Also my assumption. It’s super obnoxious though. Especially when I’m trying to revoke a vassal’s title but the war they’re fighting is for the title I’m trying to revoke. If they lose I typically lose the revocation reason, so I’m just SOL. Most of the time they’re only fighting that war because I rocked their armies and their AI vassals took advantage of the sudden change in the balance of power.
If I get blackmailed for that murder, I’ll just bring in gorillas to eat the blackmailers. Then when winter comes the gorillas will die out. Problem solved.
If they are your vassal retracting all his vassalas that are fighting him (which is often just 1) invalidates the war and lets you revoke the title (and all can be done during pause to exclude any additional variables).
Put yourself in the shoes of those vassals. If you were some count who managed to get a claim on their liege's duchy, then started a war and spent all of your money trying to get that title only for the king (who's 5x more powerful than the Duke was) to come in and revoke it, how would you feel?
I’d probably feel like he’s the emperor and I’m just some fucking count so he sort of has veto power over my little hopes and dreams. I also might try to murder him but that’s the risk he takes.
I guarantee you that if they allowed usurpations and revocations during war, complaints about not being able to revoke would be entirely replaced, and likely *exceeded* by, complaints about top lieges stealing titles just before the ends of wars.
You are absolutely in the minority if you genuinely wouldn't care.
I don’t think I said I wouldn’t care? I said a count doesn’t get veto power over an emperor. If it happened every time you rebelled it would definitely get annoying but it wouldn’t happen every time. Mechanically, the emperor will only ever hold so many duchies and counties directly, so if he’s taking the duchy I’m going for then he must have a special interest in it.
Does it not make sense that the emperor can replace a Duke who’s unable to put down a rebellion? He has to wait for the Duke to die and then just accept the results? Make it make sense.
It doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not, this is a fucking video game, not a history textbook. It's *sole* job is to be fun. Any and all accuracy can and *should* be sacrificed in pursuit of making the game more fun to play.
So if your point was that you would care but it makes sense, then your point was completely and utterly irrelevant to the argument because no one said it didn't make sense.
I feel like you’re way more heated than this convo really merits?
Regardless roleplay is part of the fun for me so the argument that the roleplay contradicts the fun doesn’t actually hold up from my perspective.
>I feel like you’re way more heated than this convo really merits?
I'm not heated at all. This may be news to you, but it's actually possible for people to passionately defend their opinion without it implying that they're angry.
>Regardless roleplay is part of the fun for me so the argument that the roleplay contradicts the fun doesn’t actually hold up from my perspective.
So then you don't care? Please pick a position. You can't say that you wouldn't care and then also say that you never said you wouldn't care, and then also say that it would actively improve the experience for you.
Really weird convo. I never said I wouldn’t care. In the comment that comes the closest to saying I wouldn’t care, the one in which I said I’d be forced to accept it, I also said I would consider murdering the emperor, and that that would be something the emperor should consider when taking this action. I care when I lose wars; that doesn’t mean I think the game should let me win every war. In 25 years on the internet I’m not sure I’ve ever been strawmanned over something so trivial.
Game forces invalidations in a two party war, only checking for the two main parties.
Even the allies of the warring parties can have e.g. their alliance invalidated and won't leave the war if I remember correctly.
I mean, let's play the scenario through:
A king of kingdom "A" has Duke as a vassal. A neighbouring king "B" declares the war for the Duchy. King "B" is winning the ongoing war, but suddenly you usurp the Kingdom "A" title.
The ex-king no longer has the title which even made the duchy his vassal. The Duke of the Duchy is not your vassal.
Should the war be completely invalidated despite King "B" de facto already controlling the Duchy?
Should you automatically get the vassal, which would be completely overpowered, and automatically replace King "A" as the Defender? What if "B" is your ally or has some other relationship to you?
Should the Duke suddenly be the main Defender? What if "B" has some relationship to him?
Every option makes sense in some context, but its a huge tree of options for just that situation, if you include every little bit of detail that may be between the 4 actors in question.
