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

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...

Yet another of those ignorant comments. As others have pointed out, there are ways around it and it doesn't actually prevent WC's from happening if we game the system. Rather, this is just an annoyance factor, much like peasant rebellion.

Nice try being sarcastic.

NaueiWH1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Take a deep breath... and pause the game.

Now, look at your intrigue screen, tab 1: THREATS, and inspect the revolt risks your vassals have. It'll be obvious what you need to do.

• Be the de jure liege; Okay, you hold the kingdom of Jerusalem in this case, so that's done.
• Appoint vassals who share your culture and religion to hold land for you in Jerusalem.
• Some close kin can gain a modifier to revolt risk due to kinship.
• If possible, relocate your capital closer to Jerusalem to gain a shorter command distance. If you are on one fringe of Europe trying to command the other fringe, you are doing things wrong.
• Keep vassals at a high opinion towards you (you are already doing this) by whatever means necessary.
• Any vassal who has a high revolt risk after you've taken all those measures, consider using him in action to deplete his levies. He's much more likely to revolt if he has an army behind him and nothing to do.
• If you don't want to go these extra steps to have loyal vassals in the holy land, consider parceling out the counties in the holy land to your major nobles back home - so long as they don't pack up and move their seat of power to the holy land, they'll stay close to you and be much easier to control.

You'll have absolutely no problems holding on to land in Jerusalem if you are careful about managing your far-flung domains.

I realize that having to make these strategic considerations may not come natural to all players, but it is easy to handle once you start thinking positively about overcoming obstacles rather than giving up when the most obvious solution (in this case focusing solely on "opinion", which is merely one factor) fails to be sufficient.

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.

Click to expand...

I had read about the absentee landlord concept but I didn't want to break up my realm like that so I gave all the provinces to landless courtiers anyway hoping to just keep them happy enough to make it a small issue... after suppressing rebellions every 10 years or so, I am now revoking provinces and handing them out in the way you describe above.

SR
p.s. I also noticed an extra benefit though small in game terms. A lot of provinces back home are benefitting from a larger demesne bonus to economic and cultural tech because the new province is more advanced.

Peter Ebbesen said:

Take a deep breath... and pause the game.

Now, look at your intrigue screen, tab 1: THREATS, and inspect the revolt risks your vassals have. It'll be obvious what you need to do.

• Be the de jure liege; Okay, you hold the kingdom of Jerusalem in this case, so that's done.
• Appoint vassals who share your culture and religion to hold land for you in Jerusalem.
• Some close kin can gain a modifier to revolt risk due to kinship.
• If possible, relocate your capital closer to Jerusalem to gain a shorter command distance. If you are on one fringe of Europe trying to command the other fringe, you are doing things wrong.
• Keep vassals at a high opinion towards you (you are already doing this) by whatever means necessary.
• Any vassal who has a high revolt risk after you've taken all those measures, consider using him in action to deplete his levies. He's much more likely to revolt if he has an army behind him and nothing to do.
• If you don't want to go these extra steps to have loyal vassals in the holy land, consider parceling out the counties in the holy land to your major nobles back home - so long as they don't pack up and move their seat of power to the holy land, they'll stay close to you and be much easier to control.

You'll have absolutely no problems holding on to land in Jerusalem if you are careful about managing your far-flung domains.

I realize that having to make these strategic considerations may not come natural to all players, but it is easy to handle once you start thinking positively about overcoming obstacles rather than giving up when the most obvious solution (in this case focusing solely on "opinion", which is merely one factor) fails to be sufficient.

Click to expand...

I've had +100 with everyone. The problem is with a 10% global bonus to revolting if even one guy gets a low roll it makes it 10% more likely that someone else will revolt and it snowballs. They really need to localize the stacking penalty & reduce it.

I didn't know about the dynasty bonus to revolt risk though. Can you go into more detail on that? Is it anyone of my dynasty or a close relation? (aunt/uncle or only sibling/child?)

