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

[Tiramisu]

It's sad that the Arabian Islamic Golden age started from 700 till 1300 and they got nothing in CK2!!!
I hope they make events/traits/details/special decisions for Arabian Muslims between 700-1300 which is historical the Islamic golden age.

 

[Denkt]

It's sad that the Arabian Islamic Golden age started from 700 till 1300 and they got nothing in CK2!!!
I hope they make events/traits/details/special decisions for Arabian Muslims between 700-1300 which is historical the Islamic golden age.

It is also something to look into. However thats not the purpose of this thread

 

[Denkt]

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"

I could ask to have this thread removed and take a long time to make a new better suggestion how raids can work. It is not like I like the suggestions I make, and I Always try to look for ways to make them better and I don't want to make suggestions that could make the game worse.

 

[Ostovar Hossein]

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

I love this idea, but I hope it isn't like euiv where invisible army or raiders burn down and loot provinces and you cannot do anything... It will be cool to try and attack the raiding party and perhaps be able to either return the loot or keep it for yourself .

 

[Denkt]

I love this idea, but I hope it isn't like euiv where invisible army or raiders burn down and loot provinces and you cannot do anything... It will be cool to try and attack the raiding party and perhaps be able to either return the loot or keep it for yourself .

If I had to go back I would never have posted this idea, there simply too much fault with the current CK2 raid system which @Krajzen so well pointed out. What is needed is a better raid system and once we have that we could go back here.

I should actually ask for this thead's removal but I'm too cowardly to do so, this stuff is for the future, not for what we currently know.

 

[Legion141]

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"

I'd think the solution here would be to introduce a forts mechanic, similar to the one we already had in CK2 where they would act as barriers against movement and raiding, but perhaps with more scope for upgrades and development (like the fort-cities in northern France on the German border). I personally agree with what others have said above about allowing raiding for all, and the building of forts would in that case be much more relevant and worth the effort/expense than in CK2.

 

[Denkt]

Forts Will cause attrition but not block movement.

 

[Legion141]

Forts Will cause attrition but not block movement.

Ah right my bad, I might have got my EU4 mixed up with my CK2 a little. That been said, I think the EU4 system, while not without fault, would also serve as a worthwhile model to borrow from. Forts exerting ZoC, costing maintenance, been able to be upgraded, etc. would all be beneficial IMO, although I guess such a mechanic might carve into the niche of castle holdings somewhat (another argument for the removal of holding types actually)

 

[Denkt]

Maybe you should create a new thread about that, it is best that this thread die because I regrett creating it and it is best it died for now.

 

[Denkt]

I still don't understand why people actually agreed on the OP post? Could be nice if someone actually told why

 

[Andrzej I]

I still don't understand why people actually agreed on the OP post? Could be nice if someone actually told why

Because having some way to model the low-scale warfare that existed between the Byzantines and various Islamic powers of the Middle East (amongst other low-scale conflicts also in the era!) would be quite ideal. As it stands, CK2 was very binary - either you were at peace, or in a state of total war. Allowing powers to harass and damage one another, hopefully in a way more satisfying than CK2's pagan raiding mechanics, would be wonderful to represent the conflict mentioned in your original post, along with the warfare for much of the Hundred Years War, etc.

 

[DPS]

Because having some way to model the low-scale warfare that existed between the Byzantines and various Islamic powers of the Middle East (amongst other low-scale conflicts also in the era!) would be quite ideal. As it stands, CK2 was very binary - either you were at peace, or in a state of total war. Allowing powers to harass and damage one another, hopefully in a way more satisfying than CK2's pagan raiding mechanics, would be wonderful to represent the conflict mentioned in your original post, along with the warfare for much of the Hundred Years War, etc.

Very well put. For historical accuracy, yes, the ERE and the Caliphate should be able to raid each other; in fact, almost everyone should be able to raid. But the raiding mechanics in CK2 were annoying and not fun (at least for the one being raided), so if there aren't some big changes in raiding mechanics, it won't improve gameplay to allow more raiding.

 

[Denkt]

Very well put. For historical accuracy, yes, the ERE and the Caliphate should be able to raid each other; in fact, almost everyone should be able to raid. But the raiding mechanics in CK2 were annoying and not fun (at least for the one being raided), so if there aren't some big changes in raiding mechanics, it won't improve gameplay to allow more raiding.