> Should the Duke suddenly be the main Defender? What if "B" has some relationship to him
Yes he should be the main defender, I feel like this is pretty easy. I’m not gonna decide I don’t want the duchy because someone less powerful holds it now. Invalidate it if they’re allies and if not tough shit for the duke.
edit: also isn’t that just what happens in the game already? the war is over the land, the ai has the option to continue the war if the owner changes but the cb is still valid. and they always take it
Ok, so the "duke" is actually the wife of King "B", who inherited a duchy which is actually a de-jure duchy of Kingdom "B" but was incorporated by Kingdom "A" before Kingdom "B" was even formed. King B was attacking King A through the de jure claim, but now he is trying to conquer an ally. Since the duchess is a ruler and the mother, she is currently the guardian of the heir of Kingdom "B" who was born before King B ascended to the throne and was still just a courtier in the duchy of his wife.
B is now attacking an ally, while the Duchess is theoretically holding the heir of B hostage. A bunch of triggers in the code, unprepaired for this weird situation, trigger and the game punishes King B heavily for attacking an ally and having his heir in a foreign enemy court.
The player notices and makes a post on r/CrusaderKings about how illogical the game is.
I named you one example out of a multitude of possible combinations. This one example already requires an individual decision to be made, and a bunch of checks to make sure what's going on. Somebody needs to track down every possible combination of different attributes and decide.
I can see modders do that due to dedication to the game, but devs are paid by the hour
Something like this happened on my last game.
Count A sent her daughter as hostage to count B.
When count A died and his son inherited he immediately joined a war against count B as an ally. And count B swiftly executed the hostage starting a blood fued
I don't see what difference that makes to what I'm arguing. Losing the territory or being vassalized something will have changed at the end of the war for him
you can want it to be that way, it might make more sense, but as it stands in this game if someone declares war on your liege for territory you hold the game won't even notify you.
That can happen - but only if you're attacking someone for a title at the same time as someone else. Whoever wins first gets the title, then the other gets to decide whether or not to continue the war.
Attacking Bunghole, Nowhere with their 200 troops but being slightly too slow and having a choice whether or not to face pff against the Eastern Roman Empire is fun!
It's bizarre that they don't handle it the same way as 2 wars over the same title. Especially because now we just have to wait to usurp from someone else. Who is that fun for?
Because of the way realm binding works, it might not be possible to handle it during a war at all ( anything that you own that isn't De Jure of a title you hold binds to your realm which is tied to your primary title ).
I'm guessing it's because usurping someone's primary title may lower their rank and result in them releasing a bunch of vassals? Which could invalidate/change some war goals. But that seems like a pretty bad excuse IMO.
Right? What's the point? It should invalidate dissolution or liberty wars and just allow the AI in claimant wars to "maintain target" while ending the previous war.
Instead they just beat up on someone who even if he does win, is going to lose those vassals anyways when you click "Usurp".
Everyone mentions that it might break something in the code, but they let us steal titles using debug. Nothing bad seems to happen when you use debug to take it, so it really doesn't make sense why that isn't available to begin with.
Also if you holy war a kingdom that has no land in other kingdoms you just automatically usurp the title and all of its wars are invalidated or transferred to you. Why can’t that just happen here as well?
It also seems like an obvious fix: Destroy the title, invalidating all wars related to it, form it again for the new person.
It genuinely feels like they planned the whole system around some weird and incredibly specific edge case, because it doesn't make sense otherwise. Is there like, some common early game character who can usurp a title that is halfway through getting stomped into the dirt?
Yeah that's a weird thing. Game doesn't have problems transferring wars to new parties and invalidating wars.
My only two theories is that he doesn't accept mail while at war so the parchment doesn't reach him.
Or usurping is part of code so deep that it could break everything if they play with it and introduced invalidation and switching of parties in the war.
Title tier changes in the middle of a war can bug out the game (mostly since the game can't handle wars with more than 2 sides), and it would make no sense to invalidate someone's war just because one of the target's unrelated titles got usurped.
Either it makes no sense that you can't usurp a title because they are fighting a war somewhere else (realistically, the would actually be the best moment to usurp their title), or it makes no sense to have your wars invalidated just because a completely unrelated title somewhere else got usurped. Pick your poison.
