Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Taking New Lands in Peace Treaties

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(5459)

unmerged(5459)

Iron-Fisted People's Dictator
Aug 22, 2001
1.744
0
www.geocities.com
ANyone have a clue on this?
How will peace negotiations be handled in CK? WIll it be like EU2, with the whole percentage thing, and you can claim whatever territory?

What would be a cool option is to broker deals with allies i.e. if you both get into war with, say France, WE will get X, and our allies will get Y. Whoever gets to the negotiation tables first will take this into consideration.
 
Originally posted by Dimwit
ANyone have a clue on this?
How will peace negotiations be handled in CK? WIll it be like EU2, with the whole percentage thing, and you can claim whatever territory?

What would be a cool option is to broker deals with allies i.e. if you both get into war with, say France, WE will get X, and our allies will get Y. Whoever gets to the negotiation tables first will take this into consideration.
Click to expand...

I don't think you may apply the EU system for medieval times at all.

EU system is for states only, CK system will be about feodalism, dynasty and personal property. After all, in Europe land was the sole property of its owner.

Most wars fought before the centralization and rationalization of the states by sovereigns and their government, which occured mostly from the middle to the end of the 15th century, were private wars between landlords. Lords tried to beat up other lords not to dispossess them, but to make them submit under them by showing who's the strongest.

To simply dispossess a vainquished landlord should be possible but considered as a VERY bad deed by his peers and your vassal, as only the highest authority of the chain of fealty (the sovereign prince and his sovereign overlord) may disown a landlord - and even then it would be quite dangerous for the Sovereign. A way to circumvent it would be to propose to enemy vassals to switch in exchange of them keeping their land and title. If they do not want, bide their time to buy an army but lose anyway, then you may dispossess them with any problem - except for uncertain cousins of your and theirs - because they are considered as enemies. It would also slow down conquest a lot if a player wasn't allowed to simply grab the land and disown its ruler.

Of course, dynasties do not wish to extinguish one another. All sovereigns princes have their persons absolutely untouchable. BB wars of expansion by swallowing smaller states are, and I strongly insist, not possible in the Middle Ages. Code of Chivalry should be enforced in CK to ensure that player lords may not decide to act like a Napoleon and starts to destroy other dynasties which are, after all, part of the family.

So no, if you go in a war against France, it is not France the state you fight. It is France the land owned by the ruling dyansty. To give CK a peace system à la EU would be quite foolish, because it wasn't the same kind of mentality at all, between an era of rationalized nations-states and an era of personalized property of the country by a massive group of decentralized rulers all related by blood and family.

Drakken
 
Last edited:
Damn you Drakken. Not only did you type what I was thinking more eloquently and eruditely than I would have but you typed it quicker :mad:



;)
 
Originally posted by Sheilbh
Damn you Drakken. Not only did you type what I was thinking more eloquently and eruditely than I would have but you typed it quicker :mad:



;)
Click to expand...

Yes, hours ago. :D

Drakken
 
Re: Re: Taking New Lands in Peace Treaties

Originally posted by Drakken


I don't think you may apply the EU system for medieval times at all.

EU system is for states only, CK system will be about feodalism, dynasty and personal property. After all, in Europe land was the sole property of its owner.

Most wars fought before the centralization and rationalization of the states by sovereigns and their government, which occured mostly from the middle to the end of the 15th century, were private wars between landlords. Lords tried to beat up other lords not to dispossess them, but to make them submit under them by showing who's the strongest.

To simply dispossess a vainquished landlord should be possible but considered as a VERY bad deed by his peers and your vassal, as only the highest authority of the chain of fealty (the sovereign prince and his sovereign overlord) may disown a landlord - and even then it would be quite dangerous for the Sovereign. A way to circumvent it would be to propose to enemy vassals to switch in exchange of them keeping their land and title. If they do not want, bide their time to buy an army but lose anyway, then you may dispossess them with any problem - except for uncertain cousins of your and theirs - because they are considered as enemies. It would also slow down conquest a lot if a player wasn't allowed to simply grab the land and disown its ruler.

Of course, dynasties do not wish to extinguish one another. All sovereigns princes have their persons absolutely untouchable. BB wars of expansion by swallowing smaller states are, and I strongly insist, not possible in the Middle Ages. Code of Chivalry should be enforced in CK to ensure that player lords may not decide to act like a Napoleon and starts to destroy other dynasties which are, after all, part of the family.

