• 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.
Maybe they should limit the ability to raid just for characters with War Focus?

This would just make it impossible to play as a Viking without the war focus at all times. Pagan nations have nil income, to the point that when they raise their levies, they immediately start losing money, never mind trying to support retinues. Raiding is the sole viable source of real income for them. I feel obligated to mention that this makes landlocked and non-Germanic pagans almost unplayable, which is a whole other topic.
 
I feel obligated to mention that this makes landlocked and non-Germanic pagans almost unplayable, which is a whole other topic.

I am in the middle of a slavic Russia game, I hardly ever did a raid but money is not really a problem. Just make sure you have some temple vassals, imprison and ransom your plotters and slowly improve your economy in your capital duchy. It is 940, I control like 130 counties and have level 4 stoneforts in most of them, almost ready to go feudal. I am just afraid that I will become the new target of the Vikings. I guess even converting them to reformed-slavic won't stop raiding and I don't want to conquer Scandinavia.
 
This would just make it impossible to play as a Viking without the war focus at all times. Pagan nations have nil income, to the point that when they raise their levies, they immediately start losing money, never mind trying to support retinues. Raiding is the sole viable source of real income for them. I feel obligated to mention that this makes landlocked and non-Germanic pagans almost unplayable, which is a whole other topic.
Yeah, you have your point.
But I still think that the frequency of Viking raids is too high. I'm fine with them raiding the Mediterranean coasts, but it's too common in the game. In my ERE game, where I took Italy and North Africa, I'm constantly seeing raids somewhere. In the last few decades there wasn't a single month without a Viking raid. My capital and the surrounding counties are protected by retinues. But as soon as I remove them, Vikings line up along the coast and immediately start pillaging.
Limiting the raids to characters with War Focus would decrease that frequency a lot. Perhaps it would be more historically accurate? Also, Scandinavia would be weaker and more prone to conversion.
To be honest, I prefer the Viking Age collapse by the time it happened historically. It's a bit annoying to see them still strong in the 14th century.

Maybe there are other ways to nerf the frequency, of course. Whatever does the job is fine with me.
 
Yeah, you have your point.
But I still think that the frequency of Viking raids is too high. I'm fine with them raiding the Mediterranean coasts, but it's too common in the game. In my ERE game, where I took Italy and North Africa, I'm constantly seeing raids somewhere. In the last few decades there wasn't a single month without a Viking raid. My capital and the surrounding counties are protected by retinues. But as soon as I remove them, Vikings line up along the coast and immediately start pillaging.
Limiting the raids to characters with War Focus would decrease that frequency a lot. Perhaps it would be more historically accurate? Also, Scandinavia would be weaker and more prone to conversion.
To be honest, I prefer the Viking Age collapse by the time it happened historically. It's a bit annoying to see them still strong in the 14th century.

Maybe there are other ways to nerf the frequency, of course. Whatever does the job is fine with me.

It was like that though, they were a constant menace until people developed ways to counter them - which is perhaps what the game is missing.
 
Having an army big enough to defeat the raiders makes a difference. Hint: Republics aren't likely to have that, plus are disproportionately rich as well as weak.

Think of it in in reverse: If you were playing as the Norse and saw a rich and weak Merchant Republic would you (a) ignore it or (b) raid! raid! raid!

I know what I'd do :rolleyes:

Have you heard of retinues? Republics are more likely to have a big army than anyone else in the game who is comparably sized. My early 9xx muslim republic has like 10k from retinue.

Build the + retinue palace upgrade and tech up mil org and win.
 
Have you heard of retinues? Republics are more likely to have a big army than anyone else in the game who is comparably sized. My early 9xx muslim republic has like 10k from retinue.

Build the + retinue palace upgrade and tech up mil org and win.

With the overall retinue nerfs and the nerfs to the demesne size for republics, it's not as easy for republics vanilla to raise comparable armies anymore. As well as minor, older nerfs of course like being able to plot to get trade posts for the doge etc.

Later game they still are quite strong, early game they are much more of a challenge, even more so if your tradeposts are being wiped out by raiders. So yeah, picking a republic near the vikings early game is more of a hard mode these days, certainly more than it used to be.

I should edit in the challenge for me is about right, so this is not a complaint, just an observation - a muslim republic doesn't really have the same issues.
 
Have you heard of retinues? Republics are more likely to have a big army than anyone else in the game who is comparably sized. My early 9xx muslim republic has like 10k from retinue.

