The Death of The Tribal Government Type: How It Makes Everything Less Fun (Including Pagans)

[SBolshevik]

Bad points:
Tribalism shouldn't be easy. The lack of money is WAD. You wanna overcome Tribalism after all and you definitely can! You just need some time, patients and generations (except you blob like crazy with ther norse). This IS the fun part! What do you need money anyway, prestige is you currency!

I'm not saying it should, but the way tribes are represented they can only make money off of war, as if their land is absolutely worthless. And yes, money is needed to upgrade your holding, prestige only goes so far.

Raiding over multiple provinces is also not a good idea. The AI is not able to handle such a system. This would lead to a huge AI vs Player balance issue.

While I agree the AI would likely be unable to handle it, it's really something that makes sense, an army should be able to carry loot (granted they'd be severely slowed down), and it occurred in history, especially in the afformentioned Hungarian raids.

The inconsistency with unreformed Nomads an unreformed Tribals/Feudals is also strange. There should be a way of reforming the government without changing/reforming religion but this should be a very limited one. E.g.: Only available when bordering a feudal realm,...

A mod I used to work on had the premise of making an intermediary feudal government type, with feudal holdings but tribal-like decentralisation. Coupled with this:

It'd make a lot more sense if on death all your vassals on a level just lower than yours (counts if you're a duke, dukes if you're a king) became tributaries, and you had to reconquer them, otherwise they would become independent upon your char's death.

being given to tribals you could have a lot weaker tribal realms and a much greater incentive to feudalise, as these realms often lasted for a generation or two (see Samo's realm, Great Moravia, etc.).

 

[CaptainPolyp]

While I agree the AI would likely be unable to handle it, it's really something that makes sense, an army should be able to carry loot (granted they'd be severely slowed down), and it occurred in history, especially in the afformentioned Hungarian raids.

Then if should also be open for nomads no? They are supposedly be able to set up camps near raiding targets and accumulate a bit of loot (maybe not as much as 20 boats). I know nomads really don't need that to work properly but this is a question logics and consistency. Beside, when you talk about Hungarian raids, you're not referring to the Magyars but to the later feudal Hungarians I guess.

 

[SBolshevik]

Then if should also be open for nomads no? They are supposedly be able to set up camps near raiding targets and accumulate a bit of loot (maybe not as much as 20 boats). I know nomads really don't need that to work properly but this is a question logics and consistency. Beside, when you talk about Hungarian raids, you're not referring to the Magyars but to the later feudal Hungarians I guess.

I'm referring to Hungarians before Lechfeld 955, when they were still nomadic, but in the Pannonian Plain.

 

[Sergeant Flutter]

This thread has a lot of complaints, but not a lot of solutions.

 

[Aries666]

I don't really think there is a problem unless you purposely want to stay tribal but in that case you are actively choosing a worse option so it should be difficult. The tribals I have played (Norse, Lithuanian, Kiev and Rus) I was able to reform and go feudal/merchant in 1-2 generations. In each case all that is needed is to make your de jure kingdom using the become king ambition to subjugate through everyone. Each county you take revoke/imprison/execute to to quickly build up your desmense, once you have the entire kingdom execute everyone in your court (because they all hate you now) and replace them with intrigue generated characters, giving away titles if needed. Next step is to beeline for holy sites and depending on you religion you probably already have some, realistically though the only tough one is Norse because you may need to take a Christian church (you can circumvent this by sacking Irish churches). At that point you are basically done.

 

[SBolshevik]

This thread has a lot of complaints, but not a lot of solutions.

This could, of course, be fixed by giving armies themselves the ability to carry loot, like ships already can. It'd also be a step in the direction of simulating historical long-distance raids, like those of the Hungarians in the 10th century.

This is a fix.

It was also said that members of organised religions would approve of raising tribal organisation, yet with Conclave this absolutely isn't the case. The council resists these changes, despite the fact that they (illogically, since the tribe is becoming more centralised) gain more power from them.

Here the fix is obvious - make tribal organisation an uphill battle that reduces the influence of the council.

