Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Of course, but that's a bit a different when you're a count taking on an empire in a window of opportunity — mercs, alliances, not being their only enemy, etc. You can't really siege a corridor all the way to their capital, and going right there while taking attrition in each province you pass through is not viable either.
Regardless, making the liege's capital the war target for vassals declaring independence is silly. You declare independence to get rid of his goons from your capital, not to take his.
And it's silly to not interrupt the ticking war score when you control a good deal of your liege's land, just not the capital itself. Nobody fighting for independence from an empire in real life actually has to go to the empire's capital.
Indeed. The whole idea of dependence is that the liege can make you obey. So if you declare independence, the clock's on the liege, even though you're the attacker.
Matter of perspective. From the King's perspective, sure. From the Independent party, the king is declaring war upon them.
If you inform your king that you are going independent .. then you are independent whether the king approves or not ... it doesn't matter anymore what he thinks - you're independent.
Now the king can choose to attack you to force you back under the fold ... NOW it is the obligation of the King at this point to hold YOUR capital and YOUR lands to get you to surrender. The Independent party, actually, has no reason to hold the King's capital ... because the independent party is already independent whether the King acknowledges it or not. The independent party has already achieved its goal .. while the King has not.
The war is not about the independent party fighting for it's independence .. they already have it by decree ... its about the King trying to nullify the independence.
The King should be considered the attacker, because it is trying to gain something out of the war. The independent party has nothing to gain from the war ... because it is ALREADY INDEPENDENT BY DECLARATION .. and is now defending that independence.
Saying something doesn't make it so. The count wanting independence is the one trying to change the status quo, not the king.
Now should the count be required to take the kings capital? Not really. That situation is kinda arsey-boo, but the count should still be the aggressor.
??? Cool, except it's not a matter of perspective, it's how the devs have chosen to make it work in game. Want to declare independence as a vassal? Great, but know that in game you will be considered the aggressor and thus it will behoove you to either seize your liege's capital and/or capture your liege in battle to gain the independence you seek.
Well, that is true to some extent, but like you said — a matter of perspective.
You are certainly de facto independent from the moment you declare independence.
Getting that independence recognized — so that you can function as an independent subject of international law (which of course did exist in the Middle Ages and way before) — is something a bit more demanding and generally requires a concession (following military defeat or otherwise) from the former sovereign.
That is true, however. In essence, no reason whatsoever for the independent party to bother itself with the sovereign's capital, let alone against a fast-ticking clock.
Especially if you're fighting something like a war of independence against the HRE or Byzzies — there's no reason for your Armenian or Polabian peasants and foresters to march/sail over to Aachen, C'ple or whatever. You are not a Liberty faction, you're an Independence faction. Against traditional empires existing at game start, you are somewhat likely to be within the liege's de iure area. Otherwise, however, you are most likely to exist in the fringes or outremer, outside of the liege's de iure area. Say, some French possession in Palestine or Syria resulting from inheritance or whatever. Or a Byzantine duchy in Persia. Makes no sense for you to go against the liege's capital, no sense whatsoever.
Indeed. International recognition is one thing, but as far as self-governance goes, the independent party becomes self-governed once it declares independence. It's the liege's job to try and reverse that, i.e. effectively conquer the land and the people again.
CK2 had this sort of nuance, where you ended up as attacker without actually declaring wars, based on whoever was rationally considered to be on the offensive. Here, in CK3 independence wars, it kinda looks like whoever initiates the whole chain of events is regarded as a war attacker simply because of being the event catalyst and initiator. And that's too simplistic.
Again, though, it's something different whether the fringes or core areas declare independence. This actually is making me think about checking what happens if I declare independence from outside of the liege's de iure area (in this case the Kaiser was the de iure liege of my one and only county).
At Paradox the devs tend to make a number of choices that don't look particularly rational or well-thought.
If the reason why I had to fight against the clock was that the Kaiser was my de iure liege (I was Polabian in Gorlitz, as opposed to e.g. Pomeranian in Pomerania), then I could understand that. Otherwise, not really.
