[Idea] Supremacy and vassality

[Elewyn]

Hi, Ladies and Lords

I have just another idea how to extend diplomatical actions.

It is supremacy of some kingdom on some realm of another kingdom. It would be option halfway between contributing a realm and paying taxes from vassality. Example will be the best way how to explain it:

England and France are in war. English king captures realm/province of Anjou. So he is owner of Anjou, but his forces are not strong enough to keep it under English rule. Also French king wants to keep this realm/province for himself, but his armies are tied in Spain. So he offeres to king of England English "supremacy" on Anjou. This will mean that England gives it back to France, France will keep it, but as vassal realm/province of England. French "governor"(landlord or builder or whatever else) will govern the realm, France will be able to produce units there, get income from that realm/province, but must pay half of his income-from-Anjou to England. But this doesn't mean France will be Enlish vassal at all - only in case of Anjou - and France will be normal independent kingdom.

Something like this was quite obvious in middle ages, especially in relations between England and France, but just oposite to my example. English kings held half of France as vassals of France.

Another example requires possibility for vassal states to have at least basical foreign polity-by marriages. So example:

Bohemia is vassal of HolyRomanEmpire, but ocal dynasty is about to distinct. King of Bohemia has only one daughter married with king of Hungary. So when king of Bohemia dies, king of Hungary as the only legal successor will claim Bohemian throne, but what will happen with vassality then? I doubt that Emperor of HRE will accept loosing 2 vassal realms, same like Hungarian king would hardly accept becoming vassal of HRE with all his lands. So he will accept "supremacy" of HRE in former kingdom of Bohemia, those realms will stay in vassal relation to HRE and Hungary will be still independent.

Also another one:
Right opposite situation. Bohemia-vassal of HRE, Hungary not. Hungarian king is about to die, but has only one daughter married to king of Bohemia (if you ask why he married her to "weak Bohemia": he had three sons and one more daughter, but they are all already dead). When Hungarian king dies, Bohemia claims whole kingdom of Hungary, but France, England, Papacy and also Byzantium would hardly accept whole Hungary becoming vassal of HRE, so they force the Emperor to accept independance of Bohemia in Hungarian realms, but his supremacy over original Bohemia will last.

What do you think about it?

PS: Also I would like to repeat my question from another thread which is also important for this case:
"Can a kingdom of f.e. 5 realms be a vassal of a kingdom of 4 realms?"
because if not and somebody's vassal is an heir of a big kingdom, "supremacy" option is the only way, don't you think?

[Angryminer]

I like the idea - however it is yet do be determined if this feature doesn't over-complicate the matter.
I know, it's realistic, but in medieval times realism tended to be really complicated when speaking about royals, heritage and such things... ;)

Angryminer

[Elewyn]

Yes, I admitt that it may be little complicating, but also vassality is little complicated and this depends on vassality.

But I think that it's my explanation of the problem what is making it complicated more then it actually is.

F.e. you lost a war, enemy asks you either for money or some land. You have not enpough money to pay him, but don't want to lose any land-realms, so you offer him his supremacy over one of your realms. He will get money, you will keep realm :)

[Angryminer]

What happens to i.e. Anjou if England wants to fight another war? Will England be able to send men from Anjou to fight or will France command these peoples?

Angryminer

[Elewyn]

Since it is French, England has no longer their troops in Anjou. It's just like being vassal only in one of your realms.

When England is "supreme power" of Anjou, which will be French, it will be almost like normal French realm (I forgot to mention that if England except that offer, they will pull their soldiers back and only have half-income from that realm)

In simplier way. It's just kind of vassality. But you are not vassal with your whole kingdom, only some parts of it, actually you are independent, just must pay taxes to supreme power from that provinces/realms.

Is it clear?
(I edited opening post of this thread, than it is maybe little clearer)

[Finellach]

Too complicated....

[Angryminer]

I like the idea, but I think this supremacy-thingy should be exchanged with "monthly taxes". That is basically what this province-vasallity adds to the gameplay and is much less complicated. What do you think?

