in the case like that.

Agree, why would your army simply abandon all their gains and sacrifices simply because Death of a character?

For claims, I mean if you are winning a person could simply claim that god is on their side and their military success indicate they should rule over the kingdom or whatever. Soldiers probably care more about who their commander is, if they are successful and can provide them with Money and loot.

The only problem with lacking claim is maybe less public opinion (but I suspect people care more about if you are a better ruler or not compared to previous one) and maybe opposition from nobles but if you grant them spoils of war they will probably be satisfied, especially if not supporting you could mean losing their life.

Fear is quite powerful tool, like if a garrison is given the option of surrender now and be spared or Death if they even try to resist, it may actually reduce the amount of casulties during war since people kind of want to live, especially if it is obvious that their fate is sealed if they try to resist.

 

[PK_AZ]

and I don't think anyone would like Umayyads getting provinces in Britain just because they defended against a Germanic prepared invasion.

AFAIK Stellaris experimented with a system which, when war ends with status quo result, all sites can keep territories they occupy and have claims on (not sure what happens when defender win; my wild guess is that they get all their claims, and all occupied lands are returned to them). Maybe that's, well, part of solution?

 

[Denkt]

AFAIK Stellaris experimented with a system which, when war ends with status quo result, all sites can keep territories they occupy and have claims on (not sure what happens when defender win; my wild guess is that they get all their claims, and all occupied lands are returned to them). Maybe that's, well, part of solution?

That is basically a ceasefire.

 

[sortulv]

Agree, why would your army simply abandon all their gains and sacrifices simply because Death of a character?

A good extension to this mechanic would be for the war to continue if the attacker had a heir to the claim. This would be fairly historical.

 

[Brian Bóroimhe]

AFAIK Stellaris experimented with a system which, when war ends with status quo result, all sites can keep territories they occupy and have claims on (not sure what happens when defender win; my wild guess is that they get all their claims, and all occupied lands are returned to them). Maybe that's, well, part of solution?

Not just experimented. The way territorial wars work currently in Stellaris is that you can claim systems from others, and then when a war concludes claimed territory that is fully occupied is taken. This does mean that in a white peace it is entirely possible that you have seized claimed and occupied territory from your opponent in one region, while potentially having lost territory that was claimed and occupied by your opponent (or another antagonist in the war) in another region.

While Crusdader Kings CBs are (and should be) more numerous and varied than in Stellaris, some sort of incorporation of a system like this would allow a successful defensive war to result in taking some territory where you have claims of some sort. The degree to which this should apply would be another matter, should only personal claims be valid targets for this? Strong claims only or weak ones too? Maybe all personal claims and strong vassal claims? This all needs to be balanced against making expansion too easy though, if every defensive war could see you taking half your attackers' realms it would make snowballing even easier, something I imagine they want to avoid.

 

[sortulv]

Something else worth considering, is that for many defensive wars, the attacker may not be the top liege. Would you want the enemy country to take your vassals after a war you were never called in for?

 

[LukeCreed13]

Something else worth considering, is that for many defensive wars, the attacker may not be the top liege. Would you want the enemy country to take your vassals after a war you were never called in for?

Of course not, which is why in my opinion in this case the easiest option would be to have a significant increase the amount of money you get in the peace treaty (but only if you have claims to the lands of your attacker).
The more complex option that would require lots of balancing (and might not even work, I admit) would be that, if you defend yourself from an external vassal and you manage to occupy part of his lands, you get the land you occupy if you have claims on it (or just straight up take what you caught if it's a defensive Holy War), and then give the top liege of the defeated attacking vassal an immediate strong claim to all lost lands.

 

[Latheloi]

Not just experimented. The way territorial wars work currently in Stellaris is that you can claim systems from others, and then when a war concludes claimed territory that is fully occupied is taken. This does mean that in a white peace it is entirely possible that you have seized claimed and occupied territory from your opponent in one region, while potentially having lost territory that was claimed and occupied by your opponent (or another antagonist in the war) in another region.

While Crusdader Kings CBs are (and should be) more numerous and varied than in Stellaris, some sort of incorporation of a system like this would allow a successful defensive war to result in taking some territory where you have claims of some sort. The degree to which this should apply would be another matter, should only personal claims be valid targets for this? Strong claims only or weak ones too? Maybe all personal claims and strong vassal claims? This all needs to be balanced against making expansion too easy though, if every defensive war could see you taking half your attackers' realms it would make snowballing even easier, something I imagine they want to avoid.

I really like the Stellaris war system - and would definitely prefer it to the EU4 style system, but the political/war situation is significantly more complex in CK than in Stellaris.

Perhaps the equivalent of the status quo peace could only occur in a war between vassals under the same liege, or between independent rulers. It is only really relevant where both sides have claims. There could be any relevant CBs that the defender had, and then, options for hostages, monetary reparations, etc as more default defensive "cb".

Would also be really good if the war exhaustion mechanic was included as a part of this, to ensure that the more minor conflicts did not end up become a total war -- although at the moment the CK2 war system seems to not be too bad for excessive conflicts (unlike EU4, which just gets silly). Wars with very big stakes (like, crusades, invasions, holy wars against dukes/petty kings) would have a higher exhaustion cap than those with lesser stakes.