why would Vikings have to declare war on any non pagan kingdom?

[Buzzerker]

I'd also like to know why it is you cannot raise troops and then declare war? Does that make any sense? It would seem smarter to do it the other way around now wouldn't it? Or to have an option to either raise them or not. Why is it the way it is and not the other way around?

[Buzzerker]

Can anyone explain it to me? Why would Vikings be constrained by the rules of Christain warmaking and diplomacy when history tells us this was never the case?

[gregoryk64]

For the sake of game balance. If a Norse ruler in the game (player or AI, since both have to play by the same rules) were able to park their whole army right on top of Kent and then declare war, it would give them a tremendous advantage. If the mechanics were adjusted to what you suggest, the only way to balance that would be to huge defensive bonuses to the defender (better armies, defender attrition penalties, etc.). You already see this with some defensive pagans. They get defensive bonuses so they don't automatically get wiped off the map.

And as it is, it's not hard at all to conquer England as a Norse pagan, especially with an early start. England is extremely fragmented, and with the exception of Mercia or Wessex easily conquered by a Norse kingdom. Conquer a few areas and the rest can fall pretty quickly.

[Soteria]

Originally posted by Buzzerker:

Can anyone explain it to me? Why would Vikings be constrained by the rules of Christain warmaking and diplomacy when history tells us this was never the case?

Historically you needed to have a reason to gather an army--why should anyone come and follow you? Are you promising plunder, or lands, or what? And you'd have to spread the word that you were gathering an army if you wanted men to come. That's true if you were an English king raising the levy or a Viking warlord recruiting ships.

In either case, it's hard to do it secretly, even if you don't have a formal declaration of war. Chances are decent your target is going to hear *something* before you arrive, particularly if you're trying to organize a force that can actually take and hold land and not just raid.

Now, in CK2 you can just raise your levies at any time and for no particular reason, and it works that way for good mechanical reasons, but it's not particularly historical.

[Buzzerker]

Originally posted by gregoryk64:

For the sake of game balance. If a Norse ruler in the game (player or AI, since both have to play by the same rules) were able to park their whole army right on top of Kent and then declare war, it would give them a tremendous advantage. If the mechanics were adjusted to what you suggest, the only way to balance that would be to huge defensive bonuses to the defender (better armies, defender attrition penalties, etc.). You already see this with some defensive pagans. They get defensive bonuses so they don't automatically get wiped off the map.

And as it is, it's not hard at all to conquer England as a Norse pagan, especially with an early start. England is extremely fragmented, and with the exception of Mercia or Wessex easily conquered by a Norse kingdom. Conquer a few areas and the rest can fall pretty quickly. [/quote]



I'm not suggesting we be allowed to raise an army , plant it in the kingdom the player plans to attack and then declare war. But it would be nice to be able to muster your forces within your own borders in preparation for the invasion from whatever distance it might be. The way it is now you cannot even 'Raise' your levies first you declare war and then you raise levies but what I find is , in the case of a targeted kingdom or chiefdom on your border, their army is assembled and merged while yours is still moving from every 'province' you called them from. This means the targeted enemy always has an unrealistic advantage! Historically they did not usually know that war had been delcared on them until the enemy was pouring over the borders , burning villages and looting farmsteads. Casus Belli is a European nicety established after the Dark Ages after the noble Catholic Families of Europe had created and established a 'natural' order of things. But to attack a heretic like the Moors , I am certain it was not required to show them the same courtesy. The Spanish probably did them just like the Vikings did the English! No quarter, no warning , no Cassus Belli. If you pick an ambition of becoming King of Denmark for example, you don't have to have a reason to declare war either but still you can't raise troops and merge them before you do. The reason I raise this issue is I find there is a bit of a juggling act involved , you have to be quick to raise that army and merge it or you may just find the target shortly becomes you if the enemy can attack your forces before they assemble and merge. Doesn't happen often but it can and does. I played the Vikings and went on a raid , split my forces up into groups of 500 each and even though they were in adjacent Dutch provinces , they all got overwhelmed by different kingdoms , the Franks , the Dutch and one other I forget now , but they wiped my raiders out. What's worse is while raiding I developed a negative 100 balance in my treasury! I thought raiding was supposed to be profitable but in this case I failed to plan accordingly and paid dearly.

[Kraek]

Because back then there were no UN conventions that regulated warfare, but they did have notions about honor that stipulated how one should or should not wage war.

In fact, most battles were completely arranged well in advance, the enemy casualties all got proper burial. There was no such thing as guerrilla warfare or killing the masses or sneaking up with surprise attacks. There were only few exceptions, and even then it was more because that side were rebelling peasants (like the guldensporenslag of flanders vs france)

Yep, also muslims back in the day were honorable, like the war between the mores and valencia (spanish realm). That is proof that IS are just heritic and lunatic scumbags


Honor died somewhere between 1914-1918 with WW1 and nationalism

[Yasha]

THE CONCEPT OF MEDIEVAL WAR

In medieval times war was a "personal" fight. As in, "Me and my gang are gonna come over there and beat you up, cause you did ___ (insert Casus Belli here) that I don't like." It was like punching somebody in the nose, except when that somebody has a lot of well armed friends, you can't get close enough to punch him. So you send your well-armed friends to beat up his well-armed friends.

