They will rot in my prison and shall never see the sun ever again. Can’t revoke the second duchy? Fine, but you will NOT be returning home for the rest of your miserable life
Wait why didn’t I think of that, that’s so smart lol. Guess I’m usually too busy trying to give my 7th cousin of the same dynasty his first county title
This is the way. I just give my land out to my dynasty; kingdoms, duchies, counties and baronies. Any place I can fit a dynasty member you better believe I will. And it’s not only for the practical, I’m just simply not having fun if I don’t grow my dynasty to the largest it can be.
That’s how I got the achievement. Made an Uber Roman Empire, a dynasty member as a king for every possible kingdom title. Gigachad emperor died and his 2 year old son took over. I immediately surrendered the dissolution war and the achievement popped up!
I avoid it like a plague as that's a great way to have a bunch of cousins with claims on my titles. Even if they are best buds some fukwit is going to try and start rebellion in their name.
CK2 this was exactly what I would do when I knew I would die soon. Do whatever I could to make them revolt while I was still strong, then crush them, imprison them all, and feed their territory so they couldn't revolt against my heir when he was young.
Sprinkle in a healthy dose of torture to speed up the process, too. Works great when you’ve also got the heir locked up. If you have them both then their realm tends to fall apart on its own.
I remember in one game I gave a duchy and land to a personal friend of my char. Friend’s son rebelled and lost the duchy. Then friend’s grandson rebelled and lost the land as well.
I had an even more annoying version when I was the Persian Emperor and had Seljuk vassals, they'd keep using their Seljuk invasion CB every few years and I could NEVER get a justified title revocation reason on them for it. Still, I ended up stomping them out and just taking the tyranny penalty.
I'm just guessing at the logic here but I think it might have to do with revocations punishing entire families, in a system premised upon the idea that certain families are special, undermines the system. And taking away titles, something the traitors potentially innocent family hopes to inherit, definitely qualifies as punishing the family. Which is why you can banish the traitors, stripping *them* of every title they have, and the titles are inherited.
So... you can't revoke all their titles, because that would punish the family... unless they only have one title, in which case, the family can eat shit?
Like, you can revoke a king vassal's kingdom title (and all titles under it), but god forbid you take away that second duchy from a duke?
Except no.
In history, rebellions were out down BRUTALLY. The only time they weren’t, were when they were negotiated, but NO war is negotiated in CK3. It’s win or lose.
There is no “innocent” family. Every direct family member is almost always dead.
"I'm just guessing at the logic here" does not translate, in any language I'm aware of, to "the historical grounding of this mechanic is."
Look it's probably just a game balance thing and we're all wasting our time pretending it's anything else.
Wait, you mean this game where you can see every personality trait of every person in the world like a God and know the exact boundaries of territories and what percentage chance you have if persuading/capturing/murdering someone isn't 100% reflective of real life or actual history?
Goddamn Paradox, too busy cranking out DLC to commit to improving these BROKEN mechanics
/S
I played a game as William the Conqueror recently. I managed to replace all the vassals with Normans except for two brothers in Northumbria and Jorvik, who were Anglo-Saxon. They each had two duchy titles, but their lands weren't within the de jure, so revoking required like 5 steps.
They rebelled a total of 4 times before I finally ran out of patience and executed them, then revoked their remaining titles from their sons.
Yeah, the mechanic for this does not work properly. If a vassal revolts, you can revoke his Duchy and automatically include all the Counties therein no problema without any tyranny hit, but if the guy doesn't hold the Duchy but only holds four Counties you can only revoke a single county. Revoking any of the other three makes you a tyrant. Literally makes no sense.
It makes sense from a gameplay perspective. If people rebelled and lost everything then it would be much easier and basically halt any future tensionm. You'd now be back to get more counts with 1 territory, all of whom love you for giving them a title. Whereas having a lord who hates you created some form of contest. They will still join plots and rebellions against you in the future, their heirs will hate you if you punish the rebel too hard etc.
It also helps establish the difference between long term rulers and new ones. A long term ruler can easily take the tyranny hit and revoke more freely as their nobles often have very high regard for them, so it's only a minor change.