Angryminer

[Henrik]

I like Elewyn's idea very much :) with this "half" verssal state - the only few problems are:

1. If France becomes tiered of paying tax to the english, then how do France take the province back ?

2. who decides which upgrades the town gets

There are maybe a few more issues, but i generaly like the idea :)

[Elewyn]

Originally posted by Henrik
1. If France becomes tiered of paying tax to the english, then how do France take the province back ?

2. who decides which upgrades the town gets
To both question the same answer. It's the same like when whole state is a vassal of another one. So probably actual owner (France)will build upgrade, but also it means he will pay higher taxes to supreme power of England.
And way how to stop it. Call independence without any supremacy which may lead to war, or buyiing the realm out of this situation buy paying certain amount of money.

I suggested it mainly for second and third example when vassal state is joining to independent one.

If any other problems, ask them, Henrik, being quiet doesn't solve anything.

Maybe it can be called other way(part-vassality?). And I don't think it's too complicated. When there already is vassality and this option will be actually nothing different, just allowing you having one realm in vassality and second independent.

[Rnett]

Co-ownership

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Elewyn
To both question the same answer. It's the same like when whole state is a vassal of another one. So probably actual owner (France)will build upgrade, but also it means he will pay higher taxes to supreme power of England.
And way how to stop it. Call independence without any supremacy which may lead to war, or buyiing the realm out of this situation buy paying certain amount of money.


But, what if France using this city to produce squads which is then used against me (England) - now i wouldn't want that to happen ! - but at the same time i wouldn't care if France used'em against Spain ?

My solution: when making a treaty, couldn't we include terms forexample: France is allowed to produce squads at Anjou to help in its war against Spain, but is not allowed to use these squads against England

England will not claim her right to rule the city and shall in return recieve half of the city's income.

I know it sounds "complicated" for some of you, but a complex system like this is what i would like to see - maybe the devs could make a game mode ( an arcade mode ) where much of the diplomatic options were disabled, this way you could decide how hard a game you wanted to play

If any other problems, ask them, Henrik, being quiet doesn't solve anything.


I'l probably ask again, because i think it a great idea - i'l' that it's not too late to implement this, but if it is, then i'll hope we'll see these options in a sequel !

[Elewyn]

Yea, you revealed one problem I haven't thought of.

So maybe it should include some kind of non agression pact within this treaty. You know, when you are vassal, you can't use your forces aggainst your overlord, doesn't matter if you are vassal in all your teritories or just one province. The important goal is that you are still independent and cannot atack England without any loss of your good name.

So this whole feature should have defined duration (if it's possible in KoH) during which you can't attack each other and if you do it, treaty ends and your name got some scares on it. After that time you can change the treaty, pay England some money (like when buying a province, but with half amount of money), buy Anjou out, and England is not allowed to attack Anjou for certain period then.

Maybe whole this discussion needs first wide and deep explanation of vassality in KoH because i think that in many cases it should be similar with it. So may I ask you, Frujin or Frank?

I relly hope this idea can add something to the game instead of complicating it. It should go hand in hand with vassality system, just leaving you have independent policy with rest of your empire.

Vassality is partly dependance, this should be vassality with independence if you understand

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Elewyn
Yea, you revealed one problem I haven't thought of.

So maybe it should include some kind of non agression pact within this treaty. You know, when you are vassal, you can't use your forces aggainst your overlord, doesn't matter if you are vassal in all your teritories or just one province. The important goal is that you are still independent and cannot atack England without any loss of your good name.


I think i would be fun to actually negociate the terms in a treaty - just imagine that you, during a negotiation of terms with another king, sets to harsh terms and then the king get angry and declare war on you !


So this whole feature should have defined duration (if it's possible in KoH) during which you can't attack each other and if you do it, treaty ends and your name got some scares on it. After that time you can change the treaty, pay England some money (like when buying a province, but with half amount of money), buy Anjou out, and England is not allowed to attack Anjou for certain period then.


This WILL cause a problem, because in KoH there is no durations of time ! no year counter - remember !


Maybe whole this discussion needs first wide and deep explanation of vassality in KoH because i think that in many cases it should be similar with it. So may I ask you, Frujin or Frank?

