Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The annoying thing about the new ransacking rules

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69869 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10588 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6362 After Action Reports
I think they just need to fix the AI so that if there are not enough troops to besiege the county's top holding, they pick a different target to raid, or at least make them have more troops than the holding's garrison. It's a little silly, in my mind, that 200 raiders could land in a province and the local lord wouldn't send some of his 1500 garrisoned troops to deal with them. It's their job to protect the province from invaders.
 
JeffreyLXV said:
Where in my post do I say "the number of troops doesn't matter?" You're now crafting a straw-man argument. Enjoy yourself.

Adding more combat minutia to a game that's not a combat game doesn't focus on what makes CKII appealing to most.
Click to expand...

No strawman here. Read it by yourself:
JeffreyLXV said:
CKII is not a war game that focuses on combat nor exactly how many soldiers it takes to cause each increment of damage or resource loss. Paradox and other companies have plenty of those games.
Click to expand...

Probably what you wanted to say is clear in your head, but as it is written, said in other words, goes like:
"In CK2 the number of soldiers is not considered to the purpose of defining damage or resource loss."
 
Holy.Death said:
Let's agree that they are, but should they disrupt commerce on the same scale?
Click to expand...


The scale is the measure of response required to reestablish order and control.

Would even a small pillaging army controlling a roadway, port or mountai-pass allow a percentage of goods or money to pass through based on counting themselves and dividing? That scenario is far less plausible then just having to send in enough troops to help fully liberate a county.

Eliminating the income is good motivation for not allowing even a small army to run amok which would lead to many real-world problems the game doesn't address at all. Through intent or serendipity the mechanic is fair. Enhancement would be effort better spent elsewhere.
 
ghaladh said:
No strawman here. Read it by yourself:


Probably what you wanted to say is clear in your head, but as it is written, said in other words, goes like:
"In CK2 the number of soldiers is not considered to the purpose of defining damage or resource loss."
Click to expand...

"Probably" you don't understand the meaning of the words in the sentence:

"CKII is not a war game that focuses on combat nor exactly how many soldiers it takes to cause each increment of damage or resource loss. "

Pay extra attention to the words underlined. Use your dictionary or continue misrepresenting my comments and shadowboxing. It's mildly amusing and I have a bit of time.
 
Would even a small pillaging army controlling a roadway, port or mountai-pass allow a percentage of goods or money to pass through based on counting themselves and dividing? That scenario is far less plausible then just having to send in enough troops to help fully liberate a county.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I am not against a small group being able to pillage and lower the income over time. I am against a small group being able to pillage and lower the income as much as larger group. The scale of the plunder should depend on size of the forces involved. Small group should be able to plunder less and for a longer period of time.
 
JeffreyLXV said:
Despite your perceived incongruity, the game mechanics are actually reflective of the real-world. Small forces can completely subdue and control communities or they can engage in disruptive guerrilla warfare. Again, as in the real-world, an overwhelming response to fully eradicate them would be needed. Perhaps it's you who doesn't "definitely grasp the gist of the matter" compared to my initial response:

"This is the early middle ages, a small group of brigands would certainly be disruptive even if not a serious threat."

"12 routed raiders" don't represent the same threat to a holding as "1000" sieging soldiers, but they are certainly capable of disrupting commerce, even if you don't like it.
Click to expand...

So many things.

12 people "sieging" the City of Venice. 200 people "sieging" the City of London. It's so retarded you can't even make a case for it, and it didn't happen. These aren't Conquistadors with guns and Smallpox. They raided undefended monasteries until West Francia changed defenses and Wessex implemented massive standing armies and brutal fort system defenses. They got their teeth kicked in a few times and realized the tactic had stopped being profitable enough to balance against their losses, wherein they changed tactics (because they weren't morons).

When they added Viking raids, they failed to modify the game to reflect the counter-mechanisms that nullified them. Wessex had 1/4th of its population under arms, because they had been hit by the vikings so much (not just raids) the citizens and nobility would pay for it. Standing army, not a personal retinue, no time spent "organizing the troops".

Also, "the game mechanics are actually reflective of the real-world"? The Viking nations are losing a Grande Armee every year. They get absolutely butchered every year over and over for centuries. When the real Grande Armee died it ended that country's status as a World Superpower (forever?), but apparently these Go-Getters are using Thor's Cloning Vats to replicate. Spare me the "real world" bs as a basis for the arguments you are making, and possibly look up Alfred's military reforms. A Nation-State that gets hit by foreigners intent on plunder or terror responds aggressively, but CK2's "real-world" serves as a model of waiting around century after century for the next raid to land.
 
Last edited:
Minrog said:
When they added Viking raids, they failed to modify the game to reflect the counter-mechanisms that nullified them.
Click to expand...

This so much.

Putting in something 'realistic' and then not putting in it's limitations is neither realistic nor good gameplay. But it's pretty clear that P'dox doesn't really care. They don't even do something as simple as reducing the ridiculously too high level of loot that vikings can get. Playing as a small viking duke it's crazy easy to have more income then any christian or muslim king or emperor.
 
There is even something already in the game that would simulate the counter-measures fairly well: the hundreds/thousands of troops in each county's garrisons (not the levies!). There should be some way to have these forces react against raiders (and, I think, only armies set as raiders). What would be most interesting would be if activating this capability could be done purely through paying for it (which would be expensive) but could also be done through having a leader respected by his vassals (similar to Alfred's situation) to help share the cost. Possibly similar to changing the Crown Authority or something.
 
