Pagan Homeland Attrition

[SBolshevik]

Shouldn't it be tied to the Tribal government type rather than any religion? I mean, the original reasoning was that there isn't really any infrastructure to support large armies in pagan lands (except those that know their way around the land), but that reasoning was made in 1.10, at a time when there was no such thing as the Tribal government type. Now it's just outright nonsensical that in a land depicted to have cities and castles you supposedly don't have any sort of infrastructure, with the reasoning being "the population are pagans".

 

[Fitzjacob]

I agree entirely. They made it a non iron man game option though, but it's still only pagan tribals. It should be tied to provinces. Empty provinces (nomad) or those containing only a tribal holding should give attrition to everyone unless one of the following are true:

1. They are the province's owner.
2. They have the same culture as the province.
3. They have tribal or nomad government.
4. They have high military organization.

There is no reason for Anglo-Saxons to have attrition in Viking controlled Jorvik!

 

[PAnZuRiEL]

It's currently limited to unreformed pagans, and applies only in provinces they own that have their own religion. Tribal pagans have to reform (or convert) before they can adopt a non-tribal government, so for those who begin the game as tribes, there will never be a situation in which they become feudal but still have pagan homeland attrition. For the few unreformed pagans who begin as feudal (eg hvitserk, haesteinning), they begin with a single province of their own religion, and will never be able to convert any other provinces as long as their religion remains unreformed.

So yes, Jorvik having pagan homeland attrition might be painful, but it's not like it will ever apply to the rest of England, so I really don't think it's a big deal.

What might be a big deal is non-pagan tribals or nomads being able to benefit from homeland attrition.

 

[Narvait]

I thought only defensive pagans had homeland attrition. Have they changes that?

 

[Tatterhood]

I thought only defensive pagans had homeland attrition. Have they changes that?

All pagans have the attrition. Defensive pagans also get a defence bonus.

 

[Narvait]

All pagans have the attrition. Defensive pagans also get a defence bonus.

Wiki says:
Non-pagans have a massively reduced (95% smaller than base) supply limit in pagan non-Germanic/Tengri/Aztec territory, essentially guaranteeing attrition

 

[SBolshevik]

It's currently limited to unreformed pagans, and applies only in provinces they own that have their own religion. Tribal pagans have to reform (or convert) before they can adopt a non-tribal government, so for those who begin the game as tribes, there will never be a situation in which they become feudal but still have pagan homeland attrition. For the few unreformed pagans who begin as feudal (eg hvitserk, haesteinning), they begin with a single province of their own religion, and will never be able to convert any other provinces as long as their religion remains unreformed.

I still think it's rather illogical to tie it to religion:


Basileus: Time to retake Constantinople from the heathen Norsemen! The Queen of Cities will be ours once more!
Strategos: Sire, the population of the city believes in Odin! This means that we cannot use the road network or any supplies in any way.
Basileus: But the city of Constantinople is the most prosperous place in the world! Surely we will be able to sustain a large army, if nothing else by taking supplies from local villages, won't we?
Strategos: No, sire, those who believe in Odin have no knowledge of infrastructure. They don't even know how to use the infrastructure we built!
Basileus: The Danes also believe in Odin and they use roads just like we do. How do these brutes not know how to do so as well?
Strategos: Ah, the ones who have taken Constantinople do not accept the Fylkir as their religious head, whereas the Danes do!

 

[balmung60]

Wiki says:
Non-pagans have a massively reduced (95% smaller than base) supply limit in pagan non-Germanic/Tengri/Aztec territory, essentially guaranteeing attrition

If it says that, it's wrong. Germanic, Slavic, Romuva, and Suomenusko all definitely have super attrition for enemies of other faiths without level 4 military organization. I'm unsure about West African and Zunism, but Tengrism and Aztec Paganism definitely do not have the attrition.

 

[Narvait]

Yeah, on attrition page it says, non Tengri, non Aztecs. Was there a time when it was changed for Germanic?

 

[Narvait]

Shouldn't it be tied to the Tribal government type rather than any religion? I mean, the original reasoning was that there isn't really any infrastructure to support large armies in pagan lands (except those that know their way around the land), but that reasoning was made in 1.10, at a time when there was no such thing as the Tribal government type. Now it's just outright nonsensical that in a land depicted to have cities and castles you supposedly don't have any sort of infrastructure, with the reasoning being "the population are pagans".

On topic though. I agree - should be tribal govt.

On topic again, in 'normal' game there would be no such thing as unreformed pagan holding unreformed pagan feudal lands. Unreformed Norse Constantinople - what is the probability AI makes one? They would need to spread unreformed Norse to organized religion.

Real question is - what if I, leader of tribe Savages, become Christian? Would my lands magically become open to any intruder at the moment I say my first 'amen'?

Then comes another question. Should tribals suffer penalty vs other tribals?

 

[Silversweeeper]

I agree entirely. They made it a non iron man game option though, but it's still only pagan tribals. It should be tied to provinces. Empty provinces (nomad) or those containing only a tribal holding should give attrition to everyone unless one of the following are true:

1. They are the province's owner.
2. They have the same culture as the province.
3. They have tribal or nomad government.
4. They have high military organization.

There is no reason for Anglo-Saxons to have attrition in Viking controlled Jorvik!

More or less this, but I'd add another condition or two to that:

5. They have the same religion/religion subgroup (Catholic vs. Lollard, Old Slavic vs. (Reformed) Slavic)/religion group (Catholic vs. Orthodox, (Reformed) Slavic vs. Romuva) as the province. I am not sure quite how strict this should be as the first option means that a heretic would be unassailable as long as they remain tribal (unless the other ruler converts, is tribal, or get high Mil Org) while the last one might be too forgiving in some cases (particularly for pagans as all pagans are in the same religion group).
6. They used to be tribal/nomadic in the past. People probably wouldn't forget about how to survive in tribal land overnight, so giving one final generation of attrition-free warfare would be a nice way to handle that.

Additionally, I believe that provinces with only temples/temples but no castles/cities probably should have defensive attrition as well to avoid e.g. Ireland and varous holy sites having considerably more supply than if there hadn't been a temple in the province.

 

[Narvait]

Nomads should have attrition in tribal lands. Not sure about tribals in nomad lands, most likely also attrition.