Tribal Government - Diplomatic Range Restriction

[MordredViking]

I started a game playing as the Count of Santiago in 867, a Spanish Catholic. Within 100 years, Spain had entirely been conquered by the Asatru while much of mainland Europe had been entirely ignored by them. A member of chat recommended trying again with "Diplomatic Range- Restricted" rule and it made a massive difference. The Asatru focused their efforts on Western (rather than Southern Europe / Africa). This is because the Tribal Conquest CB distance is determined by diplomatic range.

My suggestion therefore is to give Tribal Governments a -50% Diplomatic Range modifier, so their Tribal Conquest CBs are targeted closer to where they actually are. Tribals will still be able to raid as normal, but expansion will, at least early on, be somewhat more limited, removing many of the weird exclaves found in Spain and North Africa at the moment. If they manage to become Feudal, then this restriction is removed and they behave as any other nation.

 

[The Founder]

The thing is, that the Vikings did go that far.
They would have gotten away with colonizing North America, if it had not been for those pesky natives

I was not surprised to learn they conquered in South Italy. That they got there by land, was the only surprise.
Theses guys got everywhere. They were like Sand. Or Tribbles.

Viking expansion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It was not so much that they could not get to Iberia, it is that they choose not to settle there!

 

[athas65]

The thing is, that the Vikings did go that far.
They would have gotten away with colonizing North America, if it had not been for those pesky natives

I was not surprised to learn they conquered in South Italy. That they got there by land, was the only surprise.
Theses guys got everywhere. They were like Sand. Or Tribbles.

Viking expansion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It was not so much that they could not get to Iberia, it is that they choose not to settle there!

The "Vikings" that conquered Southern Italy were Normans, which in game terms would be feudal for several centuries by then.
They were also Catholic by then, so they actually currently don't even have an easy CB to use for it (they were also Norman mercenaries and adventurers. not Norman rulers in Normandy)

 

[Lambert Simnel]

The thing is, that the Vikings did go that far.
They would have gotten away with colonizing North America, if it had not been for those pesky natives

I was not surprised to learn they conquered in South Italy. That they got there by land, was the only surprise.
Theses guys got everywhere. They were like Sand. Or Tribbles.

Viking expansion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It was not so much that they could not get to Iberia, it is that they choose not to settle there!

I think there is a bug in the Viking conquest target AI that makes them too keen to go into Iberia. There is a factor that makes them prefer targets in world_europe_west, world_europe_west_francia and world_europe_west_germania. However Western Europe includes Francia and Germania, as well as Iberia, Britain and Ireland. If it was meant to target all of Western Europe it should have just targeted world_europe_west. I think it was meant to target world_europe_west_britannia, world_europe_west_francia and world_europe_west_germania. Making this change means you rarely see large numbers of Scandinavians in Iberia.

 

[Pressburger]

The thing is, that the Vikings did go that far.
They would have gotten away with colonizing North America, if it had not been for those pesky natives

I was not surprised to learn they conquered in South Italy. That they got there by land, was the only surprise.
Theses guys got everywhere. They were like Sand. Or Tribbles.

Viking expansion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It was not so much that they could not get to Iberia, it is that they choose not to settle there!

That is right, however these "conquerings" weren't in the name of some king or, god forbid, petty jarl in Sweden, who would then hold a county in Scandinavia and another in southern Italy. I think these conquests should instead by driven by adventurers.

 

[The Founder]

The "Vikings" that conquered Southern Italy were Normans, which in game terms would be feudal for several centuries by then.
They were also Catholic by then, so they actually currently don't even have an easy CB to use for it (they were also Norman mercenaries and adventurers. not Norman rulers in Normandy)

Those guys were conquering south Italy pretty much like the Vikings of old. For the same reason as well: Too many warriors, too little land to go around.

While the Normans, Rus and others assimilated to language and religion of the land, they kept their distict warrior culture for quite some time. We call them Normans and not Francs for a reason!
The games culture system can not replicate that yet.

