• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Deus Vult!​


Too long Christian countries has been excluded as negligible and irrelevant, too long have heretics kept our Holy site and denied access to pilgrims.

Now that changes.
The Whole Western World has united under one banner, banner of the Cross to smite the heathens and restore peace in the Middle East and bring Holy City back into hands of Christendom. Let the world tremble under feet of German Landsknechts, Frankish Knights, Viking Berserks, Swiss Guards and Genoese Crossbowmen. (And the spirit of vanquished Hussars) as they march for a cause worth fighting for.

Eternal bliss for everyone who joins our cause!

(Or back down sullenly if our demands are met without fight)

So who will you be going to war against? KoM and Foels want a Islamic Jerusalem.
 
Denmark Never annexed Wales in sense. I lost as a king Of England, and I stepped down from all my claims in the isles, what Michell then did was between him and AI and others eating AI in that region. His own peace offer to me included me to remain as the Duke of Wales region. So blaming Micheal for annexing me or Wales as a human played nation is wrong and defaming towards him.
I am pretty sure that von Rundstedt was well aware of what happened even before your posting, but thanks for pointing it out nonetheless. :)
 
So who will you be going to war against? KoM and Foels want a Islamic Jerusalem.

Minor correction: Foels wants an Islamic Jerusalem, I am willing to accept one since it is Foels who has boots on the ground in that area. It is of course conceivable that Foels might accept a Christian Jerusalem (or as a compromise, a Jewish one?) in exchange for military aid from the West.
 
I still stand different, Micheal didn't eliminate me, I could have continue as well in the Wales...But my hurt ego/pride demanded me to move completely away there, so My departure was ultimately my own decission...
And I like to point this out becouse I don't want to be used as an examble in some player-eating-player horror shows.
 
Well we can be Jews too... the first king shall be called King Solomon Timon IV the Horse ew Tilius
 
you need to be sub! you need to resist this call from satan to take up his bailift post!!
 
Disclaimer; while the rhetoric between nations at times gets harsh, know that I am always referring to ingame nations with my propaganda in this thread and bad stuff I say about their realms in no way reflect on their actual persons. I find my player opposites stimulating strategists and propagandizers, as well as all round good sports, and harbor no ill will for lands lost or backs stabbed. :)

Egypt taking provs is totally different from when others did the same thing! :eek:

If taking land of me is acceptable, but me taking the very same land back is not, then it must follow I will slowly be annexed. None of you would subscribe to such a notion yourself. Ever.

Syria has been fought over since the beginning of the game, lacking as it is in sufficient depth for anybody to feel safe enough. A "buffer state", regardless of where it is placed in the M.E, will by its nature infringe on land that one of the native players finds unacceptable. As thus there will only be war, and the state will be annexed. A buffer will fix nothing. Only if we native players find a amicable split will there be lasting peace. Until then we will jostle. I do not intend to do more than gain the upper hand locally, certainly not to annex anybody.

Thus it follows that you must ask yourselves who you prefer to have the upper hand in the M.E.

The Caliphate has never started a single proper war against any player, ever. It has forsworn holding any land in Europe, look to al-Andalus. It has rattled sabers for peace. But again, never actually done anything, never taken anything in Europe for itself.

Byzantion/Persia has attacked every neighbor they have, and taken land from them. On multiple occasions. Consistently throughout the game. The Greeks have "self defended" their way from Antioch to the Gates of Milan. They have gathered the largest coalitions of conquest the game has seen against a single player. They have demanded another be cut in half. They will not suddenly become peaceful because of some buffer Jerusalem. They have started this war, as they have started every war in the East. Let them speak of defense all they wish, it has ever been their finger on the dow-button.

Should I be stymied in this war, should you meet success in your demands for my weakening, know that it will not satisfy them. West Rome, I do not know what to make of your shouts for the bulwark against the aggressive east to be torn down. You know their ability to form coalitions, how long do you think it will be before the Greeks land in Naples? They will do it, you know this. You worry about me influencing peacedeals? They will not stop until they have yet again retaken the Italian boot! They will do to you as they have done to both Russia, Egypt and West Rome before us. That is their precedent.


I do not attack players, they do. I will not play for conquest in Europe, they will. I skirmish over some unpronounceable piece of sand in Arabia, they repeatedly attempt to bring down entire realms.

Let the Syrian conflicts ebb and flow, let the moslems and iconist kill each other. So long as Egypt has the upper hand Europe is safe. And we seek no more than the upper hand. Do not listen to the viles of Persia and Byzantion, their lust for conquest will never be stopped, do not forget they do not have a single neighbor they have not declared war on. Their word is venom and their promises quicksand.
 
As a point of order, I haven't had a chance to backstabb Persia yet. :)

Fixed, and as a point of grammar I referred to you two as a single entity.

