Why go feudal?

[Lars]

I realize one of the reasons is that light infantry sucks, but other than that going feudal seems like the most stupid thing to do. You lose all your troops, you get crappy 1 castle holdings everywhere, some of your vassals may still be feudal making them hate you, and you cannot get tribal armies, now you have to rely on your crappy new stack which is a far shot from the one you had when you were tribal, and you cannot raid anymore so one war is probably going to bankrupt you, seriously why the heck go feudal? It will take much gold from the Jews to get you anywhere near your neighbours, even even then you still suck compared to when you were a tribe.

Seriously, people say now more than ever playing a tribe is easier, but it's not, used to be easier when you had subholdings and all that, now it's just boring and frustrating.

I guess my question really is, why, and how do you do it? The only way I can see it work fine, is if you take over holdings that used to be under another ruler with feudalism and make them your capitols, while abandoning your holdings in your homeland, which I really think is gamey and stupid.

[Jonocat25]

you convert to feudal via an intrigue menu decision. I did this to escape gavelkind.

Also, you can raid as feudal if you are a pagan or hindu.

[Nehebsis]

Originally posted by Richrad ★:

your vassals may still be feudal making them hate you..

Don't you mean tribal?

Originally posted by Richrad ★:

... and you cannot raid anymore so one war is probably going to bankrupt you, seriously why the heck go feudal?

I don't know about the other pagans but if you are a Norse you can still raid.

Originally posted by Richrad ★:

Seriously, people say now more than ever playing a tribe is easier, but it's not, used to be easier when you had subholdings and all that, now it's just boring and frustrating.

I disagree. Granted it's easier to expand (untill great holy wars kick in) but you are likely to lose land due to elective gavelkind. Besides your economy is crap but yes you can raid. It's not supposed to be harder or easier. Just another way to play.

Originally posted by Richrad ★:

I guess my question really is, why, and how do you do it? The only way I can see it work fine, is if you take over holdings that used to be under another ruler with feudalism and make them your capitols, while abandoning your holdings in your homeland, which I really think is gamey and stupid.

Yes that would be gamey, that's why you can't do that. To change your capital to a province with a castle as a top holding you must be feudal. It's simple, if you can read tooltips... First you need to reform your faith, which means you have to hold at least 3 holy sites (use religion map mode), have 50% moral authority (can be optained by conquering land, raiding temples and spreading religion) and you will also need 750 piety. Once that is done you will need about 500 gold and castle infrastructure tech 1 to upgrade your earth hillfort to a stone hillfort in capital (other personally owned provinced should be upgraded too preferably). Last thing you need to get is legitimacy tech 1 to set your tribal organization law to maximum.

It's better to go to feudalism fast, it can be done in two generations easy if you know how to. Granted you'll lose a lot of troops by doing so however you'll catch up over time and you'll finally have a decent income. You won't have to worry about elective gavelkind anymore and splitting your Kingdom/Empire.

[ShadoWwolF]

the main reasons to go feudal are to get away from gavelkind and to be able to build more holdings in your provinces. as a tribal you and your vassals cant really develop your lands past a certain point. feudal realms will eventually surpass you in every way because their lands will become much more developed than yours

[Surimi]

It's a short term hit for long term gain. Later on, feudal holdings, even comparatively underdeveloped ones, are simply more efficient than tribal holdings. While the transition period is indeed very rough, you can make it easier by upgrading tribal holdings with prestige before going feudal (the upgrades convert into castle upgrades) and upgrading the holdings of your key vassals prior to switching.

Also, getting out of gavelkind (and especially elective gavelkind) is often a priority. Having to reunite your ancestral lands every generation and then potentially losing them due to getting knocked on the head in a battle gets really frustrating.

There's one exception where I would say it's not worth converting, and that is if you're a Muslim tribe. Even then, in order to remain competetive you will need a vast, vast empire, which will make it harder to respond to rebellions and will push your reduced vassal limit.

As you say, however, the best possible scenario is to conquer some more developed feudal lands and then use them as your demense once you convert. There are countless historical examples.

[Zednaught]

Without careful management/gaming the system, gavelkind is the main obstacle. I vastly prefer the stability of being able to keep my kingdom together easily.

[Thundercracker]

Originally posted by Deep Hurting:

It's a short term hit for long term gain. Later on, feudal holdings, even comparatively underdeveloped ones, are simply more efficient than tribal holdings. While the transition period is indeed very rough, you can make it easier by upgrading tribal holdings with prestige before going feudal (the upgrades convert into castle upgrades) and upgrading the holdings of your key vassals prior to switching.

Also, getting out of gavelkind (and especially elective gavelkind) is often a priority. Having to reunite your ancestral lands every generation and then potentially losing them due to getting knocked on the head in a battle gets really frustrating.