Build the + retinue palace upgrade and tech up mil org and win.
Well of course I have, and exactly you need to build up a retinue, the OP hasn't done that though.
 
I wish they'd flesh out raiding a bit more. It isn't the number of raids that's annoying in my personal opinion, it's that destroying raiding parties is incredibly easy so having 30 of them a year is just a distraction and eventually a nuisance. I'd think it'd be interesting to add a bribe mechanic that I've seen mentioned where you can bribe the raider for a peace of sorts so you can't be raided. Or just make it to where the AI is a bit more reasonable. Band together in larger raiding parties to take on valuable areas like the Isles and especially Flanders, though the plundering would be a lot more spaced out (to represent the time it takes to gather the men/resources). It's annoying to get raided by the same guy every few seconds for eons when his 800 men get crushed by your 6400 easily. Would be interesting for some vikings to band together who otherwise would be neutral/hostile towards each other to unite due to the promise of great plunder. Kinda like a prepared invasion type thing but not as "one time" of a mechanic.

I dunno if that'd be really historical since didn't vikings only attack poor defended bishoprics and the like? They wouldn't attack a fully armed Flanders that's got nothing else going on for example. However I'd think this would be one of the things you have to sacrifice for gameplay, because making realms that are heavily fortified immune from raiding wouldn't be feasible from a balance or fun perspective.

Viking armies did, from time to time, come in in force and attack what had seemed to be safe zones. See: The origins of the Normans.

Really what needs to happen is that the AI needs to have the ability to take into consideration the relative power of it and its raid target when it goes for a raid. A viking leader should understand that he is trying to raid a kingdom that is more or less at peace that has an immediately available troop count ten times the size of his raiding force. Of course, that would probably be going too far the other way, immediately ending a large number of raids without necessarily replacing them with anything interesting. The solution there would be to include in the calculation some concept of distance -- if I am a viking AI I should take into account the fact that there are 6,000 levy and retinue troops available to the character I want to raid within a ten province distance, but only 400 within a one province distance.

This might be very computationally intensive, though, which is bad.

And I disagree with far off trading posts getting destroyed by vikings being an issue. That historically makes sense. You can't raise a response to the raid in time due to distance? That sounds like they're limiting the extent of your trade empire, which would happen historically. Your trading radius is effectively limited by what you can protect. Right now you can't protect it so it's limited. As time goes on and tribes feudalize and the vikings die out, raids will drop and you can expand.

And I'm going to have to disagree with you, at least from a historical perspective. What are included as 'trading posts' in game almost always existed within local towns and cities in real life. They weren't little bits of walled off territory in themselves (except in the relative handful of cases where the 'foreign quarter' of a city was itself walled off from the rest of the city, in which case they were still usually defended by the broad skirt of the city walls and garrison), subject to entirely separate siege and sack. You should have to successfully siege at least one other holding a county before you can destroy a local trade post. The situation where a local 'trade post' would be entirely defended by soldiers hired by the owner of the trade post is only really common where local security didn't exist in the first place, ie., tribal lands.

This is a simpler fix than the first one.
 
This would just make it impossible to play as a Viking without the war focus at all times. Pagan nations have nil income, to the point that when they raise their levies, they immediately start losing money, never mind trying to support retinues. Raiding is the sole viable source of real income for them. I feel obligated to mention that this makes landlocked and non-Germanic pagans almost unplayable, which is a whole other topic.

Perhaps make it possible for war focused non-pagans/tribals to launch raids but limit the size of the raiding force or have a option for punitive expeditions against tribals/pagans in response to a raid?
 
Perhaps make it possible for war focused non-pagans/tribals to launch raids but limit the size of the raiding force or have a option for punitive expeditions against tribals/pagans in response to a raid?

I think that should be a given, a response CB, where you are just going to find the man who pillages your home, if you win the war you have a decent chance of capturing him, or at least every battle won against him gives you a set chance of capture :). It almost puts you on the same level playing field of the pagans, and probably shows what some of the border skirmishes with them were really about at the time.

Of course it couldn't be a 100% capture chance, that would be extremely abusable, often times you'll just settle for taking some of his family instead or worse come up empty handed entirely.
 
Was wondering if this is still an issue? I have taken a break from the game is why i ask.
 
Yes it is still very much an issue.

