On the New Crusade system, should you lose former titles?

[Orinsul]

Does anyone else feel that on winning a Crusade, you shouldnt keep both the Crusader Kingdom and your old duchy, stolen away from your former liege? Or for kings become king of two places?

Historically the Crusaders gave up their former lands, as is the only practical thing to do rather than rule on two ends of the continent and having to fight your former friend and liege at some point when you really need to focus on maintaining the holy land.
But in CK2.5c you suddenly and without warning become King of a vast kingdom, and king of a duchy or two in the middle of someone elses kingdom too.

What i reckon should happen is an on action event giving you the option of becoming King of the Crusade Kingdom at the cost of losing your old holdings to your former liege or if your a king then your old kingdom passes to the strongest de jure vassal or same dynasty vassal or something.
or keep your old lands and get a prestige and piety boost and have the next in line crusader get offered the same choice.
That way there would be choice and consequence.

As it is, it might be good for a player wanting to conquer the world, but it doesnt really make sense story-wise.

[DreadLindwyrm]

Well, (in 1.05b) I did lose my holdings back home. I kept the duchy, but my sons appeared to inherit my counties. It was a little strange and chaotic though, so I'd need to check if it happens again. I was an independent Duke at the time.

[Jak9090]

yeah, either your old kingdom/duchy should goto your oldest brother/2nd,3rd etc son, or the crusader kingdom goes to them.

[Orinsul]

ive only tried 5c. And the crusades ended up with my duchies staying with me, and then revolting on account of distance and then once they had been put down having my former liege declare war for them. In both games ive crusaded in since the patch.

And with all the holy wars getting declare on you as jerusalem trouble back home really isnt what you need to be worrying about nor does it make sense to be happening. My vassals and old king fought hard for the crusade to succeed theyre hardly likely to undermine it afterwards.

yeah, either your old kingdom/duchy should goto your oldest brother/2nd,3rd etc son, or the crusader kingdom goes to them.

Thatd work brilliant. either that or if you have primo. it does senority once on event, or elective once or event and if you have senority it does primo. once or something like that to sunder the two.

[Fawr]

I think the distance penalty mechanic, while not forcing a player to give up one of their realms, strongly encorage it (except for people crusading in nearby provinces). If they don't then any vassals they have back there will have huge distance penalties and will constantly revolt...

[ilikepie]

there needs to be a way for all the people that participated in the crusade for getting piety and prestige. Even if you were just a knight leading a contingent of 20 heavy footmen from some city in france. All the people that get land in the crusader state should forever lose their claims to their former lands, and if anyone ever inherits lands in the crusader state they should get an event to abandon their old territories to their closest dynasty member or something.

[xcrissxcrossx]

I would be so excited if I heard that PI would include something like this in a future patch.

[Jak9090]

I would be so excited if I heard that PI would include something like this in a future patch.

It is likely they will if the community press the issue, most all new features have been at the suggestion of the community.

[Held der Arbeit]

Makes sense for the classical "European Country snatching Jerusalem" scenario. For other crusades like Portugal? Not so much.

Maybe there is a way to tie it to the distance penalty? Like, if you are King of Spain and crusade for Portugal, you can logically keep both Kingdoms, as it would have happened IRL.
If you are King of Spain and go for Jersusalem, in order to rule there, you need to abdicate.

However, If you are the Ruler of a Crusader Duchy (Damascus, Antiocheia etc), you should be able to incorporate Jerusalem into your current realm, seeing as it's "next door" to begin with

[lenny]

If they every implemented a mechanic like this, I would never crusade again. I won a crusade in 1.05b as England and I gave the two coastal duchies to the holy orders and the rest of the Kingdom to some poor Norman courtier. I had no interest in keeping Jerusalem, but I want that to be my choice as the player. (And the choice of the AI.)

[Orinsul]

If they every implemented a mechanic like this, I would never crusade again. I won a crusade in 1.05b as England and I gave the two coastal duchies to the holy orders and the rest of the Kingdom to some poor Norman courtier. I had no interest in keeping Jerusalem, but I want that to be my choice as the player. (And the choice of the AI.)

Then, if it was done sensibly, you would have had the option of turning the crusader kingdom down, and getting the adoration of the christian world for being so humble and virtuous a man, rather than having it forced suddenly upon you without warning and going to some random courtier rather than someone else who it might make sense to go to, i.e. the next in line to it.

We are saying it should be a choice. Take the Crusader Kingdom and lose what you have, or keep what you have and pass on the crusader kingdom. But not keep both, and if you were a vassal not keep titles that will cause unreasonable conflict.

Makes sense for the classical "European Country snatching Jerusalem" scenario. For other crusades like Portugal? Not so much.

Maybe there is a way to tie it to the distance penalty? Like, if you are King of Spain and crusade for Portugal, you can logically keep both Kingdoms, as it would have happened IRL.
If you are King of Spain and go for Jersusalem, in order to rule there, you need to abdicate.

However, If you are the Ruler of a Crusader Duchy (Damascus, Antiocheia etc), you should be able to incorporate Jerusalem into your current realm, seeing as it's "next door" to begin with

Distance factoring in would be a good idea!! If it neighboured something you already owned, getting a thrid option to keep both with a smaller piety gain or something. Maybe give everyone the third option but unless you are close to it it comes with relationship and prestige penalties.

[Zedwardson]

I think it would be better to give teh land to a cadet branch of your family and grant independence. Wouldn't be bad in current system except that crown law drops when someone revolts and gets independence.

[Jia Xu]

Absolutely not. Winning a crusade in the middle-east would be a death sentence.

[Orinsul]

I think it would be better to give teh land to a cadet branch of your family and grant independence. Wouldn't be bad in current system except that crown law drops when someone revolts and gets independence.

The game probably couldnt manage that. maybe if it could calc. your first fourth in line [first not a pretender] heir and hand it to him. But going to de jure/liege would probably be all as could work easily with the system.

Absolutely not. Winning a crusade in the middle-east would be a death sentence.

no more than it already is, in fact less so as you wouldnt have to fight your former liege or distance penalty wars.