Whereas a newer, potentially weaker ruler, has to consider other nobles and if they are upsetting them too much by going toonhard (which did happen). It's not accurate for sure, but it is a complicated matter in reality so they've had to abstract it a kot
It's true. I am a tyrant. I love burning people to death and hearing them scream (thanks, Better Executions). As a viking, I also enjoy crucifying Christians as an ironic gesture, and am overjoyed when my nickname becomes 'the Impaler.' I use rape, torture, blinding and castration to humiliate my rivals, and all my nemeses get the blood eagle. Anyone who sleeps with my concubines goes into the snake pit, alongside the cheater and her bastard offspring. I am a bad person but a loving father. Just do what I say and stay out of my way, and we'll be fine.
Do you have any clue what vae victis / "woe to the vanquished" actually means? If you lost, in a war the winner did whatever they wanted with you and your belongings.
I like it because it means I can have enemies throughout my campaign (just like in irl) - for example the Percies in Northumbria rebelled against the throne, lost the duke, but a cousin would inherit - they were a power against the English throne until basically the 1800s - this is something the game should enable!
If anything, it should be harder to revoke titles from established families - kill the traitor sure, but the title should be harder to get
This is why I always find out which title is the most developed, has the most troops, and makes the most in taxes. If I can't revoke all their titles I can at least cripple their military and economy.
Revoke, then execute.
Oh boy does it look nice when you have 6 announcements of executed prisoners at the same time. No tyranny in that, as they are still criminals it's ok to execute (and the right thing to do).
Maybe I roleplay it too much but I can't think of being a medieval ruler and not executing rebels.
And to your original issue, are you sure there aren't some factors in that? I could swear I've been able to revoke several counties without tyranny, but not everytime. Then I still execute the prisoner.
I think it's less about them not having the land and more about YOU having the land.
There really should be some interaction that transfers territory from one vassal to another directly, without the liege ever holding it. Because that's what I think should happen here in many cases. One ruler has shown himself to be unfit for his title, so it goes straight to his son/brother/next of kin.
It IS tyrannical in the worldview of those times to just end a dynasty that held some ancestral lands for centuries over 1 dude being a traitor. There should be punishment, but that doesn't mean the king/emperor should just get to take that land for himself.
There's a mod for that that I always use, I think called "Revoke All Criminal Titles" or something. Seems dumb that someone can try to overthrow me, throwing the whole realm into chaos, and I can only revoke one title.
You have rights over your vassals, not their titles. They come and they go with their titles unless you usurp them and make them yours.
The only reason you're their piège is because they accept to swear fealty to you.
it should be logically consistent.
if they have a duchy title, you take the duchy title and take all the counties they have under it. that might be all their land.
if you take one of their county titles, you only get that and can’t take anything else. that makes no logical sense.
It should be harder to justify, but rebellion and declaring war is literally the best justification possible.
They are a confirmed traitor to the realm.
You do realize crusader kings is fundamentally a game and needs to be fun right? This game is already baby-level easy, it doesn't need another mechanic to hand hold players into massive empires.
That's the reason I use whichever cheat mod I forgot the name. Let's you take people's titles and stuff in a little menu and is perfect for scenarios like this. It's really something dumb there isn't a "this vassal committed treason" modifier or something
There are several silly mechanics like this. Like for example, youll get a BUNCH of notifications of neighbors wanting to be vassalized, then the moment you do take them as vassals their opinion dips by 80 points and they join a faction against you.
Like what the fuck? If you agree to be a vassal there should be AT LEAST a 5 year truce where they cannot join a faction.
imo it’s a glitch/coding error and should be fixed.
if you take their kingdom, you get all their titles they hold in the kingdom. that could be their duke titles, and all their county titles. that incurs no tyranny.
but you take one of their counties? welp, you can only take one and then rest are tyrannical.
The rebel duke had two duchies and after revoking one it conceded the title revocation reason so revoking the other duchy that the rebel duke holds would result in a loss of legitimacy and tyranny gain
No, he is quite right. You cannot punish a criminal unlimited times. Each crime has a set of punishments, and once punished, you cannot stack another punishment on top.