I'll reiterate what I've said before, lest I be misunderstood as meaning that Vikings should be even harder to play or made ahistoric, that I don't in the least mind that they're an unholy menace, because they were. Nor should I be able to round up my entire army and send them off to the other end of Europe, leaving my realm bare and naked and NOT expect to be punished for it. I should be. Severely. Just as I should, and will, be punished when I raise everything and go to war against somebody on one side of my realm. Everybody who's been waiting for a chance to attack me will pick that moment as well they should. It's what I do myself when I'm trying to find a good time to attack/declare independence etc., so it'd be silly for me to even want for the AI to not have that.

My issues with "defending against the heathens" are these:

1) I hate micromanagement and mindless clickfests. I would happily accept as perfectly reasonable and historic if I could just assign a "defense force" with some leaders and put them in charge of defending the realm while I'm gone. If they do a less than optimal job of it, they're AIs after all, then so be it. But at least I don't have to raise-attack-disband every three minutes while being busy on the other end of the map. Yes, I should pay a price for keeping my homeland safe, definitely, but that price shouldn't be enjoyment of an otherwise excellent game.

Some may enjoy spending 2 hours clicking around the map, and more power to them. They'd still have the option and they'd most certainly do better by doing everything themselves. That, too, is fair. If you want it done right, do it yourself. I just don't want to be forced to do it too. It's the only thing that detracts from playing from my favorite starting point: the British Isles at the CM or ToG start. You can't go anywhere once you're England unless you enjoy clicking yourself into stark raving madness. I'd LOVE to occasionally go help out my Lombard ally, but not if it means that I have to play "LevyCraft" for two hours until my mouse begs for mercy.

I've found ways to alleviate it somewhat. a) Create Duchies on coastal areas. Just make sure that the Duke has more than one county of his de Jure because the AI is an idiot. If the Vikings land 200 men on his primary county where he has 900 levies, he'll just sit inside his castle and watch his crops burn and his peasants get raped. RAISE THE DAMN LEVY, YOU IMBECILE! Of course, that may be because of the incomprehensible to me game mechanic under which your vassals raise levies with 0 morale who then have to sit around and hold hands and sing songs for a month or two before they're able to fight, whereas your own demesne levies raise themselves at 100%

b) park your retinue on the coasts. It's costly, but it's fair. Again, it shouldn't be CHEAP to fight off the barbaroi. Unfortunately, you have to have a decent realm before you can build one that's big enough for this duty, and it sort of turns your "elite personal troops" into patrol cops. But hey, as long as it works. Not optimal, but every little bit helps. Just heaven help you if you're Lombardy or England with a realm that's almost all coastline.

2) Why on earth can't I punish those horrid horned heathens? They land on my shores, burn my crops, rape my nuns, burn down my churches, steal my gold and kill my peasants, but there's not a damn thing I can do to them because I "don't have a valid Casus Belli?????" What? Avenging the burning, raping, mutilation and killing of 10,000 of your people doesn't make for a "Casus Belli?" Oh no. If I want to give them some Christian payback, I have to first park my chancellor on their territory for a couple of reigns (they sure do take their time fabricating claims, don't they?), then pay an exorbitant price for the document giving me a legit reason to attack the bastard who just burned down a county of mine, raped my wife and bashed my childrens' brains in on a portcullis, and THEN I can go kick their furry arses. After THAT, once I'm neighboring them, I can holy war until my face turns blue and you better believe that I have, but not until then.

Invite a guy whose mother's brother's cousin's grandfather once ruled over Whogivesafart to court, land him and then you have a reason to invade and take somebody's lands, but watch a generation's worth of innocents, including your own family, get slaughtered by heathens that the church cared not one bit about? Nope. Attacking THEM would be simply going too far!

And what if they (or, for that matter, anybody else) take a holding and capture my children? Can I go attack them back, siege down every one of their holdings and get my kids back? Nope. They must be hiding them in the forest or something. Heck, I could live with it even if they decided to behead my family just to spite me right before they lost, but I can literally take every inch of land they hold, every castle, church and city, wipe out every last man of their armies, capture every member of their dynasty, but I still can't have my abducted kids back without paying a ransom. Seriously????

That's why I pretty much never ransom Vikings anymore. I enjoy executing them too much. That's just about the only thing that the game will allow me to do to pay them back. Not that they care. They'll have another 1,000 raiders raised tomorrow in their Viking Bacta Tanks.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
My methods for the viking problem which I do when I'm pissed off that I can't play Isolated Britannian Kingdom without raising my levy again, and again in the early start date.

