Pagans are lame

[unmerged(228153)]

You're right, of course! I wanted to stress that the pagans didn't really embrace Christianity because they were convinced by the missionaries, but rather because they had no choice. In-game, converting pagan provinces is a quick and clean affair. That's bollocks — I'm sure we can all agree with that. It should be more tedious, with a chance of sparking a threatening revolt, and maybe reduce government efficiency to a noticeable degree, representing the construction of churches and installation of local clergy, etc.

More importantly, what do you think should be done gameplay-wise? I'd really like to hear that!

 

[Siegkrieg]

Jogaila converted because he wanted that fancy crown, yes. But a century earlier, Mindaugas was kind of forced to convert because his nephew had embraced Christianity to gain the Teutonic Order's support. (In CK2 terms, the nephew had a strong claim on the Grand Duchy, and the Grandmaster had just invited him to his court and demanded his conversion — so Mindaugas converted to appease the Grandmaster, and to obtain the royal Catholic crown from the Pope for 400 ducats and 200 piety.)

Do consider that by the time of Jogaila, the Lithuanians were a minority within their state. The conversion to Catholicism was mostly a political step, meant to separate Lithuania firmly from the Russian principalities and bring it closer to Poland.

And the Teutonic Knights were oppressive, if not outright brutal, in their treatment of all pagans. While the Lithuanian grand dukes converted, to some extent, of their own volition, the other tribes were not peacefully converted. The Livonians, for example, thought the Order an useful ally, converted, were mistreated, revolted, and were forced into feudalism. In the conquered territories, the Knights established tons of fortifications (Ordensburgen) and forbade the Pagans from settling in the cities. Later, they forcibly stripped Pagan landowners of their possessions.

It's funny that the Teutonic Order has been mentioned several times in this thread, but noone has yet pointed out how incredibly weak they are in CK2. In my games whenever a ruler grants them land (usually as a buffer against cumania) they get pagan-conquered even before the "recently conquered" wears off... quite ironic

 

[Daelix]

A few .02:

1) People saying that certain things need fixing because they weren't historically accurate confuse me. For anyone whose goal of playing the game is to be a completely historically accurate ______ So-and-So of the _____ of ______ from 1066 to 1490, I salute you. But in general, the game is designed to be ahistorical. What befuddles me is that some people think the game should ride the rails of history as closely as possible, except for their Pan-Irish Empire of Brittania, France, and Scandinavia. Here's the reality: the video game is designed to be fun. Designed to grab any historical noble from a wide variety of times and then do whatever you want. Or make your own. Or whatever. The reason the pagan nations get snapped up is because they're small and disorganized, and large nation AI is designed to snap up territory from smaller, weaker enemies.

2) Speaking of which, the best game mechanic for pagans (and actually Catholics, Orthodox, and Muslims) that would reflect some historical accuracy would probably be a tweaking of the opinion and alliance systems. Instead of getting stuff like 'broke a truce' modifier when you repeatedly smash the same guy within a short time period, it should just piss off Romuva lords when other Romuva lords get attacked. In my last game, I systematically diced up the Iberian Moors in 25 years and formed the Empire of Hispania. Historically, that much wanton aggression would lead to a (several?) Jihad(s). The Reconquista took 10 to 15 times that long in real life. The problem with the HRE (and the Fatimid, etc) being unstoppable is that the various smaller entities don't get pissed, band together, and start belching doom stacks at their aggressors like in real life.

Oh btw devs, not only should realms work together better, they should be able to combine their armies under their best leaders (like in history!), because when allies DO work together to defend against or attack a larger threat, some/most of the entities will often suddenly have an 'Oooooh look a kitty!' moment and go wander off in random directions to pick their noses/watch their allies get annihilated then suddenly be mad when it happens to them.

Oh, and also, losing territory to occupation while pursuing these non de jure types of religious wars should actually cost you that territory. If you attacked foreigners of a different religion and they/their allies smashed your armies and started occupying your lands, they weren't just going to give the land back because you surrendered. I frequently see the HRE/Swedes/Danes lose their little holy wars to pagans, but it never matters because there's no repercussions besides some gold, and they just go do it again next week.

