Crusader Kings II: The Republic - "Post Mortem" Thoughts

[Thure]

Why 876 CE? Viking expansion started in the 840's when the "Great Heathen Army" landed in Britain and Alfred defeated them in the year of 878 CE.

Many reasons:
No Carolingian Blob
The first prelude of the Great Schism
Civil war in the Abbasid Empire
The great heathen army
Rurik conquered Rus

For exemple. It's a great year.

 

[unmerged(370476)]

Another feature we agonized over was naval combat. This is a huge deal, and we've basically argued the matter to death. There were some significant naval battles in the rough period, but the only engagements of strategic importance during the entire era seems to have been the Battle of Meloria between Genoa and Pisa and the Battle of Sluys. On the other hand, many efforts to intercept raids and invasions failed miserably. Thus, naval combat in CKII, if ever added, would not be an all or nothing affair, but more akin to skirmishes with very limited casualties. It would still require a great deal of work to implement. End verdict: not worth it.

While I agree that adding Naval Combat to CK II would not be worth it (In part due to the nightmare of balancing historically strong Naval Regions that are represented by single provinces, and that Naval Battles should be rare but decisive), I would dispute that there were only two Naval engagements of Strategic Importance.

When you mention the Battle of Meloria (likely referring to the larger engagement in 1284), there also was an earlier battle of Meloria in 1241 that was fought between the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II (With the aid of Pisa) against a Genoese fleet carrying church officials. The Genoese fleet lost 25 Galleys (3 Sunk, 22 Captured) and the Emperor no longer needed to worry much about Naval harassment during his War in Lombardy.

To use a few geographically Scottish examples, of which I am more familiar with:

1046, Battle of the Pentland Firth: Between Thorfinn and his nephew Rognvald, Earl of Orkney. Rognvald had at his disposal 30 ships, while Thorfinn had 60 (though Thorfinn's ships were considerably smaller). Also present was Kalf Arnason, who initially stayed neutral with his 6 larger ships, before joining with Thorfinn. From the Orkneyinga Saga:

Each of the Earls encouraged his men as the fighting grew fierce, but soon Thorfinn began to suffer heavy losses, mostly because the ships in the two fleets differed so much in size. He himself had a big ship. well fitted-out, and he used it vigorously in attack, but once his smaller ships had been put out of action, his own was flanked by the enemy and his crew placed in a dangerous situation, many of them being killed and others badly wounded...

Kalf attacked the smaller ships of Rognvald's fleet and it did not take him long to clear their decks, since his own stood so much higher. When the troops levied in Norway saw the ships next to them being put out of action, they loosed their ships from the ropes that had been holding them together and took to flight, leaving only a few in support of Rognvald's ship. That was the turning point of the battle.

1136, Battle of Tankerness (near Orkney): Rognvald (different from the one above) was granted Orkney by King Harald of Norway. The only problem is that the position of Earl was already filled by Paul. Olvir, one of Rognvald's allies, managed to gather a little more than a dozen ships from the Hebrides. Paul brought out his own ships to meet them (Once more from the Saga):

...twelve longships came sailing towards them east from Mull Head, so the earl and his men roped their ships together. Then the farmer Erling of Tankerness and his sons came to Earl Paul and offered to help, but the ships were so crowded, they thought they couldn't pack any more aboard. So the Earl asked Erling and his men to spend the time, while there was no risk, in collecting rocks for them. Just as everything was ready, Olvir's fleet came up and attacked them with a larger number of ships, though they were smaller ones. But Olvir himself commanded a large ship, which he sailed right up to the Earl's, and a fierce battle began. Olaf Hrolfsson moved his ship towards the smaller craft of Olvir, and his stood so much higher that it took little time to clear three ships. Olvir laid so hard against the Earl's ship that the men in the bows were forced back behind the mast and, urging his men to board the ship, he was the first man himself to do so.

[At this juncture, Olvir is knocked into the water] Then some of Olvir's men ran to cut the grappling ropes and get away, and every single one of them was driven off the Earl's ship. They started rowing away and, though Olvir came to and ordered them not to run, nobody took any notice of what he was saying. The Earl chased after them east of Mainland, then all the way beyond Ronaldsay into the Pentland Firth, but when the gap between them began to widen the Earl turned back. Five of Olvir's ships were left deserted at the place of battle and these the Earl took, putting his own crews aboard ...

