Is Iceland underpowered ?
- Thread starter olvirki
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
What absolute crap. I own many more Paradox games than I have registered, but usually only do so if I want access to other forums. I can't be bothered how many little badges I display unlike yourself.
My present game is actually in Iceland & it can be a good little place to start as a Count or Duke. The only problem is when Norway goes to the highest crown authority & you cannot do much, but that is another story. In my present game I have reached around 1200 & have the four demenses in Iceland plus Ulster & its four provinces as vassals. Obviously a start for the more conservative player, & a good place to learn the game.
I'm afraid your very misinformed. Even trying to tie it into todays military is not relevant. Iceland was trading with Ireland, Orkney's, Scotland and its Isles, Isle of Man, Norway and Denmark during the games time period. Not really isolated at all. It was only 5 or 6 days travel by boat in fair weather from northern coast of Ireland in the 900s and less from west coast of Scotland, nothing for Viking traders. Its population mainly came from Norwegian Vikings and celts with a few gaels/slaves. It had the capability to raise a large army for the period, the fact that it didn't probably more to do with the fact that many of the inhabitants went from Norway to escape from Harald the Fair-haired and to have free land without having to fight for it. Arable land was probably the primary reason for most.
Should be 4 county republic in my opinion, with 2,2,2,3 holdings probably with only 3x1,1x2 developed at 1066.
Suggstion:
At 1066, Iceland should be a republic with 4 counties. Only cities and bishoprics. It should not join Norway, unless conquered or by some event at 1262-ish.
Another suggestion about republics:
Perhaps make them playable, but you always play the character that gets elected. However, if you feel like keeping a character he can try to declare himself a count and see how long he lasts.
At 1066, Iceland should be a republic with 4 counties. Only cities and bishoprics. It should not join Norway, unless conquered or by some event at 1262-ish.
Another suggestion about republics:
Perhaps make them playable, but you always play the character that gets elected. However, if you feel like keeping a character he can try to declare himself a count and see how long he lasts.
I'm using that fact to disprove the OP's contention that Iceland needs more holdings to represent it's population.
It's clear evidence that population does not equal military power.
If you do not disagree with that particular conclusion, and believe that the number Holdings (and thus offensive troop levels) should be based primarily on population I'm happy to have that debate.
Norwegian Kings actually invaded England several times during and immediately preceding this period, so I'd have to say the Norwegians proved they could engage in a lot more offensive action then the Icelanders.
The game actually tries to do that.
There are literally thousands of your troops tied up in your garrisons. You can't use them for mobile operations, you can only use the feudal levies for mobile operations.
Granted it's not done very well. But then if we wanted perfect military simulations we'd be playing HoI. We're playing because we want our own personal soap operas.
Basically.
If I was God and CK2 re-designer troops levels would go down across the board. Then Iceland might deserve more holdings.
But even then I'd be skeptical. A holding represents military power, especially offensive military power, and if a country went the entire CK2 time period without exercising offensive military power, that's pretty strong evidence IMO that it shouldn't have a lot of holdings in CK2.
That sounds about right to me. I'd probably add a slot to western province, for gameplay reasons, but 2-3 holdings sounds right.
That's kinda my point.
There are two ways to simulate this in CK2.
One is have virtually no holdings in Iceland. This means Iceland's internal dynamics are wrong, but it also means that the historical outcome (Iceland not conquering the world) is most likely.
The other is to have multiple holdings, each owned by somebody who really doesn't like being pledged to his superiors. The problem is that at low levels (5-6) you don't really capture the anarchy of the place, because one lucky inheritance plus a claim war equals owning half the island; but at more then that you're making Iceland rival Anjou in military power.
I prefer the former.
Nick
This seems like a fair solution. Combine that with low levies from cities and it being a republic and we got a good simulation in my opinion.
+1 to that. I don't even care about my own badges (I really can't remember which exactly I have registered, but likely less than half of my Paradox games), why the hell should I do so for others? If they have a question I can answer, I do so. If they have a valid argument, I can discuss with them. What badges they chose to display is about as relevant to the discussion as which colour their underwear is.