3) What is appreciable about the random, ahistorical branches the game takes along its long, meandering road from start to finish is how accurately reflects human history as a whole. Saying anything is unrealistic because it didn't happen in history is an argument built on a foundation of sand. Virtually every step of human history is a single improbable outcome out of infinite improbable outcomes, and any one of them could have completely changed the course of human history.

Take Joan of Arc, when France was teetering on the brink of collapse. If Robert de Baudricourt doesn't decide on the insane course of action of sending an illiterate peasant girl to see the adolescent unkinged Dauphin of France because she thinks God is telling her to turn back the English invasion, all of France probably would have fell, and the course of history changes completely. Or if the paltry couple thousand Greeks who bloodied the Persians at Thermopylae had just been squashed like an ant, not allowing the Athenian fleet to severely wound the Persian navy and supply convoys, Persia may have conquered all of Greece/Europe/World. If the African lords hadn't naively believed the Romans wouldn't just gobble them up after they helped the Romans defeat Carthage, the Moors may never have re-introduced civilization into Europe and North Africa might be the center of the world. If Napoleon hadn't been turned back. If the Axis hadn't stupidly invaded Russia and bombed Pearl Harbor before solidifying their conquests. Or the Turks hadn't been stopped at the gates of Vienna, or the British had quashed the rebellion in their American colonies. If Fabio really COULD believe it's not butter. We could all be typing in Mongolian, French, German, Arabic, or we could all be hundreds of years ahead or before of where we are now technologically, not typing at all.

Personally, I think the wild randomness from campaign to campaign in CKII (and even reloading back 20-50 years and re-playing, seeing everything come out totally different) is pretty much as historically accurate as it gets.

 

[Daelix]

Also, separately, the biggest problem with Pagan DLC is that the Pagans themselves are silly powerful as it stands and need completely re-worked to be balanced as playable. Go ahead and cheat and start off as a Pagan chief. If you have any scary Christian neighbors, particularly the Kaiser, make nice. Then smashcrushgrind everything smaller than/same size as you. Lappland is my personal favorite flavor. Jamtland? EATEN. Dal? EATEN. Play game of thrones/diplomat for ~6 years. Ok. Sweden? EATEN. Norway? YUMMY. Denmark? NOMZ NOMZ. Scandanavia? MINE. Holy Roman Empire? YOU HAZ BIG PROBLEM.

 

[unmerged(228153)]

To Daelix:

»Historical accuracy« is indeed nonsense; I can only speak for myself, but what I'm criticizing is exactly what you speak of. I cannot play as Lübeck or Livonia — not in the sense of »religions.txt doesn't want me to«, I can fix that in five minutes. I cannot play as Lübeck or Livonia because Denmark, Sweden or the Empire comes around and kills me within twenty years, before I have a chance to mount any kind of defense. The Emperor is the worst offender — Heinrich IV should be dealing with Saxons and Swabians trying to grab his crown, and also with the Pope claiming the right to invest the Imperial bishops. Instead, he stomps Mecklenburg with 15000 soldiers in the first few weeks, and then some Italians maybe revolt a bit, I dunno. Compare the situation with Iberia, where all the kings are fighting with each other for their claims on Leon and Navarra and what not: this conflict was quite inevitable in 1066, even though it had not started yet. If you start a new game in 1066, I can guarantee you that the Iberian Christians will fight against each other, sooner or later; but there's the catch: I can't tell you when that will happen, or how it will end. I can't tell you whether the Muslims will invade Castille while they're busy grappling with León — and if they do, whether it will be a successful campaign. Can we agree that this is both historically plausible and dynamic, interesting gameplay?

If so, imagine if none of the kings had a claim on each other. Suddenly, the gameplay isn't as exciting anymore — because of a historical detail being misrepresented. Similarly, the Holy Roman Emperor being well-liked by nearly all of his German vassals leads to all kinds of silliness and imbalance, since he gets so many levies and has a lot of free time (the +20 opinion modifier for Elective succession doesn't help).