1156, Battle of Epiphany: Somerled of Argyll defeated Godfrey of Man in a close battle, resulting in Godred ceding half of his Kingdom to Somerled. I'll quote the entry in the Chronicle of Man in full:

Hearing this, Godfrey was dismayed in his mind ; and immediately ordered his supporters to prepare ships, and go against them speedily. And Somerled with his followers collected a fleet of eighty ships, and hastened against Godfrey...

In the year 1156, a naval battle was fought between Godfrey and Somerled on the night of the Lord's Epiphany; and great slaughter took place, of men on either side. And when day dawned they made peace; and they divided the kingdom of
the islands between them, and the kingdom became bipartite from that day to the present time. And this was the cause of the downfall of the kingdom of the islands, from the time when the sons of Somerled took possession of it.

Certainly decisive, and one of many arguments for dividing Innse Gall into a minimum of two provinces (Inner and Outer Hebrides), but I digress . . .

1158, Battle of Man (think of it as the Battle of Epiphany part II), once more from the Chronicle of Man:

In the year 1158, Somerled came to Man with fifty-three ships, and fought a battle with Godfrey, and routed him; and wasted the whole island, and went away. And Godfrey sailed over to Norway, to seek help against Somerled.

c. 1480 Battle of Bloody Bay: Angus Og challenged his father John for the Lordship of the Isles. Angus Og emerged victorious, and John was exiled, dying as a pensioner of the Scottish King in 1503. Unfortunately we have no contemporary account of how many ships were involved, but we do know that nearly seventy years later in 1545 his son Donald Dubh was able to raise 180 Galleys from the Hebrides (and this was after having been imprisoned for some 37 years).

The battles listed above are merely the significant ones, smaller engagements in the Hebrides often went unrecorded. Nonetheless we have examples of smaller conflicts such as the battle off the Isle of Bute recorded in Grettis Saga, and my personal favourite (albeit by Orcadians in the Mediterranean) when Earl Rognvald Kali Kolsson of Orkney decides for the heck of it to attack an Islamic Dromond while he's off voyaging on his crusade (The best translation is found in Somerville & McDonald's The Viking Age: A Reader, pages 217-221. Also take a gander at Clancy's The Triumph Tree, pages 197-198.) From the sources we also get a tremendous idea of how useful having such fleets at your disposal were (Helped keep the Hebrideans fairly immune from the King of Scots until the advent of Gunpowder), how such a fleet could be used to inspire and incite (See A Meeting of a Fleet Against the Castle of Suibhne, [Dal Chablaigh ar Chaisteal Suibhne] c. 1310), and of course raiding (Such as Donald Balloch's raid on the Islands of the Clyde in 1452 with a force of 5000-6000 men in 100 Galleys).

I'll finish my rant with another quote from the Orkneyinga Saga:

In those days King Rognvald was the greatest warrior in the British Isles. For three years he had lived aboard his warships without once coming under a sooty roof.

This was a man who was so secure in his Kingdom that he could go raiding for three years straight, none of which would have been possible without his ships.

What I'm saying, in a roundabout way is that Naval Power was important, using only a single small area as an example. While I agree that the way the game is set up makes it difficult to portray this accurately, I'm hopeful that the upcoming Old Gods DLC will add some Naval events to help flesh out this important aspect. Lux Invicta had an event chain where your ruler could go off raiding with the inherent risks and rewards that it entails, and I'd love to see a more formalised system make an appearance in a future DLC. The main problem with event based representation is that it is prone to abuse by the player, but in the end I'd love to have more effort expand the role that Navies play in the game, even if it's more of an indirect manner.

(Also I posted the above with only having about half an hour's sleep last night, so I apologize if it's overly ranty/jumping around too much)

For anyone that may actually be interested in Hebridean Naval Warfare, and the literature that accompanies it, here are a handful of books to get you started:

Clancy, Thomas Owen. The Triumph Tree: Scotland's Earliest Poetry AD 550 - 1350. Edinburgh: Canongate, 1998.
Duffy, Sean, ed. The World of the Gallowglass: Kings, Warlords and Warriors in Ireland and Scotland, 1200-1600. Dublin: Four Courts, 2007.
MacAulay, John. Birlinn: Longships of the Hebrides. Knapwell: White Horse, 1996.
McLeod, Wilson and Meg Bateman. Duanaire na Scracaire - Songbook of the Pillagers: Anthology of Scotland's Gaelic Verse to 1600. Edinburgh: Birlinn, 2007.
Rixson, Denis. The West Highland Galley. Edinburgh: Birlinn, 1998.
Somerville, Angus A. and R. Andrew McDonald ed. The Viking Age: A Reader. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2010.
Young, G.V.C. The Hebridean Birlinn, Nyvaig and Lymphad. Peel: Mansk Svenska, 1997.

