Should raiding be limited?

[kviiri]

I think raiding, as a game-mechanic, is mainly useful for tribals and nomads, who really need it as a source of extra income. It's a strong counterpoint to the gold poverty of these two forms.

However, does it actually have any purpose as a religious/culture ability? The important raider countries (Scandinavians and hordes) are tribal and nomad anyway, so they can still raid, but the shift to feudal/iqta/republic becomes a more meaningful transition from raiding for money to farming for money. Currently, the raiding ability for eg. a Norse raider is lost after their culture shifts away to a non-raider type after they reform/convert their religion, become feudal, but since culture shifting/splitting is much less interactive and unintuitive than reforming the religion or establishing feudalism, it makes little sense to me.

The main victim of this change would be feudal realms picking up paganism or Paulicianism for the raiding, but I think it's a strategy that ought to be weakened. Hindus, too, if they still have the ability to raid in CK2+ (I don't know because I always play with India off).

 

[Rioghal]

I mean, talking in historical terms, almost every culture, government type, and religion should be able to raid to some extent since endemic low-level warfare was quite common throughout much of the world during the game period, even outside of larger conflicts over territory. The game has some trouble modeling this given how much of an annoyance being raided can be which is why I imagine they went with the compromise of artificial limits on raiding to certain cultures and governmental forms.

Personally, I'm not in favor of removing options. Especially since raiding is such an enjoyable and useful part of the game.

 

[kviiri]

Personally, I'm not in favor of removing options. Especially since raiding is such an enjoyable and useful part of the game.

I consider it to be neither, really. It has its place for tribal governments who need the money, but for larger feudal empires, it's just an exploitable and risk-free micromanagement mess.

 

[zeress]

I consider it to be neither, really. It has its place for tribal governments who need the money, but for larger feudal empires, it's just an exploitable and risk-free micromanagement mess.

Players are also basically gods in terms of making it viable income and the AI absolutely on the opposite end of it.

 

[machina79]

Raiding is already less profitable in this mod. Restricting it further is unnecessary anyway since can set a game rule for it.

 

[zeress]

Raiding is already less profitable in this mod. Restricting it further is unnecessary anyway since can set a game rule for it.

It matters to the AI, who will bankrupt themselves because of how stupid they are and how little control we have over that particular aspect.

 

[Rioghal]

I consider it to be neither, really. It has its place for tribal governments who need the money, but for larger feudal empires, it's just an exploitable and risk-free micromanagement mess.

Like any game, and real life to be quite honest, there are aspects that can of course be exploited but that's just something you have to reconcile yourself to. There's plenty of risk in it as well considering that any commanders can be killed while raiding and lost levies from raiding won't be there in case of unforeseen war or yourself being raided.

Finally, raiding was a near constant part of medieval life throughout much of the world in the period portrayed in game so trying to constrain it further than it is already seems unnecessary.

 

[kviiri]

Players are also basically gods in terms of making it viable income and the AI absolutely on the opposite end of it.

So you're essentially saying, it's OP for the player and a hindrance for the AI?

 

[kviiri]

Finally, raiding was a near constant part of medieval life throughout much of the world in the period portrayed in game so trying to constrain it further than it is already seems unnecessary.

Not the risk-free not-war raiding in this game, that wasn't. In real life, the Emperor of Whatever couldn't march 30 thousand men to sack capitals without risk of repercussions.

 

[Rioghal]

Not the risk-free not-war raiding in this game, that wasn't. In real life, the Emperor of Whatever couldn't march 30 thousand men to sack capitals without risk of repercussions.

It's explicitly not free of risk though. As I wrote before, you can lose troops and commanders in a raid that might be needed somewhere else or that might have made a vital difference in a battle somewhere else. A poorly executed raid can cost you much.

As to your second point, I'd point out to you that repercussions usually only apply when there's some sort of parity of power combined with the offending group being within a certain distance so the raided group can project force in response to aggression. In your example for instance, an emperor with 30k men to spare for a raid already possesses such a disproportionate amount of power that he can effectively abuse his neighbors without them having much option to respond. Yes, in cases such as the Anglo-French border or in the Baltic during the Christian wars against the pagans there were plenty of reprisals to raids but that's because neither party was so disproportionately powerful that he could smash the other flat in response to provocations. You'll also notice that all of the cultures which can raid, the Berbers, the Norse, and the various steppe peoples have a long history of being able to raid far afield with impunity. This is because their targets lacked the ability to respond in force. Imagine how much more impotent they'd be to respond if they faced raids from a united Scandinavia, North Africa, or a Khagan who had united much of the steppe. The only historical examples we have of such rulers existed in the steppe and they repeatedly demonstrated their immunity to reprisals from settled peoples in most cases. It took pretty massive changes in the prevailing order to upset such rulers so it seems like this is actually a case of the game modeling reality fairly well.

