Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Just taken Jerusalem in Crusade, all vasal at 100%, yet constant rebellion

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69864 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10587 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6361 After Action Reports
In the game I just finished, I ruled the Kingdoms of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Jerusalem. I seem to have avoided most of the issues people to seem to be having with revolts by going with policy of absentee landlords. I held the counties of Jerusalem and Kerak as part of my personal demense and gave the other counties to my Dukes in England Scotland and Ireland. Since the Dukes capitols were all near my capitol in England, they didn't have the distance revolt risk factor. Some of the Dukes gave the Jerusalem counties to vassals and had some internal revolts, but they resolved those themselves, and I actually liked to have them distracted that way. The only time I had a major issue was when the Duke of Norfolk moved his capitol to Acre, then he started revolting all the time until I beat him and revoked Acre.

I orginally had set up some direct vassals with just holdings in Jerusalem, but they revolted right away and got swallowed back up by the Caliphate, so that's when I switched to the method above.
 
Grave Digger said:
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.
Click to expand...

give the land to a vassal that has the right culture and right religion, then give it to your brother after the culture and religion modifiers have dissapeared (should be within a few days)

or wait for the modiefiers to wear out and keep pouring in troops from europe. a vassal that cannot levy troops is hardly a threat when he rebels is he
 
Basically, that's why I never go on long-distance crusades. What you need to do is follow Machiavelli's advice and live among your conquered lands. Set your capital to Jerusalem and wait out the wrong religion penalties. If you set the capital to Jerusalem, there is a couple of events to change the culture to yours, which will get rid of one of the most severe of the penalties. Get the guy with the highest learning that you can (20+ if you can) and set him to inquisition: he'll convert the province he's working in. Giving your counties in KoJ away to landless men will give them good bonuses in relation to you, and they'll set about converting the Levantine Muslims to Levantine Catholics. Just make sure the new lords are of your exact culture. You might want to marry a Byzantine princess for the alliance. Actually do that now! You are now on the front lines of the religious war with Islam. Good luck, Defender of the Faith!
 
Dunaden said:
In the game I just finished, I ruled the Kingdoms of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Jerusalem. I seem to have avoided most of the issues people to seem to be having with revolts by going with policy of absentee landlords. I held the counties of Jerusalem and Kerak as part of my personal demense and gave the other counties to my Dukes in England Scotland and Ireland. Since the Dukes capitols were all near my capitol in England, they didn't have the distance revolt risk factor. Some of the Dukes gave the Jerusalem counties to vassals and had some internal revolts, but they resolved those themselves, and I actually liked to have them distracted that way. The only time I had a major issue was when the Duke of Norfolk moved his capitol to Acre, then he started revolting all the time until I beat him and revoked Acre.

I orginally had set up some direct vassals with just holdings in Jerusalem, but they revolted right away and got swallowed back up by the Caliphate, so that's when I switched to the method above.
Click to expand...

Devious!
 
Millipede69 said:
Does anyone else here just gift the entire kingdom to the pope to rake in the piety points? Or does that not work in 1.05?
Click to expand...

Why do that when you can give it to a dynasty member and rake in the combined prestige, not to mention have an ally for further wars in that region. Convenient, when you think about it.
 
Kagernaut said:
Why do that when you can give it to a dynasty member and rake in the combined prestige, not to mention have an ally for further wars in that region. Convenient, when you think about it.
Click to expand...

That option isnt always available... and would be especially dangerous if the dynasty member was within your realm or had some claims on your holdings. Giving stuff to the pope is usually pretty safe.
 
I've never really had this problem when I've taken Jerusalem. I even turn it into a Theocracy (so I can constantly have Catholic-My Culture rulers succeeding) and suffer the wrong gov't type penalties, but never had it actually revolt.
 
In my game I control Denmark/Finland/Lithuania and a chunk of Rus and the pagan territory north of Rus. I also own Venice/Genoa as well as 3 major duchies of the shia calphiate (alexandria,damietta,arabia felix) as well as Cyrenica. My capital is in Venice even though both Sjaelland and Mecca are far better simply because it's equidistant. I've found that the distance penalty isn't even my biggest complaint anymore it's the stacking revolt penalty. 10% is far too severe. When my son took over I had 2 dukes at 109% 1 at 67 3 at 40. The 2 dukes at 100 revolted immediately which pushed the 67 to 87. He revolted which pushed the 3 40's to 70's.