However, setting the target to the liege's capital would be quite retarded if true. I was in control of my own county all the time (would have lost the war due to being 100% sieged otherwise), and I also occupied like 10 counties from my liege. The game still kept the clock ticking against me, which only changed when I finally captured his capital, which required me to go through multiple counties to make a corridor. This is very poor design and one of those areas where Paradox doesn't look as smart as it would like to see itself in the mirror, to put this diplomatically. And this is very irritating.
Things were done well with Independence wars in CK2, so now they had to dumb it down and make it bizarre for CK3 because… well, I don't know because what exactly, other than not thinking things through or hitting a sort of intellectual wall or I really don't know what. Things like these always leave me puzzled and wondering about the thought process at Paradox and the intellectual qualifications of those involved in making or approving the design (designing the logic of how things work).
That tends to be my view as well. I declared an independence war via Declare War button, so I'm not going to argue that I wasn't the aggressor as a matter of fact (not dealing with moral qualifications here). It wasn't even a faction ultimatum (didn't wait for the Independence faction to even form, let alone develop some cojones). It was a war I declared.
However, when controlling my own land and also occupying like 10 counties from the liege and getting informed that the defender (the liege) controlled the war target, I wasn't exactly amused. I could understand a dyslexic error (like when you confuse the right and left, north and south, assertion with negation, etc. out of tiredness after a sleepless night, which obviously happens from time to time to anybody who is seriously overworked, as software developers tend to be), or some sort of technical issue interfering with the design, but if it really was conscious design for the liege's capital to be the war target in an independence war, then I would prefer not to comment on that other than 'think again'.
My first thought was that maybe things somehow got inverted for them and the game was checking the wrong party for the wrong land, i.e. checking me for the Kaiser's capital whereas the Kaiser should be the party being checked for mine. However, it would still make no sense for the independence party to still have the clock on its own side when losing control of everything but the capital — say if I was a King of Italy under the HRE and controlling just Padua with everything else occupied by the Kaiser, it would make no sense for the clock to be ticking against the Kaiser rather than against me.
Whatever would be the appropriate target between (A) the independence declarer's whole realm vs (B) the independence declarer's capital, one is sure: just the liege capital is a silly choice of war target — *if* it even is a choice consciously made by a designer, as opposed to some sort of mishap.
Whether you agree or disagree with it is irrelevant to me. As I've already said, the devs decided to do it this way in the game that they made. If you don't like it and don't agree with it, take it up with them, not me. I'm personally not bothered by it, it does make some sense to me that if You're declaring independence (which in medieval context would mean that You're declaring a rebellion, You're declaring a war) then it's up to you to use military force to get that independence formally and officially recognized as You are the aggressor, and as far as the game goes, yes You do need to siege the enemy capital and/or capture the enemy in battle to build up to the "100% warscore."
Is it arbitrary? Maybe. Is it accurate? Yes it actually kind of is, and there are a fair amount of examples from the historical record of the time period that tell us that the goals of vassals in revolt were 1. take control of the capital and 2. capture the liege. Through these means they could enforce their demands with some semblance of legitimacy, so why should it be different in game? To make it easier for you?
"Things like these always leave me puzzled and wondering about the thought process at Paradox and the intellectual qualifications of those involved in making or approving the design." - I do have to agree with you there, though for different reasons.
Imagine your liege starts in portugal. Due to some complettly crazy choice of targets that liege manages to expand his real in a straight one county wide line all the way to india.
You are his vasal in india.
A war between your liege and the arab empire breaks out.
You think its your time to reclaim your freedom.
Some vasal in spain also thinks the same and declares their own war for freedom.
Now what would we expect in reality? Would the vasal in india or the one next to the capital be more likly to claim freedom? One would assume that the far away indian backyard would break away simply because no one would be able to oppose it. while the one in spain would be a high prio target to get back under control.
How would it happen in ck3:
The one in spain can go for a quick grab of the capital, is free and thats it.
The one in india (you in this case) however has to travel with their whole army all around the globe to conquer the capital. The real world analogy of this would be that the USA conquered London when they fought for their independance. Pretty sure i missed that part in the history books...