So no, if you go in a war against France, it is not France the state you fight. It is France the land owned by the ruling dyansty. To give CK a peace system à la EU would be quite foolish, because it wasn't the same kind of mentality at all, between an era of rationalized nations-states and an era of personalized property of the country by a massive group of decentralized rulers all related by blood and family.

Drakken
Click to expand...

And in EU times there was only (mostly) limited warfare - and look how so many of the games turn out.

I hope you are right and there are reasonable limitations on such things and not the artificial one province type barriers.
 
But how will land grabbing be handled? Presumably, since you can take land, how do you do it? Do you just beat the other guy up so much until you get a percentage? And will there be a system where the monarch whom the landlord owes fealty to intervene?

And I take it that diploannexation is out of the question?
 
Originally posted by Dimwit
But how will land grabbing be handled? Presumably, since you can take land, how do you do it? Do you just beat the other guy up so much until you get a percentage? And will there be a system where the monarch whom the landlord owes fealty to intervene?

And I take it that diploannexation is out of the question?
Click to expand...

I believe there will (at least should) be two separate systems:

1. European in-fighting
War can only be made over land you (i.e. your dynasty) have a (more or less) legitimate claim to. If you win this war you will gain the land you claimed, or parts thereof.

2. Crusades
War on the heathens (and heretics) can be made regardless of dynastic claims, and without formal DoWs. If you win this war you will gain the land you fought over/conquered, or parts thereof.

What is represented as diploannexation in EU2 is more or less the merging of two dynasties through marriage, which will be possible in CK.
 
Originally posted by Havard


I believe there will (at least should) be two separate systems:

1. European in-fighting
War can only be made over land you (i.e. your dynasty) have a (more or less) legitimate claim to. If you win this war you will gain the land you claimed, or parts thereof.
Click to expand...


Hmmm.. Do you think Mr. H, that the claim will have to precede war?

Also, could you envisage war as a way to force royal marriages? Given theta hereditary claims are the basis of legitimacy in the game, do you think maybe there could be conditions of victory that include: "betrothal of your daughter to my son" or "the holding of your family captive until the payment of said ransome"?
 
Originally posted by Savant


Hmmm.. Do you think Mr. H, that the claim will have to precede war?
Click to expand...
I think (although I'm not sure) most, if not all, wars in this period were fought either based on some more or less legitimate claim to land or religion. Thus it seems logic to me that the claim must exist to wage war. You can, I hope, also support others claim to land in the hope to gain influence with them if they win?

Also, could you envisage war as a way to force royal marriages? Given theta hereditary claims are the basis of legitimacy in the game, do you think maybe there could be conditions of victory that include: "betrothal of your daughter to my son" or "the holding of your family captive until the payment of said ransome"?
Click to expand...

Possibly, yes. You could also have deals about inheritance included in a peace treaty: "Listen - I won and take your land but your son will inherit me, ok?" (opening another can of warms, since the sons of the victor will most likely dispute the claim of the son of the defeated :D)
 
Last edited:
I very much hope the difficulty of holding territiory as pictured correctly. Many times during the middle ages great campaigns turned out to be little else than a chevauchée due to to the huge expenses that followed standing garrisons.
 
SInce the CK map is focussed on a smaller part of the world, and there are more provinces, I take it that even small counties will be two/ three provinces big (if the map's as detailed as I think)?
So this means that there aren't any small one-province nations to annex.

WIll there be a limit on how much land you can take in one war? Or is that not characteristic of the era (i.e. no one will ever get to a stage of blasting an entire kingdom to pieces)?
And do you think you can you still DoW without a CB, but take big stab hits or the equivalent?
 
I'm not sure if this has been suggested before but would it be possible to instead of ceding whole provinces you cede holdings withing that province in-game, but the affect is that you don't receive holdings on the map but you receive the serfs and the like. So that your neighbouring provinces have a tax value bonus and population increase as you have more people under your command. While they lose what you gain.

Another idea would be they renounce a claim to a title you're interested in.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Sheilbh
I'm not sure if this has been suggested before but would it be possible to instead of ceding whole provinces you cede holdings withing that province in-game, but the affect is that you don't receive holdings on the map but you receive the serfs and the like. So that your neighbouring provinces have a tax value bonus and population increase as you have more people under your command.

Has this been suggested ?
Click to expand...

