Byzantines and Caliphate should be able to raid each other, and armies should carry loot

[Denkt]

One of the largest conflict in CK timeframe can't be represented in CK2 because neither the Byzantines nor the Caliphate can raid each other, which was something they did all the time, with forces that would make the vikings look pathetic, in some times these forces was so large they could destroy cities like Amorium.

I suspect that basically everyone should be able to raid religious enemies but I don't know. Another thing I think make sense is that armies can like navies carry loot so you don't need to be next to your territory in order to raid but to make stuff interesting the more loot and army carry the slower it should move and the worse it should perform in battle so if you raid alot you are taking a huge risk if the enemy Catch you.

So what do you think about raids

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

Maybe a new distinction could be made in raiding.
Everyone should be able to raid their neighbours, though not sure about correligionalists.

Ck2 raiding cultures such as norse or berbers can also engage in distant raiding.

(just noticed that under your name. Happy tenth year )

 

[Denkt]

(just noticed that under your name. Happy tenth year )

Thanks

Ck2 raiding cultures such as norse or berbers can also engage in distant raiding.

Thats true, if everyone can raid, maybe they could be given some advantages, like being better at raids than others or something.

Maybe a new distinction could be made in raiding.
Everyone should be able to raid their neighbours, though not sure about correligionalists.

Yes it would make stuff feel more alive if raids was something that happened at all time, perhaps you can make some Peace treat which limits raids between nations but otherwise it should be quite few restrictions on raids.

Another advantage of raids is that city spam becomes less viable since cities are poorly defended against raids and it make levy more useful in peacetime.

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

About holdings, I'd think it a good improvement to have a single kind of holding rather than 3.

There could still be the restrictions of having a mayor and a bishop or whatnot.

A single holding type that can be developed in different ways, so if you want to fortify your border town to protect from raids, it doesn't make it an immutable feudal barony. I realise though that we are all used to the 3 holding types and it's not gonna change. Still...

 

[Denkt]

About holdings, I'd think it a good improvement to have a single kind of holding rather than 3.

There could still be the restrictions of having a mayor and a bishop or whatnot.

A single holding type that can be developed in different ways, so if you want to fortify your border town to protect from raids, it doesn't make it an immutable feudal barony. I realise though that we are all used to the 3 holding types and it's not gonna change. Still...

It is actually a good idea, it would make stuff develop more natural instead of being binary or what to call it, since holdings would become what you develop them towards, not simply start as three different things

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

It is actually a good idea, it would make stuff develop more natural instead of being binary or what to call it, since holdings would become what you develop them towards, not simply start as three different things

Trinary?
To be honest if they made holdings convertible 'to some extent', the 3 holding system isn't that bad. In ck2 you need to be tribal, wipe out a county just to build it with the holdings you want :/

 

[theKing1988]

Well I don't really know the historiy behind it, but I doubt byzantines nor the caliphate went beyond the border areas when raiding, and even if they did, it was probably in an all out war. I have another suggestion. Maybe everyone should be able to raid, but ONLY in war, unlike raiding cultures who can raid without declaring war and even then, maybe they should have lesser ability of raiding than the raiding cultures. But then, I think you already gained money when you conquered castles and towns while you didn't gain money when your armies destroyed unprotected loot, but im not sure. So maybe they should only implement a minor thing like you gain some percent of the unprotected loot you destroyed and/or slower rate of raiding than the raiding cultures. So its like this: Non raiding cultures can raid other religions but only get a percentage of the amount of destroyed unprotected loot AND only in war, while raiding cultures can raid without declaring war AND get the full unprotected loot and faster and also can raid correligionists too, I know Vikings raided each other and bedoins raided each other too. Actually, I know from reading history that one bedoin tribe was raiding too much and even raiding the people who went to pilgrimage(but I think they were Kharijite) and the caliph was trying to soften their raids and reduce it and they only listened to caliph and no one else but when the caliph wrote them a message asking them to stop raiding fellow muslims alltogether and stop causing chaos, they answered the message saying, we were eating from our swords(I think it means they gained their living by sword?) while your tribe were soft merchants even before the religion of God honoured both of our tribes so who are you to ask us to stop raiding, and the weird thing is, it happened in rashidun caliphate time so they had as much authority as the popes in europa in their prime. So, i think it makes sense historically even if the cultures religion is against raiding.

Depends on how you define border areas. Amorion lay hundreds of kilometers behind the border when it was sacked in 840. John Tzimiskes invasion of Syria in 975 was certainly also very similar to the Abbasid invasion of the Empire in 840, and John Tzimiskes reached all the way to Damascus, Nazareth and Beirut, also hundreds of kilometers behind the Border.

The Distance of Raids and Counter-Raids between the Empire and the Caliphate, depended on the response of the other. Usually the response was so quick and so strong that the raid never made it that far beyond the border areas, but it did happen as i just pointed out.

 

[Andrzej I]

Everyone should be able to raid their neighbours, though not sure about correligionalists.