Ghandi's legion was also really ruthless when they conquered London and burned it to the ground, wasnt it? Admittingly those are not medival cases of independance but they can act to show that conquering some capital that is far, far away is usually not how those go.
I think the better solution would be to handle it like this: The territory of the independance faction is the war goal or maybe even not having a specific territory as war goal at all so that its a plain out power struggle
Except you missed one part, either because of not really caring to think or because of being intentionally biased.
The problem is not that the defender's land is the target — like I said, I occupied a good deal of counties in the defender's realm, but I was still getting 'does not control the war target'.
The problem is that the defender's capital county apparently is the target.
And people have already said above — historically, if you're fighting an independence war against Rome, you don't have to sail to London; if you're fighting an independence war against Byzantium, you don't have to sail to Constantinople; if you're fighting the American Revolution, you don't have to sail over to London.
Making the liege's land the target is already questionable from the perspective of the context of an independence war (and in CK2 the target actually was the independence fighter's land, even though he was the attacker), but making JUST THE CAPITAL the target (if that's the case) is outright silly.
Anybody who believes it's straightforward and reasonable for independence fighters to have to go and occupy the empire's capital fast or else lose the indepence war has a problem with thinking. Or with honesty.
Dude, what have you been smoking? I made a thread, you came here to offer your comment and when I reply to that comment, you say 'take it up with them, not me'? Sorry, but that's hardly intelligent.
And if you think that 'that's how the devs made it' is explanatory, then obviously you must have an intelligence problem. Obviously, anything that's in a game is there and is that way becasue the game's developer made it, just like a word in a book is necessarily there because the writer wrote it and the printer printed it.
Seriously, must I be arguing with people who reason like 70 IQ kindergarten children?
That's what I said — up to a point. That point is the capital. It's not completely unreasonable to set the liege's land as the war target, for the reasons that you mention. However, it's completely unreasonable to set ONLY THE CAPITAL as the target, so that even if you occupy the liege's counties, the clock is still ticking against you because you are expected to go get the capital. And war score from battles is capped at 50%.
No historical war consisted in the independents taking initiative and marching over to the overlord's capital. Independence wars, before, during and after the Middle Ages, have generally consisted in the independents manning up, braving up and repelling wave after wave of the liege's invasions. You can't argue 'mediaeval context' against mediaeval facts.
And how many times do I need to write the word 'capital' in caps to make you guys stop pretending that you don't see it? CAPITAL, CAPITAL, CAPITAL. Capital as war target, excluding all other land owned by the liege (not sure about domain counties, i.e. held directly by the liege and not his vassals). There you have it.
Except you swapped 'rebellion' for 'independence war'. Liberty wars and claimant wars, yes, by all means. The very point of a liberty war, which is modelled on barons' wars and similar events from other countries, is to physically capture the liege and leave him with no choice but to enact some liberties because the king or emperor was still the source of law and the rebels had no desire to dissolve the polity but merely to set some boundaries and tweak the balance. Claimants? You have to take the capital because that's where the palace is and where the king rules from.
But wars for the indepencence of territories in the fringes? Nope.
Give me at least one historical example where a party fighting for independence was supposed to go for the (disputed) liege's capital. Not just occupy some of his land and win some battles in order to make a convincing victory, but actually have to make a quick dash against the clock for his capital or else lose the war.
Your argument only works if you accept the premise that an independence war is just like any other rebellion. And that's a premise you took from the game's mechanics and not from mediaeval history or context.
And for the record, as far I know liberty and claimant wars don't have the liege's capital set as the war target. Faction wars would time out somewhat quickly if that was the case.
To make it more historical and more logical?
Like I said, give me a good argument for making just the liege's capital the war target and excluding other land in the liege's realm from being the war target. Meaning that if you capture like 20 counties from the liege and win battles for like 100% (capped at 50%) the clock's still ticking against you (meaning you're set to lose) unless you capture the capital.
Don't hide behind all the things — taken from the game's mechanics and not mediaeval context — that you attribute to the taking of the capital. Nobody's disputing that you do in fact have to win the war, which means that you need to get a convincing victory.
