How can raiding be balanced?

[Denkt]

Raiding is probably overpowered in CK2 and maybe overpowered in history as well so no Chevauchee and such which seems simply too strong.

Raiding in CK2 feels too cheap for the gold gotten and have too Little risks, however in CK2 Castles will cause attrition but how it work I don't know. However here are some ideas:

• Split loot between the commander and unit owner which mean if you don't personally lead the army, you don't get all loot.
• Some Always attrition representing locals fighting the raiders, maybe more attrition the more developed the area is.
• Maybe only raid with men at arms in armies? Mean you need to risk valuable troops rather than basic levies.
• Maybe some sort of cb for a war or some ways to block raiding states from raiding you all time. Losing a battle could block raiding against that realm for a while.
• Ai maybe check more if you are on raid and exploit that your armies are away.

More ideas?

 

[AmericanViking]

Raiding should never be a wargoal. Declaring a war just to raid goes against the point of raiding. It's why it doesn't work in Stellaris.

That being said, raiding could be balanced by either nerfing how much you get from a raid, making it harder to organize a raid, or providing defenders some more, or better ways to defend themselves.

 

[zagy20]

The one thing I can't stand in CK2 is raiding hosts. I'm currently in a Chinese Imperialism run, initially started as the Han character in the kingdom of Xia but it was unplayable because every year a 1000-3000 stack host would spawn on my capital. If hosts return in CK3 I feel like they should need to declare war to raid and have more serious repercussions for losing, like having all their gold captured if they lose.

As for both player and ai realms, as AmericanViking said declaring war for the intention to raid is counterintuitive. I don't really mind how raiding works in CK2, the biggest problem I find is there are just very few countermeasures. Perhaps an option to petition the raiders liege to have them cease or an anti-raiding casus belli.

 

[j.margenat]

Raiding in CK2 had several problems:
1º There should be a limit of soldiers that can raid per realm, as any king would consider an act of war if 1000-5000 soldiers were raiding their kingdoms.
2º You cant punish raiders, neither in MP nor SP, as levies and retinues refill in no time, even if you manage to exterminate their whole army, in a few years the Chief Harald will raid you again with the only drawback of the prestige lose.

It could be solved if:
1º Raiders have a soft limit of 1000 if they go beyond that it triggers a war between the enemy top liege and the raider.
- If you win the war then you get gold.
- White peace for status quo with a prestige lost for the attacker (raider)
- If you lose you are forced to pay gold.
2º Levy growth and retinue growth should be based on prestige too and prestige should be limited to 0-100. This way losing many raids will make the raiders levy refill slowly thus raiding becoming more risky instead of the no brainer that it is in CK2.

 

[Denkt]

Limit the size of raids may be a good idea, chevauchee, Byzantine-Caliphate raiding and such is simply too overpowered to be in the game.

More consequences for being defeated when raiding such as maybe increase prestiege loss by a factor of 5-10 compared to ordinary battles and tie levy recruitment into your fame.

Anti raiding wargoal to block the raiders for a while may also work.

 

[viola]

I see people complaining a lot on the CK2 board about raiding being annoying in and how there's little way to actually stop it.

... But isn't that the way raiding is supposed to work, both historically and gameplay-wise? If your nation is in an unfavourable geographical position you're going to suffer semi-constant raiding from Vikings and Nomads until the Norse (or whatever Pagan neighbour you have) convert for good or someone doesn't go exterminating all those annoying Nomads, and that's also how it worked in history.

The complains come from the fact that players in CK2 feel powerless when they see minor groups of raiders entering their borders and plundering their riches before they can react to it due to slowness of raising up levies, and even if they react to it that won't stop more to come. But that's not wrong: for once that's a good representation of what Medieval rulers had to deal with when faced with Nomad or tribal neighbours, you're either willing to engage in large military campaigns against the source of the problem or you make peace with the fact raiders are going to come and you only intervene to stop them when they get too bold.

With this I mean: feel free to put some limitations here and there so that raiding isn't completely mindless and the raiding characters get their share of misery too if they fuck up or get too ahead of themselves, but I'm not sure if raiding can ever be perfectly balanced or not feel annoying for the receiving end while still being a credible threat.

 

[Denkt]

Given you can make hundreds or thousands of gold and prestige from raiding, probably more than you can make from taxing the area feels a bit extreme.

And without much or any serious risks.

 

[viola]

Given you can make hundreds or thousands of gold and prestige from raiding, probably more than you can make from taxing the area feels a bit extreme.