Calbrenar said:

I've had +100 with everyone. The problem is with a 10% global bonus to revolting if even one guy gets a low roll it makes it 10% more likely that someone else will revolt and it snowballs. They really need to localize the stacking penalty & reduce it.

Click to expand...

It only goes up to +50%, and if you can't crush rebellions before they get out of hand... your revolt risk when nobody is rebelling is too high or you don't have proper response forces in theatre.

Now, in a game as character driven as CK2, it is always possible that something goes disastrously and hilariously wrong with nobody to blame but the RNG, but the most likely reason for spiraling out of control in revolts is inadequate preparation or poor realm management, so think of the "100 opinion" as a first step rather than the goal itself.

I didn't know about the dynasty bonus to revolt risk though. Can you go into more detail on that? Is it anyone of my dynasty or a close relation? (aunt/uncle or only sibling/child?)

Click to expand...

It definitely isn't just anybody in your dynasty.

I don't know the precise mechanics as I only became aware of it recently. I first noticed it when I noticed that one vassal, who'd climbed into the danger zone threatening revolt, got a RR reduction from being my son-in-law. I also think I saw one getting RR reduction for being my son's brother-in-law. This is definitely something that bears closer investigation, but my initial investigation suggests that this is only a select group and hence not all that useful or easy to take advantage of.

It would be considerably easier to e.g. adjust crown laws, since the higher the crown authority, the more the noblemen dislike it and would like to revolt to become free nobles. E.g. high crown authority gives a blanket +10% RR to everybody, no questions asked. Now, reducing crown authority is a serious step and anybody running high or absolute crown authority probably does it for a really good reason, but it is something to consider seriously for anybody wanting far-flung holdings (and not having all the title holders shacked up near high own capital).

Peter Ebbesen said:

It only goes up to +50%, and if you can't crush rebellions before they get out of hand... your revolt risk when nobody is rebelling is too high or you don't have proper response forces in theatre.

Now, in a game as character driven as CK2, it is always possible that something goes disastrously and hilariously wrong with nobody to blame but the RNG, but the most likely reason for spiraling out of control in revolts is inadequate preparation or poor realm management, so think of the "100 opinion" as a first step rather than the goal itself.


It definitely isn't just anybody in your dynasty.

I don't know the precise mechanics as I only became aware of it recently. I first noticed it when I noticed that one vassal, who'd climbed into the danger zone threatening revolt, got a RR reduction from being my son-in-law. I also think I saw one getting RR for being my son's brother-in-law. This is definitely something that bears closer investigation, but my initial investigation suggests that this is only a select group and hence not all that useful or easy to take advantage of.

It would be considerably easier to e.g. adjust crown laws, since the higher the crown authority, the more the noblemen dislike it and would like to revolt to become free nobles. E.g. high crown authority gives a blanket +10% RR to everybody, no questions asked. Now, reducing crown authority is a serious step and anybody running high or absolute crown authority probably does it for a really good reason, but it is something to consider seriously for anybody wanting far-flung holdings (and not having all the title holders shacked up near high own capital).

Click to expand...

There's only so much you can do preemptively when your realm is Denmark/Lithuania/Finland/Pagan territories + Damietta Alesandria and MEcca/Medina area. Even with cap in Venice you get pretty high risk from distance. Not insurmountable but the global 10% stacking rapidly makes it ugly. I still think it should be localized.

Calbrenar said:

There's only so much you can do preemptively when your realm is Denmark/Lithuania/Finland/Pagan territories + Damietta Alesandria and MEcca/Medina area. Even with cap in Venice you get pretty high risk from distance. Not insurmountable but the global 10% stacking rapidly makes it ugly. I still think it should be localized.

Click to expand...