Hmmmm sorry if i came across that way. I sometimes forget that the CK community is a little more zealous about the small details (i frequent alot of different forums where the attitude is very much varied , surely you can extend some reasonable doubt). But i don't think my post was bad , i was genuinely asking questions about the time period. And as many others have stated , its probably less of a man power thing , and more of a logistics thing as to why Iceland may be under - represented in terms of holdings or population.
On a side note , i decided to try a game as Iceland l0l. Not having too many problems , was very peaceful. Took Ireland ect , Took Scotland. Ive noticed playing up this way that Norway and England appear to completely ignore both Scotland and Ireland (as well as completely ignore iceland lol). Maybe its just this particular play through though and not the norm. I will admit i felt pretty underpowered at first , but i kinda realized that its much like playing an Irish count , and i expanded pretty quick.
So historics aside , i don't really think from a game play perspective Iceland is in too bad of a spot. Ill likely ditch the Duchy now , but it certainly didn't inhibit be from expanding early.
That would be a terrible simulation.
The ruler of iceland should have a lot of troops he can use defensively, prestige from being Duke-tier, and not much else. He should be weaker then the Earls of Orkney. A ruler of Iceland with a couple Cities in his domain has the cash to hire thousands of mercs.
The problem is there's no way to get thousands of defensive troops without also getting thousands of levies.
As a Duke-title it's quite weak.
But it is isolated from the action, and it is a Duke-title so you can get marriages to Duke-tier characters without them eating a prestige penalty.
It's also near Ireland, and (with two Castles, and a City to pay the bills) militarily stronger then most of the Counts and the Duke of Connacht. The Count of Dublin can probably beat Iceland after he inherits Leinster, and the Duke of Munster has more troops, but everyone else has the same three number of Holdings and trades a Bishopric for a Castle.
Nick
Except that it doesn't "prove" a damn thing. It's absurd nonsense that you can't possibly believe. They don't have an army. That isn't me saying they're supporting a small one. They literally do not have any land forces. It is completely and utterly irrelevant as a point of comparison (and it would be even if they did). In the middle ages absolutely no one would have that situation, obviously, and there were average percentages for how many adult men were engaged in martial lifestyles for the period and it was very high compared to the modern period.
Ignoring what I actually said. I didn't say anything even remotely to do with what you just said nor did you respond to what I actually answered your original contention with.
No merc companies at all actually reach Iceland, though..
But yes, obviously they wouldn't be in a position to launch major foreign invasions, but that isn't due to factual weakness, but the simplicity of the mechanics. Here's to hoping the Pagan DLC includes tribal mechanics that make in-province politics more intricate. Ought to be applied to places like the Icelandic Commonwealth.
(Also "[Citation Needed]" on having less soldiers than the Orkneys.)
Last edited:
Yeah, I enjoy playing in Iceland. Well..I felt like I needed a plausible backstory, that is I needed a reason for why I am suddenly the duke of Iceland, so I just went somewhere elsewhere and I have mostly been playing in Britain like I did in Ck1. But recently I wanted to try Iceland and started at a later date, in 1264 when Gissur Þorvaldssson was jarl of Iceland. Another interesting character to play is either Loftur or his son Jón since Jón's mother was a princess. Her father was Magnus barefooted of Norway. So a good starting point is 1124 when Jón has been born or later when Loftur is dead.
Don't worry, you did not offend me. After all, you did say that for a moment you thought I was trolling, you did not call me a troll.
But, as Nuril as Kins have already said, that does not matter. The reason for why we don't have an army is not that we can't have a army, the reason is that we don't want to. F.e. hen Iceland became a sovereign country and the union with Denmark began in 1918 it was declared that Iceland would be neutral forever. Iceland has about 320 000 people...we can support a larger army than 210. And as Nuril said, that is not a army, that is a coast guard.
You are right that one has to account for the men guarding castles and so on, but if every country is stronger than it should be, why should Iceland be left behind ?
