Pagan Tribalism is better than Main Faith Feudalism.

[Vampiresoap]

In theory, it seems that Feudal Monarchies in the game will inevitably far surpass the varies tribes in the game because they will have a lot better income, troop types and retinue size.

However, in reality, tribes are incredibly more powerful than feudals due to the fact that:

1. A tribal leader's retinues are prestige based.
2. Aggressive tribal play can get you 10 holdings before a feudal lord can get 1.

That's it, those are really the two reasons above all else to make tribals more superior in my opinion.

As the Emperor of Scandinavia, I was able to amass about 12k retinues. (100 LI + 50 HI variety). These troops don't cost anything other than prestige, which is abundant at all times. The Pope called down a crusade on Denmark, and it was pretty equal on both sides at the beginning. The war lasted about 7 years, and as time went on, I was able to slowly grind down the crusaders. Win by attrition as you would say. And that was possible only because my troops literally didn't cost anything, and they materialize out of thin air. On top of all that, as a well loved tribal leader, I was able to call on every single vassal and fought with absolutely 100% military power of the entire country, unlike feudal lords who can only summon a percentage of vassal levies.

 

[Secret Master]

Has anyone recently said that feudal is always superior than tribal? I'd be surprised if anyone advocated that position.

Pagan tribalism has a lot to recommend it. Prestige retinues. Prestige buildings. Lots of methods for generating prestige. The ability to tell your steward to move people of your culture into a county directly. Event troops from stewards and chaplains. The ability to burn feudal holdings to freaking ground, reverting the county to tribal and changing culture/religion.

Being a viking tribal is even more powerful: the free shipwrights at the start of the Viking Age is a license to steal.

But tribals suffer from disadvantages that in the long run make them weaker than well developed feudal realms. Note that I did not say all feudal realms. But well developed feudal realms have substantially more income, better levies, a lot more levies, nice buildings, holdings that are harder to siege down (if you play with assaults on level 6 forts turned off, beware feudals that have nice walls and fortifications), and better laws. A well run feudal empire with enough development should outstrip a similar sized tribal empire.

The question is how you get to the point where feudal realms can beat tribals on a per-holding basis. It also matters what part of the map we are talking about and what techs are in play. You could conquer Baghdad as a tribal, burn it to the ground and annex three kingdoms in the vicinity, turning it into a tribal part of your empire. But you have to ask yourself if that's what you really want, given the tech in the area and the existing holdings. On the other hand, Tibet in 769 is a prime location for a little bit of the ultra-violence. The techs aren't the best, half the land is tribal anyway, so burn it all down and move on with your life.

 

[junassa]

But tribals suffer from disadvantages that in the long run make them weaker than well developed feudal realms. Note that I did not say all feudal realms. But well developed feudal realms have substantially more income, better levies, a lot more levies, nice buildings, holdings that are harder to siege down (if you play with assaults on level 6 forts turned off, beware feudals that have nice walls and fortifications), and better laws. A well run feudal empire with enough development should outstrip a similar sized tribal empire.

When is this "long run" supposed to kick in (from any start any feudal realm), because I'm not seeing this. Modded or no why should I care about my tribal levies when I can just maul feudal armies just with my retinues? Plus with JD I'm not exactly hurting re: sieging counties. I win holy wars before anyone can summon up their defense to stop me. I get all the income I care about through raiding.

The question is how you get to the point where feudal realms can beat tribals on a per-holding basis. It also matters what part of the map we are talking about and what techs are in play. You could conquer Baghdad as a tribal, burn it to the ground and annex three kingdoms in the vicinity, turning it into a tribal part of your empire. But you have to ask yourself if that's what you really want, given the tech in the area and the existing holdings. On the other hand, Tibet in 769 is a prime location for a little bit of the ultra-violence. The techs aren't the best, half the land is tribal anyway, so burn it all down and move on with your life.

Maybe it's cheesing but I just give away feudal holdings and take the opinion hit from feudal vassals. That way I can use their ships to raid all day every day. There's no raised levy hit as long as you're raiding.

 

[yezhanquan]

Feudals are only more powerful with higher tech & better buildings constructed. Starting in 769 almost guarantees that your tribal realm will be more powerful than any feudal realm.

 

[junassa]

Feudals are only more powerful with higher tech & better buildings constructed. Starting in 769 almost guarantees that your tribal realm will be more powerful than any feudal realm.

What about 1066 then?

 

[jonjowett]

There are some other notable disadvantages of remaining tribal:

• No viceroys - If you keep expanding, you will eventually need to create vassal kings. Those kings will intermarry, amalgamate and create problems.

• No limit on vassal wars - You can't get imperialism, so you also can't use any of the crown laws that limit internal vassal warfare. (Or that penalise them for not accepting your demands.) Again, vassals will tend to intermarry and become more powerful.

• Lack of holding development options - You can "max out" tribal holdings relatively easily and at relatively low tech level; feudal holdings take a lot longer and are much better in the end. In particular, you will find it very difficult to get to the magic fort level 6 that prevents assaults.

