Swearing not to attack

[Regen7]

This needs to be changed. Just because youre swearing not to doesnt mean it should be impossible to, it should have a influence or relation penalty. I can't defend against a weaker army attacking me because i swore not to attack.

[ᛁᛖᛊᚢᛊ ᚨᚱ ᚷᚢᛞ]

Yeah, just experienced this and it cost me an entire war, had to reload almost an hour old save which was devestating to my playthrough. Really bad feature that needs rework.

[Monolith]

Agreed, I also experienced this. Had to reload a save because I WAS NOT going to suffer such a loss.

[Malitias]

While I prefer to stand by what I say, I agree it should be possible to break the promise.
If there are even traits like "honest" there need to be options to be dishonest. Otherwise it becomes meaningless.

[ᛁᛖᛊᚢᛊ ᚨᚱ ᚷᚢᛞ]

Originally posted by Malitias:

While I prefer to stand by what I say, I agree it should be possible to break the promise.
If there are even traits like "honest" there need to be options to be dishonest. Otherwise it becomes meaningless.

Exactly, the player should have more freedom to be whatever the player wants to be. Rules are boring anyhow, especially for a singleplayer game.

[fox]

Originally posted by Victory Forever:

Yeah, just experienced this and it cost me an entire war, had to reload almost an hour old save which was devestating to my playthrough. Really bad feature that needs rework.

Try not to make false promises then

[The Former]

Originally posted by Regen752:

I can't defend against a weaker army attacking me because i swore not to attack.

This is the sort of thing you take into consideration before you do it. It's a gameplay balance issue. As the "EXECUTE EVERY SINGLE LORD I CAPTURE MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!" penchant so many have is proving, players don't care if every lord in the world despises them, so making your enemies hate you for going back on your word isn't incentive enough to keep most players from just lying and ignoring their word.

Why is this important? Realism. Remember, you're not dealing with a bunch of brigands. You're dealing with a professional army at war with you. By all rights they shouldn't be agreeing to not attack you to begin with. If you manage to convince them to do so, it should be a big deal. If you could just convince them to not attack with your mountain of gold and then turn around and stab them in the back 30 seconds later after you stop into your villages to gather up troops, it wouldn't be a proper simulation of warfare at all. Not to mention you'd never be in danger because you could just buy your way out of trouble every time until you're ready to engage, which would completely throw away the need to plan your campaigns properly.

You don't want to get attacked by an army you can't defend against? March wisely and don't get into this situation in the first place. Feel lucky the game won't let you go back on your word. If you did it as often as I wager most would, no self-respecting lord would keep you on. If you can't be trusted, you can't be trusted. Even Julius Caesar held to his treaties.

[Blind]

Originally posted by Victory Forever:

Yeah, just experienced this and it cost me an entire war, had to reload almost an hour old save which was devestating to my playthrough. Really bad feature that needs rework.

Lol with all this talk of corrupted saves and you didn't save in over an hour? That's on you fam. lol

[ᛁᛖᛊᚢᛊ ᚨᚱ ᚷᚢᛞ]

Originally posted by Blind:

Originally posted by Victory Forever:

Yeah, just experienced this and it cost me an entire war, had to reload almost an hour old save which was devestating to my playthrough. Really bad feature that needs rework.

Lol with all this talk of corrupted saves and you didn't save in over an hour? That's on you fam. lol

Never had any corrupt save problem. What are you talking about?

[Steven Kennedy]

I will point out, swearing not to attack has left me in an awful situation where i cannot defend villages of my faction. because they are under assault by factions of sworn not to attack. The fact that i cannot break the pact to defend my factions villages is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and unrealistic. Balance be damned.

[Flippy]

I like this but it should change if that faction wars.

[Dirty Jack]

It's an absolutely garbage feature with no logic. Yeah. I'm just gonna not defend myself and be taken prisoner and have all my army lost. Thank you. This is totally realistic. ♥♥♥♥ off

I don't even know what does it. It randomly appeared during my game that I can't attack some small army of random Aserai

[NixBoxDone]

Originally posted by Michael Bolton:

Originally posted by Regen752:

I can't defend against a weaker army attacking me because i swore not to attack.