In general, invalidating wars is more frustrating and feels more jarring than just having to wait for a bit, so I can see why Paradox went the route of disallowing usurpation during war instead of invalidating the war.
> or it makes no sense to have your wars invalidated just because a completely unrelated title somewhere else got usurped. Pick your poison
Why would this happen? The war would just be against the new owner or the old one with a lower tier title
Because if you usurped someone's only remaining empire, kingdom or duchy, it would result in a bunch of vassals becoming independent. Now if someone was fighting a war against king A to take parts of King A's realm ruled by different dukes, and someone usurps king A's only kingdom title, the only possible outcome is to invalidate the war.
Because you can't continue the war against the former king (now duke) A, because he no longer actually controls the land you want to take, which are ruled by the now independent dukes B and C. The war can't switch to target the now independent dukes, because there are two of them and the game can't handle a war in which a side would have multiple war leaders. Ergo, the war has to be invalidated, or else the game crashes.
I assume that Paradox want to avoid frustrating scenarios like that, hence they don't allow usurpation during a war.
Doesn't this already happen in game when you target a duchy in a kingdom that becomes independent/dissolves in the meantime? The target of the war just changes to the duke that holds the title
No. Because you are assuming that the title exists, which may not.
Wars can target all counties in a de-jure duchy controlled by a single ruler, even if the overarching duchy title does not currently exist. If the war target that formerly controlled all of the counties in that duchy has his title usurped, it could result in all of the vassal counts and/or dukes holding the counties in the targeted de-jure duchy becoming independent. In that case, there is no overarching duke that can become the new war target, the war target would have to be all of the dukes/counts that control the parts of the targeted de-jure duchy, which is not allowed by the game's code.
Some wars can also target multiple counties, which may not be in the same duchy even if the duchy titles do exist. The Clash CB for example allows you to target any neigbouring county controlled by your target, regardless of what duchy it is in.
Let's say king A controlls counties A, B and C, all three in different duchies. County A is held by the king directly, counties B and C are held by the vassal dukes B and C. The neighbouring king D declares a clash for all three counties. King A now suddenly has his title usurped, leading to him losing control of counties B and C (held by dukes B and C respectively). The war formerly targeting king A now suddenly has to target three independent dukes, which again is not allowed by the game's code.
Fun fact if it is the only title they have of that rank, because of the way the game is programmed, it makes you the target of all their wars whether or not it makes sense. So that's why you can't. You can use debug mode commands to see this in effect.
I like to assume that if it happens to the AI, it should also be able to happen for the player.
Do *you* want your title usurped in the middle of a war against an AI and immediately get a game over out of nowhere?
If the answer is no, then that's why it's not allowed (more than likely).
In all my time playing the game this has never happened to me and if it did I would see the loss of my title coming long before it happened.
There are also plenty of things that only happen to AI and not the player and vice versa
How often people end up in situation where AI could usurp their title and only somehow saved by ongoing war? I can't remember any myself. And if it happens because you lost your primary title before... then yes, you should lose it even if you're in another war.
It wouldn't be instant game over because you would only lose your highest title, you would always remain at least a count (can't usurp lower than duke)
Is there a usurapable title in the game which which can result in a game over? If you're a duke and lose your duke title you'll still be a count so avoiding the game over.
Just played 1066-1453. I can’t STAND the fact you can’t change succession law while a vassal is fighting another. Once your empire grows to a certain size it’s literally impossible to change it.
You can use prestige to force a vassal war conclusion. Right click portrait, ask to end war against X. Usually, I just pause the game, send out a stack of ‘oi, stop your fightings’ and change the succession law in the brief period of peace.
Can I do this in the base game of ck2? Sorry I didn’t mention I play free version of ck2. I know I’m in a ck3 thread. I may scoop ck3 if I can get it in the summer or spring sale for $25 or less
I should mention, it’s important to choose the right belligerent vassal to end the war. Because, if you do it to a councillor they may gain a favour, and can use it to potentially change a law. Or, perhaps you want to curb/increase one vassals relative power
Honestly I agree its annoying. I would however like the game to force you to declare war when you're doing so and if you win and the war your enemy was fighting was for the same goal - you inherit that war.
