The Importance of Raids

[Chaos Volunteer]

I don't want to be raided constantly by neighbours without any limits. If raiding is implemented - there has to be some cooldown.

Since this game has supply lines, cooldowns are not really necessary to prevent constant raids from happening. The game can just make it impossible to "occupy a territory" during raids like in CK3.

In the end, Ai wont be able to raid deep into your land, while the provinces that you share on the borded are limited in number, meaning that after one successful attack AI will not have anything else to pillage. And if the raid was unsuccessful, there can just be a debuff for "ai desire to return". In both cases, your land will be an undesirable target for the next few years.

Your issue seems easily solvable by having raid-cb wars not have a truce at the end of it for the defending army (or say one that is only a month long for them but 18 months for the attacker). Even more seriously, it can give the defender a 'protect land' cb, which allows them to start a war and take deeper restitution.

On the other hand, if we have CB/truces included for the attacker, the AI/player will never be able to escalate the conflict and turn a border raid that they started into full-scale war for territories and things. Historically, raids were usually a way to test the enemy strength, and if the raiders saw an opening, they used it to take more than planned. Hungarian raids in Italy is a good example of that, even though a bit out of the timeframe. Theres also a story about Crimean raid in 1521, when a bunch of tatars gathered together to take some money for fun, but Russia proved to be so weak and destitute that it led to Kazan becoming independent and Russia becoming a tributary.

Now, if we make raids into CB, do we include "vassalization" and "liberate a subject" peace treaties to a war that prevents you from taking any land? It will be simply inconsistent.

Another problem is that by having to declare a war, you will alway trigger defensive alliances, meaning that a small border conflict will always turn into a small world war against every ally and PU that the enemy has. Which is not historically accurate in any way. I do not remember Austria always rushing to help Hungarians when those were raided by the Ottomans for the 1231493410'th time.

Of course any of these can be solved by "making a specific cb that works in a different way from any other cb", but what is the reason to go for such lengths instead of making a system that doesnt rely on cb?

 

[GeneralNoob]

Since this game has supply lines, cooldowns are not really necessary to prevent constant raids from happening. The game can just make it impossible to "occupy a territory" during raids like in CK3.

In the end, Ai wont be able to raid deep into your land, while the provinces that you share on the borded are limited in number, meaning that after one successful attack AI will not have anything else to pillage. And if the raid was unsuccessful, there can just be a debuff for "ai desire to return". In both cases, your land will be an undesirable target for the next few years.

Except coastal provinces tend to be very important maritime hubs. Sacking Alexandria every couple of years or even decades is not just ahistorical and in the realms of nonsense, but also quite damaging. Imagen sacking London every couple of decades (or Rome, Venice, Neaples or Lübeck). You are going to turn extremally important historic places to wastelands very fast and very early into the game. Nations like Cyprus, the knights of rhodes or the maghreb states did not have the capabilities to raid coastal main hubs. They went for a fast ducat in small unprotected areas and then focused on trade. The only thing you are achieving with this, is the relocation of the economy inlands, which makes no sense at all.

We have slaves in the game as an active gameplay mechanic. Raiding could get you some slave pops from the coastal trade node you are raiding. That should in theory already account you for a substantial amount of money.

Historically, raids were usually a way to test the enemy strength

Not really. The maghreb states ignored direct orders by the Ottomans to stop raiding. The financial institution of slavery was, what drove people to raiding. Sometimes this was also ideologically motivated, but it has very little to do with any plan to test anyone's strength. Ottoman/Austrian cross border raids also happened. No one thought after a successful raid that the other nation is weak.

Theres also a story about Crimean raid in 1521, when a bunch of tatars gathered together to take some money for fun, but Russia proved to be so weak and destitute that it led to Kazan becoming independent and Russia becoming a tributary.

Which are rare events. Not the norm.

Raids were most of the time not controlled. They were conducted by individual groups/governors. The few nations that are known to raiding (cyprus/maghreb/etc) focused mainly on trade, with very few exceptions, where it went beyond it (Barbarossa or the sacking of Alexandria). These exceptions are not argument enough to allow the active raiding and sacking of costal areas.

 

[yangzilata]

Although we don't know much about warfare, I wanted to highlight the importance of modeling raids and raiding (especially in the 14th century) in Project Tinto. Many "wars" that occurred during the period were glorified raids that weren't about territorial control. Examples include the Alexandrian Crusade of 1365, the decades of raids and counterraids during the centuries-long conflict between Poland and the Teutonic order, as well as the various chevauchée launched during the 100 Years War, such as the Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355. Obviously, there are many other examples, but it is important to highlight the centrality of raids during the period (and arguably after). It would be a mistake for the game to make every conflict about territorial exchange, especially during the 14th century.

Yeah, I completely agree with this take on raids being central to warfare, especially in the medieval and early modern periods. A lot of conflicts weren't about taking land but about looting, weakening the enemy, and making a statement. Too many strategy games focus only on territorial control when, in reality, raids were often more important.

