In war you don't need to control the defeated kingdoms territory's. In history the most common practice was simply draining dry any precious resources they had to be shipped back to the victorious kingdom after a campaign.

You might think that the players of the defeated kingdom might hate the victorious kingdom and make a vendetta. Perhaps some will. but most will go to neiboring country's or the victorious country simply because people go where life is easiest, and life in a sacked territory is not very easy. And the sad truth is if you lost a war and have been sacked there really is not much you can do aside from annoy the victorious country with tiny fly sized acts of rebellion.

A resource driven war however will force a country to try and take territory's that it can hold rich with the desired resource (minerals,farming land,strategic trade route territorys such as access to the oceans and so on.)

In this case the victorious invading force has a few options.

The first is fear. The victorious country can let it be run as it always has by its own people under the agreement that the territory follows the demands of the victorious country at all times. In the worst case scinario if the territory is rebellious then it's crushed again with military might and we go to option 2

The secound is purging the territory of all its inhabitants by slaughtering them on sight forcing mass evacuations of refugees to other kingdoms, Securing the borders, and finally establishing colonies in the burned crumbling ruins of the taken territory.

In short if you are a ruler and are taken over by a kingdom with superior force....best bend the knee for both your sake, and your people.

.......or at least.....until the perfect moment to strike.

If people are on the outskirts of the actual fighting, meaning they don't see any of the combat or ruin from the invasion, they might just go on living life like they were before. It's like the changing of a president. Sure, there might be a few new laws added in with the new leader but most people just continue with business as usual.

I have no idea on the subject of replacing nobility lost in war though. Would the conquering leader choose replacements? Or would the invaded kingdom vote in new leaders? If the invading army leaves after taking resources would the previous leader's heir take over? Who knows?

guys if you look at history this should ansawer this quite easly.

since time imortal the wining king would assign new lands to those people that backed him. so i would go with a system where the king would assign any County to a Duke who would then appoint a new count or give the lands to one of his loyal counts or the king could choose to appoint them all them selves.

this is meant to reward Service to the king... so not doing that, not rewarding his followers would cause rifts and distrust of a king... which could lead to rebellion...

if it was me i as king would assign the counts land to a mayor or baron that was Loyal to me and then let them assign the Mayor titles out to there followers.

it would then be the new lords job to deal with the rebuilding and any rebels that may still be around.

and like cetha state most common people dont realy care who there leader is as long as they are just and treated well.

but change there treatment to that of a defeated people and welcome to rebellion

We know nothing about wars outside of a kingdom! so i'll start with inside conflicts first before going full assumption on the second part.

Even inside of a kingdom things are not cristal clear and full of assumption as soon as you step outside of what is actually written in the land management DJ, so again i'll first stay in those steps.

You managed to get a Cassus Belli against a count, your troops have one goal only, take the seat of power of the Count and then hold it for 28 days or until the former count give you his ring.

As Oracle said your objective is to conquer so i'd minimize destructions to anything but the seat of power, anything else is as damaging to you as it is for your enemy; except of course if your goal is just to destroy everything, but in that case why even bother with a CB?

So let say you succeed and you're now the new count, the DJ says that you now can turn against the loyal followers of the former Count. In the case of a Count that means loyal Mayors/Barons, but since those do not have seat of power we do not know how it will work ??? do you need to capture or kill the mayor ? do you need to capture town hall ?

The thing is when you grab control of a noble title you'll be able to turn against all loyal vassals of him.

At this point anything is pure assumption from my part. Since you are now the new holder of the noble title all former vassals are now your vassals and those that were loyal to the former noble can be treated as traitors to you. In which case no CB needed to attack them and they will be treated as in a coup against you, so killing them should be enough to force them to abandon their title and the land they have in the settlement where they are ruling.

Once that is done you, the new ruler, will have to appoint someone to fill that position. The DJ is totally clear on what you can do :

if a "noble is forced to fill the seat of a lesser noble, they can only do so with the lesser noble’s peers, or one step below. So if a duke is tossed out or dies, the spot can only be filled with another duke or a count. Likewise, a Mayor that is removed from power can only be replaced by another Mayor, or by someone else who owns land within the settlement."

All that covered the part of someone grabbing the title of an upper tiered noble as described in the DJ.

What about same tiered battles or conflict with lesser tiered nobles (outside of the treason part) we have no clue and do not even know if they are even possible, the same tiered battle would make sens (if not how king would be able to go at war ?) but is not described and the conflict on lower tiered is questionable because in direct conflict with the bold warning:

"But here's the important thing to note, and I'll say it twice.

A title can only be revoked due to a player's choice of actions.

A title can only be revoked due to a player's choice of actions.

You have to risk losing your title for it to be taken away. We will do what needs to be done to ensure that's the case. We do not want nobles tossing their lesser nobles for no reason."

So your lieage should never be able to attack you outside of treason from your part, but what about other higher tiered noble ???? a Duke can not attack his Counts but what about the Counts of an other Duke ?

I agree with Oracle, enemies with nothing to lose are a bigger threat, because hey they have nothing to lose so they still win even if half they get is destroyed; but i doubt anyone will be in that case, even a commoner that get a CB will need a significant investment to try a coup and as such need to get something from it or it's a complete loss.

The only ones that could go on a rampage are the actual ruler kicked out of their seat of power, he could end up in a situation like, if i can not get my land back you gonna rule over a pile of rubles ! especially since to end the coup he only need to kill the usurper at any time during the 28 days and dragging his forces out of their strong position to prevent destructions of valuable assets is a good tactic, even if a costly one.

About the question of is it better to put your seat of power in a town or a keep, i'd say the best is to put it in a fortified town, like that you have the strength of a military position and the support and protection of a valuable civilian asset. If your seat of power is in the middle of the richest city of your county and surrounded by high strong walls and troops, mean that your opponent must be ready to lose that valuable asset in taking you down, doing so kind of ruining the purpose of taking you down.

while if you have your seat of power into a mainly military position, as strong as it may be flatting it will not take that hard a toll on the worth of your county. And if you have your seat of power in a rich area not defended the strength needed to capture the seat of power do not need to be that strong so the valuable asset that your town is should not suffer that much.

Now to talk about outside kingdom wars , i assume the system will be close to the inside kingdom one, and that might actually be the situation where a higher tiered noble can attack a lower tiered on. Where a King could attack a Duke of an other kingdom or a Duke a Count and a Count an other Count, in order to have kingdom wars that are not all or nothing and offer border modifications.

I think that when an army invades another county and conquers the capitol city, whoever led the army will go to the townhall/magistrates building and click or add something to the AI to lay claim to the City and County, they then have to hold it for so long to assume power.

Some interesting points and theories. A couple of interesting points made though. There could well be benefit in placing county seats in large civilian settlements and having a nearby barony for military. A few local defences in the settlement forces would be attackers to destroy that which they would gain from while the barons forces flank them. Either way it presents two strategic locations rather than one.

I'd still be inclined to award count positions but there seem to be more than enough settlements not to bother with replacing mayors if it offers leverage. There are risks either way, but racking up countless enemies with nothing to lose is likely to have a long term impact on success. Even a Mayor or Baron may have many local friends.