With regards to your suggestions: Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. And frankly, that's all I got here. By the way, is anyone willing to mod such things for a few hands-off tests?

What you say about Crusader Kings II getting anywhere close to »historical accuracy« by letting all the empires run rampant, however, undermines your point. There is no such »wild randomness« in CK2; for example, I can guarantee you that Nubia will never survive past the 1070s, unless played by a human. I can also guarantee you that the Pomeranians will be conquered by the HRE using de-jure CBs, within thirty years of the start date, and they can do jack squat about that. I can't guarantee you that the HRE and France will emerge as the dominant nations in Europe, but there's usually nothing to be done about that if you, the player, won't interfere. I can guarantee you that a conflict like the Hundred Years' War (which you indirectly addressed) will never happen in CK2 if you start from 1066, because England can't defend Normandy or accumulate much territory in France, long-term speaking. Sure, they take Paris sometimes, but there's no »moment of truth« where everything hangs in the balance until a Joan of Arc comes to the rescue, or a Napoleon is beaten back out of Russia.


EDIT: You claim that it's easy to conquer everything as Lappland. Fine, but that's because Lappland is quite out of harm's way and has enough time to build itself a good starting position. Lübeck is de-jure Denmark, and borders the HRE, and also borders Mecklenburg who can gobble you up just as well. Compared to that, Pruthenia is easy because you can bite large chunks off everybody, including Poland. They're still in no position to challenge the HRE with allies (Hungary), though.

Also, what I completely forgot to mention is that I want the AI Pagans to have a sporting chance too — the player can always do better, but have you ever seen AI Lappland conquer Sweden?

 

[Bloodly]

Also, separately, the biggest problem with Pagan DLC is that the Pagans themselves are silly powerful as it stands and need completely re-worked to be balanced as playable. Go ahead and cheat and start off as a Pagan chief. If you have any scary Christian neighbors, particularly the Kaiser, make nice. Then smashcrushgrind everything smaller than/same size as you. Lappland is my personal favorite flavor. Jamtland? EATEN. Dal? EATEN. Play game of thrones/diplomat for ~6 years. Ok. Sweden? EATEN. Norway? YUMMY. Denmark? NOMZ NOMZ. Scandanavia? MINE. Holy Roman Empire? YOU HAZ BIG PROBLEM.

In my experience with Pagans, that won't save you if they decide to eat YOU, because ANY OTHER CHRISTIAN LEADER can be called in to stomp you in a Holy War(Which is what their Conquest CB counts as). You attack Sweden? You'll be fighting, them, then Denmark, and the Holy Roman Empire, all at once. And they'll hate you by default because you are pagan. Doesn't really matter how much you try to play nice, they WILL be called up to help the defence-or the Offence, if they attack you and you throw them back even a little). It doesn't help that everyone else has a tech lead on you AND a holdings lead because the majority of the Pagan lands have only a castle to their names-no city, no temple.

I'd like to see the order of operations that leads to you beating back Norway or Sweden as, say, Kvens.

 

[Lwantssugar]

All that's needed is balance in favor of pagans, because the Kaiser in all his infinite wisdom decided to send a 30 thousand man army to liberate Prussia in the name of Christ is rather silly even from an ahistorical perspective. because history goes out the window the moment you unpause the that means things like Lithuania becoming a major pagan kingdom in the Baltic should have a chance of happening. As it stands the Baltic duchies exist only to be eaten up by the Germans, Poles, Swedes, Danes and Russians; they should have at least a chance of survival, particularly under human control. It's the same reason I fear playing any of the Russian princes because I only have 150 years or so until the Mongols show up and push their "You get nothing, you lose! Good day sir!" Button

 

[Daelix]

Oh, right. Had to dust up on my Pagan. There IS a problem, which of course you can circumvent in a slowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww but clever manner. An anyway, Kvens is thrice as easy as Lappland. 2 provinces. Ducal-level power (with some luck, can threaten others into vassalizing).