And without much or any serious risks.

Well, that's the whole point.

Tribal pagans have pitiable tax income, so they make money by stealing from those that have. Raiding is meant to be the main source of income for certain nations.

 

[j.margenat]

I see people complaining a lot on the CK2 board about raiding being annoying in and how there's little way to actually stop it.

... But isn't that the way raiding is supposed to work, both historically and gameplay-wise? If your nation is in an unfavourable geographical position you're going to suffer semi-constant raiding from Vikings and Nomads until the Norse (or whatever Pagan neighbour you have) convert for good or someone doesn't go exterminating all those annoying Nomads, and that's also how it worked in history.

The complains come from the fact that players in CK2 feel powerless when they see minor groups of raiders entering their borders and plundering their riches before they can react to it due to slowness of raising up levies, and even if they react to it that won't stop more to come. But that's not wrong: for once that's a good representation of what Medieval rulers had to deal with when faced with Nomad or tribal neighbours, you're either willing to engage in large military campaigns against the source of the problem or you make peace with the fact raiders are going to come and you only intervene to stop them when they get too bold.

With this I mean: feel free to put some limitations here and there so that raiding isn't completely mindless and the raiding characters get their share of misery too if they fuck up or get too ahead of themselves, but I'm not sure if raiding can ever be perfectly balanced or not feel annoying for the receiving end while still being a credible threat.

That is how it went historically due to the in-fighting of the West Europe Kingdoms. If i as the king of England forged my realm under laws that prevented vassal fighting and punished harshly schemes and plots then i should be able to defend the kingdom rather than playing viking whack-a-mole until year 1000 hits the calendar.

The 2 ways to prevent raiding that currently exist are converting those raiders to other religion/culture and to conquer their lands. Both of them are hardly a good option neither in MP nor SP, as pagan atrittion is borderline op in early start dates so invasion is mostly out of the question unless you are playing Karl Karling. And converting sending missionaires is rather impossible in mp as if one player wants to stay pagan unreformed he will stay while converting culture is almost imposible.

Raiding should not be more of a threat that local bandits are.

 

[Denkt]

The English started to build some sort of network of forts (don't remember the name) which was probably quite effective at keeping raiders away.

Well, that's the whole point.

Tribal pagans have pitiable tax income, so they make money by stealing from those that have. Raiding is meant to be the main source of income for certain nations.

Some can raid even while not being tribal.​

 

[Brian Bóroimhe]

Losing a battle could block raiding against that realm for a while.

This is how it works already in CK2.

If raiders are defeated in battle they are blocked from raiding the victor's realm for 5 years.

It's very apparent when you play as raiders, maybe less obvious when you're defending. See the "Raid defense" section of the wiki.

There are so many ways to counter raiders, and with marches etc in ck3 hopefully even more. Although the change of retinues to men-at-arms will make it a lot more difficult to have mobile coastal patrols, which is a shame.

Overall, raiding is great, I want to see it expanded on in CK3 not curtailed.

 

[Denkt]

Overall, raiding is great, I want to see it expanded on in CK3 not curtailed.

It can be expanded once it is balanced.

There are so many ways to counter raiders, and with marches etc in ck3 hopefully even more. Although the change of retinues to men-at-arms will make it a lot more difficult to have mobile coastal patrols, which is a shame.

CK2 don't represent local garrison and fortifications that was built to counter raiding, however in CK3 Castles will casue attrition.

 

[treb]

I think the ck2 style raiding should be limited to border provinces, its realistic for a border Strategos and Sheikh to raid each other but not for the entire caliphate or empire to send their armies to Baghdad/Constantinople to loot the place. Raids should be just that, a hit an run where you take as much as you can as quick as you can and be gone before any real response can be mounted. At the same time I think a border guard mechanic to at least provide some measure of protection should be an option too.

In the end raiding should by high risk/high reward

 

[Brian Bóroimhe]

CK2 don't represent local garrison and fortifications that was built to counter raiding, however in CK3 Castles will casue attrition.

Yes it does.

You can build forts that will slow down raiders who need to siege it before they can move on to other holdings. Basically everything you build in a holding will increase the income, troops or fort level. This will either provide more loot to be raided, more troops to defend from raids with larger garrison and levy (requiring larger raiding parties to siege your holding) and forts when they reach level 5 will prevent siege assaults and stop boats travelling upriver..