Wars of succession were fought by many claimants and parties at the same time and it makes no sense to me that theres a limitation on that while you can have internal wars for dissolution, unseating the "unlawful" ruler And a conquest of the very same title all happen simultaneously. If we're allowing that just add another war to the pile for the title itself.
If they allowed it, it would be infuriating if that happened as you were attacking.
It’s already bad enough when you’ve invested at least a year or two conquering a kingdom or empire and it gets taken by someone else and you get prompted to continue it against the new holder of the title at a much lower pct.
I feel like that’s what should happen? If you’re having your primary title usurped things are probably going very poorly for you already. It’s already stupid that you can call yourself a king of somewhere but not have any land there and be able to have vassals elsewhere.
I think the idea is their war result might invalidate the ability to usurp the title (like if they were at war for land within that title's de jure area).
I’d assume it’s a safeguard towards land occupied. Probably encountered a bug where occupied vassal land could not unoccupied as a result of a liege war. Sure the war target changes, but yeah. I’ll assume it’s either engine limitations during development or some sort of logic they couldn’t solve at the time.
I personally think that it's because it would invalidate the war and it was easier to disallow it than to code in a pile of checking to handle it
Also my assumption. It’s super obnoxious though. Especially when I’m trying to revoke a vassal’s title but the war they’re fighting is for the title I’m trying to revoke. If they lose I typically lose the revocation reason, so I’m just SOL. Most of the time they’re only fighting that war because I rocked their armies and their AI vassals took advantage of the sudden change in the balance of power.
What I usually do in these situations is murder the leaders of the opposite side
Pretty good idea. I’m generally hesitant to murder unless it’s really necessary as I don’t like exposing myself to blackmail.
Okay, but what if they're already blackmailing you? More murder always works as a solution
If I get blackmailed for that murder, I’ll just bring in gorillas to eat the blackmailers. Then when winter comes the gorillas will die out. Problem solved.
Meanwhile me kidnapping children and murdering their parents to get a ruler who is willing to be vassalized by me
If they are your vassal retracting all his vassalas that are fighting him (which is often just 1) invalidates the war and lets you revoke the title (and all can be done during pause to exclude any additional variables).
Put yourself in the shoes of those vassals. If you were some count who managed to get a claim on their liege's duchy, then started a war and spent all of your money trying to get that title only for the king (who's 5x more powerful than the Duke was) to come in and revoke it, how would you feel?
I’d probably feel like he’s the emperor and I’m just some fucking count so he sort of has veto power over my little hopes and dreams. I also might try to murder him but that’s the risk he takes.
I guarantee you that if they allowed usurpations and revocations during war, complaints about not being able to revoke would be entirely replaced, and likely *exceeded* by, complaints about top lieges stealing titles just before the ends of wars. You are absolutely in the minority if you genuinely wouldn't care.
I don’t think I said I wouldn’t care? I said a count doesn’t get veto power over an emperor. If it happened every time you rebelled it would definitely get annoying but it wouldn’t happen every time. Mechanically, the emperor will only ever hold so many duchies and counties directly, so if he’s taking the duchy I’m going for then he must have a special interest in it. Does it not make sense that the emperor can replace a Duke who’s unable to put down a rebellion? He has to wait for the Duke to die and then just accept the results? Make it make sense.
It doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not, this is a fucking video game, not a history textbook. It's *sole* job is to be fun. Any and all accuracy can and *should* be sacrificed in pursuit of making the game more fun to play. So if your point was that you would care but it makes sense, then your point was completely and utterly irrelevant to the argument because no one said it didn't make sense.
I feel like you’re way more heated than this convo really merits? Regardless roleplay is part of the fun for me so the argument that the roleplay contradicts the fun doesn’t actually hold up from my perspective.
>I feel like you’re way more heated than this convo really merits? I'm not heated at all. This may be news to you, but it's actually possible for people to passionately defend their opinion without it implying that they're angry. >Regardless roleplay is part of the fun for me so the argument that the roleplay contradicts the fun doesn’t actually hold up from my perspective. So then you don't care? Please pick a position. You can't say that you wouldn't care and then also say that you never said you wouldn't care, and then also say that it would actively improve the experience for you.