On the other hand, tribal unreformed pagans can't become feudal or a republic. Why? According to the devs, it's because their religion is unreformed. Very logical, I must say. I'd argue that the current relationship between feudalisation and reformation is backwards. One ought to have a legitimate infrastructure before reforming, because the reformation requires writing holy scriptures, convening councils, a hierarchy within the priesthood, etc.

This is also a fix.

There are also some quite illogical setups of feudal vs tribal governments in regard to the afformentioned rules of unreformed pagans and feudalisation, such as Croatia, Serbia and Bulgaria being feudal in 769 (and Serbia staying pagan and feudal in 867), Pomerania in 867 and 1066, and Russia in 1066 onwards, though not related to feudal pagans, has a huge problem with everything except Kiev and Novgorod being tribal for quite some time, which leads to wonkiness when a tribal grand prince conquers those two principalities (like tribal Rus with its capital in Uglich).

Here the fix is, again, pretty obvious - make the pagans tribal (and of course as a sidemote make the Rus feudal).

It'd make a lot more sense if on death all your vassals on a level just lower than yours (counts if you're a duke, dukes if you're a king) became tributaries, and you had to reconquer them, otherwise they would become independent upon your char's death.

This is a fix to tribals basically not being the instable wrecks they're supposed to be.

Maybe I shouldn't have added that TL;DR, maybe people would pay attention before commenting.

 

[RagingJaws]

I'm not saying it should, but the way tribes are represented they can only make money off of war, as if their land is absolutely worthless. And yes, money is needed to upgrade your holding, prestige only goes so far.

This is, again, not true. Tribes do make money outside of war related activities (the earlier mentions of raiding/ransoming), they just make less. A diligent player can bring tribal lands up to an acceptable level of development within two generations, establishing an economy that rivals some of the smaller English petty kingdoms.

I don't think the economic side of Tribes needs major changing. I would love to see some of the CKII+ improvements added, such the "Settle Tribe" Steward action give a small chance to construct a city in addition to culture conversion or having the Chief Priest found a temple. I want those changes not because it's "a chore" to play Tribes but because it's just another thing the player can do.

This thread has a lot of complaints, but not a lot of solutions.

Like so many threads made...

 

[Narvait]

One thing that I have read as suggestion was that Tribals given sufficient nomadic land available and say border with existing nomad land could become Nomads.

 

[Damarrocarion]

This will never happen!

We do get some events for them.

And why not? Tribal realm actually having *GASP!* horsemen is totally ahistorical and immersion breaking?

Yes, we do get events for them but I doubt there is something which gives you "discount temple" for tribals.

 

[kmh42]

And why not? Tribal realm actually having *GASP!* horsemen is totally ahistorical and immersion breaking?

Yes, we do get events for them but I doubt there is something which gives you "discount temple" for tribals.

Oh I misunderstood your post, I was thinking you talked about a new holding type. This would be very unlikely. Now I read it again but I am still no convinced.
The hole point of being tribal is to be inferior to feudal or nomads. So you want to become feudal because you get better troops and more money. Like others said, when you stay tribal at a certain point, it's your fault and the start in the very East of the map should be a hard start.

 

[Damarrocarion]

It would still remain inferior since the building would be around +2 PI/LC per level. This would not cause massive changes to balance of power and at least you could get technology benefits in other times than summoning tribal army.

As I suggested in other thread, the idea that all tribal buildings are the same across the world (except Altaic in Steppe for those who lack HL) is bit silly while it would be relatively easy to give tribals a unique cultural building that Feudals already get.

"Hall of Warriors" would merely be a stop-gap measure.

 

[DPS]

I usually play as tribal pagan starts, and frankly I think a lot of the complaints in this thread are unfounded. The only real complaint I have about tribalism is the inability to get out of gavelkind succession until you go feudal. I don't even bother with raiding except rarely; as someone said above, as a tribal leader, prestige is your currency.

I did find it difficult to play tribals for a bit when Horse Lords first came out; except for the Irish, Picts, and Mande, all of the tribals were too close to the steppe nomads, who seemed overpowered with HL (though probably it's historically accurate for them to be overpowered for much of the period). Conclave seems to have defanged the nomads a good bit.