I'd definitely argue for correligionalists being able to raid each other - how else will you make France burn for denying their rightful Plantagenet monarch?

 

[Ezumiyr]

The thing is that all armies were technically raiders during the middle ages, or at least the vast majority of them. And even in local, small scale conflicts, to some extent. Ransoming nobles was often more profitable than raiding, but if you could steal something valuable, or just some food for your armyb, you would do that as well.

But raiding was also a repetitive and potentially frustrating mechanic in CK2. I wouldn't regret it if raiding worked in a completely different way in CK3, allowing everyone to raid to some extent and/or on specific occasions.

Raiding should probably be more progressive, with the raider slowly depleting the prosperity of a county, instead of just stealing everything a county has to offer.

Alternatively, this is a problem with how every war is a total war in CK2. Maybe there should be different "war levels" depending on the casus belli.
A "great raid" would allow you to take 20% (obviously the exact number could be different) of vassal troops and you would gain warscore from pillaging enemy counties. The war is automatically over after a certain amount of time (no matter if you're losing or not).
This kind of war is potentially very profitable, it also helps weakening an enemy or just testing their strength.You're also investing less money and forces to wage war - and territorial conquests should definitely feel more costly than in CK2. War costed a lot of money, and wars of conquest were rarer than "raids" of all kinds for that reason.

 

[Vanhal]

If we keep it historical, EVERYONE should be able to loot. There was a reason overwhelming majority of military campaigns in medieval times were not conquests and even conquests almost always were full of looting action.

 

[Drogan]

One of the largest conflict in CK timeframe can't be represented in CK2 because neither the Byzantines nor the Caliphate can raid each other, which was something they did all the time, with forces that would make the vikings look pathetic, in some times these forces was so large they could destroy cities like Amorium.

I suspect that basically everyone should be able to raid religious enemies but I don't know. Another thing I think make sense is that armies can like navies carry loot so you don't need to be next to your territory in order to raid but to make stuff interesting the more loot and army carry the slower it should move and the worse it should perform in battle so if you raid alot you are taking a huge risk if the enemy Catch you.

So what do you think about raids

Agree. I always play CK2 with every one being able to raid.

ERE and the Arabs had huge naval battles as well. Should be represented some how.

 

[Denkt]

ERE and the Arabs had huge naval battles as well. Should be represented some how.

Yes that is a good argument for naval battles should be in the game

 

[Colten88]

Because CK2 doesn't have anything in the way of naval conflict, it seems unlikely that it will make it into the initial release of CK3. That being said, I would love it if their first expansion added all things nautical.

 

[Arko]

If we keep it historical, EVERYONE should be able to loot. There was a reason overwhelming majority of military campaigns in medieval times were not conquests and even conquests almost always were full of looting action.

Indeed. However, i am not sure it would that good as gameplay, not for CK serie I feel.
CB system, with all its downsides is comprehensible and clear gameplay mechanic that was proven good in Paradox games.

 

[Will Steel]

I like the idea of border raids allowed for most nations. If it could be based on relations between the two rulers, where very negative relations could allow them to raid each other, it could be represented well.

Border raids often began like that, developed into skirmishes and if not resolved, sometimes open warfare. For example, the England-Scotland border was well known for this (and involved people like William Wallace), the Umayyad-Carolingian border or Hispanic March (and border conflicts between later Spanish and Moorish Iberian kingdoms), the Pratihara-Abbasid border in Sindh, and of course the Byzantine-Abbasid frontier mentioned above.

EU4 even has events related to this in the early game.

 

[Vityviktor]

One of the largest conflict in CK timeframe can't be represented in CK2 because neither the Byzantines nor the Caliphate can raid each other, which was something they did all the time, with forces that would make the vikings look pathetic, in some times these forces was so large they could destroy cities like Amorium.

I suspect that basically everyone should be able to raid religious enemies but I don't know. Another thing I think make sense is that armies can like navies carry loot so you don't need to be next to your territory in order to raid but to make stuff interesting the more loot and army carry the slower it should move and the worse it should perform in battle so if you raid alot you are taking a huge risk if the enemy Catch you.

So what do you think about raids

The same should happen between Christians and Muslims in Iberia, and between Scots, Welsh, and Anglosaxon/English realms, etc.

Every neighbouring realms should be able to raid each other. But maybe raider cultures/religions, or raids between religions, should get bonuses, like faster looting (without sieges), or more profits (due to more "cruel" actions, slave kidnapping, etc).

In other thread, somebody introduced the idea of preacetime raids being unable to actually siege holdings, only limiting to looting the countryside. Maybe it's a nice idea. In any case, the raid/looting system could be completely redone allowing every culture to raid their neighbours and yet providing enough "rules" and events to make the different instances of inter-religious/cultural raids different and inmersive: for instance, Catholics looting fellow Catholic temple holdings should lose piety or gain a malus in Church opinion; Norse looting Catholic temple holdings should get more money and some other bonus; looting Cities (specially if they share your culture) could make you more "Fearsome" (using this new mechanic), etc etc.