This is what Soteria was getting at. It is why you need a "Casus Belli" to start a war, You have to convince your gang of well-armed friends that it's time to go beat up the other because of ____ (insert Casus Belli).

Even the Mongols and other steppe nomads used a Casus Belli. They would send heralds to deliver a summons to somebody to acknowledge the Great Khagan as overlord, and start paying annual tribute, or else. When the summons was ignored, the "or else" showed up in the form of a Mongol alliance cavalry army.


THE INVULERNABLE VIKING "RAILROAD"

Yes, from a purely gameplay standpoint, it would be much easier to adopt a very 20th Century warmaking approach of mustering your army into one collective unit, so you have a well-organized force.

In fact, as a Viking, you have close to that ability in the form of your ships. Troops can embark and move by ship in days to weeks within the Baltic, while moving overland along the Baltic coast takes months. It's like your ships are railroad trains, transporting armies on watery "railroads" much faster than the enemy can walk. Since there are no sea battles, the enemy can't prevent sea travel and sea attacks. As a Scandanavian Emperor, I've defeated rebellions over twice my size, simply because sea travel let me concentrate my force faster than they could combine by land.

Conveniently, the AI rarely uses sea travel instead of land. It almost always uses sea only if a land route doesn't exist.


PROFITABLE VIKING "RAIDS"

The trick to viking raids is to land a Really Big Army in one very rich province. Outnumber the biggest castle garrison by 8-1 or better. Then you can storm the walls and quickly capture every holding in the province. If the province is rich, you can carry off double or triple it's revenue value. Use the map economic color-coding (one of the lower right buttons) to find rich coastal or major river provinces. Go for provinces worth 60+ gold in the 700s, 70+ gold in the 800s, etc., for best returns. Check the ruler's strength to make sure he can't raise too big an army, and doesn't have powerful allies. In a county worth 100 gold, holding a castle, city and church, I might expect to get 75+ gold from the castle, 100+ gold from the city, and 50+ gold from the church. This business of just dashing ashore and collecting whatever "lose change" you can find is full of danger, as you discovered. Best to be systematic and brutal - grab it all!

If you can't muster armies that are 8-1 or better, settle down to besiege the castle. Yeah, it takes 6-12 months, but if the realm is small, and friendless, what can they do? After the castle falls, storming the walls of churches and cities is easier, since their fortification value is lower. For those, 3-1 or 4-1 superiority is usually sufficient.

The real trick of raiding is to use overwhelming local force. In a regular battle, you want all the advantages you can get. The same is true of raiding.

[Sohei]

Sieging is an inefficient way to raid. You do not need to siege down anything to raid. A force of 500 men will maximize raiding speed. More than that will not raid any faster but they will be able to seige down the holdings. Once a holding falls more loot is unprotected but you are better off moving on to find another holding with unprotected loot. A large force also requires a lot of upkeep cost so you will be spending quite a bit each month while sieging to access a bit more loot.

Using a large force to storm the walls saves time and thus upkeep cost but can also result in heavy manpower losses. If some of these are your retinue then you will be paying to recruit more and fill them back up. Assaulting without heavy losses is possible but really depends on a powerful army with good leadership and weak defenses. If the target is far away you will be paying a lot in upkeep anyways for the travel time. It can be profitable but only in limited circumstances.

A more efficient way to raid is to split into 3 groups of 500 men each and load them all onto the same group of ships. Then find a target area that is green on the wealth map mode and has some territories with protected loot. Go there and split up to raid 3 territories at the same time. Once the raid marker turns red you have hit the limit for unprotected loot. Instead of sieging to get more just get back in the ships and move on. It does not matter if 500 is not enough to start a siege or not - you can still raid for loot that is unprotected by fortifications.

Late in the game when there are high fortifications all over the place you may be forced to resort to using a large force to siege or assault if you can not find enough unprotected loot any more. It will be less efficient but better than nothing. More profits can be gained from carpet raiding as long as it is a viable option.

[Yasha]

@Sohei -

I disagree.

THE FLAWS IN SMALL RAID GROUPS

(a) SPEED ISSUES: 500 men is the MINIMUM size for efficient raiding. Each man you lose reduces money-grabbing speed (see "Raiding Free Loot" formula in http://www.ckiiwiki.com/Raiding ). As soon as you lose men, your raiding speed declines.

(b) AI RESPONSE: The AI will automatically raise and consolidate defensive forces. If they have any chance of inflicting significant casualties, they WILL attack. However, if you outnumber them significantly, they'll stand around in the neighboring county and watch. Therefore, even if the enemy raises just 200 levies and doesn't attack, that 200 man force prevents discourages your 500-man raid, because you can't afford the casualties in the bvattle.

(c) WEAK TROOPS: Man for man, Scandanavian levy raiders are oftren inferior to European feudal troops. They have virtually no HC, and in the early going, they don't even have Pikes or HI, just low-combat-value LI. Feudal forces enjoy about a 3-2 advantage in combat power over tribal norse, and a slight advantage over feudal norse. Sending out small parties invites serious damage or defeat in detail by local defensive forces.

