House Rules & Strategies for Normandy

[unmerged(2609)]

William has a funny start:

1. Is at war with England in 1066.

2. Gets 140 maintenance-free ships.

3. Has about 10k free troops that do not reinforce.

4. If things go okay, he'll get England, but has a good shot at a claim on France.

So:

I have noticed that if I invade England and take every English province, these provinces can be given to Norman counts, which presumably allows for some cultural bonuses eventually. The down-side is that none of these provinces will produce a useful levy, for many years.

This can be offset by keeping the starting troops around forever, which feels like cheese.

If the start troops are not kept, England is absurdly vulnerable to attack by France.

Presumably a more natural way to play is to try to allow a few trimmed down Saxon dukes, which at least theoretically can produce troops.

The 140 ships are also rather useful, but free stuff is probably also cheese.

So:

1. Should the player disband the start troops after conquest?

2. Should the player disband the ships after conquest?

3. Is getting a claim on France and pursuing that overpowered?

If the answer is "yes", in all three cases, is allowing the Saxon dukes to survive pretty much the only way to go?

I'm just trying to find a survivable way to play such that people won't go, "Oh, that's cheese" if I tell them what I did.

Are people even supposed to play Normandy/England in the conquest start? I've never even seen a good AAR.

 

[justin6477]

The best reason to play William during the conquest is to replace every last count in England with a Norman. No chance of them rebelling that way.

Taking France is overpowered, according to most anyways. A strategy of choice seems to be creating a faction for William to take the crown of France before becoming King of England (just delay your conquest with 100% warscore). Or so I've been reading.

Personally, I'd rather give up Normandy. Let the Capets have their land, I'd rather grab Ireland and Scotland anyways.

 

[Isaios]

I've been house-ruling that Maine is to be given up, Vexin is to be nabbed, all provinces are to be taken prior to peace, troops and free ships to be disbanded post conquest.

Then I've consistently been landing only kinsmen and the matrilinear husbands of kinswomen. Adds a bit of spice, yes?

The only other mucking about I'll accept in France is nabbing Brittany and/Flandern. All other about-mucking is to be avoided (untill less cheese, of course). I DO tend to help out and initiate plans to decapetate the kingdom, just to get rid of the Claims the King sudenly has on Normandy.

 

[Bob_the_Insane]

I am still working on my house rules...

Last time I started I captured all England provinces, kept the troops and the ships. Then I settled down to hold on to it for the next 20 years or so...

I think keeping the fleet is definitely cheesy as having 140 free ships that you will never lose is overpowering. Getting involved in the Crusades is simple...

Previously I liked to keep the troops because without them I could not keep up with the revolting factions (particularly when they where getting like 10,000 extra troops in the revolt events). This time around with doing a better job of handing out lands it was not a problem. I don't feel too cheesy keeping the troops as they eventual die off as you use them and it gives you a chance to respond to France if they want Normandy back. But with the other 1.08 changes I might try disabling them all after the conquest next time and see what happens...

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Personally, I'd rather give up Normandy. Let the Capets have their land, I'd rather grab Ireland and Scotland anyways.

No!

'Did all those men die in vain on the field of Agincourt? Was the man who burnt Joan of Arc simply wasting good matches?'

 

[Hootieleece]

Those maitenance free ships.Screw up the AI.In my Saxon Game. I was wondering why, the Dukes of Normandy have kept them raised.Even though William the Bastard lost the Invasion 65 years before.

I think all these "FREE" troops are screwing up the game balance.

 

[Alexander Seil]

The best reason to play William during the conquest is to replace every last count in England with a Norman. No chance of them rebelling that way.

Stinking lies. The Norman vassals are even worse than the Saxons, because there will be more of them, they're all related and William has a lot of sons for them to back as pretenders. Nothing but grief.

I think total occupation is also unworkable because you'll need all the troops you can get when the French King comes to reclaim Normandy. A good way to ensure England supplies some troops is to revoke the titles of the last King (of course, avoid occupying all of his domains in the invasion!). Worth the tyranny.

The best reason to play William during the conquest is to replace every last count in England with a Norman. No chance of them rebelling that way.

Taking France is overpowered, according to most anyways. A strategy of choice seems to be creating a faction for William to take the crown of France before becoming King of England (just delay your conquest with 100% warscore). Or so I've been reading.

Personally, I'd rather give up Normandy. Let the Capets have their land, I'd rather grab Ireland and Scotland anyways.

Ehh, Ireland/Wales/Scotland/England are dirt poor. France is rich. It's also your biggest and most dangerous neighbor. Ergo, crushing France should be your first priority.

In my current England game I'm not even looking at what's happening in the rest of the British islands (though this is helped by Scotland's virtual collapse). I'm too busy waging near constant wars with Norman pretenders and the French (sometimes simultaneously). France actually collapsed into partly independent duchies and partly a huge stripy blob of CIVIL WAR for Capetian restoration, so there are plenty of opportunities to intervene.

 

[guillec87]

No!