Minrog said:
So many things.

12 people "sieging" the City of Venice. 200 people "sieging" the City of London. It's so retarded you can't even make a case for it, and it didn't happen. These aren't Conquistadors with guns and Smallpox. They raided undefended monasteries until West Francia changed defenses and Wessex implemented massive standing armies and brutal fort system defenses. They got their teeth kicked in a few times and realized the tactic had stopped being profitable enough to balance against their losses, wherein they changed tactics (because they weren't morons).

When they added Viking raids, they failed to modify the game to reflect the counter-mechanisms that nullified them. Wessex had 1/4th of its population under arms, because they had been hit by the vikings so much (not just raids) the citizens and nobility would pay for it. Standing army, not a personal retinue, no time spent "organizing the troops".

Also, "the game mechanics are actually reflective of the real-world"? The Viking nations are losing a Grande Armee every year. They get absolutely butchered every year over and over for centuries. When the real Grande Armee died it ended that country's status as a World Superpower (forever?), but apparently these Go-Getters are using Thor's Cloning Vats to replicate. Spare me the "real world" bs as a basis for the arguments you are making, and possibly look up Alfred's military reforms. A Nation-State that gets hit by foreigners intent on plunder or terror responds aggressively, but CK2's "real-world" serves as a model of waiting around century after century for the next raid to land.
Click to expand...

A small army of pillagers are not technically "sieging" a holding. They are pillaging, raiding and plundering what they can outside the walls.

Anyone who wants to nit-pick historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies with the real world in an entertaining game will never have anytime to actually play it. The struggle with the vikings in CKII is "representative" of history; NOT history.

Use a little imagination.
 
Last edited:
Magpie said:
There is even something already in the game that would simulate the counter-measures fairly well: the hundreds/thousands of troops in each county's garrisons (not the levies!). There should be some way to have these forces react against raiders (and, I think, only armies set as raiders). What would be most interesting would be if activating this capability could be done purely through paying for it (which would be expensive) but could also be done through having a leader respected by his vassals (similar to Alfred's situation) to help share the cost. Possibly similar to changing the Crown Authority or something.
Click to expand...

If a garrison went out to the countryside to track down an army or brigands they would no longer be a garrison and the holding would be completely vulnerable.
 
A small army of pillagers are not technically "sieging" a holding. They are pillaging, raiding and plundering what they can outside the walls. [...] Use a little imagination.
Click to expand...
12 people being able to cause damage worthy of the whole army of raiders is too much imagination and too much mead put together. There should be little to no damage done at all as number is insufficent to cause widespread damage in terms of a whole province (consisting of more than a single village).

If a garrison went out to the countryside to track down an army or brigands they would no longer be a garrison and the holding would be completely vulnerable.
Click to expand...
This wouldn't matter as said garrison would hunt them down, given their numerical superiority.
 
Last edited:
ghaladh said:
I think my patience with viking raids is gone. I need to know which file I have to modify in order to prevent AI from raiding. Does someone know?
Click to expand...
00_religions.txt.
Find the allow_raiding = yes parameter in the norse_pagan and reformed_norse_pagan religions and delete it.
 
ghaladh said:
Man, I love you! :-D Thanks.
Click to expand...
No problem. With the fact that TOG is essentially made mostly to focus around the "ARG! VIKINGS!" crowd, disabling it is quite a rational option, as noone but the Norse can actually effectively raid (The dang Magyars can't raid into France).
 
SBolshevik said:
No problem. With the fact that TOG is essentially made mostly to focus around the "ARG! VIKINGS!" crowd, disabling it is quite a rational option, as noone but the Norse can actually effectively raid (The dang Magyars can't raid into France).
Click to expand...
I started a new game as a Polish Slavic duke. I conquered Poland and Pomerania and I keep being raided from the Norse at least 5 times per year. It's practically impossible to focus on anything else, unless you are peaceful with losing all of the income from your provinces. Considering that that area is surely not the richest one, those waves of pillages are keeping my realm revenue at about 10 gold per month, making it impossible to be competitive with the nearby East Francia and Hungary Kingdoms. I will convert to Catholicism as soon as I can, at least to befriend the Karlings just in case the Arpad dude feels like to invade.

As Slavic, raiding is not very effective and I have no way to see if I am getting prestige and gold at all, therefore I disabled it for any religion.
 
ghaladh said:
As Slavic, raiding is not very effective and I have no way to see if I am getting prestige and gold at all, therefore I disabled it for any religion.
Click to expand...
It's not effective unless you are Norse.

Another thing which sort of follows on the fact that TOG is focused only on the Norse (and helps prove it) is the fact that nothing in 867 is in any way balanced:
- The Norse raid and destroy everything, and you can't stop them no matter how strong you are
- The Magyars are awfully OP (Not to mention that they are forced to settle in the Pannonian Plain)
- The Ugro-Finnics, Balts and Slavs get :rofl:stomped by the Norse
- The Krivichi will always take Lithuania
- The Khazars will always fall to either the Pechenegs or the Cumans
- The British Isles will become a Norse blob
- The desired function of Gavelkind for pagans does not function, as they will only create 2 duchy titles and never an extra kingdom title
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back