Republic Coastal CB Ridiculous

[Shadowkire]

I've played several Southern Italy games and I've never had the problem before, so I assumed the CB was new. Even if it's not new, something has changed for the worse. In earlier versions the Merchant Republics would only take land in Southern Italy when they reconquered it from Muslims via holy war.

No. In my last attempt at the County of Naples I wasn't actually attacked by Genoa, but they happily ate the entirety of Apulia around me. I was allied to the Normans and there was nothing we could do.

Could those saying you like the CB actually express why you like it? I don't see any redeeming qualities at the moment. This CB is supposed to be used by Merchants Republics to beat up on the Byzantines, not to allow them to go on a Muslim-esque conquest spree in Southern Italy.

I started playing around 1.05 and I can tell you the CB was in the game as early as that.

Genoa's conquest of de jure Sicily is dependent on 1 thing: holy wars. If Apulia/Kingdom of Sicily are under attack from muslims Genoa won't attack and vassals won't rebel giving Genoa opportunities to expand.

I like the CB because it makes the game more interesting, back in 1.06 the county of Ormond was controlled by a norwegian mayor who tended to rebel against the duke of Munster(the rebellion hasn't changed even though Ormond is now a boring lordship). If Ormond won it's independence it was like watching a zombie outbreak in action, first it would begin eating up neighboring irish counties, then it would strike any independent welshmen or the remains of the duchy of the Isles. Soon the merchant empire would be attacking Brittany and larger kingdoms in the middle of civil wars. I once played a game in Iberia where I didn't notice anything wrong until Navarra lost its capitol, then I looked at the rest of the world and saw that France had lost it's northern coast, the scandinavian kingdoms were being pushed back into Finland, and even the HRE was losing beach-side property.

Nothing is better for a game you spend hundreds of hours playing than for things to be able to go that crazy.

 

[justin6477]

I like the CB because it makes the game more interesting, back in 1.06 the county of Ormond was controlled by a norwegian mayor who tended to rebel against the duke of Munster(the rebellion hasn't changed even though Ormond is now a boring lordship). If Ormond won it's independence it was like watching a zombie outbreak in action, first it would begin eating up neighboring irish counties, then it would strike any independent welshmen or the remains of the duchy of the Isles. Soon the merchant empire would be attacking Brittany and larger kingdoms in the middle of civil wars. I once played a game in Iberia where I didn't notice anything wrong until Navarra lost its capitol, then I looked at the rest of the world and saw that France had lost it's northern coast, the scandinavian kingdoms were being pushed back into Finland, and even the HRE was losing beach-side property.

Nothing is better for a game you spend hundreds of hours playing than for things to be able to go that crazy.

I have a suggestion.

With bought mercs, conquer the entire British Isles. Personally, I suggest using Brittany as your starting point. Fabricate claims via the console, and then just take them all. England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland. I'd also recommend grabbing a safe duchy, like Latium. Screw that Pope guy trying to make Rome his de jure territory.

Anyways, once you've loaded every county in the British Isles + Brittany with Cities, and given each individual territory to a lord mayor, start handing out the ducal titles. You should only be a duke yourself, resulting in their freedom as doges. Watch them massacre everything with a coastline. It makes for a fun watching game.

 

[High_King]

This is probably a stupid question but I thought I'd ask - does anyone know what exactly the Republics' Coastal CB is meant to simulate? What is the historical precedent for a Merchant Republican being able to go to war for coastal provinces? The answer is probably really obvious but I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Alerias]

This is probably a stupid question but I thought I'd ask - does anyone know what exactly the Republics' Coastal CB is meant to simulate? What is the historical precedent for a Merchant Republican being able to go to war for coastal provinces? The answer is probably really obvious but I'm just not seeing it.

Its largely to simulate Venice's historical expansion. Assume its trade-based CBs against junior commercial partners I guess. It requires a bit of abstraction for now, though I assume this will be significantly more fleshed out in the upcoming Republics DLC.

 

[justin6477]

This is probably a stupid question but I thought I'd ask - does anyone know what exactly the Republics' Coastal CB is meant to simulate? What is the historical precedent for a Merchant Republican being able to go to war for coastal provinces? The answer is probably really obvious but I'm just not seeing it.

Well, consider this, Republics aren't inherently dynastic. Because of that, they can't expand based on claims. Instead, they have to drop the pretenses and just claim it as an invasion. The other part of it is that these Merchant Republics are naval powers, not necessarily land ones. So slugging it out for a non-coastal province really isn't a good idea for them. Besides, they really just care about the trade.

 

[unmerged(228153)]

Historical precedents would include the failed 1084 Venetian invasion of Norman Sicily, the Genoese-Pisan wars over Sardinia, Corsica and the Baleares, and of course, the infamous Fourth Crusade, which should by all means be included in CKII but isn't, unless you start in 1204 or later. The ridiculous Reconquest CB aside, this lack of »Latin« threat is the main reason why Byzantium always blobs and never falls unless the Fatimids invade Greece from overseas (which is equally nonsensical).