 

[fiallach]

Are we betting on the next DLC or has it been revealed?

As much as i expect a pagan DLC ( they have to throw a fan favorite during the con, it's natural), and would appreciate it, probably, i'm still hoping more for an improved church DLC. Feels more connected to the core of the game, and is really needed.

Anyways, about the republic. I found playing the patricians boring as hell, since i basically owned half the money on earth after 10 years, thus had no threat on my successions, and didn't need my vassals at all for anything, which removed the funniest and most challenging part of the game,personnal diplomacy. I found that it added a great diplomatic dimension to feudal realms,with vassals family switching, and that is good.

Can't wait for the next DLC

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

Are we betting on the next DLC or has it been revealed?

As much as i expect a pagan DLC ( they have to throw a fan favorite during the con, it's natural), and would appreciate it, probably, i'm still hoping more for an improved church DLC. Feels more connected to the core of the game, and is really needed.

Anyways, about the republic. I found playing the patricians boring as hell, since i basically owned half the money on earth after 10 years, thus had no threat on my successions, and didn't need my vassals at all for anything, which removed the funniest and most challenging part of the game,personnal diplomacy. I found that it added a great diplomatic dimension to feudal realms,with vassals family switching, and that is good.

Can't wait for the next DLC

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?662782-Crusader-Kings-2-The-Old-Gods-DLC-(Pagans) (look at the provided source at the bottom)

 

[Assalander]

I can live without naval battles or even interception (a stronger fleet protecting your shores to prevent a naval invasion), but ships should be fewer in numbers and some attrition should occur at sea, so that massive long distance naval invasions would be rare and mercenary fleets would be useful for crusades and such.

 

[Orctavius]

I can live without naval battles or even interception (a stronger fleet protecting your shores to prevent a naval invasion), but ships should be fewer in numbers and some attrition should occur at sea, so that massive long distance naval invasions would be rare and mercenary fleets would be useful for crusades and such.

I'm also against naval combat. I'm just used to the game without, even if it's unrealistic. That said, attrition at sea is a great idea. The attrition caps could be higher in sea zone adjacent to your holdings, lower is zones adjacent to neutrals, and punishing in zones adjacent to your enemies.

 

[Heatth]

There used to be sea attrition in the game, at release, I believe. But I guess it worked so poorly they removed it.

 

[fiallach]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?662782-Crusader-Kings-2-The-Old-Gods-DLC-(Pagans) (look at the provided source at the bottom)

Thank you kind sir.

Well, more different gameplays always get my approval, especially vikings which are an important mechanic, and one of the forces that made Europe what it is, even if i think ( no expert) CK2 might be out of the timeframe when they would have been a critical need, but still, very interesting.

I'll wait for my elected popes.

 

[Evilfisher]

what about sengoku? that game havent been updated for over a year

 

[Hallsten]

I like the Republic, but playing as a patrician can be boring and you're easily overpowered. I soon find myself painting the map with my own trade posts and about 100 years into the game I have a monthly income of about 100 spacebucks and I can easily bring down the HRE singlehandedly with my mercenaries. I realize that trade made some people in the CK2 time frame very rich, but this is a little ridiculous.

I would suggest:

• Limiting the number of trade posts you can have or maybe make the cost of new posts depend on the number or state of upgradedness (not a word, I know) of existing ones.
• Make trade posts differ in income so that a post in Constantinople is worth more than one on the west coast of Ireland (quality over quantity essentially).
• Make the other families more likely to gang up on powerful ones and cut them down to size.

I can't bring other suggestions to mind at the time.

In all, the Republic is an excellent addition to CK2, but it needs a little help. Also, for some reason, the AI families don't seem to upgrade their personal holdings.

 

[Prince Michael]

I have had the most rewarding republic gameplay when I created lots of republics, which makes trade post spamming so much harder. My post in another thread:

Tip: Create a bunch of merchant republics around the map, some independent, some vassalised and start as one. You can be in a really tight spot, facing enemies everywhere, constantly back against the wall.

In my third game as republic, this has been the most pleasant and difficult one. I created firstly the republics of Gotland (under Sweden), Prussia (under Poland), Flanders (France), Gwynedd (England), the Isles (Scotland), Galicia (Castile), Tangiers (Almohads), Salerno (Sicily), Dalmatia (Croatia) and Abkhazia (Georgia) and finally me, Pomeranian republic of Mecklenburg under Denmark. Meath and Ancona popped up in the game, in addition to the powerful, canon ones.