But Iceland was only decentralized for the first 270 years (first 134 years of the game's timeframe), from 1200 and onward Iceland was either a coutralized country, a group of centralized states or a part of Norway. Kolbeinn the young, one of the victors from that battle Nuril and I were talking about, ruled Iceland (or maybe most of Iceland, not sure whether two clans were his vassals or not) for a few years until Þórður kakali, brother to Sturla who died in the previously mentioned battle, came to Iceland, started a rebellion and against all odds won. Say Kolbeinn had managed to get Þórður and kill him. He would rule Iceland after that and since he was so young he is very likely to get heirs. His heirs would probably go to war with another country at some point and it probably does not matter much whether they are vassal to the Norwegian king or manage to stay independent
Let me ask you one simple quesion:
How many holdings do you think Iceland should have?
If the answer is less then 1/4 of Norway's total holdings you have agreed with me.
All I've been saying with this evidence is that Iceland may have had 1/4 of Norway's population, but that does not automatically translate into 1/4 of Norway's military power.
In 1066 Iceland was made of people who chose to be far away from their King largely because they didn't want to be bothered fighting for him in England or Denmark. Therefore it should be not be a given that they show up for their Jarl's invasion fleets at the same rate Norwegians would, which means they get less holdings per capita.
This is the pot calling the kettle black. You're ignoring everything I actually say. You're so convinced that I'm saying it should be impossible for Iceland to have any troops, you don't realize that I'm actually saying they should have less troops then Norway.
Plenty of Norwegian Kings had armies in England for long periods of time. Probably none at 10,000 for a year-and-a-half, but the simple fact is that one Norwegian Axeman in England for one day is infinity times the offensive power Iceland actually used during this entire time period.
OK.
The Earl of Orkney was at Stamford Bridge. This proves he had an ability to get men-at-arms to a battle hundreds of miles from home. This was not unusual. The Earls of Orkney fought numerous private wars, fought for their King, fought against their King, and generally proved that the CK2 map would be wrong if they did not have the ability to invade England.
OTOH while Iceland may have had the ability to invade other countries (I'm skeptical -- Iceland was founded by people who refused to invade England on their King's behalf, why would they show up for a Jarl's planned invasion?), they never did.
The OP isn't asking for the ability to build an Army if he wants it. He's asking for it to be there, by default, in 1066. He's not asking for slots which he can use to build new holdings, he's asking for the holdings to be already built so the Icelandic Army he raises at scenario start is equal to 1/4 of the Norwegian Army.
Norway is 29 holdings on the mainland alone. In the starting scenario it owns 37 total. That's 7-10 holdings in Iceland. 10 holdings would make Iceland a stronger military power then Munster, and make it equal to Anjou.
Nick
So basically you're trying to weasel your way into tricking people to agree with you rather than actually argue your point? Your statement is absolutely nonsensical and cannot be argued for. It proves nothing, has no relevance and serves no purpose in the discussion. I never said they should be exactly one fourth of Norway's military power just because they have the potential for it, but you don't get to make idiotic "points" just because of that. I've had a third 2-Slots/1-Holding province for Norðurland in Terra Normannorum for quite some time and I think it works fine. They still stay isolated and what it mostly does is make them more of a hassle to subjugate.
And he wasn't their damn King. It's the Republic of Iceland. They have no obligation to fight for him in England. Did you miss the part where they're independent until 1262?
..Except that it isn't, since you're obviously avoiding actually answering the things I say. You're continuing with your utterly irrelevant-to-the-point red herring even here.
..You didn't actually answer my inquiry. Also Iceland wasn't their vassal at friggin' Stamford and are you calling all Australians thieves because they "have it in their blood"? Obviously you can't attribute a particular disinclination for a war of their ancestors to the current generation.
You do realize he's the OP, yes? You're telling him what he's asking for as if he's wrong about it?
Also that's nonsense. He never claimed he wanted 10 holdings in Iceland, he said "maybe an additional province or adding a few extra holdings". One would have to more than triple their Holdings to get to 10. You're just outright lying now. Taking into account certain factors that'd make Iceland less effective in fielding troops is fine, thus it not being an exactly proportional ratio, but that doesn't mean one can't ask if it's nerfed too harshly. Stop making things up.