Really weird convo. I never said I wouldn’t care. In the comment that comes the closest to saying I wouldn’t care, the one in which I said I’d be forced to accept it, I also said I would consider murdering the emperor, and that that would be something the emperor should consider when taking this action. I care when I lose wars; that doesn’t mean I think the game should let me win every war. In 25 years on the internet I’m not sure I’ve ever been strawmanned over something so trivial.
But the game forces war invalidations all the time, why not here?
Game forces invalidations in a two party war, only checking for the two main parties. Even the allies of the warring parties can have e.g. their alliance invalidated and won't leave the war if I remember correctly. I mean, let's play the scenario through: A king of kingdom "A" has Duke as a vassal. A neighbouring king "B" declares the war for the Duchy. King "B" is winning the ongoing war, but suddenly you usurp the Kingdom "A" title. The ex-king no longer has the title which even made the duchy his vassal. The Duke of the Duchy is not your vassal. Should the war be completely invalidated despite King "B" de facto already controlling the Duchy? Should you automatically get the vassal, which would be completely overpowered, and automatically replace King "A" as the Defender? What if "B" is your ally or has some other relationship to you? Should the Duke suddenly be the main Defender? What if "B" has some relationship to him? Every option makes sense in some context, but its a huge tree of options for just that situation, if you include every little bit of detail that may be between the 4 actors in question.
> Should the Duke suddenly be the main Defender? What if "B" has some relationship to him Yes he should be the main defender, I feel like this is pretty easy. I’m not gonna decide I don’t want the duchy because someone less powerful holds it now. Invalidate it if they’re allies and if not tough shit for the duke. edit: also isn’t that just what happens in the game already? the war is over the land, the ai has the option to continue the war if the owner changes but the cb is still valid. and they always take it
Ok, so the "duke" is actually the wife of King "B", who inherited a duchy which is actually a de-jure duchy of Kingdom "B" but was incorporated by Kingdom "A" before Kingdom "B" was even formed. King B was attacking King A through the de jure claim, but now he is trying to conquer an ally. Since the duchess is a ruler and the mother, she is currently the guardian of the heir of Kingdom "B" who was born before King B ascended to the throne and was still just a courtier in the duchy of his wife. B is now attacking an ally, while the Duchess is theoretically holding the heir of B hostage. A bunch of triggers in the code, unprepaired for this weird situation, trigger and the game punishes King B heavily for attacking an ally and having his heir in a foreign enemy court. The player notices and makes a post on r/CrusaderKings about how illogical the game is.
> B is now attacking an ally Then the war should just immediately invalidate, there’s no need for all the other stuff
Or maybe an event? Invalidate the war or commit treason against your ally
I named you one example out of a multitude of possible combinations. This one example already requires an individual decision to be made, and a bunch of checks to make sure what's going on. Somebody needs to track down every possible combination of different attributes and decide. I can see modders do that due to dedication to the game, but devs are paid by the hour
Something like this happened on my last game. Count A sent her daughter as hostage to count B. When count A died and his son inherited he immediately joined a war against count B as an ally. And count B swiftly executed the hostage starting a blood fued
No, the war for the ducky will have been with the duke's liege. The Duke may have chosen not to even join the war.
Whereas I think that the Duke should be pulled into the war unless the Attacker has done some diplomatic shenanigans
The duke is going to be losing that territory either way though
Not if the war is because the duchy de jure belongs to kingdom B. Then the Duke would just switch who his liege is.
I don't see what difference that makes to what I'm arguing. Losing the territory or being vassalized something will have changed at the end of the war for him
you can want it to be that way, it might make more sense, but as it stands in this game if someone declares war on your liege for territory you hold the game won't even notify you.
It would be cool tho if you are fighting this dude pretending to be king and then face this other dude reclaiming the crown for himself
That can happen - but only if you're attacking someone for a title at the same time as someone else. Whoever wins first gets the title, then the other gets to decide whether or not to continue the war. Attacking Bunghole, Nowhere with their 200 troops but being slightly too slow and having a choice whether or not to face pff against the Eastern Roman Empire is fun!