I think there is a bug in the Viking conquest target AI that makes them too keen to go into Iberia.

The question is not why the Vikings settle there in the game.
But why they never setelled there in real life! If we can find a mechanic to emulate that, it is easier to get historical style settlement/conquest.

I seriously doubt it was Distance that matered so much. There are many regions very close to their homeland they never realy setelled/conquered. Just look at Finnland, Lapland, Volga Bulgards and the like.
I guess what detered their settlement was either "not enough fertile land" or "way to powerfull local tribals/feudals".

 

[elvain]

Those guys were conquering south Italy pretty much like the Vikings of old. For the same reason as well: Too many warriors, too little land to go around.

You're right, but I don't think we should draw so far-fetching conclusion from this fact. Because the same can be said about the Crusaders, yet I don't think it makes Crusaders Vikings. Don't you think?

Also if I may comment to the map from the Wiki article you posted above. It shouldn't really be taken too seriously, because it is 1) grossly incorrect in terms of "conquered territories" and 2) as already pointed out, mixes apples and oranges.

Conquests of the d'Hautevilles in Apulia weren't raids similar or comparable to the conquest of British Isles. Yes, they were younger brothers with no chance to get land (which is what they had in common with some viking raids, as well as Phoenician or Ancient Greek colonization, Crusades and many other such historical migrations), but those were advanturers, who were working as mercenaries in foreign services.
Calling this a Viking conquest is like claiming that in late 11th century Nubians and Sub-Saharans conquered Upper Egypt just because mercenary company of the Abid black slaves has seized the power there, or as if you'd claim that the Slavs conquered Tunis or Andalusia, because the Slavic mercenaries were a major force in early Fatimid and Umayyad empires. That's for the second point.

As for the first point - gross incorrections - it labels quite large areas of North Africa as of being conquered by the Vikings. The fact is that in the short period of 1146-1161-2 several minor emirs who held coastal cities of Ifriqiya (modern Tunis) seeked protection from Hilalian Arab tribes who controlled the inland, and due to that the emirs offered their alleigance to the Norman kings of Sicily. And he has sent small garrisons to some of the cities. Most of those garrisons were - due to their barbarism - expelled in less than 4 years by the locals, except for one city. As soon as another local power emerged in the region to rival the Hilalians (the Almohads), the Norman conquest of North Africa was done.
In other words, areas labeled as "conquered or colonized by Normans" were in fact small garrisons in 5-6 coastal cities with zero influence 2 miles from the city itself.
You can see that even the Wikipedia article better doesn't speak about this "conquest".

 

[Lambert Simnel]

The question is not why the Vikings settle there in the game.
But why they never setelled there in real life! If we can find a mechanic to emulate that, it is easier to get historical style settlement/conquest.

I seriously doubt it was Distance that matered so much. There are many regions very close to their homeland they never realy setelled/conquered. Just look at Finnland, Lapland, Volga Bulgards and the like.
I guess what detered their settlement was either "not enough fertile land" or "way to powerfull local tribals/feudals".

One difference between the game and real life that is both a factor in this behaviour and difficult to fix is the all-seeing eye that the game gives. The Jorvik AI can see that Galicia's army has just taken a mauling and next thing you know there are a few thousand Vikings landing in Spain.

 

[JtW]

Having Viking states around Europe isn’t the problem. Having them remain Swedish vassals is. The game needs some sort of mechanic making it more likely for those exclaves to become independent.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Having Viking states around Europe isn’t the problem. Having them remain Swedish vassals is. The game needs some sort of mechanic making it more likely for those exclaves to become independent.

Alternatively the long-range viking invasion CB could work like a mini-crusade and create an independent realm ruled by a relative.

 

[The Founder]

You're right, but I don't think we should draw so far-fetching conclusion from this fact. Because the same can be said about the Crusaders, yet I don't think it makes Crusaders Vikings. Don't you think?

How could you even consider to compare the Viking Conquests to the Crusades?

