|
|
Post by Dawnbreaker on Dec 19, 2018 2:14:18 GMT
I think their should be some sort of penalty or way to reprimand oathbreakers.
And I know if a vassal fights against you, you can. I'm talking about those that refuse to fight. They are sworn to you, but when the call comes they refuse it, cravens cowering in their keeps. Well when the war is done, their should be some sort of reckoning, no? There's a little opinion debuff but these lords and ladies broke sworn oaths. I'm not certain HOW this should be handled but since I'm suggesting it I have to say something so, how about this; If a vassal refuses the call, you have the option to, once the war is over*, justifiably imprison them and call them to trial as an oathbreaker which is the normal trial mechanics. Also perhaps a little dishonourable or oathbreaker debuff places on these oathbreakers AND the ones the openly sided with the enemy for failing to answer the call. If the war is won by the rebels however, the rebels debuff goes away because they are seen as the ones in the right, like the rebels winning Robert's Rebellion.
*Exceptions being if you are imprisoned yourself due to losing the war.
|
|
|
|
Post by rufff1 on Dec 19, 2018 8:12:56 GMT
I see where you are coming from, but them refusing to fight is basically them doing a Walder Frey at the Battle of the Trident, going "hmm yes just calling my banners, we'll definitely be there" then never showing up so its not necessarily something you can prosecute them for
|
|
|
|
Post by Dawnbreaker on Dec 19, 2018 9:27:47 GMT
That's not true at all, Walder mobilised his troops and got to the battle as his liege lord commanded, he just got there once it was done. THESE vassals are not raising their levies whatsoever and are just sitting at home while their liege can be fighting in a whole different part of Westeros.
|
|
|
|
Post by caeserion on Dec 19, 2018 22:14:04 GMT
In practice I don't think anything is done, a vassal lord can have many excuses to not act. During the dance of dragons, the tyrells stayed out of the whole thing (on the grounds that their current lord was a child) even though many prominent reach houses fought. Dorne stayed independent during the Wo5K, only agreeing to help after a marriage offer. The Iron Isles stayed independent during Robert's Rebellion and nothing was done to any of these houses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dawnbreaker on Dec 19, 2018 22:51:18 GMT
The wiki page for Dance of Dragons mentions the armies of the Reach marching for the Greens. The Greyjoys did stay out of the rebellion at first it is true, however they joined it before the end so it would have been weird for Robert to punish people that had ultimately fought with him. And as for Dorne, the realm is embroiled in a massive incredibly costly war, I'd guess the Crown is simply happy that Dorne hasn't so far decided to side with their enemies. They don't really have the ability to punish Dorne at the moment nor would it be wise to attempt to do so, nor are the wars over.
|
|
Toccs
Moderator
Posts: 474 
|
Post by Toccs on Dec 19, 2018 23:10:34 GMT
The first time a Mega War happened, the realm would never have peace again. The Iron Throne would have righteous imprisonments for any LP or crownlander who didn't join their side, the LPs would have righteous imprisonments for any vassal that didn't join their particular side. The AI would use all of those righteous imprisonments, more than few of the targets would rebel triggering another Mega War and handing out more righteous imprisonments. The realm would never be at peace long enough to reunite again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dawnbreaker on Dec 19, 2018 23:32:44 GMT
Mmm, ok that makes sense. What about a modifier though? 'Oathbreaker' -20 general opinion -0.20 prestige monthly -0.15 piety monthly or some such.