Take the 16th-century naval clashes between Spain and England—Elizabeth’s privateers basically waged war through raids. Drake’s 1587 raid on Cádiz burned Spanish ships and supplies, delaying the Armada’s invasion. But Spain did the same! The 1596 Spanish raid on Cornwall was straight-up revenge, burning towns and even capturing English hostages.

Same deal with the Ottomans and the Barbary pirates—Barbarossa wasn’t just fighting wars; he was leading massive raids along the Spanish and Italian coasts in the 1500s, taking wealth, hostages, and generally wrecking the place. The Ligurian coast (yep, the area around Genoa) was hit hard in 1544.

And let’s not forget chevauchées in the Hundred Years’ War. The Black Prince’s raid through France in 1355 wasn’t about seizing territory—it was a scorched-earth campaign to devastate the economy and force a better peace deal. England did this multiple times because it worked.

But it’s not just Europe. Raiding was a common strategy all over the world:

Africa​

• The Kingdom of Dahomey (17th–19th centuries) raided for slaves constantly, capturing people to sell to European and Islamic traders.
• Fulani warlord Hamman Yaji (early 1900s) raided villages in Nigeria and Cameroon, keeping a detailed diary of his raids.

Central Asia & Siberia​

• Mongol raids (13th century) devastated cities like Bukhara and Samarkand—not for territory, just for loot and intimidation.
• The Yukaghir people of Siberia (17th century) raided neighboring tribes and Russian settlements for reindeer and supplies.

Madagascar​

• The Merina Kingdom (18th–19th centuries) raided rival tribes to capture people for the local and international slave trade.

Australia​

• Indigenous Australians, like the Wiradjuri, raided neighboring groups over resources and disputes long before European colonization.

Brazil​

• Portuguese settlers in the 1600s launched bandeiras, essentially slaving raids into the interior to capture Indigenous people.
• Native tribes, like the Tupinambá, raided rivals for captives, sometimes for ritual cannibalism.

Black Sea & Caspian Raids​

• The Crimean Khanate and Nogai Horde (15th–18th centuries) raided Russia and Poland for slaves to sell to the Ottomans.
• The Rus’ (9th–10th centuries) launched Viking-style raids across the Caspian Sea, hitting cities like Barda for gold and goods.

So yeah, historical warfare was way more than just “move army, take province.” Raids were a massive part of strategy across different cultures and time periods. If Project Tinto ignores that and makes every conflict about land grabs, it’ll miss a huge part of how war actually worked. Hope to see a proper raiding mechanic in the game!

 

[Rule Britannia]

Perhaps the raid mechanic could be limited to certain situations like the 100 year war and other similar conflicts. That way it will not set every border ablaze during the early part of the game, but still allow it to be part of those conflicts. Another option would be to only allow it into provinces that you have a land border with but which do not have a fort equal to max fort level at the start of the game.

 

[SuperLexxe]

---

Armies should also carry the loot they've captured, and could be captured by any army that defeats them. This should be the case even if raiding isn't added as a mechanic.

Additionally there should be a system of distributing the loot upon returning to controlled territory, based on the estate makeup of your army + their power, and any loot-based policies the country has setup.

Looting had such import to soldiers of the time, and commanders often had to make arrangement for the distribution of said loot among the soldiers (and to himself and his officers).

---

 

[Fawr]

Although we don't know much about warfare, I wanted to highlight the importance of modeling raids and raiding (especially in the 14th century) in Project Tinto. Many "wars" that occurred during the period were glorified raids that weren't about territorial control. Examples include .<snip>., as well as the various chevauchée launched during the 100 Years War, such as the Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355. Obviously, there are many other examples, but it is important to highlight the centrality of raids during the period (and arguably after). It would be a mistake for the game to make every conflict about territorial exchange, especially during the 14th century.

Was this chevauchee in 1355 actually an attempt to force the French to fight a pitched battle (where the English had a good record) or force the French to the peace table (where they eventually gained much land)?

I see the raiding that happened during the early phases of the 100 years war as either as a means towards other ends (through making the war painful for the French, in EU4 terms looting provinces, increasing desolation & increasing war exhaustion) or else as simple banditry from smaller bands looking for loot.

This should all be simulated, but as something you can do in a "normal" war.

 

[Metz]

Maybe raids could allow you to siphon some goods and gold. Prolonged raids would increase a chance of the victim requesting compensation. Refusal to compensate or excessive raiding should give the victim a CB on you.

 

[GenericType]

CK3-style raiding will be countered by expensive army cost and supply. The rationale would be, why raid when you can formally go to war instead?

In CK3 it was also limited by cultural traditions, like at game start, only Vikings, Normans, etc can raid, though Ceasar doesn't have cultural traditions. Could tie it to specific units.