• 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.

Akikonomu

Sergeant
26 Badges
Mar 8, 2012
68
2
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Surviving Mars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
If you're playing a Catholic power not capable of winning a crusade singlehandedly (i.e. not England, France, HRE), under what circumstances would you still join a crusade, if ever? Would the Pope mind if you join his crusade, send your troops so you and your heir get the crusader trait, then send everyone home without fighting a single heathen? (Sounds gamey but I'm tempted to do this to nullify the "not crusading" malus)

Somewhat related: Post 1.05d/e, is it normal for France and HRE to get embroiled in civil wars more often and thus not join any crusade at all? In my current game, it seems none of the 3 majors join in the Pope's crusades so he just fails all the time. Spain is all muslim, the Shia Caliphate is slowly eaten up by the ERE.
 
Sharing the spoils of war between everyone who contributes more than, say 5% or something like that, with the biggest contributer getting the most, number 2 second most, and so forth, would be nice. I'd like to see the Kingdom being divided among the crusading nations.
 
Seeing how you get prestige for actually fighting and piety and prestige are the only actual objectives the game gives you (its more about choosing your own objectives but it still gives you a score) there's really no reason not to join wars all the time and send your troops off to fight in battles all over the place. In the end territory just gives you a monthly prestige bonus.
 
Crusading can also get rid of the excommunicated trait.

But just like with getting the crusader trait for your leaders there doesn't seem much need to follow through on the crusade properly.
 
Mr Pope: Join the Crusade! Join the Crusade! Join the Crusade! Join the Crusade! Join the Crusade! Join the Crusade! Join the Crusade! Join the Crusade! Join the Crusade! Join the Crusade! Join the Crusade! Join the Crusade!

1. HRE, England, France join.
Me: They're going to get the lion's spoils. NAH, not gonna join!

2. HRE, England, France all torn apart with civil wars thanks to 1.05d++ and not joining
Me: We're not going to have enough troops to even make the Caliph sneeze. NAH, not gonna join!
 
If you're playing a Catholic power not capable of winning a crusade singlehandedly (i.e. not England, France, HRE), under what circumstances would you still join a crusade, if ever? Would the Pope mind if you join his crusade, send your troops so you and your heir get the crusader trait, then send everyone home without fighting a single heathen? (Sounds gamey but I'm tempted to do this to nullify the "not crusading" malus)

Somewhat related: Post 1.05d/e, is it normal for France and HRE to get embroiled in civil wars more often and thus not join any crusade at all? In my current game, it seems none of the 3 majors join in the Pope's crusades so he just fails all the time. Spain is all muslim, the Shia Caliphate is slowly eaten up by the ERE.
I always join any crusade just to get a Crusader trait. It helps a lot. :)
 
So no crusader kingdom (ie Jerusalem) would ever be formed. Just lots of european nations owning bits of the middle east, as per pre-1.05.

The kingdom of Jerusalem would be formed if
a) someone forms it later after conquering/inheriting holdings from other crusading nations - like it happens everywhere else
b) someone contributes more than 50%, in which case they could be given 50% of the holdings and be able to form the kingdom (could be automatic)
 
The kingdom of Jerusalem would be formed if
a) someone forms it later after conquering/inheriting holdings from other crusading nations - like it happens everywhere else
b) someone contributes more than 50%, in which case they could be given 50% of the holdings and be able to form the kingdom (could be automatic)
a) This "later" will never come since muslims will crush small pieces of land one by one.
b) even if he forms a kingdom, he will not get lands. It will still be small bits of land.

Just to visualise possible outcomes (total number of provinces is random):

Kingdom of France owns KoJ title and 4 provinces.
Holy Roman Empire owns 2 provinces.
Kingdom of Poland owns 1 province.
Kingdom of Leon owns 1 province.
Kingdom of England owns 1 province.

How would you make a unified KoJ from this mess?
 
If you're playing a Catholic power not capable of winning a crusade singlehandedly (i.e. not England, France, HRE), under what circumstances would you still join a crusade, if ever?
Every single time.

The +30 rep bonus for "both crusader" is worth its weight in gold and you get that as well as a decent amount of prestige/piety* for showing up, so the question should rather be, who the hell can come up with a good reason NOT to join every single crusade with every vassal he has - even if he joins only to visit the crusade target and then return home?

And, of course, if enough others join that the crusade is likely to succeed, then it is time to try to attempt to occupy a holding or two to get some rolling contribution to the crusade score and a payoff at the end using only vassal troops, if possible, to cut down on your own expenses.


* a decent amount for somebody not capable of winning a crusade, I mean; For somebody who's capable of winning crusades singlehandedly, the bonus is pretty irrelevant.
 
a) This "later" will never come since muslims will crush small pieces of land one by one.
b) even if he forms a kingdom, he will not get lands. It will still be small bits of land.

Just to visualise possible outcomes (total number of provinces is random):

Kingdom of France owns KoJ title and 4 provinces.
Holy Roman Empire owns 2 provinces.
Kingdom of Poland owns 1 province.
Kingdom of Leon owns 1 province.
Kingdom of England owns 1 province.

How would you make a unified KoJ from this mess?

How about this?
Kingdom of France owns KoJ title and 5 provinces, and has enough counties to form the kingdom. This gives him de jure claim on the other provinces.
Holy Roman Empire owns 2 provinces.
Kingdom of Poland owns 1 province.
Kingdom of Leon owns 1 province.

The de jure claims are easy to press, because of distance.
 
As others have said, the Crusader trait is very, very nice, and can basically stabilize your kingdom all by itself if you're careful to make sure that you, your heir, and all your vassals get it. I also tend to stick around for a while because you can gain the Zealous trait after a battle with the infidel, and that's nice too.
 
I just had a Crusade for Jerusalem show up in my multiplayer game and I'm definitely going.

Then again I am the largest independent state army wise and starting from Aragon conquered 3/4 of spain, All of Mauretania, Croatia, Apulia, and parts of Sicily + Rome/Venice/Genoa. given that I just took over France who owned the rest of spain (and france) I think I can crush Shia single handedly and don't see how anyone can beat me in warscore.

My only real competition is my mp buddy who is England/Ireland/Scotland and has about half my levees.