(I also note that you did not even attempt to refute the remainder of the accusations leveled) ;)
 
Last edited:
FrozenWall said:
They have gathered the largest coalitions of conquest the game has seen against a single player.

Well, if people are so fond of attacking you, perhaps it is you who is the problem and not us.

I have already declared that I will not attack the proposed buffer state. Persia have always through been consistent and true to its word. If you want inconsistency and deceit, look no further than Egypt. It will meddle in the matters of others, enforcing rules that conveniently does not apply to itself. It has a long and dark history of assasination and it will even target children if they stand in the way of the egyptian greed, as we have seen. It claims to never having attacked anyone, but I ask you, if this is true how did it gain Sardinia, Sicily, Jerusalem, Mosul, Spain, Antioch and Crete. There are many ways of attacking and Egypt has simply chosen the most devious kind.

Egypt claim moral superiority while even a blind man can see that it is rotten to the core.


The fact is that we have the two most powerful nations making demands on two middle-of-the-road powers of a scale never enforced upon themselves, both in absolute and relative terms. Just as they were about to invade us, we saw through their thinly veiled pretenses and decided that a desperate attack of our own would be our best hope for survival. Once again Egypt claims "moral superiority", because it was, technically, not the attacker.

The peace proposal outlined by the Roman Emperor would make peace in the Middle East possible. Persia now holds most of the lands it held long ago and does not desire any further expansion. It will give up its ancient claims to Jerusalem.
If Egypt desires peace as much as it claims, now is the time to prove it.
 
Is this starting to get to the point where I am need to be installed as temporary (but to sneak out as permanent) ruler one of the belligrent superpowers (most appropriately something +300k MP one :D) to restore world peace? No?
 
I do not intend to do more than gain the upper hand locally [...] Thus it follows that you must ask yourselves who you prefer to have the upper hand in the M.E.

Both Russo-Egyptian side and Persian-Byzantine side seem agreed that you already do have the upper hand in the Middle East by a large margin. Egypt is already (a lot) more powerful than Persia or Byz, and Russia+Egypt (not to mention Russia+Egypt+Croatia+Andalus) is also much more powerful than Persia and Byz put together. Proposed peace is designed, according to you, to make Egypt once again stronger than its only two land neighbors put together, not to just give it the upper hand, no?
 
Last edited:
Now, if you want to continue to complain about that arrangement, why are there no complaints about Croatia being a "totally insignificant minor" and why is no one crying out to help me?

For my part it is partly because I am assuming that Croatia will be stronger once Poland finishes recovering from being burned to the ground by its kings. I may be wrong in this, I don't know. But as of recently I heard that Poland was not yet producing much income for you, whereas it doubtless eventually will if you manage to hang onto it, so it is a matter of time and Croatia is not doomed to being a minor power with its current borders.
 
Last edited:
Egypt is already (a lot) more powerful than Persia or Byz

If this is true, then why has Persia annexed their way to the Med? Because while those numbers make it seem like I am stronger the fact is half of the number must be brought from the other side of the map. When they arrive we will have crashed once or twice anf they have the moralebug, while Persia/Byz simply demob/remob and defeat them. This is not sp, due to the bugged mp enviroment I am incapable of defending my border with troops from far away, It is they who are stronger.
 
I thought you said it was because you lost a ton of armies to disappearance bugs? Also, I thought you said you had successfully defended everything important in Syria as well as conquering a lot of it from KOM, and that the lost parts were just sand? Also, I thought it was possibly because they have done a successful preemptive attack and it took you some time to react? If you're claiming that it's because Persia is individually stronger than Egypt then I am not sure I believe you.
 
Last edited:
The bugs are certainly part of it, but KoM lost an army to. So while it has mainly affected me at least I am not the only one. Second; the only reason I have not lost more is Russia and Croatia. Persia is locally stronger than me, and due to ck-engine shenanigans I am unable to bring non-local armies to bear.
 
Last edited:
Ah, it is good to see, that after a long hiatus, the CotF boys are still slinging the propaganda around. Although I am disappointed that Golle is not more involved. I assume he is biding his time. :)
 
The bugs are certainly part of it, but KoM lost an army to. So while it has mainly affected me at least I am not the only one. Second; the only reason I have not lost more is Russia and Croatia. Persia is locally stronger than me, and due to ck-engine shenanigans I am unable to bring non-local armies to bear.

It is, those lands represent little more than 10 coin and much attrition, we have yet not lost a province worth more than half a coin in monthly income. The only thing that matters in a war is the army, and ones ability to reinforce it. Despite my entire Syrian fieldarmy twice dissapearing due to bugs we have recaptured these lands, and are driving the Persians back in the desert.

I find it hard to reconcile these positions. If, despite the Persians getting help from Byz, launching a pre-emptive attack, and being helped by major bugs with your armies, you have successfully defended every single valuable province and are now recapturing your old land and Roman Syria, it does not seem like you are weaker than Persia alone in theater.