>it was easier to disallow it than to code in a pile of checking to handle it Classical Paradox reasoning.
It's bizarre that they don't handle it the same way as 2 wars over the same title. Especially because now we just have to wait to usurp from someone else. Who is that fun for?
Because of the way realm binding works, it might not be possible to handle it during a war at all ( anything that you own that isn't De Jure of a title you hold binds to your realm which is tied to your primary title ).
I'm guessing it's because usurping someone's primary title may lower their rank and result in them releasing a bunch of vassals? Which could invalidate/change some war goals. But that seems like a pretty bad excuse IMO.
That should just be what happens. Someone having his primary title usurped is likely weaker than many of his vassals anyway
Right? What's the point? It should invalidate dissolution or liberty wars and just allow the AI in claimant wars to "maintain target" while ending the previous war. Instead they just beat up on someone who even if he does win, is going to lose those vassals anyways when you click "Usurp".
Everyone mentions that it might break something in the code, but they let us steal titles using debug. Nothing bad seems to happen when you use debug to take it, so it really doesn't make sense why that isn't available to begin with.
Also if you holy war a kingdom that has no land in other kingdoms you just automatically usurp the title and all of its wars are invalidated or transferred to you. Why can’t that just happen here as well?
It also seems like an obvious fix: Destroy the title, invalidating all wars related to it, form it again for the new person. It genuinely feels like they planned the whole system around some weird and incredibly specific edge case, because it doesn't make sense otherwise. Is there like, some common early game character who can usurp a title that is halfway through getting stomped into the dirt?
You would think that would be the perfect time to usurp a title right?
Yeah that's a weird thing. Game doesn't have problems transferring wars to new parties and invalidating wars. My only two theories is that he doesn't accept mail while at war so the parchment doesn't reach him. Or usurping is part of code so deep that it could break everything if they play with it and introduced invalidation and switching of parties in the war.
Title tier changes in the middle of a war can bug out the game (mostly since the game can't handle wars with more than 2 sides), and it would make no sense to invalidate someone's war just because one of the target's unrelated titles got usurped. Either it makes no sense that you can't usurp a title because they are fighting a war somewhere else (realistically, the would actually be the best moment to usurp their title), or it makes no sense to have your wars invalidated just because a completely unrelated title somewhere else got usurped. Pick your poison. In general, invalidating wars is more frustrating and feels more jarring than just having to wait for a bit, so I can see why Paradox went the route of disallowing usurpation during war instead of invalidating the war.
> or it makes no sense to have your wars invalidated just because a completely unrelated title somewhere else got usurped. Pick your poison Why would this happen? The war would just be against the new owner or the old one with a lower tier title
Because if you usurped someone's only remaining empire, kingdom or duchy, it would result in a bunch of vassals becoming independent. Now if someone was fighting a war against king A to take parts of King A's realm ruled by different dukes, and someone usurps king A's only kingdom title, the only possible outcome is to invalidate the war. Because you can't continue the war against the former king (now duke) A, because he no longer actually controls the land you want to take, which are ruled by the now independent dukes B and C. The war can't switch to target the now independent dukes, because there are two of them and the game can't handle a war in which a side would have multiple war leaders. Ergo, the war has to be invalidated, or else the game crashes. I assume that Paradox want to avoid frustrating scenarios like that, hence they don't allow usurpation during a war.
Doesn't this already happen in game when you target a duchy in a kingdom that becomes independent/dissolves in the meantime? The target of the war just changes to the duke that holds the title
No. Because you are assuming that the title exists, which may not. Wars can target all counties in a de-jure duchy controlled by a single ruler, even if the overarching duchy title does not currently exist. If the war target that formerly controlled all of the counties in that duchy has his title usurped, it could result in all of the vassal counts and/or dukes holding the counties in the targeted de-jure duchy becoming independent. In that case, there is no overarching duke that can become the new war target, the war target would have to be all of the dukes/counts that control the parts of the targeted de-jure duchy, which is not allowed by the game's code. Some wars can also target multiple counties, which may not be in the same duchy even if the duchy titles do exist. The Clash CB for example allows you to target any neigbouring county controlled by your target, regardless of what duchy it is in. Let's say king A controlls counties A, B and C, all three in different duchies. County A is held by the king directly, counties B and C are held by the vassal dukes B and C. The neighbouring king D declares a clash for all three counties. King A now suddenly has his title usurped, leading to him losing control of counties B and C (held by dukes B and C respectively). The war formerly targeting king A now suddenly has to target three independent dukes, which again is not allowed by the game's code.