Anyway, the problem for pagans (and the reason they disappear) is a problem with the Holy War system, but quite the opposite of saying the Holy War system needs scrapped. In reality, the problem is that the pagans don't get it. They get NO conquest-type CB, So basically they can only press de jure claims. Essentially, the devs put them there as a roadblock instead of a threat. So basically, the reason AI pagan gets annihilated is because the game gives them little/no recourse for actually attacking others and gaining land. They can only lose it. If a neighboring Christian steals one of their territories, neither they nor a larger, more powerful Pagan neighbor will steal it/others back. Only by plying the marriage and inheritance system and playing the game of thrones can the AI really gain territory as pagans (which the AI in general is stupid and dumb and not smart about).

But as a player, not only can you do this, you also have another way to earn claims: You gotta keep 'em fabricated. It's slow and stupid and expensive and means you have to go out of your way to acquire a Chancellor with really, really high Diplo and keep him happy. Which fits neatly in line with your goal of playing cautiously and diplomatically with nearby larger Christian states. But the flip side of this coin is that if you get any head of steam going (the goal being to fabricate/inherit counties, so you can create/usurp and conquer duchies, so you can create/usurp and conquer kingdoms), which is basically the order of operations for conquering Scandinavia as Kvens. Obviously the easiest Pagan start as is Erik the Heathen because power, shielded from Catholic aggression by Catholic liege, able to lay claim on/assassinate self onto the throne, etc.

The point is, the pagan AI is basically double-hamstrung by the developers (most likely to avoid them using their VERY large levies at the start of the game on YOU) by being unable to exploit the systems the AI exploit well for expansion, combined with a bad AI that doesn't play the game of thrones to gain power outside of warfare. Classically, pagan tribes went to war when and with who the felt like, so really, they should have a CB called the "You're Not Me" CB, as well as being AI prone to banding together with others of the same pagan faith the way Christians sometimes do.

To recap: 1) Get a gangsterfied Chancellor 2) Marry advantageously - either by netting a wife with incredible stats, or one that gives you alliance/leverage/potential claims over your neighbors, 3) Train Troops 4) Fabricate claims with gangsterfied Chancellor, 5) Use fabricated/inherited claims to take stuff away from other people until you can 6) Create duchies and eventually kingdoms to take stuff away from other people, until you can 7) Get a celebrity endorser. Create an Empire. Making a groundbreaking car Conquering Scandinavia with LapplandKvens. It's that easy.

 

[Daelix]

To Lt.K

I largely agree with you. There are quite a few problems with the game engine for small entities that border large entities. Basically, pagan, Christian, or otherwise, if you border (Insert Large Entity Here) and they get valid CBs against you, they eat you, and you become eaten. This can happen quite often, even as a player, whereas in history, large entities attacking small ones often infuriated everyone with stuff in common with the small entity (that's going to happen to ME next). The lack of small entity viability for the AI (you have some as a player because you have brainpower to play the game systems), and the lack of ANY valid CBs (the dumb AI's only tool at its disposal) at the start of the game for the vast majority of the pagan tribes/states means the devs put them in a fail-fail position.

 

[unmerged(228153)]

Essentially, the devs put them there as a roadblock instead of a threat. So basically, the reason AI pagan gets annihilated is because the game gives them little/no recourse for actually attacking others and gaining land. They can only lose it. If a neighboring Christian steals one of their territories, neither they nor a larger, more powerful Pagan neighbor will steal it/others back. Only by plying the marriage and inheritance system and playing the game of thrones can the AI really gain territory as pagans (which the AI in general is stupid and dumb and not smart about).

A page back, I wrote a rather lengthy post about how according to my experience, simply removing the Holy War CB and adjusting County Conquest so that Christian dukes and counts, but no kings or emperors can use it at will, gives two or three Pagan tribes per game a sporting chance to survive and expand, unless they're Lithuania, in which case they're zero-day toast like Nubia always is.