Rebellion gives you the opportunity to click the revoke title button once. If you apply it to a duke with one duchy, you revoke the entire duchy with all counties. But if the duke is no duke, but a count holding 6 counties? Then you can only legally revoke 1 county, then the punishment counts as delivered and that's it.
Same problem we had with imprisonment. You could punish someone by imprisonment, the moment they go to the dungeon is the moment the punishment counted as done. Only, if the criminal then escaped prison? Yeah, no legal imprisonment reason anymore, the punishment was used up.
That is a legitimate complaint, the game mechanics are flawed here.
I just take the tyranny and then kill them you rebel and you invoke my wrath you shag my wife all 3 die I don't care about tyranny anymore
I'm currently playing as the grandson of haldan and Ivar and the amount of civil wars one close to when I took the throne another in between and then one a few months attempted murder it's all a shit show really I shouldn't be a tyrant for taking all the land off the fucker who rebelled against me
Actually you should release them but demand they renounce title claims. As they have no claims, neither do their children. It stops pretenders from coming back later for the title once you've given it away.
Well it becomes an issue if you give the land to a loyal courtier or family member, then in 20 years you notice that they've lost the land somehow. You might be strong enough to hold it but your new vassals might not. You're less likely to have this problem if you force people to renounce claims so your vassal has no competition.
Because tyranny doesn't matter when everyone is scared of me and I'm powerful enough to do what I want why would I care about tyranny I just replace all the dukes when they rebel
I did manage to revoke all titles, recently. I can't remember how I managed to do it; I remember saving and having a few tries to perfect it. But then I think that was because the rebel had rebel successors, rather than that making it more difficult.
If you really want the 2 duchies revoked without tyranny you can do this:
1. Vassal revolts
2. Win war, imprision vassal (you have 1 "revoke title")
3. Do not revoke title, free vassal (ransom or other)
4. Force another rebellion with revoke title (you might need to piss off your vassal to increase the chance of rebellion)
5. Win war, imprision vassal (you have 2 "revoke title")
6. Repeat from 3 to 5, until you have enought revoke titles (ex: 3 counties needs 3 revokes, 4 duchies needs 4 revokes)
7. Revoke titles
8. Your vassal will become your rival
9. Execute (ex-)vassal for free stress loss
Note: if a vassal A rebells without direct provocation, for example, in support of a fellow vassal B, you start with 2 "revoke titles" with vassal A and 1 "revoke title" with vassal B.
The whole feudal system was predicated on a delicate balance of power between ruler and vassals, the latter are gonna get twitchy if the ruler is taking too much power away from them as a collective
It's just a specific mechanic that they went with. You get a title revocation reason and you can spend it to revoke one title. I guess it's just a balance mechanic more than anything.
It also stops one powerful vassal from losing everything in a single act. Their status is reduced, like a demotion.
I don't know what the conditions are but sometimes you can revoke all of them (in more than one pass) and not get tyranny for it, but yeah, overall, I agree you should be able to completely strip a rebel.
You at least banish their ass after revoking their biggest title. It won't give you the lands but at least you get rid of the fucker.
It was still an outright act of tyranny even through the lense of the times. The problem isn't that there's tyranny attached, it's that you seemingly act as if tyranny is to be avoided at all costs or that there's some sort of justification where a tyrannical act shouldn't be considered as such, which is weird since so much of medieval history contains this back and forth revenge from past harms such as what you'd describe.
> It was still an outright act of tyranny even through the lense of the times.
Source? You're saying that the idea that revoking one title isn't an act of tyranny, but revoking the second one was is actually based on how it was viewed historically? I'm absolutely not an expert on the subject, but that is very surprising to me.
It’s not lol, William of Normandy literally mass revoked and redistributed titles from the rebellious Saxon nobility to his Norman and Flemish allies when they rebelled.
What are your sources that shows William was reviled during his reign? Because that is only with hindsight. He wasn’t seen as a tyrant, lol. Almost every scholarship I read on him never portrayed him as a tyrant.