That is why I wonder why people would Agree on something that could hurt more than help if CK2 raiding system is used in CK3.

Because having some way to model the low-scale warfare that existed between the Byzantines and various Islamic powers of the Middle East (amongst other low-scale conflicts also in the era!) would be quite ideal. As it stands, CK2 was very binary - either you were at peace, or in a state of total war. Allowing powers to harass and damage one another, hopefully in a way more satisfying than CK2's pagan raiding mechanics, would be wonderful to represent the conflict mentioned in your original post, along with the warfare for much of the Hundred Years War, etc.

So no it is not a good thing to add in yet. So maybe this thread should be deleted/locked because it may encourage implementation of a bad mechanic?​

 

[DPS]

That is why I wonder why people would Agree on something that could hurt more than help if CK2 raiding system is used in CK3.

So no it is not a good thing to add in yet. So maybe this thread should be deleted/locked because it may encourage implementation of a bad mechanic?​

Well, hopefully the raiding mechanic in CK3 won't be the same as in CK2, no matter who is or isn't allowed to raid.

 

[Denkt]

Well, hopefully the raiding mechanic in CK3 won't be the same as in CK2, no matter who is or isn't allowed to raid.

But currently we don't know and if the mechanic will be like CK2 this should absolutely not be implemented. Honestly it is probably best if this thread was deleted and a new one be made in case the raiding system have been changed.

 

[Andrzej I]

So maybe this thread should be deleted/locked because it may encourage implementation of a bad mechanic?

No, and I don't really get this obsession with deleting or locking your own threads, as it cuts off all discussion on the topic in a remarkably disruptive manner. Why not keep them open so that folks can brainstorm things in an established thread, being able to work off of the posts already here? After all, as both @DPS and I are saying, the idea of raiding is sound, it's just that CK2's implementation was poor, mostly due to the fact that one would constantly have to raise and disband one's levies to deal with trivial, countless pestering forces. In contrast, the raids of the ERE and the Islamic forces (Caliphate and Turkish) or those of England and France were on a far greater scale and less annoying frequency. If the AI was tweaked to raid less, but with more forces, that might improve things.

 

[Legion141]

No, and I don't really get this obsession with deleting or locking your own threads, as it cuts off all discussion on the topic in a remarkably disruptive manner. Why not keep them open so that folks can brainstorm things in an established thread, being able to work off of the posts already here? After all, as both @DPS and I are saying, the idea of raiding is sound, it's just that CK2's implementation was poor, mostly due to the fact that one would constantly have to raise and disband one's levies to deal with trivial, countless pestering forces. In contrast, the raids of the ERE and the Islamic forces (Caliphate and Turkish) or those of England and France were on a far greater scale and less annoying frequency. If the AI was tweaked to raid less, but with more forces, that might improve things.

Or give rulers more ways to limit the effectiveness/ability of other realms to raid. Viking raids were only really effective against less fortified holdings, as shown by the failure of their siege of Paris in 885. If forts were to make a return from CK2, they would serve suitably for acting as ways to counter raiding by blocking movement beyond them/greatly increasing attrition and raising the cap on province loot (assuming that also makes a return)

 

[Denkt]

Or give rulers more ways to limit the effectiveness/ability of other realms to raid. Viking raids were only really effective against less fortified holdings, as shown by the failure of their siege of Paris in 885. If forts were to make a return from CK2, they would serve suitably for acting as ways to counter raiding by blocking movement beyond them/greatly increasing attrition and raising the cap on province loot (assuming that also makes a return)

Castles cause attriton but don't block movement.

In contrast, the raids of the ERE and the Islamic forces (Caliphate and Turkish) or those of England and France were on a far greater scale and less annoying frequency. If the AI was tweaked to raid less, but with more forces, that might improve things.

The big issues is that real Life raids would be extreamly overpowered. The 1355 chevauchee reduced the French tax base by like 20% and some of the raids involving the Byzantines straight up destroyed holdings in game terms. The 1355 chevauchee involved less than 10 000 Soldiers I think and only lasted for a few months to get an idea, basically low risk for a huge amount of damage dealt.​

 

[Denkt]

Here is a thread about raiding balance: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-can-raiding-be-balanced.1328680/