I relly hope this idea can add something to the game instead of complicating it. It should go hand in hand with vassality system, just leaving you have independent policy with rest of your empire.

Vassality is partly dependance, this should be vassality with independence if you understand

Yeahh, i can't recall that we have been told much about this whole vassality issue...

btw, as i wrote in my last post we should have to game-modes:

1. without complex diplomacy
2. with complex displomacy

[Angryminer]

I guess that this idea (two game modes) comes too late...
But I think the whole overlordship should be replaced with "taxes" as part of a treaty.
Back to the example of England vs France:
Instead of demanding supremacy over the realm of Anjou, England demands taxes and military access to this realm.
I think this system is a good deal between complexity and playability. Any opinions?

Angryminer

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Angryminer
I guess that this idea (two game modes) comes too late...
But I think the whole overlordship should be replaced with "taxes" as part of a treaty.
Back to the example of England vs France:
Instead of demanding supremacy over the realm of Anjou, England demands taxes and military access to this realm.
I think this system is a good deal between complexity and playability. Any opinions?

Angryminer

Reading your example - what will France get in return ?

As i understands it, then there is already two game-modes:

1. where time goes by while you do battle.
2. where time and everything else stops while you do battle.

[Elewyn]

Originally posted by Henrik
This WILL cause a problem, because in KoH there is no durations of time ! no year counter - remember ! I know there is no such counter, but also time goes in KoH (kings and maybe also knights becoming older). So this feature shall last f.e. 1/8 of knig's life (we know there are 4 levels of king's age, so this should be little shorter period than that. Or the same?

btw, as i wrote in my last post we should have to game-modes:

1. without complex diplomacy
2. with complex displomacy Yes, it's good idea, but when playing without complex diplomacy the game won't be soo good IMO. For me diplomacy is half of KoH, but yes, for me.

Originally posted by Angryminer
But I think the whole overlordship should be replaced with "taxes" as part of a treaty.
Back to the example of England vs France:
Instead of demanding supremacy over the realm of Anjou, England demands taxes and military access to this realm.
I think this system is a good deal between complexity and playability. Any opinions?
I agree with you in case of England and France, but I'm still not sure if it will solve case of Bohemia+Hungary and HolyRomanEmpire.

Maybe some kind of non-agression pact with some taxes, that's not bad.

But, you know, I like word supremacy... so what about "supramacy taxes"? :D

:bash: damn! I left my idea so early, I should have defended it more :bash:

I still think it's not socomplicating feature, but I'm not aggainst Angryminers idea. IMO It's better than nothing.

[Henrik]

I'm still for the idea with negotiating terms in a treaty - eventhough it will make the game more complex - but at the same time i'm also prepared to wait untill a KoH2 arrives - if i ever will thatis.

[Boleslaus the Great]

I like your idea, Elewyn!

Especially when king of Bohemia captured so many lands out of HRE supremacy, he should not be vassal of HRE in Poland or Hungary :go:

Ehm. Question. Can vassals of one state have wars between themselves?

Like Bohemia and Austria are vassals of HRE, can Bohemia attack Austria and conquere it whole or will the HRE do something aggainst it, as overlord of both of them?

[Angryminer]

Reading your example - what will France get in return ?As much as with the supremacy-option. Just simplyfied ;) .

Angryminer

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Angryminer
As much as with the supremacy-option. Just simplyfied ;) .

Angryminer

I asked because as i read you reply it would seem that BOTH France and England would get access to purchase military units at the same time :eek: and this don't seem right, because in Elewyn's and my example France and England are not allied, the two kingdoms has only agreed to "split" the city - the advantage for England is that she will get some nice income from a city which she don't have any squads in (for defence) meaning that England in our example can just sit back and watch those nice little gold coins rolling into her treasury without having to worry about defending the city.

I'm almost certain that Elewyn agrees with me on this one !

For "legal matters" we want to be able to make a treaty with terms, then our "vassal" at the city can report back to us (England) if france attacks us with troops from the city of Anjou which France, according to the treaty, wouldn't be allowed to !

All this treaty & terms stuff could really make the diplomatic side of the game very strong IMO