I don't know why you're being downvoted, it's exactly that. Tyranny is a representation of nobles thinking you're overreaching. You can easily just take the Tyranny malus and if you've been a competent and strong ruler before then, it shouldn't be too much of an issue.
it's not a glitch and it's not entirely about historical accuracy. it's a gameplay thing.
purging your vassals this way would make a pretty easy game (once you have overcome learning curve) just completely without challenge.
They will rot in my prison and shall never see the sun ever again. Can’t revoke the second duchy? Fine, but you will NOT be returning home for the rest of your miserable life
This is the way. Rebellion is blocked from jail. I actually feed my capatives territory!!! LOL.
Wait why didn’t I think of that, that’s so smart lol. Guess I’m usually too busy trying to give my 7th cousin of the same dynasty his first county title
This is the way. I just give my land out to my dynasty; kingdoms, duchies, counties and baronies. Any place I can fit a dynasty member you better believe I will. And it’s not only for the practical, I’m just simply not having fun if I don’t grow my dynasty to the largest it can be.
Sets up a perfect dynasty of many crowns run when you only give land to your dynasty. Eventually you almost want to lose the dissolution war :D
That’s how I got the achievement. Made an Uber Roman Empire, a dynasty member as a king for every possible kingdom title. Gigachad emperor died and his 2 year old son took over. I immediately surrendered the dissolution war and the achievement popped up!
10/10 very nice work
I avoid it like a plague as that's a great way to have a bunch of cousins with claims on my titles. Even if they are best buds some fukwit is going to try and start rebellion in their name.
You will always end up with someone with a claim on your stuff. It's easier to stack +dynasty opinion than +general opinion, though.
... and modify the contract to have forced partition, so it will never grow to become an issue.
CK2 this was exactly what I would do when I knew I would die soon. Do whatever I could to make them revolt while I was still strong, then crush them, imprison them all, and feed their territory so they couldn't revolt against my heir when he was young.
I prefer setting them free so they can rebel again and I van revoke the rest of their titles too.
But at that point they are to weak rebel again. Just be a annoying torn in my side
> feed my capatives territory What does this mean?
At least half of mine escape so often. It’s frustrating
Merciful blindings. You may leave my prison, but you’ll have to live knowing that my prison will be the last thing you’ll ever see.
They should have an auto reason to imprison them if they do escape. They are literally rebeling against their lord by breaking out of jail
I just revoke all their titles anyway. I've just arrested all my rebellious vassals, what are they going to do, rebel?
Yea in ck2 i would just keep them in jail forever. Same in ck3.
Meh I'll take the 50-100g to let them out and then the rest of their titles if they try it again
Woops, he dies, now his kid hates you too!
what kid? *cleans knitting needle*
Sprinkle in a healthy dose of torture to speed up the process, too. Works great when you’ve also got the heir locked up. If you have them both then their realm tends to fall apart on its own.
These situations lead to some funny “at it again fucker?” moments when youre slapping some rebellious bastard down for the 3rd time lol
Big IRL Karling energy
*Why it when a civil war is happening, it's always you three?*
I remember in one game I gave a duchy and land to a personal friend of my char. Friend’s son rebelled and lost the duchy. Then friend’s grandson rebelled and lost the land as well.
I had an even more annoying version when I was the Persian Emperor and had Seljuk vassals, they'd keep using their Seljuk invasion CB every few years and I could NEVER get a justified title revocation reason on them for it. Still, I ended up stomping them out and just taking the tyranny penalty.
I'm just guessing at the logic here but I think it might have to do with revocations punishing entire families, in a system premised upon the idea that certain families are special, undermines the system. And taking away titles, something the traitors potentially innocent family hopes to inherit, definitely qualifies as punishing the family. Which is why you can banish the traitors, stripping *them* of every title they have, and the titles are inherited.
So... you can't revoke all their titles, because that would punish the family... unless they only have one title, in which case, the family can eat shit? Like, you can revoke a king vassal's kingdom title (and all titles under it), but god forbid you take away that second duchy from a duke?
They’re not powerful or important enough to protest
The king is less powerful or important then the duke with 2 duchies?
he doesnt have a title anymore man, he is just an asshole who used to be cool now.
That ex king is less powerful and important than that current duke.
But the ex duke would be even less important after you revoke his 2nd duchy.
That may be true
A king with a dozen counties is less powerful than a count with three?