Firstly, my stupid Doge liege joined the independence faction and won, which may sound nice but was a stupid move. Unlike others, our republic has no protection from the greedy big feudal kingdoms, puppeteered by their own vassal republics by embargoing us. No allies anywhere (because no one important wants to marry my daughters). Constant fights against big kingdoms embargoing us, claiming our counties etc. No problems where to stuff all that money - because it is really short. You have to really ponder whether to build a trade post in Trondelag, which may be raised by Norway the next year, or hire hire the mercs against Poland embargoing me, the cause which may be lost anyway, or save the money for 600 g bride price for the 11th and only unmarried daughter of the Kaiser, for the protection but who is not necessarily going to answer your calls to arms, or to invest in some upgrades, or to invest in the election campaign in an attempt to prevent the rival family AI doge screwing things up major time. Your neighbours are super stable because of the elective goverments, so no easy pickings. Fighting the demesne limit, because you can't upgrade yourself to Serene Doge (Pomerania formable only by pagans). Hard. As. Hell. Fun. As. Hell.

Purely recommended.

 

[unmerged(672208)]

best expansion i bought for ck2.

 

[Duke Leto]

I haven't bought the Republic owing to budget constraints, just watched the little tykes go merrily curb stomping all over the Mediterranean Muslims in my 1.9 game. I've played a fair amount of Patrician II/III in my time though, and in case Doomdark is listening, here are my suggestions for balancing Republics and Muslims to be a little less absurd:

1) Multiple Trade Posts per County: There's really no logical reason that having a trade post in a county (and a nearby city) should give you a monopoly on trade in that county. This kind of destroys the idea of trade posts entirely, of course. If more then one family has trading interests in a region then that keeps competition going better. The amount of trade that each post actually brings its owner would then be dependent on a number of factors: the relative trade technology of the trade post owner, the relations, cultural and religious differences of the of the trade post owner and his parent states to the holding owners of the county and their masters, in addition to Stewardship. Perhaps sending a family member to the post to oversee the trade business would work well. In general, the problem is that we're conflating the Genoese colonies of various sizes with the trade business, and I don't think this was historically accurate. Looking carefully, it appears that I'm suggesting that each county have a EU style COT. Alternatively, operating under the node system may also be wise.

2) There isn't a lot of reason then why trade posts should be upgradeable in terms of economic construction. Military construction is another matter entirely. Fortification makes sense in principle, but the garrison size just ought to be dependent on how much the owner is willing to pay for it.

3) Trading permissions and taxes. Realms made money from tariffs and they also had a habit of rewarding merchants loyal to them. Right now trade posts are being built without the permission of the locals and that's a bit unrealistic. First off, the local king or whoever might forbid the foreign merchants from trading at all and let locals carry the trade into port. They might impose tariffs or tolls on trade. Revocation of the right to regulate local trade from the barons and so on up was a big part of what made higher crown authority odious to the barons and profitable to the monarch. Some mechanic that allows trade dipping by the local owner in either a node based or COT based system would be a good game mechanic.

4) Give every city 5 families. Local merchants existed in all the localities in the game and none of them would have liked the Italians horning in on their action, nor would they have liked them ruling their own cities for them. Even if the local government it under a mayor there are still local merchants striving for trade dominance. Thus there will be pressure for cities to have a higher degree of autonomy within a Republic-Empire and conquered cities (even, indeed ESPECIALLY, Italian ones) will have internal forces working to regain their independence, even if that means submitting to vassalization to the church or the HRE. (Guelphs and Ghibellines)

I have much less of an idea as to how to strengthen the muslim world against outside aggression because I haven't looked at the decadence mechanic and I don't know as much about the regions cultural history.

I will note that I found myself trying to Holy War some Russian Tengrist Princess in a Golden Khanate Succession war, and that does make absolutely zero sense.

 

[Duke Leto]

Toss out another thought:

Looking at the maps of what areas the Merchant Republics did conquer and hold, it looks as though naval power and not money are what made the long run difference, not money from trade to buy mercenaries. The places the Genovese and Venetians conquered were either islands: Corsica, Sardinia, Cyprus and so on. or the Crimea, which is of course a peninsula connected by a very narrow isthmus. There don't seem to have been all that many cases where they took control of a coastal region and kept it long term where that region wasn't highly friendly to sea power.