Don't get me wrong - tribal is a viable playstyle, especially now that you can get Eldership or Open succession from pagan reformation. But I think it's only viable because human players are better than the AI.

 

[BuddyLove]

There's definitely a spot you get to where you need to switch to feudal.

Eventually, feudal will have enough money to have retinues too and theirs are all better and will crush your light troops.

(Eventually as feudal you hit a spot where it's best to switch to imperial as well, so you know- each has its own advantages).

Also- having only partial control over your vassal troops, and even built up tribal holdings being quickly seized down are serious disadvantages.

 

[Secret Master]

When is this "long run" supposed to kick in (from any start any feudal realm), because I'm not seeing this. Modded or no why should I care about my tribal levies when I can just maul feudal armies just with my retinues?

Retinues are not just a feature of tribes, though. Feudal realms can have retinues, too.

What you describe is the same thing I do with my feudal retinues. And Holy Orders. And mercenaries.

Maybe it's cheesing but I just give away feudal holdings and take the opinion hit from feudal vassals. That way I can use their ships to raid all day every day. There's no raised levy hit as long as you're raiding.

Keeping coastal holdings for their ships isn't cheese.

Cheesing tribes would be holding 100% of your tribal settlements yourself, even in a 300 holding empire.

However, good luck getting a ton of ships from coastal holding vassals in 769. Lots of coastline don't have shipyards developed that early (or even the tech in place).

It's also worth pointing out that this isn't a tribe-only behavior, either. Nomads do the same thing as they burn the world to the ground.

 

[majdavlk]

The feudal vs tribal competition depends on which dlcs you have active, and if were talking about players or AIs

In case of a player, its quite easy to get prestige retinues with any government

• No viceroys - If you keep expanding, you will eventually need to create vassal kings. Those kings will intermarry, amalgamate and create problems.

Don't get me wrong - tribal is a viable playstyle, especially now that you can get Eldership or Open succession from pagan reformation. But I think it's only viable because human players are better than the AI.

No... You can totally do without vassal kings if you are willing to cheese, the best cheese to my knowledge requires only 1 vassal king, the second best goes without kings with just 3 dukes. Also viceroyalties reduce your vassal limit, thus reducing your income and your infinitly reinforcing custom mercenary company

I think its also possible to have feudal elective with tribal government but i would need to test that one, i know for a sure youre able to have princly elective as tribal on HRE and maybe other titles under very special conditions

Eventually, feudal will have enough money to have retinues too and theirs are all better and will crush your light troops.

(Eventually as feudal you hit a spot where it's best to switch to imperial as well, so you know- each has its own advantages).

Depending on which dlcs, and if were talking about players, gold retinues are bad so those are not a big factor when calculating their pros/cons. Light units seem to be stronger for their cost compared to heavy units but i am not sure how much of an impact would attrition have.

I think that imperial government is worse than regular feudal for long term use due to it being restricted to hereditary succesion, and princely elective seems to add 10 more vassal limit then chinese imperialism.

 

[Bernard95]

Surprised no one has mentioned the terrible succession laws. Unless you convert to Islam, you happen to have access to Tanistry/Eldership, or you reform your religion, you're stuck with Gavelkind or Elective Gavelkind. You can of course get around either with things like bastard succession or abusing the ability to set concubines aside, but it is cheesy. That alone usually makes me want to feudalize as soon as possible. The other big caveat is that once you do decide to feudalize, it is painful as all hell since you have to sign away all of your rights to your Council. Not to mention until you have your Tribal Retinue of Doom, you have light infantry based armies which are worth half of a feudal levy and a quarter of a nomadic horde.

With me at least, I would rather be a Muslim (ideally Shia, Ibadi, or Sunni heretic so you have a CB on the world) with a raiding culture any day. Not that you really need the raiding culture if you happen to be on the Silk Road and you're ruling over infidels with your Jizya tax.

 

[Vampiresoap]

Some of you describe exactly what I mean by “in theory feudal lords are stronger in the long run”. But as I observed, in practice, tribes are far more powerful, regardless of start dates. Someone in this thread had the right idea: People keep saying there’s a point where Feudalism will overtake Tribalism and that’s when you need to switch. But when is it going to kick in? The answer is never. Feudals expand very, very slowly and take a MUCH longer time to build up as their buildings cost money instead of just dirt cheap prestige. It’s a fantasy that never comes true. I’m just here to point out that delusion.

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

Feudal not good enough eh?
How about Republic then? The sheer amount of money will let you raise huge mercenary armies and retinues.

Tribal is good to carve out wherever you want to settle down. After that you might as well settle.

Also tribal funnels you down into a specific play style, dependant on raiding. Yep, if you don't raid as tribal you achieve very little.

 

[Btdg]

I feel like 90% of this issue could be fixed with a nerf to light infantry retinues.

While I don’t think they’re as strong as some on here make out, and they have some disadvantages, they ultimately make tribal too easy.