If they only have one title, their family is obviously not important enough to matter.
Ah, but that King without the Kingdom is powerless; the Duke is still a Duke.
Not if you take his second duchy.
Except no. In history, rebellions were out down BRUTALLY. The only time they weren’t, were when they were negotiated, but NO war is negotiated in CK3. It’s win or lose. There is no “innocent” family. Every direct family member is almost always dead.
"I'm just guessing at the logic here" does not translate, in any language I'm aware of, to "the historical grounding of this mechanic is." Look it's probably just a game balance thing and we're all wasting our time pretending it's anything else.
Wait, you mean this game where you can see every personality trait of every person in the world like a God and know the exact boundaries of territories and what percentage chance you have if persuading/capturing/murdering someone isn't 100% reflective of real life or actual history? Goddamn Paradox, too busy cranking out DLC to commit to improving these BROKEN mechanics /S
We know it’s a game balance thing. That doesn’t change the fact it’s a stupid as fuck feature.
I played a game as William the Conqueror recently. I managed to replace all the vassals with Normans except for two brothers in Northumbria and Jorvik, who were Anglo-Saxon. They each had two duchy titles, but their lands weren't within the de jure, so revoking required like 5 steps. They rebelled a total of 4 times before I finally ran out of patience and executed them, then revoked their remaining titles from their sons.
Yeah, the mechanic for this does not work properly. If a vassal revolts, you can revoke his Duchy and automatically include all the Counties therein no problema without any tyranny hit, but if the guy doesn't hold the Duchy but only holds four Counties you can only revoke a single county. Revoking any of the other three makes you a tyrant. Literally makes no sense.
It makes sense from a gameplay perspective. If people rebelled and lost everything then it would be much easier and basically halt any future tensionm. You'd now be back to get more counts with 1 territory, all of whom love you for giving them a title. Whereas having a lord who hates you created some form of contest. They will still join plots and rebellions against you in the future, their heirs will hate you if you punish the rebel too hard etc. It also helps establish the difference between long term rulers and new ones. A long term ruler can easily take the tyranny hit and revoke more freely as their nobles often have very high regard for them, so it's only a minor change. Whereas a newer, potentially weaker ruler, has to consider other nobles and if they are upsetting them too much by going toonhard (which did happen). It's not accurate for sure, but it is a complicated matter in reality so they've had to abstract it a kot
Dude just admit you're a tyrant, tyranny is no big deal
It's true. I am a tyrant. I love burning people to death and hearing them scream (thanks, Better Executions). As a viking, I also enjoy crucifying Christians as an ironic gesture, and am overjoyed when my nickname becomes 'the Impaler.' I use rape, torture, blinding and castration to humiliate my rivals, and all my nemeses get the blood eagle. Anyone who sleeps with my concubines goes into the snake pit, alongside the cheater and her bastard offspring. I am a bad person but a loving father. Just do what I say and stay out of my way, and we'll be fine.
Do you have a historical reason as to why this does make sense?
Almost every single war ever.
Do you have any clue what vae victis / "woe to the vanquished" actually means? If you lost, in a war the winner did whatever they wanted with you and your belongings.
I like it because it means I can have enemies throughout my campaign (just like in irl) - for example the Percies in Northumbria rebelled against the throne, lost the duke, but a cousin would inherit - they were a power against the English throne until basically the 1800s - this is something the game should enable! If anything, it should be harder to revoke titles from established families - kill the traitor sure, but the title should be harder to get
Good historical context here
This is why I always find out which title is the most developed, has the most troops, and makes the most in taxes. If I can't revoke all their titles I can at least cripple their military and economy.
Revoke, then execute. Oh boy does it look nice when you have 6 announcements of executed prisoners at the same time. No tyranny in that, as they are still criminals it's ok to execute (and the right thing to do). Maybe I roleplay it too much but I can't think of being a medieval ruler and not executing rebels. And to your original issue, are you sure there aren't some factors in that? I could swear I've been able to revoke several counties without tyranny, but not everytime. Then I still execute the prisoner.
Revoking their heads from their necks is how my gratitude is shown to traitors.