This is the sort of thing you take into consideration before you do it. It's a gameplay balance issue. As the "EXECUTE EVERY SINGLE LORD I CAPTURE MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!" penchant so many have is proving, players don't care if every lord in the world despises them, so making your enemies hate you for going back on your word isn't incentive enough to keep most players from just lying and ignoring their word.

Why is this important? Realism. Remember, you're not dealing with a bunch of brigands. You're dealing with a professional army at war with you. By all rights they shouldn't be agreeing to not attack you to begin with. If you manage to convince them to do so, it should be a big deal. If you could just convince them to not attack with your mountain of gold and then turn around and stab them in the back 30 seconds later after you stop into your villages to gather up troops, it wouldn't be a proper simulation of warfare at all. Not to mention you'd never be in danger because you could just buy your way out of trouble every time until you're ready to engage, which would completely throw away the need to plan your campaigns properly.

You don't want to get attacked by an army you can't defend against? March wisely and don't get into this situation in the first place. Feel lucky the game won't let you go back on your word. If you did it as often as I wager most would, no self-respecting lord would keep you on. If you can't be trusted, you can't be trusted. Even Julius Caesar held to his treaties.

No, that's just dumb. A promise not to attack someone shouldn't prevent you from DEFENDING YOURSELF if they attack you. That's not how it works or how it ever worked.
It's understood that any promise to refrain from violence expires the moment you get attacked by them yourself. It's a truce, not a promise to let them kill or rob you later.

Having some sort of enforced treaties is fine, but at the very least the party you promised not to fight should not be able to attack and sack your villages in turn. That goes against the spirit of the agreement - you can't expect your victim to not fight back against you because they promised.
Now, if they were fighting other people (even of your faction) then yeah, there I agree. Promising not to fight them comes with the implied obligation to not interfere in their fights even if it would otherwise be profitable or beneficial to you - it's part of the cost of being allowed to leave without a fight previously.
But if they attack you or your holdings directly, that promise should be void. They're forcing your hand.

[Wojtek]

This is stupid, just encountered it today and it's frustrating as hell

[Mr.L]

I found the way to break "the swearing" 😆, just help the enemy of the enemy in a battle, then you can attack or do anything to them again

[< blank >]

Originally posted by Literally Conan IRL:

Originally posted by Regen752:

I can't defend against a weaker army attacking me because i swore not to attack.

This is the sort of thing you take into consideration before you do it. It's a gameplay balance issue. As the "EXECUTE EVERY SINGLE LORD I CAPTURE MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!" penchant so many have is proving, players don't care if every lord in the world despises them, so making your enemies hate you for going back on your word isn't incentive enough to keep most players from just lying and ignoring their word.

Why is this important? Realism. Remember, you're not dealing with a bunch of brigands. You're dealing with a professional army at war with you. By all rights they shouldn't be agreeing to not attack you to begin with. If you manage to convince them to do so, it should be a big deal. If you could just convince them to not attack with your mountain of gold and then turn around and stab them in the back 30 seconds later after you stop into your villages to gather up troops, it wouldn't be a proper simulation of warfare at all. Not to mention you'd never be in danger because you could just buy your way out of trouble every time until you're ready to engage, which would completely throw away the need to plan your campaigns properly.

You don't want to get attacked by an army you can't defend against? March wisely and don't get into this situation in the first place. Feel lucky the game won't let you go back on your word. If you did it as often as I wager most would, no self-respecting lord would keep you on. If you can't be trusted, you can't be trusted. Even Julius Caesar held to his treaties.

easy thing to do here: if you're A: dishonest (which i do believe is a trait) and you go back on the vow, then the next time it happens maybe the lord will say "hey, you didnt do it last time. i don't trust you to not do it this time"

also idk if the PC can be executed, but that would be a very fun possibility, that if you don't escape in X days you go into an execution quest where you need to pass a very hard speech, spend hundreds of thousands of denars, or even potentially give up you fiefs in order to avoid execution. it would definitely make it so theres more weight to it while still allowing you to do whatever you want, and since there are children in this game, you could carry on as your firstborne or something. idk.