What's disputed is first and foremost that the war target is set to the liege's capital only.
If you knew anything about mediaeval history, you would know that nobody would have had to siege Aachen (or the current emperor's centre of power) in order to get de facto independence from the HRE. Nobody would have had to siege C'ple to get independent from the Byzantine Empire. No Italian city would have had to siege Aachen to get its independence from the HRE or Rome to get its independence from the Pope.
And don't confuse de iure independence with de facto independence. The situation when your liege has no practical say in your governance but claims sovereignty or suzerainty over you is reflected by the de iure map, or even by personal claims on your land. De facto independence is something different.
De facto independence means you stop paying taxes, providing levies, responding to summons to the liege's court, allowing people to appeal from your judgements to the liege, and so on. This was de facto independence in the mediaeval context. Nobody had to go and siege any imperial capital in order to do that, not like the capital of the HRE (or even of the Byzantine or Roman empire) had that type of significance. London didn't have that type of significance in the American Revolution, either, nor even in Scottish independence wars in the 14th century or Welsh independence wars.
Like I said, I'm not questioning your ability to reason when you suggest that marking the lliege's land as the war target would be reasonable. That would be arguable, it certainly is subjective to a large extent. The problem is, that is not what CK3 does. What CK3 does is (apparently) make the liege's capital the target, or at least the liege's personal domain.
And anybody who claims it's historically reasonable that a fringe of the HRE would have been expect to go and siege Aachen in order to win independence from the HRE (the state when the Kaiser stop's being your de iure liege and collecting taxes and levies from you, not the state when the Kaiser solemnly declares your podunk hole to lie outside the limits of the empire) needs to stop drinking/smoking/whatever, brew some coffee, sit down and have a serious think instead of spouting half-arsed arguments off the cuff.
Except you missed the part where literally none of that matters. Likely because of bias, but maybe because of not really caring to think. There isn't some "historical discussion" here, it's the game mechanics. You seem to be conflating how you think it should work with how it works, even though you only asked for clarification on how it works. No one particularly cares how you think it should work, and how it does work is just like I said.
The defender in an independence war is the liege, so when you need to take the defender's capital... if you have trouble putting two and two together it's not PDX's fault.
A variety of excellent strains, mostly in the form of oil/live resin.
I said take it up with them and not me because you decided to argue it out in your reply to me telling you how it is. If you don't accept the answer to your issue, then yea, take it up with the devs. You'd be better served making a post about this on Paradox plaza forums as you're more likely to get a response from an actual dev there (though I suspect many of the replies you would get there will be similar to mine), but if you want to whinge about it here, go for it.
"Hardly intelligent" would be complaining about the thing that you're complaining about tbh.
Lol. You seem to understand that it is in fact explanatory but you also seem to refuse to accept that. Again, take it up with the developers if you really think they got it wrong here. Strange how when faced with the truth your reaction is to start slinging these lame insults about intelligence towards people who you do not know, who are most likely (judging by how you act here and your long winded comments) far ahead of yourself in intelligence, maturity, education, life in general, etc.
I do accept that premise, since they usually were seen as rebellions by the defending party. No, that's not a premise from "the game's mechanics," it's a premise from the historical record. If you don't want to accept that, that's not really my problem.
Bud, I don't need to give you a good argument for anything. I didn't make the game. Take your little issue up with those that did. Paradox plaza forums are not hard to find.
I'm not hiding behind anything. I'm telling you how the devs have decided to make it work in game. You being unable to accept it isn't a failure or weakness on my part.
Lol. Yes, even though I have a degree in medieval history, even though medieval history is a passion of mine, disagreeing with your illustrious self about something in a video game must mean that I hardly know anything about it at all. Sounds good.
Let me put it to you bluntly. It doesn't really matter whether you agree with it or like it or not. The developers made their choice with how they wanted to represent things and how they wanted them to work in game. If you're so troubled by it, then seriously, perhaps you should head over to Paradox plaza forums, where a genuine developer of this game is more likely to see and respond to your grievance, and come up with a convincing argument for them to consider altering it. They just might do it for you NewbieOne, they just might.