When the pope calls a crusade and I send an army an conqure the province, why doesn't the crusade end?
-
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.
The crusades are ended by an event, so it is random. The MTTH is modified by several factors including conversion of the target, christian owning of surrounding provinces and some others which I don't remember right now. Usually the crusade should end a few years after the target has been conquered.RaistlinX said:
That is, of course, if you are playing with the beta patches.
Note that this is only true of the public beta patches. In the vanilla 1.04a game there is simply one long crusade era that will end only some period of time after certain (hidden) targets in the middle-east are captured. IMO, this one change alone (to a cyclic crusade system) makes the current public beta patch infinitely superior to 1.04a, even if there are occasional glitches or balance issues that still need to be resolved. 
Or maybe this thread really belongs in public beta subforum?
Or maybe this thread really belongs in public beta subforum?
crusades
Playing as Germany, I just hit my first Crusade at 1103, minus 2 piety if I don't attack Pagen/Muslim/Infidels. So if I just concentrate on the tribes near Russia or Castile or Bulgaria the Crusade will never end? How do you know if you've captured the hidden Middle East targets? Should I try full bore to end a Crusade or just pick up a couple territories every couple years?
Other questions while I'm here:
I was happy to become King of Venice and have my capital there, Although once a squashed a few rebellions my Capital kept changing to the crappy territories. Is their a formula for where the Capital goes? I was under the impression that it would stay with the stongest territory (or is this just a save a reset issue)
I now have 35 Dukes! Horry great for me, I kicking butt with the monster King. The question I have; is it important to give the Duke titles to the vassel controlling that peticular territory? In some cases, a couple Dukes were getting really strong, so I gave titles to weaker guys that were just outside the actual Dukedom. Is this a bad idea and is it going to start vassel wars? I'm using these titles to lower my badboy - should I be hanging on to all these Duke titles?
Thanks, and sorry for going off topic a little.
TP
Playing as Germany, I just hit my first Crusade at 1103, minus 2 piety if I don't attack Pagen/Muslim/Infidels. So if I just concentrate on the tribes near Russia or Castile or Bulgaria the Crusade will never end? How do you know if you've captured the hidden Middle East targets? Should I try full bore to end a Crusade or just pick up a couple territories every couple years?
Other questions while I'm here:
I was happy to become King of Venice and have my capital there, Although once a squashed a few rebellions my Capital kept changing to the crappy territories. Is their a formula for where the Capital goes? I was under the impression that it would stay with the stongest territory (or is this just a save a reset issue)
I now have 35 Dukes! Horry great for me, I kicking butt with the monster King. The question I have; is it important to give the Duke titles to the vassel controlling that peticular territory? In some cases, a couple Dukes were getting really strong, so I gave titles to weaker guys that were just outside the actual Dukedom. Is this a bad idea and is it going to start vassel wars? I'm using these titles to lower my badboy - should I be hanging on to all these Duke titles?
Thanks, and sorry for going off topic a little.
TP
more
More newbie crusade related questions (playing as Germany in 1112). Picked up 5 territories in North Africa from the King of Tunisa; all around Constantine. Didn't want to directly control them so I gave 2 to my Bishop (increased peity) and two to a Duke who had holdings in the Argon region and one to former Marshall who was married to one of my lesser daughters. My thinking was to make this 'frontline' Duke strong and have some loyal holdongs. As it turned out within 6 months, the Bishop and the former Marshall bailed on me (along with my now Muslem loyal daughter!!!), while the Duke did fine actually granting land to one of his heirs. What would be the cause of this? The culture? The two defectors could not have lost much, if any, loyalty towards me in that short timespan. The worse part is that I picked these vassals based on loyalty and it backfired. Should I always make sure the new territories are under a loyal Duke?
...also I picked up Barcelona and kept it for myself. In peace, if I was offering, I would have to ask the King of Tunisia to recognise me as the title holder, yet in his offerings ($ only) I would keep the territory anyway. Why do a need a title from a Muslem King? Could that explain the defecting; because I granted these territories before getting any titles? They were 100% loyal when I granted land (obviously) and I did very little badboy (i've been staying around 2.5/3.5 in badboy because my other factors can handle that amount)
playing public 1.04a BTW. Love the game!
TP
More newbie crusade related questions (playing as Germany in 1112). Picked up 5 territories in North Africa from the King of Tunisa; all around Constantine. Didn't want to directly control them so I gave 2 to my Bishop (increased peity) and two to a Duke who had holdings in the Argon region and one to former Marshall who was married to one of my lesser daughters. My thinking was to make this 'frontline' Duke strong and have some loyal holdongs. As it turned out within 6 months, the Bishop and the former Marshall bailed on me (along with my now Muslem loyal daughter!!!), while the Duke did fine actually granting land to one of his heirs. What would be the cause of this? The culture? The two defectors could not have lost much, if any, loyalty towards me in that short timespan. The worse part is that I picked these vassals based on loyalty and it backfired. Should I always make sure the new territories are under a loyal Duke?