Anyway, the problem for pagans (and the reason they disappear) is a problem with the Holy War system, but quite the opposite of saying the Holy War system needs scrapped. In reality, the problem is that the pagans don't get it. They get NO conquest-type CB, So basically they can only press de jure claims.

You haven't played the Pagans at all, have you.

They do get the conquest CB. They use it all the time, in fact, because none of the Pagan duchies in the Baltic area are de-jure until they create ducal titles for themselves, except for Lithuania. Do you really know what you're talking about here?

EDIT: Looking at Bloodly's post — I apologize for being too harsh here. You might have played as the pagans, but certainly not in the last few months. Thus, your opinion about playing them, while not strictly unfounded, is still outdated.

 

[Bloodly]

They get NO conquest-type CB

False, and it says something because this was changed a while ago. They share the Muslim 'Conquest' CB, with the same restriction of 50 Piety. That's a problem, because they have few ways of getting the Piety together to do it regularly. Whilst the AI Pagans often band together in defence, it seems to be less common if the player's in place.

 

[Daelix]

Well I haven't poked around with pagan since a while ago. I just booted up a new game. Going to check out this new Conquest toy you speak of. And I've never really seen much of AI pagans banding together.

Edit: /faints

 

[unmerged(228153)]

Please start as Lübeck and demonstrate how you play the game of thrones and diplomacy and county conquest with the Holy Roman Empire. Swearing fealty to anyone doesn't count. If you can pull that off, I agree that the Pagans are completely playable, if not accurately represented in this game.

EDIT: I just tried it. 17 October, the King of Denmark declares de-jure war. I have 220 men, he has 2000. Alright. I see how easy it is. I'll try Lappland next.

— With some difficulty (attacking into forest provinces is not so hot), grabbed Jämtland and Västerbotten while Sweden experienced the War of the Two Eriks. Then Sweden declares Holy War. I have 1000+ levies, but Sweden sends 1500+ men with better technology at me. Suffice to say no Christian kingdoms were EATEN that day. Lappland has 545 men at game start; how you can claim this is »overpowered« frankly eludes me. It's good for a single castle holding, that's true, but it's just not worth anything against Sweden. Meanwhile, Denmark controls all of modern-day Estonia and Livonia in 1080.

 

[Daelix]

I'm missing your point on Lübeck, Lt.K. You mean Lübeck with its Catholic count and none of the advantages/disadvantages of playing a Pagan? It's not representative of Pagan realms because it's not a Pagan realm. The population's religion doesn't matter for anything but causing revolts/etc. The HRE doesn't have any valid CBs against Lübeck.

Edit: I notice the Danes DO because it's part of the De Jure Kingdom of Denmark. Again, let me reiterate: Lübeck is not a Pagan realm despite the local populace being Pagan.

Regardless, saying that (group) isn't playable because (pathetic tiny realm next to vast powerful neighbor with claims on your shiz that doesn't think highly of you) is part of (group) doesn't really follow. Is Catholic not 'completely playable' because Lübeck is a Catholic realm and the King of Denmark eats your face?

 

[unmerged(47028)]

Anyway, the problem for pagans (and the reason they disappear) is a problem with the Holy War system, but quite the opposite of saying the Holy War system needs scrapped. In reality, the problem is that the pagans don't get it. They get NO conquest-type CB, So basically they can only press de jure claims. Essentially, the devs put them there as a roadblock instead of a threat. So basically, the reason AI pagan gets annihilated is because the game gives them little/no recourse for actually attacking others and gaining land. They can only lose it. If a neighboring Christian steals one of their territories, neither they nor a larger, more powerful Pagan neighbor will steal it/others back. Only by plying the marriage and inheritance system and playing the game of thrones can the AI really gain territory as pagans (which the AI in general is stupid and dumb and not smart about).