I expected to have revolts with a new king (even though he wasn't a child and had decent stats) but the majority of the revolts were not due to any bad stats or even the distance but mostly because of how rapidly it stacked. I think the the stacking penalty needs to be localized. It should only influence adjacent duchies/counties/kingdoms (depenidng on rank of the person revolting). A count in Medina should not make a duke in Belarazoo more likely to revolt.

I ended up with over 9 independence wars and despite having over 60k troops and never being in any real danger I ended up losing one due to a combination of the trickle up warscore and the fact that sieges take stupid long in muslim countries. Between their crazy income and their high tech you get 2.3% with even 10-1 on troops.

It's honestly not very enjoyable and I would think that that would be a key factor of how the game is patched. Not historical accuracy
 
Torf the Great said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah except for having amazing cultural, economic, and military stats. It's a pretty dense set of land, too - lots of holdings available, much like Denmark.

Pity about it being surrounded by Muslims and then Mongols. And then Muslim Mongols. Although if you start in 1066 and the Byzantine Empire is stomping hard, or if the Pope has also successfully called a crusade against Rum or Egypt, it can be a pretty nice holding.
 
what?!, you can't manage jerusalim effectively when you're miles away in europe somewhere? that is ABSURD, this game is clearly broken, a real medieval simulator would let you easily hold together many kingdom titles from all over the globe!!
 
Jak9090 said:
what?!, you can't manage jerusalim effectively when you're miles away in europe somewhere? that is ABSURD, this game is clearly broken, a real medieval simulator would let you easily hold together many kingdom titles from all over the globe!!
Click to expand...
well, if there were viceroys...

still, ignoring your tasty serving of sarcasm, the HRE did try to make Jerusalem a part of the empire (due to inheritance). Only, the barons of Jerusalem (or rather, nobility in-game, not just barons) didn't want imperial hold. Several complicated years later, Jerusalem effectively just drifted away from Imperial control becoming de facto independent (despite being de jure imperial).
 
ConstantineXII said:
I have yet to defeat the Caliphate.
Click to expand...

Ditto, not for lack of trying though.. I did take northern egypt with the Duke of Swabia though with my own dynasty. van Oranje-Nassau.

Of course.. keeping it was another matter.
 
Does anyone else use the once a generation 5000 prestige and 2000 piety you get for conquering Jerusalem? In my current England game, I crusade, win, form Jerusalem, then give it away. After some years it is conquered, so during my successor's reign, there will likely be a new crusade for Jerusalem. So, I crusade, win, form Jerusalem, then give it away. After some years it is conquered, so during my successor's reign, there will likely be a new crusade for Jerusalem. So, I crusade, win, form Jerusalem, then give it away...
 
Jak9090 said:
what?!, you can't manage jerusalim effectively when you're miles away in europe somewhere? that is ABSURD, this game is clearly broken, a real medieval simulator would let you easily hold together many kingdom titles from all over the globe!!
Click to expand...

The distance penalty really isn't the issue. The issue is even with 100% liking with your vassals if one guy turns ambitious then revolts he adds 10% to your entire empire. If even one guy get's an unlucky roll then he revolts and adds 10% to your entire empire. They do this as a matter of course and no matter how much they like you. It's pretty silly. It'd be one thing if the people were overthrowing your vassal lords but your loyal vassals are actually revolting simply because a couple other people revolted. I get why that SEEMS reasonable. However it needs to be localized and adjusted. There also needs to be some kind power adjustment. If 80% of your standing forces have revolted other people should seriously consider it. If 8k worth of guys revolted and you still control 50k they should probably think about it a little more.

They don't.
 
ETTAR said:
I'd hope so, makes no sense levying troops from foreign, hostile,and wrong religion subjects.
Click to expand...

What about the troops you have there after having conquered it. Why do they get sent all the way back home. The 'sense' thing would be them now stationed in the Holy Land to protect the land they just fought so hard to take.
 
I don't think there is an issue with making it so hard to keep distant lands however i don't think the guy you just made duke of somewhere in the holy lands should be rebelling less than a year later still with +100 opinion of you. At least change it so his opinion drops to a point over time where he will rebel or even start the rebellions with the next generation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back