|
|
|
|
Post by rufff1 on Dec 19, 2018 23:48:35 GMT
The wiki page for Dance of Dragons mentions the armies of the Reach marching for the Greens. The Greyjoys did stay out of the rebellion at first it is true, however they joined it before the end so it would have been weird for Robert to punish people that had ultimately fought with him. And as for Dorne, the realm is embroiled in a massive incredibly costly war, I'd guess the Crown is simply happy that Dorne hasn't so far decided to side with their enemies. They don't really have the ability to punish Dorne at the moment nor would it be wise to attempt to do so, nor are the wars over. The Armies of the Reach marching for the Greens was the Hightower Host, plus a few other Houses like the Roxtons and the Peakes, Fire and Blood tells us the Tyrells very pointedly demurred from picking a side citing the youth of their Lord and the Greens couldn't be bothered to press the issue (interestingly a favoured tactic of the Tyrells - Leo Longthorn was "too busy dealing with rebels" to make it to Redgrass Field, Mace Tyrell conveniently decided to dig in for a year long siege without trying to take Storm's End by force to see how Robert's Rebellion plays out - it seems watching the Gardeners burn has made the Tyrells loath to commit wholeheartedly to battle). I think a better system would be issuing a demand that they join you in the War with failure being treason, symbolising how a weak ruler knows not to force the issue but a strong ruler would feel able to do so |
|
Toccs
Moderator
Posts: 474
|
Post by Toccs on Dec 19, 2018 23:58:06 GMT
Mmm, ok that makes sense. What about a modifier though? 'Oathbreaker' -20 general opinion -0.20 prestige monthly -0.15 piety monthly or some such.
So all the vassals that sat out the Mega War would then all hate each other for sitting out the Mega War.
You've got to view vassals that stay neutral as doing what Walder Frey or Tywin did, not actively refusing just not participating properly. A human player is smart enough to just join the war but not actually raise troops, the AI is not, so you should view them staying neutral as the equivalent of them doing that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dawnbreaker on Dec 20, 2018 0:04:28 GMT
Ok, that is fair enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by sourjapes on Dec 20, 2018 2:52:08 GMT
The first time a Mega War happened, the realm would never have peace again. The Iron Throne would have righteous imprisonments for any LP or crownlander who didn't join their side, the LPs would have righteous imprisonments for any vassal that didn't join their particular side. The AI would use all of those righteous imprisonments, more than few of the targets would rebel triggering another Mega War and handing out more righteous imprisonments. The realm would never be at peace long enough to reunite again. Just work out the ai factors so that AI rarely declare neutrality.
|
|
Toccs
Moderator
Posts: 474
|
Post by Toccs on Dec 20, 2018 6:50:28 GMT
The first time a Mega War happened, the realm would never have peace again. The Iron Throne would have righteous imprisonments for any LP or crownlander who didn't join their side, the LPs would have righteous imprisonments for any vassal that didn't join their particular side. The AI would use all of those righteous imprisonments, more than few of the targets would rebel triggering another Mega War and handing out more righteous imprisonments. The realm would never be at peace long enough to reunite again. Just work out the ai factors so that AI rarely declare neutrality.
Whether or not the AI goes neutral isn't a problem and is already about as balanced as it can be. The suggestion in this thread was about being able to punish them for being neutral.
|
|
|
|
Post by sourjapes on Dec 21, 2018 1:43:43 GMT
Just work out the ai factors so that AI rarely declare neutrality.
Whether or not the AI goes neutral isn't a problem and is already about as balanced as it can be. The suggestion in this thread was about being able to punish them for being neutral.
I know, but how often they actually do go neutral is a factor in that, no? Can't punish them if they don't do it. I experimented with this a bit already myself. I made the "dithered" opinion an arrest-able offense with execution or exile as allowed. I tweaked the balance under the mega-war decisions so that neutral is biased against. It seemed to work fine enough. How often the AI will actually punish its vassals has something to do with their relative strength after the war and their personality traits. Something else to keep in mind is that as part of this mechanic you could make the "dithered" opinion have a short duration. It might last only a few months or a year, so if you lost a war your vassal failed to aid you in then you might not be able to move against them because if they resist you won't have the levy needed to take them down.
Perhaps during and immediately after a war the neutral vassal would have an "oath_breaker" opinion that allows for imprisonment, exile, and even execution. Then after a time that opinion modifier is replaced by "dithered", which doesn't allow for any hostile action.
How many vassals failed to send even some token forces to aid their liege during the books? Lady Dustin hates the Starks but even she sent a few men, "We mustn't offend Winterfell". The only case I can think of is Walder Frey, and he is only suspected of having dithered, not known to have actually done it. In several cases we have vassals siding against their liege paramount, with the Iron Throne, which is very different.
Another way to look at this is that the game mechanics already take into account a vassal who doesn't care for their liege; we send the minimum levy to them when they raise the army. The next level of minimum support could be argued to be actually siding against them, in which case we have the option to side with the King or the rebel lord whomever it is.
|
|