There's one exception where I would say it's not worth converting, and that is if you're a Muslim tribe. Even then, in order to remain competetive you will need a vast, vast empire, which will make it harder to respond to rebellions and will push your reduced vassal limit.

As you say, however, the best possible scenario is to conquer some more developed feudal lands and then use them as your demense once you convert. There are countless historical examples.

does muslem succession overrule the gavelkind enforced by tribal?

neat!

[Vance Xentan]

Gavelkind is the main reason another is money. Feudal rulers get a lot more money.

[edhe]

I'm playing Strathclyde at the moment. I have Manaw and 'Lothian' beneath me, though I maanged to quickly switch to feudalism.

I thought I made a grave error initially, but I had to avoid the succession that would have followed.

So I'm feudal, and my vassals are tribal. Are they likely to try and improve their tribal holdings to the point where they can convert as well? Or am I going to have to shell out? I believe the cardinal rule in Crusader Kings II is that you never spend money on someone else's holdings (except in some cases, for Bishophrics and cities) and seeing as I'm hardly overflowing with cash, having given up my raiding lifestyle, I can't afford to drag my vassals into the new era.

When they finally get their hillforts, will it be up to me to enact the decision, or will it be the respective duke?

[Cheese]

Going feudal is for the long term. More money, more retinues is much better than raising a ton of light infantry and gathering it for every battle.

I'd wait until all my main holdings are IV hill forts and at least II prestige buildings. Have 1K+ gold for a few improvements. A strong retinue if Empire+ or a kingdom to swear fealty straight after converting to feudal.

And yes, agnatic open overrides gavelkind so you can have a nice tribal succession too.

[Thundercracker]

Originally posted by Doomcheese:

And yes, agnatic open overrides gavelkind so you can have a nice tribal succession too.

sweet!

you still get the typical muslem CBs along with the tribal ones, too?

man, why play norse when you can play muslem tribal?

[Jonocat25]

Originally posted by edhe:

I'm playing Strathclyde at the moment. I have Manaw and 'Lothian' beneath me, though I maanged to quickly switch to feudalism.

I thought I made a grave error initially, but I had to avoid the succession that would have followed.

So I'm feudal, and my vassals are tribal. Are they likely to try and improve their tribal holdings to the point where they can convert as well? Or am I going to have to shell out? I believe the cardinal rule in Crusader Kings II is that you never spend money on someone else's holdings (except in some cases, for Bishophrics and cities) and seeing as I'm hardly overflowing with cash, having given up my raiding lifestyle, I can't afford to drag my vassals into the new era.

When they finally get their hillforts, will it be up to me to enact the decision, or will it be the respective duke?

They will build them up eventually. I've given my poorer vassals a helping hand on occasion. When they are fully upgraded, they will often excute the decision themselves.

[Prestogizmo]

Do vassals ever choose to upgrade to cities instead of castles if you get them to large market cities?

[Holando]

Originally posted by Prestogizmo:

Do vassals ever choose to upgrade to cities instead of castles if you get them to large market cities?

They do. In fact, most of them will upgrade it themselves and go feudal on their own given enough time (if their liege is feudal). The time it takes can vary greatly; it can take longer than +100 years for some slow ones.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by MASTER RENEGADE:

Originally posted by Doomcheese:

And yes, agnatic open overrides gavelkind so you can have a nice tribal succession too.

sweet!

you still get the typical muslem CBs along with the tribal ones, too?

man, why play norse when you can play muslem tribal?

Well there is the pagan subjugation CB, conquest CB on coastal areas, perpared invasion and vassals who raid. But on the whole if you are kingdom size and don't plan to use subjugation CB it's probably optimal to be Muslim when you are tribal.

Another OP thing with Muslim you can create a republic from scratch in 20 years, borrowing money and expelling. You can convert back to pagan after, since you will have insane amounts of piety.

[Thundercracker]

Originally posted by Doomcheese:

Originally posted by MASTER RENEGADE:

sweet!

you still get the typical muslem CBs along with the tribal ones, too?

man, why play norse when you can play muslem tribal?

Well there is the pagan subjugation CB, conquest CB on coastal areas, perpared invasion and vassals who raid. But on the whole if you are kingdom size and don't plan to use subjugation CB it's probably optimal to be Muslim when you are tribal.

Another OP thing with Muslim you can create a republic from scratch in 20 years, borrowing money and expelling. You can convert back to pagan after, since you will have insane amounts of piety.

muslems get conquest, not limited to coastal counties, though. you do lose out on the other things, and the boat bonus, but that's a very small price to pay for possibly the best succession rather than what is usually hailed as the worst.