There's only so much you can do preemptively, but your example is certainly doable. A capital in Denmark to the Alexandria-Damietta-Sinai-Jerusalem area only gives a 75-85% RR distance modifier, for instance, something that is completely wiped out by being same religion and culture, de jure liege, and having 100 opinion (which in total gives -95% RR).

Mecca/Medinia is higher RR, but it'll still take seriously bad luck or a lack of preparations for rebellions to spread rather than be crushed.

And that's with a capital in Denmark. With a capital in Venice one would assume that Finland got the biggest modifiers, but I haven't tried so I don't know the exact range. Still, I wouldn't expect much in excess of 80% RR from distance.

------------

That said, it might/might not make sense to make it localized. That's really a separate issue to whether the current system a) works [yes], and b) causes constant rebellions [no, not if you play sensibly].

If it is, I'm thinking something like 10%/revolter within a short distance plus 5%/revolter for long distances might work, but I remain unconvinced that reducing the current RR factors is necessary.

Calbrenar said:

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.

Click to expand...

And I want to be a wizard. I want to drop atomic bombs on rebelling dukes, and drive a tank through the Muslim lands. Why can't I !!!!

Seriously, think before you post... this is a medieval game, and while it lets you do super mega things, like going from count to emperor in one generation, or conquering all of Africa for Christendom, you are limited to doing this IN A MEDIEVAL SETTING. Long distance kingdoms would be L33T, just like driving a tanks through the Caliphate or dropping a nuke on the duke of Lancaster. BUT NOT MEDIEVAL!!

Leviathan07 said:

And I want to be a wizard. I want to drop atomic bombs on rebelling dukes, and drive a tank through the Muslim lands. Why can't I !!!!

Seriously, think before you post... this is a medieval game, and while it lets you do super mega things, like going from count to emperor in one generation, or conquering all of Africa for Christendom, you are limited to doing this IN A MEDIEVAL SETTING. Long distance kingdoms would be L33T, just like driving a tanks through the Caliphate or dropping a nuke on the duke of Lancaster. BUT NOT MEDIEVAL!!

Click to expand...

well to be fair, if you want to see how gameplay trumps historical accuracy, the Total War series is right over there.
still, he does have some point. while it is indeed historical accurate for faraway domains to revolt, it still isn't fun because the implementation is too coarse. if say there were a "power meter" that represents how strong your hold over a far-away domain is, complete with viceroys ruling them in your name and other features to emulate real-life concerns, then THAT would be BOTH fun to play while still challenging AND historically accurate.
as of now, the abstraction of distance=revolt risk is just too coarse. It works for gameplay purposes sure, but it's just not that intricate enough. It's essentially like EU3 economics vs Victoria 2 economics.

All of this seems to be too much to bother. They really should tune this problem down a bit. A vassal with an opinion of 50+ shouldn't revolt, even if the capital of his liege is at the other end of the map.

barny said:

All of this seems to be too much to bother. They really should tune this problem down a bit. A vassal with an opinion of 50+ shouldn't revolt, even if the capital of his liege is at the other end of the map.

Click to expand...

If that's what you think, then I'm sure you'll agree it should be much, much, harder to maintain a positive opinion score rather than high opinion being the norm, yes?

Why? So the dukes in Jerusalem revolt more often? In my opinion it doesn't make much sense in the first place. A strong connection to the "motherland" is all, that keeps them from being gobbled up by the Islamic states that are surrounding them. Revolting against their liege is the first step of losing their land, even if they successfully become independent.

Peter Ebbesen said:

There's only so much you can do preemptively, but your example is certainly doable. A capital in Denmark to the Alexandria-Damietta-Sinai-Jerusalem area only gives a 75-85% RR distance modifier, for instance, something that is completely wiped out by being same religion and culture, de jure liege, and having 100 opinion (which in total gives -95% RR).

Mecca/Medinia is higher RR, but it'll still take seriously bad luck or a lack of preparations for rebellions to spread rather than be crushed.