 

[n00bypl4y3r]

Pagans with ships aren't terribly bad. Baltic pagans in 1066, Norse pagans in 769 and 867, and probably Slavic pagans with ships in 1066 are all pretty capable money makers simply because they can load on a ship and raid Ireland or Brittany (I typically go for whatever region is more decentralized. Raiding one province counts is easiest because they can't fight back). A good raiding run can bring in 300+ gold from two or three counties in 1066. The only problem is the price of the ships, but if you don't send too many it can be managed.

I definitely agree though, I don't really like playing as tribal characters. Nomads are really fun, and feudal is classic CK2. Tribal is kind of just "meh."

 

[Gunburned]

These are some things I would do to fix the Tribal lands.

1. Add in AI scripting to enable non Norse Tribals to raid Via boats.
2. Let Tribals settle without reforming
3. Give some Heavy inf or pikes to AI, light Infantry are very weak and gun run over by feudals and nomads units
4. Make the switch over of settling easier by granting some spawned troops. 9/10 I get murdered because my Levy size gets destroyed.

 

[kmh42]

It would still remain inferior since the building would be around +2 PI/LC per level. This would not cause massive changes to balance of power

Than it useless.

and at least you could get technology benefits in other times than summoning tribal army.

You already get technology by the Spymaster, Marshal events and war events.

As I suggested in other thread, the idea that all tribal buildings are the same across the world (except Altaic in Steppe for those who lack HL) is bit silly while it would be relatively easy to give tribals a unique cultural building that Feudals already get.

This is definitely a lack of flavor and could be improved. But again I never build all available buildings as tribal because I become feudal/merchant before. Tribal buildings sucks in the long run.

1. Add in AI scripting to enable non Norse Tribals to raid Via boats.

Be careful what you wish. You could easily double the raiding partys around the map which would give an Irishcount or Anglo-saxon duke a very hard time. More then they already have.

2. Let Tribals settle without reforming

This would be indeed interesting but needed harsh requirements and other feudal in the neighborhood.

3. Give some Heavy inf or pikes to AI, light Infantry are very weak and gun run over by feudals and nomads units

Why only the AI?

4. Make the switch over of settling easier by granting some spawned troops. 9/10 I get murdered because my Levy size gets destroyed.

settling shouldn't be easy

 

[sigeena]

Actually as Tribal, you're more interested in Prestige gain than money. Subjugation CB is very useful

I played West Africa, and had too much money with too little to spend on. Subjugated Ummayyads and Africa every generation.

1 more thing, Tribal armies fight differently, with their emphasis on Light Infantry. If you don't outright win in skirmish phase, I highly recommend retreating, as melee is just going to be painful.

Being a Tribal duke is always going to be more powerful than King, with their ability to call up all their vassal-allies to war.

 

[SBolshevik]

settling shouldn't be easy

Ah yes, I seem to have forgotten about that time the Russians got destroyed after they built castles and cities.

 

[Damarrocarion]

Than it useless.

You already get technology by the Spymaster, Marshal events and war events.

This is definitely a lack of flavor and could be improved. But again I never build all available buildings as tribal because I become feudal/merchant before. Tribal buildings sucks in the long run.

1) Not entirely useless as you do get increases per empty holding so in various provinces like Novgorod, the number of troops is not entirely negligible. Also, actual cultural buildings tend to be fairly expensive and not very useful. Getting two levels via tribal by spending prestige would in this case might actually be beneficial.

2) That is not what I meant. I mean that if you get military technology, you put it to light infantry and get no benefits from others while you amass "ahead penalty" if you slap it all to LI. Might be WAD, might not be.

3) They are not very useful. However, often time I do pump up the capital (as I get to keep that one, since I usually do convert and go gavelkind and then back to pagan maneuver) when my leader is at old age as otherwise prestige is largely wasted, even if part of it would be inherited by heir.

 

[kmh42]

Being a Tribal duke is always going to be more powerful than King, with their ability to call up all their vassal-allies to war.

A Tribal king can also call his vassals as allies.

 

[StarSword]

A Tribal king can also call his vassals as allies.

By the time you hit king you've typically got tribal organization too high for that. To play tribal effectively, you have to be strategic with your tribal organization law: only raise it past medium when you're ready to upgrade out of tribalism altogether.