(d) PAINFUL MICROMANAGEMENT: You can to set game speed down to 1 or 2, instead of moving along briskly at 3. This is because you must constantly watch nearby counties for the appearance of a larger enemy force. As soon as any significant force appears, you have to re-board your ships immediately. Otherwise you'll get smashed before you can escape. It doesn't take that large a realm to muster a 2k field army that is rapid death to a 500-man raiding group.


THE STRENGTHS OF LARGE RAIDS

(a) NO SLOWER & MUCH MORE MONEY: A large 5k to 10k raid assault force takes about as long to storm the walls as it takes to scoop up "loose change" outside the walls, which it will do simultaneously. The assault itself only takes a day or two, and presto, you have a vastly larger amount of loot. Furthermore, since most counties have lower-fort-value churches and cities sheltered "behind" castles, additional assaults on those holdings are faster, less costly, and yield buckets of additional loot. In the 1200s AD, a county whose economic value is about 100g, I routinely get 300-400g from storming all the holdings, plus another 50g of loose change. I might loose 10% of the 10k raiding force with really bad luck.

(b) ENEMY HELPLESSNESS: When you land a raiding force significantly larger than the target realm's entire military, if they raise a field army at all, they'll just stand around and watch. Your force overawes the AI.

(c) LEVIES ARE CHEAP: Yes, you have to pay maintenance on levy troops, but unlike retinues, you don't pay to replace them. Taking casualties while storming walls reduces maintenance cost, but back home your marshall will immediately restart rebuilding the levies (at no cost) so that replacement men will be waiting on your return.

Using retinues in the storming parties of a raid is a mistake, because retinues are much more costly to replace. However, in major raids (such as against Spain, Rome, Venice, or rich Byzantines), using your retinue as a "floating reserve" off shore, to reinforce the raiders if a strong defensive army appears, can be a life-saver. Just remember to pull out the retinues before you storm the walls!

(d) EASY MANAGEMENT: When you send in large raids of levy troops, you should be stronger than the realm's entire army. Unless they have strong allies, you can romp and stomp with impunity, especially if you take down a strong county first. You can leave the game speed at 3 for relatively quick, painless raiding.


EXPERIENTIAL EXAMPLES

As a norse raider, I had to pick weak victims with my tribal raiders in the early 800s AD. However, once I retormed paganism, went feudal and formed the de jure Scandanavian Empire in the early 900s, Europe became my personal piggy bank, that I could plunder almost at will. As my demesne forces grew, I could mount larger and larger raids to overcome the gradually increasing fort levels.

By the 1200s AD, I could send out a 20k norse feudal levy army, split into two 10k raid groups, and storm the walls of four or five wealthy European coastal counties in a year. I would sail away with over 2,000g, and spent less than 700g keep my levies and fleets in the field that long. In addition, I got the +15 Viking opinion modifier (lifetime award) for my ruler, and +5% MA for twenty years (for torching five churches).

Yes, when I arrived home,. my levies were only at a 15k level instead of 20k. However, my 6k retinue was still full strength. This was more than enough to deal with any revolts and other internal problems in the following year.

In fact, with each new ruler, it became standard practice for me to send out raids, as much for the lifetime +15 opinion bonus as the money.

[Shai-Hulud]

Originally posted by Yasha:

@Sohei -
(d) PAINFUL MICROMANAGEMENT: You can to set game speed down to 1 or 2, instead of moving along briskly at 3. This is because you must constantly watch nearby counties for the appearance of a larger enemy force. As soon as any significant force appears, you have to re-board your ships immediately. Otherwise you'll get smashed before you can escape. It doesn't take that large a realm to muster a 2k field army that is rapid death to a 500-man raiding group.

This. Since you should basically always be raiding micromanaging 500 man stacks will make your game slow to basically a standstill. Not to mention regardless of the speed set, you will still lose men to carelessness.

Raid Venice, siege it 100%. You should be able to start doing this fairly soon. Especially if their armies are engaged away from venice. Take your loot home. Oh Venice can't be raided for another 5 years? Go to Rome. These countries are relatively small and quite wealthy. Also I'm pretty sure the mercenaries start with like no morale (Venice and Rome will hire mercenaries while you are siegeing) so you should instantly wipe the mercs.

After that find 2 or 3 wealthy counties belonging to nations that you can outmuscle. So you hit Venice, go home, hit Rome, go home, then hit 2-3 counties in the same trip, go home. Venice should be ready to loot again or close to it.

You can make as many trips as you want but venice+Rome will be a lot of loot that requires more boats than I'd like to raise. Sucks to run out of gold space on your boats in the middle of raiding.

Later in the game you should be able to use your raiding force well even when you are engaged in wars.

Imo the 500 stack raiding to get the unprotected loot is only worth it very early in the game when you can't really afford to raise a decent size raiding force.

I don't know why the Christian world doesn't mind you sacking venice and Rome every 5 years on the dot for hundreds of years - but they really don't mind.

I will raid Constantinople too. I always take the rivers through Crimea to Venice. Early game I'll only raid them if I see their troops engaged elsewhere.