Castles do not cause attrition in ck3

Armies now carry an amount of Supply with them. Supply is drained whenever armies are in Baronies with a lower Supply Limit than their size. You can therefore safely march through a few Baronies with a low Supply Limit without troops dying. If you army runs out of Supply however, it will start to take attrition and lose troops over time. Supply is increased as long as you are below the Supply Limit in territory you control. Beware though, your army might not take attrition on low Supply, but it will suffer an Advantage Penalty in battles!

The change to the supply and attrition system is that your army carries a stockpile of supplies that decreases when the supply in a barony is lower than your army requires.

What you're probably thinking of is this:

Marching into a County controlled by the enemy, that doesn’t border anything you control and is not on the coast, will make your army take a single and quite significant attrition hit.

But that is attrition from not having any supply lines, rather than tied to castles.

 

[Denkt]

Castles do not cause attrition in ck3

Yes they do in a way:

Any chance castle holdings can exert a ZOC?

• Not in the sense as in EU4. The hostile county attrition can be thought of as a "soft ZOC" that doesn't hinder movement, but do have penalties for moving armies without consideration.

How well does the AI take the new attrition in foreign territory mechanic? Does this stop them from rushing your capital like in ck2?

• Rushing into your enemies territory will cause your armies to take very heavy attrition, and the AI knows this. They will try to siege their way to the war goal area.

Yes it does.

It dont cause attrition to the raider, not because it matters because levies recovery super quickly in CK2.

In the end raiding should by high risk/high reward

In CK2 they are basically low/no risk for high reward which make Little sense. See what happened at the battle of Lalakaon to get an idea how risky raiding could actually be.​

 

[MarkFranz]

Although the change of retinues to men-at-arms will make it a lot more difficult to have mobile coastal patrols, which is a shame.

Exactly. When I played as the king of England, I had a powerful retinue of cavalry and knights, which could quickly get to the raider's army and effectively destroy it. Now, since the men-at-arms works like a levy in SK2, who do not remain on the map, the need to wait until the army will assemble, will give the raiders much more time to plunder.

 

[Denkt]

Exactly. When I played as the king of England, I had a powerful retinue of cavalry and knights, which could quickly get to the raider's army and effectively destroy it. Now, since the men-at-arms works like a levy in SK2, who do not remain on the map, the need to wait until the army will assemble, will give the raiders much more time to plunder.

CK2 treat levies and retinues as something you can simply throw away and it is not a big deal which is a reason why raiding is so strong. In reality losing large amount of Soldiers may be straight up a Death sentence for the realm as in reality it is far harder to recover losses compared to CK2.

It should probably take 20-30 years to make a full levy recovery from 0 which is similar to Imperator: Rome Manpower recovery. Also characters should have statemanship like in Imperator: Rome so if they are killed in battle your administration should suffer significantly.

 

[treb]

Yes they do in a way:In CK2 they are basically low/no risk for high reward which make Little sense. See what happened at the battle of Lalakaon to get an idea how risky raiding could actually be.

Ironically enough that was the example I had in my head. I think raids should have an escalating level where if its direct border county its up to the local rulers to mount a defense and scaling up the further in severity of response the further you take the raids.

 

[Denkt]

Ironically enough that was the example I had in my head. I think raids should have an escalating level where if its direct border county its up to the local rulers to mount a defense and scaling up the further in severity of response the further you take the raids.

The lack of consequnces for losing your armies in CK2 is in quite stark constrast with reality in which such events could straight up end the realm. It would take decades to rebuild an army after something like Lalakaon and with the leadership destroy as well it is even worse.

In CK2 making a recovery take maybe 5 years which is simply too few for someone to care about. In Imperator: Rome it is however a base 20 years to make a full Manpower recovery from 0.

Thus serious losses in Imperator: Rome feel far more as a setback compared to CK2.

 

[treb]

The lack of consequnces for losing your armies in CK2 is in quite stark constrast with reality in which such events could straight up end the realm. It would take decades to rebuild an army after something like Lalakaon and with the leadership destroy as well it is even worse.

In CK2 making a recovery take maybe 5 years which is simply too few for someone to care about. In Imperator: Rome it is however a base 20 years to make a full Manpower recovery from 0.

That's to do with how CK2 abstracts armies, since its levy based its more indirect than Imperator or EU4, regardless I agree levies regenerate far to quickly but I think that's because Ck2 doesn't really well represent the fact that in most cases you didnt bring your entire capacity of levies to a single battle. Its not a smart thing to do or you collapse in like the Emirate of Malatya did.