Castle overproduction (tribes vs non-tribes)

[Lothar Warschau]

I noticed a weird thing about the current version of the game. If you take one of the two early TOG starts, it is very likely that some of the tribals will actually be quite successful, at least initially (until feudals outproduce levies and enforce christianity on them). They causes some sort of a province ping-pong, where some provinces go from tribal to feudal to tribal and so forth. Each time feudals conquer tribal land, they quickly turn tribe into a castle. But then, the tribals come back and make a new tribe in the province. After two centuries, this causes the provinces to have a lot of castles, which is bad because:
1) If I conquer these lands, maybe I would prefer to have more cities etc.
2) MORE IMPORTANTLY -- feudals eventually win the conflict and then they are OP as they have a bunch of castles.

So I propose a simple solution: if a tribal state conquers a province without a tribe, it does not establish tribe as a new holding, but burns down any cities and castles (maybe for money) and creates one tribe in that place.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Maybe destroy tribal holdings if conquered by a non-tribal & there is already another non-tribal holding in the county?

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

Then no tribals could ever conquer feudal land with the intent of settling, because that land would all become tribal land that would be worthless after the government reform.

If there's only a single holding in a province, however, it should probably switch. Alternatively, one holding per province should always switch, but the rest should stay intact.

Regardless, the best answer to the "tons of castles forever" problem would be to finally, finally, finally let us convert holding types. I can't believe that all these years after release, this still isn't a thing.

 

[Thrake]

Playing as a tribal, I find it irritating that loosing a county will turn it feudal with no turning back; this leaves me with a vassal that hates me (be it baron or count) and the slow feudalization of tribal lands make it really hard to stay tribal, not because I lack troops (that should be the natural incentive to feudalize I think) but because I run short of tribal lands if I don't immediately start in a strong enough position to quickly subjugate other tribals. Of course it's not really an option to "tribalize" the steppes either, not without a really strong support at least.

So I would certainly like a system to prevent counties to turn permanently feudal just because a feudal guy owned it for a week while I conquered it kind of immediately. There could be a no turning back point, as it would feel weird to have a system similar to hordes razing though.

 

[Rags17]

An unstable border area undergoes decades of endless bloody warfare and ends up with a tangled web of castles and fortifications.

In my mind this is the absolute definition of "Working as Intended" !

 

[Steel_atlas]

An unstable border area undergoes decades of endless bloody warfare and ends up with a tangled web of castles and fortifications.

In my mind this is the absolute definition of "Working as Intended" !

Nomads being able to turn the Middle East into an unpopulated desert steppe does?

I think tribals should be able to destroy castles at least.

Having cities and bishoprics are at least helpful.

 

[Rags17]

Nomads being able to turn the Middle East into an unpopulated desert steppe does?

I think tribals should be able to destroy castles at least.

Having cities and bishoprics are at least helpful.

If I was a tribal ruler and I managed to drive out my enemy and take over his fortifications then I would thanks the Gods for the gift. After all, the only reason we built all our previous forts in timber was because we didn't have the requisite skill in stone working, if a stone fortification was handed to me on a platter I'd be over the moon !

Actually though I do agree that Tribals should be able to burn holdings to the ground, just like Nomads. I actually created a new government type called "Hunter Gatherer" that is a variation of Tribal but with even weaker armies, the bonus is that the can move their capital every six months and raise a 300 man army for just 50 Prestige (ie less than a single feast !). They can also burn any tribal holding (even their own) to gain 50 Prestige, I like to raise the local levies then burn the village to the ground before going to war, afterwards I pay Prestige to rebuild the village again - seems very fitting.

Destroying a mostly wooden village is easy, but tearing down stone structures is hard (which Is why we still have so many ancient stone ruins but zero wooden ones). That being said, apparently the biggest damage to Rome's buildings was not caused by the Visigoths or the Vandals but by the locals who ground up all the marble facades to produce lime for cement in the Middle Ages. Perhaps a solution would be to give a Tribal character the option to tear a Castle down in return for a Fort and some gold (to rebuild those village walls in stone).

This should be really easy to mod.

 

[Sergeant Flutter]

Related:

I find that it's frustrating that an area that had flipped owners 20 times in the past century and had been sieged down dozens of times, simply gets a "Looted" or "New Administration" modifier for under 5 years.

Maybe after being flipped between sides for like 50 years, a provinces should get an "Unstable" modifier that lasts like, 50 years.

 

[yezhanquan]

Nomads being able to turn the Middle East into an unpopulated desert steppe does?

Well, not exactly "unpopulated", but there is a reason why Baghdad took until the 1960s to get back to the population level it had just before the Mongolian sack.

 

[kmh42]

I would like to add this to the list, but I want a good Fix suggestion and I am honest, I don't like the ones posted here. Dose someone have a better solution?

 

[Yeekim]

Destroying a mostly wooden village is easy, but tearing down stone structures is hard (which Is why we still have so many ancient stone ruins but zero wooden ones). .

Eo tempore Semigalli, pagani vicini, audita lapidum constructione, ignorantes eos cemento mediante firmari, cum magnis funibus navium venientes, putabant se stulta sua opinione castrum in Dunam trahere, sed a balistariis vulnerati dampna reportantes abierunt.

 

[Lopatou_ovalil]

maybe allow trbals to hold castles with same culture without penalisation ? as feudal you can own tribal with same culture

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

maybe allow trbals to hold castles with same culture without penalisation ? as feudal you can own tribal with same culture

This is the best solution. Or at least, there needs to be a way for tribals to hold castles, gaining a benefit from the better fortifications, but remaining tribal and not instantly switching to feudal (and tanking relations with their lord).

Perhaps castles could be automatically transformed into very highly developed tribal holdings, with a special building called "full castle" which adds appropriate fort levels?

 

[Secret Master]

I can't believe that all these years after release, this still isn't a thing.

With some limits, I agree.

An unstable border area undergoes decades of endless bloody warfare and ends up with a tangled web of castles and fortifications.

In my mind this is the absolute definition of "Working as Intended" !

This is true. Although I will say that in the real world, areas were not as ironclad in their status as they are in CK2. Frontier regions in the war against religious enemies would not remain super fortified if the wars moved elsewhere. Castles were destroyed in wars all the time. And while castle holdings are not just castles, there is some inflexibility to the current system, which encourages players to grab capitals that have empty slots or the best holding composition already in place, even if another 7 holding county is available.