Give them a nerf, or alternatively give heavy infantry a boost and then fix feudal retinue compositions (particularly knights - these should be the core of feudal armies in large realms) and the shift from tribal to feudal would be one much more dramatic. Tribal raiding etc would be strong early but become almost unviable by midgame - a much more ‘historic’ outcome

 

[SigurdStormhand]

Some of you describe exactly what I mean by “in theory feudal lords are stronger in the long run”. But as I observed, in practice, tribes are far more powerful, regardless of start dates. Someone in this thread had the right idea: People keep saying there’s a point where Feudalism will overtake Tribalism and that’s when you need to switch. But when is it going to kick in? The answer is never. Feudals expand very, very slowly and take a MUCH longer time to build up as their buildings cost money instead of just dirt cheap prestige. It’s a fantasy that never comes true. I’m just here to point out that delusion.

When do Feudals definitively outstrip Tribals?

When their castles hit fort level 6 and their levies start to include heavy cav, they they start filling their counties with three castles and three cities.

If you're playing in Scandinavia then nearby Feudals are going to have low tech levels, especially in the early start. Take that nice fancy tribal retinue on a jaunt to Constantinople and see what happens.

 

[jonjowett]

Some of you describe exactly what I mean by “in theory feudal lords are stronger in the long run”. But as I observed, in practice, tribes are far more powerful, regardless of start dates. Someone in this thread had the right idea: People keep saying there’s a point where Feudalism will overtake Tribalism and that’s when you need to switch. But when is it going to kick in? The answer is never. Feudals expand very, very slowly and take a MUCH longer time to build up as their buildings cost money instead of just dirt cheap prestige. It’s a fantasy that never comes true. I’m just here to point out that delusion.

It's quite tech-dependent, and the player can also have a large effect.

Ideally, we'd want to look at feudal AI vs tribal AI or feudal player vs tribal player - but this is very difficult for me to judge, because I am a single-player kind of guy and don't pay a lot of attention to distant (ie. unaffected) parts of the world while I'm playing. Maybe someone who does a lot of observation or multiplayer games could chime in.

However, my impression of my various tribal/feudal games is that tribal player might start having difficulty with feudal AI starting from a few centuries after their start date. Feudal player can roflstomp tribal AI after only a few decades - a century at most. (This is playing the game roughly as intended, without much cheese.) The fact that there's a notable difference here suggests to me that, for equally-matched opponents (PVP or AIvAI), there would come a point where feudal would outclass tribal.

---

To directly address the point about buildings - yes, tribal buildings are cheaper and easier than feudal; but they cap out really quickly and they are, in general, much worse than those available to a feudal lord. To use a bad car analogy, tribes can do 0-30 really fast but are computer-limited to a top speed of 60, whereas feudals are much slower to accelerate but can reach a top speed of approx 120. Which do you want in a race? Your answer depends on the length of the race.

 

[MK1980]

not a big fan of how tribals get such a large number of retinue points just for building the cheapest baseline building (earth hillfort) but then no further points from any of the other buildings. that seems like a weird way of basically handing them free troops.

anyway, it's mostly just LI. they are kinda good in the early game since their baseline power was buffed in a recent update and they can get some big bonuses from terrain. unlike all other troop types, they get no bonus from tech, though. at some point real soliders from actual kingdoms / empires simply outclass that peasant miltia rabble.

don't think it was really necessary to buff tribals to such an extent. doesn't really make that much sense for some illiterate backwater tribes to muster armies that can defeat organized realms.

 

[junassa]

When do Feudals definitively outstrip Tribals?

When their castles hit fort level 6 and their levies start to include heavy cav, they they start filling their counties with three castles and three cities.

If you're playing in Scandinavia then nearby Feudals are going to have low tech levels, especially in the early start. Take that nice fancy tribal retinue on a jaunt to Constantinople and see what happens.

Not quite Constantinople but still against the ERE:

Maybe African pagan is just OP.

 

[DukeLeto42]

don't think it was really necessary to buff tribals to such an extent. doesn't really make that much sense for some illiterate backwater tribes to muster armies that can defeat organized realms.

The Vandals, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Huns, Alans, Suevi, Franks, Saxons, and Lombards would like a word.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

Not quite Constantinople but still against the ERE:
View attachment 509911

Maybe African pagan is just OP.

There's clearly something wrong with that picture, isn't there?

Even accounting for bad tactics that Feudal levy should have pasted your stack.

 

[Vampiresoap]

Okay, just gonna point out two assumptions in here that are not true:

1. Tribes only use light infantry

No, you get massive amount of retinues after you get to a certain size, which is not hard to do. Some cultures like the Norse even let you do 100 light troops + 50 heavy troops per retinue.

2. Tribes lack in gold and tech.

I actually never really have problems with either. I always send my spymaster to Constantinople to steal tech, and raiding, as some have pointed out, is really good at the beginning. But you don't HAVE TO rely on looting. I started way deep inside the Slavic tribal area one time, and all I did was let my ruler take the business focus and just build up market towns in my holdings. You do get a lot of income once you've upgraded some buildings. Remember, tribes don't need to pay for their retinues in gold, so the lower income is actually "balanced" if you think about it.