One is a organized war.
The other is exiled warriors getting everywhere, grabbing land wherever they can and mostly adapting to local faith/religion.

How do you compare the Norman Culture with the Papacy?

 

[Lambert Simnel]

How could you even consider to compare the Viking Conquests to the Crusades?

One is a organized war.
The other is exiled warriors getting everywhere, grabbing land wherever they can and mostly adapting to local faith/religion.

How do you compare the Norman Culture with the Papacy?

I was thinking that the 'rapidly convert to the local religion' behaviour that Paradox has given to the crusaders would also work well for Rollo

 

[The Founder]

I was thinking that the 'rapidly convert to the local religion' behaviour that Paradox has given to the crusaders would also work well for Rollo

None of that applies to crusaders in any way I can think off. They were officialy there to change the faith.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

None of that applies to crusaders in any way I can think off. They were officialy there to change the faith.

Think of the game mechanic that Paradox have implemented for crusades. At the end of the war, the targeted titles are given to a landless character who is now independent of the folks back home and will act according to the situation they have been dropped into. Where "act according to the situation they have been dropped into" usually means converting to the local religion.

To me mechanic sounds like it is a better fit for Guthrum of East Anglia or Rollo of Normandy than it is for the first crusade. What I am suggesting is that the current crusade mechanic be re-purposed for use by the Vikings and something that better reproduces the outcome of the crusades be created for use as a new Crusade mechanic.

 

[The Founder]

Think of the game mechanic that Paradox have implemented for crusades. At the end of the war, the targeted titles are given to a landless character who is now independent of the folks back home and will act according to the situation they have been dropped into. Where "act according to the situation they have been dropped into" usually means converting to the local religion.

So a bug in a mechanic in a Paradox game equals a total rewrite of history for you?

That somehow makes even less sense.

 

[JtW]

Don't be so hard on him @The Founder - it is the right direction to think in in the sense that it tries to utilize an existing mechanic. Something like that is way easier to implement (or mod in) than requesting a completely new mechanic.

Currently, the game doesn't model exile in any meaningful way (banishment is always personal and is very rare anyway). What would you personally suggest? So far, I have only seen you criticize others in this thread without committing to an opinion yourself.

 

[The Founder]

Don't be so hard on him @The Founder - it is the right direction to think in in the sense that it tries to utilize an existing mechanic. Something like that is way easier to implement (or mod in) than requesting a completely new mechanic.

Currently, the game doesn't model exile in any meaningful way (banishment is always personal and is very rare anyway). What would you personally suggest? So far, I have only seen you criticize others in this thread without committing to an opinion yourself.

Getting everywhere is kinda the Vikings "thing".
Chinese Build Walls and long stable governments.
India got Elephants.
Horse Nomads have light Bow Cavalry that murders heavy infantry.
Vikings get everywhere their boats can take them!

The main issue might be their current tendency to not Adapt like the realworld coutnerparts. Adaptation usually resulted in them "fizzling out" as far as large scale conquests go. They still were a warrior culture like nothing that was local, but a mostly manageable one.
In the game they keep Norse and Asteru, rather then "go local". Vikings and their offshoots got everywhere. But aside from Names and maybe a warrior culture, they rarely left any lasting legacy.

Culture wise there is little incentive to "go local", unless the new culture is already in the middle ages maybe? You would looose access to Longboats for a culture that may not be much ahead. Plus hte Tribal -> Feudal conversion is broken.
The idea of Cultural Syncretism Inventions could help. If they could adapt without loosing longboats instantly, that would be a huge reason to actually adapt to local culture.
Religions already have a massive advantage if they are Organized. So many more options, easier Conversion, and a lot of People of Christian faith to buddy up with in their new regions.

I would say the main issue here is AI weights not getting the Vikings to do what Vikings did. That and the generally poor incentive to convert to local cultrues right now. Even playing norsemen myself, I usually take the Faith both not he Culture.

 

[JtW]

Thanks @The Founder Makes sense.