Step 1
Play in Germany
Step 2
Conquer enough lands to name yourself as HRE
Step 3
Wait for the Viking bugs to buzz in my realm
Step 4
Raise my army
Step 5
Go on a personal crusade
Step 6
Break truce because who cares about prestige? if the reward is that your fingers won't be very tired because there are no more suicidal raiders to annoy you
Step 7
Conquer Britannia and give up my lands in HRE but keep the Scandinavia
Step 8
PLAY MY ISOLATED BRITANNIAN EMPIRE WITHOUT RASING MY LEVIES AGAIN AND AGAIN
 
Vikings are hecka annoying, and you're not safe even in the most remote corners of the mediterranean.
Plus they're hecka stupid and no matter the losses, no matter your power, no matter the fact you have a 8k-10k retinue army parked next to the province, they'll disembark and attempt to loot only to get annihillated (100% casualties) over and over.

And if you have misfortune of being a mainly coastal territory, such as Italy/Longobardia or Sicily or even the ERE you're looking at dozens upon dozens of attacks per decade at the height of the Viking age.

Later, it gets better, but it never really goes away till the last norse county is converted (which could take hundreds of years, or even never happen).

Giving you console CBs and conquering all of Scandinavia is silly and often doesn't resolve the problem, as for instance there's always Iceland or sometimes Novgorod/Britannia.

What I'd like to see is:

1)very high chance of leaders getting captured during failed raids
2)very high chance of loot getting captured during failed raids
3)raids being less frequent but more deadly: Vikings shouldn't be a minor albeit constant nuisance but be able to do some damage
4)opinion penalty or religious penalty for failed raids, maybe just maybe after the 300th party getting completely slaughtered, the year being 1100, you'd thing they would give up.
 
What would you do if the Merchant Republic has more troops in its retinue than all of the Scandanavian tribes combined can muster?

Because I do and I'm still having to slaughter a raid every time I turn around; it's gotten to the point that the raiders' governments are beginning to collapse because of the loss of troops. One guy managed to almost completely unify Sweden and sent a raid of over three thousand men to Northern Ireland. None of them escaped and Sweden is being gobbled up by Suomenusko tribes.

Raid five places at once and retreat each raid back to my ships before the republic troops can catch my raiders. Sometimes you can catch the AI is all, which is good, else the game would be incredibly, incredibly frustrating.
 
The only way to stop the raids is to conquer the north. If not they will keep annoying you in the 1200s or later even if your fort level is high.

Yeah part of the problem is that even unreformed pagans rarely stayed converted being overwhelmed easily by their neighbors or having one of their pagan relatives voted in because of elective gavelkind.

Being able to bribe raiders to stay away would help for the early game, improving converted Vikings survivability would help in long game, so you don't have to burn Scandinavia to the group just to stop them.

Id say the AI needs to have a gold threshold to accrue before converting to feudalism, Christianized Vikings will immediately go feudal and then lose to their vastly strong tribal vassals.

Also the attrition penalty should just be removed since it turns out that the fear of being zerged down by organized faiths seems to not have been true.
 
Yeah part of the problem is that even unreformed pagans rarely stayed converted being overwhelmed easily by their neighbors or having one of their pagan relatives voted in because of elective gavelkind.

Being able to bribe raiders to stay away would help for the early game, improving converted Vikings survivability would help in long game, so you don't have to burn Scandinavia to the group just to stop them.

Id say the AI needs to have a gold threshold to accrue before converting to feudalism, Christianized Vikings will immediately go feudal and then lose to their vastly strong tribal vassals.

Also the attrition penalty should just be removed since it turns out that the fear of being zerged down by organized faiths seems to not have been true.
That's interesting. Yes, I almost always see the issue in elective kingdoms switching back and forth christian and pagan.
As far as Wendland and eastern europe, I never ever see the HRE expand there successfully past maybe Bohemia, the attrition penalty keeps Franks at bay till it's too late and they have converted by themselves.

I agree it should be reduced as right now it's easier (imo) to see the pagans expand west than the opposite. Same for the HRE expanding west into Francia or even south to Africa instead of reaching its 1100 de jure territory, ever.
 
I've actually captured the raiders commander on several occasions. It is quite satisfying to let them rot....no ransom for them.

Personally I don't have a problem with the way it is set up but I can certainly understand why some people would. And it might be nice if you actually got some kind of bonus from wiping out an entire raiding force....maybe getting some gold or maybe giving some kind of delay before they can raid your territory again. I don't know.