Last edited:
If you compare in game to desert regions with similar or less populations in the time period Iceland doesn't compare favourably in holdings or expansion slots. If history were different, and that what the game is about, Iceland had the man power to raise a considerable army, thats the point being made. The game is about making an alternative history. The dynamics in place doesn't let this occur. Most of the arguments are irrelevant. Potential, thats what it should be about, and they had more than simulated in game.
Except there not really any mercs up there, and it WAS a republic - why should it be treated any differently than other republics? And why should he be weaker than a Earl of Orkney? Any sensible reasoning for that? The fact Iceland had the potential in real life but did not use it does not exclude them from the chance of doing so in this game. It is all about historic plausibility. Surely Icelanders were isolationists, but surely that could be subject to change in a game that spans about 400 years. That is a choice that should be taken in game, not forced on the player or the AI by ahistorical means.
I think it should be made a republic (if there is any way of avoiding the 'Doge' title, that just sounds silly). It might need an additional slot for one of the provinces but that is it.
I am Icelandic and not without knowledge on Icelandic history. The fact is that Iceland with the peculiar system of governance it had in 1066 could never have waged war on any county in Ireland or wherever. Sure we managed a total force of 2300 combatants in the 13th century and we had a naval battle (where the side one that had the good sense to fill their boats up on rocks prior to setting sail). But these were local clashes where farmers could be coaxed into leaving their farms to avenge some slight on the ruling clans honor or for pure power grabbing. A far cry from sending levies on a crusade.
The only thing Iceland was good at in that period was a high standard of living (1000-1250) compared to Europe and writing some pretty spectacular literature (without which Norway would have no sorces on their kings of old.
There were Icelanders who served as mercenaries in Ireland, England and Byzantium but these were exceptions.
I am Icelandic and not without knowledge on Icelandic history. The fact is that Iceland with the peculiar system of governance it had in 1066 could never have waged war on any county in Ireland or wherever. Sure we managed a total force of 2300 combatants in the 13th century and we had a naval battle (where the side one that had the good sense to fill their boats up on rocks prior to setting sail). But these were local clashes where farmers could be coaxed into leaving their farms to avenge some slight on the ruling clans honor or for pure power grabbing. A far cry from sending levies on a crusade.
The only thing Iceland was good at in that period was a high standard of living (1000-1250) compared to Europe and writing some pretty spectacular literature (without which Norway would have no sorces on their kings of old.
There were Icelanders who served as mercenaries in Ireland, England and Byzantium but these were exceptions.
First, I find it a little weird to talk to you in English, but I believe the forum rules say we are supposed to
.I agree with you that it is historically accurate to have Iceland as a democracy, but only until the beginning of the 13th century when Sturlungaöld had began.
I believe the farmers that fought in these battles and campaigns did not have a choice. Before they could choose what goði they would support and if they were unhappy about going to a fight they could support another goði, but during the Sturlungaöld a few men owned many goðorðs each and owned whole regions the farmer almost had to support the goði in his region since it would be very hard for a far away goði to help him, possibly against the goði that ruled in his area. So the farmers were not talked into going into these wars, they pretty much had to.
Rocks were used in a in at least two battles during Sturlungaöld, Flóabardagi and Bæjarbardagi, but I believe they were quite deadly. Even if you are wearing armor or a helmet the blow will hurt you.
But I think the reason for why Icelanders never went to war with another country is that they were decentralized at first, when Iceland was divided into a few states it made much more sense to fight your natural rivals back in Iceland than to sail to some other country and fight there. Iceland was only united a one or few times and that only lasted for a few years so a ruler of an united Iceland never had the chance to wage war against someone that ruled in a foreign country.
I believe most of the battles in Sturlungaöld were fought because of a powerstruggle, but revenge was also a cause killings and Þorvarður Þórarinsson f.e. made an allience with Þorgils skarði and attacked Eyjólf ofsa and Hrafn Oddson to get revenge for his brother.