'Did all those men die in vain on the field of Agincourt? Was the man who burnt Joan of Arc simply wasting good matches?'

agreed, Normandy is the seed of the Plantagenet Empire, and it should be kept united at all cost!

 

[Alexander Seil]

Also, at start, Normandy is your main source of levies and income...giving it up to the French is extremely dangerous, unless you're 50 holdings above your demesne limit in England...otherwise any old count can overpower you there and put any of a range of imbeciles (having a rich choice of Knytlings, de Normandies and Godwins to pick from) on the throne.

 

[Bob_the_Insane]

Those maitenance free ships.Screw up the AI.In my Saxon Game. I was wondering why, the Dukes of Normandy have kept them raised.Even though William the Bastard lost the Invasion 65 years before.

I think all these "FREE" troops are screwing up the game balance.

Would it be a better historical fit it started with Harold excommunicated (in game) and William running a Holy War against him with with his ally's armies already in place and attached to William's army?

Not sure what you could do with the ships however (do allied fleets attach in the same way???)...

Thus when you finished the war the allied troops (and ships maybe?) would go home whether William is the player or the AI...

I am getting a little off topic for a houses rules discussion however...

 

[Grubnessul]

Is it a weird glitch in my game, or is the Norman fleet supposed to be called "---"?

 

[etherrose]

Is it a weird glitch in my game, or is the Norman fleet supposed to be called "---"?

That's what it's called in my game too. I guess because it doesn't know what to name ships that weren't raised from a holding or mercenaries?

 

[justin6477]

Stinking lies. The Norman vassals are even worse than the Saxons, because there will be more of them, they're all related and William has a lot of sons for them to back as pretenders. Nothing but grief.

Who said anything about landing sons? I like to play it dangerous and have nothing but a lone castle to my name. I also place Prince Arch Bishops in all 2 county duchies. Makes vassal management easier and gives me some permanent allies.

eh, Ireland/Wales/Scotland/England are dirt poor. France is rich. It's also your biggest and most dangerous neighbor. Ergo, crushing France should be your first priority.

I prefer to take on France once my Normans start to become English and I've conquered all the British Isles (+ the duchy of Orkney). Like I said, playing it dangerous.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Who said anything about landing sons? I like to play it dangerous and have nothing but a lone castle to my name. I also place Prince Arch Bishops in all 2 county duchies. Makes vassal management easier and gives me some permanent allies.

Not landing them doesn't mean some enterprising Norman won't nominate them. And bishops can revolt too (I don't know if they can start factions though, but I don't see why not?). There are also ways to piss them off not available for feudal vassals - suddenly ignoring calls for crusades and being an all-around ass is something frowned upon because the Church thinks it's only cool to roast peasants alive when they disagree with the exact phrasing of the Nicene creed.

I prefer to take on France once my Normans start to become English and I've conquered all the British Isles (+ the duchy of Orkney). Like I said, playing it dangerous.

I'm surprised King of France gives you the option. I got fed up fighting him off on the second attempt, so I'm taking offensive into his territory.

 

[Therion]

The Norman wiki guide says:

All other counties you will want to give away to Norman nobles. However, you want all of your dukes to be your kinsmen - so bear that in mind as you give counties away. Within your own court you have a couple of kinsmen but if you go to the character list and look at the men in your own realm you will see that you have a few kinsmen in the county of Eu as well. Give titles to those kinsmen who are not already titled or heirs to another title (and remember that as you give counties away you may also create a new heir here and there!).

Is there any real benefit to landing just your kinsmen?

 

[Isaios]

Is there any real benefit to landing just your kinsmen?

Several:

They increase Dynastic Prestige.
They get a Dynastic Relationship bonus.
It's far easier to find brides/grooms. Couple it with Elective to really have an easy time picking heirs.

 

[Alexander Seil]

The Norman wiki guide says:



Is there any real benefit to landing just your kinsmen?

Don't. I made the mistake. Land de Contevilles and get some Frankish/Norman landless nobles to pick up the rest and be eternally grateful to you. Instead of resenting you for keeping Normandy (that will happen with the de Normandie vassals your start out with...giving them land in England lets them attack you on two fronts).

Several:

They increase Dynastic Prestige.
They get a Dynastic Relationship bonus.
It's far easier to find brides/grooms. Couple it with Elective to really have an easy time picking heirs.

The prestige they give you is scraps compared to what William alone can make during his reign. And isn't the dynastic relationship bonus like +5?

Trading these kinds of "bonuses" for constant scheming, plotting and tantrums (as well as, apparently, pretty horrid genes...) isn't appealing.

 

[Isaios]

The question was for benefit. Those are benefits. Wether they outweigh potential negatives is an entirely separate thing. I certainly think it does. It's just a question of planning and attention. Not all that difficult.

 

[Avernite]

The elective bonus is by far the largest. Nothing says 'my succesion is secure' than elective monarchy with no risk of a misinheritance. You just pick the best duke/son and see how far you get.

 

[Therion]

Interesting. I never considered elective. But how do you make sure other vassals nominate your choice?