Why is this happening? What is the point of crusades if you can't keep the land? What is the point of calling a game crusader kings if you can't go on crusade, because winning means losing everything.
Why is this happening? What is the point of crusades if you can't keep the land? What is the point of calling a game crusader kings if you can't go on crusade, because winning means losing everything.
All vassals at 100% what? Be a little more specific.
describe your problem closer, but I can guess as much as that you are a catholic state, meaning you get terrible modifiers on the relation to the vassals as well as the plebs that form the revolt mobs mainly.
Try send your Court Chaplain with the local inquisition and make sure Catholics are in charge.
The distance from your capital automatically makes them rebel apparently.... Them rebelling encourages others to rebel, causing a avalanche effect.
I just started my game as a Duke in Sicily just so that once i get powerful enough to crusade, i can still hold the land. ( hopefully )
All vasals like 100%, yet they all rebel. It's a problem with distance, but what the point in making a game about crusades, called crusader kings which makes succeeding at crusades the death of your game
It's safe to assume that he means 100 relations.Originally Posted by AchedTeacher
You're an irreplaceable human soul, with your own understanding of what it means to suffer.
Do we really need another thread about this...some people like the mechanic...some people hate...either way it is easy enough to mod to however you like it.
Either move your capital to Jerusalem or give Jerusalem to a close family member. If you move it then give your home kingdom to a close family member. That's how it was done historically.
Want a EU3 mod that focuses on the late game? Would you rather see Spanish South America over Gelren South America?
Check out Aut Caesar, Aut Nihil.
I really think it should be common practice to giver Jerusalem away. It really has no strategic value and it's ahistorical to have a king of both that and something else.
A side question, if a kingdom is gained in a crusade, does it still have to put up with the "no troops for 30 years" penalty?
I'd hope so, makes no sense levying troops from foreign, hostile,and wrong religion subjects.
You're an irreplaceable human soul, with your own understanding of what it means to suffer.
The thing with the crusader states back then was that they couldn't survive with out the support of the Papacy and the Catholic Rulers, Effectively making them "vassals" in a way of the European Nobility and the Papacy.
I think that the system needs to be reworked.
Make it so there is a dual/triple master-vassal system where there can be one kingdom ( i.e Kingdom Of Jerusalem) but within that kingdom the dukes that make up the kingdom are actually vassals of European lords ( the ones who crusaded )
Give an option where you can choose whether to give half the ownership rights to the Papacy of the land you captured during the crusade or to keep it all but at a cost of the Pope being very mad at you.
If a kingdom is formed, it would be a theocracy in a way where instead of the Kings son taking over, the Pope picks the kings of the Crusader States from one of the Dukes ( make the selection a popularity contest of how much the Pope likes the Masters of the Dukes that make up the kingdom).
and the Tax from the Holy land holding should be divided 3 ways, 1/3 to the duke, another to the pope, and another to the Dukes master.
And there's no reason the Pope cant be the master of some Dukes as well.
The problem I see is: I gain Jerusalem, I give it away to my brother. He now owns Jerusalem, but can't field troops because of the modifiers. This means it will be retaken in a few years.
The game models this alright. Historically, the Pope didn't have the time to care about Jerusalem as he was to busy fighting with the HRE. Until Jerusalem was taken back by Muslim, the holy land was never controlled or vassal of European kingdoms.
Many dukes and kings helped the K. of Jerusalem without anything in return but piety, honor and the satisfaction of helping the crusader states. In fact, I can't remember any example of a lord who had land in Europe and in the Holy land during Jerusalem's better years. The gave up their European holding to their son or sold it to pay for the journey to the holy land. Becoming a lord in the holy land means you would probably die in battle (unless you had a fast horse!)
Not everyone wants to play a historical simulator. If we did we'd play a count for 300 years then start a new game. People want to change the game and try new things. Taking over kingdoms in crusades and having to immediately give them away to avoid your home counties revolting is not a fun game mechanic no matter how historically accurate it may have been. Historical accuracy should never trump playability.
-Cal
AARagon (4/04 -- Teaser Update) Abandoned due to additional patches
Its sensible, you have territory far away thats difficult to administer, and it just was taken and is totally different culture. I have the same problem as Leon, because the Duchy of Jerusalem---and ONLY that duchy---will revolt no matter what. Still, its a minor nuisance, and I can still move my capital if it was more of a problem.
Which, IMO, is what you should do. Personally I like the current crusade system, its interesting and very satisfying to win.
I have yet to defeat the Caliphate.
You know i didn't feel too strongly ether way on the new mechanics argument. BUT this guy does make a really strong point.
Its called crusader kings , the closest thing to a game goal is to make the Kingdom of Jerusalem , Yet doing any of those things = bad.
Im finding that i agree with this sentiments more and more every day with this particular game. Nothing that we do is actually all that realistic. The count of Trevisto never became Emperor of HRE , and than conquered 1/2 the world. Yet that happens all the time in games. IF this game were all about the history , and not the game play , we would indeed be playing counts for the majority of our time. Counts didn't rapidly land grab and make kingdoms within 20 years. And im pretty sure Kings didn't go around fabricating claims on stupid things like Genoa , which would be an obviously fake claim to anyone. BUT if the game didn't have these things , and these ways to move forward and progress , life a a virtual count would be boring. We don't get the power over real people , we don't get the comfy bed high up in a castle with noble courtiers surrounding us. People should be a little less absolute in their view on the Realism / Historic arguments. Ultimately this is a game , with historic elements. Game play should take priority over history in a game.Not everyone wants to play a historical simulator. If we did we'd play a count for 300 years then start a new game. People want to change the game and try new things. Taking over kingdoms in crusades and having to immediately give them away to avoid your home counties revolting is not a fun game mechanic no matter how historically accurate it may have been. Historical accuracy should never trump playability.
Last edited by Kynaz; 24-04-2012 at 19:53.
So just hold onto it until the modifiers go away. If he rebels so what, he has no levies to defend with.
you never heard of the Turkopoles i guess...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote