What other struggles would you like to see?

[riadach]

Now that we're getting a new struggle system in CK3 what other struggles, by which I understand to represent longstanding reoccurring inconclusive conflicts, would you like to see in game?

Some have already suggested

- Danelaw vs England

To that I'd add

- The investiture contest
- Reestablishment of the French throne/hundred years war
- The Crusader states
- and my own favourite, wars of the kings of opposition/attempts to establish a unified kingdom of Ireland.

In fact, perhaps a "struggle" would better represent founding a kingdom that the current de jure setup.

Anymore ideas? Especially those that aren't so west eurocentric.

 

[Lordinquisitor]

I´d really like to have a dynamic and emergent struggle system, since similar dynamics seen in the iberian peninsula pretty much happened wherever two, or more, cultures/religions/realms met each other, with opportunists on both sides, differents phases of hostilities and dialogue etc.

Just applying static struggles to specific regions also goes against why i´m so hyped for CK3- CK3 being a dynamic and emergent gameplay experience. This would seem like a huge missed opportunity for me.

Ofc, i don´t want to say that the iberian struggle didn´t have it´s own special dynamics, every conflict does. But i´d like to see a base system which accounts for emergent struggles, while some, like the iberian one, receive special attention.

But, my rambling aside, some interesting, at least for me, places i could think of, would be:

- The conquests of muslim invaders in india; A longstanging conflict including various phases of war, peace, dialogue, (in)tolerance, betrayal, intermarriage, social upheaveals, exchange of ideas and culture..

- Anything related to the guyi corridor, the steppes and the kingdom of qocho and khotan. I just find the region very interesting and here various cultures and religions came together, in war and otherwise.

When starting the game in 867 the hexi corridor was just reconquered from tibetans, the tibetan empire also fragmented just a few years prior, but much struggle was yet to come. It´s an interesting situation with many different actors, steppe nomads, uyghurs, han chinese and tibetans vying for control. And don´t forget the silk road passing through the region, the importance of the area for buddhism- And i would be amiss not to mention that the first known depiction of a firelance was found in the area.

 

[Farbolo]

Byzantine vs. Seljuk (---> Manzikert, Turkic Migration to Anatolia, Sultanate of Rum ... etc.)

 

[Tschobo]

East Africa would be interesting. Espescially as it could put flavour in an otherwise more overseen region for both start dates.

 

[DukeLeto42]

To build off Farbolo's statement, there's at least 3 struggles we could discuss in the Middle East during the period - the declining Byzantine authority (and the Turkic Migration to Anatolia as part of that), the collapse of Abbasid authority (the loss of Egypt and the arrival of the Turks making the Caliphate less and less of a central political authority before their dissolution due to the Mongols), and then the Crusades themselves.

I'm not sure whether one struggle or several is best to drive these features. This is where Lordinquisitor's point about more dynamic struggles is worth considering, since some of those major struggles moving through the same areas may or may not kick off in a given game.

 

[sreckom92]

Balkans are a place of a clash between at least 4 religions.
Catholic, Orthodox, Slavic and Tengri. With Islam coming to the party late.
Plus, there's a clash of Slavic, Magyar, Greek and other cultures.

 

[Koyraboro]

East Africa would be interesting. Espescially as it could put flavour in an otherwise more overseen region for both start dates.

That's pretty vague, can you elaborate on who the actors and possible issues are?

 

[Byzantium2000]

Byzantine vs. Seljuk (---> Manzikert, Turkic Migration to Anatolia, Sultanate of Rum ... etc.)

I don't think a struggle could cover that. Imo that whole situation needs it's own event setup or unique cbs.

 

[Trinita132]

For a good struggle, you must have :

-Long duration
-Two distinct sides (The two sides being two religions is the best case).
-Multiple independants rulers on both sides.
-Some unusual alliances.

Other than Iberia. I would said the Crusades to a certain extent.

 

[Tiax]

Heavily depends on how extensible the system is. Possible candidates:

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_at_Samarra . The game just sort of pretends this never happened and that everything was chill in the Abbasid court in 867. Effects include influence of the Turkish generals, Zanj Rebellion, independence of large swaths of the empire (like the Tulunids - who the game just pretends were already independent in 867), etc.

-Relationship between the Italians and HRE in the 1066 start. Currently they start trying to break free, and almost always succeed the day that the artificial faction limit expires. Transforming this into a struggle could make it the slow burn that it should be. Effects include things like autonomy, papal loyalty, etc.

-Central Asian Steppe invasions, Pechenegs, Oghuz, Cumans, etc. Right now we just have a giant, static Cuman state covering the entire steppe, but the region should be a series of pushes westward, forcing steppe groups into conflict with the Byzantines, Russians and other Eastern Europeans. Effects include things like the Cuman-Byzantine alliance, Pecheneg control of Vlach lands, settlement of nomadic groups along the border of feudal states as a buffer.

 

[KermitxTheFrog]

My current candidates

-Pope/italy vs HRE conflict: could include investiture conflict, Italian independence, establishing antipopes and various heresies popping up in places. You could also have the establishment of the HRE being the first phase of the struggle for those 867 players

-Three way struggle between Byzantines, Crusaders and Muslims for control of the Middle east Could include things like Turkish Anatolia and the Sultanate of Rum, The first crusade itself, A fourth crusade style event with the establishment of the Latin empire. And you could probably throw the seljuk turks invasions into the 867 startdate as well

-Mongolian invasions: Mongolians vs Everyone, Ally with each other to fight the mongols or collaborate with them, Events for breaking the empire into the golden horde and the ilkhanate. Invasion of eastern europe + middleeast. Could end the struggle with the integration of the mongols into the local cultures/religion

 

[Allen418]

Can only guess at how the Struggle mechanic plays out, but I would like to see a more structured and involved conflict between established religions and the heresies that pop up, especially between ones with historical analogues like Catholics and Waldensians or Cathars, for example.

 

[Voy]

Besides the great suggestions above, I believe the century-long succession disputes in the Kingdoms of Norway and Denmark are good candidates with a few modifications. Wars that end within a decade can't emulate civil war eras very well.

Another great suggestion would be the Nordic Crusades which are also non-conclusive struggles fought over a long time.

 

[Asterios_III]

Germany region in 867.
Christians and pagans, Germanic and Slavs, and invading Magyar.

Above all, I want to hear the birth cry of the Holy Roman Empire.

 

[Tuo]

Though being a bit distant in time from the start dates (making getting there a bit unstable), the Northern Crusades might be modeled in an interesting way through the struggle mechanic. I always felt the CK2 Northern Crusades were over in a flash, rarely playing out properly and lacked lasting effects. That said, I'm not sure how feasible it is to have a struggle that doesn't really begin until almost three centuries after the first start date.

 

[MAju]

Anatolia(+Armenia and Georgia), Levant, and Northern India including Afghanistan.

 

[tribnia]

Though being a bit distant in time from the start dates (making getting there a bit unstable), the Northern Crusades might be modeled in an interesting way through the struggle mechanic. I always felt the CK2 Northern Crusades were over in a flash, rarely playing out properly and lacked lasting effects. That said, I'm not sure how feasible it is to have a struggle that doesn't really begin until almost three centuries after the first start date.

Could make all kingdoms between Polska and Ural a struggle, in early stages non-pagans could send missionaries to preach, and in later
eras they would establish holy orders and colonize. That would make the whole holy war thing meaningless, though.

 

[Dracupuncture]

i imagine the proselytizing we got in ck2 (tribal rulers converting to reformed religions) could be represented by a struggle with one outcome being increased fervor for your unreformed religion and the other outcome being conversion to whichever adjacent reformed religion i.e. cathlolic or isalm

more generally, similar to the existing iberian one, i think any religion that reforms/diverges should have a form of struggle in their lands between the new and old faith.

 

[Farbolo]

I don't think a struggle could cover that. Imo that whole situation needs it's own event setup or unique cbs.

Yeah, you are right.
And to echo @DukeLeto42, the struggle between Byzantium and the Seljuk Turks for Anatolia is actually an other struggle as the one between the Caliphate and Byzantium from lets say the 7th to 11th century. The "Anatolian struggle" would actually have to absolve the "Levantine struggle" (for lack of a better word). Maybe have in 867 the first struggle against the Caliphate present and in 1066 the second struggle against the Turks?
But I wholly agree that this better be covered within a big Byzantium-focused DLC adding proper events, unique cbs, imperial government, etc. "struggles" would have to be a - neat - part of much bigger package to do the Byzantium's struggles justice.
Heck, you can even add in a third struggle in the wake of a scripted in 4th crusade-event which would make the Latins battle with the Byzantine remnants for hegemony in the former ERE.

 

[Poseidon66]

I don't think the Viking invasion of England would make much sense as a struggle.

From what we have seen of a struggle, it has phases of relative peace, and phases of relative warfare.
The viking invasion had about 10-15 years (865, arrival of the army - 878, defeat of Gunthrum by Alfred) of large scale viking invasions before the Danelaw was established. Then following this, there was a period of some smaller scale invasions, bu Wessex spent most of its time exerting its hegemony over the remaining anglo saxon states. Then, they launched a series of invasions (913-927) where they were able to reconquer the Danelaw. Jorvik (or York) flip-flopped in who controlled it for the next 25 or so years, with the last viking leader being removed in 954 - that's not to say the vikings went away afer that, just that the conflics were of a very different nature.

The initial invasion - that is, up until the establishment of the Danelaw - could do with some unique mechanics, but considering the short length of the conflict and the clear opposition of Anglo Saxon vs Vikings - nobody cooperated with the other side - makes me think he stuggle mechanics wouldn't really be suited to it. The conflict afterwards was really a fairly traditional conflict, and I don't see the need for any special mechanics to represent this. Additionally, there was only one real major country for each side once Wessex unified the Anglo Saxons, so the stuggle mechanic woudldn't work for that, either.

The new struggle mechanics seem really cool, but they also seem limited to quite specific conflicts - one encompassing a specific region, with 2 clear sides but many members of each side, taking place over a long period with phases of open warfare and phases of relaive peace - and I don't believe the viking invasion of England particularly fits this.