 

[kviiri]

It's explicitly not free of risk though. As I wrote before, you can lose troops and commanders in a raid that might be needed somewhere else or that might have made a vital difference in a battle somewhere else.

Levies regenerate while you're raiding, and are often available quicker from a raid than they are from raising them fresh and waiting for them to rally. Commanders are not needed for raiding. Both points are invalid.

As to your second point, I'd point out to you that repercussions usually only apply when there's some sort of parity of power combined with the offending group being within a certain distance so the raided group can project force in response to aggression. In your example for instance, an emperor with 30k men to spare for a raid already possesses such a disproportionate amount of power that he can effectively abuse his neighbors without them having much option to respond. Yes, in cases such as the Anglo-French border or in the Baltic during the Christian wars against the pagans there were plenty of reprisals to raids but that's because neither party was so disproportionately powerful that he could smash the other flat in response to provocations. You'll also notice that all of the cultures which can raid, the Berbers, the Norse, and the various steppe peoples have a long history of being able to raid far afield with impunity. This is because their targets lacked the ability to respond in force. Imagine how much more impotent they'd be to respond if they faced raids from a united Scandinavia, North Africa, or a Khagan who had united much of the steppe. The only historical examples we have of such rulers existed in the steppe and they repeatedly demonstrated their immunity to reprisals from settled peoples in most cases. It took pretty massive changes in the prevailing order to upset such rulers so it seems like this is actually a case of the game modeling reality fairly well.

Fair points, but you ignore the weirdness of the concept of a feudal lord allowing their liege the free use of their troops for no reward whatsoever without even getting the usual grumbliness from their troops being used. Seriously, raiding with vassal levies is _free_ money, and using feudal levies in this way is ridiculous. Also, you fail to address the exploits such as raiding an enemy before a war to weaken them in advance. It's not just about impotence, it's about the AI never doing anything even if it could.

Also, everything you say just highlights that raiding is, in-game, a mechanic to further bolster the power of already powerful countries at the expense of weaker ones - very bad game design.

To make one thing clear, CK2+ already restricts reformed pagans from raiding, so the change I'm proposing would only deprive very few select groups from raiding:

• Raider cultures upon feudalizing/becoming a republic (they lose the ability eventually anyway upon culture-shifting, so what I'm proposing just makes the mechanic more transparent)
• Raider religions upon becoming feudal/republic (mostly the Hindu, as pagans can't become feudal before reforming and that deprives them of raiding anyway)
• Paulicians (who shouldn't be able to raid anyway, as they're OP even with the rest of their bonus mechanics)

 

[LordPeter]

Hmm I think you have somewhat of a point there kviiri, but I think I would personally favour a milder approach, that would only deprive those of raiding that would not even be doing it from a historical perspective:

1. Raiding cultures. That really is a relic of the time before the new government forms like Nomads and Tribals. Magyar, Norse etc. did only loot during their time as Tribals/Nomads, and there is no reason to allow them to keep that beyond feudalizing. Only problem: Berbers (or whatever they are now). Berbers should be able to raid still, as even in EU4 it is one of their defining features, and they aren't tribal mostly. Could probably be simulated with yet another government form, but that would be far too much hassle, while keeping them as raiders is simple.
2. Raiding religions. I'd say keep those, because it allows fun gameplay for very few quite obscure religions (Paulician, Quarmatian). True, this could be exploited by the player, but let's be honest here: If a player manages to grow large enough as a Paulician to be able to raid his neighbors without fear, maybe even become non-heretic, he has already outwitted the AI badly. And all the unreformed pagans can't feudalize without losing raiding anyway, so depriving them of it would be superfluous. Not sure about Hindu though: They are there, and big even without player interference. Is there any historical reason for allowing them to raid? I am no expert on them, but it seems kinda strange to me, and imo it should be removed lest they be OP.

So yeah, there surely could be some culling done on the raid ability, but imo it should not go too far. After all, CK2 isn't a balanced game, and some strategies will always be OP, and big realms that can pester small ones might not be balanced, but sadly quite realistic.

In the end, raiding remains a problematic thing in its current implementation. But completely overhauling it would be a tremendous undertaking, and probably the only solution to really bring AI and players on the same level.
Which, imo, even then would not be entirely possible, as the player will still be able find ways to outsmart the AI, unless we get supercomputers and the game AI is that google one that can beat people in Go.

 

[schwarherz]

Just wanted to point out, in plus unreformed pagans can feudalise without reforming, it's just hard enough to do that reforming tends to happen first

 

[aclover]

I'd say Republics should never be able to raid, as they make more than enough money without it anyway, but that would just be removing fun, wouldn't it?