...also I picked up Barcelona and kept it for myself. In peace, if I was offering, I would have to ask the King of Tunisia to recognise me as the title holder, yet in his offerings ($ only) I would keep the territory anyway. Why do a need a title from a Muslem King? Could that explain the defecting; because I granted these territories before getting any titles? They were 100% loyal when I granted land (obviously) and I did very little badboy (i've been staying around 2.5/3.5 in badboy because my other factors can handle that amount)
playing public 1.04a BTW. Love the game!
TP
Teaparty said:
There is a bug in the game which means that if you grant a territory to a vassal during a war, the vassal becomes independant when the war ends. It doesn't work for existing vassals, so you can grant to an existing Duke safely.
The other cause of defection without rebellion is marriage and death. If the title holder is succeeded by by someone in another Kingdom you can end up with the territory going to that Kingdom. Just had an annoying experience in my game where the Duchy of Norland, along with half of Sweden, went to the Archbishop of Sussex
In diplomacy, for heathens (pagans, muslims) the negotiation options are not as extensive as for Christians. Basically, when you conquer heathen lands, you keep them. You don't need claims, and you don't need to negotiate retention of the lands when you make peace. You also lose piety by making peace with heathens, so I usually aim to wipe a country off the map when I attack them.
thanks
Thanks, example #1 was right on. I jumped the gun and started creating vassels while my Duke took out the remaining territory. And thanks for the peace tip on piety.
I guess my biggest unanswered questions deal with the Duke titles. Does it make any sense to hang on to Duke titles? Does it hurt to give one to a vassel who may be out of the designated Dukedom? Do you ever reliquish a King title (with the exception of your Heir to give him a jumpstart)?
20 vassels and 20 Dukes vs 30 Dukes? I went with 30, is that better in the long run?
TP
Thanks, example #1 was right on. I jumped the gun and started creating vassels while my Duke took out the remaining territory. And thanks for the peace tip on piety.
I guess my biggest unanswered questions deal with the Duke titles. Does it make any sense to hang on to Duke titles? Does it hurt to give one to a vassel who may be out of the designated Dukedom? Do you ever reliquish a King title (with the exception of your Heir to give him a jumpstart)?
20 vassels and 20 Dukes vs 30 Dukes? I went with 30, is that better in the long run?
TP
There is a pay-off either way with Dukes.
The more Dukes you have, the higher your reputation. However, small Duchies are less able to wage war on their own (this may be good or bad depending on your point of view), and the more Duchies you have the more likely it is that one of them will be inherited by another Kingdom, or go independant.
A small number of large Duchies means that if one goes independant (or joins another Kingdom) you lose more of your realm. On the other hand, they can be much more helpful to you (playing England, the Duke of Norfolk defeated about two thirds of the Mongol Horde armies whilst I concentrated on sieging towns, but then he owned half of Spain and a good chunk of Lithuania).
I tend to have a smaller number of large Duchies, and keep lots of counts as direct vassals. I usually have the largest Duchy reserved for the heir to the throne. This is particularly useful if you have Elective or Semi-Salic Consanguious succession laws, because you can grant the big Duchy to your preferred candidate and 'voila' they are next in line to the throne.
Generally, grant larger Duchies near potential enemies - they are more able to defend themselves - and keep your non-demesne 'core' lands as counties. Another trick is if you conquer a new area of land, grant bits of it to different Dukes. This prevents one Duke getting into a position where he can claim a Kingdom title.
Kingdom titles when granted to Dukes make them go independant. Unless you deliberately want to get rid of some land you should claim the titles and retain them for your king - he gets monthly prestige for each kingdom title he owns.
The more Dukes you have, the higher your reputation. However, small Duchies are less able to wage war on their own (this may be good or bad depending on your point of view), and the more Duchies you have the more likely it is that one of them will be inherited by another Kingdom, or go independant.
A small number of large Duchies means that if one goes independant (or joins another Kingdom) you lose more of your realm. On the other hand, they can be much more helpful to you (playing England, the Duke of Norfolk defeated about two thirds of the Mongol Horde armies whilst I concentrated on sieging towns, but then he owned half of Spain and a good chunk of Lithuania).
I tend to have a smaller number of large Duchies, and keep lots of counts as direct vassals. I usually have the largest Duchy reserved for the heir to the throne. This is particularly useful if you have Elective or Semi-Salic Consanguious succession laws, because you can grant the big Duchy to your preferred candidate and 'voila' they are next in line to the throne.
Generally, grant larger Duchies near potential enemies - they are more able to defend themselves - and keep your non-demesne 'core' lands as counties. Another trick is if you conquer a new area of land, grant bits of it to different Dukes. This prevents one Duke getting into a position where he can claim a Kingdom title.
Kingdom titles when granted to Dukes make them go independant. Unless you deliberately want to get rid of some land you should claim the titles and retain them for your king - he gets monthly prestige for each kingdom title he owns.