 

[Spaninq]

If we keep it historical, EVERYONE should be able to loot. There was a reason overwhelming majority of military campaigns in medieval times were not conquests and even conquests almost always were full of looting action.

Indeed. However, i am not sure it would that good as gameplay, not for CK serie I feel.
CB system, with all its downsides is comprehensible and clear gameplay mechanic that was proven good in Paradox games.

The thing is that all armies were technically raiders during the middle ages, or at least the vast majority of them. And even in local, small scale conflicts, to some extent. Ransoming nobles was often more profitable than raiding, but if you could steal something valuable, or just some food for your armyb, you would do that as well.

But raiding was also a repetitive and potentially frustrating mechanic in CK2. I wouldn't regret it if raiding worked in a completely different way in CK3, allowing everyone to raid to some extent and/or on specific occasions.

Raiding should probably be more progressive, with the raider slowly depleting the prosperity of a county, instead of just stealing everything a county has to offer.

Alternatively, this is a problem with how every war is a total war in CK2. Maybe there should be different "war levels" depending on the casus belli.
A "great raid" would allow you to take 20% (obviously the exact number could be different) of vassal troops and you would gain warscore from pillaging enemy counties. The war is automatically over after a certain amount of time (no matter if you're losing or not).
This kind of war is potentially very profitable, it also helps weakening an enemy or just testing their strength.You're also investing less money and forces to wage war - and territorial conquests should definitely feel more costly than in CK2. War costed a lot of money, and wars of conquest were rarer than "raids" of all kinds for that reason.

Has no one in this thread ever noticed that every time you siege down a holding in CK2 (not just while raiding), you actually gain money for sacking it? This is why sieging with mercs in CK2 is so strong, it reduces the merc numbers (making them cheaper) and gives you more money (allowing you to retain the mercenaries' services for even longer).

 

[Denkt]

I don't know why people Agree with the first post, it would be nice if those actually participated in this thread since agrees don't tell us anything really.

Has no one in this thread ever noticed that every time you siege down a holding in CK2 (not just while raiding), you actually gain money for sacking it? This is why sieging with mercs in CK2 is so strong, it reduces the merc numbers (making them cheaper) and gives you more money (allowing you to retain the mercenaries' services for even longer).

Thats not the Point, yes you can sack holdings during war but raids is what you do during "peacetime"

In other thread, somebody introduced the idea of preacetime raids being unable to actually siege holdings, only limiting to looting the countryside. Maybe it's a nice idea. In any case, the raid/looting system could be completely redone allowing every culture to raid their neighbours and yet providing enough "rules" and events to make the different instances of inter-religious/cultural raids different and inmersive: for instance, Catholics looting fellow Catholic temple holdings should lose piety or gain a malus in Church opinion; Norse looting Catholic temple holdings should get more money and some other bonus; looting Cities (specially if they share your culture) could make you more "Fearsome" (using this new mechanic), etc etc.

It is quite interesting, but I suspect loot would still be available even with walls

I like the idea of border raids allowed for most nations. If it could be based on relations between the two rulers, where very negative relations could allow them to raid each other, it could be represented well.

Border raids often began like that, developed into skirmishes and if not resolved, sometimes open warfare. For example, the England-Scotland border was well known for this (and involved people like William Wallace), the Umayyad-Carolingian border or Hispanic March (and border conflicts between later Spanish and Moorish Iberian kingdoms), the Pratihara-Abbasid border in Sindh, and of course the Byzantine-Abbasid frontier mentioned above.

In Imperator: Rome, raiding will start wars if the opinion is too low when the raid is conducted.​

 

[Krajzen]

There is one big problem with active and "physical actual army" process of raiding, I have already mentioned it on another thread

Being victim of irregular but often and constant raiding is SO DAMN ANNOYING

When I was playing as Poland, half of my reasons for conquering those pagan Baltic tribes was for meta-reason of not having to constantly micro levies during peacetime (or even worse, being suddenly screwed during war with somebody else)

I shudder when imagining playing as Byzantium with hundreds of years of constant, unexpected, irregular peacetime raiding parties I have actually manage with organising and deorganising levies constantly

I'd support such mechanic (at least in case of Muslim-Christian relations) only as some passive minigame in the bckground of 'provide defensive infrastructre in border provinces to minimize severe penalties to their yields and negative events"

 

[Denkt]

Yes the raiding system in CK2 is not the most fun thing, the above suggestion should only be added in if they rework the raid system, otherwise it should be removed and only again considered if they rework the raiding system.

So if CK3 is going to keep the same raiding system as CK2, this thread should be deleted and a new one only be made once a rework of the raiding system is in order.

Also it would be nice if people who spend time to Agree or read this thread would contribute to the discussion, the first post have 2 different things which by itself make it impossible to tell what people even Agree on and I myself don't necessarily think my own ideas are good (perhaps they quite bad actually) so it would be nice if people took their time and helped improve them.