 

[Trunting]

Historical precedents would include the failed 1084 Venetian invasion of Norman Sicily, the Genoese-Pisan wars over Sardinia, Corsica and the Baleares, and of course, the infamous Fourth Crusade, which should by all means be included in CKII but isn't, unless you start in 1204 or later. The ridiculous Reconquest CB aside, this lack of »Latin« threat is the main reason why Byzantium always blobs and never falls unless the Fatimids invade Greece from overseas (which is equally nonsensical).

Byzantium is that unhistorically strong, because there are no pretenders to the throne besides the family of the Emperor. And it is still too feudalistic. Look at the history of the Byzantine Empire. I most times, there was a constant struggle for the crown. And then some powerful family arose, inhabiting the throne for 150 years, but still had to deal with other pretendents. Also, it wasnt that feudalistic. In history, there was the themata organization with military governours, controlling a specific area. But they werent inheritable. There were only landowners and around 150 noble families in the 11th century, who inhabitated the posts in the military and civil goverment. The landowners however didnt have their own military forces.

My suggestions for the Byzantines are:

- Make Duchies not inheritable. Instead, give them to the Emperor after the inhabitor's death. The Emperor should give it out after this.
- Everyone should be able to create a faction to overthrow the Emperor and become Emperor himself. These factions should be formed by the AI especially, when the Emperor had lost a lot of wars etc.
- Military forces can only be raised by the douches and the Emperor. The counts can only use mercenaries or very small local forces.

 

[Hyzhenhok]

I started playing around 1.05 and I can tell you the CB was in the game as early as that.

Genoa's conquest of de jure Sicily is dependent on 1 thing: holy wars. If Apulia/Kingdom of Sicily are under attack from muslims Genoa won't attack and vassals won't rebel giving Genoa opportunities to expand.

I like the CB because it makes the game more interesting, back in 1.06 the county of Ormond was controlled by a norwegian mayor who tended to rebel against the duke of Munster(the rebellion hasn't changed even though Ormond is now a boring lordship). If Ormond won it's independence it was like watching a zombie outbreak in action, first it would begin eating up neighboring irish counties, then it would strike any independent welshmen or the remains of the duchy of the Isles. Soon the merchant empire would be attacking Brittany and larger kingdoms in the middle of civil wars. I once played a game in Iberia where I didn't notice anything wrong until Navarra lost its capitol, then I looked at the rest of the world and saw that France had lost it's northern coast, the scandinavian kingdoms were being pushed back into Finland, and even the HRE was losing beach-side property.

Nothing is better for a game you spend hundreds of hours playing than for things to be able to go that crazy.

I've been playing since 1.01 with lots of games in Southern Italy (including a 1066-1453 one starting as Count of Naples and a Sword of Islam one as Sheikh of Palermo) and haven't seen it once before. Maybe I got unlucky and just need to try again, and Genoa won't necessarily always invade? Anyway, the CB is pretty useless historically speaking because the Merchant Republics can only ever hope to defeat independent dukes and counts. It's only purpose in the game at current is to mess up the early Southern Italy balance even worse than it already is.

I'm all for reasonable a-historical variation in the game! But the merchant republics are poorly represented in the game and will be until they receive their own DLC, and so while it may be funny to see them blob from time to time it's not actually any fun to deal with. I imagine this CB will remain in place until they we get that DLC; I can only hope it is completely replaced with something else. Though I can pray the devs will see my suggestion here and nerf it so they can only declare random wars to take over cities, rather than entire counties.

 

[unmerged(228153)]

Byzantium is that unhistorically strong, because there are no pretenders to the throne besides the family of the Emperor. And it is still too feudalistic. Look at the history of the Byzantine Empire. I most times, there was a constant struggle for the crown. And then some powerful family arose, inhabiting the throne for 150 years, but still had to deal with other pretendents. (...)

A surprisingly effective solution to this problem is changing the Byzantine succession law to Elective. Though it still doesn't come close to mirroring the actual historical situation.

EDIT: You cannot deny that Venice's hijacking of the Fourth Crusade, combined with the incompetent Angeloi administration, virtually nullified all the gains made under the Komnenoi (not only territorially, but also culturally) and ultimately led to Byzantium's downfall.

 

[Beric Dondarion]

Byzantium is that unhistorically strong, because there are no pretenders to the throne besides the family of the Emperor. And it is still too feudalistic. Look at the history of the Byzantine Empire. I most times, there was a constant struggle for the crown. And then some powerful family arose, inhabiting the throne for 150 years, but still had to deal with other pretendents. Also, it wasnt that feudalistic. In history, there was the themata organization with military governours, controlling a specific area. But they werent inheritable. There were only landowners and around 150 noble families in the 11th century, who inhabitated the posts in the military and civil goverment. The landowners however didnt have their own military forces.

My suggestions for the Byzantines are:

- Make Duchies not inheritable. Instead, give them to the Emperor after the inhabitor's death. The Emperor should give it out after this.
- Everyone should be able to create a faction to overthrow the Emperor and become Emperor himself. These factions should be formed by the AI especially, when the Emperor had lost a lot of wars etc.
- Military forces can only be raised by the douches and the Emperor. The counts can only use mercenaries or very small local forces.

