Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Developer Diary 19 – Crusades

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 69876 Bug Reports 19709 User Modifications 10589 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6364 After Action Reports
Show only dev responses
King said:
The Emperor holds no Kingdom title due to succession issues. The Kingdom of Italy would be voted on by Duke vassals in Italy while the HRE is voted by duke vassals in Bohemia and Germany thus the titles quickly divide if we had them. No way to create the Kingdom of Cyrpus in game.
Click to expand...

hmm I see that the RL situation, where the king of the Romans ''automatically'' was the heir/became king of Italy and Burgundy isn't possible then (the German electors and Bohemia also determined the successor of those kingdoms, in this era not unique for the HRE).
If Burgundy and Italy are created in game (not by the emperor), this solution would be fine though.

Furthermore how will duke vassals be determined, for instance if the duke of Bavaria also is duke of Milan or the duke of Saxony is also king of Denmark?

Regarding Cyprus that was the answer I was expecting; especially since it's not a large kingdom, hence I thought about an event, but I guess it's still possible to just attach provinces to a title?
 
Last edited:
King said:
no you cannot, if you are a lollard you have no pope so cannot appoint an anti-pope. I don't have a copy of the game in front of me so I don't know the exact logic but since your holy war CB works against the heretics there is nothing stopping the Pope doing so.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. No heretical Papacies taking over Christendom. But Crusades are possible against heretics if the Pope is so inclined.
 
If the heretics do become powerful, though, will there be a head of the heretical religion? So in principal they could win a religious war with the catholics (however unlikely this is) and take over?
 
Ruwaard said:
hmm I see that the RL situation, where the king of the Romans ''automatically'' was the heir/became king of Italy and Burgundy isn't possible then (the German electors and Bohemia also determined the successor of those kingdoms, in this era not unique for the HRE).
If Burgundy and Italy are created in game (not by the emperor), this solution would be fine though.

Furthermore how will duke vassals be determined, for instance if the duke of Bavaria also is duke of Milan or the duke of Saxony is also king of Denmark?

Regarding Cyprus that was the answer I was expecting; especially since it's not a large kingdom, hence I thought about an event, but I guess it's still possible to just attach provinces to a title?
Click to expand...

If you hold a title that is de jure a duchy you get the right to vote even if you also hold a Kingdom title and are not a vassal of the HRE. No matter how many you hold you get exactly one vote.
 
Hroppa said:
If the heretics do become powerful, though, will there be a head of the heretical religion? So in principal they could win a religious war with the catholics (however unlikely this is) and take over?
Click to expand...

no
 
Interesting developer diary. :)

Absolutely cannot wait to don my, super-awesome, plate armor as I am invited to crusade for the good of Christendom!

*Historical accuracy not guaranteed*
 
King said:
It wasn't enough for you and at the end of the day there is nothing I can do about that. You can post as much as you like about this
Click to expand...
Thanks!!!

There doesn't seem to be a single meaningful difference between these crusades and the ones in CK1. The Crusades were absolute hotbeds of politcs and intrigue, but none of that seems to be possible here. A crusade in Crusader Kings 2 is just another casus belli leading to just another war like every other. It's a pretty serious oversight in a game with the title it bears.
 
Last edited:
Zzzzz... said:
Wait, if the Patriarch of Constantinople is an in-game title, does that mean he can be independent from the Emperor?
Click to expand...

This brings me to another question. Can other Orthodox Patriarch be created? Patriarch of Bulgaria? Patriarch of Serbia?

If yes, if they are independent can they call for Crusades?

And also if I got it right, this means we can mod Orthodox religious orders to act same as Catholic ones?
 
King said:
If you hold a title that is de jure a duchy you get the right to vote even if you also hold a Kingdom title and are not a vassal of the HRE. No matter how many you hold you get exactly one vote.
Click to expand...
Suppose the Duke of Saxony/King of Denmark backs himself in the Imperial election and wins, does the HRE become his primary title, even if his capital remains in Copenhagen.

What happens if another dynasty wins the next election, while the kingdom of Denmark goes to the son of the old king. Will Denmark still be part of the HRE as a vassal kingdom?
 
Based on the earlier discussion about younger sons and the crusades, I think the profusion of younger sons into the bridal beds of Outremer heiresses has caused a misconception on who actually led the crusades.

The leaders of the first crusade were outlined above (though Bohemond's motivation appears to have been his dispossession in Apulia)

The Second Crusade was the King of Germany (don't remember if Conrad was HRE) and King of France
The Third Crusade was the Kings of France, England and HRE and later the Duke of Austria
The Fourth Crusade was the Duke of Flanders, the Doge of Venice and the Count of Montferrat
The Fifth Crusade involved the King of Hungary, the Duke of Austria, the Count of Holland etc.
The Sixth Crusade was the HRE
The Sevent Crusade was the King of France
The Eighth Crusade was the King of France, and King of Sicily
The Ninth Crussade was the crown prince of England and the King of Cyprus with help from the King of Sicily.

Younger sons typically did not have the financial wherewithal to raise large armies and march off to the distant holy land. Some level of state involvement was essential.

Now once the kingdom was created things changed...there were many of Lusignans, Raymond of Chatillon etc who came to get their fortune in a kingdom already in place...and an occaisional count of Anjou who abdicated to marry the Queen of Jerusalem.
 
Last edited:
It was mentioned earlier, but will it be possible to mortgage lands to finance for crusades like Godfrey of Bouillon, duke of Lower Lorraine (later Defender of the Holy Sepulchre ('first king' of Jerusalem)) did?
 
If we can have a special mechanic/script for the First Crusade, that would be ideal, I think. A mix of random existing Courtiers and newly generated characters, forming an independent army, and marching off without any landed control. The other Crusades could use the above mechanics.

Edit: My basic theory on strategy games like this, is that it should at least be ABLE of representing everything that happened in OTL, but not be deterministic. If there's no mechanic to truthfully represent the First Crusade, and the First Crusade happens just like the 2nd-9th, I'll be disappointed, myself.
 
King said:
Your question is stupid...
Click to expand...

King said:
Is there any limit to your stupidity?.
Click to expand...

I really do not care how stupid the question asked really was, but the manner of your reply was offensive and ill-considerate (I tried hard to avoid the language you use). You are not offending just one forum user, but, potentially, many other forumites, be they just lurkers or repeat customers like me (the word "potentially" does not apply here, I am offended by your actions). I am suprised how little (read: none) response your posts received.

"Ignorant" would be a better word to use in a civilized argument. An apology would be even more welcome after the first more or less friendly response by Filip-de-Norre.
 
Last edited:
I agree completely Nalivayko, I didn’t see any justification for such personal insults.

As Kaliedescope has mentioned there does not seem to be any improvement on CK1’s crusade mechanics.

Historically there was some degree of co-ordination, the crusade armies from different regions met up before reaching their target, leadership disputes and inter crusader events are a great opportunity to add flavor and excitement to the game which has been missed.

The crusade mecahincs were handled very well by MTW1. There was a unique army icon on the map which appeared in the province where the crusade was called. It then moved towards the crusade destination. Troops from the provinces it passed through would join, the player could decide how many trrops to add. Leadership was determined by usual feudal hierarchy.

This was better both in terms of gameplay and historical accuracy than scattered armies from individual catholics turning up at different times. Muslims had a counter crusade or Jihad to recover the target. This also didn’t require individual declarations of war, which plagued CK1 and saw muslim nations invading counties in Scotland and Scandinavia. Hopefully this wont be a problem in CK2 too.
 
I'm worried about the paying in piety thing. How will Holy Orders get any money? Will the Templars be able to become the trading power that they were?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back