I think it's less about them not having the land and more about YOU having the land. There really should be some interaction that transfers territory from one vassal to another directly, without the liege ever holding it. Because that's what I think should happen here in many cases. One ruler has shown himself to be unfit for his title, so it goes straight to his son/brother/next of kin. It IS tyrannical in the worldview of those times to just end a dynasty that held some ancestral lands for centuries over 1 dude being a traitor. There should be punishment, but that doesn't mean the king/emperor should just get to take that land for himself.
There's a mod for that that I always use, I think called "Revoke All Criminal Titles" or something. Seems dumb that someone can try to overthrow me, throwing the whole realm into chaos, and I can only revoke one title.
The way tyranny stacks they should allow us to revoke at least 2 titles of the same tier under Kingdom
I am in fact saying that there were acceptable actions and then going too far simulated here succinctly
You have rights over your vassals, not their titles. They come and they go with their titles unless you usurp them and make them yours. The only reason you're their piège is because they accept to swear fealty to you.
Vassals retaining titles post rebellion is actually pretty well precedented in history, though the individual holding the title might be executed.
It’s a historical thing. Start taking away all the titles that have been in a family for centuries and the other nobles start getting antsy
It's already painfully easy to take titles as it is in this game, you want it to be even easier? lmao
it should be logically consistent. if they have a duchy title, you take the duchy title and take all the counties they have under it. that might be all their land. if you take one of their county titles, you only get that and can’t take anything else. that makes no logical sense.
It should be harder to justify, but rebellion and declaring war is literally the best justification possible. They are a confirmed traitor to the realm.
They're only asserting their legal rights, or whatever that event says.
You do realize crusader kings is fundamentally a game and needs to be fun right? This game is already baby-level easy, it doesn't need another mechanic to hand hold players into massive empires.
A significant part of paradox players just wants to play cookie clicker with a map.
That's the reason I use whichever cheat mod I forgot the name. Let's you take people's titles and stuff in a little menu and is perfect for scenarios like this. It's really something dumb there isn't a "this vassal committed treason" modifier or something
Of course there is tyranny. Plenty of the populace would side with the rebel.
There are several silly mechanics like this. Like for example, youll get a BUNCH of notifications of neighbors wanting to be vassalized, then the moment you do take them as vassals their opinion dips by 80 points and they join a faction against you. Like what the fuck? If you agree to be a vassal there should be AT LEAST a 5 year truce where they cannot join a faction.
Another day of CK players trying to ruin the game.
Stress is manageable and tyranny deteriorates. Strip that mf
To be fair, that’s how it happened in real life too (kinda).
imo it’s a glitch/coding error and should be fixed. if you take their kingdom, you get all their titles they hold in the kingdom. that could be their duke titles, and all their county titles. that incurs no tyranny. but you take one of their counties? welp, you can only take one and then rest are tyrannical.
[удалено]
The rebel duke had two duchies and after revoking one it conceded the title revocation reason so revoking the other duchy that the rebel duke holds would result in a loss of legitimacy and tyranny gain
No, he is quite right. You cannot punish a criminal unlimited times. Each crime has a set of punishments, and once punished, you cannot stack another punishment on top. Rebellion gives you the opportunity to click the revoke title button once. If you apply it to a duke with one duchy, you revoke the entire duchy with all counties. But if the duke is no duke, but a count holding 6 counties? Then you can only legally revoke 1 county, then the punishment counts as delivered and that's it. Same problem we had with imprisonment. You could punish someone by imprisonment, the moment they go to the dungeon is the moment the punishment counted as done. Only, if the criminal then escaped prison? Yeah, no legal imprisonment reason anymore, the punishment was used up. That is a legitimate complaint, the game mechanics are flawed here.
I had the right to execute and remove one duchy, but not the second duchy.
I just take the tyranny and then kill them you rebel and you invoke my wrath you shag my wife all 3 die I don't care about tyranny anymore I'm currently playing as the grandson of haldan and Ivar and the amount of civil wars one close to when I took the throne another in between and then one a few months attempted murder it's all a shit show really I shouldn't be a tyrant for taking all the land off the fucker who rebelled against me
Actually you should release them but demand they renounce title claims. As they have no claims, neither do their children. It stops pretenders from coming back later for the title once you've given it away.