No, it hasn't. :)

Drakken
 
Originally posted by Dimwit
SInce the CK map is focussed on a smaller part of the world, and there are more provinces, I take it that even small counties will be two/ three provinces big (if the map's as detailed as I think)?
So this means that there aren't any small one-province nations to annex.

WIll there be a limit on how much land you can take in one war? Or is that not characteristic of the era (i.e. no one will ever get to a stage of blasting an entire kingdom to pieces)?
And do you think you can you still DoW without a CB, but take big stab hits or the equivalent?
Click to expand...

In Middle Ages most annexions didn't occur by war. They did occur mostly by marriage and unions. It has been said by scholars that Philippe IV annexed most of today France's territory by marriage instead of conquest. So no, you shouldn't be wrecking havoc in another dynasty's kingdom by war at all, unless the war against a dynasty is total, and even then it occured that vassals switch sides quite often. Decentralization and personalized property of land gives feodalism a dynamism which is quite absent in EU, since all seized territories are considered possession of the state.

Honestly, annexions were quite rare in the Dark Ages. Frontiers were "built" over allegance of a local lord to a sovereign overlord. Frontiers were thus quite diffused and uncontrolled, territory consisting of property of numerous vassals obeying to their liege. Of course, most vassals did what they wanted in their land, it was their right.

It will change when sovereigns will force lords to live in the Capital, where he can watch them, and give them revenues from the budget with conditions assorted, instead of direct funds from their land, thus giving them means for private wars or rebellion.

So here are my general propositions for now :

1. Peace treaty should include obligation for a beaten lord which has already taken an oath to you to reside in the Capital, without losing his possession over his land. These propositions should be possible during peace time also.

2. Peace treaty should include the proposition for a titled lord to simply switch side and take oath of allegance to you, without any penalty.

3. Peace treaty should include the former proposition, with penalties possible if he refuses.

4. Peace treaty should not be over annexation of any land unless the land is free already, heathen or the titled lord owning it changes side.

5. Execution, ransomning, detainment and judgement by the peers for treason should be possible, although with different consequences for the dynasty.

6. Actions and types of chosen peace treaties should always sparks consequences. Example, to dispossess a popular and respectful enemy should enrage vassals, while a lenient peace should spark sympathy - or thoughts that you may be a weak and undecisive ruler.

Drakken
 
Nice touch Drakken

6. Actions and types of chosen peace treaties should always sparks consequences. Example, to dispossess a popular and respectful enemy should enrage vassals, while a lenient peace should spark sympathy - or thoughts that you may be a weak and undecisive ruler.
Click to expand...

that would be very interesting and approximate reality better. These consequences should depend on relations, like if negative then the observer views you as weak and undecisive if you strike a lenient peace whereas a leader you have a positive relationship may take this as a gesture of generosity and mercy.
 
Originally posted by Savant


..............

Also, could you envisage war as a way to force royal marriages? .........
Click to expand...

I sure hope RMs can be a part of the peace process because a lot of them were used for making treaties etc.
 
to make things more complex;)
i would think that in case of grabbing a county (from infidels or rebellious counts) you as duke/king should have four options:
1. give it to a military order
2. give it to one of your men or relatives (maybe taken from a pool of captains/relatives à la KOEI?) which would rule as a autonomous count
3. to grant special rights (chart) to burghers and transform it in a county-city (interesting only if the county has economic potential)
4. to add it to royal demesne (under the 1/3 limit the paradox guys mentioned)

from givign charts to burghers you would get more revenues from taxes but weaker 'mesnades' than if given to captains or Mil.orders
well it is just a suggestion, what do you think?
 
Originally posted by Alzate
to make things more complex;)
i would think that in case of grabbing a county (from infidels or rebellious counts) you as duke/king should have four options:
1. give it to a military order
2. give it to one of your men or relatives (maybe taken from a pool of captains/relatives à la KOEI?) which would rule as a autonomous count
3. to grant special rights (chart) to burghers and transform it in a county-city (interesting only if the county has economic potential)
4. to add it to royal demesne (under the 1/3 limit the paradox guys mentioned)

from givign charts to burghers you would get more revenues from taxes but weaker 'mesnades' than if given to captains or Mil.orders
well it is just a suggestion, what do you think?
Click to expand...

I like the idea. I think we should add "or a neighbouring Crusader state" to 1. If there are crusader states in the area it would be a viable option to give it to them.

One option you missed is the possibility to sell it. E.g. the Templars bought Cyprus from Richard the Lionheart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back