Pagans get conquest type CB. They can attack and conquer one bordering province at a time. While Catholics can grab 1 duchy. One duchy means extinction of a whole pagan tribe in one go while 1 province means nothing. As I wrote before Catholics should get a permission to conquer pagans (like with an Invasion) or press de Jure, or Strong claims only.

Another problem is Holly Orders. Not a single pagan country can stand against any county which hires crusaders. Crusaders are too big. With the new retinues system Pagans are even in worse position as now Christian armies literally doubled.

At the moment, the only way to save yourself as a pagan is marriage with your enemies. However, AI pagan does not do that.

 

[unmerged(228153)]

Huh, I could have sworn the count of Lübeck was Pagan. But you're right, he's not. What's more, I didn't even notice he wasn't when I just played as him (briefly)! Okay, you got me there — I take everything back what I said about them.

Now, Daelix, you said yourself that you think the Pagans are overpowered, what with their levies being larger than usual, citing Lappland as an example, which could allegedly take over Scandinavia without problems (your »EATEN« post) — and now you claim they are »pathetic«. And Lübeck, as it is, regardless of Budivoj being Catholic, is completely unplayable. I can't play diplomacy with Denmark, like the historical Nakonids did, treading a fine line and attempting to be recognized as Christian rulers while ruling over a Pagan populace, because Denmark invades me after a month or something, no matter what I do. I cannot marry a Danish princess or anyone to get me an actually useful alliance, and I can't send gifts; and why is Holstein a de-jure part of Denmark anyway when it wasn't really part of the Danish crown until after the timeframe?

Of course, the Catholics aren't unplayable just because Lübeck is unplayable and Catholic; I never said anything like that. There's simply no Pagan character in 1066 who's enjoyable to play as, period. The same cannot be said for Catholics.

mnplastic, I believe another problem is that the Pagans start at tech level zero. Thus their early-game superior numbers are all but meaningless, and later in the game, the Christians can hire Holy Orders. CK2+ actually does the »you need Papal permission for Holy Wars« schtick very well; I'd like to see something similar in vanilla, because Holy Wars are just too easily spammed. And yeah, what you and besaccia said: the Christians can grab duchies, the Pagans only counties. All of this is tied to the Holy War CB, which isn't well-balanced at the moment.

 

[Daelix]

I'm not saying that Lappland is overpowered because they start the game with 545 men. I never even said Lappland is overpowered (they're actually quite difficult, as are most single-county independent realms). I prefer to play as single-county independent realms because it's HARD. Yes, a single independent realm with a single holding is the suck in a hea on war against a neighboring kingdom with 15 castles. Did you try to turn the Sweden situation to your advantage? Get into Jarl Erik's good graces and help him win the war - now Sweden is a Pagan kingdom. Or, as the various brothers who are claimants to the throne usually hate the snot out of each other, help them accidentally not murder each other until Sweden fractures under the weight of its own succession crises. It's the same challenges you face as any tiny realm with vastly larger realms next door with claims on you (Dal, for example).

I'm pretty sure I wrote somewhere that the advantage of Pagan is being able to eat smaller and similar sized realms for breakfast, somewhere....

Then smashcrushgrind everything smaller than/same size as you

There it is. The point is, as a pagan realm, any Christian realm not significantly larger than you is highly edible and rich in fiber, women, and plunder.

And by the way, if you can go back in that game (that was a very nice start grabbing both Jamtland and Vasterbotten!) and divide Sweden/keep them at bay until you can 'acquire' Angermanland and wait for your Conquered debuffs to expire, you'll suddenly be in a position where they can't just show up and push you down anymore.

 

[Daelix]

Of course, the Catholics aren't unplayable just because Lübeck is unplayable and Catholic; I never said anything like that. There's simply no Pagan character in 1066 who's enjoyable to play as, period. The same cannot be said for Catholics.

