War

[unmerged(8303)]

Last I checked not much is known about war, except that maybe it will be more diverse than europa universalis' simplied: infantry, calvary, artillery.

In EU constant warfare led to ruin. The cost of war, the delays to your technology research and the damage from counter attacks and looting of your provinces made war something that had to be taken somewhat one step at a time for the average player.

In the CK timespan however, wasn't war far more common? I think there would be a MAJOR difference between a 'nation state' such as england or france going to war and two "petty" lords attacking one anothers lands.

After all, wasn't a major struggle of monarchs in the EU timeframe to try to rein feudalism in and stop this kind of infighting? Isn't that what later reforms in France sought to end?

Basically - were the lords of the time constantly at war? and if so, what is the real concept of warfare? in EU for example warring against your coreligionist brings you instability.

in CK i would imagine nearly everyone will be your coreligionist. So do you think that does ( or will since no one probably KNOWS ) reflect on your prestige or whatnot?

I'm the kind of player who enjoys war and fighting and will probably spend a lot of time doing so. So i'd like to see what others think the real limits should be. I think Greven or maybe boreal(?) mentioned something about pillaging a province and it being safe for awhile. So I guess looting other places isn't going to be a major source of income by any means. By 1066 the days of the vikings are long gone and war has a new purpose: but what?

 

[unmerged(9422)]

Good question..

I can't really help you too much, sorry..
I think that there will surely be different units in CK than in EU. As for the fighting, the game is going to be based more on religion and wealth of your realm, and probably gaining more individual power and favor from your overlords (Unless you are the overlord ). The smaller fiefdoms will perhaps often war with eachother, and it will be up to the King or Emperor to keep their lands united.

I am just guessing. Very sorry I could not help very much...

 

[unmerged(8303)]

i'm almost sure that anything in this area is speculation, but speculation is what we live for.

 

[khurjan]

now for my contribution to speculation.... what i am thinking is that warfare might be emulated by two differant themes i.e a general war where kingdom versus kingdom and on other hand, certain vassals could be allowed leeway from overlord to match blades with a rival king's vassals while using rules of chivalry

 

[unmerged(8303)]

Could these feudal relationships be considered a massive military alliance?

For example, could I, as the supreme overlord of France declare war on some dutch noble and take all my vassals with me to war? In that sense it would in a way be one declaration of war, several parties fighting against you.

Or would these vassals send me their troops only to increase the size of my armies.

I dont recall exactly but I think kings towards the EUII era started to demand either money from vassals or troops I forget which. But it seems like the central overlord wanted the best troops to better control vassals.

I wonder if you can set policy for vassals such as "you may not attack ___, you may not do this or that or else." That might be cutting too deep into the bone, however.

 

[unmerged(9422)]

Perhaps your vassals will have a level of loyalty, and it will determine what the chance of them joining in in your war against enemy is.

So if this is the case, then perhaps a duty of a king will be to keep his vassals content, so that they won't rebel or not join him in a war..


Meiji-Tenno

 

[Endre Fodstad]

When you speak of the "CK time period" you must remember that it covers a period where the concept of nation-states and central control underwent a great deal of change. The feudal system in the classic sense was more or less phased out, even in France, by the early fourteenth century, replaced by a much more complex quasi-feudal system that lasted well in the EU time period(and into modern times in many outlying regions). And regional differences were HUGE. Imperial german control was always loose and informal, whereas some kings, typically in the border areas(Balkans, Scandinavia) often enjoyed freedom to pretty much rule without worrying much about losing the support of the nobility.

Stories of regular weekend warfare between neighbouring lords is more often the exception than the rule, especially as central authority establishes itself more and more throughout the 12th and 13th centuries in England and France. When one reads about king's having problems with and fighting rebellious vassals, these are often cases were the vassals are more or less on the same level of power as the king - good examples being the Dukes of Normandy post-invasion(especially during the Aquitanian empire period) or the Dukes of Burgundy during the hundred year's war.

Fighting coreligionists was greatly frowned upon by the papacy and thus the church but naturally nobody liked to see neighbours acting aggresively. Going abroad to fight non-Catholics and gain territory, most often on an individual basis (typically in Spain, the Middle East, Italy(in the early period) or the Baltic(when the northern crusades start up, though not especially lucrative)) was more acceptable, but even there the local christians would often protest, since, well, who needs a troublemaker?

As for lengthy wars, the English-French hundred years wars were not as constant as is often believed, with frequent breaks, truces and periods of peace. However, the active parts devastated parts of France and impoverished many nobles. _Serious_ peasant revolt's broke out in both nations after long periods of fighting , the most famous being the Jaquerie and the Peasant's Revolt (Ball&Tylor).

EF

 

[Norgesvenn]

As my ex-patriate countryman mr. Fodstad points to, the strength of the nobility would determine the king's strength.

Hopefully, the game will reflect this in the geographical areas where this was relevant.