Then it's impossible to play a Doux in game.
Counts usually make about .50 gold so they can't raise mercs in 30 years.

 

[Trunting]

A surprisingly effective solution to this problem is changing the Byzantine succession law to Elective. Though it still doesn't come close to mirroring the actual historical situation.

EDIT: You cannot deny that Venice's hijacking of the Fourth Crusade, combined with the incompetent Angeloi administration, virtually nullified all the gains made under the Komnenoi (not only territorially, but also culturally) and ultimately led to Byzantium's downfall.

Hmm, yes thats the problem. How to represent a more centralistic, bueaurocratic state in a game about dynasties^^. The only solution without using unhistorical abstractions I see, is to create administrative ranks. The Douy in RL was such a rank. I would create comparison for that ranks between the noble families. But this would need a completely new game mechanic... Although, the Emperor being able to revoke duchies is a good first step.

I see the problem, too, that playing a count would become difficult, but I see no other solution, if you want to modellize reality.

 

[zachhcaz22]

Then it's impossible to play a Doux in game.

They could make it that only the Doux level and higher titles reverts to the Emperor (or gets destroyed) but you get to keep the counties you control and a strong claim on the titles lost that way.

 

[Trunting]

They could make it that only the Doux level and higher titles reverts to the Emperor (or gets destroyed) but you get to keep the counties you control and a strong claim on the titles lost that way.

That was, what I suggested.

 

[revjor]

I love seeing a huge Genoa manhandling the west Meditertanean or Venice goin bananas on the Adriatic. It happens rarely but it always delights me.

But the best is when an Irish county republic goes nuclear and you have a green juggernaut Republican Ireland standing tall in Britannia. In I thnk my Croatia game Ireland has all of Ireland, Wales and Brittany and are eating away England from the inside out.

 

[unmerged(228153)]

In other words, Genoa's expansion in CK2 would just be perfect if only it didn't acquire any territory along the way. Take a look at this map which I craftily hotlinked from Wikipedia:

They sent their merchants on the merry way to basically everywhere, but even at its peak, their actual territory was limited to Liguria, Corsica and northern Sardinia, along with some outposts on the Aegean islands and the Crimean coastline, which they gained in the Fourth Crusade. Their influence, however, was much, much greater than that. They easily dominated the economics in the Western Mediterranean, and later, all around the Black Sea.

It would be rather nice, I think, if Genoese and Venetian (or other Republics') merchants could build trading posts in empty barony slots (similarly to how the Knights Templar etc. gain their holdings), and somehow get involved in local politics (for example, claiming the entire county afterwards).

 

[Theddude]

Yes, the Coastal CB is indeed ridiculous, but strangely enough, nobody apart from Genoa ever (ab)uses it. I have never seen Venice or Pisa accomplish jack squat in 1.07; they just loiter about on their invincible island for the entire duration of the game. Genoa, however, always conquers half of Apulia within the first twenty years, then explodes into several independent republics, which are usually promptly annexed by the Muslims. Things were no doubt different in 1.06, when I would see Venice's aquamarine colours all along both shores of the Adriatic Sea. (Not that this is any better.)

I'd really love a DLC that focuses on trade and republics, too. As it stands, economy is a complete non-factor in CK2, just build cities on the coast and stuff them with harbors and villages. Maybe factions could play a role in economics as well?

In an earlier patch I saw Pisa take over Sardinia and Capua and Napoli, they were getting pretty big by the time I squashed them (Tuscany) so it does happen. I like the coastal cities idea, it would be really cool to see trade posts of different republics scattered across the Mediterranean.

As to the Byzantines, a solution to the lack of usurpers would be to make it possible for any vassal Doux or Despot (heck maybe even counts) to plot to fabricate a claim on the Empire title, then maybe more people would end up getting personal claims and trying to achieve success through factions.

 

[icedt729]

It would be rather nice, I think, if Genoese and Venetian (or other Republics') merchants could build trading posts in empty barony slots (similarly to how the Knights Templar etc. gain their holdings), and somehow get involved in local politics (for example, claiming the entire county afterwards).

I like this idea a lot. Something to show soft power and raise incomes for the home country, maybe with the potential to turn into claims on other holdings or counties but essentially just showing a commercial presence.

 

[AndreasPhokas]

i like the holdings in other nations ideas.

i have noticed genoa is conquering alot in southern italy suddenly.

 

[LarryLeica]

The AI literally can't fabricate claims as it's too stupid. I like the Coastal CB.

200 AI chancellors want a word about this claim they've just fabricated... It happens ALL the time, most of the time you won't notice if you are a king/emperor with No/Low CA.

Coastal CB is cool, and replicates the trade post expansion reasonably. Do add my voice for a republic/trade DLC though, the game is sorely lacking this, maybe look at the system from EU:Rome and base it on that?

 

[Cetan]

I like this idea a lot. Something to show soft power and raise incomes for the home country, maybe with the potential to turn into claims on other holdings or counties but essentially just showing a commercial presence.

This. Make it a popup like the Holy Order Knights, but without a choice to deny it.