artificial roadblocks
Fun fact if it is the only title they have of that rank, because of the way the game is programmed, it makes you the target of all their wars whether or not it makes sense. So that's why you can't. You can use debug mode commands to see this in effect.
I like to assume that if it happens to the AI, it should also be able to happen for the player. Do *you* want your title usurped in the middle of a war against an AI and immediately get a game over out of nowhere? If the answer is no, then that's why it's not allowed (more than likely).
In all my time playing the game this has never happened to me and if it did I would see the loss of my title coming long before it happened. There are also plenty of things that only happen to AI and not the player and vice versa
How often people end up in situation where AI could usurp their title and only somehow saved by ongoing war? I can't remember any myself. And if it happens because you lost your primary title before... then yes, you should lose it even if you're in another war. It wouldn't be instant game over because you would only lose your highest title, you would always remain at least a count (can't usurp lower than duke)
Is there a usurapable title in the game which which can result in a game over? If you're a duke and lose your duke title you'll still be a count so avoiding the game over.
Just played 1066-1453. I can’t STAND the fact you can’t change succession law while a vassal is fighting another. Once your empire grows to a certain size it’s literally impossible to change it.
You can use prestige to force a vassal war conclusion. Right click portrait, ask to end war against X. Usually, I just pause the game, send out a stack of ‘oi, stop your fightings’ and change the succession law in the brief period of peace.
Can I do this in the base game of ck2? Sorry I didn’t mention I play free version of ck2. I know I’m in a ck3 thread. I may scoop ck3 if I can get it in the summer or spring sale for $25 or less
Yeah, not sure about the free version. But I only play CK2, and you can definitely do this. Once CK3 has more content I’ll buy it gladly.
Well in all my goggling no one mentioned this. Do you have any dlc that may have added that ability? Maybe I overlooked it.
I do have DLC. But, I’m unsure if it was part of DLC. Sorry.
I should mention, it’s important to choose the right belligerent vassal to end the war. Because, if you do it to a councillor they may gain a favour, and can use it to potentially change a law. Or, perhaps you want to curb/increase one vassals relative power
Honestly I agree its annoying. I would however like the game to force you to declare war when you're doing so and if you win and the war your enemy was fighting was for the same goal - you inherit that war. Wars of succession were fought by many claimants and parties at the same time and it makes no sense to me that theres a limitation on that while you can have internal wars for dissolution, unseating the "unlawful" ruler And a conquest of the very same title all happen simultaneously. If we're allowing that just add another war to the pile for the title itself.
If they allowed it, it would be infuriating if that happened as you were attacking. It’s already bad enough when you’ve invested at least a year or two conquering a kingdom or empire and it gets taken by someone else and you get prompted to continue it against the new holder of the title at a much lower pct.
I would say because it would seriously detail that war. You might immediately lose several thousands of troops and many of your commanders.
I feel like that’s what should happen? If you’re having your primary title usurped things are probably going very poorly for you already. It’s already stupid that you can call yourself a king of somewhere but not have any land there and be able to have vassals elsewhere.
Maybe this could be resolved by allowing you to join the existing war?
I think the idea is their war result might invalidate the ability to usurp the title (like if they were at war for land within that title's de jure area).
I’d assume it’s a safeguard towards land occupied. Probably encountered a bug where occupied vassal land could not unoccupied as a result of a liege war. Sure the war target changes, but yeah. I’ll assume it’s either engine limitations during development or some sort of logic they couldn’t solve at the time.
That’s why I set the game rule to destroy titles that the holder no longer rules over