And that's with a capital in Denmark. With a capital in Venice one would assume that Finland got the biggest modifiers, but I haven't tried so I don't know the exact range. Still, I wouldn't expect much in excess of 80% RR from distance.

------------

That said, it might/might not make sense to make it localized. That's really a separate issue to whether the current system a) works [yes], and b) causes constant rebellions [no, not if you play sensibly].

If it is, I'm thinking something like 10%/revolter within a short distance plus 5%/revolter for long distances might work, but I remain unconvinced that reducing the current RR factors is necessary.

Click to expand...

It's definitely doable as I've been doing it. My concern is that the game as written is not necessarily FUN. I just think they need to fold things into the reputation more and not use arbitrary revolt risks. The revolt risk system itself doesn't make a lot of sense as the people revolting are the super loyal guys that you hand picked to run the counties in many cases are their sole protection against hordes of muslims. So you take a guy who is a nobody and all of a sudden he's part of the nobility of one of the most powerful courts in the world. His first thing, despite loving you, is to spit in your face and try to go independent in the middle of the Shia Caliphate? Doesn't make a lot of sense.

the only time I've had issues now is mostly when king dies which I would expect. These issues have further been exacerbated by the fact that I've been building my leaders for stewardship when they should be built for high diplomacy. The reason I haven't switched them over to diplomacy is due to the stacking rebellion system I'm guaranteed at least 5 revolts when the transition happens and since it only stacks to 50% there's really no reason to lose out on the bigger demesne since the diplomacy won't really help. So every time there's a transition I have to crush a 7-10 guys and then it's back to building up the kingdom. I just think that it's not very realistic for them to do that. The worst is if a guy dies in prison while you're doing this his successor instantly revolts. It's just not very enjoyable.

I really think a localized revolt system with a reduced global penalty that is put inside relation (not arbitrary revolt risk) would make more sense and be more fun

Leviathan07 said:

And I want to be a wizard. I want to drop atomic bombs on rebelling dukes, and drive a tank through the Muslim lands. Why can't I !!!!

Seriously, think before you post... this is a medieval game, and while it lets you do super mega things, like going from count to emperor in one generation, or conquering all of Africa for Christendom, you are limited to doing this IN A MEDIEVAL SETTING. Long distance kingdoms would be L33T, just like driving a tanks through the Caliphate or dropping a nuke on the duke of Lancaster. BUT NOT MEDIEVAL!!

Click to expand...

Why don't you take your own advice and think before you post. Saying you don't want to play a historical simulator does not mean you want tanks in the crusades. It simply means that people keep making arguments that "it's not historic". If you were being historic then you would play a count or a king and keep your dejure area from you to your sons for 400 years and maybe go on a crusade or two which you would eventually lose back to the muslims.

Something you realized yourself when you pointed out you can go from count toemperor etc all things that are ahistoric. It has nothing to do with tanks or nukes. I think it's funny you argue that some of the things you can do in game like marrying one person in france then killing off 2 people then blam you inherit all of france... well that's totally fine. It's not like the french nobility would figure out when 3 people mysteriously die. But running a kingdom in jerusalem when you're an extermely powerful danish king... no that's historically impossible.

Give me a break. There is a difference between impossible and improbable. Look it up before you start talking crap to people.

I don't think theres anything wrong with the current system of crusading at all. Taking Jerusalem and holding it is supposed to be hard, you have to play smart to hold it and you need to have a skilled inquisitor to convert it quickly. You don't capture and hold Jerusalem on a whim.

The point isn't that it shouldn't be hard. The point is that the revolt system needs to be more logical. It should be more opinion base and less d100 rolls. It should take into account the fact that if they do successfully get independent they will be burned at the stake by muslims because they just spit in the face of their only salvation. It should localize revolt risk not arbitrarily stack it for everyone in the realm.

It has a lot of flaws that could be improved upon to make more sense and make the game more fun.

Note not make it EASY to maintain. Make it more fun. This is a game.