Err, that's just ever so slightly a little bit subjective. Define 'enjoyable' as it applies to you? I'm sure there's a High Chief somewhere with the peace pipe for you (BOOM bad 'High Chief' pun)

 

[unmerged(47028)]

We should also note that Baltic pagans were seriously attacked only in XIII century. Before that both Christians and pagan used raiding or tribute system. If pagans were stronger Christians were paying tribute if Christians were stronger pagans were paying tribute. In facts even the Holly Orders used pagan lands for training purposes participating in seasonal raids (like hunting) or earning from plunder and slavery.

So there should be tribute and plundering system in place. Grand Duke Traidenis alone killed three Livonian Order's masters (on three separate occasions) while they were coming back from Lithuania with plunder.

 

[unmerged(228153)]

Uh, I'm kinda turning this into a silly back-and-forth (and I've kind of posted a lot in this thread) — so I'll stop after this post. But:

Also, separately, the biggest problem with Pagan DLC is that the Pagans themselves are silly powerful as it stands and need completely re-worked to be balanced as playable.Go ahead and cheat and start off as a Pagan chief. If you have any scary Christian neighbors, particularly the Kaiser, make nice. Then smashcrushgrind everything smaller than/same size as you. Lappland is my personal favorite flavor. Jamtland? EATEN. Dal? EATEN. Play game of thrones/diplomat for ~6 years. Ok. Sweden? EATEN. Norway? YUMMY. Denmark? NOMZ NOMZ. Scandanavia? MINE. Holy Roman Empire? YOU HAZ BIG PROBLEM.

To recap: 1) Get a gangsterfied Chancellor 2) Marry advantageously - either by netting a wife with incredible stats, or one that gives you alliance/leverage/potential claims over your neighbors, 3) Train Troops 4) Fabricate claims with gangsterfied Chancellor, 5) Use fabricated/inherited claims to take stuff away from other people until you can 6) Create duchies and eventually kingdoms to take stuff away from other people, until you can 7) Get a celebrity endorser. Create an Empire. Making a groundbreaking car Conquering Scandinavia with LapplandKvens. It's that easy.

You clearly said that playing Lappland is easy, that six years of playing the »game of thrones« after conquering two counties is enough to maneuver yourself into conquering Sweden, and that the Pagans are »silly powerful« — which they are obviously not. Moreover, Dal swears fealty to Sweden before you can even declare war on them. That's just what they do!

I was pretty lucky to have a good Marshal (14 points) in my Count Njuolla, and he started with the Chaste trait for extra piety and thus faster conquests (got 1 point per month in total). I used Train Troops to good effect, and I could muster some 1000 levies in 1080; attacking into forest provinces was troublesome, but my levies replenished fast enough to win one battle per war — the last one.

I was pretty much unable to help Erik because I was stuck fighting Västerbotten (I was also very lucky there) — and afterwards Sweden just steamrolled me. There's no way you can play diplomacy with them; there's no Swedish princesses at game start, not that I could marry them anyway, and sending gifts is super expensive if you only have a single castle without the Recently Conquered modifier. The only hope you can have is that your Chancellor succeeds in repairing relations, but I got hit with a penalty instead. That's just the way it is, I guess. And that's really that.

EDIT:

mnplastic: Damn straight, a tribute system (gold in exchange for a truce) would be great in general, not only for Pagan—Catholic relations. I don't know if you can mod this, but a renewable truce could, among other things, represent the Baqt and save the poor Nubians.

Err, that's just ever so slightly a little bit subjective. Define 'enjoyable' as it applies to you? I'm sure there's a High Chief somewhere with the peace pipe for you (BOOM bad 'High Chief' pun)

enjoyable (adj., more enjoyable, most enjoyable): not getting roflstomped inevitably by Denmark in a month. Playing a character-based grand strategy game where the characters, and their actions, actually matter.

While I really like CK2, I think there's still room for improvement in this regard. To Lübeck, it doesn't matter who Budivoj Nakonid is, he could have the Immortal trait and nothing would happen; similarly, the Emperor doesn't care about Denmark violating his sphere of influence, and the Danish king could be anyone, since what really matters is that he's got ten times my levies, who are faceless killing machines for all I know.

Also, did you know that fun is subjective.