 

[khurjan]

doods i like to point out we start in the game in 1066 when the high middle ages was coming inti been this was the time period of highmark for fuedalism and nation states or even nascent nationalism was still atlest 3 centurues away, this was time period of small incessant warfare betweens lords and small states, except for holy german empire and poland in east there was no big entity state at the time in west europe.

 

[Syt]

Christian countries only will be playable for now in CK (at least so has been claimed so far). Which means that for the duration of the game we'll have a feudal system - lasting into the beginnings of EU2.

Kings will wage massive wars against each other (like Edward III starting the 100 Years' War by claiming the French throne), but also other conflicts. I certainly hope that conflicts between nobles who are vassals to the same king will be in - such events could be the source for civil war. Although it'd be great if you could adress the common master first ("The province Holstein was always our family's!" - "Answer - Yes/No"), I'd like to hang my hopes not too high.

Was war more common back then? I'm not sure. We (residents of most western countries) consider to be at peace while a lot of places on earth see conflict of one sort or the other, so I am not quite sure if there was more gloabal conflict at that time (1066 - 1453).

 

[khurjan]

global wars were atlest 7 centuries away the civilization wasnt advanced even to support war as we know it. 100 yr wars were more like grand english raids of plunder and french attempts to block them. For military historians like me that era was equaliant to small raids and small scale wars no more than local in scope...remember warfare was a nobles field at that time when most serfs or commoners were trying to just survive

 

[Syt]

Originally posted by khurjan
global wars were atlest 7 centuries away the civilization wasnt advanced even to support war as we know it. 100 yr wars were more like grand english raids of plunder and french attempts to block them. For military historians like me that era was equaliant to small raids and small scale wars no more than local in scope...remember warfare was a nobles field at that time when most serfs or commoners were trying to just survive

Somehow, I always have the movie Bravheart before my eyes here. Overall, few decisive battles, and many raids. I think I read somewhere that the game was going to model that large armies at the time were not fielded over an extended period. Wars back then were even more regulated, after all, than the conflicts of the EU2 era.

 

[khurjan]

Originally posted by Sytass
Somehow, I always have the movie Bravheart before my eyes here. Overall, few decisive battles, and many raids. I think I read somewhere that the game was going to model that large armies at the time were not fielded over an extended period. Wars back then were even more regulated, after all, than the conflicts of the EU2 era.

lol braveheart was very inaccurate movie showing scotish militia standingup to heavy calvary without discipline and training....actual campaign of scotish independence was waged by a core of noble knights and their men at arms

 

[Syt]

Originally posted by khurjan
lol braveheart was very inaccurate movie showing scotish militia standingup to heavy calvary without discipline and training....actual campaign of scotish independence was waged by a core of noble knights and their men at arms

LOL, of course I wasn't exactly referring to the presentation of the battles in the movie but the general strategic concept - many raids through the countryside and less than a handful decisive battles/sieges.

 

[khurjan]

Originally posted by Sytass
LOL, of course I wasn't exactly referring to the presentation of the battles in the movie but the general strategic concept - many raids through the countryside and less than a handful decisive battles/sieges.

hehe, there were not so many raids of that intensity simply cos of the majority of peeps were tied down to land and had only oppurtunity only during a limited timeframe in a yr to carry out raids and the ones that could carry out raids were nobles as they basically leeched off the rest of 99.95 population.

 

[Norgesvenn]

Originally posted by khurjan
lol braveheart was very inaccurate movie showing scotish militia standingup to heavy calvary without discipline and training....actual campaign of scotish independence was waged by a core of noble knights and their men at arms

*feels world is falling apart... moans "Mel, Mel... why did you fool me?!"*

 

[Syt]

Originally posted by Norgesvenn
*feels world is falling apart... moans "Mel, Mel... why did you fool me?!"*

Don't worry, the overly realistic Revolutionary War drama The Patriot more than makes up for the slight inaccuracies of Braveheart....

khurjan has it right - fielding an army at that time was costly and a logistical nightmare. Besides, a lot of the troops were peasants and when they were at war their labor was missed on the fields.

 

[khurjan]

Originally posted by Sytass
Don't worry, the overly realistic Revolutionary War drama The Patriot more than makes up for the slight inaccuracies of Braveheart....

khurjan has it right - fielding an army at that time was costly and a logistical nightmare. Besides, a lot of the troops were peasants and when they were at war their labor was missed on the fields.

hehehe i wont destroy your illusions about patroit movie hehehe

 

[unmerged(8303)]

I liked those movies though.

I hope Scotland is nice and noisy in this game. Who knows what could become of Scotland though of Margaret of Norway's ship hadnt sank!

 

[khurjan]

considering everything said i am curious as how will war fit into this game considering that so far the emphasis has been more on geo-politics and chivalry ethics from the updates seen so far will warfare be just a minor part of game or will it be one of main components of strategy or will it be major theme????