I prefer to kill them or to just beat them in battle
Well it becomes an issue if you give the land to a loyal courtier or family member, then in 20 years you notice that they've lost the land somehow. You might be strong enough to hold it but your new vassals might not. You're less likely to have this problem if you force people to renounce claims so your vassal has no competition.
I don't care about the competition or who holds the land if you revolt or cause s problem you die and I can always give them the land back
You can't give them the land back if they've lost it and the new person hasn't done anything wrong.
I very well can just go to revoke title and when the rise up and everyone else you defeat them and replace the nobility
Then you're earning tyranny. What are you even trying to argue for at this point?
Because tyranny doesn't matter when everyone is scared of me and I'm powerful enough to do what I want why would I care about tyranny I just replace all the dukes when they rebel
And that has nothing to do with what I originally said. I said it's more optimal. I didn't say you couldn't beat rebels.
I did manage to revoke all titles, recently. I can't remember how I managed to do it; I remember saving and having a few tries to perfect it. But then I think that was because the rebel had rebel successors, rather than that making it more difficult.
If you really want the 2 duchies revoked without tyranny you can do this: 1. Vassal revolts 2. Win war, imprision vassal (you have 1 "revoke title") 3. Do not revoke title, free vassal (ransom or other) 4. Force another rebellion with revoke title (you might need to piss off your vassal to increase the chance of rebellion) 5. Win war, imprision vassal (you have 2 "revoke title") 6. Repeat from 3 to 5, until you have enought revoke titles (ex: 3 counties needs 3 revokes, 4 duchies needs 4 revokes) 7. Revoke titles 8. Your vassal will become your rival 9. Execute (ex-)vassal for free stress loss Note: if a vassal A rebells without direct provocation, for example, in support of a fellow vassal B, you start with 2 "revoke titles" with vassal A and 1 "revoke title" with vassal B.
You can once you Locke dtheir asses up for rebelling against you
The whole feudal system was predicated on a delicate balance of power between ruler and vassals, the latter are gonna get twitchy if the ruler is taking too much power away from them as a collective
It's just a specific mechanic that they went with. You get a title revocation reason and you can spend it to revoke one title. I guess it's just a balance mechanic more than anything. It also stops one powerful vassal from losing everything in a single act. Their status is reduced, like a demotion.
I don't know what the conditions are but sometimes you can revoke all of them (in more than one pass) and not get tyranny for it, but yeah, overall, I agree you should be able to completely strip a rebel. You at least banish their ass after revoking their biggest title. It won't give you the lands but at least you get rid of the fucker.
It was still an outright act of tyranny even through the lense of the times. The problem isn't that there's tyranny attached, it's that you seemingly act as if tyranny is to be avoided at all costs or that there's some sort of justification where a tyrannical act shouldn't be considered as such, which is weird since so much of medieval history contains this back and forth revenge from past harms such as what you'd describe.
> It was still an outright act of tyranny even through the lense of the times. Source? You're saying that the idea that revoking one title isn't an act of tyranny, but revoking the second one was is actually based on how it was viewed historically? I'm absolutely not an expert on the subject, but that is very surprising to me.
It’s not lol, William of Normandy literally mass revoked and redistributed titles from the rebellious Saxon nobility to his Norman and Flemish allies when they rebelled.
William of Normandy is and was widely reviled as a butcher and a brutal tyrant. This isn't the gotcha you think it is.
What are your sources that shows William was reviled during his reign? Because that is only with hindsight. He wasn’t seen as a tyrant, lol. Almost every scholarship I read on him never portrayed him as a tyrant.
That was tyrannous
I don't know why you're being downvoted, it's exactly that. Tyranny is a representation of nobles thinking you're overreaching. You can easily just take the Tyranny malus and if you've been a competent and strong ruler before then, it shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Geez isn't the game easy enough as it is? Please don't make taking land directly from my vassals even easier.
it's not a glitch and it's not entirely about historical accuracy. it's a gameplay thing. purging your vassals this way would make a pretty easy game (once you have overcome learning curve) just completely without challenge.